From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 1 00:05:10 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:05:10 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Epilogue extends > only to 2007, which is both the year that the book was finished and > published and ten years after the start of DH. My reason for thinking > so is that JKR will bring her world up to the present time, with no > need to imagine the future. Julie: I've been out on this limb already, so I fully agree with you! I'm really hoping JKR does end it at our present time, which will ultimately allow *us* to imagine the future of the WW and all its fascinating inhabitants post-2007. I know some fans think JKR is determined to cut off any chance of future Harry Potter books/sequels, and while she has mentioned other authors attempting to do so (by killing off a main character for instance), she's never said she plans to do so. I hope she doesn't because in the immediate future there is no need--she holds the copyright for however many years--and in the more distant future (when the copyright expires) it is simply not possible to stop reimaginings of the HP universe. (Note the example of current authors like Gregory Macguire and Jasper Fforde, who have reimagined a variety of famous fictional characters and universes within their novels.) Carol: > > So the Muggle world will be exactly as it is right now, with no > Voldemort attacking us unawares and no awareness of the WW (not to > mention no unimaginable technology), and the WW will have had time to > make some strides forward and recover from the war with Voldemort, but > will still be the same in some respects. (Hogwarts, we know, will > still exist and one of Harry's friends [surely Neville] will teach > there. The Statute of Secrecy will still be in effect (it has to be, > or we Muggles would be able to see Hogwarts). > > If I'm right, HRH will be 27 or 28 years old at the end of the > Epilogue, and we'll find out who marries whom and what their careers > are and what they name their first child or first few children but not > how or when they die. (I'm hoping that all three will go back to > Hogwarts a year late to finish their education, which will put them, > for better or worse, in the same year as Ginny.) > > My question is, what do all of you think the WW will be like at that > point? Will Scrimgeour still be Minister for Magic, or will it be Mr. > Weasley or someone else (Percy, LOL)? I expect that Hogwarts will have > made some progress toward House unity, with the stigma removed from > Slytherin (please, JKR), but what about the WW? Julie: I expect if JKR goes with this plan she will name a Minister of Magic, which could well be a Weasley (Arthur, perhaps Bill, or even Percy should he have a dramatic turnaround in DH). I'm also thinking that Minerva McGonagall will remain Headmistress of Hogwarts (unless she doesn't survive). And I expect House unity to be achieved in some manner during DH, and maintained through to the present day. It will be interesting to see how it *is* maintained though--will there still be a Sorting Hat and different Houses? If the Houses remain but the Sorting Hat is gone, will the students be sorted in a more equitable manner in terms of character strengths and faults? (Wouldn't it be more healthy to have children with opposite character strengths and faults in the same House so they can balance each other and learn from each other--which will also lessen the chances of someone like Tom Riddle being sorted into a House that emphasizes the further development of an already excessive trait like his insane ambition?) Carol: Obviously, Muggles > won't be part of it, but possibly there will be an improved Muggle > Studies program at Hogwarts that focuses on understanding Muggles and > their history and cultural accomplishments rather than presenting > technology as a substitute for magic (the Arthur Weasleys of the world > may find plugs and "ekeltricity" fascinating, but that's hardly all > there is to being a Muggle). More likely, "tolerance" will be actively > promoted, with blood purity deemphasized. (I can just see the teachers > actively promoting a "multicultural" agenda to counter the training > that the purebloods receive at home.) But what about Squibs? Won't > some people in the WW still be "more equal than others"? What > constitutes fair treatment for Squibs? Julie: It's such a very unpleasant world these days that I almost prefer the WW continue to keep itself cut off as much as possible! And for obvious reasons (such as the WW has yet to reveal itself in our current time ;-) I'm sure that will continue to be the case. But I do agree that blood purity will be de-emphasized and Muggleborns will be newly appreciated for the diversity their experiences and their genes bring to the WW. Carol: > Werewolves will need free access to Wolfsbane Potion to keep the WW > safe and allow them something resembling equal opportunity, and the > younger ones can be admitted to Hogwarts so that they can be genuinely > equal (with their fellow students taught to "understand how a > werewolf's mind works--maybe from the horse's mouth by a reinstated > Lupin on his third chance). Julie: Should DDM!Snape survive DH, what do you want to bet that he comes up with a better and more accessible Wolfsbane potion, or better yet a "cure" that keeps werewolves from transforming? (Hey, I can hope!) Carol: But what about Muggle werewolves, the > Squibs of the werewolf world? Phase them out by making sure they don't > bite anybody, but what kind of life can they live? Julie: Since JKR really hasn't differentiated werewolves (that I recall), I suspect she may just avoid the concept of Muggle or even Squib werewolves and keep dealing only with those of the WW. In other words, we'll be left to wonder! Carol: > > As for nonhuman creatures with "near-human intelligence," what's the > best solution? There's no point in giving house-elves wands; they > don't need them. And what if they don't want freedom? What about > goblins? What would happen if *they* were given wands? Should > house-elves and goblins be admitted to Hogwarts? Or should they just > be left alone (as I think the Centaurs and Merpeople should be--and > someone should teach the Centaurs "tolerance," while they're at it. > Even Firenze sees himself as superior to humans.) Peaceful coexistence > seems like the best solution to me, but I'm not sure how it would work. Julie: I think it would be a matter of peaceful coexistence also. The best I can see for house-elves is that they are given nominal freedom, but they aren't obliged to take it. A few elves, like Dobby, might accept it, while many others would remain willingly with their *masters.* But the choice has to be available, even if most don't act on it. I know it's a little more complicated than that, like should there be some sort of elf-treatment oversight department to ensure those elves who don't want to exercise their freedom aren't being abused. But I expect in some areas JKR will probably keep matters simplified, like elves can be free if they choose, with no further clarification. Carol: > > What do you think of this brave new world? Have I got it all wrong? > What do all of you think the WW will--or should--be like as of 2007? > > Carol, who predicts that the Epilogue will end with Harry still alive > in what for us is the present rather than projecting his life eighty > years into his future and ours Julie: I think JKR placed her WW world within our real world for a reason, which is that she enjoys imagining Harry and Co. living out their lives parallel to us living out ours (and her living out hers), sharing certain places and circumstances with which we can all relate. That's certainly one of the elements that had made HP so popular. (I'll note this is especially true for me, having never been a great fan of fantasy, but more a fan of fantasy elements set within the real world--Mary Stewart's King Arthur series for instance.) I also believe JKR loves her characters even more than we do (hard as that is to imagine!) and while she may be done with her part in their stories, she will want to imagine them living on and their stories (as well as the WW) continuing. It's certainly possible that I read her wrong, but I hope--really, really hope--I'm right (as well as Carol and many others who hope JKR will leave HP "open-ended"). Julie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jun 1 00:24:47 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:24:47 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169587 > Betsy Hp: > I think that's where the lack of realism comes in a little. Fellow > students don't strike back in the way they would in real life, IMO. > Ginny isn't jumped by Hufflepuffs; Hermione isn't jumped by > Ravenclaws. Seamus and Dean are weirdly passive when it comes to Ron > and Harry. I think it's because (I *hope* it's because) JKR has a > sense of where and when the Trio will learn their final lesson on how > to treat others. Hickengruendler: I won't press the Zacharias and Marietta point further. I mostly agree with you there, but when were Seamus and Dean ever badly treated by the Trio? Sure, they told Seamus to shut up, when he asked what happened on the garveyard, but while that's hardly qualifies as the best thing Harry could have done, it was simply a normal quarrel by schoolboys. They didn't attack Seamus or anything. > > > >>Marion: > > Gandalf: > > Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And > > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be > > too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise > > cannot see all ends. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I love Gandalf. Poor Dumbledore; no chance to study the master. > Sucks to be a wizard, really. (Hee! Sad thing is, pants bring > out a similar emotion. Go Muggles! ) > Hickengruendler: Dumbledore said pretty much the same after Harry saved Wormtail in PoA. And while Gandalf was indeed that generous to Gollum, that didn't stop him to find it totally okay, that countless Orcs are slaughtered. Harry Potter might have it's problems, but at least it isn't deeply rassistic, like LoTR, where the Orcs are defined as irredeemably evil, simply because they are Orcs. That doesn't happen in Harry Potter, that a group as a whole is so completely demonized. And before anyone starts mentioning the Slytherins, no, they are not. While the background Slytherins are very broadly characterised as simply bad and stupid, the portrayal of the more important ones, Snape, Draco, Slughorn, Regulus and possibly even Narcissa, makes up for that, maybe not totally, but definitely somewhat. They are not simply portrayed as rotten to the core, like the Orcs. Therefore using quotes from LoTR, doesn't help much, IMO, since one can easily argue, that these books as well don't always do, what they preach. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jun 1 00:40:44 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:40:44 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169588 > Hickengruendler: > > Dumbledore said pretty much the same after Harry saved Wormtail in > PoA. And while Gandalf was indeed that generous to Gollum, that > didn't stop him to find it totally okay, that countless Orcs are > slaughtered. Harry Potter might have it's problems, but at least it > isn't deeply rassistic, like LoTR, where the Orcs are defined as > irredeemably evil, simply because they are Orcs. That doesn't happen > in Harry Potter, that a group as a whole is so completely demonized. > And before anyone starts mentioning the Slytherins, no, they are not. > While the background Slytherins are very broadly characterised as > simply bad and stupid, the portrayal of the more important ones, > Snape, Draco, Slughorn, Regulus and possibly even Narcissa, makes up > for that, maybe not totally, but definitely somewhat. They are not > simply portrayed as rotten to the core, like the Orcs. Therefore > using quotes from LoTR, doesn't help much, IMO, since one can easily > argue, that these books as well don't always do, what they preach. > Hickengruendler: Reading this through, I just realised how this sounded. I won't to emphasize, that I definitely do not want to compare the Slytherin with the Orcs. I am aware of the differences, most notably that the Orcs are fictional creatures, while the Slytherins are human, and if the morale of her books is meant to be worth something, JKR simply ha sto show, that becoming a Slytherin at the age of 11 doesn't show that you are evil, evil, evil for the rest of your life, while Tolkien can do with the Orcs whatever he wants. I only used them as comparison, because the Slytherins are mostly used as an example for JKR treating a whole group badly, and I wanted to make clear where I saw the differences between my two examples. Because the Orcs in LoTR *are" the stereotypical other, and they are totally dehumanized. They are born bad, become only worse and it's totally okay to slaughter them all. That basically was, what children in Nazi Germany were taught about some "lesser races". In Harry Potter, this is not the case, all of Rowling's groups still contain of different individuals (Dobby and Kreacher, Firenze and Bane, Grawp and Golgomath and several creatures between those extremes etc.). The only group in harry Potter, thata re described as totally evil, are the Dementors, and they are more an allegory for Fear and Depression, just like the Ringwraiths in LoTR. The Orcs are not an allegory. They are simply brutal and "the enemy". From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 01:21:02 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:21:02 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Seamus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Hermione tells the not-yet-illegal group, "So if you sign, you're > agreeing not to tell Umbridge--*or anybody else*--what we're up to" zanooda: I know it has nothing to do with Marietta, but this line you just cited always made me wonder how the boys could avoid telling Seamus about the DA. As you say, they agreed not to tell "anybody else", which must include Seamus. But Seamus was bound to notice that all his roommates (including his best friend) disappear once a week for a couple of hours. Ok, he doesn't talk to Harry and maybe even to Ron, but I bet he asked his best friend Dean. How could Dean avoid being branded "sneak" without offending his friend? More than that, Dean *did* tell, at least later in the year, because he brought Seamus to the last DA meeting. So he told, but nothing happened to him. Maybe "not to tell anybody else" means "not to tell with treacherous intent" or something? It's not even a question, more like a general wondering... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 01:54:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:54:10 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169590 Carol earlier.: > > Werewolves will need free access to Wolfsbane Potion to keep the WW safe and allow them something resembling equal opportunity, and the younger ones can be admitted to Hogwarts so that they can be genuinely equal (with their fellow students taught to "understand how a werewolf's mind works"--maybe from the horse's mouth by a reinstated Lupin on his third chance). > > Julie: > Should DDM!Snape survive DH, what do you want to bet that he comes up with a better and more accessible Wolfsbane potion, or better yet a "cure" that keeps werewolves from transforming? (Hey, I can hope!) Carol again: Yes. I have the same hope. Carol earlier: > But what about Muggle werewolves, the Squibs of the werewolf world? Phase them out by making sure they don't bite anybody, but what kind of life can they live? > > Julie: > Since JKR really hasn't differentiated werewolves (that I recall), I suspect she may just avoid the concept of Muggle or even Squib werewolves and keep dealing only with those of the WW. In other words, we'll be left to wonder! > Carol responds: But what I meant was, Muggle werewolves are the squibs of the werewolf world (the wwWW?) because, like Squibs, they can't do magic. And they'd be shunned by their Muggle families as monsters. (What happens to Muggle children bitten by werewolves? Do we really want to know? There's no place for them in either world that I can see. Even the *Wizard* werewolves (except the children eleven and under) will be at a disadvantage because, except for Lupin, they've been denied a Hogwarts education. Maybe the MoM could institute an adult education program for them, rather like an extended Quikspell course, to help them fit into society. They're not all going to want jobs like Stan Shunpike's. And special provisions could be made for werewolf kids who are a bit older than eleven to enter Hogwarts as first-years with extensive extra training to help them catch up with their classmates. But that won't work for the Muggle (and Squib) werewolves. Maybe some sort of network could be set up for them so they'd have access to Wolfsbane potion and a place to transform peacefully on full moon nights but be expected to live as Muggles the rest of the time? Carol, agreeing with Julie that JKR should leave the book open-ended, answering all the questions necessary to the plot (Snape's motivations, the missing 24 hours, etc.) but allow her readers to imagine what happens afterward From laurel.coates at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 02:21:03 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:21:03 -0700 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3cd952930705311921ie75cc67ka6c6ddbf7844d9a5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169591 Carol writes: Carol, agreeing with Julie that JKR should leave the book open-ended,answering all the questions necessary to the plot (Snape'smotivations, the missing 24 hours, etc.) but allow her readers to imagine what happens afterward Laurel: Has JKR ever given any indication that the "missing 24 hours" are anything other than an error? I'm just wondering if this is one of those things (among many, probably) that fans think are vital to the plot but turn out not to be (like the Mark Evans thing). From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 02:49:00 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:49:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40705311236r60a67a5dx4be07ce6b0c2bc86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40705311949q670475b6xf15f5330d866801@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169592 > > >>Mike: > > > You "tolerate" anyone who has not wronged you. (I agree with > Betsy's interpretation of the term "tolerate" and how she applied it versus "appreciate"). If you have no reasonable grounds to oppose the other, you follow the Golden Rule. Once you've been wronged, your response should be measured by what degree that wrong against you rose to. Again, all my opinion. > > lizzyben04: > See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental problem with > the series. Under a real system of laws, EVERYONE is entitled to > fairness, respect, rights and tolerance. Everyone is protected by > those laws, and they should be applied equally and without > prejudice. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy, and our > Constitution. "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right > to life, liberty & happiness..." Kemper now: That's not true, but it should be. EVERYONE is not entitled to _______ . Each group of persons has to fight for that right of entitlement. You quote from the US Declaration of Independence. White, male land (and slave) owners had to fight for their right to be independent of the British monarchy. White men did not wake up one morning and think, "You know whose vote is missing and very much needed in today's elections? Women." Women had to fight for that right. It was not freely given. Employers/bosses did not wake up one morning and think, "You know who has been working long hours for little pay? Labor. From now on, I'm going to pay them time and half if they work over say 40 hours a week. The 80 they have been working is way too much. I should give them 2 days off a week as well." Labor had to fight for the Fair Labor Standards Emancipation was not freedom. The US Civil Rights movement existed because blacks, though free, were treated inhumanely and with disregard. Whites did not wake up one morning thinking, "You know who's missing from my child's school? Black kids." Blacks had to fight for the rights whites' had. It was not given freely, or easily. JKR shows/implies through a History of Magic that Goblin Rebellions have occurred. Why? Because they were repressed and fought for their rights. Wizards did no give it freely. Or at least, that's my impression. I admire Herminone's desire to start a revolution, but she goes about it all wrong. The Elves need to initiate the fight for their rights to live without ties to a wizard. Wizards are like Muggles: Human. But I digress. Kemper From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 03:03:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:03:13 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169593 > lizzyben04: > > However, we never see any criticism in the text of some of > Hermione's other actions - like jinxing Marietta, or luring > Umbridge, which were actually much more sinister. Mike: It seems on this thread I keep responding to defend Hermione, and I don't really like Hermione all that well. I've said my piece on both Marietta and Umbridge. But since you brought it up again . Umbridge had just admitted to ordering the Dementor attack on Harry. She was fixin to 'Crucio' Harry when Hermione spoke up. So I hardly think it's fair to classify the Umbridge affair with the Marietta affair. This was *so* self-defence. But what did Hermione actually do? She tricked Umbridge into following her. That's it! That's all! And we should classify this as sinister? Everything that happened between Umbridge and the Centaurs was completely and solely Umbridge's doing. Hermione even tried to warn Umbridge to tone it down, for crying out loud. And those were the only words spoken from Hermione or Harry until Umbridge was dragged off. So what are we saying here, that a 16-year-old girl is responsible for the behavior of this adult, Under-secretary of the Ministry of Magic? Umbridge is hoisted by her own petard, but it was all her doing, her own prejudice got her in trouble. That and her inability to curb her vitriolic speech. I'm sure Hermione felt that the Centaurs would allow her and Harry to escape from Umbridge. But I do not think she had any plan other than to get the Centaurs involved. To claim that she should have known that Umbridge was going to get into the kind of trouble that happened is giving Hermione too much credit and too much blame, imo. > > Betsy Hp: > > It disturbs me as well. But I wonder if it's maybe *supposed* to > > be disturbing on some level? > > > > lizzyben04: > I hope so, but I'm not sure. Perhaps she is sending a message about > the treatment of the "other" w/these juxtapositions & hypocritical > behavior. But if that message is in the text, it's so subtle that > I'm not sure most children will see it. I care about human rights, > but I enjoyed Draco's "ferret-bouncing" until I caught myself & > thought about the fact that I was laughing at the torture of a > student! Ack! The text NEVER invites us to consider the immorality > of this act - indeed, Moody is praised for it, and Ron makes a joke > about how he always wants to remember that moment. Mike: I'm afraid you are reading the wrong series if looking for some ultimate moral guidelines from JKR. She has said that she is a Christian, and that colors her approach to writing this series. But she has also said that she is not going for the kind of moralistic work we got from C.S. Lewis. JKR has *good guys* and *bad guys* and a few tweeners. Her good guys have suffered, they haven't got off scott free. They might not have suffered for all of their misdeeds, especially if one wants to expand the list of misdeeds as much as some choose. IOW, my guess is that you'll have to satisfy yourself that the Trio have been knocked out, petrified, bitten by a Basilisk, fallen from a broom, had a leg broken, attacked by Dementors, tortured and almost killed by Voldemort, attacked by Dementors again, permenently scarred by a teacher, suffered internal injuries that will take some time to heal, attacked by brains and left with scars, poisoned, and Crucio'ed again. That of course doesn't include having to watch a friend, your godfather, and your beloved mentor be killed in front of you. Oh yeah, JKR promised it's going to get worse before it gets better for the Trio in DH. JKR does have the gift to recall things from the previous books and make them relevant in the current book. But she has a lot of ground to cover in the last book. I hope you can enjoy the book and therefore the series even if JKR doesn't answer all your questions, and even if she doesn't right every wrong. I don't think it is possible to resolve the story to everyones satisfaction. My advice: don't expect too much and you won't be so disappointed. :) FWIW > lizzyben04: > If it turns out that Harry was wrong about Snape, that could be that > moment of "revelation" that would illustrate the dangers of mindless > hatred, prejudice & fear of "the other". From the beginning, the > trio has sorted Snape into "the other" - as an enemy, dark, less > than human, etc. Harry has felt justified using unforgiveable curses > & immoral means against Snape & co. because "they deserve it." (just > like Sirius said). Mike: This is what I mean. Snape most definitely started the ill feelings between himself and the Trio. And Snape has never let up. The Trio didn't make Snape "dark", JKR wrote him that way. And as to Harry using an unforgiveable on Snape (actually only attempting one, Snape was too quick), Harry just witnessed Snape AK Dumbledore. Irrespective of Harry's ability to effectively use Crucio, is his response to Snape really out of place here? If one holds the hero to an unreasonably high standard, one is sure to be disappointed when the hero doesn't scale that mountain. Harry doesn't have to climb Everest for me, the Matterhorn will do just fine. Mike From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 1 03:20:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:20:58 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169594 > > Marion: > > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making is that if Rita > had printed pure bollocks, and insulting, damaging and vicious > bollocks at that, about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've > loved Rita Skeeter. Rita would be seen as an ally and a friend and the > fact that she prints lies for profit and political ends would not > matter to Harry and Hermione in the slightest. > > > Charles: > > Excuse me? We have already seen that Harry defends even those who have > hurt him. Including Draco Malfoy. In COS, when Malfoy is being accused > of being Slytherin's heir, and Harry is asked whether he thinks it is > possible, he responds with a resounding no. Magpie: Well, he's not exactly defending Malfoy there, exactly. He's not defending him from the unjustness of the accusation, given he himself was happily suspecting him before and brewing Polyjuice based on the premise that Malfoy's own guilt outweighed anything the Trio did against him. He just knows that's a dead end now so says so. (Malfoy's "defending" Harry in CoS as well against the charge of being the Heir.) Obviously he doesn't go around defending Malfoy from all attacks ever. But regardless, nobody's accusing Harry of letting Dudley die with the Dementors or anything like that. That's not anything like the pont I was making about Rita. Charles: Hell, Harry could have > killed two birds with one stone on a certain night in Little Whinging > just by not sending his patronus after the dementor attacking Dudley. > Dudley would have been out of his hair for good, and there would have > been proof that Harry had been attacked by dementors. Harry most > decidedly would not have been on the side of Rita Skeeter. > > Look at the attitude that Harry has when he reads the Quibbler for the > first time. He feels that the most sensible thing in the magazine is > the article about Sirius, and that the article on Fudge, who has > already become his enemy, is ridiculous. No lauding the Quibbler for > telling lies, no feeling of being allied with it. When Hermione > decides to get Harry's side of things published in the Quibbler, he is > hesitant. His thoughts are, and I quote "[...]it would confirm a lot > of people in the view that he was completely insane, not least because > his story would be appearing alongside utter rubbish about > Crumple-Horned Snorkacks." (OOTP) Doesn't seem like too strong of an > alliance to me. Magpie: Rita doesn't write the stuff in the Quibbler, so the fact that Harry can tell it's rubbish (but doesn't think that deserves punishment) is irrelevent. The point was, would Harry like an article *slanted* in the way that he agrees with, and frankly I see no reason not to say that he would. I don't think he'd consider it a lie. That's why I used the example of Hermione reading an article written by Rita that exposed the House Elf story, where Rita told Winky's story *the way Hermione would tell it.* I don't think she would have a problem with it. I think she might think it was admirable. Winky, otoh, might be furious. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jun 1 03:44:49 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:44:49 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169595 > Betsy Hp: > Harry going to the DoM unintentionally supported Voldemort. Does > that make him a member of the "wrong" side now? Does that mean > that Harry is no longer quite as human as those who've been > completely obedient to Dumbledore? May we hit Harry with sticks > now? > I know the answer is "no" of course. But it seems to me that Harry > and his friends are allowed to make some mistakes, and yet still > remain on the "right" side. Others (or should I say "others" ) > are not given as much leniency. Probably, IMO, *because* Harry and > co. doesn't recognize them as human or real and therefore > susceptible to various pressures and misunderstandings as well. \ Jen: LOL. Okay, let me clarify what I meant by unintentionally or indirectly supporting Voldemort. I was thinking of someone like a Ludo Bagman as an unintentional supporter or a Percy as an indirect supporter, people who have access to enough information to have a clear understanding of the political stakes when making the choices they do. Harry in OOTP or Draco in HBP are boys playing a man's game in my opinion. Neither understands exactly what they are getting into and neither one has all the information to make a fully informed choice at the time their respective plans are initiated. Both think they are more powerful than they are and thus set in motion something they can't control or contain without adult intervention. > Betsy Hp: > I think that's where the lack of realism comes in a little. Fellow > students don't strike back in the way they would in real life, > IMO. Ginny isn't jumped by Hufflepuffs; Hermione isn't jumped by > Ravenclaws. Seamus and Dean are weirdly passive when it comes to > Ron and Harry. I think it's because (I *hope* it's because) JKR has > a sense of where and when the Trio will learn their final lesson on > how to treat others. Jen: 'Lord of the Flies' it's not. JKR apparently didn't want to explore how far kids could go who have unusual powers and police themselve because the action at Hogwarts seems tame in comparison to what they could be doing in such a situation. I still remember short stories by Ray Bradbury from my reading of them 25+ years ago because he depicted simply *chilling* psychological games kids are capable of playing on each other. Gritty realism in fantasy and futuristic settings. Back to the point, I'm trying to envision what people want out of a final lesson for the Trio. If it's something that comes up in the story naturally like Harry seeing a different side of Draco on the tower and shifting his thinking a little bit because of it, well that fit the story as it evolved imo. I personally enjoyed Hermione sweating it out when she failed miserably with the Centaurs and wouldn't mind seeing her sweat a little more. When it comes to pure personal preference and what would be enjoyable, I'm not interested in scales dropping from eyes and dramatic sweeping change myself. For example, coming full circle to a simple handshake between Harry and Draco when they *both* realize the other is human as they set out on a section of the Horcrux search together would be a simple action that moves both characters forward, imo. > Betsy Hp: > Just Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs? And non-prefect Gryffindors? > Oh, and adults who aren't in good with Dumbledore. Other than > that, yes they're just three lonely, powerless, unpopular students. > \ Jen: I didn't realize all these groups were oppressed! Maybe they can join Dumbledore's sanctuary in the Forbidden Forest or the largest population of house elves in all of Britain in order to get away from the Trio? ;) lizzyben04 > See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental problem with > the series. Under a real system of laws, EVERYONE is entitled to > fairness, respect, rights and tolerance. Everyone is protected by > those laws, and they should be applied equally and without > prejudice. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy, and our > Constitution. "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right >to life, liberty & happiness..." > The problem is, these fundamental rights don't appear to exist in > the Wizarding World. Jen: You're referring to a political system based in federalism which the WW is not. 'Our' form of democracy was born out of certain circumstances just as all political systems are, and the WW has its own unique set to deal with. Had colonial America had to deal with pressing concerns like hiding their magical powers from the King, there might be a different political system in the U.S. as well . Jen R. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 02:31:03 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:31:03 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169596 > Goddlefrood: > > > The UK as a whole has no Constitution, JKR is from there, she > has little regard of how legal systems outside the UK might > work. The US justice system has no relevance at all to the WW. > This has been stated ad infinitum (mostly by me, I'll grant > you ;)). lizzyben04: Well, Britain is a democracy, with a Constitution that formed the basis of our own. They came up with the first principles of a democratic society a thousand years ago w/the Magna Carta (that states that the king is not above the law), & habeas corpus (you can't be thrown into a dungeon w/o a hearing). The Magna Carta created a society of "laws, not men." However, in the WW, there is a system of "men, not laws." The MOM & Dumbledore *are* above the law, and the rules seem to depend mostly on who happens to be in power at the time. You can be thrown into a dungeon (Azkaban) without a hearing or a fair trial. The WW is basically an autocratic society. We don't actually meet the precepts of the Constitution, in all cases, but at least they form a ideal for our society to live by. That certain rights are inherent in a just society - that people have a right to free speech & association, that even criminals have a right to a fair trial, even horrible people can't be given "cruel & unusual punishments." Justice should be blind & fair; not doled out based on cronyism or connections. Human rights are not a "relatively new" concept, especially at the time the books were written. The Geneva Convention, Hague conventions, international laws have all created & guaranteed basic human rights. Yet the concept of basic "human rights" seem to have little or no relevance in the WW. Arbitrary punishments, restrictions on free speech, cruel punishment & oppression are the norm. And I see, more & more, that these norms are being internalized by the trio themselves. And it is this very internal cruelty, this inability to allow freedom & rights, that guarantees that the WW will always be a relatively oppressive & unstable society. > Goddlefrood: > > I could not agree with this as there is too little to go on. > Each of the sentient beings mentioned above have a liaison > office and there is some legislation governing them. That > witches and wizards have prejudice against some of these > magical beings is not something that can be legislated away. > There are sex discrimination laws and race relations laws > in the real world that do not always work. Sometimes they > go too far too. lizzyben04: If the sentient beings are so content & happy, why do we keep hearing about "goblin rebellions"? (Unlike Harry, I paid attention during History of Magic!) How do we know that elves weren't finally beaten into submission after 1000 years of persecution? And even if they were oppressed & persecuted, we're not going to learn about it from the Ministry of Magic. Like any oppressive society, they've got to keep the "truth" silenced in order to maintain the established order. When Harry goes into the MOM, he sees a statue of the "sentient beings" gazing rapturously & submissively up at the noble wizards. Harry notices that their gazes seem fake & odd, and that the statue's gold is chipped. Harry knows, on some level, that the "official" view of wizarding society is false & fake. > > Lizzyben04 > > > People who are unhappy with the Ministry will still form > > their own "clubs" & "armies", as Dumbledore & Slughorn did, > > eventually either furthering the corruption or taking over > > the Ministry. > > Goddlefrood: > > Quite possibly, but where is there a law in the WW of which we > are aware that prohibits this? The MoM seems to have no real > problem with the Order, and why would it, it is ostensibly > opposing a common enemy. That stands whatever else might be > said of the MoM or any specific employees of it. lizzyben04: Oh, I think the MOM does have a problem with the Order. Fudge gets paranoid that Dumbledore is building an army, and he really wasn't too far off. The only problem is, Dumbledore & the order are too powerful to control. They couldn't imprison DD if they tried, and if DD wanted to, he could probably take over the Ministry in a day. They tried to infiltrate Umbridge to weaken DD's power, but that didn't work either. The Order is like Hizbollah, a paramilitary group that's too powerful for the "official" gov. to stop. So they collaborate (for now). If V leaves, the organizations would quickly be at odds. No, there isn't a law that stops outside groups from forming (nor should there be), but my point is that these groups exist at all because the MOM is so corrupt, weak & unjust. When there isn't a reliable justice system, people will look to outside authorities to either combat the system or exploit it. When the system itself is this rotten, third parties will always arise to fill the power vacuum, for good or ill. Unless the MOM reforms, they'll continue to have this problem. > Goddlefrood: > I would suggest that the closest we can say about the WW is, > not my own, but the words of Lord Acton: > > "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. > Great men are almost always bad men." lizzyben04: That's true, power tends to corrupt. And power has corrupted the Trio, even if they still aren't aware of it. "Lord of the Rings" was a masterpiece, because it examined the ways that power corrupts, and allows evil to flourish. Men want the ring "of power", but become corrupted & evil because of it. Frodo, a good person, is ultimately sucked in at the end to grab the power for himself. The danger isn't only from the evil around them, but from the evil *within* them. I don't see a similar examination of power in HP. IMO, the trio are losing the moral battle, because they're trying on the ring & liking the power, and they're feeling more & more comfortable using "evil" means to accomplish their goals. We should be disturbed by this, but the books portray evil as something that only "others" have - Slytherins, Death Eaters, etc. - so that the heroes never have to even consider whether their own actions might be evil or wrong. That's a real flaw, IMO. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 1 03:45:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:45:54 -0000 Subject: Marietta/On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral vir In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169597 > lizzyben04: > I'm wondering if JKR included this whole DA/hex thing as a possible > parallel to the Death Eaters? The "hex" Hermione gives is very > similar to the "Dark Mark" that Death Eaters are given. Both > organizations have a sign that "calls" the members to meet. And both > organizations require the members to pledge eternal secrecy - once > you're in, there's no getting out. Now, one is "good" & one > is "evil", but there are definite similarities in how both are > organized. Hermione even mentioned getting some of the ideas from > the Death Eaters. These parallels have to be there for a reason. Magpie: I remember thinking it was significant that when Hermione said she got the idea for the coins from the DEs and Harry or Ron looked shocked, she quickly said, "Well, these don't mark peoples' skin!" Like that was the big difference. And then later it turned out yes, Hermione did mark everybody's skin. It just only showed up as punishment. The coins aren't Dark Magic just because they're based on the Dark Mark, of course. And in HBP I thought JKR was making the point of the whole "the other side can use magic too," showing that whatever goes around comes around--we were seeing a sort of "Gryffindor's Greatest Hits" in HBP being turned back on them. Lizzyben: Fleur & Molly learn to respect each other, even if they'll never really like each other. The prejudices & dislike that they've built up totally dissolve in the end as they realize that they both truly love Bill. It was a ray of hope & light in a very dark ending. Meanwhile, Harry still remains lost in anger, hate & despair. Maybe the Fleur encounter was a hint at what it will take for him to heal. Magpie: Though I feel compelled to point out that Fleur was never actually the Other as far as Harry was concerned. He liked her just fine. She was pretty much exclusively hated by the females. ("You know what we're like." --gag!) BetsyHP: I know the answer is "no" of course. But it seems to me that Harry and his friends are allowed to make some mistakes, and yet still remain on the "right" side. Others (or should I say "others" ) are not given as much leniency. Probably, IMO, *because* Harry and co. doesn't recognize them as human or real and therefore susceptible to various pressures and misunderstandings as well. Magpie: That was something that came up at a paper I went to last weekend, because there was praise over the fact that JKR made the good side interesting, where some people always made evil more fun. Though part of what was funny was that by "interesting" people seemed to mean "bad." Meaning that usually only the villainous side got to do nasty stuff, but it was great that with JKR the good guys "made mistakes." And that's something that comes up a lot but the question always is: so when does it stop being "making mistakes" and start being "bad?" Not because I think Harry and his friends are evil now or anything, but it just seems like such an easy thing. I know I'm not the only one who sometimes finds the things they do hard to make fit with the "what a good kid--we all make mistakes!" In fact there was an incident that sort of centered on this type of attitude at my old high school and I very much agreed with a woman who wrote to the paper challenging the whole idea of it, because it rather did come down to "bad kids'" bad actions showing something inherently bad in them which needed punishment, while "good kids" (that's what they're parents always said: "They're good kids, they just...") just made mistakes and so people were more lenient with them. Even when objectively, the good kids seemed to be doing worse things. Now, Harry and his friends actively do try to do good things--they're not like spoiled rich kids whose only claim to "good" is parent on the school board. But still, if small bad acts are connected to larger ones (and I think they are, even if you're Snape!) there is, imo, something not so great about the reflexive attitude the kids often have about others. It's not that they *completely* dehumanize them--I agree they're not characterized as Orcs. But...hmmm. It's possible JKR doesn't get the same bad feelings from some of the books that I do. Though there's enough in there where I think she might. Sometimes it is hard to tell, as Lizzyben said, if she's speaking out against having a disregard for certain others, or if she's just having it. But I really like when Pippin said about how she sees that attacking others often creates people who want to attack back. I don't think Harry wants the people he hates dead: he automatically saves Dudley and when he almost kills Draco himself his response is: No. Same for Draco, who also found actual murder different than saying "I hope you die." But I think both have at times given the impression very clearly that they would be happy if another person died, that they considered them that contemptible, and I think the other person knew that. I think there's a hint of that in Snape's refrain of Sirius trying to kill him (answered by the probably infuriating answer that it was just a joke), that Montague "could have died" (he was an annoyance). -m (who was furious that after wishing for posts all night she discovered her e-mail was apparently bouncing!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 04:29:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:29:36 -0000 Subject: New wizard of the month on JKR website Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169598 So it seems she is putting founders up there - unity of the houses anyone? "Salazar Slytherin Medieval (precise dates unknown) One of the four celebrated Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Salazar Slytherin was one of the first recorded Parselmouths, an accomplished Legilimens, and a notorious champion of pureblood supremacy" Personally I am very pleased with "notorious champion of pureblood supremacy" characterisation. Alla. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 04:53:27 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 04:53:27 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169599 > lizzyben04: > Britain is a democracy, with a Constitution that formed the > basis of our own. They came up with the first principles of > a democratic society a thousand years ago w/the Magna Carta > (that states that the king is not above the law), & habeas > corpus (you can't be thrown into a dungeon w/o a hearing). > The Magna Carta created a society of "laws, not men." Goddlefrood: Define Britain, kindly. Is it the United Kingdom that is meant, Great Britain or one of the UK's sub jurisdictions (being England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland)? Britain exists as a concept rather than a country. As at the time of the Magna Carta King John was basically coerced into signing that at Runymede by powerful barons. The regent retained many powers and was largely above the law de facto until the Civil War some 4 centuries later. The reduction in the sovereign's power only became entrenched in law after the Glorious Revolution of the latter 17th Century. In the early 13th Century Wales had not yet been fully subdued and Scotland was entirly independent, as was Ireland really. Currently only two provisions of Magna Carta remain in effect, I wonder if anyone could tell me which ones? There is no written constitution in the UK *now* and has never been one, to suggest that the US based their Constitution on a non existent document rather detracts from the fine founding fathers of the US. You will find no equivalent document in the UK, sad to say. It seems to be the Declaration of Independence that is referred, rather than the Constitution, which came a little later after the Revolutionary War, did it not? Habeas Corpus simply means produce the body, and was rather for the opposite of keeping people out of dungeons. It was originally designed to get them out from dungeons once they were already there. The basic concept was to avert injustice, but was based at the time on Christian values, as I believe has been pointed out elsewhere today. Oh, and I think the Greeks might have something to say about where democracy came about, although the barons no doubt would be pleased to know they are thought so highly of ;-) Basically then I disagree with the entirety of the above quoted material for my above set out reasons. > Lizzy Ben 04: > However, in the WW, there is a system of "men, not laws." > The MOM & Dumbledore *are* above the law, and the rules seem > to depend mostly on who happens to be in power at the time. Goddlefrood: In your opinion perhaps, but they do have laws. There is a plethora of legislation in many forms, Codes, Decrees and Statutes to name but three types. These suggest that, although there is corruption, the basic precept is not dissimilar to our own. That the legal system in the WW does not work is not a matter I would contend. > Lizzy Ben 04: > You can be thrown into a dungeon (Azkaban) without a hearing > or a fair trial. The WW is basically an autocratic society. Goddlefrood: Happily in the US there has never been martial law, or any military induced state of emergency. Other countries are not so lucky. Life was cheap in the UK until quite recently (by recently I mean from about the 15th Century onwards). During the first rise of Voldemort imprisonment without trial was possible and I am sure there were necessary promulgations by the Minister, or more probably Barty Crouch Senior, to the effect that witches and wizards could be imprisoned without trial. Cough :: Guantanamo Bay :: cough. I have lived under a state of emergency twice in the past 7 years. They are not a great deal of fum and paranoia is rife. Just because you are not paranopid does not mean *they* are not out to get you. The WW most probably would have been similar in that when a state of emergency is declared basic rights and freedoms that might otherwise be taken for granted fly out of the window. If anyone is interested try coming to Fiji and criticising the current Prime Minister. You'll be in the Army camp being interrogated before you could say Jack Robinson. It's a lovely place to visit, though. > Lizzyben04: > Human rights are not a "relatively new" concept, especially at > the time the books were written. The Geneva Convention, Hague > conventions, international laws have all created & guaranteed > basic human rights. Goddlefrood: Did I say that, I only stated it in respect of legislation. For instance the Human Rights Act 1998 (?) - UK. The US has no named act or statute that says Human Rights in it as the Constitution is adaptable and there is a huge body of common law. Australia still has no Human Rights Act. On these conventions brought in, first I'd like to know which of the Geneva Conventions is meant, or was it the Protocols? All 4 of the Geneva Conventions and the 2 Protococls refer to war situations and how prisoners are treated and civilians etc. Look it up at many and varied sites, I'd not suggest Wikipedia for that though. There are a dozen Hague Conventions, but again they set out certain specific matters without dealing with Human Rights as a whole. Both Geneva and Hague Conventions are quite recent anyway. Only from the mid 19th Century were the Geneva concepts developed and the Hague conceptsa have been dribbling in throughout the 20th Century. Perhaps their ratifications by certain countries could be another line of enquiry, if interested. Once more I say the Human Rights legislations are recent developments and would have had no bearing at all on the development of the WW and its rights. It is difficult to separate the concept, but not impossible. I try not to impose my personal values on a system like the WW, which is corrupt and very different from anything seen in the real world for centuries, in terms of its legal system, and other of its values, actually. > lizzyben04: > If the sentient beings are so content & happy, why do we > keep hearing about "goblin rebellions"? (Unlike Harry, I > paid attention during History of Magic!) Goddlefrood: As did I. The last one which is dated occurred in 1612, iirc. The goblins are now looking after the majority of wizarding world money and also fulfilling the role of bookmakers. Of the sentient beings they seem the most trusted, but they are far from integrated. Kemper said it well in his recent post, so I have little to add, but to commend that post of Kemper's to you (generic). Elves do not seem overly displeased with their lot, but of course we do not know how they became enslaved. They are older magical beings than wizards and witches most likely and are based on hobs, iirc, so do have a look at the lifestyle of a hob, should you care to. Centaurs and Merpeople choose, by the account we have, to live separately from witches and wizards, and who would really blame them? > lizzyben04: > Oh, I think the MOM does have a problem with the Order. Fudge > gets paranoid that Dumbledore is building an army, and he > really asn't too far off. Goddlefrood: The Order was not an army, the DA wasn't either, it was an ironic name based on Fudge's paranoia, a joke in other words, little more nor less. The MoM has not taken any counter measures to the Order at all, and as I said earlier, why on earth would it seeing as they are on the same "side". Supreme Mugwump, etc. Jealousy may creep in. The Order is not subverting the MoM, IMO. That's not to say I think the MoM has any great virtue, but while it may be corrupt and have little separation of powers to boot, at least it is now trying to do what is right, rather than what is easy, in my reading of it. Doesn't mean I like the underlying ethics of the matter, but then it is all just fictional and highly amusing. Goddlefrood, who did not peek at any resource in composing this response ;-) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 1 05:36:55 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:36:55 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: <3cd952930705311921ie75cc67ka6c6ddbf7844d9a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169600 > > Carol writes: > > Carol, agreeing with Julie that JKR should leave the book > open-ended,answering all the questions necessary to the plot > (Snape'smotivations, the missing 24 hours, etc.) but allow > her readers to imagine what happens afterward > Laurel: > > Has JKR ever given any indication that the "missing 24 hours" > are anything other than an error? I'm just wondering if this > is one of those things (among many, probably) that fans think > are vital to the plot but turn out not to be (like the Mark > Evans thing). > Julie: JKR hasn't ever commented directly about the missing 24 hours. She has said that we will learn more about what happened at Godric's Hollow. She has also strongly hinted that someone else was there besides Voldemort and the Potters. Whatever we learn in DH may or may not fill in the entire "missing" time, but it should at least give us a little better idea of the timeline from Voldemort's arrival at the Potters' house to Harry's arrival at the Dursleys. Yep, there is definitely more to come on that story. Whether it's 24 hours worth we'll find out in about 7 weeks ;-) Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 07:21:16 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:21:16 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169601 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Marion: > > > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making > > > is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and > > > insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, > > > about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've > > > loved Rita Skeeter. ... > > > > Charles: > > > > ... > > Charles: > > ... No lauding the Quibbler for telling lies, no > > feeling of being allied with it. When Hermione > > decides to get Harry's side of things published in > > the Quibbler, he is hesitant. His thoughts are, and > > I quote "[...]it would confirm a lot of people in > > the view that he was completely insane, not least > > because his story would be appearing alongside utter > > rubbish about Crumple-Horned Snorkacks." (OOTP) > > Doesn't seem like too strong of an alliance to me. > > Magpie: > Rita doesn't write the stuff in the Quibbler, so the > fact that Harry can tell it's rubbish (but doesn't > think that deserves punishment) is irrelevent. The > point was, would Harry like an article *slanted* in > the way that he agrees with, and frankly I see no > reason not to say that he would. ... > > -m bboyminn: But, Magpie, that is exactly what makes Rita's writing so insidious. She takes a grain of truth and completely distorts it into what is clearly an untruth. I've always said the best lie was the truth selectively told and selectively analyzed. Rita could write her typically twisted false story based on a grain of truth about the Malfoys, and Harry and Ron would have no way of know how distorted the story was. The same is true about the stories about Harry, Hermione, and Hagrid. People don't know what the truth is, which is why any journalist of any reasonable level of ethics tries to tell the story as accurately as possible, and to make note of which parts are fact and which parts are opinion. The news has a responsibility to the public to act honorably and truthfully, to the best of their ability. The new reporting, to some extent, is considered a public trust. Anytime you violate that public trust, regardless of whether the reader approve of what you wrote, you have committed a severe violation of ethical conduct. On the other hand, a paper like the Quibbler is so outrageous that no one takes it seriously. There are real-life new publications like that, The Globe, or some such nonsense. Publications filled with Elvis sitings, alien babies, big foot, end of the world, space ship landing, and crocodile men. They are very entertaining by no one takes them seriously. These particular outrageous, lie don't cause any harm, for the most part. However, Rita's violation and distortion of the truth is very harmful to the people involved. This is conscious effort on Rita's part that shows a real and definite lack of concern for the harm caused. It is not the truth of the matter that matters, it is the willful willingness to cause harm and total disregard for the harm caused that separates Rita and Luna's father. Luna's father's articles may cause harm, but it is not willful harm. He really believes what he prints. Rita on the other hand knows perfectly well that she is distorting the truth to the equivalent of an outright lie. So, in my mind whether Harry and the gang like the hypothetical article trashing the Malfoys is irrelevant. What matters in not the reaction of the readers, but the full truthfulness of the writer. >From the central news source in the wizarding world, you, the reader, have a reasonable expectation of ethical reporting and at least a reflection of the truth. Steve/bboyminn From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 07:38:36 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:38:36 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Oh, and I think the Greeks might have something to say about > where democracy came about, although the barons no doubt would > be pleased to know they are thought so highly of ;-) > > Basically then I disagree with the entirety of the above quoted > material for my above set out reasons. Sridhar: I am assuming you are talking about the differences between the governance structure of the US vs the UK. While I am not even a layman on this ;), I would believe that these differences are because of the fact that people from the UK, who did not want a "House of Lords" governing them (I am including the baronies, dukedoms etc) went to the US. Obviously, you will find them somewhat exclusive. > Goddlefrood: > > In your opinion perhaps, but they do have laws. There is a > plethora of legislation in many forms, Codes, Decrees and > Statutes to name but three types. These suggest that, although > there is corruption, the basic precept is not dissimilar to > our own. That the legal system in the WW does not work is not > a matter I would contend. Sridhar: Statutes and decrees, yes, but are they passed by elected members? I have a feeling they are more decisions of a small minority. In fact, I would liken the WW governance to the military. There is no evidence to say the Wizengamot is made of elected people, although members may vote for the topic under discussion. Education Decrees, I am sure you know they are more like dictatorial orders, than any "laws". > Goddlefrood: > > As did I. The last one which is dated occurred in 1612, iirc. > The goblins are now looking after the majority of wizarding > world money and also fulfilling the role of bookmakers. Of > the sentient beings they seem the most trusted, but they > are far from integrated. Kemper said it well in his recent > post, so I have little to add, but to commend that post of > Kemper's to you (generic). The last Goblin revolution was a couple of centuries away, but that doesn't mean they have stopped revolting. A few goblins working for the WW may not mean they have integrated into mainstream society. I still believe that the WW simply expanded due to population and survival pressures have forced other creatures into a lower order of living, like we have done in the real world. --- "lizzyben04" wrote: > We should be disturbed by this, but > the books portray evil as something that only "others" have - > Slytherins, Death Eaters, etc. - so that the heroes never have to even > consider whether their own actions might be evil or wrong. That's a > real flaw, IMO. Sridhar: I have often wondered about this too. To paraphrase a cliche, "The intent is more important than the means or the end." As long as you do it for your (or someone close to you) good, its ok to lie/cheat, but if it is for power, then it is evil. I don't know whether to agree or disagree with this. Sridhar, who never can write good captions. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 07:40:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:40:31 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169603 --- "pippin_999" wrote: >... > Pippin: > Oh, I agree. But his actions show that Harry doesn't. > > ... In his eyes, Hagrid is a well-meaning person who > made a mistake. That's much the way Cho thinks of > Marietta. Harry's the one with the double standard, > IMO. There's one set of rules for his friends, and > another for people he doesn't know very well. > > > Pippin > bboyminn: But Hagrid is a well-meaning person who made a mistake. Marietta, on the other hand, is an ill-meaning person who made a mistake. There is no way Marietta can claim she didn't know her actions would be harmful to the people involved. She had enough knowledge and evidence to know that Umbridge would not be kind to people who broke her petty rules. Now, I can understand Marietta's action. She we torn between conflicting loyalties. We may never know what exactly made her tell Umbridge, but we do have enough to know that she was torn between at least two conflicting loyalties. But none the less, I still say there is no way she could not have known that ratting out her friends would be a bad thing for them. I have to wonder when Marietta was weighing her loyalties if she ever asked herself what harm the DA Club was doing? Yes, it was against Umbridge's rules, but she should have been able to see, smart girl that she is, that Umbridge's rules were pretty petty and pointless; as well as restrictive and counterproductive. She wasn't acting on a rumor, she had been in the DA classes and knew they weren't about overthrowing the government or creating a secret army for Dumbledore. They were simply about training themselves to pass their test and learn to properly defend themselves. So, again, how could Marietta conclude that the DA Club was in anyway harmful, subversive, or counterproductive? Again, I acknowledge they were against the rules, but I find it hard to believe every student at the school did not find Umbridge's rules to be petty, pointless, oppressive, counterproductive, and arbitrary. That makes it very hard for me to see Marietta as 'well-meaning'. It further makes it hard for me to sympathize with her punishment. Though, I have to admit that, as I've already said, I expect Hermione to eventually do the right thing and clear up the spots. I further expect Marietta to do the right thing and understand that the stakes are much much higher than petty school rules, and act accordingly. My sympathy for Marietta is limited because, conflicted loyalties or not, she really had no underlying justification for her actions against people who were trying to help her. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 08:07:19 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:07:19 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169604 > Sridhar: > Statutes and decrees, yes, but are they passed by elected > members? Goddlefrood: As I said, I would not contend that the law in the WW works, what we have been shown of it realy does not. Arguably it did for certain matters when the WW was under the equivalent of emergency regulations. Some were improperly dealt with and injustices were done, but the overall situation from what I glean from the books merited the use of Draconian powers. Decrees in the rael world are invariably *not* passed by elected members either. They are typically promulgated by the executive, in the case of the Educational Decrees throughout OotP it is not unreasonable to conclude, as I do, that either the Minister himself, or more probably (particularly for the later ones) that the six-gilled shark was delegated the executive power. I would agree that the Wizengamot is not elected and would enact Statutes and probably pass Codes too, but it is hardly distinct from the judiciary or the executive, hence my view that there is no separation of powers, as there would be in many, but not all, real world nation states, in the wizarding world. That the wizengamot consists of the more experienced members of wizarding society (almost a gerontocracy) should hold little controversy. It is somewhat like the Hoyse of Lords in that regard. The original Colonists of America, or so I believe, were mostly escaping from persecution, a large part of which was religious. Not so much escaping from the class system or the aristocratic loons that roam freely there. All of which basically means that the wizarding world's governance can not really be understood by comparison with real world governance systems, except possibly those states where there is not a recognisable parliament, Fiji for one currently. Felicitations on your layman's view. Goddlefrood, still amused that any think the WW governance system is the source of some contention ;-) From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Fri Jun 1 09:30:10 2007 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:30:10 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" > wrote: > > Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about favorite Ron > moments. > > Ok if I go ahead? Here's one that comes to mind: > > My favorite is the train scene in OotP where Ron is at his best : (loyalty and humour) 'We're supposed to patrol the corridors every so often,' he told Harry abd Neville, 'and we can give out punishments is people are misbehaving. I can't wait to get Crabbe and Goyle for something'. 'You are not supposed to abuse your position, Ron!' said Hermione sharply. 'Yeah, right, because Malfoy won't abuse it at all,' said Ron sarcastically. 'So you're going to descend to his level?' 'No, I'm just going to make sure I get his mates before he gets mine.' 'For heaven's sake, Ron -' 'I'll make Goyle do lines, it'll kill him, he hates writing,' said Ron happily. He lowered his voice to Goyle's low grunt and, screwingup his face in a look of pained concentration, mimed writing in midair, 'I... must... not...look... like... a... baboon's... backside.' LOL :) my best, Brady. From darksworld at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 12:39:56 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:39:56 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > On the other hand, a paper like the Quibbler is so > outrageous that no one takes it seriously. There are > real-life new publications like that, The Globe, or > some such nonsense. Publications filled with Elvis > sitings, alien babies, big foot, end of the world, > space ship landing, and crocodile men. They are > very entertaining by no one takes them seriously. > These particular outrageous, lie don't cause any > harm, for the most part. Charles: You've hit partially on what I think the Quibbler is for the WW. I really believe that it is more like the parody Newspaper the Onion. I think that Mr. Lovegood publishes the outlandish stories he does thinking nobody but his daughter believes them. I also believe that Luna gets humored by her father for believing them, rather than corrected. I've seen that kind of thing happen in families where a parent was lost before. The child sinks into a fantasy world somewhat, but they are still high functioning and bright so they are therefore allowed to remain in their fantasies because their remaining parent fears that to try and snap them out of it would cause serious harm. The later repercussions of that are sometimes hard to deal with, but often the parents who do things like that are unaware of the psychological damage they are placing their children in danger of.(Please excuse that unwieldy sentence, I just awoke and have to be out the door soon.) (I had a friend who went absolutely nuts when his bubble burst. It took three months for him to come back to reality. In some cases that I have read about it takes longer.) Anyway, my point about the Q is that it is not a fact based paper. Whether it is based on "whatever will sell" sensationalism like "Weekly World News," or on parody, like the "Onion" It is not meant to be a reliable source of information. I believe that the reason Luna's father told her that Harry's story might not appear is not that he didn't think it was important, but that he feared the same thing Harry did about Harry's true and serious story appearing alongside the usual contents of his publication. (Not to mention the fear that his space cadet daughter may have been talking to an invisible Harry...) Charles, with lots more in his brain, but no time to type it out now. From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jun 1 13:11:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:11:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180703497.30381.1192915097@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169607 justcarol67 > Carol, agreeing with Julie that JKR should leave the book open-ended, > answering all the questions necessary to the plot (Snape's > motivations, the missing 24 hours, etc.) Interesting choices. I don't think either of those is necessary to the plot. She may not even be aware of the "missing 24 hours", being as bad at math as she's said she is. And, as for Snape's motivations - while I'm sure everyone here (at least, those who haven't already made up their minds) would like to know, there's no reason to think she won't just leave it ambiguous for another book. -- Random832 From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jun 1 13:14:23 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:14:23 EDT Subject: The Knight of Walburga/ is Snape a Black? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169608 >Jen: - there's an element of the tragic to the Black family that goes beyond their personal losses. The Fall of the House of Black was complete when Sirius died and the idea of there being only small cracks that led to that tragedy, in the form of Sirus opposing his family and Regulus being killed, doesn't quite do justice to what has happened to them Nikkalmati I realize the male line of the Blacks is gone (unless Regulus is in hiding), but we still have the female line. I was wondering if the possibility of Snape being a Black through his mother has been explored. As Ron says in OOP almost all the pureblood families are related to some degree and the Black family tree names the Potters, the Prewetts. Longbottoms, Crouchs and in the notes a Weasley. Possibly SS'smother's mother was a Black making him Sirius' cousin once removed or something. If Walburga's aunt Cassiopeia married a Prince and had a daughter, it could work. That would explain Sirius' and Snape's hostility as a family matter and give a background to the enmity. Naturally, neither one would acknowledge their relationship openly, but it might explain why Sirius would possibly want Snape dead (area open for exploration) and why he would know SS was up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts and knew more hexes as a first year than most seventh years - his family would know all about it. It would also explain the connection to Narcissa, Draco and Bella and SS's concern for them and his ties to Lucius. Maybe he does not stay at Grimmould Placeany more than necessary, because his ties to the family would be exposed somehow. Would Kreacher or Walburga acknowledge him, for example? Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 1 13:35:09 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:35:09 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: <942031.48964.qm@web27315.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169609 simon harris wrote: > The person's name I thought would have been mentioned with Horcruxes is Snape's. The question that come in to my head last night was how quickly do you need to 'make' the Horcrux? My understanding is that you need a very powerful magic item. Would the item need to be in your hand? I think Snape would have known about them. Also, if he is still a double agent, IMO I think he would want one as protection against Tom. Kvapost now: Oooh, delicioso! Snape having his own Horcrux(-es?)! I'm just thinking of that ironclad reason for DD to trust Snape. Could it be that Snape brought his Hx to DD as an act of complete surrender (on his way back from DE's camp) and as a sign of his unconditional trust towards DD. Shame that canon sheds no light whatsoever on the issue though. :) Kvapost From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 1 13:48:38 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:48:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Children and the Message-ID: <32086481.1180705718162.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169610 lizzyben04: >> See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental problem with >> the series. Under a real system of laws, EVERYONE is entitled to >> fairness, respect, rights and tolerance. Everyone is protected by >> those laws, and they should be applied equally and without >> prejudice. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy, and our >> Constitution. "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right >> to life, liberty & happiness..." >Kemper now: >That's not true, but it should be. EVERYONE is not entitled to _______ . >Each group of persons has to fight for that right of entitlement. > >You quote from the US Declaration of Independence. White, male land >(and slave) owners had to fight for their right to be independent of >the British monarchy. Bart: First of all, remember that Great Britain is NOT the United States. Even Canada still has a "Divine Right" based government, as opposed to the U.S.'s "Social Contract" style government (although American officials have a tendency to forget this once they're in the government). The point being that the Harry Potter novels take place in Great Britain, and there appears to be a British-style government. Kemper: >White men did not wake up one morning and think, "You know whose vote >is missing and very much needed in today's elections? Women." Women >had to fight for that right. It was not freely given. Bart: Actually, in the United States, many states recognized the right of women to vote long before the U.S. Constitution was amended to recongize it. Kemper: >Employers/bosses did not wake up one morning and think, "You know who >has been working long hours for little pay? Labor. From now on, I'm >going to pay them time and half if they work over say 40 hours a week. > The 80 they have been working is way too much. I should give them 2 >days off a week as well." Labor had to fight for the Fair Labor >Standards Bart: No, they didn't. They had to fight to be able to get monopolistic pricing for labor. The system is quite unfair to the individuals involved, but has a greater viability for the economy as a whole (while a free market is ideal, as with all anarchic systems, it quickly deteriorates into feudalism). Kemper: >Emancipation was not freedom. The US Civil Rights movement existed >because blacks, though free, were treated inhumanely and with >disregard. Whites did not wake up one morning thinking, "You know >who's missing from my child's school? Black kids." Blacks had to >fight for the rights whites' had. It was not given freely, or easily. Bart: Actually, the rights of blacks were officially recognized. The problem was that they were not recognized on an unofficial level. In other words, the problem was not so much in the laws, but in the lack of enforcement of the existing laws. There has been much written about this, but let's just take a look at canon. Giants are expected to be stupid. Therefore, giants are not educated. Therefore, giants are stupid. Look at how far Hagrid got with Grawp in only a year or so, and that was taking an adult giant, who grew up in savagery (how do you think a human being would be, raised in the culture like that of the giants?). Several of the non-human races we have seen have shown themselves to have a level of intelligence indistinguishable from human (although their psychology may differ), yet they are put down. For example, even house elves, who have an apparent psychological need to serve humans, appear to have a desire to CHOOSE which humans they serve, a right they are denied. Kemper: >The Elves need to initiate the fight for their rights to live without >ties to a wizard. Bart: But they're psychologically incapable of doing it. As I pointed out, the problem is not that Hermione tried to fight for their rights; it's that she tried to fight for the WRONG rights. Bart From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jun 1 13:53:28 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:53:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180706008.3406.1192922329@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169611 Goddlefrood: > hence my view that there is no separation of powers, as there would be in many, but not all, And, notably, not Britain itself, where the executive is the leader of the majority party and the court of last resort is the upper house. > real world nation states, in the wizarding world. -- Random832 From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jun 1 13:57:10 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:57:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180706230.3858.1192922853@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169612 >>> Alla: >>> She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, she went on her own. > > Alla: > I thought Dolores Umbridge said so - that Marietta went to her. Random832: So now we're trusting HER word? (This may sound facetious, but, really, doesn't Umbridge have an interest in covering up any torture / extortion / blackmail etc that was involved in getting the information?) > Magpie: > I remember thinking it was significant that when Hermione said she > got the idea for the coins from the DEs and Harry or Ron looked > shocked, she quickly said, "Well, these don't mark peoples' skin!" > Like that was the big difference. Random832: That always seemed forced - the only point of similarity between them is shared with so much else. I mean, really it resembles nothing (not even the dark mark) so much as a pager, and pagers were widespread by 1995. It almost seems like that whole exchange was forced in there in order to prompt the readers to make that very comparison (which is why I don't think we're supposed to be okay with what happened to Marietta) > Steve/bboyminn: > So, again, how could Marietta conclude that the DA Club > was in anyway harmful, subversive, or counterproductive? Random832: Because they were training in a technique which, ignoring Lethifolds (and really who can blame her for ignoring Lethifolds), is SOLELY useful against Dementors, who are (to her knowledge) entirely loyal to and controlled by the lawful government. What legitimate reason is there for training people in the Patronus charm? -- Random832 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 1 15:56:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:56:41 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Luna and the Quibbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169613 > > Pippin: > > Oh, I agree. But his actions show that Harry doesn't. > > > > ... In his eyes, Hagrid is a well-meaning person who > > made a mistake. That's much the way Cho thinks of > > Marietta. Harry's the one with the double standard, > > IMO. There's one set of rules for his friends, and > > another for people he doesn't know very well. > bboyminn: > > But Hagrid is a well-meaning person who made a mistake. > Marietta, on the other hand, is an ill-meaning person who > made a mistake. There is no way Marietta can claim she > didn't know her actions would be harmful to the people > involved. She had enough knowledge and evidence to know > that Umbridge would not be kind to people who broke her > petty rules. Magpie: But this to me seems too much to come back to special rules for people we personally think are good, though. Hagrid had every reason in the world to know his actions could be harmful--on more than one occasion. It was just as obvious as it was with Marietta--more so, sometimes. He just doesn't base his decisions on that kind of logic. One can be well-meaning while not care about hurting others. Marietta's situation, imo, actually is set up in a way that hints that she could think she was somehow doing the right thing or at least something she "had" to do regardless of the possible harm to some students. Because it's not like she has any personal grudge that we're told about. She doesn't gain from the DA stopping or starting except in that the DA stops. That doesn't make Marietta right, but I just honestly could believe that there was an element of guilt driving her actions. Steve: > I have to wonder when Marietta was weighing her > loyalties if she ever asked herself what harm the DA > Club was doing? Yes, it was against Umbridge's rules, > but she should have been able to see, smart girl that > she is, that Umbridge's rules were pretty petty and > pointless; as well as restrictive and counterproductive. Magpie: Actually, it's hard for me to imagine what she should have seen. It seems to me that in reality people often *don't* look at rules like these and necessarily find them petty, pointless, restrictive or counterproductive. Sometimes they find them comforting. It actually reminds me a bit of Hermione's hex in itself. I've said that if I were in the DA I would have had a very strong emotional reaction to finding out that Hermione tricked me into signing a hexed parchment that was a booby trap with that result. The alternative view of being grateful that Hermione was trying to "protect me" with it strikes me much the way you're describing Umbridge's rules here. It seems like giving up freedom and dignity and allowing someone else total power over you because you need protecting--which goes along with Umbridge's general nanny-like mentality. But I can believe that people can think that these types of measures are necessary. That's why I think I would have been opposed to Umbridge but also Hermione in that context. I can't speak for Marietta, but as I said, it just seems to me that we are talking about her feeling like there was some reason she should tell Umbridge. I don't know whether it would have to just be personal loyalty to her mother, because I don't know if she'd feel like she was betraying her personally by not telling about the club. I can imagine her coming to believe this had to be done due to her mother. And I *do* think she could look at the DA and see them as subversive--in the real world all too often organizations are considered subversive by one person and not by another. Sometimes these things are very subtle. Think, for instance, of groups that aren't open about but seem to have a subtext of being a white supremist movement, for instance. Or people who think liberals=terrorist sympathizers. I don't know what Marietta thought about the club, but I don't find it at all impossible to believe that the meetings were not something that proved the club was harmless. I can easily imagine many things said at DA meetings sounding subversive to someone. bboyminn: But, Magpie, that is exactly what makes Rita's writing so insidious. She takes a grain of truth and completely distorts it into what is clearly an untruth. I've always said the best lie was the truth selectively told and selectively analyzed. Magpie: Of course it is. What I was disagreeing with was that what was wrong about Rita was that she told *lies*. I pointed out that Rita often makes the Trio more angry when she tells *the truth* in a way that leads to conclusions they think are false. If it was just a case of presenting false things as true in the press obviously the Quibbler does that too. They just don't do it in a way that frightens Harry or Hermione because it sounds like it could be true. Rita's better at it. (Accusing Fudge of baking goblins in pies is a pretty serious accusation, for instance, and if people actually believed it that would be pretty wicked of the Quibbler to print.) Steve: Rita could write her typically twisted false story based on a grain of truth about the Malfoys, and Harry and Ron would have no way of know how distorted the story was. The same is true about the stories about Harry, Hermione, and Hagrid. Magpie: Yes, I understand that. My only other point was that I don't think, based on what I have seen of the Trio, that they would have a problem with Rita doing that in a story about Hagrid if it went more along the lines of the way they want him to be seen. That's why I used the House Elf example. Hermione interprets the Crouch's and Winky's story according to the story she wants to arrive at. It makes Winky angry. But if Rita wrote that story with that particular spin, the way Hermione thinks gets to the "real truth" of the matter, I don't think she'd have a problem. Likewise I don't think Harry would have had a problem with an article about Hagrid that put out the view of Hagrid he thought people should have--what he considers the more important "truth." Steve: It is not the truth of the matter that matters, it is the willful willingness to cause harm and total disregard for the harm caused that separates Rita and Luna's father. Luna's father's articles may cause harm, but it is not willful harm. He really believes what he prints. Rita on the other hand knows perfectly well that she is distorting the truth to the equivalent of an outright lie. Magpie: Yes, but I think this is an interesting question, because while I certainly agree that Rita seems sometimes willfully vindictive (I can't assume that every single time she writes an article with a spin Harry doesn't like she's being vindictive--she may sometimes be giving what she thinks is the accurate take on things) and that as far as we know Luna's father isn't, it still occurs to me that if you have to demand accuracy from the press in general rather than judge the motivations of the people doing the writing. I realize that it's complicated and that Rita does far more harm than silly old Lovegood. There's a reason she's a villain and Lovegood isn't. I don't think the Quibbler needs to be shut down, and I understand that it's seen for what it is in the WW, just as the Weekly World News is. But being anal about it, if Lovegood is honestly trying to get people to believe Fudge cooks people in pies, and he has no proof of it because as far as he and Luna are concerned you don't need proof...well, he's not living up to the idea of a press acting honorably either. Many people know the National Enquirer is rubbish; other people read it religiously and think that even if it's slightly wrong "where there's smoke there's fire." Celebrities know they print total lies, but only sometimes sue them, afaik. I don't really have a conclusion here. I'm just a little uneasy to anything always coming down to "But we know that X means well so it's totally different!" Sometimes that does make all the difference, but not always. If Luna's father is causing harm it matters if he's not doing it on purpose, but there's a limit to where it doesn't matter. I don't really know where I'm going with this.:-) I see the same differences between the Lovegoods and Rita Skeeter that you do. I just also think that everyone in the story plays fast and loose with the press, sometimes wanting the truth out there, sometimes happy at seeing a false story or a story covered up. The question we always come to, not to sound over dramatic, is what is "truth?" There's the facts, but then there's the interpretation. The Quibbler makes up both. Rita more dangerously uses facts to support her interpretation and manipulates the public. That is the way the press works at all levels, even in our own world. In terms of the story, Hermione does not attack Rita for printing an interpretation that is wrong. She brushes that aside as easily as she does the stuff in the Quibbler. She attacks her when she sees that Rita has attacked her through the press to cause her suffering via hate mail and skin ailments. In a showdown between Rita and Hermione, Hermione makes it clear that Hermione is the stronger. Rita will now write what Hermione tells her to write. Charles: I also believe that Luna gets humored by her father for believing them, rather than corrected. I've seen that kind of thing happen in families where a parent was lost before. The child sinks into a fantasy world somewhat, but they are still high functioning and bright so they are therefore allowed to remain in their fantasies because their remaining parent fears that to try and snap them out of it would cause serious harm. The later repercussions of that are sometimes hard to deal with, but often the parents who do things like that are unaware of the psychological damage they are placing their children in danger of.(Please excuse that unwieldy sentence, I just awoke and have to be out the door soon.) (I had a friend who went absolutely nuts when his bubble burst. It took three months for him to come back to reality. In some cases that I have read about it takes longer.) Magpie: I think you may very well be right, and Luna's father isn't doing her any favors. I admit that while I often like Luna fine as a character, I sometimes think her fantasizing is romanticized into something it isn't, imo. It seems like a defense mechanism that's not doing her any good and keeping her from really connecting to people. Charles: Anyway, my point about the Q is that it is not a fact based paper. Whether it is based on "whatever will sell" sensationalism like "Weekly World News," or on parody, like the "Onion" It is not meant to be a reliable source of information. Magpie: But wait, wasn't Steve suggesting that the whole reason Mr. Lovegood has integrity is because he actually believes this stuff? That he believes he's printing a reliable source of information and *not* "whatever will sell?" (Which is something I think Rita would do herself.) The Weekly World News, as I said, is written by people who afaik do not believe this stuff, though I can't honestly say whether their reading public is supposed to believe it or not. It's hard for me to believe that they stay afloat selling papers to people who find them funny. I'd have to look into it. If Mr. Lovegood is intentionally selling the paper just as entertainment I'd think he'd feel badly for his daughter believing it. I don't think The Onion applies. There it seems both the writers and their subscribers know it's a joke. Though once in a while people do mistake it for real. This is a confusing subject when you try to pick it apart. I'm sure people who have studied the media would understand it better. I don't think any of us disagree on the difference between the Quibbler and Witch Weekly, or Luna and Rita. We all know why Rita's a villain. I just think that also it's understood that reporters-- especially gossip columnists--do what they do. Rita is a problem for Harry because her goals as a reporter conflict with his goals. A reporter on Harry's side who printed articles to help him would, I believe, be a good guy. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 1 16:02:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:02:47 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169614 > bboyminn: > > But Hagrid is a well-meaning person who made a mistake. > Marietta, on the other hand, is an ill-meaning person who > made a mistake. There is no way Marietta can claim she > didn't know her actions would be harmful to the people > involved. Pippin: But there is a way Hagrid can claim that he didn't know his actions would be harmful? Spilling Dumbledore's secrets to a hooded stranger in a place like the Hog's Head? And he's an Order member, a pro, not a schoolboy. Gimme a break! Bboy: She had enough knowledge and evidence to know > that Umbridge would not be kind to people who broke her > petty rules. Pippin: Um, somebody said we shouldn't villify Hermione for taking harsh measures to identify and suppress sedition. But now Marietta is supposed to have *known* that Umbridge was evil for just that reason? Steve: > She wasn't acting on a rumor, she had been in the > DA classes and knew they weren't about overthrowing > the government or creating a secret army for > Dumbledore. They were simply about training themselves > to pass their test and learn to properly defend > themselves > > So, again, how could Marietta conclude that the DA Club > was in anyway harmful, subversive, or counterproductive? Pippin: AFAWK, she didn't, until they did something subversive: learning the patronus spell. It is certainly not part of the OWL exam. Harry was explicit that the purpose of learning the spell was to defend themselves against dementors. But dementors are not supposed to be attacking anyone except on Ministry orders, in which case a loyal citizen should cooperate. I think we can trust Fudge to have his finger on the pulse of the WW public. It's clear to him in GOF that most wizards are not going to take Dumbledore's word for it that dementors are a danger to innocent people. Those same wizards would find it hard to understand why anyone loyal to the Ministry would need to know how to drive them off. Steve: > Again, I acknowledge they were against the rules, but I > find it hard to believe every student at the school > did not find Umbridge's rules to be petty, pointless, > oppressive, counterproductive, and arbitrary. Pippin: It's hardly petty if you believe the danger of sedition is real. And Umbridge does believe it, enough to follow Harry and Hermione into the Forbidden Forest because she thinks Dumbledore could have hidden a weapon there. That sort of sincerity is, unfortunately, very convincing. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 16:07:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:07:17 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169615 bboyminn: > > But Hagrid is a well-meaning person who made a mistake. > Marietta, on the other hand, is an ill-meaning person who > made a mistake. There is no way Marietta can claim she > didn't know her actions would be harmful to the people > involved. She had enough knowledge and evidence to know > that Umbridge would not be kind to people who broke her > petty rules. > > Now, I can understand Marietta's action. She we torn > between conflicting loyalties. We may never know what > exactly made her tell Umbridge, but we do have enough > to know that she was torn between at least two > conflicting loyalties. But none the less, I still say > there is no way she could not have known that ratting > out her friends would be a bad thing for them. > > I have to wonder when Marietta was weighing her > loyalties if she ever asked herself what harm the DA > Club was doing? Yes, it was against Umbridge's rules, > but she should have been able to see, smart girl that > she is, that Umbridge's rules were pretty petty and > pointless; as well as restrictive and counterproductive. > > She wasn't acting on a rumor, she had been in the > DA classes and knew they weren't about overthrowing > the government or creating a secret army for > Dumbledore. They were simply about training themselves > to pass their test and learn to properly defend > themselves. > > My sympathy for Marietta is limited because, conflicted > loyalties or not, she really had no underlying > justification for her actions against people who were > trying to help her. > > Steve/bboyminn > Carol responds: Defend themselves against whom or what? If she doesn't believe that Voldemort is back, it can't be him. And she knows they're opposing Umbridge, which means they're opposing the Ministry, which, according to Umbridge (and presumably her ally, Marietta's mother, is trying to protect the "children" from "lies"). She also knows that they call themselves Dumbledore's Army and believes either that DD is trying to take over the Ministry and spreading lies and inducing panic in order to do so (Fudge's view) or that he's a doddering, deluded old fool (the official view propagated by the Daily Prophet). So she wouldn't have seen the club as trying to help her. (She should, however, have stopped attending. Maybe she was like Lupin, afraid of losing a valued friendship if she stood up to Cho?) *We* know that she's wrong. *We* know that Umbridge is evil. But Fudge is also wrong, and AFAIK, he isn't evil, just deluded--persuaded by Umbridge, IMO, to take extreme measures against a boy he has come to believe (because he *want* to believe it) is subject to dangerous hallucinations. Percy, too, is not evil, just deluded, so far as I can tell at the moment. Marietta, torn between her friend Cho and her mother, chooses her mother. And Cho (who might have felt otherwise had she actually been expelled) understands that and stands by her. The thing is, when we're wrong, we don't know that we're wrong, unless we're deliberating propagating a false cause (like half-blood Voldemort purporting to believe in pureblood superiority to recruit pureblood DEs). I'm sure that Marietta thought the DA members were dangerous and *deserved* to be expelled, just as Harry thought (rightly, in his case, that Draco was up to something dangerous--and told on him to Dumbledore in defiance of the schoolboy code because of the extent of the perceived danger. Severus probably thought the same about the boys who played a "Prank" that nearly cost him his life: they deserved, in his view (and in mine, in the case of Sirius) to be expelled. These kids are, in Marietta's view, dangerous lawbreakers out to help the renegade Dumbledore take down the legitimate government, which, in dangerous times, is becoming understandably oppressive (again, her view). Yes, she betrayed her friends (or, at any rate, her schoolmates and one friend), but she thought she was doing the right thing, and the hex would have struck her even if she'd gone to Flitwick instead of Umbridge. To answer the question someone asked about why the SNEAK hex didn't hit Dean, I suspect he told Seamus about the meeting before he signed the parchment and Seamus, still hurt by Harry's treatment of him, declined the invitation. Carol, who thinks it's too bad that Marietta wasn't in her NEWT or OWL year, in which case she'd have felt as the other Ravenclaws did that Umbridge's classes need supplementing with real spells From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 1 16:14:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) Message-ID: <22938439.1180714455465.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169616 From: Goddlefrood Lizzy Ben 04: >> However, in the WW, there is a system of "men, not laws." >> The MOM & Dumbledore *are* above the law, and the rules seem >> to depend mostly on who happens to be in power at the time. > Goddlefrood: >In your opinion perhaps, but they do have laws. There is a >plethora of legislation in many forms, Codes, Decrees and >Statutes to name but three types. These suggest that, although >there is corruption, the basic precept is not dissimilar to >our own. That the legal system in the WW does not work is not >a matter I would contend. Ah, I wanted to get in on this, but staying on topic is important. A law is only as effective as its ability to be enforced, either by agreement by the people, or the ability of those charged with enforcing it to do so. What we've seen of the WW seems to be a highly ordered surface, with a Wild West attitude underneath; everybody is equally armed, and, if pushed harder than they want to be pushed, will fight back. The level at which the law is simply ignored in the books is astounding, to say the least, from the arrest of Morfin (HBP) down to Arthur Weasley's enchanted Anglia (CoS, et al). On the old TV version of THE ODD COUPLE, in one episode, a truly marvelous concept was introduced. The pair were on a cruise, and Felix (the annoying one) wanted to take charge. The Captain gives him a title and a whistle. When Oscar (the sloppy one) asks the Captain what he was thinking, the Captain replies something on the order of, "Whenever I spot a potential troublemaker, I find that the best way to handle him is to give him a whistle. By the way, do you want a whistle?" That is the feeling I get about the MoM; that it's a bunch of people who wanted to be in charge, so the community collectively gave them a figurative whistle, and then proceeded to largely ignore them, unless they started figuratively blowing too hard. One major problem is that Azkaban and wand breaking seem to be the only punishments available, and Azkaban can easily be a death sentence, and is certainly a torture center. Note that Hagrid was placed there on SUSPICION of having committed a crime. It does not create great respect for the law. Goddlefrood: >Happily in the US there has never been martial law, or any >military induced state of emergency. Other countries are not >so lucky. Life was cheap in the UK until quite recently (by >recently I mean from about the 15th Century onwards). Well, there WAS the time called, depending on who you are talking about, the Civil War, the War Between the States, and the War of the Slaveholder's Rebellion (sorry, carryover from my time in the adult game industry). And, there was the better remembered interrment of Japanese nationals and citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII (I'll spare you the list of alternative names). >During the first rise of Voldemort imprisonment without trial >was possible and I am sure there were necessary promulgations >by the Minister, or more probably Barty Crouch Senior, to the >effect that witches and wizards could be imprisoned without >trial. Cough :: Guantanamo Bay :: cough. Not a good analogy; Guantanamo Bay is a POW camp. What makes it unusual is that the people are being kept as prisoners of war; in the past, ununiformed combatants caught on the battlefield were traditionally either executed immediately, or tortured for any infomration they had and THEN executed, although the U.S. Supreme Court has defined that a military action in another country is NOT international(?!). On the other hand, the HP novels are somewhat closemouthed about the international magical community (for example, Iggy Krak is pretty clearly not British, but he seemed to have been under MoM authority anyway). In any case, I don't think they're a party to any of the Geneva Conventions. Lizzyben04: >> Human rights are not a "relatively new" concept, especially at >> the time the books were written. The Geneva Convention, Hague >> conventions, international laws have all created & guaranteed >> basic human rights. > >Goddlefrood: > >Did I say that, I only stated it in respect of legislation. >For instance the Human Rights Act 1998 (?) - UK. The US has >no named act or statute that says Human Rights in it as the >Constitution is adaptable and there is a huge body of common >law. Australia still has no Human Rights Act. First of all, the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with human rights; they are more about, "You don't do it to us, and we won't do it to you." As far as the United States go, the Declaration of Independence shows, and the U.S. Constitution clearly assumes, that the United States is a Social Contract rather than Divine Right state, where rights reside with the people; the government only has privileges (of course, that's only in theory; the fact that so few people know, or even want to know the difference is evidenced by the change of word in the title of the first novel from "Philosopher's" to "Sorcerer's"). >Look it up at many and varied sites, I'd not suggest Wikipedia >for that though. I often do research in Wikipedia, first. If nothing else, it is an excellent place to find references to source documents. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 1 16:21:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta Message-ID: <11333133.1180714872367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169617 From: Steve >My sympathy for Marietta is limited because, conflicted >loyalties or not, she really had no underlying >justification for her actions against people who were >trying to help her. Bart: I am going to go as far as to say the overwhelming majority of the people here are in agreement on two points: 1) The initial punishment of Marietta was reasonable. 2) The fact that it continued into (was allowed to continue into) the next sememster was not. Bart From laurel.coates at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 15:55:46 2007 From: laurel.coates at gmail.com (Laurel Coates) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 08:55:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: References: <942031.48964.qm@web27315.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cd952930706010855x291cfaeahae1c82822d79f193@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169618 Kvapost now: Oooh, delicioso! Snape having his own Horcrux(-es?)! I'm just thinking of that ironclad reason for DD to trust Snape. Could it be that Snape brought his Hx to DD as an act of complete surrender (on his way back from DE's camp) and as a sign of his unconditional trust towards DD. Shame that canon sheds no light whatsoever on the issue though. :) Laurel: I think the "iron clad reason" is another Unbreakable Vow, that Snape made with Dumbledore when Snape turned to the Good Side. Dumbledore didn't feel safe telling Harry about Snape's UV with him during their discussion before they set off for the cave (in the chapter Seen and Unforeseen) because of Harry's ineptitude at Occlumency. I sure hope Harry spends his summer working on that skill, because it is a huge hindrance and an easy target for the Death Eaters. Laure [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 1 16:50:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:50:21 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Seamus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169619 > zanooda: > > I know it has nothing to do with Marietta, but this line you just > cited always made me wonder how the boys could avoid telling Seamus > about the DA. As you say, they agreed not to tell "anybody else", > which must include Seamus. >> > More than that, Dean *did* tell, at least later in the year, because > he brought Seamus to the last DA meeting. So he told, but nothing > happened to him. Maybe "not to tell anybody else" means "not to > tell with treacherous intent" or something? > > It's not even a question, more like a general wondering... > Pippin: That brings up something else I've been wondering about. How do Draco and Dumbledore know about the enchanted coins? Dumbledore mentions this "*secret* (emphasis mine) method of communication the group that called themselves Dumbledore's Army used" on the tower and Draco agrees, "Yeah, I got the idea from them." >From whom, exactly? You have to wonder if Marietta, like Sirius before her, isn't serving as patsy for another, unsuspected spy. Pippin From thesweetestthings23 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 16:47:48 2007 From: thesweetestthings23 at yahoo.com (thesweetestthings23) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:47:48 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: <380-22007543131353675@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169620 Stepping away from lurking one more time, I have to believe that Snape did set up the Pensieve scene. For what reasons I do not know. I just can't understand why Snape would have his pensieve out with that particular memory floating around. Why would he be reviewing that? If anyone has any ideas on this, I am more than happy to receive them. thesweetestthing From thesweetestthings23 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 15:49:24 2007 From: thesweetestthings23 at yahoo.com (thesweetestthings23) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:49:24 -0000 Subject: favorite Harry moments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169621 Anna: > Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about favorite Ron moments. > Ok if I go ahead? Here's one that comes to mind: > > His very well-played game of human-sized chess in SS. > > After Moody turns Malfoy into a ferret, Ron says tells Hermione to be > quiet because he wants to remember that for the rest of his life, and > he smiles. > > Ron is indignant after he fails his Apparition test because of "half > an eyebrow! As if that matters!" thesweetestthing: This is my very first post after a long bit of lurking but I have to give my favorite Harry and Ron Moments. My favorite Harry moment is at the end of the OOP when Snape finds Harry and Draco in the middle of an argument and asks what Harry is doing and Harry replies "Trying to decide which hex to use on Malfoy sir." (I don't have my books so the wording is probably off). One of my favorite Ron moments is in the HBP when is tells Luna he loved her commentary on the Quidditch match. I have many. I realized how funny and important Ron is to the story while rereading the books in preparation. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 17:15:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:15:25 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <11333133.1180714872367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169622 > >>> Alla: > >>> She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores UMbridge, she went on her own. > > > > Alla: > > I thought Dolores Umbridge said so - that Marietta went to her. > > Random832: > So now we're trusting HER word? (This may sound facetious, but, really, > doesn't Umbridge have an interest in covering up any torture / extortion > / blackmail etc that was involved in getting the information?) > Alla: Sure, I do in this situation unless I hear something to the opposite. JKR has to give us some true facts sometimes, doesn't she? Does Umbridge have an interest in covering torture and blackmail? Sure she does. Just in the reading of the scene I saw no hints that this is what she was doing, that's all. She sounded to me, I don't know - gleeful, not fearful that she has to hide something and trying to come up with convincing lie. I mean, we do trust Umbridge when she says that Snape's class is advanced, do we not? > Bart: > I am going to go as far as to say the overwhelming majority of the people here are in agreement on two points: > > 1) The initial punishment of Marietta was reasonable. > 2) The fact that it continued into (was allowed to continue into) the next sememster was not. Alla: I know several people who disagree on first point, I do not, I definitely agree on both. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 17:34:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:34:14 -0000 Subject: "Iggy Krak" (Igor Karkaroff) Was: On Jurisprudence In-Reply-To: <22938439.1180714455465.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169623 Bart wrote: On the other hand, the HP novels are somewhat closemouthed about the international magical community (for example, Iggy Krak is pretty clearly not British, but he seemed to have been under MoM authority anyway). Carol responds: Sorry to snip your interesting post (and the delightful reference to "the Odd Couple"--I think Felix Unger and Adrian Monk would have been great friends despite the generational difference)--but I'm no authority on international law and don't want to stick so much as a toe into those dangerous waters. Instead, I want to focus on Igor Karkaroff. Despite his name, I think he had a British upbringing and attended Hogwarts (sorted into Slytherin, naturally) just as the Malfoys and assorted Lestranges did, despite their French-sounding names. Karkaroff, who speaks without an accent (in marked contrast to Viktor Krum), addresses Dumbledore as "my dear fellow" (how British can you get?) and speaks with apparently unfeigned affection of "dear old Hogwarts," adding, "How good it is to be here, how good" (GoF Am. ed. 247), which seems like an odd thing to say if he isn't an old alumnus. I'm guessing, based on his black hair and beard in the Pensieve memory and silver hair and goatee in the rest of GoF that he's at least fifty as of the TWT, so he would have attended Hogwarts some ten years or so before the older Weasleys. I don't think he's quite old enough to be a contemporary of the older Nott (and LV himself), as he doesn't seem to have been one of the original Death Eaters, but he could well have been recruited by them. At any rate, my impression is that, like Cho Chang and the Patil twins, whose names sound Chinese and Indian, rspectively, Igor Karkaroff is either British or had a British (Hogwarts) education despite his Slavic-sounding name. Carol, who thinks that Antonin Dolohov may be a different matter but doesn't have enough information on him to discuss the point intelligently From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 1 17:37:28 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:28 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169624 > thesweetestthing wrote: > Stepping away from lurking one more time, I have to believe that > Snape did set up the Pensieve scene. For what reasons I do not know. > I just can't understand why Snape would have his pensieve out with > that particular memory floating around. Why would he be reviewing > that? If anyone has any ideas on this, I am more than happy to > receive them. > colebiancardi: I don't think that Snape was "reviewing" his memories - I think he removed them so that if and when Harry broke through his defenses, certain memories would be protected. Snape removed three memories that we know of - it could be more, but Harry only saw Snape remove and deposit 3 memories into the Pensieve. It wasn't Snape's Pensieve, it was Dumbledore's - DD lent it to Snape for the lessons; obviously, even DD must have known there are some things that should remain private. The only way one could think that Snape "set up" the Pensieve scene is to believe that Snape knew that Draco would come to him about Montague, and that Harry wouldn't follow him - like before. Harry followed Snape when Trelawney was fired. I do not believe that scene was set-up. Why would Snape do that? What purpose does it serve? I believe that JKR wrote it that way to show that Teen!Snape was an outcast and not too popular - something that Harry can relate to, as he was an outcast and not too popular before Hogwarts, and even then, Harry is still called crazy and not very much liked by all of the Hogwart's students. colebiancardi From jim at trueartistgroup.com Fri Jun 1 17:25:38 2007 From: jim at trueartistgroup.com (Jim Zangara) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:25:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? References: Message-ID: <001e01c7a471$df2dd110$3f2c530a@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169625 thesweetestthing writes: > Stepping away from lurking one more time, I have to believe that > Snape did set up the Pensieve scene. For what reasons I do not know. > I just can't understand why Snape would have his pensieve out with > that particular memory floating around. Why would he be reviewing > that? If anyone has any ideas on this, I am more than happy to > receive them. > Jim: Snape removed the memory in the event that Harry successfully entered his mind he would not see those particular memories. I don't think he set up that scene as he had no way of knowing the lesson would be interrupted. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 1 17:50:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:50:47 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169626 Carol responds: > Defend themselves against whom or what? If she doesn't believe that > Voldemort is back, it can't be him. And she knows they're opposing > Umbridge, which means they're opposing the Ministry, which, > according to Umbridge (and presumably her ally, Marietta's mother, > is trying to protect the "children" from "lies"). She also knows > that they call themselves Dumbledore's Army and believes either > that DD is trying to take over the Ministry and spreading lies and > inducing panic in order to do so (Fudge's view) or that he's a > doddering, deluded old fool (the official view propagated by the > Daily Prophet). So she wouldn't have seen the club as trying to > help her. (She should, however, have stopped attending. Maybe she > was like Lupin, afraid of losing a valued friendship if she stood > up to Cho?) Dana: Marietta was at the meeting in the Hogs Head right? So she was informed about what the DA was going to do so she could have made a choice right then and there. And if she made up her mind to not be part of this group any longer because she didn't believe in the philosophy of this group then she was free to leave at any time. So why did she not just do that? Why did she need to rat them out. Was there a need for her to do so just because she did not believe in the DA anymore? I do not think so. And the losing her friend excuse doesn't seem to hold grounds to me as she ratted on Cho as well. Cho did not get expelled because Umbridge was not out to get her but did Marietta know this? Marietta ratted them out because she was afraid that she would be associated with them if Umbridge found out through other means and if you are right that she did not want to oppose the Ministry because she did not believe Harry's and DD's claim that LV was back, then she made a political decision to hand them over to the Ministry. She did not merely told on her fellow students but told on a group believing in a different truth then the Ministry did. There was still a choice to walk away and hold her tong if her decision had nothing to do with her personal believe that the DA as a group should be stopped because they had different ideas then the Ministry had at that time. And it was still because she was to afraid to be associated with this group and that it would put her unwillingly in the wrong camp because if being afraid to lose a friendship had an baring on her decision then she would not have put her friend at risk of being caught and expelled (unless she already knew that it was only Harry that would get into trouble but then her decision is actually even worse) Carol: > I'm sure that Marietta thought the DA members were > dangerous and *deserved* to be expelled, just as Harry thought > (rightly, in his case, that Draco was up to something dangerous--and > told on him to Dumbledore in defiance of the schoolboy code because > of the extent of the perceived danger. Severus probably thought the > same about the boys who played a "Prank" that nearly cost him his > life: they deserved, in his view (and in mine, in the case of > Sirius) to be expelled. Dana: You are comparing oranges and apples in my opinion. Marietta willingly joined up the DA, saw with her own eyes what they did and it was nothing more then learning defensive spells and not dark magic to defeat any enemy but if she truly believed them to be dangerous then again she made a political decision to get personally involved in the termination of these students and therefore it makes her decision far more then that of an innocent child and it should therefore not be judge like that. Harry truly believed that Draco was planning something dangerous and his judgment was right. It was not like he and Draco had planned something together and then he sold out the plan to wipe his own slate clean, like Marietta did. But besides that Harry did not just tell on Draco to get Draco in to trouble he tried to warn a person that he trusted that Draco was into something that really could posse a risk. Harry knows that DD is not going to send Draco to Azkaban or torture him or just expell him. Snape (and all his fans) always seems to forget his own responsibilities in the actions he takes and the prank as far as we know was nothing more then Sirius telling Snape how to get to Lupin and Snape eagerness to get the Marauders expelled (so before the prank materialized) was what made him go after Lupin. No one made Snape act on this information then Snape himself and therefore if he had gotten killed then it was indeed his own fault. James prevented it but Snape ran to DD anyway hoping that his story was enough to get all the Marauders out of his hair once and for all. Besides it is only Snape that stated that the Marauders played a trick on him, Lupin doesn't say Snape was tricked into following him just that Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape how to get there. He actually states "of course Snape would tried it", indicating to me specifically that it was Snape's own choice to go there. And he still after 20 years tried to punish (with success) the Marauders what they did to him while actually he did it to himself. Curiosity killed the cat and Snape at 16 should have known better for 1) never listen to your personal enemy 2) for not knowing what he could find as he knew Lupin disappeared every month and he saw Lupin being brought to a murderous tree by the school nurse 3) making his personal vengeance more important then common sense 4) not meddle with things that are none of his business. And what did Snape learn from his mistakes? He still meddles with things that are none of his business (well unless he is expected to do so then suddenly he can control his urges), he still puts his personal vengeance above common sense, he still makes wrong conclusion of information he receives and he still listens to a supposed to be enemy and lets himself be tricked. Great lessons learned Severus Snape but that is what you get when you never take your responsibilities for your own actions and blame the rest of the world if things go wrong due to the choices you make for yourself. Well at least he is sophisticated enough to even make his fans believe he is never responsible for anything. It was his bad childhood and him being bullied. Those bad Marauders did not even bully him in the right way because it did not work for Snape as he failed their lessons so miserably. Can't be their teaching methods it just did not work for poor Snivellus. If Sirius should have been expelled then so should Snape for meddling with official school business and being out of bounds. Snape did not know about the marauding they did with werewolf Lupin so he surely could not have acted on the supposed dangers the Marauders put the students and the villagers too and therefore he could not have acted on them supposedly being dangerous. And if he did then he is a big fat lair in PoA for not knowing that Peter was the rat Ron was holding. JMHO Dana From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 17:47:13 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:47:13 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > My question is, what do all of you think the WW will be like at that > point? Will Scrimgeour still be Minister for Magic, or will it be Mr. > Weasley or someone else (Percy, LOL)? I expect that Hogwarts will have > made some progress toward House unity, with the stigma removed from > Slytherin (please, JKR), but what about the WW? Obviously, Muggles > won't be part of it... Colwilrin: Funny you bring this up as I was just thinking about it while reading OOP last night. In the books, Ron is what I like to call my "voice of truth". He tends to blurt out things that seem comical or silly on the face...then later, you read back and see that he was foreshadowing the truth. I don't have the canon for specific examples right now, but this thought has been supported by many posts to this site. I have gotten to the point where whenever Ron says something that makes me giggle...I highlight it. Last night I highlighted a phrase where Ron said that something was as likely to happen as "my father being made Minister of Magic". That made me stop and think. Arthur may seem bumbling and distracted at times, but Dumbledore could also appear that way. What about Arthur as Minister? Then, I remembered the chapter of HBP where the MOM visits the Muggle prime minister. That chapter never really made complete sense to me before. Why even devote an entire chapter to this...especially one in the beginning of the novel? It must be important. Muggle and Wizard relations must be important. Then I thought about the sorting hat, encouraging everyone to join together, sides that are normally not as one. I think that was a school illustration of the larger concept of Muggles and different Wizarding people to stand together. Finally, in each successive novel, we have seen the wizard world encroach further into Muggle life...with larger "messes" caused by magic (good and bad) to be dealt with. It started with a loose snake in SS/PS, then a flying car in COS, in POA a fugitive with no harm done and one floating aunt, in GOF muggles being carried about by DE, in OOP a demeantor attack on a muggle in broad daylight, and finally in HBP outright muggle killings and large scale disasters. It is not a big stretch that JKR may try to bring the two worlds into one with great, if not full, awareness of each other by the end. Now, who would be the perfect person to run the ministry in this new age of enlightenment? The established ministry member with the most skill and knowledge of muggles of course...Arthur Weasley. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 18:17:51 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:17:51 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <11333133.1180714872367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169628 > From: Steve > >My sympathy for Marietta is limited because, conflicted > >loyalties or not, she really had no underlying > >justification for her actions against people who were > >trying to help her. > > Bart: > I am going to go as far as to say the overwhelming majority of the people here are in agreement on two points: > > 1) The initial punishment of Marietta was reasonable. > 2) The fact that it continued into (was allowed to continue into) the next sememster was not. > > Bart > Lanval: *raises hand* I'm certainly in agreement on both. One more thing though, just because I've seen it mentioned at least twice now in the discussion: is there any canon that Marietta's pimples (yes, that's what they're called in HBP, not pustules, and I don't recall them ever described as 'oozing sores'...) are still there at the end of HBP? The only reference I can think of is at the very beginning of HBP, on the train, which would make it September 1. We know she ratted out the DA sometimes in April, just before Easter. So that would make it about four and a half months. Meaning that "Marietta still is disfigured more than a year later" should be considered conjecture and has no support in canon, unless I've overlooked it, of course. The theory that she's improving, on the other hand, has *some* support (horrible purple pustules have become "an odd formation of pimples" that are hidden under a thick layer of make- up; no more balaclava.). Anyhow, the notion that 'Hermione has permanently disfigured Marietta' remains IMO unfounded until proven. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jun 1 18:23:39 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:23:39 EDT Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169629 Betsy Hp: And that is something the > Trio has shown they don't have a grasp of yet. Marietta, for > example, has been punished without benefit of a trial. Hermione > removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per Hermione, Hermione is more > equal than Marietta, because Marietta is "other" and not quite as > human as Hermione is. Nikkalmati Can you possibly explain how Marietta could have been given a trial? Besides this is not a matter of breaking a law, unless it is the law of the playground. We have been told in other threads that the worst thing one can do at this age is rat on your friends (and I wrote a post expressing the opinion that the real theme of the books is loyalty not love). Marietta did that and exposed her friends or at least her "friend" Cho and a lot of people she knew to expulsion. That much was foreseeable. In fact, the consequences could have been much worse, but I won't insist on that. In the WW expulsion from Hogwarts is pretty much a life-long punishment. Everyone in the DA knew they were taking that risk by the time the group had met. Hermione was not self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. She set a trap. Anyone who set it off was clearly guilty of a violation of the contract. The result was automatic, like having your water or phone cut off for nonpayment. IMHO Hermione did give enough warning - in the context of the WW - that there would be "consequences" for exposing the DA. Maybe the penalty would have been a more effective preventative if she had explained more clearly, but it did work. Umbridge says when Marietta saw the pimples on her face, she refused to say any more. The memory charm was necessary only because Umbridge was about to take extreme measures against Marietta. I don't see any real excuse for Marietta. There is evidence that her mother works for the Ministry, yes, but no sign she consulted her mother or that her mother put pressure on her. Nikkalmati Alla: We will just agree to disagree here, although probably to a degree. I do not subscribe completely to dan(?) idea that JKR supports anarchists values that strongly, but I think to a degree she does. I think she shows that in corrupt system justice needs to be taken in own hands sometimes. Of course there is always question of the degree and when it is taken too far. IMO of course. Nikkalmati Setting a trap of this type in the RW would be illegal, but the WW is more Libertarian. Everyone is expected to look out for him or herself more or less. I certainly agree the JKR supports direct action in cases where it is warranted. The stakes here are very high. It is not fair to look at the DA as a study group, regardless of what some of the members thought. We know it is a strike against LV and an attempt to save the world. It was an emergency situation. Nikkalmati . > Betsy Hp: > Which is easy. Of course Bellatrix and Fenrir and Voldemort are bad > and deserving of punishment. One doesn't tolerate the killing of > children, torture, murder, etc. (Though that doesn't or shouldn't > allow one to torture and murder in turn.) > > But Marietta is not a Voldemort supporter. Zach Smith is not a > Voldemort supporter. Rita Skeeter is not a Voldemort supporter. And > yet, Harry and co. all enjoy (and sometimes seem to rather relish) > the physical and emotional pains they put those characters through. > Why is that okay? Because they're different enough, in their > beliefs, in their methodologies, that they register as "other". Nikkalmati Marietta is not being attacked for her beliefs or her political opinion. She suffers from the consequences of what she did. Nikkalmati Montavilla47: > A better example: Snape is frustrated because Harry doesn't give him respect. > But Harry doesn't give Snape respect because Snape started their relationship by > humiliating him. If Snape had showed an even basic respect for Harry, Harry > would have returned basic respect in return. Whether they hated each other or > not would be irrelevant. Alla: I am not sure I understand the relevance of this analogy. Because in my view Snape did not give Harry basic respect precisely because he hated him. So, how can their hatred (now mutual) can ever be irrelevant to the evaluating potential tolerance between them? JMO, Alla Nikkalmati I know we are poles apart here. Snape asked some hard questions of Harry, which he did not expect him to be able to answer and made a few remarks about "fame isn't everything." I don't see that as lack of respect. What Harry did was show lack of respect for a teacher. Now don't get me wrong, I thought his remark about "why don't you ask Hermione, I thing she knows" was hilarious and I still get a chuckle out of it, but it is clear Harry has a smart mouth for a first year student and an arrogant attitude - what I would call a chip on his shoulder. In my school (ages ago) a student would be sent to the principal for answering back to a teacher (one 4th grade teacher liked to rap students' knuckles with a ruler, ow! ,but not me of course)) Remember, we don't know and Harry doesn't know, Snape has any reason to hate Harry in SS/PS. JMHO Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 18:34:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:34:42 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169630 > Nikkalmati > > I know we are poles apart here. Alla: Yes, we definitely are. Nikkalmati: Snape asked some hard questions of Harry, > which he did not expect him to be able to answer and made a few remarks about > "fame isn't everything." I don't see that as lack of respect. Alla: I characterise it as slandering Harry at the very least, so yeah, I see it as a lack of respect, moreover I always compare it to the attack of the vicious dog on the innocent kid. So, yeah, poles apart :) Nikkalmati: What Harry > did was show lack of respect for a teacher. Now don't get me wrong, I thought > his remark about "why don't you ask Hermione, I thing she knows" was > hilarious and I still get a chuckle out of it, but it is clear Harry has a smart > mouth for a first year student and an arrogant attitude - what I would call a > chip on his shoulder. Alla: Sorry, but to me it is not clear at all that Harry has an arrogant attitude. It can be interpreted as Harry responding to the bully as well. It can also be interpreted that Harry never been to Wizarding school yet and having expectations from his muggle school that teacher truly wants to call on student who knows the answers and Harry truly wanted to help. Harry was not smirking, he was answering quietly. I do not see him being arrogant here at all. Nikkalmati: In my school (ages ago) a student would be sent to the > principal for answering back to a teacher (one 4th grade teacher liked to rap > students' knuckles with a ruler, ow! ,but not me of course)) Remember, we > don't know and Harry doesn't know, Snape has any reason to hate Harry in SS/PS. Alla: we don't know that Harry knows that Snape has any reason to hate him? Indeed we do not know, but I think we see plenty of reason for Harry to be sure that Snape hates him **after** this lesson. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 1 19:00:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:00:54 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169631 > Lanval: > *raises hand* I'm certainly in agreement on both. > > One more thing though, just because I've seen it mentioned at least > twice now in the discussion: is there any canon that Marietta's > pimples (yes, that's what they're called in HBP, not pustules, and I > don't recall them ever described as 'oozing sores'...) are still > there at the end of HBP? > The only reference I can think of is at the very beginning of HBP, > on the train, which would make it September 1. We know she ratted > out the DA sometimes in April, just before Easter. So that would > make it about four and a half months. Meaning that "Marietta still > is disfigured more than a year later" should be considered > conjecture and has no support in canon, unless I've overlooked it, > of course. The theory that she's improving, on the other hand, has > *some* support (horrible purple pustules have become "an odd > formation of pimples" that are hidden under a thick layer of make- > up; no more balaclava.). Anyhow, the notion that 'Hermione has > permanently disfigured Marietta' remains IMO unfounded until > proven. Magpie: It's not proven, but it's certainly not unfounded. Had Marietta never been mentioned again after OotP I would have assumed the pustules went away. But since Rowling went out of her way to say they were still there a book later, why would I assume they'll go away unless I'm told otherwise? The information I'm given says they *don't* go away. I think it's logical to assume, having been told in HBP that they last from one book to another, that they will continue to do so until I'm told otherwise. If I had reason to believe they went away there wouldn't be an issue. Just as, forinstance, Harry showing Scrimgeour his scarred hand in HBP makes it clear that the scar isn't fading and is now just there. One could try to figure out whether an odd formation of pimples covered by heavy make-up is an improvement or merely what the same pustules look like when covered by heavy-make up which is there to cover them up, but that wouldn't be necessary if she wasn't shoved in our face again so that Harry could feel pleased. (That she's got them, not that she's improving, of course.) To go a step further, I don't think she should have pimples any more either. Everybody else's troubles cause by Marietta have been fixed. Her face can go back to normal, imo. For Hermione's sake as well as Marietta's. I think that given JKR reminded us that this was still going on it's reading against canon to think they went away. If she's never mentioned again I'll be left thinking that maybe they did...but I think I'd always assume otherwise. Why didn't JKR just leave it out or tell us they're going away if not to say they weren't? I can't believe she really expected us to read the thing in HBP and run back to OotP to split hairs between the baclava and the heavy-make up. I assumed she just found different ways to cover it up and found more make-up over the summer. Dana: Marietta was at the meeting in the Hogs Head right? So she was informed about what the DA was going to do so she could have made a choice right then and there. And if she made up her mind to not be part of this group any longer because she didn't believe in the philosophy of this group then she was free to leave at any time. So why did she not just do that? Why did she need to rat them out. Was there a need for her to do so just because she did not believe in the DA anymore? Magpie: We don't know, since we're not in her pov. She didn't like the group already when she signed up before it was illegal, but it certainly makes sense to me that she might have felt a *growing* problem with it that made her finally disclose it. You don't have to convince me that she should have walked away right then. I don't think she did anything right the whole time. I'm not defending the fact that she did it, but I can believe she thought she should report them rather than just stop going to the meetings. I don't really know what the deal was beyond the hints Cho starts to give. I might not think her reasons for doing it justified doing it. I'd probably still want the pimples off her face now and have trouble with Hermione's hex. Dana: Marietta ratted them out because she was afraid that she would be associated with them if Umbridge found out through other means and if you are right that she did not want to oppose the Ministry because she did not believe Harry's and DD's claim that LV was back, then she made a political decision to hand them over to the Ministry. She did not merely told on her fellow students but told on a group believing in a different truth then the Ministry did. Magpie: We don't know that Marietta ratted them out because she was afraid taht she would be associated with them if Umbridge found out any more than we know anything else. Though that's certainly a possibility. It would be a cowardly reason for ratting them out, definitely. But you can say it's the canonical reason. It's just the reason you've given yourself. Dana: You are comparing oranges and apples in my opinion. Marietta willingly joined up the DA, saw with her own eyes what they did and it was nothing more then learning defensive spells and not dark magic to defeat any enemy but if she truly believed them to be dangerous then again she made a political decision to get personally involved in the termination of these students and therefore it makes her decision far more then that of an innocent child and it should therefore not be judge like that. Magpie: But even if she did make a political decision in that she thought they were dangerous so can't be judged as a child, that still doesn't say whether she should be judged as being hexed the way she was for as long as Hermione decides. Dana: Snape (and all his fans) always seems to forget his own responsibilities in the actions he takes and the prank as far as we know was nothing more then Sirius telling Snape how to get to Lupin and Snape eagerness to get the Marauders expelled (so before the prank materialized) was what made him go after Lupin. No one made Snape act on this information then Snape himself and therefore if he had gotten killed then it was indeed his own fault. Magpie: First, there is probably nothing that "all of [Snape's] fans" all do. They're different and there are a lot of them. Secondly, no, I do not believe it would be Snape's own fault if he had gotten killed. I know what Snape's actions were, and trying to find out what the Marauders were doing to get them in trouble or for whatever reason would not make it Snape's fault if he was mauled by the werewolf. (If we're remembering Snape's responsibilities how about Sirius'--he's the one deliberately doing something expellable and dangerous--nobody owes it to MWPP to cover that up for him.) Sirius told Snape how to find out what they were up to so that Snape would run into a werewolf that Snape didn't know was there. That puts far more responsibility on Sirius. As Sirius himself knows. He's the one who decided Snape deserved it. Dana: James prevented it but Snape ran to DD anyway hoping that his story was enough to get all the Marauders out of his hair once and for all. Besides it is only Snape that stated that the Marauders played a trick on him, Lupin doesn't say Snape was tricked into following him just that Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape how to get there. He actually states "of course Snape would tried it", indicating to me specifically that it was Snape's own choice to go there. Magpie: You don't know how any of this went down beyond what's in canon. And it's not only Snape who says they played a trick. Lupin says it was "a stupid prank." Nobody disagrees with Snape's version of events. It was not Snape's own choice to expose himself to a werewolf. That was not a forseeable risk. Dana: And he still after 20 years tried to punish (with success) the Marauders what they did to him while actually he did it to himself. Curiosity killed the cat and Snape at 16 should have known better for 1) never listen to your personal enemy 2) for not knowing what he could find as he knew Lupin disappeared every month and he saw Lupin being brought to a murderous tree by the school nurse 3) making his personal vengeance more important then common sense 4) not meddle with things that are none of his business. Magpie: He did not do it to himself. Nor did Sirius get himself killed, or Harry get himself to help get Sirius killed, or Ginny get herself to open the Chamber of Secrets or Dudley get his own tongue blown up. Even the Marauders aren't so disingenuous as to try to claim they don't know what a prank is and who was doing the pranking. Btw, why isn't it Hermione's fault that the DA got ratted out? Not only was she stupid enough to leave a list hanging up with everyone's name, why didn't she figure out that a person who so clearly didn't want to be there shouldn't be let in on secrets? The "if you were stupid enough to get duped it's your own fault" rule seems to get applied very selectively. Dana: And what did Snape learn from his mistakes? He still meddles with things that are none of his business (well unless he is expected to do so then suddenly he can control his urges), he still puts his personal vengeance above common sense, he still makes wrong conclusion of information he receives and he still listens to a supposed to be enemy and lets himself be tricked. Great lessons learned Severus Snape but that is what you get when you never take your responsibilities for your own actions and blame the rest of the world if things go wrong due to the choices you make for yourself. Magpie: I find it ironic you're talking about taking responsibilities for your own actions when you're blaming the victim so blatantly. Sirius didn't learn from his mistakes either. Neither did Lupin. Harry's still making a lot of mistakes too. He's even still making some of the same mistakes as Snape himself. Dana: Well at least he is sophisticated enough to even make his fans believe he is never responsible for anything. Magpie: *looks around at glass house* I wouldn't throw that stone. *whistles* Dana: If Sirius should have been expelled then so should Snape for meddling with official school business and being out of bounds. Magpie: That's creative. Meddling with official school business and being out of bounds has never been suggested to be an expellable offense. Roaming the countryside with a werewolf and endangering people actually might be. Not that it was--Sirius wasn't expelled. If I were a parent in the situation, with no child involved, I actually don't think I'd agree that the boy out of bounds deserves expulsion as much as the kid letting the werewolf loose. Again, not that either boy actually got expelled. Dana: Snape did not know about the marauding they did with werewolf Lupin so he surely could not have acted on the supposed dangers the Marauders put the students and the villagers too and therefore he could not have acted on them supposedly being dangerous. And if he did then he is a big fat lair in PoA for not knowing that Peter was the rat Ron was holding. Magpie: The fact that Snape did not know about the Marauding is kind of why he can't be said to have brought it on himself. But regardless, I don't see the point you're making. Snape didn't get Sirius expelled. He followed him to find out what they were up to. He would, even according to Sirius, have loved to have found something to get them expelled for, so obviously he wasn't clamoring for their expulsion just on his say-so. Later on *if* Snape demanded they be expelled (which does not actually appear in the book--all the stuff about Snape's response you've filled in yourself) afterwards it was for playing a deadly prank on him. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 19:19:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:19:39 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169632 Marion wrote: > > Yes, but the point I think sistermagpie was making is that if Rita had printed pure bollocks, and insulting, damaging and vicious bollocks at that, about, say, the Malfoys, then Harry and co would've loved Rita Skeeter. Rita would be seen as an ally and a friend and the fact that she prints lies for profit and political ends would not matter to Harry and Hermione in the slightest. > > Charles replied: > > Excuse me? We have already seen that Harry defends even those who have hurt him. Including Draco Malfoy. In COS, when Malfoy is being accused of being Slytherin's heir, and Harry is asked whether he thinks it is possible, he responds with a resounding no. Carol responds: Um, erm, have you read CoS lately? Harry doesn't defend Draco when Ron suggests that Draco could be the Heir of Slytherin. He accepts the suggestion. It's Hermione who's skeptical, not because she's defending Draco's goodness but because she doubts that he has that kind of power. Here's the exchange: "'Who can it be, though?' [Hermione] said in a quiet voice. . . . . 'Who'd *want* to frighten all the Squibs and Muggle-borns out of Hogwarts?' "'Let's think,' said Ron in mock puzzlement. 'Who do we know that thinks all Muggle-borns are scum?' "He looked at Hermione. Hermione looked back, unconvinced. 'If you're talking about Malfoy--' "'Of course I am!' said Ron. 'You heard him. '*You'll be next, Mudbloods*--come on. You've only got to look at his foul rat face to know it's him.' (Oops, Ron!) ''Malfoy, the Heir of Slytherin?' asked Hermione skeptically. "'Look at his family,' said Harry, closing his books, too. 'The whole lot of them have been in Slytherin: he's always boasting about it. They could easily be Slytherin's descendants. His father's definitely evil enough." "'They could've had the key to the Chamber of Secrets for centuryies!' said Ron, handing it down, father to son. . . .' "'Well, I suppose it's possible,' said Hermione. "'But how do we prove it?' said Harry darkly" (SS Am. ed. 138-39, ellipses in original). The whole reason that HRH brew and take the Polyjuice potion is to spy on Draco, suspecting or believing him to be Slytherin's Heir. (He, of course, turns up his nose at the idea that *Harry* could be Slytherin's Heir despite Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue.) As of CoS, Harry regards Draco as his "archenemy" (8), and when the Twins suggest that a fellow student could have sent Dobby to Harry as a joke to prevent him from attending Hogwarts, both Harry and Ron immediately suspect Draco as being the prankster. "He hates me," adds Harry (29). I think that Harry's attitude toward Draco is beginning to change as of GoF: not that he likes him any better, but he sees him as less of a threat, not so much an "archenemy" as an annoyance--someone who relies on his father's power to make mischief to try to get Hagrid fired. But I can't think of an instance in which he defends Draco. They're still hexing each other in the hallways as of OoP. He thinks that it would be a terrible thing to humiliate someone by turning them publicly upside down to reveal their underwear--unless the person was Draco Malfoy. In HBP, Harry (unlike Ron and hermione) stops underestimating Draco, rightly suspecting that Draco has taken his father's place as a Death Eater, but having been Petrified and had his face trodden on by Draco after rather stupidly spying on him on the Hogwarts Express, he's in no mood to defend him (not that he would defend such a decision in any case). As of CoS, Harry is as ready as Ron to suspect Draco of any crime based solely on his being in Slytherin and his belief in pureblood supremacy. (Ron adds his appearance, which on a rereading suggests Peter Pettigrew without the fat body.) By HBP, he has better cause to suspect him--knowledge that he supports Voldemort and wants revenge for his father's imprisonment. But he also learns (by accidentally almost killing him) that he doesn't want Draco dead and feels for the first time a touch of pity for him when he sees that Draco, despite the terrible pressure on him, can't bring himself to kill Dumbledore. But he still holds Draco in contempt for his prejudice against Muggleborns and his support of Voldemort. Carol, expecting Harry and Draco to reach some sort of understanding in DH but thinking that Harry's forgiveness of his enemies is still a work in progress as of HBP From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 19:29:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:29:44 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169633 > Dana: > Snape (and all his fans) always seems to forget his own > responsibilities in the actions he takes and the prank as far as we > know was nothing more then Sirius telling Snape how to get to Lupin > and Snape eagerness to get the Marauders expelled (so before the > prank materialized) was what made him go after Lupin. No one made > Snape act on this information then Snape himself and therefore if he > had gotten killed then it was indeed his own fault. James prevented > it but Snape ran to DD anyway hoping that his story was enough to get > all the Marauders out of his hair once and for all. Besides it is > only Snape that stated that the Marauders played a trick on him, > Lupin doesn't say Snape was tricked into following him just that > Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape how to get there. He actually > states "of course Snape would tried it", indicating to me > specifically that it was Snape's own choice to go there. Alla: What do Snape fans have to do with this argument? No, really, aren't we discussing fictional character of Snape and not his fans? Moving on to fictional character of Snape, I agree with you that unless Snape was bound and gagged and/or put under Imperio ( and that is certainly possible), **nobody** forced him to go there and he certainly has to be responsible for his own action. But unless we will learn that Snape is implicated in that night in more sinister way, and as you know, I am a big fan of speculation that Snape learned who Remus was before that night and went there at least partially for a reason of killing werewolf and showing everybody how great he is in Dark Arts, unless we learn that, I still say that Snape did not deserve to die. I mean with the hindsight within the story, sure, I maintain a lot of people would have benefitted if Snape dropped dead, but not based on that point in time. He and only he is responsible for his own curiosity, but this responsibility to me does not rise to the level of being dead for his curiosity. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 1 19:45:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:45:22 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169634 > Alla: > > I characterise it as slandering Harry at the very least, so yeah, I > see it as a lack of respect, moreover I always compare it to the > attack of the vicious dog on the innocent kid. So, yeah, poles > apart :) Pippin: Whoa! In what way is being asked a few questions by a school teacher the same as being attacked by a vicious dog? Snape's instruction to the class to write all this down shows that in fact he doesn't expect anyone to know the answers. What is Harry's attitude? That he should only be asked questions about things he knows and that there is something shameful about admitting he doesn't know things that many of the other students don't know? That *is* arrogant. Harry's reaction to his underserved (at this point) fame is to think he should live up to it. That's a laudable ambition... or it would be if Harry's reputation was as positive as he thinks it is. He doesn't know his reputation includes prospective leader of the Dark Forces. Whatever else you want to say about Snape's first class, it squashed that rumor so thoroughly that it didn't surface again for a year, by which time Harry was far better equipped to cope with it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 19:51:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:51:23 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169635 > > Alla: > > > > I characterise it as slandering Harry at the very least, so yeah, I > > see it as a lack of respect, moreover I always compare it to the > > attack of the vicious dog on the innocent kid. So, yeah, poles > > apart :) > > Pippin: > Whoa! In what way is being asked a few questions by a school > teacher the same as being attacked by a vicious dog? Alla: In metaphorical way, Pippin, in metaphorical. I should have said though - I see it this way after reading OOP and HBP. I always hated what Snape did to Harry on his first lesson, but such a strong metahor came to me rereading the books in light of the later ones. But now when I reread PS/SS - oh **Yes**, vicious dog, absolutely. IMO of course. Pippin: > Snape's instruction to the class to write all this down > shows that in fact he doesn't expect anyone to know the > answers. What is Harry's attitude? That he should only be asked > questions about things he knows and that there is > something shameful about admitting he doesn't know things > that many of the other students don't know? That *is* arrogant. Alla: We disagree on that. Pippin: > Harry's reaction to his underserved (at this point) fame is > to think he should live up to it. That's a laudable ambition... > or it would be if Harry's reputation was as positive as he > thinks it is. He doesn't know his reputation includes > prospective leader of the Dark Forces. Whatever else > you want to say about Snape's first class, it squashed > that rumor so thoroughly that it didn't surface again for > a year, by which time Harry was far better equipped to > cope with it. Alla: I do not see the relevance of this paragraph. My point is that Snape insinuated Harry enjoying his celebrity status and that he had no right whatsoever to do that, if he had any decency in him or any remorse, that's all. JMO. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Jun 1 20:03:07 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:03:07 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169636 > Pippin: > Whoa! In what way is being asked a few questions by a school > teacher the same as being attacked by a vicious dog? It was the tone of the questions. > Snape's instruction to the class to write all this down > shows that in fact he doesn't expect anyone to know the > answers. What is Harry's attitude? That he should only be asked > questions about things he knows and that there is > something shameful about admitting he doesn't know things > that many of the other students don't know? That *is* arrogant. No, but Snape's attitude clearly implies that Harry is foolish for not knowing the answers to the question. Snape was asking them to make Harry look stupid in front of the class. While there is nothing shameful in not knowing the answers, I think there is something shameful about a teacher picking on a student for his lack of knowledge on the first day of class. >Whatever else you want to say about Snape's first class, it squashed > that rumor so thoroughly that it didn't surface again for > a year, by which time Harry was far better equipped to > cope with it. For a lot of people that doesn't exactly make it okay. Phoenixgod2000 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 20:47:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:47:36 -0000 Subject: "Our new celebrity" (Was: On Children and the "Other" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169637 Alla: > > I do not see the relevance of this paragraph. My point is that Snape insinuated Harry enjoying his celebrity status and that he had no right whatsoever to do that, if he had any decency in him or any remorse, that's all. Carol responds: Just a teeny little point since I agree with Pippin and there's no point in repeating her arguments. "Slander" seems a bit strong here, as does the "vicious dog" metaphor. I don't think Harry saw it in those terms. He only teached the conclusion that Snape hated him, as opposed to merely disliking him, after the whole class was over (Neville's melted cauldron, the unfairly docked point, and all). I'm not sure that he would have arrived at that conclusion based on the questioning alone. (And I agree with Pippin that his response was cheeky; Slughorn would have liked it, but Snape doesn't tolerate cheek.) But to get to my point: Snape does have reason to believe that Harry is enjoying his (unearned) celebrity status. He has just observed the opening feast, at which the whole of Gryffindor stands up and cheers for Harry (as for no other student). "'[Harry] was so relieved to have been chosen and not put in Slytherin, he hardly noticed that he was getting the loudest cheer yet. Percy the Prefect got up and shook his hand vigourously, while the Weasley Twins yelled, "We got Potter! We got Potter!" " (SS Am. ed. 121-22). Regardless of Snape's motives, the questions established that "our new celebrity" was just as ignorant as the rest of the class, Hermione excepted, and may well have spared Harry the burden of being followed around by a herd of adoring Colin Creeveys in his first year. It seems to me that Harry's preconceptions about Snape and Slytherin, shaped by his encounters with Draco and by the comments of Hagrid and Percy, not only colored his perception of this first class (and Snape's class in general) but led him to mistake the motives of both Snape and "p-p-poor, st-stuttering P-Professor Quirrell." And, for both Harry and some readers, those preconceptions seem to be strengthened no matter how many times Snape protects Harry or saves his life. Carol, who thinks that Snape's sarcasm in the classroom hurts him more than it hurts Harry, who quickly develops a near-immunity to it From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 1 23:17:41 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:17:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12910474452.20070601161741@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169638 Colwilrin: c> Funny you bring this up as I was just thinking about it while reading c> OOP last night. In the books, Ron is what I like to call my "voice of c> truth". He tends to blurt out things that seem comical or silly on the c> face...then later, you read back and see that he was foreshadowing the c> truth. Dave: I guess the "classic" example is in _CoS_ when they're wondering what Tom Riddle won his "Award for Special Services" for, and Ron says, "Maybe he killed Myrtle -- That would have done everyone a favor." And guess what -- He *did* kill Myrtle! (Albeit via the Basilisk) Dave From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 23:25:58 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:25:58 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169639 > >>Betsy Hp: > > And that is something the Trio has shown they don't have a grasp > > of yet. Marietta, for example, has been punished without benefit > > of a trial. Hermione removed Marietta's right. IOWs, as per > > Hermione, Hermione is more equal than Marietta, because Marietta > > is "other" and not quite as human as Hermione is. > >>Nikkalmati: > Can you possibly explain how Marietta could have been given a > trial? Betsy Hp: Hermione's a clever girl, I'm sure she'd have thought of something. And that's the flippant answer. More seriously, if you're going to condemn someone to be branded across their face, quite possibly for life, at least for a rather long period of time, and you don't give them a chance to argue against it, you are a tyrant. And tyrants definitely see themselves as more equal than others. > >>Nikkalmati: > Besides this is not a matter of breaking a law, unless it is the > law of the playground. Betsy Hp: Yes. A law Hermione has broken herself a time or two. > >>Nikkalmati: > We have been told in other threads that the worst thing one can do > at this age is rat on your friends (and I wrote a post expressing > the opinion that the real theme of the books is loyalty not > love). Betsy Hp: One may only claim the "innocence" of childhood if one's retaliation retains the innocence of childhood. You start branding other people on the face, you've lost your "I'm just a kid!" pass. IMO, anyway. When Harry and Ron shunned Hermione after she snitched on them in PoA they were operating within the "school yard" arena. But when Hermione put a secret curse on a parchment for the purpose of base vengence, she'd left the school yard far behind her. IMO. > >>Nikkalmati: > Marietta did that and exposed her friends or at least her "friend" > Cho and a lot of people she knew to expulsion. > Betsy Hp: Who are the quotes meant for? Cho or Marietta? I'm pretty sure they're supposed to genuinely like each other. Cho has certainly shown herself loyal. Frankly, I think Marietta has shown herself loyal as well in that she doesn't appear to blame Cho for the mess she's in. > >>Nikkalmati: > Everyone in the DA knew they were taking that risk by the time the > group had met. Hermione was not self-appointed judge, jury and > executioner. She set a trap. Anyone who set it off was clearly > guilty of a violation of the contract. Betsy Hp: It's funny how close Harry came to springing the trap himself. (At this point, I wish he had. Might have been nice for the Trio to get a little taste of their own medicine.) But Hermione was *exactly* a self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. She was just really, really secretive about it. Because she knew best. And because none of the other kids were really real to her. (Of the Trio, I think Hermione is the one who honestly has the hardest time seeing other people as valid.) > >>Nikkalmati: > > I don't see any real excuse for Marietta. > Betsy Hp: Of course you don't. Marietta was never given a chance to provide one. Cho tried, but Harry refused to listen. > >>Nikkalmati: > It is not fair to look at the DA as a study group, regardless of > what some of the members thought. We know it is a strike against > LV and an attempt to save the world. It was an emergency > situation. > >>Goddlefrood: > > The WW most probably would have been similar in that when a state > of emergency is declared basic rights and freedoms that might > otherwise be taken for granted fly out of the window. > Betsy Hp: The thing is, the WW has been in a constant state of emergency since they first went underground, taking their beasts and insects with them. The main purpose of the MoM is to keep the WW secret, to keep it safe. So *of course* the natural state of things is paranoia and a deep, deep distrust and fear of "others". (This may explain why there is so little of the humanities and arts and sciences in the WW.) On the most basic level, for wizards the "others" are muggles. And as Arthur Weasley has told us, wizards have long felt that muggles were and are "lesser than". That belief is propagated within the school itself, as exemplified by the different policies followed when an injured student has muggle parents or wizard parents. (Hermione is the poster-girl for firmly identifing with one side and rejecting the "other". She barely sees her parents at all and apparently lies to them the few times they do get together.) But the wizards are also cut off from each other. As we see with the Weasleys, families stick with each other, their children not socializing until arrival at Hogwarts. And Hogwarts further seperates wizards from each other with their House system. So we've got this society that's *always* in a state of emergency for some reason or another. They're encouraged to distrust and fear anyone that might be different from them. It's no wonder the Trio have yet to learn any kind of tolerance or empathy. They've been encouraged to do the opposite. "Trust no one" is the WW mantra. No wonder Voldemort found it such fertile ground for his campaign of fear and distruction. With very little prodding on his part the WW is *eager* to turn on each other and rip and claw until only the most brutal is left standing. The Trio are no exception. Yet. Which is why (as I think houyhnhnm pointed out?) the WW seems doomed to always have a Dark Lord, and which is why the DA fell completely apart after the study group part of it was no longer needed. Unity cannot be achieved where distrust dominates. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 1 23:29:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:29:15 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169640 > > Pippin: > > Whoa! In what way is being asked a few questions by a school > > teacher the same as being attacked by a vicious dog? > > Alla: > > In metaphorical way, Pippin, in metaphorical. I should have said > though - I see it this way after reading OOP and HBP. I always hated > what Snape did to Harry on his first lesson, but such a strong > metahor came to me rereading the books in light of the later ones. > > But now when I reread PS/SS - oh **Yes**, vicious dog, absolutely. > IMO of course. Pippin: A metaphor for what? Ripper doesn't hate Harry. Presumably he was allowed to mistake Harry for a species of prey. But Snape has to make up an explanation for Bella about why he didn't at first perceive Harry as prey in order to excuse himself for not at once carrying out the unfinished business of GH. > Alla: > > I do not see the relevance of this paragraph. My point is that Snape > insinuated Harry enjoying his celebrity status and that he had no > right whatsoever to do that, if he had any decency in him or any > remorse, that's all. Pippin: What part do you see as Snape insinuating that Harry enjoys his status? I see an insinuation that celebrity status itself is distasteful. This strikes me as the old-school Brit attitude which Harry himself shares. He's certainly disdainful of Lockhart. Naturally Harry dislikes that Snape is exposing him to Draco's ridicule. But he doesn't realize that Draco wasn't ever going to be neutral on the subject of Harry Potter. Isn't it far better that Draco, who, as we've seen, really can be clever and dangerous on his own account, was deceived into thinking that Harry was a jumped-up celebrity instead of a real threat? Pippin noting that only the first of Snape's questions could not have been answered by anyone lacking a wizard education From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 1 23:39:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:39:44 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169641 Betsy: > Which is why (as I think houyhnhnm pointed out?) the WW seems doomed > to always have a Dark Lord, and which is why the DA fell completely > apart after the study group part of it was no longer needed. Unity > cannot be achieved where distrust dominates. > Pippin: Just a little aside to this post, which I largely agree with. I don't think we can safely say that no one except Cho was offended by Hermione's trick. I can state from unfortunate personal experience that Brits won't always tell you straight out when they're offended. Take the way the House Elves react to Hermione's hat tricks. They don't let her know they're offended, they quietly go about their business as usual, only their business no longer includes cleaning Gryffindor Tower. I can see the DA reacting in similar fashion. No one is going to be so direct as to tell Hermione they disapprove of her; they go about their business, but it no longer includes responding to the coins. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 2 00:11:45 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:11:45 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169642 "Anna" wrote: > Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about > favorite Ron moments. houyhnhnm: I can't think of a lot of specific favorite Ron moments, but I like Ron. I think the movies have done him a great disservice by taking his best lines and putting them in other characters' mouths. I like the fact that he is the only Weasley child who doesn't habitually disrespect his parents. He's the thoughtful one. I like the fact that he is a good chess player. Most of all what I like about Ron is the dignity with which he bears being poor and playing second fiddle to Harry. He doesn't repress his bad feelings about it. He owns them and deals with them. I guess my favorite Ron moments would be the two Uranus jokes. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 00:36:41 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:36:41 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Um, erm, have you read CoS lately? Harry doesn't defend Draco when Ron > suggests that Draco could be the Heir of Slytherin. He accepts the > suggestion. It's Hermione who's skeptical, not because she's defending > Draco's goodness but because she doubts that he has that kind of > power. Here's the exchange: Charles: Yes I have. Have you? Here is the scene I referred to: "That Draco Malfoy character," said Ernie, breaking off dead twigs, "he seems very pleased about all this, doesn't he? D'you know, I think he might be Slytherin's heir." "That's clever of you," said Ron, who didn't seem to have forgiven Ernie as readily as Harry. "Do you think it's Malfoy, Harry?" Ernie asked. "No," said Harry, so firmly that Ernie and Hannah stared.(CoS 352) Harry defended Malfoy when he knew the truth. I know you don't like it, but it is there in black and white. Carol again: The whole reason that HRH brew and take the Polyjuice potion is to spy on Draco, suspecting or believing him to be Slytherin's Heir. (He, of course, turns up his nose at the idea that *Harry* could be Slytherin's Heir despite Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue.) Charles again: I'll let this quote answer for me in part: "D'you want to tell me what's wrong with stopping a massive snake biting off Justin's head?" he said. "What does it matter how I did it as long as Justin doesn't have to join the Headless Hunt?" "It matters," said Hermione, speaking at last in a hushed voice, "because being able to talk to snakes was what Salazar Slytherin was famous for. That's why the symbol of Slytherin House is a serpent." Harry's mouth fell open. "Exactly," said Ron. "And now the whole school's going to think you're his great-great-great-great-grandson or something ?" "But I'm not," said Harry, with a panic he couldn't quite explain.(CoS 258) Ron isn't turning up his nose here, he admits the possibility. He doesn't however accuse Harry of a crime. They're *friends* Carol. I don't know about you, but *I* am certainly not in the habit of hanging out with people that I would quickly accuse of attempted murder. I would probably defend my friend if another made the accusation, unless some *SERIOUSLY* damning evidence came to light. Of course Harry and Ron are ready to suspect Draco. He's racist against the very group being attacked. HELLO, big red flag! He says "You'll be next, mudbloods!" Immediately after an attack. POP! Flag two! In all of this, not once do I remember him or any of the trio accusing *Snape*, who also tends to be considered their enemy, of anything. Why? He didn't make threats connected with the crimes, nor does he go about the castle spitting out racist epithets. Draco had, and that was suspect activity. Charles, who still can't believe that people think suspecting someone who made threats is wrong. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 01:05:55 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:05:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler Message-ID: <380-220076621555203@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169644 Carol: > Um, erm, have you read CoS lately? Harry doesn't defend Draco when Ron > suggests that Draco could be the Heir of Slytherin. He accepts the > suggestion. It's Hermione who's skeptical, not because she's defending > Draco's goodness but because she doubts that he has that kind of > power. Here's the exchange: Charles: Yes I have. Have you? Here is the scene I referred to: "That Draco Malfoy character," said Ernie, breaking off dead twigs, "he seems very pleased about all this, doesn't he? D'you know, I think he might be Slytherin's heir." "That's clever of you," said Ron, who didn't seem to have forgiven Ernie as readily as Harry. "Do you think it's Malfoy, Harry?" Ernie asked. "No," said Harry, so firmly that Ernie and Hannah stared.(CoS 352) Harry defended Malfoy when he knew the truth. I know you don't like it, but it is there in black and white. Magpie: But that indicates something a little different than what's going on (to get back to Rita's issues.) They're trying to find out who the Heir of Slytherin is and so is Harry. He knows Malfoy isn't. That way is a dead end. And he says it forcefully because he's just spent weeks brewing an illegal Potion and knocking out Malfoy's friends, justifying it on the fact that what Malfoy was doing was worse than what they were doing. It's a little embarassing. Harry prefers the truth to lies. But he's not "defending Malfoy' by saying he's not the Heir any more than Malfoy is "defending" Harry by saying that Harry isn't the Heir--which he also is doing in the book. It's not the principle of saying something about Malfoy that isn't true that Harry has a problem with. He had no problem assuming Malfoy was the Heir without proof, after all. Carol again: The whole reason that HRH brew and take the Polyjuice potion is to spy on Draco, suspecting or believing him to be Slytherin's Heir. (He, of course, turns up his nose at the idea that *Harry* could be Slytherin's Heir despite Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue.) Charles again: Of course Harry and Ron are ready to suspect Draco. He's racist against the very group being attacked. HELLO, big red flag! He says "You'll be next, mudbloods!" Immediately after an attack. POP! Flag two! In all of this, not once do I remember him or any of the trio accusing *Snape*, who also tends to be considered their enemy, of anything. Why? He didn't make threats connected with the crimes, nor does he go about the castle spitting out racist epithets. Draco had, and that was suspect activity. Charles, who still can't believe that people think suspecting someone who made threats is wrong. Magpie: Suspecting him isn't wrong--knocking out his friends and invading his privacy could be considered so, since they didn't have any proof. They just knew Malfoy was on board with what the Heir was doing--which isn't any more proof than the "proof" that Harry was because he was a Parseltongue etc. I don't know about the WW and warrants etc., but based on my Law & Order education, if Harry and Ron were cops I don't think any evidence gained from that Common Room scene would have held up in court.;-) But the point is, it's not like Harry says, "Hey Ron, you know, people think I'm the Heir based on the proof that I talk like the Heir. I would be angry if somebody Polyjuiced into you two and invaded my privacy because I was the Heir and they wanted me to confess it." No, of course not. There's nothing wrong with Ron accusing Malfoy even if he has no actual proof, just a reason for his own suspicion. Nor is there anything wrong with Ernie accusing Malfoy for the same reason. Harry's loud "no" is a reference to his own weeks spent running around throwing firecrackers and stealing Potions ingredients and brewing stuff and being Goyle and almost getting caught in the Slytherin Common Room. Not the need to defend Draco from a false accusation. Sure Harry generally tells the truth. He has no desire to let Ernie think Malfoy's the heir on some vague idea it might cause trouble for Malfoy. But nor is he on the lookout to make sure people don't accuse his enemies of things without proof. - From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 1 19:24:07 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:24:07 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169645 > >>Brady: > ...in OotP where Ron is at his best: > (loyalty and humour) > > 'I'll make Goyle do lines, it'll kill him, he hates writing,' said Ron > happily. He lowered his voice to Goyle's low grunt and, screwingup his > face in a look of pained concentration, mimed writing in midair, 'I... > must... not...look... like... a... baboon's... backside.' lizzyben04: Quite ironic considering Umbridge's later punishments. She makes Harry write lines, in blood, with almost the same phrasing ("I must not tell lies"). ELFY NOTE: lizzyben04, could you please contact the list elves at the owner address? The owner address is HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Thanks! -- Oopsie Elf From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 01:37:31 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:37:31 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: <22938439.1180714455465.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169646 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/169611 > > Goddlefrood: > > Hence my view that there is no separation of powers, as > > there would be in many, but not all, real world nation > > states, in the wizarding world. > Random832: > And, notably, not Britain itself, where the executive is > the leader of the majority party and the court of last > resort is the upper house. Goddlefrood: I'll give you 3 out of 10. The executive authority resides de jure in the Queen, although no exercise of veto has taken place for some centuries. The Law Lords, part of the House of Lords constitute the Court of last resort, which is now complicated somewhat by the EC and its various Courts. In the WW the Wizengamot is both the Judiciary and the Legislature. It also appears to perform executive functions. In other words the law body, which also has arms, such as the Council of Magicla Law, effectively controls governance in the WW much as had happened in the real world of England before 1692 strangely enough when the Royal Court (not a jurisprudential body if any wondered) governed the country. Scotland joined the Union only in 1707 but had followed a similar system as England. > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/169616 > Bart: > Well, there WAS the time called, depending on who you are > talking about, the Civil War, the War Between the States, > and the War of the Slaveholder's Rebellion (sorry, carryover > from my time in the adult game industry). And, there was > the better remembered interrment of Japanese nationals and > citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII (I'll spare you > the list of alternative names). Goddlefrood: Both are examples of states of war, which are rather different from states of emergency. It was, in my divination a state of emergency that prevailed in the WW during the latter part of the first rise of Voldemort, that may well be where the 11 years came from ;-) > Bart: > Not a good analogy; Guantanamo Bay is a POW camp. What makes > it unusual is that the people are being kept as prisoners of > war Goddlefrood: It was not an analogy, but rather a swipe at the less than human rights being given to those detained there, contrary to the Constitution of your otherwise fine country. I do kind of agree with Bart about the various Conventions discussed earlier and also stating Wikipedia may be a first resort, but should not by any means be thought of as authoritive, as it simply isn't. Check out the Witenagemot entry and I'll go further in to this ;-) Goddlefrood who recognises the WW legal system as similar to the prevailing system in the benighted isles of some centuries ago, where a few quid would keep one out of trouble, whereas Lord Levy is a diffent matter altogether ;-) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 02:25:48 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 02:25:48 -0000 Subject: Marietta/Seamus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > How do Draco and Dumbledore know about the enchanted coins? > Dumbledore mentions this "*secret* (emphasis mine) method > of communication the group that called themselves Dumbledore's > Army used" on the tower and Draco agrees, "Yeah, I got the idea > from them." > From whom, exactly? You have to wonder if Marietta, like Sirius > before her, isn't serving as patsy for another, unsuspected spy. zanooda: Is this a hint to Lupin :-)? Anyway, I think DD could find out from Sirius and Lupin. They knew about DA and Harry could have told them about the coins and other details about DA (except for the name, I guess) during Christmas break. It's more complicated with Draco. Maybe after DA was no more and especially after Umbridge was out of school, it was safe to talk about it. Draco could overhear some DA members talking about it among themselves or to other kids. After all, he did overhear Harry and Hermione talking about Filch and love potions and used this information. This is all I can think of so far. I personally would like to know where the list of the DA members is now (last time we saw it in DD's hand IIRC). Maybe, as some people suggested, without the hexed parchment it is impossible to find the countercurse. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 03:34:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:34:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta/Seamus Message-ID: <380-220076623341646@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169648 Pippin: > How do Draco and Dumbledore know about the enchanted coins? > Dumbledore mentions this "*secret* (emphasis mine) method > of communication the group that called themselves Dumbledore's > Army used" on the tower and Draco agrees, "Yeah, I got the idea > from them." > From whom, exactly? You have to wonder if Marietta, like Sirius > before her, isn't serving as patsy for another, unsuspected spy. zanooda: Is this a hint to Lupin :-)? Anyway, I think DD could find out from Sirius and Lupin. They knew about DA and Harry could have told them about the coins and other details about DA (except for the name, I guess) during Christmas break. It's more complicated with Draco. Maybe after DA was no more and especially after Umbridge was out of school, it was safe to talk about it. Draco could overhear some DA members talking about it among themselves or to other kids. After all, he did overhear Harry and Hermione talking about Filch and love potions and used this information. Magpie: This is an interesting question...I suspect JKR just figured she could glide over it saying that when the DA was known everything about them could be known. But since it is Draco I he does at least seem to consistently be interested in stuff going on and watching stuff that Harry & Co. do. I could imagine him intentionally trying to find out everything about the DA he could. I mean, he must have learned how to reproduce and slightly change the coins too, using the charms that Hermione had changed herself. It still doesn't explained just how he got this information, but I can vaguely fill it in just thinking that he seems social and nosy about everyone. Klepto!Draco exists only in the medium that must not be named, but I can imagine him nicking a coin off someone in the group to study and figure out how it worked. (I also think Draco made the Potter Stinks booby trap badges in GoF with Hermione specifically in mind, thinking she would be the one to try and change them.) - From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 03:38:08 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:38:08 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: <380-220076621555203@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169649 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Sure Harry generally tells the truth. He has no desire to let Ernie think > Malfoy's the heir on some vague idea it might cause trouble for Malfoy. But > nor is he on the lookout to make sure people don't accuse his enemies of > things without proof. Charles: And that puts him on the moral level of Rita how? Of course he isn't running around defending everyone who gets wronged by lies or in any other way. I've shown more than one way that he is *not* on the moral level of Rita, and all that we've accomplished is to drag it back to the polyjuice argument that we had last year. Is Harry Potter perfect? Hell no, perfect people make for boring books. Every truly interesting hero is a person first, and a hero second. One of the things that has always impressed me about Harry is how real JKR has made him. Real people don't run around trying to defend the people who are making life miserable for them. Real people also get disgusted when reporters like Rita publish tripe about people, whether they are enemies or not. Let's turn this around. Show me some canon that shows Harry actively supporting something like Rita. I really don't think you can, because I don't think it is there. Charles, wondering why "innocent until proven guilty" never applies to Harry in this group. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 2 03:26:36 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:26:36 -0400 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169650 "Dantzel: I think that on these lists, people are not always supported 'vocally' because it's assumed that someone else will do it, but I also think that Marietta earned her punishment. YES it's acne and YES it'll be psychologically damaging... hmm. I think human beings are somewhat selfish, and that in such situations, if you are trying to fight for a cause, you have to protect 'your own', and if someone turns on you, you have a responsibility to the others and yourself to know who it was and to know who you can trust. Now, if Hermione had devised a spell that would chop the sneak's hand or tongue off, that would be more serious." Exactly; nobody ever died of acne. And Marietta deserved to have something nasty happen to her. You don't rat out your friends. It just is not done. 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 bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 2 03:32:17 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:32:17 -0400 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169651 "Carol, thinking that Marietta, like Percy, is deluded rather than evil and should be judged accordingly, especially given her youth" It seems that SOME PEOPLE expect 'old heads on young shoulders' when it comes to the Trio, but are willing to forgive other student's failings on the grounds of youth. 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 bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 2 03:30:26 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:30:26 -0400 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169652 "Carol responds: If Harry didn't see their hands, it seems probable that Marietta didn't, either. Harry didn't tell anyone except Ron and Hermione about his punishment, and it isn't common knowledge even among the DA members. similarly, Marietta would not have been in Lee's DADA class since she's a Ravenclaw and apparently a sixth-year like Cho (which explains why she shows no concern about her DADA OWL), not a Gryffindor seventh-year like Lee. If such punishments were well-known, I don't think students would be laughing at that particular decree." In a closed community like a convent, prison, ship at sea, or boarding school, no secret remains secret for long. That's Sociology 101. 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 klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 2 04:27:15 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:27:15 -0000 Subject: The Epilogue and the post-DH WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > What do you think of this brave new world? Have I got it all wrong? > What do all of you think the WW will--or should--be like as of 2007? > There is so much prejudice in these novels that you have to hope that it is all addressed in some fashion. Having it all go away would be too trite for her adult readers, this one included. Some significant beginning steps in that direction would be nice. On re-reading it all it is obvious that while there are few real plot clues that would help you guess what will happen, there are tons of things that in retrospect point in the right direction without being understandable as clues at the time. One thing that jumped out at me was Lockheart's wish for understanding between magical and non-magical peoples. Ordinarily I would think this is a clue but I believe Rowling has said that the two worlds will not be united. I guess I would hope that the WW will internally start to show more respect for Muggles while still maintaining their secrecy. Does Wolfsbane work for Muggles? I don't know. Magic seems to work on and for Muggles when the plot wants it too, but not otherwise. It is a consistent inconsistency in the novels. I expect that something will be done for Werewolves in the epilogue and whether it makes perfect sense or not I suppose it will include Muggle Werewolves. Once they have their furry problems under control I suppose they would be ideal for work in Muggle relations. And even though secrecy isn't totally breeched perhaps there will be more need for Muggle Relations in the post Voldemort WW. The secrecy statute is a bit of a joke anyway, there are so many Muggles who are in on it already. Ken From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 04:28:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:28:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler/Marietta Message-ID: <380-2200766242820656@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169654 Sistermagpie: > Sure Harry generally tells the truth. He has no desire to let Ernie think > Malfoy's the heir on some vague idea it might cause trouble for Malfoy. But > nor is he on the lookout to make sure people don't accuse his enemies of > things without proof. Charles: And that puts him on the moral level of Rita how? Of course he isn't running around defending everyone who gets wronged by lies or in any other way. I've shown more than one way that he is *not* on the moral level of Rita, and all that we've accomplished is to drag it back to the polyjuice argument that we had last year. Is Harry Potter perfect? Magpie: Who on earth put Harry on the moral level of Rita to begin with? Or said anything about him being perfect? The whole reason I responded to your interpretation of CoS is that it seemed like you were making Harry too perfect in a moment where he was being more funny than noble. I would think the part that you quoted *from me* showed that I do not think Harry is Rita Skeeter. That paragraph didn't slip out accidentally. I considered it an actual part of Harry's character. If we keep bouncing back and forth between extremes we're never going to get anywhere close to canon. Harry is not Rita Skeeter. Neither is he the "perfect" boy scout who rushes to defend the honor of his enemies against unfounded accusations. (I also pointed out that Draco Malfoy was not "defending" Harry when he said that Harry wasn't the Heir of Slytherin.) As I explained, what I said was that Rita makes Harry and his friends angry by printing stories that are slanted in ways that Harry doesn't like and sometimes cause them actual trouble. The only place I even linked Harry and Rita vaguely at all was to say that if there were another reporter committed to the Order's cause who instead wrote stories to support interpretations that helped them, I think she would be a good guy. I still think this is true. I even gave a specific example of something like the "true" House Elf story as far as Hermione was concerned, or an article that said Hagrid was the best teacher ever rather than one everyone was afraid of. I was talking about the press and how it works and what reporters do. I didn't accuse Harry of anything. I don't know or remember what Polyjuice argument you're referring to. It's possible that if you explained it we'd have it all over again. Oh well. Charles: Real people don't run around trying to defend the people who are making life miserable for them. Real people also get disgusted when reporters like Rita publish tripe about people, whether they are enemies or not. Magpie: Right and neither does Harry. Charles: Let's turn this around. Show me some canon that shows Harry actively supporting something like Rita. I really don't think you can, because I don't think it is there. Magpie: I don't really want to turn it around, because it's unrecognizable to me at this point. I don't think that would help. Charles: Charles, wondering why "innocent until proven guilty" never applies to Harry in this group. Magpie: Since *I* made no accusations to Harry (I really don't think my speculation that a reporter working for the Order could be a good guy is much of an accusation), I don't know. Though you yourself seemed to be leaning towards "guilty until proven innocent" earlier in talking about CoS. But maybe I'm wrong. So regardless, let me try to drag this back to what I was actually saying. We were talking about Rita. It was brought up that Rita deserved to be blackmailed because she printed lies. I said that Rita didn't print lies, exactly, but facts and insinuations to create the story she wanted--she made Harry and his friends more angry sometimes with her use of truth than outright lies. I also said that what Rita did many in the press actually do--it's often how the press works (and blackmailing them is I believe illegal). And that led for me to speculate--and I still hold to this based on what I've seen of Harry's reactions to things--that if there was a reporter committed to the Order agenda who printed articles that were always helpful to Harry and the Order, using the same skills Rita uses for her agenda, that he would be a good guy. It wasn't an attack on Harry. If you wonder why Harry's considered guilty until proven innocent, I wonder why so often claims that Harry's great because he's not perfect are so often followed by offense at perceived criticism that suggests he's not perfect. Or in this case, not even that. From what I actually thought I was saying. Carol: thinking that Marietta, like Percy, is deluded rather than evil and should be judged accordingly, especially given her youth" Bruce: It seems that SOME PEOPLE expect 'old heads on young shoulders' when it comes to the Trio, but are willing to forgive other student's failings on the grounds of youth. Magpie: Is that supposed to be directed at SOME PEOPLE on the group who will know who they are? Should I know if it's me? Because it sounds like calling somebody out. Bruce: In a closed community like a convent, prison, ship at sea, or boarding school, no secret remains secret for long. That's Sociology 101. Magpie: Except for stuff like Harry fighting a basilisk in the school basement? I seem to recall that wasn't known by most of the DA. (In itself an orgnization that managed to be secret until Marietta told.) Or the fact that Tom Riddle opened the CoS and not Hagrid? Or that Ginny Weasley was strangling roosters? Or that the Marauders were Animagi running around with a werewolf once a month. That's Harry Potter 101. The rumor mill grinds and jams according to what needs to be known and what should be secret. Bruce: Exactly; nobody ever died of acne. And Marietta deserved to have something nasty happen to her. You don't rat out your friends. It just is not done. Magpie: Oh, so if nobody's dead it doesn't matter? Why all the fuss about Umbridge then? Nobody ever died from having their hand cut, so what's the problem? Sure Harry didn't deserve anything nasty to happen to him, but if it's barely a big deal and all... Oddly, in my school if there was somebody who ratted on their friends, and somebody who marked somebody's face with potentially permenant pustules, it's the second person who would be considered the psycho. It just wasn't done. Not that I can't understand the impulse to want to make Marietta suffer with acne. I admit every time I read "it's only acne" it seems like tempting some Acne God to take that as an invitation. -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 04:34:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:34:25 -0000 Subject: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169655 'Q: And how vital is book four in the whole seven book series to Harry? JKR: Crucial. The fourth is a very, very important book. Well you know because you read it, something incredibly important happens in book four and also it's literally a central book, it's almost the heart of the series, and it's pivotal.' From: "JK Rowling talks about Book Four," cBBC Newsround, 8th July 2000, extracted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2353000/2353505.stm (Part 1 of 4) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, certainly in the top 6 best Harry Potter books to date ;-). Lord Voldemort returns to a corporeal form, we meet the Death Eaters properly, the Order begins to assemble and many more events with which we are all familiar. The part of GoF that particularly interested me, some may be surprised to know, was the matters in the Pensieve. Being interested in the workings, or rather lack of workings, of the legal system in the WW I have been pondering on these matters. I do not propose to describe them much, nor do I intend to examine what they tell us of the legal system, or lack thereof, in the WW. Rather I hope to cause discussion on what we might be able to divine from them in terms of what may happen in DH as a result and what has happened previously in the WW. This will exclude the Longbottom / Lestranges issue as my personal view is that Neville will take care of the six-gilled shark but not necessarily of the Lestranges. He might, but I think it too obvious and JKR is anything but obvious in her story as countless failed theories pre-HBP and earlier would attest. Karkaroff's proceeding is first. He is already dead so will play little part in DH. He does, however, mention several other DEs of whom all, other than Mr. Multiplicity, are dead or in Azkaban having been participants in the DoM raid. Mad- Eye Moody at this point has both his eyes intact, and although he says that Rosier took a chunk out of his nose we have not so far been informed what happened to his eye or his leg. Question 1 - Who or what accounted for Mad-Eye's lost eye and his leg? Question 2 - Does only Voldemort know who all his Death Eaters are? Question 3 - (As there are many Snape fans, including me in terms of him as a character) - Why was Karkaroff so firmly convinced by implication that Severus remained loyal to Lord Voldemort? Ludovic Bagman comes next. His is a short and almost wholly biassed proceeding in thatb his popularity, IMO, sways the Council of Magical Law into not imprisoning him, although the had been caught for the offence of 'passing information to Voldemort's supporters'. To me Barty Crouch Snr asking for a vote on improsonment suggest he had been convicted of his offence. The rattling chains have been discussed here at HPfGU previously, are there any thoughts about them? My own are that the chair in the procededing chamber acts like a dark detector in that if there is guilt that chair can assist in detecting it. Maybe Bagman was accused of the wrong crime. Fwiw I am of the opinion that he is a Death Eater and will play a part, however short, in DH while being revealed as the enormous blond Death Eater from the amusement at Hogwarts. Question 4 - Why is Barty Crouch Senior so upset that Bagman escapes imprisonment? Question 5 - Any speculations out there over what the stories Rita Skeeter could tell us about why one's hair might curl due to Ludo could be? The third, and most interesting poceeding, to me at least, is against the Lestranges and the late and unlameneted Barty Crouch Jnr. I have a notion that Barty Crouch Jnr. may appear as a Dementor due to a theory I hold that Demenetors initially came about from being soulless wraith type creatures, very much akin to the ringwraiths in LOTR but able to breed. Question 6 - Where did Dementors originate and why have they left the service of the MoM other than inducements from LV? Perhaps the six-gilled shark drove them away, or they had some loyalty to Fudge but none to Scrimgeour. Question 7 - Will the Death Eaters in Azkaban come into play again or remain there? Question 8 - Who now guards Azkaban and why did DD seem to think it was safe during his discussion with Draco on the Tower? Question 9 - Just for the sake of it, justify why Neville would be the one to neutralise Bellatrix. Goddlefrood, looking forward to some discussion on these matters :-) From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 2 06:02:36 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:02:36 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169656 Alla: > What do Snape fans have to do with this argument? No, really, > aren't we discussing fictional character of Snape and not his fans? Dana: Everything because we were not just discussing fictional characters but how readers apply different moral standards and moral opinion to each fictional characters as well and fans do fixate on the notion that Snape could have died and that Sirius would have been to blame for it (as Carol specifically states that she is of the opinion that Sirius should have been expelled for it). If you actually apply what IS known in canon about that night then by no means can one blame Sirius for Snape entering the willow looking for Lupin. Because canon does not imply that Snape was tricked into going there by the people telling the story, it is only Snape that relays the story in that way. Lupin specifically states that he was not in the know and neither was James but yet Snape blames all of them for ending up there. After OotP the marauders bullying Snape tainted many people's impression of the prank but they left out the notion that the werewolf topic was part of the DADA exams. And when you then look back at what Lupin states that Snape was interested in where Lupin went *every* month and that Snape saw Lupin being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey one night, it should invoke the conclusion that Sirius had nothing to do with Snape willingly going to the willow, he just gave Snape information to get passed the willow. It is actually irrelevant what reason either Sirius or Snape had because it was Snape's own choice to go. Snape disregarded every warning sign that he came across and went anyway but suddenly it is Sirius fault if he had gotten killed. It is the reader in my opinion that applies double standards when it comes to characters in the books because when Snape tells another story of how he helped dispose of Black, he is suddenly lying. We actually see that Snape's recollection of how the marauders treated him is actually tainted because no one implies he was tricked into going after Lupin that night, he still holds the notion that all of them were in on it and it still is directing how he looks at Lupin, 20 years after the fact. He states that it was always 4 to 1 in HBP while canon gives an entirely different perspective on this as well. Not only do we see that Lupin did not bully Snape but he also implies he never did because it is specifically stated that he did not tell Sirius and James to lay off Snape but he made them feel ashamed about it at times. Yet when Sirius, 20 years after fact, states it would have serve Snape right it is suddenly proof Sirius wanted Snape dead and not just empty words because Snape still lives and Sirius can thus state what ever he wants because it never happened. It is hyperbolic statement and because no one knows what Sirius actually would have thought if Snape would have died that night; it is totally irrelevant to determine Sirius intentions of giving Snape that specific information. But we do see what Snape is capable of when it comes to taking his revenge but still no responsibility is put into Snape shoes and this indeed is a fans thing and not a canon thing because clearly DD's decision to make Snape promise not to tell gives a totally different indication on what he thought about the responsibilities each person had in the events of that night. Sirius responsibility lies with Lupin, he betrayed Lupin with telling Snape the secret on how to get passed the willow and I believe he paid dearly for it when Lupin was left out of the SK switch plan and he lost Harry because of it because DD believed he indeed was the Potters secret keeper and it made DD chose to place Harry with the Dursley's instead of giving Sirius a chance to raise Harry as the Potters intended it to be. Sirius did not get away from his responsibilities for the choices he made but Snape fans do eliminate Snape's responsibilities about going to the willow in the first place and later by acting the way he did towards Lupin and telling on his secret to his students to make Lupin pay for Snape losing his ultimate chance for revenge. I never stated Snape should have died that night but it would have been his responsibility and only his if he did. You can't just put the negative effects of personal choices onto others just because it is negative or could have led to death. It doesn't suddenly change the responsibility one had for making this choice. Harry for instance chose to go after what he thought to be Snape in an attempt to safe the stone and if he had gotten killed because of it, it isn't suddenly Hagrid's fault for making Quirrell's attempt to get the stone possible, by letting himself be tricked in telling how to get passed Fluffy. It isn't suddenly Hagrid's fault that the trio could get passed Fluffy because Hagrid gave Harry a flute. Hagrid feels responsible and Sirius does not but that doesn't change who actually had responsibility in meddling with things that were none of their business and if Harry had gotten killed because of it then it was not suddenly someone else fault for the choice he made to go after Snape (as he thought it to be him). And the same excuse is applied to Marietta for joining up the DA because she was dragged there by Cho. It was Marietta's own choice to come and join up and it doesn't matter if her choice was directed just out of friendship with Cho at first. Marietta ratted on the DA in April but the DA started some time before Christmas. The regulation that made the DA illegal was put up right after the first meeting in the Hogs Head but Marietta still stayed for at least 4 months. Just because the ratting out had a physical negative effect on her does not make her being a participant of this group not her own responsibility or that it was not her own choice to go to Umbridge. Hermione was not to blame for either one of these choices she just put a jinx on the paper that would come into effect if anyone decided to sell out their secret. The jinx was not personally directed at Marietta and it would have applied to Hermione herself as well if she had been the one going to Umbridge instead. Marietta brought it on to herself by making the choices she made and Hermione can't thus be blamed for the effect it had on Marietta. Marietta was not responsible for Umbridge choices after she revealled the information on the DA but just like Sirius her choices to tell did set of a rollercoaster of events that would not have happened if she had hold her tong. If you want to apply blame then on should put the blame of people's own choices with the person that made that choice in the first place and not put the blame into someone else's shoes because the consequences of these choices had a negative affect for the one making that choice. Alla: > He and only he is responsible for his own curiosity, but this > responsibility to me does not rise to the level of being dead for > his curiosity. I never said Snape deserved to die because of the choice he made about going after Lupin but it would nevertheless have been his own fault if it had happened and James prevented the worst outcome for both Snape's own choice and Lupin unwilling participation in it. The view of Snape not having any responsibility in what happened or could have happened is a fan thing because they like Snape and hate the marauders for bullying Snape, it is not a canon thing because if you would actually look at this with an open mind then it is not hard to see that Snape made the choices he made because he wanted it. Snape was not a 3 year old kid that was lured to a specific place with the promise he would find candy there. He was 16 years old and he did not only have Sirius information that could have directed his choices but he chose to disregard them anyway and go after Lupin. If it was just curiosity then so be it but I doubt that it was just because Snape wanting to know what Lupin was up to there. Because Snape could have gotten that information by other means then just go have a look. Putting Lupin's monthly disappearances next to a lunar chart would have done the trick without ever putting himself into harms way. Sirius responsibility would not have been in Snape's dead but Lupin's unwillingly participation in it because Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape the secret how the get passed the willow. If Snape never had gone there then Sirius still betrayed Lupin. JMHO Dana From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 08:06:06 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:06:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Children and the In-Reply-To: <32086481.1180705718162.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32086481.1180705718162.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <700201d40706020106t5f507b37o5e56ebcd44cf0ca1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169657 > lizzyben04: > >> See, this is where I disagree, & this is my fundamental problem with > >> the series. Under a real system of laws, EVERYONE is entitled to > >> fairness, respect, rights and tolerance. Everyone is protected by > >> those laws, and they should be applied equally and without > >> prejudice. That's the fundamental basis of our democracy, and our > >> Constitution. "All men are created equal, all endowed with the right > >> to life, liberty & happiness..." > > >Kemper earlier: > >That's not true, but it should be. EVERYONE is not entitled to _______ . > >Each group of persons has to fight for that right of entitlement. > > > >You quote from the US Declaration of Independence. White, male land > >(and slave) owners had to fight for their right to be independent of > >the British monarchy. > > Bart: > First of all, remember that Great Britain is NOT the United States. Even Canada still has a "Divine Right" based government, as opposed to the U.S.'s "Social Contract" style government (although American officials have a tendency to forget this once they're in the government). The point being that the Harry Potter novels take place in Great Britain, and there appears to be a British-style government. Kemper now: I did not forget. Remember how I wrote '/US/ Declaration of Independence'? I agree with Gavin that we aren't given enough info on what type of government the Ministry of Magic adheres to. > > Kemper: > >White men did not wake up one morning and think, "You know whose vote > >is missing and very much needed in today's elections? Women." Women > >had to fight for that right. It was not freely given. > > Bart: > Actually, in the United States, many states recognized the right of women to vote long before the U.S. Constitution was amended to recongize it. Kemper now: This is true. Sort of. In 1909, a total of three states/territories allowed women suffrage. Three is not many, it's few. By 1914, 'long before' the Nineteenth Amendment's ratification in 1920, nine states and a territory have granted suffrage; five of which were since 1912. In 1917, two years before ratification begins, 8 other states have granted some form of suffrage. That's 17 states and a territory. A fair amount. But many? So, are you saying that those 18 states went on their own to grant suffrage without any women fighting for it? Because that is what you seem to imply. Women fought political oppression. Similarly, I see, that Goblins fought Wizard oppression. > > Kemper earlier: > >Employers/bosses did not wake up one morning and think, "You know who > >has been working long hours for little pay? Labor. From now on, I'm > >going to pay them time and half if they work over say 40 hours a week. > > The 80 they have been working is way too much. I should give them 2 > >days off a week as well." Labor had to fight for the Fair Labor > >Standards > > Bart: > No, they didn't. They had to fight to be able to get monopolistic pricing for labor. The system is quite unfair to the individuals involved, but has a greater viability for the economy as a whole (while a free market is ideal, as with all anarchic systems, it quickly deteriorates into feudalism). Kemper now: Slavery has better benefit for the economy, but it, too, is quite unfair to the individuals involved. Unless, to touch on what you later mention, the individual is a house elf; psychologically incapable of needing/wanting anything more in life. If elves were paid a livable wage, how would that effect the Hogwarts' economy? > Kemper earlier: > >Emancipation was not freedom. The US Civil Rights movement existed > >because blacks, though free, were treated inhumanely and with > >disregard. Whites did not wake up one morning thinking, "You know > >who's missing from my child's school? Black kids." Blacks had to > >fight for the rights whites' had. It was not given freely, or easily. > > Bart: > Actually, the rights of blacks were officially recognized. The problem was that they were not recognized on an unofficial level. In other words, the problem was not so much in the laws, but in the lack of enforcement of the existing laws. Kemper now: Again, emancipation was not freedom. It was not the lack of enforcement of the law, it was the blatant disregard of the law. So what did blacks have to do? Fight for their civil rights. > Bart: > There has been much written about this, but let's just take a look at canon. Giants are expected to be stupid. Therefore, giants are not educated. Therefore, giants are stupid. Look at how far Hagrid got with Grawp in only a year or so, and that was taking an adult giant, who grew up in savagery. ... Kemper now: I don't think that's quite right. Giants are expected to be violent. Trolls are expected to be stupid. With regards to education, Giants do not seem accustom to holding that institution in any esteem. It is not a Wizard's place to impose an educational system upon a different culture. > >Kemper: > >The Elves need to initiate the fight for their rights to live without > >ties to a wizard. > > Bart: > But they're psychologically incapable of doing it. As I pointed out, the problem is > not that Hermione tried to fight for their rights; it's that she tried to fight for the WRONG rights. Kemper now: It seems as though we are arguing on the same side of this issue... but I could be wrong. What are the 'wrong' rights she tried to fight for? And what would the 'right' rights be? Kemper From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 08:48:44 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:48:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706020148q5e2aa451la5f2372ca8e97ebd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169658 > Goddlefrood asks: > Question 5 - Any speculations out there over what the stories > Rita Skeeter could tell us about why one's hair might curl due > to Ludo could be? Kemper now: It's late, so I'm just going to touch upon this question. I originally felt as though JKR was going to use Ludo as a contrast to Severus. 'The jovial guy everyone likes but who turns out to be crazy evil' vs 'The socially retarded dick that everyone hates but who turns out to be oddbally good'. Back to your question... Ludo seems to have a gambling problem, so maybe he kidnapped and sold some Muggle kids to a bunch of childeaters, Ogres (I know they aren't beasts incorporated in the series but I'm going to go ahead with it) childeaters for sure) or to the werewolf, Fenir, to bite or to eat. I think that would make Harry's hair curl. It would me. Not that identify with Harry, an Unique Boy and not an Everyman. Kemper, who liked Goddlefrood's thought on the rattling chains chair From toonmili at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 10:57:19 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:57:19 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169659 I used to say that Snape and Tonks would make a nice couple just to be funny but now I think there might be something there. There might have been a relationship in the past or Snape is attracted to Tonks. Here's what I found. * Tonks entertains Hermione and Ginny by changing her nose. One of the changes Harry thinks looks like Snape's nose. It could be that she was just making fun of stuck up old Snape or she could be making fun of an ex. * But what really got me was HBP. When she brings Harry to the gate. First thing he does is call her Nymphadora. I think he does this to annoy her cause she doesn't like the name. If he wants to annoy her it could be Snape being Snape or it could be him teasing an ex. But he has a history of calling women he likes names that they don't like. But I'll point out that she doesn't react the same way she did when Remus called her that. In OOTP, she cringed. When Snape calls her Nymphadora in HBP she does not react to it. Or it could be that it was what he always called her. Then Snape says he was interested to see her new Patronous. Which begs the question, what was the old one and why was he interested to see the new one. He then shuts the gate in her face - this is an angry reaction if you ask me. Why would Snape be angry because her patronous changed to werewolf? He then says with malice in his voice: "I think you were better off with the old one. The new one looks a bit weak." So he knows the new one represents Remus, so he must have noticed that Tonks loves Remus but the big question is why should he care? Why did he take joy in taunting her about Remus, it doesn't seem to be his style? He never taunted Harry about the memories he saw of Cho, so why get so personal with Tonks? Then there's Tonks look of shock and anger. If she is shocked, why? Why would she not expect that of him? So it could be that they dated. I don't know if they did have a relationship or if Snape hopes for one but I'm starting to think that there might be something there. Remus liked Lily, so who knows he and Snape could have the same taste. I think they could be a nice couple. He is dark and gloomy, she is bright and cheerful. They'll complement each other well. They are both halfbloods And I think Snape could use a woman who's not dead. I have been trying to find a suitable candidate for ages. I'm a huge Snape/Lily shipper but I think I just found a new ship. The only problem is for this ship to work Remus has to die or get rejected, which might not happen. Do you think they'll make a nice pair? Toonmili From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 12:53:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:53:23 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler In-Reply-To: <380-2200766242820656@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169660 > Magpie: > Since *I* made no accusations to Harry (I really don't think my speculation > that a reporter working for the Order could be a good guy is much of an > accusation), I don't know. Alla: NO, but the argument that had Rita been printing lies that Harry and Co would like, **they* would have supported her sounds like an accusation to me. It was your argument, was it not? Sorry if it was not. I mean, we are entitled to make any accusations against characters, so I see nothing wrong with it, but yeah, I would like some canon that Harry would have supported the reporter printing something like Rita Skeeter. Mgapie: > So regardless, let me try to drag this back to what I was actually saying. > We were talking about Rita. It was brought up that Rita deserved to be > blackmailed because she printed lies. Alla: Since originally I think it was a response to my post, I have to say - NO. I did not say that or at least was not planning to. I said or at least was trying to say that I **understand** and sympathise why Hermione blackmailed Rita, not that she deserved to. Magpie: And that led for me to speculate--and I still hold to this based > on what I've seen of Harry's reactions to things--that if there was a > reporter committed to the Order agenda who printed articles that were > always helpful to Harry and the Order, using the same skills Rita uses for > her agenda, that he would be a good guy. It wasn't an attack on Harry. Alla: Eh well, okay, but to me Harry supporting doing what Rita does - **is** a negative action no matter to whom it is referred. It is your right to point that out that you think is possible. I think it is not and think that your speculation is **NOT** supported by the canon or since it is speculation, I should say not canon rooted, that's all. JMO, Alla, From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 2 13:06:00 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:06:00 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169661 toonmili wrote: > > I used to say that Snape and Tonks would make a nice couple just > to be funny but now I think there might be something there. > > > First thing he does is call her Nymphadora. I think he does this > to annoy her cause she doesn't like the name. If he wants to > annoy her it could be Snape being Snape or it could be him > teasing an ex. But he has a history of calling women he likes > names that they don't like. > > But I'll point out that she doesn't react the same way she did > when Remus called her that. In OOTP, she cringed. When Snape > calls her Nymphadora in HBP she does not react to it. Or it > could be that it was what he always called her. > colebiancardi: Snape calls all the adult women by their first names. I think he is just formal like that. He doesn't call Bellatrix "Bella" nor Narcissa "Cissy" either. > > Do you think they'll make a nice pair? > colebiancardi: nope. really haven't thought about it, but now that you brought it up - I don't see anything there. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 2 13:42:11 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:42:11 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169662 Dana before: Because canon does not imply that Snape was tricked into going there by the people telling the story, it is only Snape that relays the story in that way. Dana now: Before everyone starts falling over me I should correct that Lupin called it a trick too. Which still did not take Snape's free choice in my opinion but just to be fair he did state it. Dana From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 2 14:04:28 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:04:28 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169663 > Dana before: > Because canon does not imply that Snape was tricked into going there by > the people telling the story, it is only Snape that relays the story in > that way. > > Dana now: > Before everyone starts falling over me I should correct that Lupin > called it a trick too. Which still did not take Snape's free choice in > my opinion but just to be fair he did state it. > colebiancardi: sure Snape had free will; so did Sirius when he set Snape up. So did James when he saved Snape's life. Sirius DID mean for harm to come to Snape; James recognized it and Lupin did as well - Lupin thought it was not Sirius's shining moment there. It was a trick; Snape told the truth there; Lupin backed him up. colebiancardi From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 14:35:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:35:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler?Prank and various responsibilities Message-ID: <380-22007662143538171@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169664 > Magpie: > Since *I* made no accusations to Harry (I really don't think my speculation > that a reporter working for the Order could be a good guy is much of an > accusation), I don't know. Alla: NO, but the argument that had Rita been printing lies that Harry and Co would like, **they* would have supported her sounds like an accusation to me. It was your argument, was it not? Sorry if it was not. I mean, we are entitled to make any accusations against characters, so I see nothing wrong with it, but yeah, I would like some canon that Harry would have supported the reporter printing something like Rita Skeeter. Magpie: No, it wasn't. I think that's far too extreme to suggest that, for instance, if Rita Skeeter printed an article that Snape...I"m trying to think of some horrible libelous thing that Snape hasn't done, and yet everything I come up with is something Harry seems to think he has--lol! But I gave clear examples of what I was talking about, like when I said that Hermione, imo, would not have a problem with a reporter printing the story of Crouch and Winky the way *she* saw the story rather than the way Winky did. Or, for instance, if a reporter printed a story that made Snape responsible for getting Sirius killed. I don't think Harry would have the same problems with that, though I he might have some twinges of it's not being exactly true. The point was about the nature of truth and our own povs taking precedent and seeming more true, not that Harry supports deliberate smear campaigns in the press. Mgapie: > So regardless, let me try to drag this back to what I was actually saying. > We were talking about Rita. It was brought up that Rita deserved to be > blackmailed because she printed lies. Alla: Since originally I think it was a response to my post, I have to say - NO. I did not say that or at least was not planning to. I said or at least was trying to say that I **understand** and sympathise why Hermione blackmailed Rita, not that she deserved to. Magpie: Yes, you're right. I knew that at the time but I mentioned it sloppily there. Magpie: And that led for me to speculate--and I still hold to this based > on what I've seen of Harry's reactions to things--that if there was a > reporter committed to the Order agenda who printed articles that were > always helpful to Harry and the Order, using the same skills Rita uses for > her agenda, that he would be a good guy. It wasn't an attack on Harry. Alla: Eh well, okay, but to me Harry supporting doing what Rita does - **is** a negative action no matter to whom it is referred. It is your right to point that out that you think is possible. I think it is not and think that your speculation is **NOT** supported by the canon or since it is speculation, I should say not canon rooted, that's all. Magpie: I think it's rooted in Harry liking to have people say stuff that supports the way he likes to hear it because that's the more important truth, imo. For instance, he doesn't like Rita printing an article about Hagrid that says everyone is terrified of him. But he also doesn't like Hermione making any comments about Hagrid having flaws as a teacher. I have a very hard time imagining Harry reading an article where Rita had completely praised Hagrid and said all the kids felt about his class the way Harry does and that there was never any issues with the anmals, and getting upset about it because it's not really true. I think he would probably acknowledge to himself that it wasn't completely true because try as he might he's never been able to completely deny his own doubts about the class, but if Malfoy protested I think Harry would say he thought the article was great and would be happy to be quoted in it saying everybody loved Hagrid. It's never happened in canon so I can't say it is canon, but it that seems more in character than a Harry who had a problem with an article like that. That's what Rita does. She takes certain facts and spins them one way or the other. Harry did not like the "Monster-Crazed Teacher Running Amock" spin, but I can't conceive of him protesting a "Lovable Giant the Kids' Favorite!" spin. Dana: Harry for instance chose to go after what he thought to be Snape in an attempt to safe the stone and if he had gotten killed because of it, it isn't suddenly Hagrid's fault for making Quirrell's attempt to get the stone possible, by letting himself be tricked in telling how to get passed Fluffy. It isn't suddenly Hagrid's fault that the trio could get passed Fluffy because Hagrid gave Harry a flute. Hagrid feels responsible and Sirius does not but that doesn't change who actually had responsibility in meddling with things that were none of their business and if Harry had gotten killed because of it then it was not suddenly someone else fault for the choice he made to go after Snape (as he thought it to be him). Magpie: The weird thing is that I agree with most of your examples. The problem is that--and I think this is what you're accusing other people doing--you are still drawing a magic circle of no responsiblity around certain characters. A prank is a prank. It's someone intentionally taking steps to make something happen based on things they know about a situation and the people involved. Sirius doesn't make Snape go into the tunnel, but Sirius set up the situation to lure Snape into the tunnel, based not only on Snape's character as he knew it but on Snape's lack of information. *Sirius* knew what Snape would be facing--that was the whole part of the joke (which I think was supposed to scare Snape, not kill him--I don't think this is an attempted murder). Snape did not--you seem to be re-writing things so that Snape did know, which would make it a different thing, but canonically so far he didn't. Or else you're making Snape's stupidity at not knowing as good as his knowing, which I don't think holds up. It's perfectly possible Snape didn't know Lupin was a werewolf--no one involved seems to suggest that he did. If Snape was going into the tunnel intentionally trying to face off with a werewolf, obviously Sirius now bears less responsibility since all he did was tell Snape how to do what he was making an informed decision to do. But that's not a Prank, and that's what everyone agrees that it was. Snape was supposed to be surprised by what he found in the tunnel and get scared, which would be funny. As in, "You want to know what we've got in there so much, here you go!" In that case Snape didn't know he was facing anything deadly--why should he, when he was doing exactly what Sirius did, as far as he knew? That does give Sirius responsibility, a responsibility he himself never denies. He thought Snape deserved to get Pranked for being nosy and trying to follow them, so he used Snape's ignorance of the werewolf and MWPP being Animagi to trick him into a situation beyond what he thought he was getting into. Yes, he used Snape's own bad intentions against him. Most if not all cons do. But that doesn't make the con artist not the one pulling the con. Marietta, by contrast, holds sole responsibility for everything she did, obviously. The only place where she was tricked was into jinxing herself without knowing it--and if I were in the DA (meaning a DA member who wasn't a Snitch) I would have been furious to discover Hermione had tricked and hexed me the same way. Dana: The jinx was not personally directed at Marietta and it would have applied to Hermione herself as well if she had been the one going to Umbridge instead. Marietta brought it on to herself by making the choices she made and Hermione can't thus be blamed for the effect it had on Marietta. Magpie: Yes, it can. You're drawing that magic circle again, imo. Marietta is responsible for deciding to join an organization she already wasn't comfortable with and for ratting them out. Hermione is responsible for the hex, period. She's the one who worked it out and cast it and asked people to sign the paper without telling them it was there. Marietta's pustules don't spring up out of nowhere. They're not a natural response to what Marietta did, they were a hex placed by Hermione in pre-emptive revenge against someone crossing her. Hermione and Hermione alone's decision and responsiblity. And like Sirius, Hermione doesn't deny this. Neither does Harry. Neither of them wants to. They want credit for Hermione's sole responsibility for Marietta continuing to be disfigured. It shows what happens when you cross them. Dana: If you want to apply blame then on should put the blame of people's own choices with the person that made that choice in the first place and not put the blame into someone else's shoes because the consequences of these choices had a negative affect for the one making that choice. Magpie: Right, which is why Marietta gets blamed for joining the group and ratting the group out and Hermione gets blamed for her own hex. When I say that imo the hex has gone on too long, that opinion would go to Hermione, not Marietta. Hermione's the one in charge of the hex, not Marietta. I suspect if Hermione's mother knew anything about it she would say the same thing. (Obviously that's not a canonical assumption since I don't know.) Dana: Snape was not a 3 year old kid that was lured to a specific place with the promise he would find candy there. Magpie: Snape was actually very much like a three year old kid lured to a specific place with a promise he'd find candy there. Sirius was counting on that. I don't judge Snape as a 3 year old, but his being sixteen doesn't change the nature of the lure so much that it doesn't become a lure anymore. All the ways Snape could have found out that Lupin was a werewolf before that didn't happen (and seem far more obvious once you know the truth than they did before that--a werewolf at Hogwarts would probably have been considered an impossibility at that point). Snape was doing what Sirius did without bad consequences every month. Sirius' trick was based not just on Snape's lust for learning a secret of MWPP or getting them in trouble, but on his ignorance of the danger. If Snape understood the danger, there's no Prank. -sm (whose sign-offs have been magically disappearing lately so she's trying to make them longer) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 2 15:20:13 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:20:13 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169665 > > Dana before: > > Because canon does not imply that Snape was tricked into going there by > > the people telling the story, it is only Snape that relays the story in > > that way. wynnleaf The "trick" was in the form of giving Snape information to lead him into a life-threatening situation. In other words, Snape wasn't under Imperious (as far as we know), and he certainly knew the Whomping Willow was dangerous. What he *didn't* know (and here's the trick part) was that he'd be walking in on a werewolf. As regards whose "fault" the prank was, I think we have to remember several things. 1. Snape's motivation in wanting to get the Marauders expelled was justified at least in what we've been told in canon. Being repeatedly attacked by people who gang up on you and overpower you and who the school appears unable to stop *is,* in my opinion, a justifiable reason to want the bullies out of the school. 2. Snape had seen Pomfrey taking Lupin to the Whomping Willow. Since he clearly *still* thought, even with this evidence of school sanction, that Lupin was engaged in something that could get the Marauders expelled, he must have thought there was something going on which went beyond school sanction. In point of fact, Snape was completely correct. Perhaps he'd overheard the Marauders discussing their monthly excursions. They certainly were not circumspect about it. But they were doing something for which they technically *deserved* expulsion - running around endangering the countryside. When Sirius gave whatever info he did to Snape, Sirius *knew* that the Marauders were engaged in an offense worthy of expulsion. He also *knew* that the Marauders regularly attacked Snape. Therefore he *knew* that Snape had both a reasonable personal motive for getting them out of Hogwarts and that if Snape discovered the Marauder's monthly excursions, he'd be catching them in an offense that might truly get them expelled. So Sirius was offering Snape, a person with a justifiable reason to want the Marauders out of Hogwarts, the opportunity to catch them at an offense that could expel them. What Sirius didn't tell Snape, and what he knew Snape wasn't aware of, was that the discovery of such knowledge (what was in the Shrieking Shack) could get him killed. Sure, in order to act on Sirius' hints, Snape had to break a few rules like being out at night and approaching the Whomping Willow. What some posters are saying is that because Snape broke those rules, anything that happened to him was his own fault. Do we consider it Harry's fault if he gets hurt by the macanations of others at a time when he's breaking school curfew rules or other conventions? This isn't like Fluffy. When the Trio tried to get past Fluffy, if they'd been injured whose fault would it have been? Well, their own. The first time was an accident, but later, they already knew Fluffy was there and their decision to attempt to get past him was completely their own. But what about other times Harry has gotten into trouble while breaking rules or conventions? In OOTP, Harry is told by Kreacher and by Voldemort's visions that Sirius is gone from #12 Grimmauld and is at the MOM. Harry is being tricked, but he doesn't know it. Harry breaks rules and goes to the MOM on a quest which he believes has merit (saving Sirius). Is it Harry's *fault* that people were killed in the process? Yes, he bears *some* responsibility, but he acted because his purpose (saving Sirius) had merit. He broke school rules in order to go, but we wouldn't say "Harry broke rules in order to go to the MOM, so he's to blame for whatever occurred there." No, we tend to think his intent had merit, therefore his breaking of the rules was justified. And yes, I know there's a lot more to it in the MOM event, but I'm focused right now on Harry's "fault" through breaking rules in order to go to London. Snape, in my opinion, also had a good reason for breaking rules. Wanting a group of guys out of Hogwarts who attacked him regularly, ganging up on him, who (unknown to him) had a Map with which they could easily target him or any other kid, and whose behavior the school was obviously not able to control, *is* a reasonable motive for breaking curfew and the Whomping Willow rule. After all, Snape was only risking himself on this quest. And, in fact, Lupin and the other Marauders were also engaged in highly dangerous activities going beyond the bullying which deserved expulsion. Sirius used what he knew to be Snape's valid motivation to get them expelled (wanting those who attacked him to leave school), as a way to lure Snape into a life threatening situation. And before anyone wants to claim that the Marauders weren't really bullies and that the only evidence we have of it is the Worst Memory scene, please remember that JKR drew a direct line between James and the Marauders and Dudley and his gang of bullies, when she named James' rat friend "Peter," and named Dudley's rat-faced gang member "Piers" (yep, that means "Peter"). The Marauders, from the evidence of the Worst Memory scene, the Detention records, Snape's comments, Sirius' comment in POA that Peter was drawn to the "biggest bully on the playground," and JKR's tie-in to Dudley and his gang, were a gang of bullies. Snape had excellent reasons to want the Marauders expelled. Sirius knew he had good reasons. Sirius also knew they were doing something that *warranted* expulsion and that Snape was trying to discover it. Sirius gave Snape hints to get him to try to find out that offense, but tricked him by luring him into a life-threatening situation. Yes, Snape would have to break a couple of school rules. But breaking a couple of school rules, that didn't risk anyone else, is minor in the face of Snape's own good reasons for wanting the Marauders expelled, and in the face of Sirius desire to put Snape in a life-threatening situation. > colebiancardi: > > sure Snape had free will; so did Sirius when he set Snape up. So did > James when he saved Snape's life. Sirius DID mean for harm to come to > Snape; James recognized it and Lupin did as well - Lupin thought it > was not Sirius's shining moment there. > > It was a trick; Snape told the truth there; Lupin backed him up. wynnleaf Correct. Canon backs up that it's considered a trick even by the Marauders. Even Lupin saw it as Sirius' fault. And Sirius thought Snape deserved it -- not because Snape was out after curfew or broke the rule about the Whomping Willow, but because Sirius thought someone trying to get them expelled deserved that sort of prank. wynnleaf From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 16:31:36 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:31:36 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169666 Toonmili: > I used to say that Snape and Tonks would make a nice couple just > to be funny but now I think there might be something there. Montavilla47: I came across a fic-in-progress that had Snape with a crush on Tonks. It was kind of cute. I don't know how it ends, though. Toonmili: > Then Snape says he was interested to see her new Patronous. > Which begs the question, what was the old one and why was he > interested to see the new one. > > He then shuts the gate in her face - this is an angry reaction > if you ask me. Why would Snape be angry because her patronous > changed to werewolf? > > He then says with malice in his voice: "I think you were better > off with the old one. The new one looks a bit weak." > > So he knows the new one represents Remus, so he must have > noticed that Tonks loves Remus but the big question is why > should he care? Why did he take joy in taunting her about > Remus, it doesn't seem to be his style? He never taunted > Harry about the memories he saw of Cho, so why get so personal > with Tonks? > > Then there's Tonks look of shock and anger. If she is shocked, > why? Why would she not expect that of him? So it could be that > they dated. Montavilla47: The way I read this scene is Snape trying to be sympathetic with Tonks. He's basically saying, "That fellow that dumped you? He's a big weenie, isn't he?" But he's saying it in such a backhanded way that it just makes her angry. Maybe he thinks it's better for her to be angry than to be depressed. I'm pretty sure that whatever is going on in that scene that Harry is getting it wrong--not because Harry is a dope, but because gets just about everything wrong about Tonks in HBP. Toonmili: > He is dark and gloomy, she is bright and cheerful. They'll > complement each other well. Montavilla47: I think you're right about that. But, as you say later, to get them together would require either dumping Lupin or killing him off. So, I don't think it'll come up in canon. But, you know, everything's fair in fanfic. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 2 16:38:56 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:38:56 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169667 colebiancardi: > sure Snape had free will; so did Sirius when he set Snape up. So > did James when he saved Snape's life. Sirius DID mean for harm to > come to Snape; James recognized it and Lupin did as well - Lupin > thought it was not Sirius's shining moment there. > > It was a trick; Snape told the truth there; Lupin backed him up. Dana: Well it is half the truth actually because James and Lupin where not in on it (I do not know about Peter as it is not mentioned) and Lupin specifically stated; "of course Snape tried it" specifically meaning that is was Snape's own choice to go and pass the willow, something that was specifically forbidden to go near by the Head Master himself. But I will try to explain why *I believe* it was Snape's own responsibility and not Sirius's, with an analogy as it is actually quite similar. I will ask some specific questions and give my own personal opinion by answering. You can do this too if you see it differently, of course. Hagrid was tricked into telling the secret on how to get passed Fluffy. 1) Was Hagrid robed of his free choice to reveal the secret? My opinion ? no, he wasn't he still should have held is tong because Fluffy was no longer just Hagrid's pet. 2) Was Hagird responsible for the choice Quirrell made to go after the stone when he knew how to get passed Fluffy? My opinion - No, he wasn't because Quirrell already wanted the stone with or without Hagrid's information. 3) Was Hagrid responsible for Harry's choice to protect the stone when Harry found out how to get passed Fluffy? My opinion ? No, he wasn't because Harry already wanted to protect the stone and stop who ever was after it. 4)Was Hagrid responsible for Harry having a way to get passed the stone because he gave Harry a flute? My opinion ? No, because it was Harry himself who figured out he could use the flute, just as he used the visibility cloak. 5) Did Hagrid's intentions of revealing the secret have any bearing on Harry's decision to go after who ever wanted to steal the stone? ? No, because intentional or accidental it did not make one bit of difference in Harry's decision to go anyway. 6) Did Hagrid revealing the secret had anything to do with Harry finding out that 1) DD was hiding the stone 2) that someone was after it 3) that Fluffly was protecting the door leading to it? My opinion ? no, because all this information Harry found out on his own (with help of Hermione and Ron of course). 7) So was Hagrid responsible for Harry going after whoever wanted to steal the stone, when he learned from Hagrid how to get passed Fluffy? No, he wasn't and therefore if Harry had gotten killed, it was still not Hagrid that would have been responsible for Harry's death even if he revealed the secret of how to get passed Fluffy. Hagrid betrayed DD's secret and him revealing this information had consequences but it does not mean that it automatically makes him responsible for the individual choices each person made. The same goes for Sirius. Trick or no trick, Sirius did not influence Snape's reason's for going, even if Sirius would have played it on Snape's biggest weakness (for instance that he was to cowardly to go), then it was still Snape's decision to proof Sirius wrong. Sirius intentions had no influence on Snape wanting to know what Lupin was up to or wanting to know why Lupin was hidden behind a murderous tree (or whatever other reason Snape had for going) Snape was already tailing Lupin and he already wanted to know and just like Harry, Snape could already have found out all the information he wanted too, if he just had put the monthly disappearances of Lupin on a calendar and hold it next to a lunar chart. Snape made his own decision and he blamed the marauders for his own stupidity in stead of taking responsibility for not being able to control his urges, whatever they might have been. Sirius responsibility do not lie with what Snape chose to do after hearing the information about how he could get to Lupin. He was only responsible for Snape being able to get passed the willow and with that he betrayed a secret he promised to keep just like Hagrid. To me it is nothing more nothing less. It was Snape himself that made the choice to go there that night and it would have been Snape's own fault if he had gotten more then he could chew, just like Harry got more then he could chew. Both were saved from their own stupidity by others but Sirius's intentions had nothing to do with it and for this alone I blame Snape for going after Lupin, 20 years after the fact while it was in fact Snape himself that put himself in harms way and I blame Snape for wanting to get Sirius's soul sucked while it was again Snape's own decision to go. Snape did not die that night and he should have thanked James on bended knee that he saved him from his own stupidity but instead Snape is still out there taking his revenge on people that did not make Snape do anything he did not want to do himself. JMHO Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 16:50:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:50:48 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169668 Dana: > To me it is nothing more nothing less. It was Snape himself that made > the choice to go there that night and it would have been Snape's own > fault if he had gotten more then he could chew, just like Harry got > more then he could chew. Both were saved from their own stupidity by > others but Sirius's intentions had nothing to do with it and for this > alone I blame Snape for going after Lupin, 20 years after the fact > while it was in fact Snape himself that put himself in harms way and > I blame Snape for wanting to get Sirius's soul sucked while it was > again Snape's own decision to go. Snape did not die that night and he > should have thanked James on bended knee that he saved him from his > own stupidity but instead Snape is still out there taking his revenge > on people that did not make Snape do anything he did not want to do > himself. Alla: Let's get something out of the way - I want to restate again, Snape is responsible for his own stupidity, we agree on that. But I take a big exception to the statement "people that did not make Snape do anything he did not want to do himself". Unless we learn additional information about that night, and I know we will learn the information, I just wish I could know what kind, I see no canon to support the statement that Snape wanted to be bitten or killed by werewolf. So, no I disagree that Marauders did not make Snape to do anything that he did not want to do himself. He may have wanted to find out their secret and I do not think he had any right to that secret whatsoever, but I sincerely doubt that he wanted to die. Oy, am I defending the character whom I hope to see suffer so very badly, whom I think of as child abuser, traitor and murderer? Yeah, I guess I am. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 16:53:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:53:42 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169669 toonmili: > He then shuts the gate in her face - this is an angry reaction > if you ask me. Why would Snape be angry because her patronous > changed to werewolf? > > He then says with malice in his voice: "I think you were better > off with the old one. The new one looks a bit weak." > > So he knows the new one represents Remus, so he must have > noticed that Tonks loves Remus but the big question is why > should he care? Why did he take joy in taunting her about > Remus, it doesn't seem to be his style? He never taunted > Harry about the memories he saw of Cho, so why get so personal > with Tonks? Jen: Because it represents a Marauder? Maybe not the most-hated one but one Snape still has to work with who reminds him of his past. A constant reminder that Dumbledore trusts a werewolf and someone like Sirius, capable of murder. Besides that, love IS weak in Snape's current persona unless he's covering something, "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily - weak people, in other words -..." (OOTP, 'Occlumency') Snape zapping the rosebushes after the Yule Ball was presented at one time as evidence he'd soured on love after Lily. I'm not sure what I believe about Snape loving Lily; it would fill certain holes. I do like the idea that the 'old one' being better than the 'new, weak one' could refer to himself and Remus even if I don't think that's what he's referring to here. toonmili: > Then there's Tonks look of shock and anger. If she is shocked, > why? Why would she not expect that of him? So it could be that > they dated. Jen: Well, it's sort of rude to say that since Patroni are almost like a part of someone, representing positive thoughts and protection. And Tonks is presented as vulnerable in HBP. I do think if she's spent time with Snape she's used to his manner but maybe not directed toward her personally? It's hard to say having not seen them interact. Jen From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 17:03:28 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:03:28 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169670 > Dana: > Well it is half the truth actually because James and Lupin where not > in on it (I do not know about Peter as it is not mentioned) and Lupin > specifically stated; "of course Snape tried it" specifically meaning > that is was Snape's own choice to go and pass the willow, something > that was specifically forbidden to go near by the Head Master > himself. Montavilla47: "Of course Snape tried it" implies to me that Snape's desire to know what was going on with the Marauders was so strong and so evident that his going into the tunnel was an obvious outcome of Sirius telling him how. Dana: > Hagrid was tricked into telling the secret on how to get passed > Fluffy. > > 1) Was Hagrid robed of his free choice to reveal the secret? My > opinion ? no, he wasn't he still should have held is tong because > Fluffy was no longer just Hagrid's pet. Montavilla47: It's more than Fluffy no longer being just Hagrid's pet. It's that Fluffy is an important safeguard for something that many people would want--and that at least one person has already tried to steal. By agreeing to provide an obstacle to the stone, Hagrid was agreeing to protect the secret of how to get beyond the obstacle. Too bad Dumbledore wasn't as clever as Hermione. He could have had Hagrid sign a list of teachers and, after Hagrid let the secret slip, pustules would appear on his face spelling out the word, "Imbecile." Dana: > 2) Was Hagird responsible for the choice Quirrell made to go after > the stone when he knew how to get passed Fluffy? My opinion - No, he > wasn't because Quirrell already wanted the stone with or without > Hagrid's information. Montavilla47: Hagrid's not responsible for *Quirrell* going after the stone, he's responsible for allowing *anyone* to go after the stone. Dana: > 3) Was Hagrid responsible for Harry's choice to protect the stone > when Harry found out how to get passed Fluffy? My opinion ? No, he > wasn't because Harry already wanted to protect the stone and stop who > ever was after it. Montavilla47: This is a bit tricky, but Harry wouldn't have felt the need to go after the stone if Hagrid hadn't told Harry about letting the secret slip. It was the knowledge that the mysterious burglar could get past Fluffy that made Harry determined to go steal the stone first. Dana: > The same goes for Sirius. Trick or no trick, Sirius did not influence > Snape's reason's for going, even if Sirius would have played it on > Snape's biggest weakness (for instance that he was to cowardly to > go), then it was still Snape's decision to proof Sirius wrong. > Sirius intentions had no influence on Snape wanting to know what > Lupin was up to or wanting to know why Lupin was hidden behind a > murderous tree (or whatever other reason Snape had for going) > Snape was already tailing Lupin and he already wanted to know and > just like Harry, Snape could already have found out all the > information he wanted too, if he just had put the monthly > disappearances of Lupin on a calendar and hold it next to a lunar > chart. Montavilla47: But, knowing that Snape was already motivated to go into the tunnel (to find out what the Marauders were up to), Sirius provided Snape with the means. To me, that's sort of like handing a loaded pistol to someone who has stated their intention to play Russian roulette. Did you motivate them to shoot a gun at their head? No. It is possible that the worst thing that will happen is that they get a good scare? Yes. It is possible, indeed probable, that they will end up shooting themselves in the head? Yes. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 17:06:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:06:35 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler?Prank and various responsibilities In-Reply-To: <380-22007662143538171@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169671 Alla: > > NO, but the argument that had Rita been printing lies that Harry and Co would like, **they* would have supported her sounds like an accusation to me. It was your argument, was it not? Sorry if it was not. I mean, we are entitled to make any accusations against characters, so I see nothing wrong with it, but yeah, I would like some canon that Harry would have supported the reporter printing something like Rita Skeeter. > > Magpie: > No, it wasn't. I think that's far too extreme to suggest that, for instance, if Rita Skeeter printed an article that Snape...I"m trying to think of some horrible libelous thing that Snape hasn't done, and yet everything I come up with is something Harry seems to think he has--lol! Or, for instance, if a reporter printed a story that made Snape responsible for getting Sirius killed. I don't think Harry would have the same problems with that, though I he might have some twinges of it's not being exactly true. The point was about the nature of truth and our own povs taking precedent and seeming more true, not that Harry supports deliberate smear campaigns in the press. Carol responds: Suppose that Rita had reported something about Snape that was true, but with the intent to hurt or discredit him? Suppose, for example, that when she stated that Dumbledore had hired a werewolf, a delusional ex-Auror, and a half-giant (all true, but slanted to discredit Dumbledore and hurt Hagrid), she had added the ex-DE, Snape. Wouldn't Harry and his friends have been happy to see Snape's past exposed and all the parents writing to Dumbledore demanding Snape's resignation? (Well, maybe Hermione wouldn't, but Ron and Snape hate him.) Rita doesn't care who she hurts with her slant on the truth; Harry can be "a right little hero" or the victim of a two-timing girlfriend or a delusional and possibly violent attention seeker for all she cares as long as she has a story. If anyone else is important encough to write about, she'll find a slant to interest the readers: equal opportunity slander, so to speak. I'm sure she was quite delighted to discredit the influential Lucius Malfoy by naming him as a Death Eater in the graveyard. Of course, she'd much rather have published the story in the Daily Prophet, where it had more chance of being believed than in the Quibbler, along with stories about Crumple-horned Snorkacks. Carol, who realizes that Hermione's desire for vengeance on Rita Skeeter had as much to do with the envelope full of Bubotuber Pus as with the article itself but still wishes she weren't so vindictive (isn't that *Snape's* main fault?) Carol, who thinks that the only reason Rita *didn't* include Snape's name must be that Karkaroff's hearing was closed to the public and the press and she just didn't know From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 2 17:55:16 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:55:16 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169672 - > colebiancardi: > > > sure Snape had free will; so did Sirius when he set Snape up. So > > did James when he saved Snape's life. Sirius DID mean for harm to > > come to Snape; James recognized it and Lupin did as well - Lupin > > thought it was not Sirius's shining moment there. > > > > It was a trick; Snape told the truth there; Lupin backed him up. > > Dana: > Well it is half the truth actually because James and Lupin where not > in on it (I do not know about Peter as it is not mentioned) and Lupin > specifically stated; "of course Snape tried it" specifically meaning > that is was Snape's own choice to go and pass the willow, something > that was specifically forbidden to go near by the Head Master > himself. > > But I will try to explain why *I believe* it was Snape's own > responsibility and not Sirius's, with an analogy as it is actually > quite similar. I will ask some specific questions and give my own > personal opinion by answering. You can do this too if you see it > differently, of course. > > Hagrid was tricked into telling the secret on how to get passed > Fluffy. > colebiancardi: Big huge difference in the Hagrid/Trio scenerio & the Sirius/Snape scenerio. Big one. Both parties, the Trio & Snape were looking for information. That is where the similarities end. Hagrid wasn't trying to get the kids hurt here. He goofed - he isn't the sharpest tool in the woodshed, although he has a good heart. Hagrid wasn't trying to "trick" the kids in stumbling over Fluffy - he honestly didn't want them there. Hagrid wasn't trying to set a trap for the Trio. Sirius, on the other hand, WAS trying to get Snape hurt. Sirius set a trap for Snape and Snape took the bait. The motive is what matters. Hagrid's motive was not to get the kids hurt. Sirius's motive was to hurt Snape. I mean, what else is a werewolf going to do with any human? Lupin turned on the trio and Sirius when he turned and these were his friends. James knew EXACTLY what Sirius was up to and what could happen to Snape, which is why James intervened. It is true that neither the Trio or Snape needed to act on the information they received; however, the motives behind how the information was given to them are quite different. Very different. Hagrid would have killed himself if the Trio had been killed by Fluffy. Sirius would have been overjoyed if Snape had died at the hands of Lupin. And Sirius didn't give a second thought about how Lupin would feel about this matter afterwards. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 18:05:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:05:26 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169673 colebiancardi: > Hagrid would have killed himself if the Trio had been killed by > Fluffy. Sirius would have been overjoyed if Snape had died at the > hands of Lupin. And Sirius didn't give a second thought about how > Lupin would feel about this matter afterwards. Alla: I agree with many differences you pointed out that Hagrid was not planning any trap, but here we hit my " we do not know a lot of things about Prank" block :) We do not know that Sirius would have been overjoyed if Snape had died at the hands of Lupin, we just do not know that. And Sirius does not say I wish Snape was killed, he just does not. We do not know that Sirius' danger feeling after monthly outings with werewolf was the same as it has to be. Yeah, I think he could have just forgotten that for those kids who could not turn in big animals werewolf can be dangerous, more than for him. In short, I disagree that Sirius would have been happy if Snape died. I mean he could have been I just do not think we know it. And oh man, I am DYING to see prank night as it really happened from not Harry POV in DH. Please JKR, please. From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 2 18:17:51 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:17:51 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169674 > colebiancardi: > > > Hagrid would have killed himself if the Trio had been killed by > > Fluffy. Sirius would have been overjoyed if Snape had died at the > > hands of Lupin. And Sirius didn't give a second thought about how > > Lupin would feel about this matter afterwards. > > > Alla: > > I agree with many differences you pointed out that Hagrid was not > planning any trap, but here we hit my " we do not know a lot of > things about Prank" block :) > > We do not know that Sirius would have been overjoyed if Snape had > died at the hands of Lupin, we just do not know that. > > And Sirius does not say I wish Snape was killed, he just does not. > > We do not know that Sirius' danger feeling after monthly outings > with werewolf was the same as it has to be. Yeah, I think he could > have just forgotten that for those kids who could not turn in big > animals werewolf can be dangerous, more than for him. > > In short, I disagree that Sirius would have been happy if Snape > died. I mean he could have been I just do not think we know it. > colebiancardi back again: true, true. However, Sirius never held back his hatred for Snape and vice versa; I mean, what if Lupin had bit Snape? Then Snape becomes a furry problem as well. Sirius and Snape never got over their hatred for each other. Just as Snape didn't cry buckets of tears over Sirius' demise, I am going to go out on a limb here and state, in my humble opinion, I doubt Sirius would have been remorseful over Snape's demise if it had come to that. I also believe, and this isn't a stretch by any means, that there is no love lost between the two of them. The "prank" was Sirius's idea alone (although, I wouldn't be surprised if Peter knew about it before hand) and when James found out about it, he knew that Sirius had gone too far. I don't believe that Sirius forgot how dangerous a werewolf could be - he didn't in PoA. colebiancardi From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 18:18:22 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:18:22 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169675 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" > > > Dana: > > The same goes for Sirius. Trick or no trick, Sirius did not > > influence > > Snape's reason's for going, even if Sirius would have played it on > > Snape's biggest weakness (for instance that he was to cowardly to > > go), then it was still Snape's decision to proof Sirius wrong. > > Sirius intentions had no influence on Snape wanting to know what > > Lupin was up to or wanting to know why Lupin was hidden behind a > > murderous tree (or whatever other reason Snape had for going) > > Snape was already tailing Lupin and he already wanted to know and > > just like Harry, Snape could already have found out all the > > information he wanted too, if he just had put the monthly > > disappearances of Lupin on a calendar and hold it next to a lunar > > chart. > > Montavilla47: > But, knowing that Snape was already motivated to go into the tunnel > (to find out what the Marauders were up to), Sirius provided Snape > with the means. To me, that's sort of like handing a loaded pistol > to someone who has stated their intention to play Russian roulette. > > Did you motivate them to shoot a gun at their head? No. It is > possible > that the worst thing that will happen is that they get a good scare? > Yes. It is possible, indeed probable, that they will end up > shooting themselves in the head? Yes. > > > Montavilla47 > This question of motivation and responsibility is quite interesting. To some extent, swindlers play on human fallibilities to cheat other people. Date rapists rely on the naivety and insecurity, or other vulnerabilities, of their victims to prey on them. The question is, who is ultimately responsible? I suppose an objective standard would look to intent, the amount of injury possible, and whether a reasonable person could have trusted in another person's words and signals. Did Sirius Black intend to harm Snape, and to what degree? Was Snape behaving reasonably in following Black's instructions? Frankly, we don't know the answer to either question. In OOTP, Voldemort lures Harry to the MOM. Who is responsible for that? If you argue that the person who took the action is responsible, and not the person who supplied the information, then Harry holds the blame. Some would say that, but others would claim that Snape is to blame because of the failed Occlumency lessons, and still others would say Dumbledore is the cause for withholding important information from Harry. The books set in motion a chain of events leading to choices, and so many factors play into a person's decision to take action that they can't always be distinguished from the actual decision. On the other hand, the four-on-one attack on Snape in OOTP seems to be unambiguously not something he chose, yet because he was sitting by the lake near his worst enemies, I've seen it argued that the attack was his fault. The murder of Cedric Diggory was not something he chose, yet I've seen it argued that, had he just ceded the cup to Harry, his life would have been saved. So, we are judging these events by our prejudices and not the facts, because we don't always know all the facts. I personally enjoy the nuance and ambiguity in these situations, and fall towards greys instead of blacks and whites, but appreciate how hard it is to keep an open mind on the motivations and responsibilities of the characters. lealess From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 18:22:10 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 14:22:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities Message-ID: <380-22007662182210546@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169676 Dana: The same goes for Sirius. Trick or no trick, Sirius did not influence Snape's reason's for going, even if Sirius would have played it on Snape's biggest weakness (for instance that he was to cowardly to go), then it was still Snape's decision to proof Sirius wrong. Sirius intentions had no influence on Snape wanting to know what Lupin was up to or wanting to know why Lupin was hidden behind a murderous tree (or whatever other reason Snape had for going) Snape was already tailing Lupin and he already wanted to know and just like Harry, Snape could already have found out all the information he wanted too, if he just had put the monthly disappearances of Lupin on a calendar and hold it next to a lunar chart. Magpie: Sirius didn't have to "influence" Snape's reason for wanting to go. He was intentionally *using* the reasons Snape already had to manipulate him. The important part being that he was using it to put Snape into a dangerous situation without Snape's knowledge. That's why it's a Prank. I think the more direct analogy for Hagrid is not whether Hagrid was responsible for anything Harry did, but to ask about Quirrel. Was Quirrel responsible for tempting Hagrid with a dragon's egg and getting him drunk to get the information? Of course he was. He set out to get what he wanted and took steps to make that happen--reasonable steps based on the information he had about Hagrid's own weaknesses and desires. That Hagrid fell for it does not make Quirrel not the one manipulating events to his own desires. Snape does not blame the Marauders for his stupidity just by accusing them of Pranking him (though I'm sure he takes all his anger at himself for falling for it and projects it onto them). Just as Hagrid doesn't have to blame Quirrel for his own stupdity to say that the guy tricked him. Hagrid can be stupid without Quirrel becoming innocent. Snape being vengeful does not make Sirius any different than what he is in that situation. Dana: Both were saved from their own stupidity by others but Sirius's intentions had nothing to do with it Magpie: Sirius' intentions had everything to do with it. His intentions directed what Sirius did and did not tell to lure Snape into the passage using the tools at Sirius' disposal.It wasn't Snape's stupidity he was using against him, because Snape wasn't stupid so much as vengeful. Snape had every reason to think he needed to be on his guard against MWPP, but he had no reason whatsoever to think he was meeting a werewolf. It didn't require Snape to be stupid to walk into the tunnel with a werewolf, because the fear that Sirius had a werewolf waiting for him was a bit out of the bounds of reason. Even James thought so, which is why he stopped the Prank. Snape was indeed manipulated into doing something he did not want to do. That's the nature of the entire Prank. Most Pranks. Montavilla47: "Of course Snape tried it" implies to me that Snape's desire to know what was going on with the Marauders was so strong and so evident that his going into the tunnel was an obvious outcome of Sirius telling him how. Magpie: Absolutely. Just as Remus could say "Harry was told Sirius was being tortured at the MoM. Of course Harry went to save him." That doesn't absolve Voldemort and Kreacher of any responsibility for the actions they took to manipulate Harry. You can't play a Prank on somebody and then blame them for falling for it as if the work you did arranging the Prank meant nothing. Remus isn't blaming Snape with that sentence, he's blaming Sirius, stressing that Sirius knew the result of his actions would be Snape entering the tunnel. Montavilla47: By agreeing to provide an obstacle to the stone, Hagrid was agreeing to protect the secret of how to get beyond the obstacle. Too bad Dumbledore wasn't as clever as Hermione. He could have had Hagrid sign a list of teachers and, after Hagrid let the secret slip, pustules would appear on his face spelling out the word, "Imbecile." Magpie: And Hagrid would totally have done it to himself, right? Yeah. -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jun 2 18:35:11 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:35:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169677 colebiancardi: colebiancardi I don't believe that Sirius forgot how dangerous a werewolf could be - he didn't in PoA. Sherry now: It's a proven fact that children, even and especially teenagers, do not really have a developed sense of danger or the judgment to determine such things. As I've said in the past, that's why there are laws about the types of jobs teenagers can do or the equipment they can work with, even some states here in the US making driving laws tougher or upping the age at which a minor can get a license, drinking age laws and all the rest. I don't say this to excuse Sirius exactly. We don't really know what happened that night, and though I am a Sirius fan and not a Snape fan, I will reserve judgment either way. However, I can easily imagine that the repeated safety of running with a werewolf kept all the boys from really understanding how dangerous it would be for someone else. That would be very typical of boys of their age. In the muggle world, they'd probably speed in their cars or drink and drive too. My guess is that they never really thought about the danger, not until someone really was in danger, and then James went to the rescue. Sherry From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 18:48:32 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:48:32 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169678 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > colebiancardi: > > > colebiancardi > I don't believe that Sirius forgot how dangerous a werewolf could be - he > didn't in PoA. > > > Sherry now: > It's a proven fact that children, even and especially teenagers, do > not really have a developed sense of danger or the judgment to > determine such things. As I've said in the past, that's why there > are laws about the types of jobs teenagers can do or the equipment > they can work with, even some states here in the US making driving > laws tougher or upping the age at which a minor can get a license, > drinking age laws and all the rest. I don't say > this to excuse Sirius exactly. We don't really know what happened > that night, and though I am a Sirius fan and not a Snape fan, I will > reserve judgment either way. However, I can easily imagine that the > repeated safety of running with a werewolf kept all the boys from > really understanding how dangerous it would be for someone else. > That would be very typical of boys of their age. In the muggle > world, they'd probably speed in their cars or drink and drive too. > My guess is that they never really thought about the > danger, not until someone really was in danger, and then James went > to the rescue. > > Sherry > To some extent, I agree that continued exposure to a werewolf may have lessened Black's appreciation of the danger Lupin posed to others. On the other hand, he *was* a serious danger, as is drinking and driving. Teenagers in our society can pay a penalty for engaging in dangerous behavior and posing a threat or actually harming another. Given that, and considering the potentially very great harm possible in the Prank, I wonder how Sirius Black avoided expulsion, and why Snape presumably agreed to keep Lupin's secret. What in the world was Dumbledore doing? I hope this is explained in DH. lealess From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 2 18:53:28 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:53:28 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169679 Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean by the spiral. Harry has > a tendency to think that bullies just get worse and > worse till they turn into killers, while the canon > facts show us something much more complicated. houyhnhnm: Nikkalmati recently pointed out that if Hermione hadn't failed to follow her good instinct with respect to Montague, the vanishing cabinet would very likely have been secured, Draco would not have had a means to get DEs into the castle, and Dumbledore would not have been killed, nor Bill maimed. And Montague would never have been in the cabinet in the first place if the twins had not resorted to an ill thought out act of retaliation against Montague for his arrogance in taking points from them. And the twins wouldn't have been provoked to retaliate if Montague hadn't arrogantly abused his authority. So it doesn't even take a great bullying git to set off or further a chain of events that results in an evil act, just arrogance, or recklessness, or a moment of selfishness (or weakness) that quenches a good impulse. Another recent discussion had to do with the scene between Snape and Lupin when Snape took Lupin his Wofsbane potion in PoA. When I was re-reading that chapter it struck me that this was the beginning of an escalation of hostilities between Snape and Lupin. It is the first the reader sees anyway and it may have been the first eruption into the open of the tension between the two. Lupin was condescending toward Snape. Snape, who always refuses to stay down when he is put down, responded with what struck me as a veiled threat. Lupin followed up by contriving to have the boggart turn into Snape dressed as an old woman. Snape retaliated by assigning the werewolf essay when he took over Lupin's class. And so on and so on. To me, this escalation of hostility was a chain of events which culminated in both men making poor decisions at a critical moment, leading to Lupin and Sirius almost becoming killers, allowing Pettigrew to escape, and ultimately allowing Voldemort to return to power. And of course, the hostility between adult Snape and Lupin was just a present day continuence of an old animosity of which we have only seen a snapshot (or rather movie clip) and heard little bits of contradictory hearsay. We do know, however that the escalating hostility between Snape and Marauders almost led to Snape's death. It could very well have been the tipping point that sent him over to Dark side, and if Snape had not gone over to the Dark side, Voldemort would never have heard the Prophecy and James and Lily Potter would still be alive. That is what I meant by saying that unchecked bullying along with a host of other small sins of commission or omission leads to evil acts. I didn't mean that bullies turn into killers. So I think I was really in agreement with you. There is still a question for me of how much congruence there is between what Rowling tells and what she shows. Is she a Sirius Black, who can talk a good moral game, but can't live up to her talk (or make her story live up to it)? This is what makes me uncomfortable and I think it is probably what makes lizzyben and Betsy uncomfortable (if I make make so bold). I haven't seen any answer to that question on hpfgu that completely sets my mind at ease, so I guess all I can do is wait and see. A good person is one who refrains from killing. But Lupin and Sirius would have been killers if Harry hadn't stopped them. Fred and George could have been Montague's killers. All four only escaped becoming killers because they were lucky. So a good person is one who is lucky. But Rowling has stated that she doesn't believe in luck. So is she going to make it all come right in the end or is she going to take her billions and laugh all the way to the bank. I'm just getting nervous. (And the publication date comes right in the middle of a three week intensive graduate course I'm taking this summer. I can already feel my mind being torn two ways.) From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 2 18:54:59 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:54:59 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169680 > colebiancardi > I don't believe that Sirius forgot how dangerous a werewolf could be - he > didn't in PoA. > > > Sherry now: > It's a proven fact that children, even and especially teenagers, do not > really have a developed sense of danger or the judgment to determine such > things. As I've said in the past, that's why there are laws about the types > of jobs teenagers can do or the equipment they can work with, even some > states here in the US making driving laws tougher or upping the age at which > a minor can get a license, drinking age laws and all the rest. I don't say > this to excuse Sirius exactly. We don't really know what happened that > night, and though I am a Sirius fan and not a Snape fan, I will reserve > judgment either way. However, I can easily imagine that the repeated safety > of running with a werewolf kept all the boys from really understanding how > dangerous it would be for someone else. colebiancardi: hmmmm. I thought that that James, Sirius and Peter didn't run around with WereWolf!Lupin until they learned to become Animagi which was in their fifth year, as Lupin confirmed in PoA. And I don't think the boys were friends until 2 or 3rd year, as Lupin stated that once they discovered he was a werewolf, it took them three years to figure out how to be Animagi. As the prank took place in the 6th year(I think), they hadn't been running around with WereWolf!Lupin that long. Sure, teens do stupid things and think they are immortal, but really - forgetting that what damage a werewolf can do? That is like me daring a someone to go into an arena with a very hungry lion. I think I know what that lion is going to do to that person and it isn't going to be pretty. going back to Sirius and how he would have felt about Snape's demise, I have to point out in PoA this passage: Lupin speaking: "...you see, Sirius here played a trick on him{Snape} which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me -- Black made a derisive noise. "It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to ...hoping he could get us expelled ..." Am Ed Hardcover. p 336 Sounds to me that "It served him right" comment right at the heels of Lupin's remark on how Snape nearly got killed is proof (to me) that Sirius wouldn't have cared if Snape got killed. Because "it served him right" because Snape was sneaking around in their business. Well, Harry sneaks around Draco's business and vice versa, but I would never state that either Harry or Draco should die because they are both sneaks. I think there is something more, something deeply personal, something like a younger brother(Regulus!) who was very good friends (IMHO) with Snape that causes Sirius to loathe Snape so much. Sure, Sirius calls his brother dim, but other than that, Sirius doesn't speak that ill of his late brother. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 18:55:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:55:50 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169681 lealess: Given that, > and considering the potentially very great harm possible in the Prank, > I wonder how Sirius Black avoided expulsion, and why Snape presumably > agreed to keep Lupin's secret. What in the world was Dumbledore doing? > > I hope this is explained in DH. Alla: Prank chapter, we SO need and demand Prank chapter :). BY the way, even when I am typing this, I have to remind myself that it is done, done, done, fates of the characters are sealed and nothing is going to change that, hehehe. Book 7 is done and I WANT it now. Right, now back to Prank. I had never been especially surprised why Sirius avoided expulsion just as I was always sure that he was punished appropriately. Hogwarts after all has plenty of nasty punishments and the act that Snape thinks expulsion is the only one that should have been given, does not make that true IMO. That in fact and the fact that Snape agreed to keep Lupin secret always indicated to me that Snape IS complicit in prank night on more serious level. I just do not see Dumbledore threatening Snape unless Snape has something to fret about. Speculating as always about prank. Alla From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Jun 2 18:45:01 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:45:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta References: Message-ID: <002e01c7a546$20cb5a00$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 169682 colebiancardi: > It was a trick; Snape told the truth there; Lupin backed him up. Dana: Well it is half the truth actually because James and Lupin where not in on it (I do not know about Peter as it is not mentioned) and Lupin specifically stated; "of course Snape tried it" specifically meaning that is was Snape's own choice to go and pass the willow, something that was specifically forbidden to go near by the Head Master himself. Shelley: This is correct- In Snape's version, Snape blames James, and Harry (by way of being James's son with many of the same traits) for a trick that ONLY Sirius pulled on Snape. James rescued his sorry butt, and even many years later,Snape's still blaming his "rescuer" because he was friends with the "trick player". These two should be separated, but in Snape's mind, he's lumping the whole lot of them together instead of seeing them as individuals, much the same way that he's still treating Harry poorly just because Snape had a deep hatred for his father. Dana continued (snipped): Snape made his own decision and he blamed the marauders for his own stupidity in stead of taking responsibility for not being able to control his urges, whatever they might have been. Sirius responsibility do not lie with what Snape chose to do after hearing the information about how he could get to Lupin. He was only responsible for Snape being able to get passed the willow and with that he betrayed a secret he promised to keep just like Hagrid. To me it is nothing more nothing less. It was Snape himself that made the choice to go there that night and it would have been Snape's own fault if he had gotten more then he could chew, just like Harry got more then he could chew. Both were saved from their own stupidity by others ... Shelley again: I absolutely think it was only Snape's fault. He was told the truth, in how to get past a tree, but it was his own selfish motives that drove him to ACT on that information. No one MADE him act- so he alone must bear responsibility for his actions. (betraying a Headmaster's direct instructions to avoid the tree.) As mentioned, he could have taken another route and used his brain to figure out why Lupin was being shuttled to the tree by the school nurse- it wouldn't have been too hard to put two and two together to come up with a werewolf answer. I hate the fact that Snape continually dodges the truth, or manipulates it as he sees fit for his own personal gain. Yes, I also hate him for wanting to get Sirius's soul sucked out in that once again, he doesn't want to hear, nor does he really care, what the real truth is. He's using his hatred of a person to act unjustly, and in that, it's that trick all over again. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 2 19:01:16 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:01:16 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169683 > Sherry now: > It's a proven fact that children, even and especially teenagers, do not > really have a developed sense of danger or the judgment to determine such > things. wynnleaf While it is possible that Sirius didn't think about Snape being killed, it doesn't take away from the fact that Sirius would have been responsible if Snape *had* been killed. It may or may not affect the amount of blame that could be laid, but it would still have been Sirius' action. Sherry I don't say > this to excuse Sirius exactly. We don't really know what happened that > night, and though I am a Sirius fan and not a Snape fan, I will reserve > judgment either way. However, I can easily imagine that the repeated safety > of running with a werewolf kept all the boys from really understanding how > dangerous it would be for someone else. wynnleaf *Why* would Sirius want to send Snape into the Whomping Willow if he thought the only thing that would happen to Snape would be that Snape would discover that Lupin was a werewolf?? What possible reason could Sirius have *other* than something bad happening to Snape? That's the whole point, isn't it? Sirius isn't trying to edify Snape -- he's trying to do something mean. So what's the mean thing he wants to do? I suppose you could say that maybe Sirius only wanted to scare Snape. But why would seeing a werewolf scare Snape unless the werewolf was actually dangerous? I mean, it's not like Sirius sent Snape off to the zoo to view a tiger in a cage. That wouldn't scare anyone, but the most faint of heart. The whole point that would scare Snape at all is seeing a truly dangerous creature that is loose and able to harm him. So Sirius had to at the very *least* realize that. In order for his prank to have any reason to be inacted, Sirius had to be sending Snape off to be thoroughly scared, and by what? a werewolf in a cage? No, a fully transformed werewolf that is truly dangerous. Otherwise, there's no "payoff" to the prank for Sirius. So, while Sirius may have not thought about Snape actually being killed, Sirius *had* to have been aware that the werewolf was really dangerous, otherwise his "prank" has no more merit than sending Snape off to the zoo to view the "lions and tigers and bears, oh my." And last, let's remember what adult!Sirius had to say about it -- adult Sirius who was *well* aware how dangerous a werewolf could be. Adult!Sirius told Lupin that Snape "deserved" it. wynnleaf From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 2 19:50:44 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:50:44 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169684 Toonmili: > First thing he does is call her Nymphadora. I think > he does this to annoy her cause she doesn't like the > name. If he wants to annoy her it could be Snape being > Snape or it could be him teasing an ex. But he has a > history of calling women he likes names that they don't like. houyhnhnm: I can't see Snape, of all people, ignoring security protocols by failing to make sure of someone's identity, especially when that someone has an altered patronus and custody of a missing Harry Potter. The fact that he apparently fails to make sure that Tonks is really Tonks makes me think that saying "Nymphadora" is the way Order members verify Tonk's identity. If she frowns (and she does frown at Snape) then it's the real Tonks. Of course it could also be a clue that the person who came down to the gate and the person who delivered Harry to the Burrow were one and the same--heh, heh. Toonmili: > Do you think they'll make a nice pair? houyhnhnm: Hmmm I like Tonks (and I like Snape) and I would just as soon see her with anybody but Lupin, but I don't know. Snape jealous of Lupin over Tonks would be a nice touch, but I can't quite see a woman who would fall for Remus being attracted to Snape and I just can't stand the thought of the poor man being a victim of unrequited love yet again. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Jun 2 19:02:55 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:02:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta References: Message-ID: <003e01c7a548$a09cd6d0$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 169685 colebiancardi: > Sirius, on the other hand, WAS trying to get Snape hurt. Sirius set a > trap for Snape and Snape took the bait. > > The motive is what matters. Hagrid's motive was not to get the kids > hurt. Sirius's motive was to hurt Snape. I mean, what else is a > werewolf going to do with any human? I don't think that Sirius's motive was to hurt Snape- I think it was his motive to see how stupid Snape could be with that information. I think he was trying to teach Snape a lesson to scare the shit out of him- to teach him a lesson to keep his nose to himself and to quit prying into other's business. We don't know that Sirius wanted Snape dead, but we all know that if Snape had barged in on Lupin at the wrong time, he might have been. Sirius had no idea of when Snape would try to sneak under that tree (immediately, before he had changed, or later, when he was fully a werewolf), and that timing made all the difference in the world in the final outcome. Shelley From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Jun 2 20:02:26 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:02:26 -0000 Subject: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Ludovic Bagman comes next. > > Fwiw I am of the opinion that he is a Death Eater and will > play a part, however short, in DH while being revealed as the > enormous blond Death Eater from the amusement at Hogwarts. Then why didn't Harry recognize him? In GoF it's frequently implied that Bagman is well past his prime as an athlete. For all his ineptitude, the unnamed blonde DE from HBP does not seem to be physically decrepit. > Question 4 - Why is Barty Crouch Senior so upset that Bagman > escapes imprisonment? I've never heard of a prosecuting attorney who *didn't* get upset when the accused escaped imprisonment. > > Question 5 - I have a notion that Barty Crouch Jnr. may appear as a Dementor due to a theory I hold that Demenetors initially came > about from being soulless wraith type creatures, very much akin > to the ringwraiths in LOTR but able to breed. In Snape's first DADA class, he has on display several banner-sized photos, one of which is a dementor victim, in an inert zombie-like condition. There's no implication that the victim is transitioning into Dementor-hood. > > Question 6 - Where did Dementors originate and why have they > left the service of the MoM other than inducements from LV? I've no clue as to how they originate, but since Dumbledore and Lupin both describe them as innately vile beings, in seems natural that they would gravitate toward LV. DD implies to Fudge that Voldy will allow them much greater scope to indulge their peculiar pleasures. - CMC From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 20:16:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:16:02 -0000 Subject: On Regulus and Severus (Was: Prank and various responsibilities ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169687 colebiancardi wrote: > > I think there is something more, something deeply personal, something like a younger brother(Regulus!) who was very good friends (IMHO) with Snape that causes Sirius to loathe Snape so much. Sure, Sirius calls his brother dim, but other than that, Sirius doesn't speak that ill of > his late brother. Carol responds: Why would Sirius resent his brother's friendship with a fellow Slytherin? (Sirius isn't Percy, four years older than Ron and pompously advising him to stay away from "dangerous" friends who might ruin his chances for advancement.) Regulus was Sorted into Slytherin with no help from Severus, and he (Reggie) was already the loyal son who espoused the Black family values that Sirius would later reject (and, perhaps, was already questioning at age eleven given his being Sorted into Gryffindor.) Regulus was "a much better son, as [Sirius] was constantly reminded" (OoP Am. ed. 112). I don't think anything more than the Sorting into rival Houses was required to further alienate the two brothers (who may have had nothing in common beyond good looks and the arrogance that seems to characterize all the Blacks except perhaps Andromeda). The hostility between the two Houses would have been at least as evident to the Black brothers as it was to Harry from the first day at Hogwarts. They would have had nothing to do with each other after that. (I imagine them ignoring each other in the hallways as Percy ignores his father, or possibly hexing each other like Harry and Draco, though, of course, they wouldn't have had any classes together and probably seldom saw each other except at meals and Quidditch games.) Once Sirius left home when he was sixteen and Regulus about fourteen, the estrangement would almost certainly have been permanent, even if Regulus had not joined the DEs a few years later (apparently of his own accord because of his belief in "the purification of the Wizarding race" and the desirability of "having purebloods in charge"--Sirius speaks of his "joining up" rather than being recruited, though it's clear that he doesn't know the exact circumstances, 112). At any rate, if resentment of Severus's friendship with Regulus had been Sirius's motive in setting up the Prank, he certainly would have said so (rather than blaming Severus for wanting to get him and his friends in trouble). I think we see Sirius's motive quite clearly. It's the extent of involvement of the other Marauders and exactly what Sieius said to entice Severus into the tunnel that we don't know. (That and the logistics of the thing--what, exactly, did James do and how did James in the form of an antlered stag get out of the tunnel on full-moon nights?) I *do* think that Severus and Regulus, both in Slytherin and only a year or two apart, would have known each other and possibly have been friends (Regulus was, of course, not present in the Worst Memory scene because he wasn't a fifth-year), but I don't see any reason to suppose that Sirius either cared deeply about his "stupid idiot" brother (112) or thought that Severus had corrupted him (or recruited him to be a DE, if that's what you're suggesting. Black doesn't even find out that Snape had been a DE until the end of GoF, when Snape shows Fudge his Dark Mark). As of PoA, he's still seeing Snape as the kid who was trying to get him and his friends in trouble and deserved to be attacked (or at least terrified) by a werewolf for daring to think that MWPP could be doing anything worth being expelled for. (To be fair, Snape is still seeing Black as the kid who tried to kill him and, true to form, became a murderer and traitor. Neither sees either himself or the other with anything resembling clarity or objectivity. If only Severus had been Sorted into Gryffindor or Ravenclaw and Peter into Slytherin!) It just occurred to me that Regulus's interest in the Dark Arts, apparently a family trait of all the Blacks except but Sirius and Andromeda, could have been the reason that Sirius suspected Severus of a similar interest if he knew that Sevvy and Reggie were friends. But, if so, he would not have seen Severus as *corrupting* Regulus, who had already been corrupted by his upbringing. (We saw the house he grew up in; the wonder is that Sirius was exposed to and rejected those same values--and that Regulus, too, rejected them, at least in their extreme form, as implied by his rejection of Voldemort. Could young Snape have had a hand in that rejection, having rejected Voldemort himself?) Carol, who does expect a Regulus/Severus friendship to be revealed in DH but doubts that it was the reason for Sirius's hostility to Severus even as of OoP From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Jun 2 18:52:25 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:52:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta References: Message-ID: <003401c7a547$296def00$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 169688 > Alla: > > Let's get something out of the way - I want to restate again, Snape > is responsible for his own stupidity, we agree on that. > > But I take a big exception to the statement "people that did not > make Snape do anything he did not want to do himself". > > Unless we learn additional information about that night, and I know > we will learn the information, I just wish I could know what kind, I > see no canon to support the statement that Snape wanted to be bitten > or killed by werewolf. > > So, no I disagree that Marauders did not make Snape to do anything > that he did not want to do himself. He may have wanted to find out > their secret and I do not think he had any right to that secret > whatsoever, but I sincerely doubt that he wanted to die. Alla: I think you are making a mistake here in saying that Snape "knew" what awaited him before he left to go to the Whomping Willow. All he knew, from canon, is that Lupin was on the other side. He did not know yet "what" Lupin "was", so you can't make any assertions about Snape wanting to get bitten or killed by a werewolf. I think it is 100% reasonable to say that if Snape KNEW that Lupin was a werewolf, he would have had no reason to find out "why" Lupin went under the tree to begin with! Shelley From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 2 23:09:28 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:09:28 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman / Dementors (Was: Re: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169689 > > Goddlefrood: > > Ludovic Bagman comes next. > > Fwiw I am of the opinion that he is a Death Eater and will > > play a part, however short, in DH while being revealed as > > the enormous blond Death Eater from the amusement at > > Hogwarts. > CMC: > Then why didn't Harry recognize him? In GoF it's frequently > implied that Bagman is well past his prime as an athlete. For > all his ineptitude, the unnamed blonde DE from HBP does not > seem to be physically decrepit. Goddlefrood: If I had a penny for each time this had been brought up :-< I'd be several pounds richer, anyway. Harry had one fleeting glimpse of the blond Death Eater during the lark at Hogwarts. He had not seen Bagman for more than a year. Bagman had not notably been on the wizarding scene and may well have regained some of his former sporting prowess (lost his pot belly, in other words). His hair would have grown, possibly as part of a disguise from the Goblins (or even Kemper's ogres who had fewer children to devour). This may be thought rather thin, but then so is a view that Harry must surely have recognised Bagman had he been the blond Death Eater. It should also be borne in mind that, not only was any view Harry had of the blond Death Eater fleeting, but also that Harry at the relevant time was in torch lit corridors and the darkened grounds (where he only saw the behind of blondy) and was rather preoccupied with a certain Severus Snape rather than on figuring out who all the others involved were. There are at least two wholly unremarked upon Death Eaters involved in the jamboree and brutal-face is no more than that. It'll take a good deal more than the above to make me alter my view, fwiw. > CMC: > I've never heard of a prosecuting attorney who *didn't* get > upset when the accused escaped imprisonment. Goddlefrood: They certainly have issues. However, Crouch senior was not in any role as a prosecuting attorney, as you put it. He was fulfilling the chairman's role of the Council of Magical Law. Winky expounds on Barty Senior's dislike of Bagman and it does seem that there is more to it than just some annoyance that Ludo escaped imprisonment. I believe Barty Senior knew some things about Bagman that were ultra vires the proceedings against him in the Pensieve and would make one's hair curl. > CMC: > In Snape's first DADA class, he has on display several > banner-sized photos, one of which is a dementor victim, > in an inert zombie-like condition. Goddlefrood: A picture of a victim that was seen momentarily does not a case make. If the above is taken on its face then maybe, rather than becoming a Dementor the victim becomes an Inferi, does that seem possible? I'll go a little into how I think Dementors came about now. I have formed the view that originally they were created by some witch or wizard for the purpose of intimidation of others. If that is near enough the case than it certainly worked as most of the opinions expressed regarding Dementors in canon are that they are disturbing beings and were the ideal guards of the wizarding prison. There is no indication so far that they can talk so it should also be wondered how they communicate with witches and wizards. There must be some communication for them to be able to have agreed to guard Azkaban and for their having later agreed to join Lord Voldemort. I could not say for sure if we will find out about this matter, but it is interesting to speculate on it nevertheless. Goddlefrood From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 2 23:31:01 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:31:01 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler?Prank and various responsibilities In-Reply-To: <380-22007662143538171@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169690 Magpie: > The weird thing is that I agree with most of your examples. The > problem it that--and I think this is what you're accusing other > people doing--you are still drawing a magic circle of no > responsiblity around certain characters A prank is a prank. It's > someone intentionally taking steps to make something happen based > on things they know about a situation and the peopleinvolved. > Sirius doesn't make Snape go into the tunnel, but Sirius set up > the situation to lure Snape into the tunnel, based not only on > Snape's character as he knew it but on Snape's lack of information. Dana: No, I'm not creating a magical circle of no responsibility just because I do not blame Sirius for Snape's decisions and thus the consequences of these decisions. Sirius is to blame for revealing Lupin's secret and getting Lupin involved in something he had no choice in and providing Snape with a way to get passed the willow. This decision had consequences that James eliminated by dragging Snape out (for the most part as I do believe it had other consequences as well). But it still does not make Sirius responsible for Snape's choice to follow up on the information he got from him. Magpie: > *Sirius* knew what Snape would be facing--that was the whole part > of the joke (which I think was supposed to scare Snape, not kill > him--I don't think this is an attempted murder). Snape did not--you > seem to be re-writing things so that Snape did know, which would > make it a different thing, but canonically so far he didn't. Or > else you're making Snape's stupidity at not knowing as good as his > knowing, which I don't think holds up. Dana: It is your opinion that I'm re-writing things but the problem with this suggestion is that Lupin did state that Snape was interested in knowing were Lupin went *every* month and that Snape *saw* Lupin being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey and we see that the DADA OWL included information about werewolves and that a third year with that same information could reveal Lupin's furry problem without ever having to go to Lupin's office to have a look if she was right. And she only observed Lupin for less then a school year when she found this out. Snape had at least 5 years to come to a conclusion about where Lupin went and even if he never wondered about this before then he still had enough information to make a well informed conclusion on what he could find. Snape at least could have known that Sirius telling Snape how to get passed the willow so Snape could spy on his friend could never have been well intentioned. It was not implied that Sirius did not mention no one was there to find at the end of the tunnel, as it was specifically stated that Sirius told Snape all he had to do was prod the knot and he would be able to go after Lupin. Magpie: > But that's not a Prank, and that's what everyone agrees that it > was. Snape was supposed to be surprised by what he found in the > tunnel and get scared, which would be funny. As in, "You want to > know what we've got in there so much, here you go!" In that case > Snape didn't know he was facing anything deadly--why should he, > when he was doing exactly what Sirius did, as far as he knew? That > does give Sirius responsibility, a responsibility he himself never > denies. He thought Snape deserved to get Pranked for being nosy and > trying to follow them, so he used Snape's ignorance of the werewolf > and MWPP being Animagi to trick him into a situation beyond what he > thought he was getting into. Yes, he used Snape's own bad > intentions against him. Most if not all cons do. But that doesn't > make the con artist not the one pulling the con. Dana: You would have been correct if it wasn't already specifically stated that Snape would find Lupin on the other side of the willow or if Snape wasn't already very interested in what was going on with Lupin to notice he disappeared *every* month. That means Snape was snooping around to get more information about what Lupin was up to for more then just one month or just that night. The willow was forbidden territory and Lupin was hidden behind it and Sirius as is stated told Snape Lupin was behind the tree. And so to me Snape could have known what he could find when he went after Lupin. Snape had too much information that could have told him what he could find by entering the tunnel and thus to make a well informed decision to go and it is not me re-writing canon as it is specifically stated as such. And I believe that is why Sirius did not feel responsible if Snape had gotten more then he could chew because it was Snape himself that decided to go. Lupin mentioning that from that moment on Snape knew what he was is to me an irrelevant statement to conclude Snape did not know already. Sirius and James found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him, Hermione found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him and so Snape could have found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him too, just by merely putting the information he already got on Lupin's monthly disappearances and hold them next to a lunar chart. Snape already knew from the exams that werewolves transform on the full moon and he already knew that Lupin went somewhere every month. Is Snape really that dumb? He already knew Lupin was behind the tree that was off limits to all students and he had seen that Lupin was not just playing around but being brought there by the school nurse. This is information from canon and not my imagination and my way to clear Sirius of any blame because Sirius provided Snape a way and he is responsible for that part but that part alone when it considers Snape. It does not matter what way Sirius got Snape to go because it was still Snape's choice to do so and he disregarded all the information that canon says he did know. If he was too stupid to pull all the information together and make a well informed decision then this would still not Sirius fault. If I get into a car with a drunk driver who told me that he could still drive and I get involved in a terrible accident because of it then I am still to blame for getting in the car while I knew that this person should not be trusted behind the wheel. The person himself has the responsibility of driving while drunk but he did not force me to get into the car, I still had a choice. That is my point Snape might not have wanted to face a werewolf or he might have thought he knew enough about DA that he could handle it or Sirius pushed the right buttons for Snape to want to proof that he was no coward or whatever, it was still Snape that made the decision to take a stick and prod the knot and go into the tunnel. You can't blame Sirius for that just because Sirius brought the information in a for Snape tempting way to try it. Let me ask you this question, would Snape have jump through hoops if Sirius had tricked him into doing that? I do not think so, Sirius provided Snape with information that Snape was very interested in and Snape used that information because he chose to use it. It is the same as stating Snape told Sirius to stay behind and he did not, so Snape tried to keep Sirius safe. No, he did not and it would not have mattered what Snape would have told Sirius when it concerned Harry because no one but Harry and maybe DD could have made Sirius stay behind in a situation like that. I do not hold Snape or anyone responsible for that. Draco lured Harry to the tower in PS for a midnight fight but Draco had no intention of showing up and just wanted Harry to get into trouble. Is Draco responsible for getting Harry into trouble or was it Harry's own choice to respond to Draco's invitation? Magpie: > Marietta, by contrast, holds sole responsibility for everything she > did, obviously. The only place where she was tricked was into > jinxing herself without knowing it--and if I were in the DA > (meaning a DA member who wasn't a Snitch) I would have been furious > to discover Hermione had tricked and hexed me the same way. Dana: This I agree with because at least everyone signing the paper was entitled to know what could happen if they signed it and it would have given people the choice not to do so and walk away. Magpie: > Yes, it can. You're drawing that magic circle again, imo. Marietta > is responsible for deciding to join an organization she already > wasn't comfortable with and for ratting them out. Hermione is > responsible for the hex, period. She's the one who worked it out > and cast it and asked people to sign the paper without telling them > it was there. Dana: No, I again am not drawing a magical circle of anything because Marietta made a choice to join up an organization, comfortably or not, it does not matter. It was still her own choice to do so because even though personal choices can be directed by the way we interact with our environment, like friends for instance, we are not puppets that have no say in the matter what so ever. Marietta could have walked away at any time she liked and if she had not gone to Umbridge, she, like any other member of the DA, would never have had the word Sneak on her face. The jinx did not prevent anyone from walking away if they felt they did no longer wanted to be associated with it, for what ever reason. The jinx did not make Marietta rat on the DA and therefore Hermione is not responsible for Marietta ending up with the pustules even if Hermione should have told this before anyone signed it. Hermione did not take away any free choices even if I agree that she should have told that the parchment was jinxed. Marietta came to the hogs head on her own free choice convinced by Cho or not, she signed the paper on her own free choice with or without knowing about the jinx, she stayed for 4 months out of free choice and then she went to Umbridge out of free choice. With signing the parchment Marietta agreed not to go to Umbridge and if she was not sure that she could live up to that then she had a choice not to sign and therefore not agree. Hermione or Sirius not denying that they did what they did does not mean they therefore should take responsibility for the actions of that person because it resulted or could have resulted in something negative for that specific person. Hermione did not jinx Marietta, she jinxed the parchment and Marietta herself made the jinx come into to action. Marietta would not have had to have the word Sneak written all over her face if she had hold her tong and neither did Snape have to go into the tunnel because Sirius said so. Magpie: > Right, which is why Marietta gets blamed for joining the group and > ratting the group out and Hermione gets blamed for her own hex. > When I say that imo the hex has gone on too long, that opinion > would go to Hermione, not Marietta. Hermione's the one in charge of > the hex, not Marietta. I suspect if Hermione's mother knew anything > about it she would say the same thing.(Obviously that's not a > canonical assumption since I don't know.) Dana: Well I don't know if it went on long enough, maybe it did but Harry is still feeling the after effect of what Marietta set in motion so maybe Hermione doesn't feel obligated to help Marietta and it seems that in HBP the jinx is wearing of on its own. Magpie: > Snape was actually very much like a three year old kid lured to a > specific place with a promise he'd find candy there. Sirius was > counting on that. I don't judge Snape as a 3 year old, but his > being sixteen doesn't change the nature of the lure so much that it > doesn't become a lure anymore. All the ways Snape could have found > out that Lupin was a werewolf before that didn't happen (and seem > far more obvious once you know the truth than they did before that-- > a werewolf at Hogwarts would probably have been considered an > impossibility at that point). Snape was doing what Sirius did > without bad consequences every month. Sirius' trick was based not > just on Snape's lust for learning a secret of MWPP or getting them > in trouble, but on his ignorance of the danger. If Snape understood > the danger, there's no Prank. Dana: So Sirius being rash is Sirius responsibility but Snape being rash and not thinking and letting himself be guided by his own urges is also Sirius responsibility? What I meant with a 3 year old being lured somewhere is that a three year old can not process information coming to him or her in the same way a teenager or an adult could have and so no I do not see the comparison you make here. Sirius might have counted on his ability of playing Snape like a violin but that does not take away Snape's own responsibility in making the choices he made. He might not have wanted to put himself in harms way but Sirius did not physically put him there either. It was still Snape picking up the stick and giving himself access to the tunnel behind the willow and at this moment canon implies he knew he would find Lupin there because Sirius told him how to get to him. Snape knew 4 things 1) that Lupin went somewhere every month 2) that he was brought to the willow by the schoolnurse 3) that Sirius was his enemy and a friend to Lupin 4) he had learned about werewolves during classes and even already passed his exams including this topic as well. 5) that he could get to Lupin by passing the willow that night because Sirius told him. I do not buy Snape could not know Lupin was a werewolf because there was no werewolf at Hogwarts before (and not after either) for the simple fact that James and Sirius found out what Lupin was without this knowledge either and they didn't even learned anything about werewolves in class and they were either 11 or 12. Hermione could never dream that DD would hire a werewolf as there never before was a teacher who was a werewolf but with the information she gathered she could still figure it out and she was 14 at that time. So Snape is either truly not that intelligent and therefore could not have figured it out, after all the information he had or he could have but chose to disregard it anyway because Sirius pushed the right buttons. It is just like with Narcissa she played Snape like a violin and directed him precisely were she wanted him to go but it was still Snape that walked into her web with both eyes open and he still agreed to take the vow, no one made him do it. You make Sirius into a professional con-artist here that, unlike you credit Snape, knew precisely what he was doing and did not get carried away in the moment. Sirius is a person that is indeed rash, that acts before he thinks but Snape is not, he is cunning and calculated and from what we have seen I do not think it was Sirius counting on Snape to ignore the dangers because Snape is not a person that takes personal risks if he can avoid them. To be honest with you the only thing I can think off that would push Snape's buttons and make him extremely angry about losing control over it later, is him being called a coward. And like with the vow I still think, it was Bella calling Snape a coward that initiated Snape wanting to proof himself to Narcissa. We see that the coward issue is the only thing (well besides him not getting his revenge) that makes Snape lose his cool and it is the one thing that he smears all over Sirius face in OotP. It is just an assumption but I would not be surprised if it was this tune that Sirius played that Snape could not resist. But even if it was then it was still Snape's own choice to proof he wasn't a coward. JMHO Dana From limerent4ever at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 22:55:59 2007 From: limerent4ever at gmail.com (limerent4ever) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:55:59 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169691 Hello all! I am an on and off again lurker for years- mostly off as I was always overwhelmed by the number of posts here and stupidly never saw the topic view for some reason till lately. :( So I was rereading CoS and came to the part where Harry is hiding in Borgin & Burkes while Draco is browsing the store. The opal necklace is stated as 'claiming the lives of nineteen muggle owners to date.' So my question is why did Draco seem to think giving it to Dumbledore would result in his (DD's) death? I want to say that I am aware that there might be an easy answer as I haven't reread HBP (or OotP) since I read it right after it came out. The card also says 'Caution: Do not touch. Cursed.' So I take it it must be dangerous to everyone but especially to muggles. Is this correct as far as we know? Thanks in advance, limerent From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 00:09:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:09:57 -0000 Subject: What Did Snape Know? (Was: Prank and various responsibilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169692 > Magpie: > > In that case > > Snape didn't know he was facing anything deadly--why should he, > > when he was doing exactly what Sirius did, as far as he knew? That > > does give Sirius responsibility, a responsibility he himself never > > denies. He thought Snape deserved to get Pranked for being nosy and > > trying to follow them, so he used Snape's ignorance of the werewolf > > and MWPP being Animagi to trick him into a situation beyond what he > > thought he was getting into. > > Dana: > You would have been correct if it wasn't already specifically stated > that Snape would find Lupin on the other side of the willow or if > Snape wasn't already very interested in what was going on with Lupin > to notice he disappeared *every* month. That means Snape was snooping > around to get more information about what Lupin was up to for more > then just one month or just that night. The willow was forbidden > territory and Lupin was hidden behind it and Sirius as is stated told > Snape Lupin was behind the tree. > And so to me Snape could have known what he could find when he went > after Lupin. Snape had too much information that could have told him > what he could find by entering the tunnel and thus to make a well > informed decision to go and it is not me re-writing canon as it is > specifically stated as such. And I believe that is why Sirius did not > feel responsible if Snape had gotten more then he could chew because > it was Snape himself that decided to go. Montavilla47: I'm curious about what Snape actually knew and when he knew it. When exactly did he see Madam Pomphrey leading Lupin to the tree? A month earlier? Six months? A year? The Marauders slept in the same room as Lupin. So, they wouldn't be able to help but notice that he was gone *every* month. For Snape, in another house, this would be far less evident. Harry doesn't have many classes in common with Slytherin students. In first and second year, the only classes they had in common were Potions. So, if Draco had been disappearing for one or two days a month, it's not likely that he even know about more than one or two of those disappearances a year. Unless he's watching the Slytherin table during meals to check if Draco's there. Which, being Harry, he might. On the other hand, would he necessarily notice if Crabbe, Goyle, or Theodore Nott were missing? Of course not. So, unless there really is Snape/Lupin slash going on, why would Snape notice Lupin being gone until at least third year (when they might have shared more classes in common)? Hermione had at least one more clue than Snape would have had about Lupin. She saw his boggart and recognized it as the moon. If Harry told her about that interesting scene in Lupin's office, then she'd also have the clue that Lupin was taking some special potion for his condition. That story Lupin tells bugs me. I can easily imagine that Snape was obsessed with all things Marauder. I'd be obsessed, too, if people were turning me upside and taking off my panties in public. But when I try to imagine the Prank as described, it doesn't make a lot of sense. If I saw an adult woman in authority leading a teenage boy out to a tunnel at night, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that he was a werewolf. I'd think they were having an affair. And just where was Snape when James did the hero thing? If he was inside the tunnel, was Lupin already transformed? I can't quite see a stag fitting in a tunnel, or being able to fend off a werewolf if it were, simply because the horns would get caught on the top of the tunnel. And if James did transform, then Snape would need to be unconscious, or the animagus secret would be out. And somehow I can't imagine all this fuss if James had caught Snape *before* they encountered Lupin. Although, I can see James trying to warn Snape inside the tunnel and Snape brushing him off. But, in that case, one or both of them would end up running into Lupin. Or did James go into the tunnel, catch Snape, argue with him about going on, stun him, and drag him out of the tunnel before Lupin showed up? That's possible, but it doesn't seem enough to invoke the kind of debt that rips Snape up in PS/SS. I don't think Snape would believe there *was* any danger unless he saw it for himself. And he'd just end up mad at James for stunning him, not saving his life. It all makes much more sense to me if the "action" took place outside the tunnel. Unless that tunnel is a lot bigger than it seems to be. Yes, I know I'm thinking way too much about this. Montavilla47 From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Sun Jun 3 00:10:29 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:10:29 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169693 > Betsy Hp: Harry and co. treat those who disagree with them on however a > trivial level (quidditch; politics) in a way I'm only comfortable > with in a fictional world. IOWs, they treat those around them > as "other" or less than human. And they do it often enough, and > without any sort of twinge of conscience, that it does come across > as wrong to me.>>>> I get the impression that JKR deliberately cuts down on the interaction with other students outside the Trio - for two possible reasons. It might be that she's not sufficiently skilled as a writer to juggle a variety of interactions with other characters but a more probable explanation is that 'the plot's the thing' and that she deliberately minimises the Trio's contact with others to keep up the tempo of her story. This does create situations where characters pop in and out of the story almost as plot devices. One example of this is Cormac Mclaggen who appears for the first time in HBP as reserve Quidditch keeper to create a Ron-Hermione-Cormac triangle. Cormac is a year older than Harry and we read in a description of the Quidditch trials' the latter [group] included a large, wiry-haired boy Harry recognised immediately from the Hogwarts Express. McLaggen was one of the select group invited to Slughorn's compartment, apparently because of his family connections with the ministry. In the train Harry and Neville greet him as though they hardly know him or don't know him at all. To my mind this is ridiculous. I actually went to a traditional British boarding school, divided into four houses. As in Hogwarts you spent your leisure time mainly in the company of your housemates, in the common room or dormitories. There is no doubt that you got to know people in your house very well, especially those in your own year or slightly older or younger. Whether you liked them or not, you would certainly have spent a lot of time with them by the sixth year and would hardly greet them as if you hardly knew them. Because of the way JKR writes H, H and R often appear to be cut off from other students in a sort of bubble. Sylvia From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 01:13:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:13:49 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman / Dementors (Was: Re: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169694 CMC: > > > Then why didn't Harry recognize him? In GoF it's frequently implied that Bagman is well past his prime as an athlete. For all his ineptitude, the unnamed blonde DE from HBP does not seem to be physically decrepit. > > Goddlefrood: > Harry had one fleeting glimpse of the blond Death Eater during the lark at Hogwarts. He had not seen Bagman for more than a year. Bagman had not notably been on the wizarding scene and may well have regained some of his former sporting prowess (lost his pot belly, in other words). His hair would have grown, possibly as part of a disguise from the Goblins . > > This may be thought rather thin, but then so is a view that Harry must surely have recognised Bagman had he been the blond Death Eater. > > It should also be borne in mind that, not only was any view Harry had of the blond Death Eater fleeting, but also that Harry at the relevant time was in torch lit corridors and the darkened grounds (where he only saw the behind of blondy) and was rather preoccupied with a certain Severus Snape rather than on figuring out who all the others involved were. > > There are at least two wholly unremarked upon Death Eaters involved in the jamboree and brutal-face is no more than that. > > It'll take a good deal more than the above to make me alter my view, fwiw. > Carol responds: I'm not trying to get you to alter your view, but I do agree with CMC that Harry would have recognized Ludo, even an altered Ludo, just as he recognized the much younger Ludo in the Pensieve scene before his name was given GoF Am. ed. 591). And Harry isn't the only one who would have recognized Ludo Bagman and mentioned something about it. Ron and Ginny, who are in the hospital wing with Harrry, also saw the blond DE firing off curses everywhere. Both of them were at the QWC with Harry when Ludo and Mr. Crouch were talking to Mr. Weasley, not to mention that they were in the box when he was announcing the game and at Hogwarts during the various events that he either announced or attended. It seems unlikely to me that none of the three would recognize either his face or his voice. (Even the preoccupied Harry knew that the DE was blond, so he must not have been hooded, as Ludo surely would have been for fear of being recognized.) McGonagall, too, was at Hogwarts every time that Ludo was there and probably knew him well enough to recognize him, having taught him for seven years some twenty-five or so years before. And unlike Harry, ot one of them was preoccupied with Severus Snape.they were all paying plenty of attention to Blondie, whose very ineptitude made him dangerous. And yet not one of them mentions the possibility that he might be Ludo Bagman. Ron mentions "that massive Death Eater ... firing off jinxes all over the place." Ginny speaks of "that huge Death Eater's jinx just miss[ing her]." Then Lupin (who probably know who Bagman is from the Daily Prophet, but doesn't have quite as much reason to recognize him as the others, says that "the big Death Eater fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in." (HBP am. ed. 620-21). Considering the attention that he received, you'd think that one of those people would have recognized him if he were the famous Ludo Bagman, whom Ron, at least, knows passed information to the DEs because Harry told him about the Pensieve excursion in GoF. Also, I don't recall Ludo being described as "massive" or "huge,"either when he was in his prime as a Beater (he'd have been too big to fit on a broom) or after he'd "gone to seed" and his robes were too tight (but he could still fit into them). Also I would think, though I'm just thinking of probabilities, that he'd most likely *lose* weight hiding from the goblins rather than gaining it. At any rate, my view is that the big blond DE is probably Goyle Sr., who, unlike his companion Crabbe Sr. wasn't at the MoM (unless JKR inadvertently left him out when Lucius pairs everyone off, OoP Am. ed. 788) and who is described, along with Crabbe, as one of "the two largest hooded figures." And given how large his son already is, I'd guess that "huge" and "massive" would probably apply to Goyle Sr. I'm not so sure about your hypothesized missing DEs (though you could be right). Why didn't they get any attention at all from Ron and Lupin and the others? Maybe JKR just lost count, just as she had Scrimgeour (who would know the difference if anyone would) refer to the Petrified Brutal-Face (Yaxley?) as "Stunned." (I'm sure we'll read about any DEs who were arrested since they'll probably be testifying about Snape killing DD on the tower, and they'll probably reveal the names of their escaped companions. Strange, BTW, that one of the DEs must have addressed the now-dead Gibbon by name. Why him and not the others?) So I'm not ruling out your hypotheses, just explaining why I disagree with them. And, BTW, CMC, I'm not sure I'd describe a "gone to seed" Ludo Bagman as "decrepit." I'm guessing he's about 40, with a beer belly like many men of that age but still active, just not fit enough to play professional Quidditch. "Decrepit" suggests that he's ready for the old folks home. Even Dumbledore at 150 isn't "decrepit." Otherwise, of course, I agree with you about Ludo Bagman probably not being the big blond DE. CMC: > > > In Snape's first DADA class, he has on display several banner-sized photos, one of which is a dementor victim, in an inert zombie-like condition. > > Goddlefrood: > > A picture of a victim that was seen momentarily does not a case make. If the above is taken on its face then maybe, rather than becoming a Dementor the victim becomes an Inferi, does that seem possible? Carol: That's an interesting (if horrific) hypothesis, but according to Snape, an Inferius is "a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard's spells. It is not alive; it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard's bidding" (HBP am. ed. 400), rather than being the result of a soul-sucking by a Dementor. (In the first lesson mentioned by CMC, he mentions the Dementor's kiss immediately before he mentions Inferi but doesn't connect the two except as forms of Dark magic that the students need to watch out for, 178). So since Barty Jr. is not, so far as we know, a corpse, but is simply soulless and empty, I'd say that he's more likely to be in a special ward in St. Mungo's than floating face down in Voldemort's cave (or wherever he keeps the rest of his Inferi--almost said "zombies" as I don't see any difference.). > Goddlefrood: > I'll go a little into how I think Dementors came about now. I have formed the view that originally they were created by some witch or wizard for the purpose of intimidation of others. If that is near enough the case than it certainly worked as most of the opinions expressed regarding Dementors in canon are that they are disturbing beings and were the ideal guards of the wizarding prison. > > There is no indication so far that they can talk so it should also be wondered how they communicate with witches and wizards. There must be some communication for them to be able to have agreed to guard Azkaban and for their having later agreed to join Lord Voldemort. I could not say for sure if we will find out about this matter, but it is interesting to speculate on it nevertheless. Carol: Clearly, they do communicate with wizards. We don't see it happen, but Fudge seems to be talking to the one that accompanies him in GoF (and ends sucking out Barty's soul), and my impression was that it was talking to him in return. Certainly, there's no question that they can understand what a wizard is saying; otherwise, it would be impossible for the Ministry to contro them or for Voldemort to offer them any incentive to change sides. But they don't seem to be soul-sucked people; their scabby hands look more dead than alive; they have no eyes and their mouth is used not to eat but to suck out happiness and souls. They don't walk, they glide. It's not clear whether they have feet. They're not included in FBAWTFT, which probably means that, unlike Lethifolds, Ghouls, and Trolls, they're not classified as beasts. That leaves either spirits (like Banshees and Ghosts) or beings (like Giants, and possibly Inferi). I'd say that spirits seems more likely, and yet, they seem solid. As for breeding, it's to be hoped that the male and female Dementors don't get together and make little Dementorlings. I doubt that they're divided into sexes, anyway. Fudge says that the mist means that the Dementors are breeding (14), which suggests a less physical process. I think they grow out of human depression and widespread sorrow, which they then spread around (a bit counterproductive if they're looking for happiness to feed on!). JKR says that they symbolize depression and the loss of hope. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-globereview-martin.html Anyway, I don't know if we'll ever be told exactly what Dementors are or how they communicate, but I don't think they're people who've lost their souls. Most victims of Dementors die from losing their happiness, I would think, like the prisoners who went mad and died in Azkaban. I doubt there are many victims who actually lose their souls, even Azkaban prisoners. (Obviously, the ten who escaped from Azkaban after Sirius Black didn't, nor did Black himself despite a very close call.) Carol, who expects to hear about more Dementor victims actually losing their souls now that the Dementors are outside Ministry control (and with that horrible thought, retreats from this thread!) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jun 3 01:53:27 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:53:27 EDT Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169695 >Dana: >snip> >After OotP the marauders bullying Snape tainted many people's impression of the prank but they left out the notion that the werewolf topic was part of the DADA exams. And when you then look back at what Lupin states that Snape was interested in where Lupin went *every* month and that Snape saw Lupin being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey one night, it should invoke the conclusion that Sirius had nothing to do with Snape willingly going to the willow, he just gave Snape information to get passed the willow. It is actually irrelevant what reason either Sirius or Snape had because it was Snape's own choice to go. Snape disregarded every warning sign that he came across and went anyway but suddenly it is Sirius fault if he had gotten killed. clearly DD's decision to make Snape promise not to tell gives a totally different indication on what he thought about the responsibilities each person had in the events of that night. Sirius responsibility lies with Lupin, he betrayed Lupin with telling Snape the secret on how to get passed the willow and I believe he paid dearly for it when Lupin was left out of the SK switch plan and he lost Harry because of it because DD believed he indeed was the Potters secret keeper and it made DD chose to place Harry with the Dursley's instead of giving Sirius a chance to raise Harry as the Potters intended it to be. . >Dana I never said Snape deserved to die because of the choice he made about going after Lupin but it would nevertheless have been his own fault if it had happened and James prevented the worst outcome for both Snape's own choice and Lupin unwilling participation in it. The view of Snape not having any responsibility in what happened or could have happened is a fan thing because they like Snape and hate the marauders for bullying Snape, it is not a canon thing because if you would actually look at this with an open mind then it is not hard to see that Snape made the choices he made because he wanted it. Snape was not a 3 year old kid that was lured to a specific place with the promise he would find candy there. He was 16 years old and he did not only have Sirius information that could have directed his choices but he chose to disregard them anyway and go after Lupin. If it was just curiosity then so be it but I doubt that it was just because Snape wanting to know what Lupin was up to there. Because Snape could have gotten that information by other means then just go have a look. Putting Lupin's monthly disappearances next to a lunar chart would have done the trick without ever putting himself into harms way. Sirius responsibility would not have been in Snape's dead but Lupin's unwillingly participation in it because Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape the secret how the get passed the willow. If Snape never had gone there then Sirius still betrayed Lupin. Nikkalmati I certainly agree with you that Sirius betrayed his friend Lupin and was disloyal to him because if Snape had been hurt Lupin would have been exposed and expelled; if Snape had been killed, Lupin might have ended up in Azkaban. I wonder that Lupin has been able to forgive Sirius ( if he has)! Even worse, if Snape knew he would be facing a werewolf, he would have been prepared and Lupin risked being killed. If Lupin had attacked Snape, Snape would have been within his rights to kill him, if he were able. Are we supposed to believe Sirius was that thoughtless? It appears so. I also think one reason Snape wanted the kids to know the symptoms of a werewolf was that he had missed it himself all those years ago. Nikkalmati >lealess >To some extent, I agree that continued exposure to a werewolf may have lessened Black's appreciation of the danger Lupin posed to others. On the other hand, he *was* a serious danger, as is drinking and driving. Teenagers in our society can pay a penalty for engaging in dangerous behavior and posing a threat or actually harming another. Given that, and considering the potentially very great harm possible in the Prank, I wonder how Sirius Black avoided expulsion, and why Snape presumably agreed to keep Lupin's secret. What in the world was Dumbledore doing? I hope this is explained in DH. >Alla >Right, now back to Prank. I had never been especially surprised why Sirius avoided expulsion just as I was always sure that he was punished appropriately. Hogwarts after all has plenty of nasty punishments and the act that Snape thinks expulsion is the only one that should have been given, does not make that true IMO. >That in fact and the fact that Snape agreed to keep Lupin secret always indicated to me that Snape IS complicit in prank night on more serious level. >I just do not see Dumbledore threatening Snape unless Snape has something to fret about. Speculating as always about prank. Nikkalmati There are a number of anomalies in the Prank story. One is why didn't a smart boy like Snape know Lupin was a werewolf? Another is who was involved? Was Lupin involved? I suspect not. Did James know and get cold feet (or figure out who was really going to pay the price of exposure, Lupin), like Snape believes? Another is what happened to the Marauders afterwards. I think we are assuming DD found out about the Prank right away, but maybe he didn't. DD and SS didn't find out the Marauders were Animagi and I can't see how that would not come out. Maybe after he pulled Snape out of the tunnel James made Snape promise not to tell DD about the Prank for some reason, possibly in return for saving him. Maybe DD didn't hear the story until Snape came back to him from LV. James gave no sign in school he had changed his mind about Snape or vise versa. Certainly, James did not stop hexing Snape, but he did it only where Lily could not see. (Lily must not have been to angry at Snape for calling her a Mudblood or she would not have cared about James hexing Snape in 7th year). I would also wonder why Snape would take Sirius' word for anything. Did Sirius arrange for Snape to "accidentally" overhear him talking about how to get past the WW? Did Snape suspect the Marauders of joining Lupin or why would Snape believe Sirius knew about how to get past the WW? Nikkalmati (who doubts James rescued Snape in his Prongs avatar, but ran into the tunnel as just James. Otherwise, it was not much of an heroic feat) >colebiancardi: > > I think there is something more, something deeply personal, something like a younger brother(Regulus!something like a younger (IMHO) with Snape that causes Sirius to loathe Snape so much. Sure, Sirius calls his brother dim, but other than that, Sirius doesn't speak that ill of > his late brother. Nikkalmati Could be, we don't know that Sirius wouldn't both be jealous of his brother and blame Snape for leading him astray. Sirius isn't known for his clear thinking. I suggested in another post that Snape may be a Black through his mother's maternal line. In that case, the roots of the Sirius/Snape hatred could go back generations and the boys may have been enemies before they came to Hogwarts. Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jun 3 01:59:05 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:59:05 -0000 Subject: What Did Snape Know? (Was: Prank and various responsibilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169696 > > > Dana: > > You would have been correct if it wasn't already specifically stated > > that Snape would find Lupin on the other side of the willow or if > > Snape wasn't already very interested in what was going on with Lupin > > to notice he disappeared *every* month. That means Snape was snooping > > around to get more information about what Lupin was up to for more > > then just one month or just that night. The willow was forbidden > > territory and Lupin was hidden behind it and Sirius as is stated told > > Snape Lupin was behind the tree. > > And so to me Snape could have known what he could find when he went > > after Lupin. wynnleaf Yes, Snape knew that he'd find Lupin if he went in the tunnel, but if Snape already knew Lupin was a werewolf, why go in at *all?* Of course he didn't know Lupin was transforming into a werewolf in there. We haven't got the slightest bit of canon that says he did, either. And it makes it just ridiculous that he'd go into that tree if he knew a werewolf was on the other side. Dana Snape had too much information that could have told him > > what he could find by entering the tunnel and thus to make a well > > informed decision to go and it is not me re-writing canon as it is > > specifically stated as such. wynnleaf Well, where is it specifically stated "as such?" What do you mean "as such?" "As such" implies that somewhere in canon it's specifically stated that Snape had enough info to tell him what he'd find in the tunnel. Sorry, that's not stated in canon. All we know from canon is that Snape wondered where Lupin went every month and had seen Pomfrey and Lupin "crossing the grounds" one evening "as she led" Lupin to the tree. It's not actually stated that Snape saw Lupin and Pomfrey go in the tree. So that automatically means he knew Lupin was a werewolf? The entire school of Hogwarts knew for a solid academic year that Lupin was absent every month and *no one* figured out that he was a werewolf except for Hermione who had the added info about his taking a potion. The whole of one 3rd year class (and maybe the other 3rd years, but we didn't see their class) even got to see Lupin's boggart and *still* didn't figure it out. But, Dana, you assume that Snape had knew, solely because Lupin was gone each month. Big assumption, I'd say, especially since Snape didn't have Lupin as a teacher, just another kid in another house, and might not notice for ages that he was gone monthly as opposed to just every so often. Dana And I believe that is why Sirius did not > > feel responsible if Snape had gotten more then he could chew because > > it was Snape himself that decided to go. wynnleaf No canon for that, of course. What Sirius actually *said* had nothing to do with Snape's responsibility due to it being Snape's decision. Instead, Sirius said that Snape's sneaking around trying to get them expelled was why it "served him right" rather than "it served him right" because it was his own decision to enter the tree. > > Montavilla47: > I'm curious about what Snape actually knew and when he knew it. > When exactly did he see Madam Pomphrey leading Lupin to the tree? A > month earlier? Six months? A year? wynnleaf Interesting question. As I mentioned above, the entire school of Hogwarts experienced the very noticeable absence of Lupin on a monthly basis for an entire school year and only one person figured out that he was a werewolf. And they even had Snape making them do a lesson on werewolves. I guess, according to JKR and canon, it really *wasn't* that easy to figure out that Lupin was a werewolf, just by his being gone monthly. According to JKR and canon, it wasn't even easy to work it out if you know he's absent every month *and* you get a lesson on werewolves. Montavilla47: > The Marauders slept in the same room as Lupin. So, they wouldn't be > able to help but notice that he was gone *every* month. For Snape, in > another house, this would be far less evident. wynnleaf, Quite correct. Unlike the students of Hogwarts, who would each have been very much aware every time Lupin was absent, a student in one house would be unlikely to notice the specific nature of the absences of a student in another house. Montavilla47: Harry doesn't have many > classes in common with Slytherin students. In first and second year, > the only classes they had in common were Potions. So, if Draco had > been disappearing for one or two days a month, it's not likely that he > even know about more than one or two of those disappearances a year. > > Unless he's watching the Slytherin table during meals to check if Draco's > there. Which, being Harry, he might. On the other hand, would he > necessarily notice if Crabbe, Goyle, or Theodore Nott were missing? Of > course not. wynnleaf This is also a good point because it appears, although not for sure, that attacks on Snape that were started by the Marauders were more likely to be started by James and Sirius, and Lupin was less likely to actually take part. So -- like Harry noticing Draco more than Crabbe and Goyle -- Snape, if he was going to be noticing the comings and goings of the Marauders, would be more likely to focus on James and Sirius. Montavilla47: > Hermione had at least one more clue than Snape would have had about > Lupin. She saw his boggart and recognized it as the moon. If Harry told > her about that interesting scene in Lupin's office, then she'd also have > the clue that Lupin was taking some special potion for his condition. wynnleaf She did know about the potion as Harry told Hermione and Ron about Snape giving Lupin his potion. Montavilla47: when I try to imagine the Prank as described, it doesn't make a lot of sense. > > If I saw an adult woman in authority leading a teenage boy out to > a tunnel at night, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that he was a > werewolf. I'd think they were having an affair. wynnleaf Good point. So would I. But we don't know how old Pomfrey is, which would have a lot to do with whether another student might suspect that. Montavilla47: > And just where was Snape when James did the hero thing? If he was > inside the tunnel, was Lupin already transformed? I can't quite see > a stag fitting in a tunnel, or being able to fend off a werewolf if it were, > simply because the horns would get caught on the top of the tunnel. > > And if James did transform, then Snape would need to be unconscious, > or the animagus secret would be out. And somehow I can't imagine all > this fuss if James had caught Snape *before* they encountered Lupin. > Although, I can see James trying to warn Snape inside the tunnel and > Snape brushing him off. But, in that case, one or both of them would > end up running into Lupin. wynnleaf We are told that Snape "glimpsed" Lupin in werewolf form. However, Lupin's explanation of the event is a bit contradictory. On the one hand, he said that James "went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life." We know it *must* have been at great risk to James' life because Snape ended up with a life debt. But then Lupin said that "Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel" which makes it sound almost as though James and Snape were far down at one end, while the werewolf was far at the other end and Snape could just "glimpse" Lupin. But if that was the case, James would not have been at much risk of his life. In my opinion, Lupin has a habit of skewing his comments to make things seem less bad than they are, so I wouldn't be surprised if Snape and James were a lot closer to the werewolf than it seems in Lupin's account. As regards James transforming. If James could have transformed in the tunnel, he wouldn't have been risking his life much, since he could always protect himself by transforming. However, in descriptions of the tunnel it appears rather cramped, so it may be that it was too small for James to transform inside into Prongs, in which case he didn't have that option. Lupin also says, "from that time on he knew what I was" thereby directly contradicting any theory that Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf prior to going into the tunnel. Ah, canon! Montavilla47: > It all makes much more sense to me if the "action" took place outside > the tunnel. Unless that tunnel is a lot bigger than it seems to be. > wynnleaf As you see from Lupin's comments, Snape was in the tunnel and saw Lupin in werewolf form. James, in regular human form, pulled him out of the tunnel. Snape never saw anyone in animagus form, at least as far as we're told. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jun 3 02:02:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:02:09 -0000 Subject: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169697 Goddlefrood: > Karkaroff's proceeding is first. He is already dead so will > play little part in DH. He does, however, mention several > other DEs of whom all, other than Mr. Multiplicity, are dead > or in Azkaban having been participants in the DoM raid. Mad- > Eye Moody at this point has both his eyes intact, and although > he says that Rosier took a chunk out of his nose we have not > so far been informed what happened to his eye or his leg. > > Question 1 - Who or what accounted for Mad-Eye's lost eye and > his leg? Jen: The fact that we haven't been told how Moody received two of his rather significant injuries makes me think they are important to the story, specifically to the Longbottom storyline. In the first trial as you said, Moody has two normal eyes (and maybe his leg?) and he explains that he lost the chunk off his nose while capturing Rosier. Then he's present again at the Bagman trial and Harry makes no mention of his face, so presumably Moody still has two normal eyes. In the Longbottom trial, the trial of the four who tortured his colleagues Frank and Alice, Moody is absent with no explanation. Since Moody was considered one of the best Aurors, it follows he would have been in on the capture of the DEs due to the public fury and intense pressure on the MOM. So I'd say Moody was speculatively in St. Mungos during the Longbottom trial, recovering from the loss of his eye, leg and perhaps other injuries. The question is what witholding the information of the injuries and Moody's involvement in the capture could mean for the story now, if anything? Possibly Moody overheard the four DEs say something that seemed insignificant at the time but Harry will realize is significant to a horcrux when Moody reveals his story (whether the DEs even knew what they were revealing). The same possibility exists that Frank and Alice offered pertinent information when they were questioned at the time. Dumbledore said they were unreliable but could something they said when questioned originally have been misunderstood as nonsensical when really it was accurate information overheard during their torture? A last thought is that the location where the four were finally captured could lead Moody and perhaps Neville to locate Bella et. al. in DH. Jen From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 01:43:09 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:43:09 -0000 Subject: On Jurisprudence (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169698 -> Goodlefrood: > > Habeas Corpus simply means produce the body, and was rather > for the opposite of keeping people out of dungeons. It was > originally designed to get them out from dungeons once they > were already there. The basic concept was to avert injustice, > but was based at the time on Christian values, as I believe > has been pointed out elsewhere today. >> Oh, and I think the Greeks might have something to say about > where democracy came about, although the barons no doubt would > be pleased to know they are thought so highly of ;-) > > Basically then I disagree with the entirety of the above quoted > material for my above set out reasons. > Lizzyben: Well, I wasn't really aiming at a discussion of the details of Anglo-American legal jurisprudence. What it basically boils down to is that, as you've stated, that protections like habeas corpus were created in order to "avert injustice." The Magna Carta averts unjust rulers, by making all rulers bound to obey the law. The Constitution averts injustice by guaranteeing basic rights to all citizens, including the right to a fair trial, free speech, & equal protection under the law. As such, these documents create basic ideals of fairness & justice, which the legal system is later built around & upon. That's not to say that the legal system meets these goals, but at least the ideal is there in the foundational documents. There's no indication at all that such protections against injustice exist in the WW. The Wizengamot has all the protections & safeguards of the Spanish Inquisition. People can be jailed (and tortured) based on one person's word, without trial, & without a chance to present evidence. You can even be thrown into Azkaban based on the mere *suspicion* that you've done something wrong. Meanwhile, people like Malfoy or Snape, who have powerful allies, avoid imprisonment altogether despite their crimes. There's no real justice, only a system based on fear & favoritism. The WW is a nation of "men, not laws," where who you know matters much, much more than the regulations. This does not foster justice - it fosters a lawless society. When people don't feel that they can appeal to an impartial judge for justice, they begin to take matters into their own hands & seek revenge instead - and we see this happen over & over in the WW. From Hagrid on down, wizards commonly will seek "revenge" for past slights or crimes - cause there's no getting justice for them. In this society, might makes right, and power & influence is what matters. It is a society that is rotten at its core. We can see this operate in microcosm at Hogwarts. DD himself encourages Harry & co. to violate the rules, as he himself violates the laws w/regularity. DD rips the cup away from Slytherin at the last moment to give it to his own House. Points are awarded & docked based on blatant favoritism. The punishment for an infraction depends mostly on whether you were discovered by Snape or McConegal, & whether you are Harry or Draco. It's totally capricious, arbitrary, & unjust; and the kids quite rightly begin to ignore the "laws" entirely - and take matters into their own hands. Revenge & grudge matches ensue, just as they do in the WW at large. Goddlefrood: > In your opinion perhaps, but they do have laws. There is a > plethora of legislation in many forms, Codes, Decrees and > Statutes to name but three types. These suggest that, although > there is corruption, the basic precept is not dissimilar to > our own. That the legal system in the WW does not work is not > a matter I would contend. > Lizzyben: Who makes those laws? There's no indication that there's any kind of actual legislature, or that the wizarding population at large has any voice in how the laws are formed. And the "laws" themselves seem more like petty regulations, of cauldron size & the like, rather than precepts to create a healthy society or a true judicial system. The laws seem quite similar to Umbridge's "decrees" at Hogwarts and are probably written in the same manner - some bureaucrat or official makes an arbitrary decision, and now it's law. If people don't like it, what can they do? Nothing, really. There's no elections, no opportunity to vote or to have a voice in the process. If people think that Fudge is a bad Minister, what options do they have to change things? The newspaper just reports MOM propaganda. They can't vote him out, because the Minister is appointed from within the Ministry. So normal people just live with it, while powerful people will plot to use their MOM influence in order to get the desired laws & leaders. It's a bit 1984-ish, a bit Stalinist - a totalitarian state, really. Goddlefrood: > During the first rise of Voldemort imprisonment without trial > was possible and I am sure there were necessary promulgations > by the Minister, or more probably Barty Crouch Senior, to the > effect that witches and wizards could be imprisoned without > trial. Cough :: Guantanamo Bay :: cough. > > I have lived under a state of emergency twice in the past 7 > years. They are not a great deal of fum and paranoia is rife. > Just because you are not paranopid does not mean *they* are > not out to get you. The WW most probably would have been > similar in that when a state of emergency is declared basic > rights and freedoms that might otherwise be taken for granted > fly out of the window. Lizzyben: But when the novels begin, it's been 11 years since Voldemort was at large. He's been defeated, the death eaters are in jail or dispersed, and wizarding society has gone back to normal. The WW is not in a state of emergency, nor is it at war. Basically, for 13 years the WW was at peace. Yet they still have this draconian system in which "basic rights & freedoms" are thrown out the window. That's not a reflection of any temporary state of "martial law," that's simply how this society operates. Goddlefrood: >Once more I say the Human Rights legislations are recent > developments and would have had no bearing at all on the > development of the WW and its rights. It is difficult to > separate the concept, but not impossible. I try not to > impose my personal values on a system like the WW, which > is corrupt and very different from anything seen in the > real world for centuries, in terms of its legal system, > and other of its values, actually. Lizzyben: I'm familiar w/human rights legislation and international law. If they have no bearing on the WW, they SHOULD. Just as treaties like the Geneva convention guarantee some minimum rights for POWs, the WW should have some minimum rights for prisoners in their own society. They should have some legal precepts that guarantee that a human being is entitled to certain basic rights & protections. They just don't. It's a very backward, cruel society. > > lizzyben04: > > > If the sentient beings are so content & happy, why do we > > keep hearing about "goblin rebellions"? (Unlike Harry, I > > paid attention during History of Magic!) > > Goddlefrood: > > As did I. The last one which is dated occurred in 1612, iirc. > The goblins are now looking after the majority of wizarding > world money and also fulfilling the role of bookmakers. Of > the sentient beings they seem the most trusted, but they > are far from integrated. Kemper said it well in his recent > post, so I have little to add, but to commend that post of > Kemper's to you (generic). > > Elves do not seem overly displeased with their lot, but of > course we do not know how they became enslaved. Lizzyben: Goblin rebellions are highlighted so many times that I think it's got to have some relevance to the final novel. They've fought many times against discrimination & prejudice, and the newspaper says that there are still subversive goblin groups who are working against the MOM. (HP Lexicon). The goblins will probably join Voldemort, just like the giants did, because they didn't get the rights they want under the MOM. As for elves, Dobby didn't seem to happy with his lot, nor did Kreacher. They are slaves, and while they might not mind being servants, they do mind being forced to serve wizards that are cruel to them or don't respect them. But what options do they have? None - except perhaps turning on the WW. Here again, the injustice & oppression of the WW practically guarantees that they'll always have enemies or traitors waiting to turn on them. Goddlefrood: > > The Order was not an army, the DA wasn't either, it was an > ironic name based on Fudge's paranoia, a joke in other words, > little more nor less. The MoM has not taken any counter > measures to the Order at all, and as I said earlier, why > on earth would it seeing as they are on the same "side". > > Supreme Mugwump, etc. Lizzyben: The Order isn't an army, but it is a totally independent, powerful organization that the MOM has no control over. They don't like that very much; as shown when they used Umbridge to try to sabotage the group's activities. If & when V was defeated, the MOM would still be worried about DD's power. It's a temporary alliance of convenience, nothing more. And these 3rd party groups keep springing up because the MOM is so corrupt, weak & undemocratic. The DA, the Order, & goblin groups were all created because people were upset about the MOM's authoritarian actions. Without elections, 3rd party groups are the only way for normal people to get reform or subvert the MOM's authority. In order to maintain power, the MOM needs to stamp out these types of groups wherever possible. Goddlefrood: > Jealousy may creep in. The Order is not subverting the MoM, > IMO. That's not to say I think the MoM has any great virtue, > but while it may be corrupt and have little separation of > powers to boot, at least it is now trying to do what is right, > rather than what is easy, in my reading of it. Doesn't mean > I like the underlying ethics of the matter, but then it is all > just fictional and highly amusing. Lizzyben: Well, I guess they're now trying to do what's right, but are so corrupt & inefficient that they have no idea how to go about it. And they do do "what is easy" when they lock up patsies like Scrimcrour for PR purposes instead of finding the actual Death Eaters. They also try to persuade Harry to plug for them, again for PR purposes, to give the appearance that they've accomplished something. It's all about the image over the reality, and giving the appearance of protection over actually protecting people. The underlying ethics of the WW are a mess, a total mess. And I guess it is amusing on some level until you consider - this is the society that Harry is being asked to die for? This is the society that our heroes are risking their lives & their futures for? Doesn't seem fair to me. I'd probably be joining a goblin rebellion. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 02:09:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:09:00 -0000 Subject: Rita - Luna and the Qubbler?Prank and various responsibilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169699 Dana wrote: > > It is your opinion that I'm re-writing things but the problem with this suggestion is that Lupin did state that Snape was interested in knowing were Lupin went *every* month and that Snape *saw* Lupin being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey and we see that the DADA OWL included information about werewolves and that a third year with that same information could reveal Lupin's furry problem without ever having to go to Lupin's office to have a look if she was right. And she only observed Lupin for less then a school year when she found this out. Snape had at least 5 years to come to a conclusion about where Lupin went and even if he never wondered about this before then he still had enough information to make a well informed conclusion on what he could find. Carol responds: I'm familiar with this theory, but it remains a theory at this point since canon points in the opposite direction, as Alla and others have noted. That could change, of course, but the characters seem to believe that Sirius tricked Severus into entering a tunnel where he would encounter a werewolf he didn't know was there. And while I'd be interested in discussing the merits of this theory in relation to the degree of blame it would place on Severus (which would depend in part on whether he intended to kill the werewolf or just subdue it--Hermione's story about the Troll, anyone?), his intentions still wouldn't clear Sirius of providing him information that would lure him into terrible danger, either death or becoming a werewolf himself). But that aside, I want to point out that the question on the DADA exam is significantly different from the essay that Snape assigned. One is simply listing the five traits that differentiate a werewolf from a true wolf--characteristics that Severus had not yet had a chance to experience in person. There was no reason for him to associate a tufted tail or a differently shaped snout (OoP am. ed. 643) with Remus Lupin, whom he had seen going to the Shrieking Shack accompanied by Madam Pomfrey. We don't know when he saw that happen (you're assuming the first year, but that seems like a long shot--not even his own roommates found out about it until third year, IIRC) or how often it happened. It may have only happened once. Nor would Severus, bright though he undoubtedly is, would have necessarily associated a full-moon night with Remus's removal to the tunnel behind the Whomping Willow, which he wouldn't have known led to the Shrieking Shack. (Harry would have been equally curious, I imagine. Remember him following Draco Malfoy to Knockturn Alley?) Nor would Severus suspect even the open-minded Dumbledore of allowing a werewolf into the school, risking death and worse than death for any student encountering him on a full-moon night. Seeing Remus being led away on a full-moon night would not lead inevitably to such a conclusion. far from it, IMO. Hermione, in contrast, has seen Lupin's full-moon Boggart and no doubt wondered about both it and his absence from the classroom. (She also saw him looking ill and shabby, sleeping in the Hogwarts Express and knew about the potion Harry was preparing for him.) that information would come into her mind as she researched and wrote Snape's essay, which, far from requesting a list of characteristics that distinguish a werewolf from a true wolf, requires the student to "two rolls of parchment on the subject [of how to recognize and kill a werewolf]" (PoA am. ed. 173), a completely different subject as it would involve recognizing the werewolf in human as well as werewolf form. (Kill the werewolf sounds a bit over the top, but this is a DADA class and if it attacked them, killing it might actually be necessary. And if canon is to be trusted, he believed that this particular werewolf was trying to help Sirius Black kill Harry.) Hermione would have figured out that the potion was Wolfsbane potion, that the "crystal ball" Boggart was a full moon, that the absences always occurred at the time of the full moon--and she would understand, at least in part, why Snape always seemed so distrustful of Lupin. IOW, she had a lot more information to work with than Teen!Severus did, including an essay specifically designed to help her arrive at that conclusion. (I don't think Snape really expected anyone but Hermione to write two rolls of parchment for a substitute teadher.) Dana: > Snape at least could have known that Sirius telling Snape how to get passed the willow so Snape could spy on his friend could never have been well intentioned. Carol responds: That much I agree with. But even the usually logical Snape was not necessarily logical at sixteen, an age not associated with common sense even in highly intelligent kids. (I've always thought that his reckless courage and determination were a match for any Gryffindor's and that the traits he shared with James and Sirius probably intensified their mutual detestation.) Carol, noting that no matter what Severus's motives for entering the tunnel, he could not have done so if Sirius hadn't told him how to stop the Whomping Willow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 02:09:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:09:19 -0000 Subject: What Did Snape Know? (Was: Prank and various responsibilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169700 > wynnleaf > Yes, Snape knew that he'd find Lupin if he went in the tunnel, but if > Snape already knew Lupin was a werewolf, why go in at *all?* Of > course he didn't know Lupin was transforming into a werewolf in there. > We haven't got the slightest bit of canon that says he did, either. > And it makes it just ridiculous that he'd go into that tree if he knew > a werewolf was on the other side. Alla: It may sound ridiculous to you, but it sounds completely IC as I see Snape. It is a speculation of course, but we **do** IMO have support for it - Snape giving the same essay to the class for the **specific** purpose to recognise the werewolf, same werewolf, that he was dealing with decades ago. It may mean nothing that he was reading the same essay, it may though mean that he recognised who Lupin is and still went. Why? Here is one speculation. Because he does not think of werewolfs as human beings with terrible diseases. Because he thinks of them as dark creatures that needed to be killed and killing one of those dark creatures, even if in reality it is just another boy, who is ill IMO, can prove that he is a Dark art expert and deserves a medal or something. Because he was a bigot in his teens and Lupin's life meant nothing to him . Before prank of course. So, yeah, I think it is very plausible that Snape knew and still went for the specific purpose to kill Remus. We shall see - not that long to wait to find out. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jun 3 02:37:06 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:37:06 -0000 Subject: What Did Snape Know? (Was: Prank and various responsibilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169701 > > wynnleaf > > Yes, Snape knew that he'd find Lupin if he went in the tunnel, but if > > Snape already knew Lupin was a werewolf, why go in at *all?* Of > > course he didn't know Lupin was transforming into a werewolf in > there. > > We haven't got the slightest bit of canon that says he did, either. > > And it makes it just ridiculous that he'd go into that tree if he > knew > > a werewolf was on the other side. > > > > Alla: > > It may sound ridiculous to you, but it sounds completely IC as I see > Snape. It is a speculation of course, but we **do** IMO have support > for it - Snape giving the same essay to the class for the **specific** > purpose to recognise the werewolf, same werewolf, that he was dealing > with decades ago. wynnleaf I'm clearly missing something. What do you mean by "the same essay to the class?" What "same essay?" Snape tells Lupin's DADA class to read a particular chapter in the DADA textbook about werewolves. Where do we see that chapter elsewhere that makes it "the same essay?" Are you relating this to Snape writing his exam answers in the DADA OWL exam in the Worst Memory scene? I may be completely misunderstanding you, but I'm guessing here that you're drawing some sort of correlation between there being *one* question on the DADA OWL exam -- an exam for which Snape apparently writes long answers for all the questions -- and the fact that Snape had the students in 3rd year DADA class read the 3rd year text's chapter on werewolves. So what? You're saying that it's suspicious that Snape answered the werewolf question well on his DADA OWL? And that therefore he likely knew Lupin was a werewolf? Based on this logic, we must assume that the year Lupin taught at Hogwarts, no DADA students taking their OWLs were able to correctly answer a question on werewolves, because otherwise, they, like Snape supposedly did, should have been able to figure out that Lupin was a werewolf. Since no one other than Hermione figured it out, should we then assume that OWL level students (hey, not to mention that year's 6th and 7th years), were all completely unable to answer OWL level questions on werewolves? Or is it only Snape who would have the amazing perspicacity to both answer a DADA exam question on werewolves correctly *and* be assumed to recognize Lupin was a werewolf? Just remember, for an entire academic year, *no* student other than Hermione figured out that Lupin was a werewolf. That includes the 6th and 7th year students, as well as the students in the DADA class that saw Lupin's boggart. Alla > It may mean nothing that he was reading the same essay, it may though > mean that he recognised who Lupin is and still went. wynnleaf Here's where I must be totally missing something. What "same essay" was Snape reading? Alla > Why? Here is one speculation. Because he does not think of werewolfs > as human beings with terrible diseases. Because he thinks of them as > dark creatures that needed to be killed and killing one of those dark > creatures, even if in reality it is just another boy, who is ill IMO, > can prove that he is a Dark art expert and deserves a medal or > something. > > > Because he was a bigot in his teens and Lupin's life meant nothing to > him . Before prank of course. wynnleaf, Wow, that's a leap. We go from Snape knowing Lupin was a werewolf before he entered the tunnel (directly contradicted by Lupin, by the way, as I pointed out in my last post -- Lupin said, "from that time on he knew what I was"), to Snape actually wanting to *kill* Lupin the werewolf -- directly contradicted by Sirius, by the way, who said Snape was trying to get them expelled. wynnleaf > > So, yeah, I think it is very plausible that Snape knew and still went > for the specific purpose to kill Remus. > > We shall see - not that long to wait to find out. > > JMO, > > Alla > From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 3 02:37:50 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:37:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta Message-ID: <380-2200760323750843@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169702 Shelley again: I absolutely think it was only Snape's fault. He was told the truth, in how to get past a tree, but it was his own selfish motives that drove him to ACT on that information. No one MADE him act- so he alone must bear responsibility for his actions. (betraying a Headmaster's direct instructions to avoid the tree.) As mentioned, he could have taken another route and used his brain to figure out why Lupin was being shuttled to the tree by the school nurse- it wouldn't have been too hard to put two and two together to come up with a werewolf answer. I hate the fact that Snape continually dodges the truth, or manipulates it as he sees fit for his own personal gain. Yes, I also hate him for wanting to get Sirius's soul sucked out in that once again, he doesn't want to hear, nor does he really care, what the real truth is. He's using his hatred of a person to act unjustly, and in that, it's that trick all over again. Magpie: I don't see how you can slide over the fact that whole Prank rested on the fact that Snape did not realize he was facing one--according to what we've been told. That's Sirius' contribution, that's why it's *his* Prank.Why so dismissive of Snape not knowing as if it were obvious? No students knew except MWPP, and even Dumbledore didn't know that they were Animagi years later. Nobody, even MWPP, denies that *Sirius* set up the Prank. Snape believes James was in on it and got cold feet instead of that James heard about the Prank and stopped it, but regardless, you can't write Sirius out of the equation for his own Prank which he put together using: a) Snape's known desire to know what they were up to and get them in trouble and b) Snape's ignorance about the danger involved. If Snape could be expected to know there was a werewolf there, there's no Prank, nothing for him to be surprised and frightened by. Saying after the fact that anybody would have known is, imo, blatantly untrue based on what we're told (and also irrelevent). From what we've been told so far nobody knew what to find in the tunnel except James, Lupin, Peter and Sirius--all of which had things protecting them from the danger, unlike Snape. Seems to me one of the important elements of being a Prankster is that you are in more control and know more than your victim. Sirius says Snape "deserved" the Prank Sirius himself pulled on him. He doesn't say he wasn't responsible because Snape decided to fall for his trap. I know a lot of readers don't think much of Sirius, but I don't think even they imagine him as as pathetic a man as would try that. Dana: No, I'm not creating a magical circle of no responsibility just because I do not blame Sirius for Snape's decisions and thus the consequences of these decisions. Sirius is to blame for revealing Lupin's secret and getting Lupin involved in something he had no choice in and providing Snape with a way to get passed the willow. This decision had consequences that James eliminated by dragging Snape out (for the most part as I do believe it had other consequences as well). But it still does not make Sirius responsible for Snape's choice to follow up on the information he got from him. Magpie: I think if someone engineers a Prank, takes steps to get the outcome that he wants, based both on things the victim is likely to do and also on things that he knows and the victim doesn't, and you say that it's all the victim's fault, you are drawing a very big circle of no responsibility. The point of the Prank is that Snape is unwittingly following Sirius' directions into a potentially deadly (or from Sirius' pov an amusingly scary) situation, one that Sirius knows about and Snape doesn't. That's the Prank that's been described to us, and that's what Sirius is being blamed for. It's also what Sirius seems to have no trouble taking credit for--yes he tricked Snape into walking into a situation that was far more dangerous than Snape thought it was. That's what Snape deserved as far as he was concerned. Since Snape wasn't hurt Sirius can't be accused of actually hurting him. He's not being accused of hurting him, but of intentionally taking steps (through a combination of information he knows will be tempting to Snape-which is all down to Snape's character, yes--and also through carefully choosing what information to reveal and what information to hide) to put Snape in a situation where it was Snape and a werewolf, which he did. Magpie: > *Sirius* knew what Snape would be facing--that was the whole part > of the joke (which I think was supposed to scare Snape, not kill > him--I don't think this is an attempted murder). Snape did not--you > seem to be re-writing things so that Snape did know, which would > make it a different thing, but canonically so far he didn't. Or > else you're making Snape's stupidity at not knowing as good as his > knowing, which I don't think holds up. Dana: It is your opinion that I'm re-writing things but the problem with this suggestion is that Lupin did state that Snape was interested in knowing were Lupin went *every* month and that Snape *saw* Lupin being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey and we see that the DADA OWL included information about werewolves and that a third year with that same information could reveal Lupin's furry problem without ever having to go to Lupin's office to have a look if she was right. And she only observed Lupin for less then a school year when she found this out. Snape had at least 5 years to come to a conclusion about where Lupin went and even if he never wondered about this before then he still had enough information to make a well informed conclusion on what he could find. Magpie: I don't see how it's just my opinion that you're re-writing things when the story has been given to us via a number of characters and not a single character involved has ever suggested that Snape (or any other student besides Peter, Sirius and James) actually knew that Lupin was a werewolf. And in fact everyone says otherwise. If Lupin is saying that Snape wanted to know what was up with Lupin that indicates that Snape doesn't know. There's no Prank on Snape any more, no trick by Sirius, no reason for Snape to think anybody tried to kill him. Instead Snape knows Lupin is a werewolf and wants to go into a tunnel to confront him in werewolf form. Sirius gives Snape the way to do that and Snape is stopped by James. To me that seems like just as much a changing of the facts that we know so far as it would if I said Snape didn't really tell Voldemort the Prophecy or Lucius didn't try to get Ginny to open the Chamber of Secrets. (I assume you allow Lucius some responsibility there even though Ginny chose to write in the diary?) Dana: Snape at least could have known that Sirius telling Snape how to get passed the willow so Snape could spy on his friend could never have been well intentioned. Magpie: Sure he could know it wasn't well-intentioned--though I don't think we know exactly how Sirius gave him this information. He might have made it look to Snape as if Snape was getting this information without Sirius' intention or knowledge. (I can't remember this bit.) But Snape not thinking Sirius' information was well-intentioned in no way translates into Snape having reason to think there was a werewolf waiting for him. There's a lot we don't know about the Prank, but suggesting that Snape knew exactly what he was being lured into seems to dismiss the most important thing we do know, which is the whole basic idea of the Prank in question. Dana: It was not implied that Sirius did not mention no one was there to find at the end of the tunnel, as it was specifically stated that Sirius told Snape all he had to do was prod the knot and he would be able to go after Lupin. Magpie: The danger of going after Lupin being of course unknown to Snape. Lupin as Snape knows him is not deadly. Where Lupin goes once a month is not deadly as far as Snape knows. If it were, Lupin wouldn't return each month same as always. I never said Sirius claimed there was "no one" at the end of the tunnel. If you sent somebody into a tunnel with a werewolf at the other end they didn't know about, and they came out screaming or infected or dead, and you said, "Hey, I never told them there was nobody at the other end!" I think people would take you as being sarcastic. Magpie: > But that's not a Prank, and that's what everyone agrees that it > was. Snape was supposed to be surprised by what he found in the > tunnel and get scared, which would be funny. As in, "You want to > know what we've got in there so much, here you go!" In that case > Snape didn't know he was facing anything deadly--why should he, > when he was doing exactly what Sirius did, as far as he knew? That > does give Sirius responsibility, a responsibility he himself never > denies. He thought Snape deserved to get Pranked for being nosy and > trying to follow them, so he used Snape's ignorance of the werewolf > and MWPP being Animagi to trick him into a situation beyond what he > thought he was getting into. Yes, he used Snape's own bad > intentions against him. Most if not all cons do. But that doesn't > make the con artist not the one pulling the con. Dana: You would have been correct if it wasn't already specifically stated that Snape would find Lupin on the other side of the willow or if Snape wasn't already very interested in what was going on with Lupin to notice he disappeared *every* month. That means Snape was snooping around to get more information about what Lupin was up to for more then just one month or just that night. The willow was forbidden territory and Lupin was hidden behind it and Sirius as is stated told Snape Lupin was behind the tree. Magpie: I don't see how this makes me incorrect. Snape knowing that "Lupin" is on the other side of the willow and that Snape wants to know where "Lupin" went that time he saw him crossing the grounds with Pomfrey refers to the Lupin that Snape knows--a boy his own age like any other boy. The surprise part is that when Snape finds Lupin on the other side, Lupin will no longer be the person Snape knows, but a ravening werewolf who will quite possibly kill or infect him. Dana: And so to me Snape could have known what he could find when he went after Lupin. Snape had too much information that could have told him what he could find by entering the tunnel and thus to make a well informed decision to go and it is not me re-writing canon as it is specifically stated as such. And I believe that is why Sirius did not feel responsible if Snape had gotten more then he could chew because it was Snape himself that decided to go. Magpie: That's where it seems to me you're just rejecting the story we've been told because it doesn't fit the way you prefer it--at least so far (if we find out in the next month that everything we know of the Prank has been a lie I'll gladly revise my thoughts, but I don't know why everybody's agreed to give Harry this false story). The whole Prank according to everybody who's spoken about it has been that Snape was going to be surprised to find himself facing a werewolf. No one in canon suggests otherwise. No one at school besides the Marauders are said to have known about what Remus was. You seem to be just overriding that based on the fact that you think he should have known, or that Hermione, decades later, is one student who figures out her teacher is a werewolf. So now Snape totally wanted to be facing a werewolf and Sirius just gave him what he wanted. I don't see how that works. Not only does it contradict everything everyone involved has ever said about the Prank, but without Snape actually being in the situation everyone says he was in, I don't see how Snape should have a life debt. Dana: Lupin mentioning that from that moment on Snape knew what he was is to me an irrelevant statement to conclude Snape did not know already. Magpie: Mostly everything anybody has said or done regarding this situation in canon is irrelevent according to this theory. If JKR overwrites everything so completely I'll accept it as canon, but I don't see why I should consider it coming from a reader. The fact that Hermione figured out Lupin was a werewolf simply doesn't seem like proof that Snape knew the same years before. What does sound like stronger proof is Lupin saying that from then on, Snape knew, and not before. Why does Rowling have him say that if it's not true? Dana: Sirius and James found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him, Hermione found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him and so Snape could have found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him too, just by merely putting the information he already got on Lupin's monthly disappearances and hold them next to a lunar chart. Snape already knew from the exams that werewolves transform on the full moon and he already knew that Lupin went somewhere every month. Is Snape really that dumb? He already knew Lupin was behind the tree that was off limits to all students and he had seen that Lupin was not just playing around but being brought there by the school nurse. Magpie: Sirius and James (who were Lupin's dormmates so knew when he was out all night several nights a month, unlike Snape) also told us that they found out what Lupin was without ever seeing him transform. So did Hermione. Lupin also told us these things. We saw the results of them. The behavior of all these people followed directly from their discovery. Snape, otoh, having found out what Lupin is, behaves remarkably like someone who does not know what Lupin is. He's consumed by curiosity to find out what's going on with Lupin...strange, since he already knows. He accepts Sirius' information about the willow so that he can put himself in close quarters with Lupin and see him up close...does he have a death wish or does he want to become a werewolf himself? Everyone else in canon responds to knowing someone is a werewolf by taking steps to protect themselves--Peter, James and Sirius don't go near transformed Lupin until they become Animagi. Dana: This is information from canon and not my imagination and my way to clear Sirius of any blame because Sirius provided Snape a way and he is responsible for that part but that part alone when it considers Snape. It does not matter what way Sirius got Snape to go because it was still Snape's choice to do so and he disregarded all the information that canon says he did know. If he was too stupid to pull all the information together and make a well informed decision then this would still not Sirius fault. Magpie: All the information in canon that he did know--by which you mean all the information in canon that Peter, James and Sirius (and 20 years later Hermione) knew, you mean? If Snape was indeed "stupid enough" (Snape and the rest of Hogwarts at the time) to not pull all the information together than it certainly is Sirius' fault for using that ignorance to trick Snape into a dangerous situation for which he is not prepared. Which, according to all the accounts of the people involved, was exactly what Sirius was doing. Dana: If I get into a car with a drunk driver who told me that he could still drive and I get involved in a terrible accident because of it then I am still to blame for getting in the car while I knew that this person should not be trusted behind the wheel. The person himself has the responsibility of driving while drunk but he did not force me to get into the car, I still had a choice. Magpie: You're not getting into a car with a person you know to be drunk. You're going into a room you do not know contains a ferocious animal who will attack you. Dana: That is my point Snape might not have wanted to face a werewolf or he might have thought he knew enough about DA that he could handle it or Sirius pushed the right buttons for Snape to want to proof that he was no coward or whatever, it was still Snape that made the decision to take a stick and prod the knot and go into the tunnel. Magpie: If Snape didn't want to face a werewolf and knew Lupin was a werewolf waiting for him, he would obviously not have gone into the tunnel. No one in canon has ever suggested this different situation you've described where Snape has been goaded into proving he's not a coward by facing a werewolf on purpose. Dana: You can't blame Sirius for that just because Sirius brought the information in a for Snape tempting way to try it. Let me ask you this question, would Snape have jump through hoops if Sirius had tricked him into doing that? I do not think so, Sirius provided Snape with information that Snape was very interested in and Snape used that information because he chose to use it. Magpie: He chose to use it, yes. He chose to use it, from what we are told, in order to find out where that not-deadly Remus Lupin kid went once a month. I don't understand your question about Snape jumping through hoops. Dana: It is the same as stating Snape told Sirius to stay behind and he did not, so Snape tried to keep Sirius safe. No, he did not and it would not have mattered what Snape would have told Sirius when it concerned Harry because no one but Harry and maybe DD could have made Sirius stay behind in a situation like that. I do not hold Snape or anyone responsible for that. Draco lured Harry to the tower in PS for a midnight fight but Draco had no intention of showing up and just wanted Harry to get into trouble. Is Draco responsible for getting Harry into trouble or was it Harry's own choice to respond to Draco's invitation? Magpie: Good analogy with Harry and Draco--I was hoping to use it myself. Draco invites Harry to a midnight duel. When Harry accepts he knows--and we know that he knows--exactly what he is risking. It is an informed risk. He is risking being caught outside. Draco does not show up to the duel. Even if Draco informed Filch to be on the lookout for kids out of bed, the risk Harry is facing is not significantly different from the risk he has accepted and is prepared to face. In Snape's situation, the point is never that Sirius has forced Snape to take the bait any more than Harry was forced to take Draco's bait. The difference between the two is that Harry is facing only the risk he knew he was facing. In Sirius' case, the Prank is about Snape facing something he did not accept and was not prepared for. That's the Prank part, where Snape is surprised by a deadly monster waiting for him. Neither Draco nor Sirius is responsible for Harry or Snape's decision to leave his room that night. Snape was the only person unwittingly facing a werewolf he wasn't expecting. Harry is taking an informed risk. Snape isn't. Magpie: > Yes, it can. You're drawing that magic circle again, imo. Marietta > is responsible for deciding to join an organization she already > wasn't comfortable with and for ratting them out. Hermione is > responsible for the hex, period. She's the one who worked it out > and cast it and asked people to sign the paper without telling them > it was there. Dana: No, I again am not drawing a magical circle of anything because Marietta made a choice to join up an organization, comfortably or not, it does not matter. It was still her own choice to do so because even though personal choices can be directed by the way we interact with our environment, like friends for instance, we are not puppets that have no say in the matter what so ever. Marietta could have walked away at any time she liked and if she had not gone to Umbridge, she, like any other member of the DA, would never have had the word Sneak on her face. The jinx did not prevent anyone from walking away if they felt they did no longer wanted to be associated with it, for what ever reason. Magpie: Joining an organization is not agreeing to be hexed, obviously, though. She did not know the SNEAK hex existed. That was all Hermione's doing from start to finish. She had to make it, put it on the paper, and get people to sign it without telling them what punishment they were agreeing to. Marietta did something to Hermione that Marietta was responsible for. Hermione did something back to Marietta in response. Two girls, two choices. Dana: The jinx did not make Marietta rat on the DA and therefore Hermione is not responsible for Marietta ending up with the pustules even if Hermione should have told this before anyone signed it. Magpie: Of course Hermione's responsible for Marietta ending up with the pustules. That's why Harry's so proud of his friend in HBP. Look at how well her hex holds up. Give credit where credit is due. Hermione decided to pre-emptively hex anybody who told on the DA and there are the results of that decision and hard work written across Marietta's face. Nobody's ever suggested Hermione made Marietta rat out the DA. But ratting out the DA wouldn't cause her skin to break out without Hermione putting a hex on a paper and giving it to her to sign it. Dana: Hermione or Sirius not denying that they did what they did does not mean they therefore should take responsibility for the actions of that person because it resulted or could have resulted in something negative for that specific person. Hermione did not jinx Marietta, she jinxed the parchment and Marietta herself made the jinx come into to action. Marietta would not have had to have the word Sneak written all over her face if she had hold her tong and neither did Snape have to go into the tunnel because Sirius said so. Magpie: No, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Saying that Hermione jinxed the parchment instead of Marietta is semantics. You might as well say Draco didn't poison Ron or curse Katie Bell--he just poisoned the wine and cursed the necklace. He put the two of them in harms way by introducing the poison and the hex into the situation. They didn't. Marietta would not have SNEAK across her face if Hermione hadn't worked hard on creating a SNEAK hex for anyone who told on her. Snape's being in the tunnel was not the problem. Snape's being in the tunnel with a werewolf is the problem. Snape did not have enough information to make that choice in canon. I don't see why you're willing to even give Sirius any responsibility for betraying Lupin's secret when after all, wasn't it Snape's decision to act on that information he was given? With a little more work Sirius might as well have spent the whole time in his room doing cross-stitch.;-) Dana: Well I don't know if it went on long enough, maybe it did but Harry is still feeling the after effect of what Marietta set in motion so maybe Hermione doesn't feel obligated to help Marietta and it seems that in HBP the jinx is wearing of on its own. Magpie: Doesn't seem that way to me. Magpie: > Snape was actually very much like a three year old kid lured to a > specific place with a promise he'd find candy there. Sirius was > counting on that. I don't judge Snape as a 3 year old, but his > being sixteen doesn't change the nature of the lure so much that it > doesn't become a lure anymore. All the ways Snape could have found > out that Lupin was a werewolf before that didn't happen (and seem > far more obvious once you know the truth than they did before that-- > a werewolf at Hogwarts would probably have been considered an > impossibility at that point). Snape was doing what Sirius did > without bad consequences every month. Sirius' trick was based not > just on Snape's lust for learning a secret of MWPP or getting them > in trouble, but on his ignorance of the danger. If Snape understood > the danger, there's no Prank. Dana: So Sirius being rash is Sirius responsibility but Snape being rash and not thinking and letting himself be guided by his own urges is also Sirius responsibility? Magpie: No, Sirius being rash is Sirius' responsibility. Snape being rash is Snape's responsibility. Only one of those two knew there was a werewolf in the situation. However rash Snape was, no one in canon suggests he was rash enough to go into a room with a werewolf on purpose. Everyone agrees that Sirius rashly took steps to put him in that situation on purpose. Based on the information they both had, Sirius was more rash than Snape. Dana: What I meant with a 3 year old being lured somewhere is that a three year old can not process information coming to him or her in the same way a teenager or an adult could have and so no I do not see the comparison you make here. Sirius might have counted on his ability of playing Snape like a violin but that does not take away Snape's own responsibility in making the choices he made. He might not have wanted to put himself in harms way but Sirius did not physically put him there either. It was still Snape picking up the stick and giving himself access to the tunnel behind the willow and at this moment canon implies he knew he would find Lupin there because Sirius told him how to get to him. Magpie: I'm not trying to give Sirius responsibility for Snape's choice of falling for the bait. I'm saying that Sirius intentionally used Snape's ignorance against him too--he set up a Prank where Snape would be lured into one situation and find himself in a far more scary and dangerous one. Dana: Snape knew 4 things 1) that Lupin went somewhere every month 2) that he was brought to the willow by the schoolnurse 3) that Sirius was his enemy and a friend to Lupin 4) he had learned about werewolves during classes and even already passed his exams including this topic as well. 5) that he could get to Lupin by passing the willow that night because Sirius told him. Magpie: The one important fact is, of course missing: Snape did not know Lupin was a werewolf. According to everyone involved, that was the juicy bit of information that was at the heart of the Prank. Dana: I do not buy Snape could not know Lupin was a werewolf because there was no werewolf at Hogwarts before (and not after either) for the simple fact that James and Sirius found out what Lupin was without this knowledge either and they didn't even learned anything about werewolves in class and they were either 11 or 12. Magpie: You don't have to buy it because of that. You should buy it because that's the information we're given in canon, that Snape did not know what danger he would be facing. You're free to make up a theory where somehow Snape did know and figure out how this story makes any sense with that information--perhaps in the next book Rowling will prove you correct and actually manage to create a great story having pulled that rug out from under us. But as of now, it feels like I'm trying to discuss an incident in canon based on the limited information we have, and you're chucking out that information and replacing it with an alternate version and expecting me to consider the two equally plausible. I don't see any reason to do that. The fact that it wasn't physically impossible for Snape to have figured out Lupin was a werewolf doesn't override everybody telling this story from day one as: "Here's the thing. Sirius, James and Peter all figured out I was a werewolf and secretly became Animagi. Snape didn't know I was a werewolf and was curious to what I did every month in the willow. So Sirius thought it would be funny to give Snape the information for how to get into the willow to find me in there. He knew Snape would do it and then he'd be really shocked to find himself facing a deadly beast. Well, when James found out about it he realized that Sirius had pretty much set up Snape to get killed or infected by me, so he dragged Snape out of the tunnel. Snape had seen me, though, so that's how he found out I was a werewolf." The fact that years later Hermione Granger's figured out Professor Lupin's a werewolf does not seem a good reason to say the Prank story as told doesn't hold up. Any more than the Prank story makes me think Hermione's claim that she knew Lupin was a werewolf must be a lie because Snape didn't know. Snape and Hermione have different strengths, perhaps, and they're working from different povs and information (including Snape's hinting to Hermione and the rest of the class). I don't see why Sirius wouldn't tell us if Snape knew what he was facing already, or why Dumbledore wouldn't have. Dana: So Snape is either truly not that intelligent and therefore could not have figured it out, after all the information he had or he could have but chose to disregard it anyway because Sirius pushed the right buttons. Magpie: How is the Prank supposed to work if Snape knows he's going in to face a werewolf? That doesn't seem like a Prank to me. Dana: You make Sirius into a professional con-artist here that, unlike you credit Snape, knew precisely what he was doing and did not get carried away in the moment. Magie: I did nothing of the sort. I specifically said that Sirius was not trying to get Snape killed. I totally allowed that Sirius was not thinking things through. What I did say--and still see no reason to stop saying--is that Sirius' whole Prank as described by everyone was based on Snape being surprised by a werewolf. Sirius didn't have to be a professional con artist any more than Draco needed to be one to take his shot at manipulating Harry out of his dorm for a duel. Dana: Sirius is a person that is indeed rash, that acts before he thinks but Snape is not, he is cunning and calculated and from what we have seen I do not think it was Sirius counting on Snape to ignore the dangers because Snape is not a person that takes personal risks if he can avoid them. To be honest with you the only thing I can think off that would push Snape's buttons and make him extremely angry about losing control over it later, is him being called a coward. Magpie: Doesn't this go along perfectly with what we have in canon as told by everyone, unlike the alternate version? Sirius is being rash, not really thinking through the possibility of Snape being killed or bitten. He's just, perhaps, thinking of Snape's scared face when he realizes he's with a werewolf. If Snape doesn't take personal risks if he can avoid them, that's more reason to believe he didn't intentionally put himself with a werewolf. Sirius never says anything about goading Snape by calling him a coward. Dana: And like with the vow I still think, it was Bella calling Snape a coward that initiated Snape wanting to proof himself to Narcissa. We see that the coward issue is the only thing (well besides him not getting his revenge) that makes Snape lose his cool and it is the one thing that he smears all over Sirius face in OotP. It is just an assumption but I would not be surprised if it was this tune that Sirius played that Snape could not resist. But even if it was then it was still Snape's own choice to proof he wasn't a coward. Magpie: Actually, I've seen plenty of things make Snape lose his cool. The only time I remember "coward" doing it was at the end of HBP. Snape seems quite cool throughout Spinner's End. If you don't create a situation where Snape's going in to meet a werewolf on purpose, you don't have to explain away Snape's not wanting to take risks if he can avoid them. But regardless, why does Sirius not tell us that this is what happened if that's what happened? Why does he tell a different story, the same one Snape and Lupin tell, instead? - From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jun 3 02:42:43 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:42:43 EDT Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169703 >lizzyben04 I actually tend to think that Snape is on the good side, but this incident nags at me, & almost convinces me that Snape planned this out. He'd kill 2 birds w/one stone - end Occlumency lessons, and prevent Dumbledore from learning about the Cabinets' connection to Borgin & Burkes. Or maybe it wasn't Snape - maybe Draco moved Montague so that he could use the Cabinets later. It's a mystery - I don't know who's the actual "bad guy", but I'm pretty sure the events didn't actually go as portrayed. I'm just posting this in hopes someone can help sort it out. Nikkalmati I tend to think not. It would be too difficult to set things up just as they happened. Besides, what was the purpose of ending the Occlumency lessons? Harry wasn't making any progress and if SS is LVs man he was using the lessons to open up Harry to LV anyway. Why would he want them ended? If Snape wanted Harry not to learn Occlumency, best to keep the lessons in his own hands lest Harry actually learn to occlude. Also, this brings up something that has been bothering me about the Occlumency/Pensieve situation. When Harry reports to Sirius and Lupin that he had stopped the lessons they are outraged. Sirius threatens to come and talk to Snape and Lupin insists to Harry that he must take the lessons and manages to calm Sirius by promising that he will bring it up with DD. But NOTHING is done! Does Lupin ever talk to DD? (Is Pippin right? ) There is no other evidence that anyone is concerned. DD knows at the end of OOP that Snape broke off the lessons, but he does not seem upset. He does not attempt to teach Harry Occlumency in HBP. Yet at the end of HBP almost the last word of SS to Harry is that he must learn to close his mind to the Dark Lord. Is there anyone who can teach Harry this skill? (I suspect maybe only Snape or DD could teach Occlumency). Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 03:44:40 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 03:44:40 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169704 > Nikkalmati > Also, this brings up something that has been bothering me about the > Occlumency/Pensieve situation. When Harry reports to Sirius and Lupin that he had > stopped the lessons they are outraged. Sirius threatens to come and talk to > Snape and Lupin insists to Harry that he must take the lessons and manages to > calm Sirius by promising that he will bring it up with DD. But NOTHING is > done! Does Lupin ever talk to DD? (Is Pippin right? ) Montavilla47: The only thing that I can figure is that there was an emergency meeting between Snape, DD, and Lupin (and perhaps Sirius) in which Snape pointed out some compelling reason not to continue the classes. (Before HBP, I would have thought "I don't wanna!" would be enough, but after that argument in the forest, I don't think so.) It may have been simply that Dumbledore realized that Snape and Harry were too distrustful of each other to get any good outcome from continued lessons. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 04:07:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:07:02 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-2200760323750843@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169705 . > wynnleaf > I may be completely misunderstanding you, but I'm guessing here that > you're drawing some sort of correlation between there being *one* > question on the DADA OWL exam -- an exam for which Snape apparently > writes long answers for all the questions -- and the fact that Snape > had the students in 3rd year DADA class read the 3rd year text's > chapter on werewolves. So what? You're saying that it's suspicious > that Snape answered the werewolf question well on his DADA OWL? And > that therefore he likely knew Lupin was a werewolf? Alla: Yes, I do think that it is a possibility, yes. I think it is suspicious, which may mean nothing or IMO mean something. wynnleaf: > Based on this logic, we must assume that the year Lupin taught at > Hogwarts, no DADA students taking their OWLs were able to correctly > answer a question on werewolves, because otherwise, they, like Snape > supposedly did, should have been able to figure out that Lupin was a > werewolf. Since no one other than Hermione figured it out, should we > then assume that OWL level students (hey, not to mention that year's > 6th and 7th years), were all completely unable to answer OWL level > questions on werewolves? Alla: It is your assumption, not mine. I think it is a faulty assumption, because I do not think that person answering question on werewolves **necessarily** means that they could figure it out. I think the fact that Hermione did though, means that **some** people could figure out that and Snape certainly seems sharp enough for me to make a comparison, after all he was taking a very close interest in life of Marauders. wynnleaf: > Or is it only Snape who would have the amazing perspicacity to both > answer a DADA exam question on werewolves correctly *and* be assumed > to recognize Lupin was a werewolf? Alla: Yep, I think it is a possibility. Snape's intelligence is certainly below average IMO. wynnleaf: > Just remember, for an entire academic year, *no* student other than > Hermione figured out that Lupin was a werewolf. That includes the 6th > and 7th year students, as well as the students in the DADA class that > saw Lupin's boggart. Alla: Maybe. Or maybe some students did and since they were not all the bigots of Slytherin variety, they decided to keep Lupin's secret. I think there is nothing in canon that contradicts my speculation. > wynnleaf, > Wow, that's a leap. We go from Snape knowing Lupin was a werewolf > before he entered the tunnel (directly contradicted by Lupin, by the > way, as I pointed out in my last post -- Lupin said, "from that time > on he knew what I was"), to Snape actually wanting to *kill* Lupin the > werewolf -- directly contradicted by Sirius, by the way, who said > Snape was trying to get them expelled. Alla: **Of course** it is a leap, as I stated numerous times I **speculate** on this topic not in the less because I believe we are missing information on Prank. When I speculate I make a leap based on the what I believe could be smallest hint in canon. I believe such hint exists. You do not believe so, so we just agree to disagree > Magpie: > If Snape didn't want to face a werewolf and knew Lupin was a werewolf > waiting for him, he would obviously not have gone into the tunnel. No one > in canon has ever suggested this different situation you've described where > Snape has been goaded into proving he's not a coward by facing a werewolf > on purpose. Alla: And still in PoA Snape goes to the Shack knowing that he may face a werewolf, does he not? I think Snape will be very happy to kill a werewolf or two. Just **speculating** here of course. As to nobody in canon ever suggested that situation - eh, of course they did not, if it meant to be a surprise in book 7 IMO. And I do not believe that it will take a lot of effort to change the picture we have now with the missing information and all that. But for the record if it is true, the speculation, I do not believe Marauders knew that Snape figured it out. I think he decided to outsmart them and go. So, Sirius responsibility is still there, really. Of course Snape dear becomes even more disgusting if that **speculation** is true. But of course it may not be true. It is after all just speculation. > Magpie: > But regardless, why does Sirius not tell us that this is what happened if > that's what happened? Why does he tell a different story, the same one > Snape and Lupin tell, instead? Alla: There meant to be blanks if we are due for surprise IMO and I do not remember anything in Sirius version that contradicts that possible surprise. **Especially** if Sirius has no clue that Snape figured it out that Remus is a werewolf. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 3 04:19:40 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:19:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta Message-ID: <380-2200760341940484@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169706 Alla: And still in PoA Snape goes to the Shack knowing that he may face a werewolf, does he not? I think Snape will be very happy to kill a werewolf or two. Just **speculating** here of course. As to nobody in canon ever suggested that situation - eh, of course they did not, if it meant to be a surprise in book 7 IMO. And I do not believe that it will take a lot of effort to change the picture we have now with the missing information and all that. But for the record if it is true, the speculation, I do not believe Marauders knew that Snape figured it out. I think he decided to outsmart them and go. So, Sirius responsibility is still there, really. Of course Snape dear becomes even more disgusting if that **speculation** is true. But of course it may not be true. It is after all just speculation. Magpie: Okay--I see what you mean, particularly with Sirius not knowing that Snape knew. The two questions that brings up for me, though, is that a) Snape still seems genuinely angry about Sirius "trying to kill" him. Now, I assume you could say he's lying or just angry on principle. But the problem is b) which is that if Snape was going into the tunnel knowing he was meeting a werewolf because he wanted to kill Lupin as a werewolf, then I have a hard time finding a way Snape would think James saved his life. I think he would consider James to have saved Lupin's life, not Snape's. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 04:48:30 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:48:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta/Seamus In-Reply-To: <380-220076623341646@earthlink.net> References: <380-220076623341646@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0706022148x6d0b5dbfsd4624a2455c329ba@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169707 Xanooda: Anyway, I think DD could find out from Sirius and Lupin. Lynda: Being who he was, I am pretty sure DD knew a lot more than he let on about what was going on at Hogwarts, without having others tell him. And I'm pretty certain he would consider that to be part of beting headmaster, to know the ins and outs of what was going on at the school, who was out after hours, who was forming secret societies, etc. Just part of being a good headmaster, to know what people are up to, after all...and who knows how far he really went for the entire time he was "away" in OOTP? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 05:06:34 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:06:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0706022206u1126cbc7x235aade623abf15a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169708 toonmili: I'm a huge Snape/Lily shipper but I think I just found a new ship. The only problem is for this ship to work Remus has to die or get rejected, which might not happen. Do you think they'll make a nice pair? Lynda: No. Snape is very intelligent and more than a little sneaky, which could explain him knowing some things about Tonks. He's also in many ways a very nasty piece of work when he puts his mind to it, which is often. I really don't see him and Tonks together in the future, Remus not withstanding. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jun 3 05:58:47 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:58:47 -0000 Subject: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0706022206u1126cbc7x235aade623abf15a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169709 > toonmili: > > I'm a huge Snape/Lily shipper but I think I just found a new ship. > The only problem is for this ship to work Remus has to die or get > rejected, which might not happen. > > Do you think they'll make a nice pair? wynnleaf I'm one of those who tend to think Lupin will end up betraying the Order. I figure he's JKR's version of a sort of Austen-ish Wickham or Willoughby type of character. You know -- appears kind, supportive, sympathetic, a really *good* friend, but in fact lies a lot and has his own hidden agenda. Anyway, my 16 year old daughter is a major Austen fan, as well as a Snape fan. She was listening to the traitor!Lupin ideas and my comments about JKR and Austen, and asked me, "Hey, if Lupin turns out to be a Wickham type of character, does that mean Tonks will end up with Snape?" At first I thought, nah, that's too weird. Tonks wouldn't be Snape's type. On the other hand -- Lupin would make a really excellent Wickham or Willoughby, so maybe Tonks......? Hey, it's a better match than Ron and Hermione, and that one's apparently going to be canon. wynnleaf From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 06:12:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 06:12:33 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169710 --- "limerent4ever" wrote: > > ... > > ... Harry ...hiding in Borgin & Burkes while Draco is > browsing.... The opal necklace is stated as 'claiming > the lives of nineteen muggle....' So my question is > why did Draco seem to think giving it to Dumbledore > would result in his (DD's) death? ... > > Thanks in advance, > limerent > bboyminn: Well, there are lots of Opals in the world and many of them have probably been made into necklaces, so unless the sender was foolish enough to include the Warning Card, how would Dumbledore, or anyone else, know it was a cursed necklace? Remember this was supposed to be a half-hearted desperate attempt on Draco's part, so it isn't suppose to make a lot of sense. I think Draco hoped that Dumbledore might open it out of curiosity and before realizing it, pick up the necklace, in which case he would then be dead. But that is a lot to hope for. It is even more to hope that a random person might be able to make it into the castle with the necklace, get past Filch, and somehow give the package to Dumbledore without raising suspicion. Really a bad plan all around. We have discussed this before and it seems that there was a real-life Cursed Opal Necklace that was handed through the Spanish aristocracy, until someone realized the necklace was infected with the Plague. Also, Opals are very brittle and can crack, chip, or break very easily, so that helped re-enforce the idea that they were bad luck in general. Then when people began dying, as indicated above, that solidified Opals reputation as generally being cursed. I think this is where JKR got the idea for a cursed Opal necklace. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From limerent4ever at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 07:39:07 2007 From: limerent4ever at gmail.com (limerent4ever) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:39:07 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169711 Steve/bboyminn wrote: > so unless the sender was foolish enough to include the > Warning Card, how would Dumbledore, or anyone else, know > it was a cursed necklace? ... > I think Draco hoped that Dumbledore might open it out of > curiosity and before realizing it, pick up the necklace, > in which case he would then be dead. But that is a lot to > hope for.... limerent here: I was mentioning the card only to show what Draco would see the necklace as good for and that it states that it causes *muggle* deaths. Since Dumbledore is not a muggle my question is what did Draco expect to happen to Dumbledore? Interesting stuff about opals. I hadn't heard about that before. Thanks! From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Jun 3 08:51:18 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:51:18 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "limerent4ever" <> > I was mentioning the card only to show what Draco would see > the necklace as good for and that it states that it causes > *muggle* deaths. Since Dumbledore is not a muggle my question > is what did Draco expect to happen to Dumbledore? > > Interesting stuff about opals. I hadn't heard about that before. > > Thanks! Leah My entirely speculative take on this is that the opal necklace was made by a Dark Witch or Wizard and loosed on the muggle world, in the same way that the muggle artifacts that Arthur Weasley has to deal with find their way into the hands of unsuspecting muggles. The necklace would have been handed down or sold to various muggles, thereby no doubt attracting a legend, as mentioned previously. Burgin or Burke got to hear of the necklace and reclaimed it for the Wizarding World. It would kill wizards as well as muggles, it's just that it has primarily existed in the muggle world. Leah From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 09:27:20 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:27:20 -0000 Subject: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169713 > > Question 1 - Who or what accounted for Mad-Eye's lost eye > > and his leg? > Jen: The fact that we haven't been told how Moody received > two of his rather significant injuries makes me think they > are important to the story, specifically to the Longbottom > storyline. Goddlefrood: Thank you, Jen, some interesting matters to digest :-) Not wishing to detract from such a fine speculation but I would just add that I have always felt that Mad-Eye would be easier to gauge if he had a parrot on his shoulder :-| From readzalot at shaw.ca Sun Jun 3 14:13:58 2007 From: readzalot at shaw.ca (Deb) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:13:58 -0000 Subject: Rowling used to be consice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169714 I have started re-reading the series, and two-thirds of the way through the Philosopher's Stone, it struck me how much Rowling packed into that little book. The whole scene of what happened going down the trap door took only 16 pages! Although I enjoy the detail of the later books, I can see how some folks suggest that some of her later books could have used a good editor. I teach at an elementary school, and I try to read several books at this level every year. I am struck by how far and above the Harry Potter books are in quality, compared with other children's books. Deb R, aka readzalot From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 14:30:32 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:30:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rowling used to be consice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706030730m615998ffra542b2dcbb1840b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169715 On 6/3/07, Deb wrote: > > I have started re-reading the series, and two-thirds of the way > through the Philosopher's Stone, it struck me how much Rowling packed > into that little book. The whole scene of what happened going down > the trap door took only 16 pages! > Although I enjoy the detail of the later books, I can see how some > folks suggest that some of her later books could have used a good > editor. > I teach at an elementary school, and I try to read several books > at this level every year. I am struck by how far and above the Harry > Potter books are in quality, compared with other children's books. > Deb R, aka readzalot montims: IMO, PS was a children's book, It is not so much that she was concise - more that she was using vocabulary, and grammar, suitable for under-10s to read and understand. As she continued through the books, the writing became more dense, and more challenging for her readership, who was aging together with Harry... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 3 14:34:07 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:34:07 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169716 > Alla: > > Maybe. Or maybe some students did and since they were not all the > bigots of Slytherin variety, they decided to keep Lupin's secret. I > think there is nothing in canon that contradicts my speculation. Pippin: It is *not* just Slytherin bigots who are afraid of werewolves. It's wizarding society as a whole. Harry himself worries about running into werewolves in the Forbidden Forest more than once. Molly is afraid of the werewolf she encounters at Saint Mungo's though he's incapacitated, not transformed, and full moon is weeks away. Also, if there's no general fear of werewolves, Snape would hardly expect to be thought a hero for disposing of one of them. If Snape wanted to kill a werewolf to show off, why would he enter the tunnel in secret? Wouldn't he rather try to lure Lupin out so that the whole school could witness his prowess? As a matter of fact, the Forbidden Forest is supposedly full of werewolves that Snape could kill without so much trouble. If Snape wanted to kill Lupin in particular for some reason, a few drops of something lethal in the pumpkin juice would be a lot swifter and less dangerous. > Alla: > > And still in PoA Snape goes to the Shack knowing that he may face a > werewolf, does he not? I think Snape will be very happy to kill a > werewolf or two. Just **speculating** here of course. Pippin: He had found the Invisibility Cloak, which he knows that Harry would not have abandoned lightly. He's got to find out what's going on. OTOH, he's been treated as crying 'wolf' all year. He's not going to send for help and get brushed off again. But of course it is possible that something like that happened in the Prank as well, and Snape thought that someone or something (Lily? Narcissa? His potions book?) had been carried off or stolen and he needed to get into the tunnel to save it. There are really several prank mysteries, packed one inside the other like a Russian doll. One: why did Snape enter the willow at the proper time? Two: why didn't he draw back on his own when he heard the werewolf? Three: why did he keep Lupin's secret afterwards? The prank would have fallen flatter than a wet non-Filibuster firework if Lupin wasn't transformed, so Sirius not only had to tell Snape how to get into the tunnel, he had to arrange things so that Snape would arrive at the proper time. After all, if Snape just wants to know where the tunnel goes, the sensible thing would be to explore it when Lupin is *not* inside. According to Lupin, Snape never got as far as the shack, but saw Lupin "at the end of the tunnel". It sounds like Lupin chased him back to the willow, and Snape caught a glimpse of the monster just as he was pulled to safety by James. But they don't call it The Shrieking Shack for nothing. Snape should have heard the werewolf long before he saw it. But if he was already fleeing, why would James have needed to pull him back? Unless, of course, he was so frightened he couldn't move. There's also a possibility of a double bluff -- maybe Snape thought The Marauders were trying to keep him from finding out what they were *really* up to by making him suppose that there was a werewolf down the tunnel. If Snape was trying to call their bluff, that would also explain why he entered at the correct time and ignored the howls, and would resist James's attempt to rescue him. But as for why Snape agreed to keep his silence about Lupin, I suggest a simple quid pro quo. The Marauders stopped picking on him in return for Snape keeping Lupin's secret. Of course Snape took advantage of this by hexing James whenever he got the chance thereafter, and James and his friends retaliated. But the days of humiliating Snape in front of others were done. Alla: > As to nobody in canon ever suggested that situation - eh, of course > they did not, if it meant to be a surprise in book 7 IMO. And I do > not believe that it will take a lot of effort to change the picture > we have now with the missing information and all that. Pippin: But JKR does not pull surprises like that with no preparation. There's always something you can look back on and say "oooh, that was a hint." I don't see any hints for this at all. We don't have any bona fide cases of someone taking on a monster for kicks, though several people have claimed that they or others did so. Pippin From sonya_bxxx at hotmail.com Sun Jun 3 12:24:17 2007 From: sonya_bxxx at hotmail.com (newbie) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:24:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169717 Ok - I'm new, Hi names Sonya. Not sure how this works but thought I'd throw something out there... seeing as if I mention it to my friends/family there tends to be a muttering of burning my books and banning the word Potter. Not great fans - so I thought I'd chat to you guys here (who clearly are)! I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? I was re-reading the Spinners End and it seemed to me that Snape/Narcissa had an odd connection. She crying and holding onto his robes, her holding his hands to her lips, etc etc. He couldn't look at her crying.... May also explain why Snape made the unbreakable vow for Malfoy... favoritism, etc. And Bella's presence would have prevented speaking aloud. Voldemort may have guessed and was using Malfoy to force Snape's hand and allegiances... Possibly? If he loved Narcissa/Malfoy etc that may go part way to explaining why Dumbledore believed him; he understood parental love and hence regrets what he did to the Potters? Would love to discuss how ludicrous this theory is with people... with contradictory quotes etc... Thanks for reading - Sonya x From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 3 15:11:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:11:49 -0000 Subject: Divination and Questions from the GoF Pensieve Matters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169718 Goodlefrood: > Question 2 - Does only Voldemort know who all his Death Eaters > are? > > Question 3 - (As there are many Snape fans, including me in > terms of him as a character) - Why was Karkaroff so firmly > convinced by implication that Severus remained loyal to Lord > Voldemort? Pippin: There are some notable discrepancies between the pensieve account of Karkaroff's trial and what Sirius relates to Harry. First of all, Sirius says that Karkaroff put "a load of other people into Azkaban in his place...He's not very popular in there, I can tell you." But as we see in the Pensieve, Karkaroff was able to give the Ministry only one name that it didn't have already -- Rookwood. Who are the DE's who blamed Karkaroff for their capture and why? When we last saw Karkaroff in the Pensieve, he was on his way back to Azkaban, not freedom. Maybe he thought of some more names later on, or maybe, as part of the bargain that freed him, he agreed to take credit for revealing names that were actually revealed by Severus Snape. Snape might even have testified *as* Karkaroff, with the help of some polyjuice. Then Sirius says that as far as he knows Snape was never even accused. But in the Pensieve Karkaroff accuses him, and we learn, from Dumbledore that Snape has been accused previously. It's odd that Sirius wouldn't know this, and further very odd that none of the people at the trial had children at Hogwarts and would object to their being instructed by a former Death Eater, something Sirius thinks would never be allowed. But why is it Dumbledore who informs the court of the previous charges against Snape and their disposition? Shouldn't that be Crouch's job? Unless, of course, that information was protected by Fidelius, and Dumbledore was the secretkeeper. Pippin From peggy_pati at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 13:06:37 2007 From: peggy_pati at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:06:37 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169719 Lizzyben wrote: > Hi, I've been wondering if maybe Snape deliberately let Harry look > into the Pensieve in "Snape's Worst Memory." > Evidence: First of all, students can't apparate in Hogwarts. > Supposedly, Montague was found in the bathroom after "apparating" > out of the Vanishing Closet. This simply isn't possible. If he was > in the bathroom, someone or something else moved him there. Who? > Why? Snape had the means, motive & opportunity. Hello all, This my first post and my memory is a little foggy, so bear with me. When Harry, Hermione, and Ron take apparition lessons, are they not done in the Great Hall with an visiting instructor from the Ministry? So, perhaps, it isn't that they can't apparate WITHIN Hogwarts, but rather they can't apparate IN and OUT of Hogwarts. Just a thought... Peggy From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 3 15:16:31 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:16:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169720 >sonya wrote: > > Ok - I'm new, Hi names Sonya. Not sure how this works but thought > I'd throw something out there... seeing as if I mention it to my > friends/family there tends to be a muttering of burning my books and > banning the word Potter. Not great fans - so I thought I'd chat to > you guys here (who clearly are)! > colebiancardi: welcome to the boards!! > sonya: > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and > Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but > odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? > > I was re-reading the Spinners End and it seemed to me that > Snape/Narcissa had an odd connection. She crying and holding onto > his robes, her holding his hands to her lips, etc etc. He couldn't > look at her crying.... May also explain why Snape made the > unbreakable vow for Malfoy... favoritism, etc. And Bella's presence > would have prevented speaking aloud. > colebiancardi: not a shipper here at all, but I don't think Draco is the product of Snape and Narcissa. Draco looks like his mother & father - he is pale, blond, pointed face. Matter of fact, CoS confirms it. "The man who followed could only be Draco's father. He had the same pale, pointed face and identical cold, grey eyes." Am Ed Hardcover. p 30 So, highly doubtful that Draco is Snape's son. Also, to address Narcissa's weeping, holding his hands to her lips, etc - well, Narcissa is desperate for her son - she will save him even if it means groveling at a half-blood's feet; although, I am not sure she knows Snape is a half-blood, knowing the Black's and Malfoy's distain for muggles - after all, Narcissa is a Black and her OWN sister Andromena, who married a muggle, is a Persona Non Gratia in the family. I believe Narcissa was trying every means possible to flatter Snape; to get him to help her son. Tears are a very powerful weapon when wielded by a woman and a beautiful one at that. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 15:25:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:25:06 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-2200760341940484@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169721 > Alla: >> But for the record if it is true, the speculation, I do not believe > Marauders knew that Snape figured it out. I think he decided to > outsmart them and go. So, Sirius responsibility is still there, > really. > > Of course Snape dear becomes even more disgusting if that > **speculation** is true. > > But of course it may not be true. It is after all just speculation. > > > Magpie: > Okay--I see what you mean, particularly with Sirius not knowing that Snape > knew. The two questions that brings up for me, though, is that a) Snape > still seems genuinely angry about Sirius "trying to kill" him. Now, I > assume you could say he's lying or just angry on principle. Alla: Oh, no, I do not think he is lying if this speculation is true. I just think that he is conveniently disregards his own sinister motives in that night, if this is what happens. After all, Sirius did trick him to go in there. And if he figured out who Remus is, maybe it happened, I don't know an hour before, several minutes before Snape decides to enter a Shack? You know? So, who cares if Snape decided to try and finish Remus off with one of the spells which maybe he himself invented? Life of Dark creature is not worth much after all, now the previous life of Severus Snae, who idiot Sirius dared to risk on the other hand is another story. Magpie: > But the problem is b) which is that if Snape was going into the tunnel > knowing he was meeting a werewolf because he wanted to kill Lupin as a > werewolf, then I have a hard time finding a way Snape would think James > saved his life. I think he would consider James to have saved Lupin's life, > not Snape's. Alla: Why though? I do not believe that Snape went there being all that sure that he is going to emerge a winner, so he may still say that James saved his life. Now, yes, sure, he should have said that James saved both lives that night - his and Lupin, if this **speculation** is true, but I think it is not the first time the character makes plot based omission, no? Oooops, sorry Harry - your dad saved not one but two innocent lives that night ( or maybe one of them was not so innocent) > > Alla: > > > > Maybe. Or maybe some students did and since they were not all the > > bigots of Slytherin variety, they decided to keep Lupin's secret. I > > think there is nothing in canon that contradicts my speculation. > > Pippin: > It is *not* just Slytherin bigots who are afraid of werewolves. It's wizarding > society as a whole. Harry himself worries about running into werewolves > in the Forbidden Forest more than once. Molly is afraid of the werewolf > she encounters at Saint Mungo's though he's incapacitated, not > transformed, and full moon is weeks away. Also, if there's no general > fear of werewolves, Snape would hardly expect to be thought a hero > for disposing of one of them. Alla: **Of course** society as a whole is afraid of them unfortunately. Nevertheless, since we have read about one girl who was keeping Lupin secret for a year, I think it is a fair hope to speculate that there are at least some students like her in Hogwarts. But in any event, I was just pointing out that there is a possibility that some students answered a question correctly, figured out who Lupin is and just kept quiet. Pippin: > If Snape wanted to kill a werewolf to show off, why would he enter the > tunnel in secret? Wouldn't he rather try to lure Lupin out so that the > whole school could witness his prowess? As a matter of fact, the > Forbidden Forest is supposedly full of werewolves that Snape could kill > without so much trouble. > > If Snape wanted to kill Lupin in particular for some reason, a few drops > of something lethal in the pumpkin juice would be a lot swifter and less > dangerous. Alla: Ask Snape, Pippin LOL. Seriously though - maybe he wanted to drag out dead werewolf and show whole school, to show how good in DA he is. After all, who knows how werewolf mind works, maybe Snape believed he had more chance while in tunnel. As to the poison - um, no. I think killing werewolf in battle is something that Snape would consider far more glorious and Order of Merlin worthy. Isn't speculation fun? :) > > Alla: > > > > And still in PoA Snape goes to the Shack knowing that he may face a > > werewolf, does he not? I think Snape will be very happy to kill a > > werewolf or two. Just **speculating** here of course. > > Pippin: > He had found the Invisibility Cloak, which he knows that Harry would > not have abandoned lightly. He's got to find out what's going on. > OTOH, he's been treated as crying 'wolf' all year. He's not going to > send for help and get brushed off again. Alla: Yep. Maybe that is what happened in the year prank occurred as well? he was crying to Dumbledore that Remus Lupin IS a werewolf and should not be in Hogwarts school? After all Dark creature, getting an education just as everybody else? How dare he? Pippin: > But of course it is possible that something like that happened in the > Prank as well, and Snape thought that someone or something > (Lily? Narcissa? His potions book?) had been carried off or stolen > and he needed to get into the tunnel to save it. Alla: Maybe. Pippin: > There are really several prank mysteries, packed one inside the > other like a Russian doll. One: why did Snape enter the willow > at the proper time? Two: why didn't he draw back on his own > when he heard the werewolf? Three: why did he keep Lupin's > secret afterwards? > Alla: I have much more questions about Prank than that. And my first one starts with why the heck Snape listened to anybody his sworn enemy suggested and did that? Saving Lily will actually work well to answer this one, hmmmmm. Thanks. > Alla: > > As to nobody in canon ever suggested that situation - eh, of course > > they did not, if it meant to be a surprise in book 7 IMO. And I do > > not believe that it will take a lot of effort to change the picture > > we have now with the missing information and all that. > > Pippin: > But JKR does not pull surprises like that with no preparation. There's > always something you can look back on and say "oooh, that was a hint." > I don't see any hints for this at all. We don't have any bona fide cases > of someone taking on a monster for kicks, though several people > have claimed that they or others did so. Alla: Eh, you are saying that any major revelation has to be foreshadowed by similar one? I don't think so. I brought up what I believe maybe a hint to make this work, if this one to come true. Add to this multiple blanks I believe we have about Prank night and here we go IMO. JMO, Alla From srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 15:56:57 2007 From: srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com (S.R.) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:56:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169722 > > sonya: > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape > > and Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, > > but odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? > > I was re-reading the Spinners End and it seemed to me that > > Snape/Narcissa had an odd connection. She crying and holding onto > > his robes, her holding his hands to her lips, etc etc. He > > couldn't look at her crying.... May also explain why Snape made > > the unbreakable vow for Malfoy... favoritism, etc. And Bella's > > presence would have prevented speaking aloud. > colebiancardi: > > not a shipper here at all, but I don't think Draco is the product of > Snape and Narcissa. Draco looks like his mother & father - he is > pale, blond, pointed face. Matter of fact, CoS confirms it. > > "The man who followed could only be Draco's father. He had the same > pale, pointed face and identical cold, grey eyes." Am Ed Hardcover. p 30 Hi everyone, I'm a frequent lurker/ occasional poster, but here's my 2 knuts on the matter... I highly doubt that Draco is really Snape's son, but I HAVE wondered if Snape might be Draco's godfather. That would give him plenty of reason to take the UV with Narcissa. I'm sure it's been said in this group before, but maybe Snape did it to spare Draco from becoming a murderer. srgalactica From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jun 3 16:59:52 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Jun 2007 16:59:52 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/3/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1180889992.14.61634.m49@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169723 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday June 3, 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 philly52404 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 16:45:40 2007 From: philly52404 at yahoo.com (Phyllis Mahurin) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 09:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <59628.17318.qm@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169724 > > sonya: > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape > > and Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, > > but odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? > > I was re-reading the Spinners End and it seemed to me that > > Snape/Narcissa had an odd connection. She crying and holding onto > > his robes, her holding his hands to her lips, etc etc. He > > couldn't look at her crying.... May also explain why Snape made > > the unbreakable vow for Malfoy... favoritism, etc. And Bella's > > presence would have prevented speaking aloud. philly52404: While I don't think that Snape is Draco's father, I do think that at one point and time there was something between them but obvioiusly Cissa chose Lucius. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 3 18:05:31 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:05:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta Message-ID: <380-2200760318531109@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169725 Alla: > As to nobody in canon ever suggested that situation - eh, of course > they did not, if it meant to be a surprise in book 7 IMO. And I do > not believe that it will take a lot of effort to change the picture > we have now with the missing information and all that. Pippin: But JKR does not pull surprises like that with no preparation. There's always something you can look back on and say "oooh, that was a hint." I don't see any hints for this at all. We don't have any bona fide cases of someone taking on a monster for kicks, though several people have claimed that they or others did so. Alla (from a different post): Oh, no, I do not think he is lying if this speculation is true. I just think that he is conveniently disregards his own sinister motives in that night, if this is what happens. After all, Sirius did trick him to go in there. And if he figured out who Remus is, maybe it happened, I don't know an hour before, several minutes before Snape decides to enter a Shack? You know? So, who cares if Snape decided to try and finish Remus off with one of the spells which maybe he himself invented? Life of Dark creature is not worth much after all, now the previous life of Severus Snae, who idiot Sirius dared to risk on the other hand is another story. Magpie: So you mean that once James rescued him (Snape having walked into the Shack and then realized he made a mistake) Snape re-imagined the story so that he didn't know what he really did know, denying his intentions? How it would come out, given that we're supposed to think that Snape's the only one who knows it? Is it something that Snape himself had sort of repressed but that would come out, like, in a fight with Lupin where he said something like "I should have killed you that night like I wanted to?" shocking both himself and Lupin? What would that revelation add to the story? Because I do expect more complications about the past and I could easily believe plenty of them will make Snape look bad--along the way we've gotten pretty equal revelations that make both sides look bad. (James is shown pantsing Snape in OotP--but in HBP Snape was revealed to be the eavesdropper who therefore killed James.) However, Snape really wanting to kill Lupin and so undoing the Prank--while that could certainly be something that happened--seems to tip the balance a bit. It essentially just mostly absolves the Marauders and puts Harry back to even less than square one. The first time we heard about the Prank, though we didn't know it, was in PS where DD says that Snape and James hated each other, "like [Harry] and Mr. Malfoy." That's an explanation in itself. Then, in typical JKR style, DD adds a far more interesting wrinkle because it works with the other in contradiction: James did something Snape could never forgive; he saved his life. PoA then adds another wrinkle that supports that same contradiction: Yes James saved my life...but my life was in danger because of an action taken against him by James' friends as part of that same rivalry. This secret, if true, basically puts Harry back to his more comforting PS thoughts: yes, it may have seemed like James' friends did something bad, but that's undone because at the critical moment Snape turned the Prank into a murder attempt. So when James saved Snape he was saving him from intentionally risking his own life to kill Lupin. Snape's murderous intentions also completely top Sirius' own reckless endangerment. That could be a big deal for Snape himself as a character if he were the protagonist. It would probably be the moment where Snape realized he had caused his own predicament (which he of course has contributed to all along already). But for Harry it's the opposite kind of moment. For him (and us) so far what makes the whole conflict so compelling is the way each side gets worse in step with the other so that you really can't say that one side was "the" victim. This solution seems to instead give Harry has the peace he's always wanted, where Snape was the true bad guy in their conflict and the Marauders made mistakes in their reaction to his badness, but ultimately can't really compare to him. The revelation that Snape was actually trying to kill Lupin would have been what Harry (and we) would have originally expected. It doesn't tell us anything about MWPP since they didn't know about it--their reaction would probably just be, "What do you know, Snape's been complaining about this all along and it turns out it wasn't even really true. We should have known." It's not like they--even Lupin--can be shocked that Snape would do such a thing. More importantly none of them feel guilty in the first place, so it doesn't change how they think about the incident. They can't say, "I've felt badly all these years and it turns out you knew all along and were lying!" or whatever. Snape's been yelling about the truth of this incident when he's the one who should have wanted it swept under the rug. I could imagine this happening to Snape, say in a fanfic that was about him, but it doesn't seem to do anything for Harry's story or the overall story--at least not to me so far. But I'm not JKR.:-) -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 18:12:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:12:52 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169726 --- "limerent4ever" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > > so unless the sender was foolish enough to include > > the Warning Card, how would Dumbledore, or anyone > > else, know it was a cursed necklace? ... > > I think Draco hoped that Dumbledore might open it > > out of curiosity and before realizing it, pick up > > the necklace, in which case he would then be dead. > > But that is a lot to hope for.... > > limerent here: > > I was mentioning the card only to show ... that it > states that it causes *muggle* deaths. Since > Dumbledore is not a muggle my question is what did > Draco expect to happen to Dumbledore? > > Interesting stuff about opals. I hadn't heard about > that before. > > Thanks! > bboyminn: Notice the effect on Katie, who is a witch. She only escaped death according to Dumbledore because the smallest amount of skin touched for only the briefest amount of time. Dumbledore indicates she just barely escaped death. So, the curse was EXTREMELY strong and quite capable of killing a wizard very quickly. However, wizards being wizards, an intelligent, knowledgable, skilled wizard might be able to soften the effects if he acted quickly. But notice how fast Katie responded to the curse, it was almost instant, and even in her case, was very extreme. So, it the case of THIS cursed necklace, if Dumbledore had touched it, he would have been affected too quickly to respond and save himself. Or so it seems. Steve/bboyminn From tctrppr at netscape.net Sun Jun 3 17:34:05 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:34:05 -0000 Subject: Using available resources-or if I was Harry, What would I do....... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169727 Been trying to put myself in Harry's shoes and think...who or what resources would I use in his present situation. 1. Alastor Moody. Moody would be a good source for intelligence re... past behaviors and habits of Voldemort's crowd. Exceptional knowledge of charms and spells, like disillusionment, for example. Moody thinks like a death eater. 2.Slughorn. Potions/antidote expert. Former head of Slytherin,IIRC, would know most of the current crop of death eaters from teaching them. ( strengths/weaknesses/fears, etc...) 3. Dragons. Numerous references as to how tough it is to use magic against them. Could a dragon be domesticated/trained to be used as a defensive/offensive weapon? 4.Thestrals. Good at finding their way, hardly ever get lost, can't see them if you haven't seen death. A possible means of stealthy transportation for a young horcrux hunter that wants to operate in secrecy. Covered with an invisibility cloak, and riding a thestral, the ministry would not be able to track his movements. ( you know Scrimgour is going to try to tail Harry) Buckbeak. Alternate means of transportation that the ministry couldn't monitor. Also, Buckbeak was very protective of Harry and Hagrid at the end of HBP, attacking Snape after Snape and company attacked Harry and Hagrid. 5. The pensieve. Harry needs to learn the ins and outs of extracting memories for future reference and analysis. Location of horcruxes, past events, etc... 6. Bill and Charley Weasley. A curse breaker that can possibly teach Harry "traces of magical concealment". Bill Weasley, a magical creatures expert that would know the strengths, weaknesses, and capabilities of numerous creatures. 7. Firenze. In SS/PS when Firenze rescued Harry in the forest, and made the statement, "I set myself against what is lurking in this forest, with humans at my side, if I must", or words to that effect, makes me believe Firenze could be a useful ally. Doesn't appear to be any love lost between Firenze and Voldemort. 8. Prof. Binns. History of magic teacher. DD says Hogwarts is " a stronghold of ancient magic." Maybe magic that Harry can utilize, if Binns can enlighten him. Just a few of the possibly overlooked resources that our young horcrux hunter might put to good use. What say you all? Discuss............expand upon............... Have a good day, everybody. Paul From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 19:15:23 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:15:23 -0000 Subject: A World Worth Fighting For (Was Re: On Jurisprudence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169728 > Lizzyben: > There's no indication at all that such protections against > injustice exist in the WW. The Wizengamot has all the > protections & safeguards of the Spanish Inquisition. Goddlefrood: We can not know this. There is far too little to go on. One example used earlier was that of Hagrid being sent to Azkaban during CoS. The understanding I had of that was that he was remanded in custody due to his record having been against him. Even though he had not originally opened the Chamber in the 40s he had been thought to be the one and the official record was that he had. Tom Riddle cleverly set him up, but that is not to say that Hagrid was not widely believed to be guilty. I've changed the title now because I want to write a post about why the WW is worth fighting for. I'll leave insurrection to those who wish to participate in that ;-) "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Proverbial saying that is rather apt in the situation of the WW and Harry's quest within it. The system is rotten from the ground up, something like this: "Everyone in authority stole. Whoever held office and did not steal created a desert around himself; he made everybody suspicious. Other people regarded him as a spy sent to report on who was stealing how much, because their enemies needed such information. Whenever possible they got rid of someone like that in short order - he spolied the game. All values thus came to have a reversed meaning. Whoever tried to be honest looked like a paid stoolie. If someone had clean hands he had to keep them deeply hidden because there was something shameful and ambivalent about purity. The higher up the fuller the pockets." Does this sound like the WW? Very much so, IMO, but it is Iran as described bt Ryszard Kapucinski in his excellent "Shah of Shahs". This was the Iran before the Ayatollahs, corrupt, devoid of effective government, living in fear, and, bizarrely, supported by the US. The WW may not even be as bad as that, it has problems and corruption and those with money are able to buy favours, pace Buckbeak's tribulations. It's not irredeemable though, and all it will take for a better deal for all witches and wizards and indeed other beings and creatures in it is for a few good men and women to step forward and step by painful step start the process of cleaning it up. Worth fighting for any day of the week. Harry, go to it, says I. Goddlefrood. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 19:39:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:39:49 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169729 Alla wrote: > > Oh, no, I do not think he is lying if this speculation is true. I > just think that he is conveniently disregards his own sinister > motives in that night, if this is what happens. After all, Sirius > did trick him to go in there. And if he figured out who Remus is, > maybe it happened, I don't know an hour before, several minutes > before Snape decides to enter a Shack? You know? > > So, who cares if Snape decided to try and finish Remus off with one > of the spells which maybe he himself invented? Life of Dark creature > is not worth much after all, now the previous life of Severus Snae, > who idiot Sirius dared to risk on the other hand is another story. Carol responds: As I said in another post, I don't think that severus knew that Remus was a werewolf, in part because the werewolf question that Severus and the others answered on their DADA exam related only to the differences in appearance of a transformed werewolf and a regular wolf (tufted tail, etc.)--nothing that he would connect with a fellow schoolboy. (I forgot to mention that he wasn't studying an "essay" of any kind when James and Sirius caught him off-guard and attacked him. He was rereading the exam questions, just as Hermione always does, and probably going over his answers in his mind to see if he forgot anything. The answers themselves had been handed in to Flitwick.) But what I want to ask now, not just of Alla but of anyone who's interested, is why Severus would *need* James to save his life if he already knew and intended to use a spell that could subdue or kill a werewolf. If he'd already invented Sectumsempra, why not use that--not as murder, but to save his own life? Sirius says Severus knew "more "curses than half the seventh-years" even as an eleven-year-old, and by fifteen if not earlier, he was inventing his old spells, and yet at sixteen he needed James to save him, and honestly believes that James saved his life (even if it was just because he got "cold feet")? The only thing I can think of is that 1) he hadn't invented Sectumsempra yet and therefore couldn't use it to save himself (I think it was a result of the so-called Prank and that the little cutting hex in SWM is just a precursor) and/or 2) he was so thoroughly surprised and horrified by seeing the werewolf that he either panicked or froze in fear. But if he'd been expecting the encounter and planned on using Sectumsempra or some other Dark spell, that wouldn't have happened. He'd have just cast his Dark curse, and he wouldn't have suffered the humiliation of needing to be saved--by James, of all people. Heck, why not just use *Levicorpus* on the werewolf? Wouldn't that work? If not, why not? We know he'd already invented it because James uses it on him at the end of fifth year. How could a werewolf suspended by his ankle bite anyone? Severus wouldn't have needed *James* to do that. He could do it himself--unless, of course, he was momentarily a "weak" person wearing his fears on his sleeve, forgetting his own spells in the terror of seing a fully grown werewolf about to attack him. Maybe that's the moment of "cowardice" that he finds so unendurable even twenty or so years later? Carol, who thinks that one reason Severus didn't spread the werewolf story around was his humiliation at having been rescued by his archenemy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 20:09:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:09:38 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: <380-2200760318531109@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169730 > Magpie: > So you mean that once James rescued him (Snape having walked into the Shack > and then realized he made a mistake) Snape re-imagined the story so that he > didn't know what he really did know, denying his intentions? > How it would come out, given that we're supposed to think that Snape's the > only one who knows it? Is it something that Snape himself had sort of > repressed but that would come out, like, in a fight with Lupin where he > said something like "I should have killed you that night like I wanted to?" > shocking both himself and Lupin? Alla: No, not quite. If this speculation is true, I meant that it is possible that Snape is not telling ALL about what he **knows** happened that night. I also meant that the fact that Snape learned about who Remus is ( maybe short time before he entered the Shack or not) for Snape does not change the fact that **Sirius** tried to kill him. I do not think Snape is repressing anything here, just not telling **if this speculation is true**. I think he is perfectly aware of what happened. Sure, fight with Lupin is one thing it can come out if this is true. Magpie: > What would that revelation add to the story? Because I do expect more > complications about the past and I could easily believe plenty of them will > make Snape look bad--along the way we've gotten pretty equal revelations > that make both sides look bad. (James is shown pantsing Snape in OotP--but > in HBP Snape was revealed to be the eavesdropper who therefore killed > James.) Alla: Frankly, I have no idea what this speculation will add to the story. I am perfectly **fine** with the story as it is and absolutely cool with Prank being the mixt of Sirius reckless idiocy and Snape putting his nose where it does not belong. All that I am saying is that I find those werewolf essays to be suspicious that is why regardless of what this will end to the story, I speculate that there is something behind it **or not**. I am also saying that Prank with the blanks we have IMO is one of the fairest places in the book to try and fill those blanks. Magpie: > However, Snape really wanting to kill Lupin and so undoing the Prank--while > that could certainly be something that happened--seems to tip the balance a > bit. It essentially just mostly absolves the Marauders and puts Harry back > to even less than square one. > This secret, if true, basically puts Harry back to his more comforting PS > thoughts: yes, it may have seemed like James' friends did something bad, > but that's undone because at the critical moment Snape turned the Prank > into a murder attempt. So when James saved Snape he was saving him from > intentionally risking his own life to kill Lupin. Snape's murderous > intentions also completely top Sirius' own reckless endangerment. > > That could be a big deal for Snape himself as a character if he were the > protagonist. It would probably be the moment where Snape realized he had > caused his own predicament (which he of course has contributed to all along > already). > > Alla: Well, look, it all depends on how far you think the revelations of Snape ultimate badness will go. I believe that Snape is a scum of the earth and will not be surprised by any of such revelation. One way I would imagine it may happen if we learn that Snape just as Malfoy did ( yes, I know that is not proven but I am convinced that Malfoy took a mark already) took the mark in school and was already full of the murderous ideas a la Voldemort - dark creatures need to be shot indeed. Would that absolve Marauders? I do not see how. I mean, Sirius will still look reckless idiot he was, no? Now, will Marauders look **better** than Snape by comparison if this speculation is true? Sure thing they will be, but my point is that I am fan of this speculation not because I want to absolve them. I just it is textually possible. Let me say again, I do not care if it does not come true. Canon as it stands now surely does not mention that Snape knew. I just think that it may be one of the revelations in book 7. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 3 20:10:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:10:31 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169731 limerent wrote: > > > > I was mentioning the card only to show ... that it states that it causes *muggle* deaths. Since Dumbledore is not a muggle my question is what did Draco expect to happen to Dumbledore? > bboyminn replied: > > Notice the effect on Katie, who is a witch. She only escaped death according to Dumbledore because the smallest amount of skin touched for only the briefest amount of time. Dumbledore indicates she just barely escaped death. So, the curse was EXTREMELY strong and quite capable of killing a wizard very quickly. Carol responds: Thank goodness for Healer!Snape! > bboyminn: > However, wizards being wizards, an intelligent, knowledgable, skilled wizard might be able to soften the effects if he acted quickly. But notice how fast Katie responded to the curse, it was almost instant, and even in her case, was very extreme. > > So, it the case of THIS cursed necklace, if Dumbledore had touched it, he would have been affected too quickly to respond and save himself. > > Or so it seems. > > Steve/bboyminn > Carol responds: All true, but the effects on a wizard aren't explained by the sign, which is (I think) why limerent is asking the question. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, limerent! :-) )I imagine Draco asked Borgin what would happen if a wizard disobeyed the sign and touched the necklace, and Borgin told him that it would kill the wizard just as it would kill a Muggle. Otherwise, he'd never have bought it hoping to use it as an alternative means of killing DD if the cabinet plan failed. And Borgin, of course, already knows by the time of "Draco's Detour" that Draco is a Death Eater, so Draco wouldn't be revealing any dark secrets by buying something so deadly. My only problem (aside from the logistics of getting the necklace into Hogwarts undetected, which have already been pointed out more than once) is how Draco could buy the necklace considering that he was at Hogwarts (the Katie incident occurred in October). True, he could have come back to the shop between the visit to B&B and the ride on the Hogwarts Express, but at that time, he seems to have had perfect confidence in his Vanishing Cabinet plan. Also, the necklace cost, according to Borgin, "a thousand and a half galleons"), and I doubt that even Draco has that kind of pocket money. He could have had help from Bella, but she was in hiding from the Aurors and the Order. Maybe Narcissa (or Bella Polyjuiced as Narcissa) bought it for him and sent it to the Imperiused Rosmerta with orders to hold it till she heard from Draco? Any other ideas? I'm genuinely puzzled about the whole necklace scheme (except Snape's role in saving Katie). IMO, the whole subplot has more plot holes than the so-called Prank, and that's saying a lot. Carol, wondering, among other things, who Imperiused Rosmerta and why Blaise Zabini (Polyjuiced!Draco?) is mentioned as "lolling against a pillar" in the Three Broomsticks shortly before the Katie incident From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Sun Jun 3 20:02:31 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:02:31 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169732 I've been reading HBP for the first time and it does appear that the incident in the cave is going to be absolutely crucial to the events of the 7th book. I looked through the archives and found this post from a few weeks ago. <<<>> I think the idea of RAB being Amy Benson is an inspired guess. It proves to me what I have suspected since joining this group that there are many members who are better at thinking outside the box than I am! Regulus Black was the obvious choice but JKR rarely does the obvious. Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop are mentioned by name in HBP and we know that JKR rarely mentions people by name unless they are going to play some part in the story, however small. <<<< .and she went on to use a different name when adopted and realized she was magical (someone Harry knows now) Problems abound though, most notably she would need to be a female of a certain age and McGonagall would be the most likely for an 'aha' moment. The idea McG. was hiding something from Dumbledore doesn't work all that well, for me anyway.>>>>> I was initially taken back by this idea but when I think about it, it is possible. I'd always thought of Mcgonagall as being older than Voldemort but if we work from the timings in CoS, he would be about 70 by HBP. Mcgonagall could well be the same age or slightly younger. And it could be that Dumbledore knew of her past, but hadn't told Harry because it would violate her privacy. However Mrs Cole at the orphanage says that neither child was `quite right afterwards' ? doesn't seem like a description of Prof. M. who is the sanest and most down to earth person you could imagine. Before I read this thread I was surmising that the next thing Harry would have to do would be to find Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop to find out the significance of what happened in the cave. Then I read a post saying ? of course!!! ? that Dumbledore must have already spoken to at least one of them, because otherwise he wouldn't have known where to find the cave. (I'm starting to feel very dense by now!) Then there is the question of Dumbledore's words in the cave. <<>>> I wondered about the theory suggested by someone else that the potion itself was a Horcrux and I wondered whether Dumbledore in drinking it was somehow reliving Tom Riddle's own experience in the cave. Not even knowing at that time that he was a wizard did he stumble across some powerful magic? Did some dark wizard torture Tom Riddle as well as the two other children? The problem with this theory that Voldemort even as a child would never have uttered the words "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please it's my fault, hurt me instead..." Perhaps Dumbledore is uttering the words spoken by Amy Benson. But why would it be her fault since it was Tom Riddle who took her to the cave? I found the other theories suggested such as a link between Snape and Regulus Black, DD's childhood experiences, very interesting, but my personal opinion is that there is so much `back history' in HBP, seen through the Pensieve that the `answer' to the mystery of the cave must somehow be hinted at in the material we already have. Anyway, Jen and all of you who have been engaging in some creative and lateral thinking, I am enjoying reading your posts very much. We only have 7 weeks to go so if you have a theory now is the time to bring it on! those of us who have only recently discovered HP are enjoying your insights. Sylvia. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 21:29:47 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:29:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP - Snape and Tonks????? In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0706022206u1126cbc7x235aade623abf15a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0706031429p34856870i681cd00dc5dfe7b3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169733 wynnleaf: Hey, it's a better match than Ron and Hermione, and that one's apparently going to be canon. Lynda: Apparently. Of cours we don't know who is going to be with whom, yet. I've seen way too many unlikely couple combinations that work, though to claim Ron and Hermione don't make a good match. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 3 23:03:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:03:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) Message-ID: <380-220076032339703@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169734 I think the idea of RAB being Amy Benson is an inspired guess. It proves to me what I have suspected since joining this group that there are many members who are better at thinking outside the box than I am! Regulus Black was the obvious choice but JKR rarely does the obvious. Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop are mentioned by name in HBP and we know that JKR rarely mentions people by name unless they are going to play some part in the story, however small. Magpie: Well...she doesn't do the obvious (always--sometimes she does), but this isn't really about the obvious but meaningful. RAB being Regulus is well-foreshadowed so that it actually means something. The only thing Amy Benson really brings to the table is that two of the letters of her name are the same and there's very little chance anyone will think of her. Regulus seems more obvious because it being him means something even without further explanation. We've heard part of his story and this revelation completely revises it, turns it on its head and makes it better. The only satisfaction out of it being Amy Benson that I can see is that people who happened to remember her name (and are willing to assume that for some reason she goes by her middle name to make it even more of a surprise) will know who she was. She's not tied into the plot. If we learn it's her, it will not be a cool revelation until we get the whole story. She was mentioned by name, but doesn't Regulus seem set up to play the larger role? He's been mentioned more than once in two books. He's connected to characters we care about. Of course characters named have some part to play, if small. But then, Mark Evans part was a lot smaller than people thought based on his name. It just always makes me blink when people refer to Regulus being too "obvious" because it being him already promises new revelations and answers to stories that are already important, so that other characters become better choices because they're so random nobody would guess them. All they bring is surprise, because as far as we know there's nothing interesting to be learned there. For instance, we were told enough about Peter so that when he was revealed we would be able to be shocked just at the revelation. If we go just for surprise in terms of it being strange for anyone to even think of the person, it's more like if Scabbers the rat turned out not to be Peter Pettigrew (who as one of the Marauders was too obvious) but rather...one of the Prewett brothers! Yeah, it's a surprise and they're connected to somebody, but it's only after you explain the story that I'll even have any reason to know why I should care. It's *good* that Regulus' groundwork is already laid so well, imo. (Laid by telling us about three times that he was defined by being in over his head and therefore couldn't have done anything significant.) - From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 3 23:07:01 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:07:01 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169735 Carol responds: > But what I want to ask now, not just of Alla but of anyone who's > interested, is why Severus would *need* James to save his life if he > already knew and intended to use a spell that could subdue or kill a > werewolf. If he'd already invented Sectumsempra, why not use that-- > not as murder, but to save his own life? Sirius says Severus > knew "more "curses than half the seventh-years" even as an eleven- > year-old, and by fifteen if not earlier, he was inventing his old > spells, and yet at sixteen he needed James to save him, and > honestly believes that James saved his life (even if it was just > because he got "cold feet")? Dana: Well I'm not specifically thinking Snape went into the Shack because he had the intention to kill Lupin but just for argument sack; Didn't Snape hate James's guts for saving his life? It seems to imply he'd rather not have James safed him at all. So maybe Snape at the time didn't feel he'd needed saving at all and only later realized that he indeed could have died and that James indeed saved his life. But in respect to Snape knowing more curses and such doesn't it want to imply that Snape was intelligent enough to put two and two together? Maybe he indeed had a tendency to come to wrong conclusions like was implied in the movie but I doubt it. The OWL exam might not have included more then just the question on how to recognize a werewolf but Snape setting up the essay for the third year students, does imply that more information then just this question was taught at Hogwarts and that Snape himself was taught in the same way as he taught the third years in PoA. It was only Hermione who made the link or at least of what we see in canon but Snape thought it would be enough information to reveal Lupin's condition. And that is what bugs me because Lupin does say that Snape was interested to know where Lupin went every month and that he was accompanied by the school nurse on one of these monthly disappearances. Lupin specifically implies that Snape already had this information before Sirius tricked him and to me it even implies that Sirius knew Snape wanted to know more about Lupin because Lupin states that Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape that all he had to do was prod the knot to be able to follow Lupin into the tunnel. Personally of what I have seen of Snape's character I have totally no problem with the idea of him shifting the blame on to someone else. I believe he ran to DD immediately after James pulled him out of the Willow to claim Sirius (and maybe James and Lupin) tried to kill him and maybe it is just speculation but like Harry, Sirius doesn't seem like he would make a good occlumens. Maybe DD did not talk to Sirius which I doubt and James did all the talking but to me it doesn't seem that DD was all that convinced by the claim Snape made, not then and not in PoA, as he replies not with a conformation but with the statement that his memory was a good as it always was. So my personal speculation is that Sirius dared Snape to face Lupin. That Snape already had made the link and that Sirius tricked him by showing Snape, Lupin was a harmless werewolf and that he (Sirius) could get in and out without being harmed at all. Or maybe Sirius used Peter for that part. If then Sirius played the coward tune with Snape then it was a sure thing Snape would try. And then James comes up finding Sirius out side the willow laughing his head off, of how scared out of his wits Snape will be if he sees Lupin is not that harmless (with Sirius totally ignorant to the actual dangers Snape could face) and then James realizing that Snape could get killed and running after him. That is a scenario that I could believe of what actually happened on that night. The coward thing is a major issue between Snape and Sirius and we see it is a major issue with Snape even so much so that he loses control over it, even to the point that he wants to hurt Harry for it really badly but also that he wants to explain himself towards Bella because she implies he is a coward for always hiding behind his orders and in my personal believe the true reason for him taking the vow. Then it would not actually be Sirius betraying Lupin's secret but almost revealing that he, James and Peter became illegal animagi and that they visited Lupin in the shack and later roam the grounds with him and this would be a reason for them getting expelled if DD found out. So I believe the story was slightly changed so that the animagi thing was kept hidden. For instance that Sirius or Peter never went in so far that they actually encountered Lupin and that they just played a trick on Snape to make him think they did. Sirius still betrayed Lupin because he challenged Snape into facing Lupin and Lupin in the least could have caused another human to be what he so much hates to be. It is just speculation but that I could believe that Snape made the choices he made because he did not want to be considered a coward and that his actions in Spinner's end were directed in the same way because Snape never faced up to his own responsibility in this nightly event and thus not learning how to control this part of himself. I could see why he would still be very revengeful towards the marauders or why he did see it as a murder attempt while it actually was Snape himself who made himself do it. James saving Snape might have felt to Snape somewhat the same as Lily intervening with the Marauders bullying him, because it doesn't make Snape look better but worse and why he hates James for it so much and DD not expelling the marauders after this events made Snape chose to take matters into his own hands. JMHO Dana From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Sun Jun 3 23:06:12 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:06:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "newbie" > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and > Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but > odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid?>>> This is an interesting theory, Sonya, but it seems unlikely because Draco is being described as looking very like his father with blonde hair and a pale pointy face. Snape on the other hand has black hair and sallow skin. Since Harry looks so like his father (but with his mother's eyes) and Neville resembles his mother so much I think we can assume that the same 'rules' apply in the wizarding as in the muggle world, that children tend to look like their biological families. I'm glad you've arrived here. I've only just joined but I'm fascinated to read the interesting insights that other readers give on the book. I only read the books for the first time just before Christmas and am reading HBP properly for the first time now. Sylvia From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 00:19:43 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:19:43 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > Dana: > Well I'm not specifically thinking Snape went into the Shack because > he had the intention to kill Lupin but just for argument sack; Didn't > Snape hate James's guts for saving his life? wynnleaf According to Sirius and Lupin, James and Snape hated each other from the first, not since 6th year when the prank took place. It's so obvious in the 5th year Worst Memory scene, we *know* the hate didn't come from the werewolf incident. Perhaps you're misinterpreting this comment by Dumbledore in PS/SS: "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." Dumbledore goes on to say, "Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace..." Snape already hated James. When James saved his life, it seemed to get in the way of Snape hating James' memory "in peace," so he wanted to discharge the debt. He didn't hate James beginning in 6th year due to James saving his life. He'd hated him long before that. Dana It seems to imply he'd > rather not have James safed him at all. wynnleaf Snape made it clear that he didn't appreciate what he felt was the Marauder's attempt to kill him. His fury over Sirius in POA included his comments to DD that Sirius had tried to kill him. So it looks more like he'd "rather not have" had his life put in jeopardy in the first place. And Snape also made it clear in POA that he felt all of the Marauders were involved -- which naturally includes James, who Snape thought just got cold feet. Your comment implies that Snape not liking James saving his life means that Snape *wanted* to face a werewolf. If that were the case, he wouldn't have much reason to be angry at Sirius. Dana So maybe Snape at the time > didn't feel he'd needed saving at all and only later realized that he > indeed could have died and that James indeed saved his life. wynnleaf If Snape had gone in knowing his was going to face a werewolf, and thinking that he was prepared to do so, then he would not have felt James saved his life at all -- just foiled his plan. I can't seriously see your version of Snape both arrogantly thinking he could kill a werewolf *and* later deciding he was wrong and that James saved his life. Dana > But in respect to Snape knowing more curses and such doesn't it want > to imply that Snape was intelligent enough to put two and two > together? Maybe he indeed had a tendency to come to wrong conclusions > like was implied in the movie but I doubt it. The OWL exam might not > have included more then just the question on how to recognize a > werewolf but Snape setting up the essay for the third year students, > does imply that more information then just this question was taught > at Hogwarts and that Snape himself was taught in the same way as he > taught the third years in PoA. > > It was only Hermione who made the link or at least of what we see in > canon but Snape thought it would be enough information to reveal > Lupin's condition. wynnleaf You're forgetting what else Snape knew about Hermione's knowledge base. Let's assume (because it's strongly implied in canon), that Snape hoped some students, or at least Hermione, would figure out that Lupin was a werewolf. Did he think that someone would figure it out using the *same* knowledge base that he had as a student? No, because Snape *knew* that at least some of the students had knowledge that he didn't have as a student. 1. Snape *knew* that Harry, and most likely Harry's friends, would be aware that Lupin was taking a special potion. Snape didn't have any such hint when he was a kid. 2. Snape would know that the students would be acutely aware of exactly when Lupin was absent from school, because they'd all notice the exact days he wasn't in class. As a kid in a different house, Snape would have been highly unlikely to have been aware of the specific dates of Lupin's absences. 3. And last, Snape had heard about the boggart lesson, so he may have assumed (correctly) that Lupin, in dealing with the boggart in front of his class, may have had to reveal a boggart that would hint at his being a werewolf. Snape may even have heard enough about the boggart lesson to *know* what Lupin's boggart looked like. Someone, after all, told him about Neville's boggart -- maybe one of the Slytherins. Snape as a kid probably hadn't seen Lupin's boggart. We're given no indication that practical boggart lessons were commonly taught especially with different DADA teachers each year, even when Snape was in school. So we can be certain that when Snape gave that lesson to the DADA class, he *knew* that some of the students, and perhaps all of them, had knowledge specific to Lupin that he didn't have when he was a student. Dana And that is what bugs me because Lupin does say > that Snape was interested to know where Lupin went every month and > that he was accompanied by the school nurse on one of these monthly > disappearances. Lupin specifically implies that Snape already had > this information before Sirius tricked him and to me it even implies > that Sirius knew Snape wanted to know more about Lupin because Lupin > states that Sirius thought it amusing to tell Snape that all he had > to do was prod the knot to be able to follow Lupin into the tunnel. wynnleaf Yes, we can be fairly sure that Snape *did* want to know more about what Lupin was doing. But Sirius specifically said that Snape was doing this because he wanted to get them expelled. Snape knew that Pomfrey went along, so he would presumably know that at least part of Lupin's actions at night were school sanctioned. But in order for Snape to get Lupin expelled, he had to suspect that Lupin was also engaged in some activity that was *not* school sanctioned. Since the Marauders have been shown in the Worst Memory scene to not be particularly circumspect when talking about their *monthly* activities, it's very likely that what alerted Snape wasn't figuring out that Lupin was a werewolf ahead of time (which we have Lupin's canon comment that he didn't know until later), but overhearing Marauder conversations about their monthly excursions (which we already have canon that they discussed in full hearing of others). Dana > Personally of what I have seen of Snape's character I have totally no > problem with the idea of him shifting the blame on to someone else. I > believe he ran to DD immediately after James pulled him out of the > Willow to claim Sirius (and maybe James and Lupin) tried to kill him > and maybe it is just speculation but like Harry, Sirius doesn't seem > like he would make a good occlumens. Maybe DD did not talk to Sirius > which I doubt and James did all the talking but to me it doesn't seem > that DD was all that convinced by the claim Snape made, not then and > not in PoA, as he replies not with a conformation but with the > statement that his memory was a good as it always was. wynnleaf You're implying that Dumbledore "knew" that Snape wasn't tricked by Sirius at all, but knew all along that Lupin was a werewolf -- yet, since Snape continues to speak to Dumbledore in POA of Sirius trying to kill him, Dumbledore must *never* have told Snape that he knew Sirius didn't really trick Snape. Why would he not tell Snape this? You're saying that Dumbledore knew that Snape was sneaking around trying to either kill Lupin or whatever and never said *anything* to him about it?? The weirdest thing about Snape going into that tunnel *while* knowing Lupin was a werewolf is that the only reason I can think of for him to do that would be to try to kill Lupin. It wouldn't be to find out what Lupin was doing, because he'd already know. But if he was trying to kill Lupin, then why wouldn't Dumbledore have ever talked to Snape about that? Dana > So my personal speculation is that Sirius dared Snape to face Lupin. > That Snape already had made the link and that Sirius tricked him by > showing Snape, Lupin was a harmless werewolf and that he (Sirius) > could get in and out without being harmed at all. Or maybe Sirius > used Peter for that part. If then Sirius played the coward tune with > Snape then it was a sure thing Snape would try. And then James comes > up finding Sirius out side the willow laughing his head off, of how > scared out of his wits Snape will be if he sees Lupin is not that > harmless (with Sirius totally ignorant to the actual dangers Snape > could face) and then James realizing that Snape could get killed and > running after him. > > That is a scenario that I could believe of what actually happened on > that night. wynnleaf One interesting thing is that you're building your theory in part on Lupin's story, but then you don't believe Lupin's story when he gets to the parts you don't want to include in your theory, such as his comment that "from that time on he knew what I was." It's like your theory takes the parts of his story that fit the theory and says "this is true" and takes the parts that don't fit your theory and disregards them. Dana > James saving Snape might have felt to Snape somewhat the same as Lily > intervening with the Marauders bullying him, because it doesn't make > Snape look better but worse and why he hates James for it so much wynnleaf Once again, Dumbledore didn't say that this was why Snape hated James. And if it was a similar feeling as to his feelings about Lily's coming to his defense in the worst memory scene, why wouldn't we see Snape acting just as hateful about Lily later as he does about James? Dana and > DD not expelling the marauders after this events made Snape chose to > take matters into his own hands. wynnleaf If Snape had never really been tricked by Sirius at all, he wouldn't have felt really powerful resentment about whatever did or didn't happen to punish Sirius. It's only when we include Snape thinking that the Marauders were trying to *kill* him that such huge resentment makes any sense. As regards "made Snape chose to take matters into his own hands," I'm not sure what you're referring to. Snape becoming a DE? But at the moment when revenge against a Marauder was finally a possibility, Snape didn't just let things happen and let LV target and kill the Potters without warning. He instead went to Dumbledore. So while I could see Snape's resentment over the whole incident being a factor in a decision to join the Death Eaters, I don't see Snape taking "matters into his own hands," at least as regards trying to get some sort of revenge. But you know the biggest reason why further revelations are unlikely to show us *Snape's* greater culpability? Because neither the reader nor Harry needs some sort of confirmation that "oh my gosh, Snape really does bad things!!" There's no character in the series right now that needs to hear that Snape was to blame for the werewolf prank. There has to be a *purpose* to these sorts of revelations. It's not just JKR thinking this werewolf prank is an odd little story that it would be nice to fill us in on. It's got to serve a purpose. There's no purpose in giving Harry another reason to dislike Snape or think he's a bad guy. The readers and Harry have already been shown Snape murdering Dumbledore. I really don't think JKR needs the werewolf prank to further cement the "Snape is evil" image. JKR has already accomplished convincing Harry that Snape is evil. The only reason to bring up further revelations about Snape is to explain why he's *not* evil. That is the biggest problem with all the theories that we're going to find out further evidence that Snape is a Bad Man. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 00:28:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:28:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169738 Sonya wrote: > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? > > I was re-reading the Spinners End and it seemed to me that Snape/Narcissa had an odd connection. She crying and holding onto his robes, her holding his hands to her lips, etc etc. He couldn't look at her crying.... May also explain why Snape made the unbreakable vow for Malfoy... favoritism, etc. And Bella's presence would have prevented speaking aloud. > > Voldemort may have guessed and was using Malfoy to force Snape's hand and allegiances... Possibly? If he loved Narcissa/Malfoy etc that may go part way to explaining why Dumbledore believed him; he understood parental love and hence regrets what he did to the Potters? > > Would love to discuss how ludicrous this theory is with people... with contradictory quotes etc... Thanks for reading - Sonya x > Carol responds: Since others have provided you with the description of Lucius Malfoy that specifically points out his resemblance to Draco, I'll just call your attention to a theory of Neri's called ACID POPS. I don't subscribe to the theory myself, but I did come up with the words that the acronym stands for, "Alas, Cissy Is Despondent, Perhaps Old Pal Severus?" that was considered insufficiently passionate of SHIPpy, and it was changed to "Alas, Cissy Is Despondent, Perhaps Obsessively Passionate Severus?" At any rate, Neri's description of Narcissa canonically shedding tears on Severus's chest is classic, as is the rest of his theory even though,as I said, I don't subscribe to it. He's kindly provided what he calls "ACID POPS references for new guys": http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138593 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138790 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139141 Just click on any one of those links and follow the thread, which will give you a general idea of other list members' views on the subject. I should add that ACID POPS, which of course refers to a Hogsmeade candy that Dumbledore used as a password to his office, is an alternative to another Snape "ship" called LOLLIPOPS, which stands for "Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus." Carol, irrelevantly wondering how wizards cool their homes in summer without "eckeltricity" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 00:53:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:53:54 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169739 > wynnleaf > Yes, we can be fairly sure that Snape *did* want to know more about > what Lupin was doing. But Sirius specifically said that Snape was > doing this because he wanted to get them expelled. Alla: I am just responding to this, because to me it is a very good example of how JKR cleverly put blanks in the prank night. Sure, Sirius says that, but there are ellipses "..." just everywhere in those two paragraphs where it matters IMO. ""Snape?" said Black harshly, taking his eyes off Scabbers; for the first time in minutes and looking up at Lupin. "What's Snape got to do with it?" "He's here, Sirius," said Lupin heavily. "He's teaching here as well." He looked up at Harry, Ron, and Hermione. "Professor Snape was at school with us. He fought very hard against my appointment to the Defense Against the Dark Arts job. He has been telling Dumbledore A year that I am not to be trusted. He has his reasons... you see, Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me --" Black made a derisive noise. "It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to... hoping he could get us expelled...." - PoA, ch.18, am.ed., paperback. Alla: So, what do I see here? I see ellipses after he had his reasons. It means to me that it is possible that Snape hatred of Marauders goes deeper and for much more personal reasons. Sure, it is possible that pensieve scene gives those reasons, but I think it is possible that we will learn more about it. There are also ellipses in the last sentences, so I think it is possible that Snape wanted to do something else besides to get Marauders expelled. Oh, cannot wait till book 7 is here. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jun 4 01:06:48 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:06:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169740 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "newbie" > > > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and > > Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but > > odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid?>>> > Sylvia wrote: > This is an interesting theory, Sonya, but it seems unlikely because > Draco is being described as looking very like his father with blonde > hair and a pale pointy face. Snape on the other hand has black hair > and sallow skin. > > Since Harry looks so like his father (but with his mother's eyes) > and Neville resembles his mother so much I think we can assume that > the same 'rules' apply in the wizarding as in the muggle world, that > children tend to look like their biological families. > > I'm glad you've arrived here. I've only just joined but I'm > fascinated to read the interesting insights that other readers give > on the book. I only read the books for the first time just before > Christmas and am reading HBP properly for the first time now. > > Sylvia :::Wild Theory Alert!:::Wild Theory Alert!:::Wild Theory Alert!::: Julie: I once came up with a theory on how Snape could be Draco's father, though I've never posted it. It's one of those "out there" ideas that could work, but of the hundreds of "out there" revelations that are possible--and certainly at least a few WILL happen in DH given JKR's track record--this theory has as little chance of coming true as all the others ;-) The theory in a nutshell: Snape is Draco's father, and Draco's mother was a Malfoy, perhaps a first cousin to Lucius, thus the strong family resemblance between Lucius and Draco. Draco's mother was killed by Voldemort, for crimes as yet unknown. The memory of her death was the catalyst for Snape's passionate speech to Harry regarding "fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves are easy targets for the Dark Lord" (or some such approximation). Snape wore his heart for his lover (wife?) on his sleeve, and Voldemort exploited it for reasons we don't yet know. The catch is that Draco's mother was pregnant. And though Snape was not able to save Florence from whatever curse LV inflicted on her, but with the help of a witch very talented in Charms (Lily Potter), he was able to remove the small embryo and reimplant it in the womb of another witch who had as yet been unable to conceive--Narcissa Malfoy. Thus the child, whose existence is unknown to Voldemort, was safely ensconced with a family that Snape expects to remain in good standing with Voldemort, and with a family the child is genetically closely related to, thus there will be little doubt about his parentage when he turns out (by chance or partly by design?) to look just like the Malfoy he in fact is. There are obviously some complications inherent in this theory. Did Narcissa consent to bear Snape's child, keeping this fact from Lucius (who was no doubt very eager for an heir)? Did she perhaps agree initially but either request Snape obliviate her so she wouldn't recall or let slip that Draco isn't Lucius's son, or could Snape have taken it upon himself to oblivate her to avoid any future slips or complications? And if Snape did practice this subterfuge to protect his son, why? Was he in trouble with Voldemort at the time, or (more likely I think) already disenchanted with Voldemort's means and goals and looking to get out soon? If it was the latter, this presents a conundrum because the death of Draco's mother would have happened *before* Snape leaked the Prophecy to Voldemort. Still Snape would know by now what kind of "Lord" Voldemort is, and how he likes to punish those who displease him through their family members. Perhaps Snape stayed with Voldemort, seeing no way to escape except by being killed (like Regulus), but Voldemort's interpretation of the Prophecy and targeting of the Potter's was the final straw that prompted Snape to take his chances with Dumbledore even if it meant a spying role and likely eventual death. At least he'd see his son grow up and be able to partly protect his child in his role as a Hogwarts professor and Slytherin head of house. Well, it's a theory anyway, even if one that's unlikely to be true. Still it could explain why Snape felt he owed Lily and considered her a friend *without* the odiousness of him being in love with her. It also explains his comment above about wearing your heart on your sleeve, and addresses JKR's implication that Snape was once in love with someone (the latter is a contested interpretation I know, but I think that was her implication). Finally it explains why Snape seems to feel so close to Draco, and so protective of him (the willingness to take a UV to keep Draco safe, the gentleness when he heals Draco of the Sectumsempra curse). Oh, right, I forgot one important element of this theory--the identity of Draco's real mother! So what was the first name of that Malfoy girl Snape loved, who became pregnant with his child, and who was ultimately killed for whatever betrayal Voldemort suspected or knew? Why her name was Florence, of course. ;-) Julie, who's also considered other Draco theories, like Draco's birth being deliberately induced early so as to avoid him being born in the last days of the seventh month (Draco's birthday is instead in the early days of the sixth month), an event which could have implications about his ultimate role in the books. From caleksandrova at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 01:11:50 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:11:50 -0000 Subject: Rowling used to be consice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Deb" wrote: > > I have started re-reading the series, and two-thirds of the way > through the Philosopher's Stone, it struck me how much Rowling packed > into that little book. The whole scene of what happened going down > the trap door took only 16 pages! I noticed the same thing when I was rereading the series recently. In particular, I noted how the Goblet of Fire seemed dragged out (at least in the beginning). On the other hand I've enjoyed both the Order of the Phoenix and the Half-Blood Prince. Until these two books came out, my favourite was actually the first book which started it all. > I teach at an elementary school, and I try to read several books > at this level every year. I am struck by how far and above the Harry > Potter books are in quality, compared with other children's books. I was just reading another fantasy book, which is (according to what I'd read about it) supposed to be an alternative to the Harry Potter, with a sort of religious spin. I must say I agree. There was little depth to characters, the villain unrealistic, the ending unsatisfying. And it wasn't fun! Karina From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 4 01:20:38 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:20:38 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: <380-220076032339703@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169743 Magpie: > It just always makes me blink when people refer > to Regulus being too "obvious" because it being > him already promises new revelations houyhnhnm: Such as how did Sirius find out that Regulus had tried to back out from his service with Voldemort? I didn't really wonder about that until I read HBP. Lupin showed up at the Burrow on Harry's birthday and announced that Karkaroff's body had been found. He added, "Sirius's brother, Regulus, only managed a few days as far as I can remember." Regulus's death was very likely reported in the Daily Prophet, and it may have been evident by the manner of his killing, that he had been killed by his own side, and it would then be surmised that he had tried to get out of his Death Eater contract, but how would anyone on the good side know exactly *when* Regulus had turned his coat, especially if it was only a few days before he was killed? Did Regulus approach the Order before he was killed or is this just more evidence for an evil Lupin? From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jun 4 01:44:23 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:44:23 -0000 Subject: Addendum to Draco Snape's son (was Re: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169744 This is an addendum to the theory that Draco is Snape's (and Florence Malfoy's) son. I forgot to add a couple of other plot points that are neatly explained by this theory. 1. Why Snape is so determined to keep Harry safe. Dumbledore of course told Harry in PS/SS that he believed Snape protected Harry to satisfy that life debt to James. But when has Dumbledore ever told the WHOLE truth? ;-) Can't you just see this conversation between Harry and Dumbledore's portrait: "You told me Snape protected me because he owed my father a life debt!" "He *did* owe your father a life debt, Harry." "But my mother also saved the life of Drac--er, Snape's son!" Harry grimaced, as if he was still trying to come to terms with the idea of Snape having a son, especially a son who was none other than Draco Malfoy. Portrait Dumbledore's eyes twinkled, much as they so often had in real life. "Well, there was that also." Which leads into... 2. Why Dumbledore trusted Severus Snape "completely." It's because Snape told Dumbledore the story of Florence and Draco. He gave Dumbledore the knowledge that Draco is his biological son, thus he gave Dumbledore that power over him. Now even Snape probably knows Dumbledore would never in a million years hurt an ignorant, unsuspecting child just to punish Severus. But the fact that Snape would trust *Dumbledore* so completely with this information might be enough for Dumbledore to fully return the sentiment. And finally back to... 1b. If Lily saved Snape's son, i.e., gave Draco the chance to live, then Snape would feel such gratitude to her that he might well have promised then (or at a later time) to do the same in turn, to protect/save her son if he ever had the opportunity. If Snape is truly DDM, and left Voldemort because of a true crisis of conscience once he learned of the direct threat to Lily's son, it would make much more sense than Snape obsessing about some life debt (which we have no evidence would carry beyond the grave to James's son). IMO, since that sideways life-debt angle (transferred to Harry upon James's death) has never made much sense to me. Julie, still highly doubtful this will all be proven in DH, but it's fun to speculate wildly anyway! From amis917 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 02:05:58 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:05:58 -0000 Subject: RAB - Regulus or not? (was: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD) In-Reply-To: <380-220076032339703@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169745 I think the idea of RAB being Amy Benson is an inspired guess Regulus Black was the obvious choice but JKR rarely does the obvious. Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop are mentioned by name in HBP and we know that JKR rarely mentions people by name unless they are going to play some part in the story, however small. Magpie: Well...she doesn't do the obvious (always--sometimes she does), but this isn't really about the obvious but meaningful. RAB being Regulus is well-foreshadowed so that it actually means something. If we learn it's her, it will not be a cool revelation until we get the whole story. She was mentioned by name, but doesn't Regulus seem set up to play the larger role? He's been mentioned more than once in two books. He's connected to characters we care about. Yeah, it's a surprise and they're connected to somebody, but it's only after you explain the story that I'll even have any reason to know why I should care. It's *good* that Regulus' groundwork is already laid so well, imo. (Laid by telling us about three times that he was defined by being in over his head and therefore couldn't have done anything significant.) Amis917 now: I have to agree with Magpie. I think that to us it seems like an obvious choice, but to the characters in the story, not so much so. Like Magpie said, JKR lays the ground work for Regulus but, that's for our benefit. Its clearly not obvious to the characters in the story because Harry has Hermonie researching possible people who could be RAB. At the end of HBP, Hermonie reports that she has yet to find someone who meets the initials. If she continues researching at Hogwarts, she may find Regulus, because he did go there. I believe, however, she's looking in research material. Regulus would likely not be found in those kinds of books. To them, finding out it's Regulus, will be a surprise. They all think he followed the rest of the Black family into the Dark Arts. I also think JRK said as much during the post-HBP interview ? MA: R.A.B. JKR: Ohhh, good. [All laugh.] JKR: No, I'm glad! Yes? MA: Can we figure out who he is, from what we know so far? [Note: JKR has adopted slightly evil look here] JKR: Do you have a theory? MA: We've come up with Regulus Black. JKR: Have you now? MA: Uh-oh. [Laughter.] JKR: Well, I think that would be, um, a fine guess. MA: And perhaps, being Sirius's brother, he had another mirror ? JKR: [drums fingers on soda can] MA: Does he have the other mirror, or Sirius's mirror ? JKR: I have no comment at all on that mirror. That mirror is not on the table. [Laughter from all; Jo's is maniacal.] JKR may be leading us astray here but I like believing she is not. I read it like JKR is saying that RAB is Regulus. It can also give clues as to how Harry may figure this out, or somehow contact Regulus. Could he be someone the Order is hiding that people believe to be dead? If that is the case, and Regulus is alive ? would that have implications for Harry being Sirius's heir?? Maybe the fact that Kreacher is Harry's voids the idea that Regulus is alive. Anyway, I've been reading this list for several years ? but rarely post. I'm fairly certain this has all been discussed at somepoint .. Amis917 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 03:15:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:15:01 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169746 wynnleaf: > > Yes, we can be fairly sure that Snape *did* want to know more about what Lupin was doing. But Sirius specifically said that Snape was doing this because he wanted to get them expelled. > > > > Alla: > > I am just responding to this, because to me it is a very good > example of how JKR cleverly put blanks in the prank night. > > Sure, Sirius says that, but there are ellipses "..." just everywhere > in those two paragraphs where it matters IMO. > > "Professor Snape was at school with us. He fought very hard against my appointment to the Defense Against the Dark Arts job. He has been telling Dumbledore A year that I am not to be trusted. He has his > reasons... you see, Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly > killed him, a trick which involved me--" > > Black made a derisive noise. > "It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to... hoping he could get us expelled...." Alla: > > So, what do I see here? I see ellipses after he had his reasons. It means to me that it is possible that Snape hatred of Marauders goes deeper and for much more personal reasons. > > Sure, it is possible that pensieve scene gives those reasons, but I think it is possible that we will learn more about it. > > There are also ellipses in the last sentences, so I think it is possible that Snape wanted to do something else besides to get Marauders expelled. > > Oh, cannot wait till book 7 is here. > Carol responds: I don't understand. JKR wouldn't use ellipses to indicate omissions in Lupin's or Black's speeches since she's giving them exactly as they were spoken. The ellipses seem to indicate pauses and hesitancy, but Lupin wouldn't be protecting Snape, whom he doesn't know is listening in and whom Harry and Ron, at least, already hates, nor would Black protect Snape for any reason. Themselves, maybe! Especially Black since the Prank was his idea. Or James since Lupin wants Harry to think well of him and may not want to specify Snape's reasons for hating MWPP since they don't reflect well on James. ("Well, you see, James and and Sirius had recently ambushed him, and James humiliated him by using his own spell against him and exposing his grey underwear to the whole fifth-year class, so he wasn't feeling very well-disposed toward us.") I could give you many examples of ellipses used in the Potter books to indicate hesitation or a voice trailing off (as black's does here0, but I can't think of any place (with the possible but unlikely exception of the Prophecy) where she's used them to indicate omissions. they're not quoting someone else and leaving something out. And Lupin characteristically speaks in the same hesitant way (at least in PoA), for example, when Harry asks him to teach him about Dementors: "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting Dementors, Harry. . . . Quite the contrary. . . ." (PoA Am. ed. 189, ellipses in original). (Aside here: He mentions "certain defenses one can use" against Dementors, so a Patronus isn't the only method. He might also have had in mind the unknown method that snape teaches in HBP.) JKR does sometimes use ellipses before a word to suggest that it's not the word the speaker originally intended to say (or she'll precede the word with "ah," especially if the speaker is Snape), but I don't think that's what's happening here. Carol, noting that Lupin is very secretive all year long, not just in the Shrieking Shack, and it's not Snape he's protecting From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 03:32:17 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:32:17 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he is) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169747 Many posters who believe Snape is either Ever So Evil, loyal to Voldemort, or loyal to Dumbledore, but still really nasty, speculate that DH is going to have further revelations showing us new Bad Things about Snape. These include (in part) 1. Snape wanted to kill Were!Lupin while in school 2. Snape tried to get Sirius killed in OOTP 3. Snape's actions in "alerting" the Order and Dumbledore in OOTP were really part of a plot he had going with Voldemort. 4. Snape only saved Harry in PS/SS because he had to maintain Dumbledore's trust. The list can go on and on and on. But we're not going to find out those things. Why? JKR doesn't need to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. JKR, in her interview with Emerson and Melissa back in 2005, commented that Harry's hatred of Snape is now "personal" and that his greater hatred would be important for when they meet again. Sorry, but JKR has no reason at all to show Harry or anyone else that they need to hate Snape. No one needs to learn "by the way, Snape is really even Worse Than You Thought," because there's nothing much worse than betraying the prophecy to Voldemort which led to the Potter's deaths, killing Dumbledore, and being a Death Eater. This is a long book coming up and JKR isn't going to be spending time explaining to us things that won't move the plot or change any opinions of the characters. Learning that Snape really *was* working with Voldemort in OOTP, or really *did* help in getting Sirius killed tells us absolutely nothing if Snape is Evil -- because if JKR isn't going to show us Snape is really Loyal, then we can just assume he had generally bad motives for whatever he did, and we don't need explanations of How He Did It or Exactly What He Did. But we're almost certain that JKR is in fact going to produce some revelations about Snape. Why do we need *any* revelations about Snape if they are only to convince us that he's just as bad as killing Dumbledore would lead one to believe? JKR doesn't need those revelations about Snape if he's really evil. She only needs revelations about Snape if she's got to change the opinion of her characters -- which is currently that he's an evil, murdering traitor. Many expect that she's going to tell us more about the Werewolf Prank. While I'm not at all convinced that she'll tell us more about it, if she *does* choose to do so, it will not show us new revelations of how bad Snape was. Because that is just pointless, when she's already let us think he's a murderer, traitor, and loyal Death Eater -- if that's true, who cares if he wanted Lupin dead in school? So if JKR does revisit the Prank, and if she does give us new revelations about it, we won't be finding out anything more Bad about Snape. The only reason for further revelations about Snape would be to *change* her characters opinions, not confirm them. The huge interest in Why Dumbledore Trusted Snape is almost certainly going to be addressed. Why will JKR address this? Will it be so we can all learn that Dumbledore was wrong to trust Snape? Really? If Snape is really evil, we already learned that in HBP. Do we really need to learn that all over again? Harry certainly believes that Dumbledore's trust was misplaced. Why would JKR produce the Reason Dumbledore Trusted Snape, just so Harry can say, "Wow, Dumbledore really was foolish after all -- just like I already thought." No, the only reason to find out why Dumbledore trusted Snape is to find out that Snape was trustworthy. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 03:39:49 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:39:49 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169748 Sylvia: > Mcgonagall could well be the same age or slightly younger. And it > could be that Dumbledore knew of her past, but hadn't told Harry > because it would violate her privacy. However Mrs. Cole at the > orphanage says that neither child was `quite right afterwards' > doesn't seem like a description of Prof. M. who is the sanest and > most down to earth person you could imagine. Jen: Yes! I'm afraid that's another knock against McGonagall being Amy Benson - she's quite stable. I do believe McGonagall is the right age though approximately, although I can't remember the evidence for why I think that's true. The Lexicon has her as a student in Gryffindor starting in approx. 1936 and Riddle in Slytherin in approx. 1937. On another note, that's the third character who would have been in Hogwarts with Riddle: Hagrid, McGonagall and Eileen Prince. Eileen would most likely be the one to know Riddle the best if she was in Slytherin. Wonder if that will have relevance? The other knock against McGonagall being Amy Benson is there's no clue at all Riddle noticed someone from the orphange who also went to Hogwarts. There would need to be something to foreshadow the possibility, imo. Sylvia: > Before I read this thread I was surmising that the next thing Harry > would have to do would be to find Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop to > find out the significance of what happened in the cave. Then I read > a post saying ? of course!!! ? that Dumbledore must have already > spoken to at least one of them, because otherwise he wouldn't have > known where to find the cave. (I'm starting to feel very dense by > now!) Jen: I've wondered how he found the cave ever since HBP came out. Mrs. Cole would be dead or close to it by the 1990's if she was a young woman just starting to work when Merope Gaunt delivered Riddle in approx. 1927. I guess it's possible the orphanage was still open and they took trips to the same coast, so Dumbledore was able to get the information that way. Or maybe he did look up Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop! Sylvia: > I wondered about the theory suggested by someone else that the > potion itself was a Horcrux and I wondered whether Dumbledore in > drinking it was somehow reliving Tom Riddle's own experience in the > cave. Not even knowing at that time that he was a wizard did he > stumble across some powerful magic? Did some dark wizard torture > Tom Riddle as well as the two other children? The problem with this > theory that Voldemort even as a child would never have uttered the > words "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please it's my > fault, hurt me instead..." Perhaps Dumbledore is uttering the words > spoken by Amy Benson. But why would it be her fault since it was > Tom Riddle who took her to the cave? Jen: I'm not sure if you saw the posts prior to the one you're quoting, but Dumbledore's words sounded almost child-like to me in the cave. I wondered if Riddle was practicing an early form of possession on them in the cave and that's why they were never the same, and/or torturing animals in front of them (or doing all at once by making the kids torture them under his influence). The words fit for something like that happening and I could see Riddle commemorating the event of his first time successfully possessing someone by putting the memories, which would be in his mind as well, into the potion. But as with all speculation, it has to be measured by relevance for the final story and I don't know what relevance it would have. Sylvia: > Anyway, Jen and all of you who have been engaging in some creative > and lateral thinking, I am enjoying reading your posts very much. > We only have 7 weeks to go so if you have a theory now is the time > to bring it on! those of us who have only recently discovered HP > are enjoying your insights. Jen: Thanks! Glad you found it interesting enough to want to float your own thoughts. :) It's one of the things I'll sorely miss about the list when DH comes out, speculating and reading others speculations. In fact, I see Julie has an interesting one I must get to next. ;) Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 04:00:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:00:17 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he is) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169749 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > Many posters who believe Snape is either Ever So Evil, loyal to > Voldemort, or loyal to Dumbledore, but still really nasty, speculate > that DH is going to have further revelations showing us new Bad Things > about Snape. These include (in part) 1. Snape wanted to kill > Were!Lupin while in school 2. Snape tried to get Sirius killed in OOTP > 3. Snape's actions in "alerting" the Order and Dumbledore in OOTP > were really part of a plot he had going with Voldemort. 4. Snape > only saved Harry in PS/SS because he had to maintain Dumbledore's > trust. The list can go on and on and on. > > But we're not going to find out those things. Why? JKR doesn't need > to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, > hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. JKR, in her > interview with Emerson and Melissa back in 2005, commented that > Harry's hatred of Snape is now "personal" and that his greater hatred > would be important for when they meet again. Sorry, but JKR has no > reason at all to show Harry or anyone else that they need to hate Snape. Alla: Mmmmmm, I think I am going to bookmark this post and come back to it when we have book 7 in our hands. Because unless JKR said so, we really really do not know **for sure** that we are not going to find out all these things. But here are the reasons why we still may find out about them contrary to your opinion that we won't. The revelations of those things are not just to show that Snape is really really evil. It is very simplified view on them in my opinion. They will serve to uncover Snape motives further - like Snape possibly delaying the Order in OOP may show that Snape is acting basically because of his life debt and nothing else, and especially if life debt plays a role at the end, that may play out very nicely. Whether Snape tried to kill Sirius - well, herself said that we will find out more about hatred between Sirius and Snape. It may play in different events of the story for all I know. Same thing what Snape did in PS/SS - does anybody speculated further revelations about this one? It is basically what Dumbledore said or what Snape said will come true, no? I think this one does not hide any further mysteries. Wynnleaf: > No one needs to learn "by the way, Snape is really even Worse Than You > Thought," because there's nothing much worse than betraying the > prophecy to Voldemort which led to the Potter's deaths, killing > Dumbledore, and being a Death Eater. Alla: Yes, indeedy, but if we are going to learn more about **why** Snape did the things, we may as well learn more about why Snape did the things - good or evil, no? But say you right and we do not need to find out more revelations about Snape if Snape is evil and only if he is good, so what does it mean? Does it mean we cannot speculate about it regardless? JKR surprised me plenty of times personally. If you are **sure** what is going to be revealed about Snape in book 7 and what not, well, good for you, I mean it in the best possible way :) I am not sure and I am certainly going to use the last month and a half when I **really** can speculate to the fullest extent. You may read some wild stuff from me, I am warning all of you guys When book 7 is out, all that is left will be to analyse. This is the best time, I think, although I want book 7 now, now, now. JMO, Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 04:05:23 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:05:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he is) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169750 wynnleaf Many posters who believe Snape is either Ever So Evil, loyal to Voldemort, or loyal to Dumbledore, but still really nasty, speculate that DH is going to have further revelations showing us new Bad Things about Snape. But we're not going to find out those things. Why? JKR doesn't need to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. Sherry now: I actually agree with you, and I disagree. I don't think we'll get, and I hope we don't get chapter upon chapter of Snape's back story. The several chapters about Tom Riddle in HBP were the points of the book that put me to sleep every time. I hope we are not treated to another flood of *any* character's back story. I thought that some years ago, after POA I think, someone asked JKR if she would give us more back story on the Marauders, and she said no, not much, because it's Harry's story she's writing, not the adult characters' stories. I suppose we'll have to get some information about Snape, but I hope it's brief, told in few words and doesn't take up much book space. To make the story too much about Snape would take away from why I read the books, to read about Harry's adventures, for me anyway. It's always been mostly about Harry for me, even though I like some of the adult characters very much. But seriously, the Tom Riddle chapters made me fall asleep every time I came to one, and I still don't know everything that happened in them. I feel the same way about any of the other adult characters. After POA, I desperately wanted to know more about the Marauders. Now, I just don't care in the same way. They have served their purpose to the story, and only whatever we have to learn about lily--please let it be she was not so sainted after all--and whatever the important reason Sirius had to die are all we'll get, I hope! Harry has to find and destroy the horcruxes and figure out how to vanquish Voldemort, and that along with the interaction between him and his friends and whatever enemies come along should be enough. I think for me that's about all I can stand! Sherry From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 04:23:16 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:23:16 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy" wrote: > This my first post and my memory is a little foggy, so bear with me. > When Harry, Hermione, and Ron take apparition lessons, are they not > done in the Great Hall with an visiting instructor from the Ministry? > So, perhaps, it isn't that they can't apparate WITHIN Hogwarts, but > rather they can't apparate IN and OUT of Hogwarts. Just a thought... Hi, Peggy! You are right, the students were able to Apparate inside the Great Hall, but there was a reason for that. Remember, the instructor says: "As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts. The headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to enable you to practice" (HBP, p.382 US hardback). Hope it helps! zanooda From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 05:25:08 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:25:08 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169752 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" > wrote: > > > > Many posters who believe Snape is either Ever So Evil, loyal to > > Voldemort, or loyal to Dumbledore, but still really nasty, > speculate > > that DH is going to have further revelations showing us new Bad > Things > > about Snape. > > But we're not going to find out those things. Why? JKR doesn't > need > > to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, > > hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. > > Alla: > > Mmmmmm, I think I am going to bookmark this post and come back to it > when we have book 7 in our hands. Because unless JKR said so, we > really really do not know **for sure** that we are not going to find > out all these things. > > But here are the reasons why we still may find out about them > contrary to your opinion that we won't. > > The revelations of those things are not just to show that Snape is > really really evil. It is very simplified view on them in my opinion. wynnleaf I need to be clear about what I mean. I don't mean that we, the readers, don't want to learn more about certain things. Hey, there's loads of stuff that I want to learn and JKR may or may not cover it. But whatever revelations JKR includes are to move the plot and/or change and shape character's opinions and actions. Any supposed revelation that doesn't do that, isn't really a revelation, and with a huge book and a lot of things to cover, putting a lot of time into something that doesn't move the plot or drive or change characters is pretty much pointless. There's no reason to change Harry's, or any other character's opinions about Snape for the *worse.* Harry's and other character's opinions of Snape are already about as bad as they can get. > Alla > They will serve to uncover Snape motives further - like Snape > possibly delaying the Order in OOP may show that Snape is acting > basically because of his life debt and nothing else, and especially > if life debt plays a role at the end, that may play out very nicely. wynnleaf Sure, JKR could show that Snape is basically acting due to a life debt. Is that *new*? No, it's not. Harry *already* knows that Snape considers himself to have a life debt to James. This is not new and doesn't need a revelation all about how OOTP worked out to tell Harry the life debt exists. The only reason to show more about Snape's motives is if it's going to make a difference to Harry. Just showing Harry that Snape really is just as bad as Harry thought isn't making a difference. Alla > Whether Snape tried to kill Sirius - well, herself said that we will > find out more about hatred between Sirius and Snape. It may play in > different events of the story for all I know. wynnleaf Thing is, JKR is a pretty good writer with a whole lot to cover in the last book. There's no reason to cover old ground over and over -- not for a good writer. She has no reason to go into the Prank if it's just to convey to Harry (he's after all, the character whose opinion she's working on), that Snape did something else Bad. Harry doesn't need to know anything further about Snape's motives unless Snape Harry's opinion of Snape needs to change in some way. If Snape is just going to go on being evil and loyal to Voldemort, Harry doesn't need to learn more about Snape's psyche, because it won't change Harry's actions if it just confirms what Harry already thinks. > Wynnleaf (earlier): > > No one needs to learn "by the way, Snape is really even Worse Than > You > > Thought," because there's nothing much worse than betraying the > > prophecy to Voldemort which led to the Potter's deaths, killing > > Dumbledore, and being a Death Eater. > > > Alla: > > Yes, indeedy, but if we are going to learn more about **why** Snape > did the things, we may as well learn more about why Snape did the > things - good or evil, no? > > But say you right and we do not need to find out more revelations > about Snape if Snape is evil and only if he is good, so what does it > mean? > > Does it mean we cannot speculate about it regardless? JKR surprised > me plenty of times personally. If you are **sure** what is going to > be revealed about Snape in book 7 and what not, well, good for you, > I mean it in the best possible way :) > I am not sure and I am certainly going to use the last month and a > half when I **really** can speculate to the fullest extent. wynnleaf Oh, don't get me wrong. Speculation is quite fun. But when I speculate, I have to ask whether the revelation under consideration is going to really *be* a revelation. Is it going to be a revelation to the characters? Is it going to change the way they act or how they think? That's what revelations in literature do, after all. Alla, you said, "if you are **sure** what is going to be revealed about Snape..." I don't have any set theories about what exactly will be revealed. That's just not something I do. But whatever *will* be revealed has to have a purpose, not just filler to give Harry tidbits of info. What I *do* think is that any revelations about Snape will not just confirm Harry's opinions, because if that's all they do then they're not really revelations, they're just interesting bits of info and they have no real point. Harry hates Snape, won't trust anything he says or does, believes he's a traitor, is an evil murderer and that Snape hates him. At this point, anything Harry learns that *only* confirms what Harry already thinks has no real reason for being in the story at all. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Harry thinks he sees some things early on in DH, that confirm his opinion of Snape. But these won't be real "revelations." The real revelations will have to change Harry in some way. Sherry The several chapters about Tom Riddle in HBP were the points of the book that put me to sleep every time. I hope we are not treated to another flood of *any* character's back story. I thought that some years ago, after POA I think, someone asked JKR if she would give us more back story on the Marauders, and she said no, not much, because it's Harry's story she's writing, not the adult characters' stories. wynnleaf I know a lot of people don't care for the backstory. Personally, I love it and wish she'd do a prequel on it, even though she's said she won't. However, I'm fascinated with her comments about the first chapter of PS/SS which she apparently wrote between 10 and 15 versions of. She said that if you put them all together it would reveal the whole plot. "And in fact if you put all those discarded first chapters together, almost the whole plot is explained." Since I doubt if by "whole plot" she meant all about Harry going to Hogwarts and his adventures there, she must mean by "whole plot" the backstory of the series. It seems to me that for JKR, the backstory *is* the "whole plot." While I'm not sure exactly what she means by "whole plot," it's pretty obvious she at least means that that backstory is really, really important. Sherry we have to learn about lily--please let it be she was not so sainted after all--and whatever the important reason Sirius had to die are all we'll get, I hope! wynnleaf These are good examples. Many of us speculate on what's important about Lily or why Sirius had to die and in most of the speculation there's this implicit realization that the revelations about Lily or about why Sirius had to die are actually going to be important to what will happen in the book -- not just For Harry's Information (a sort of FYI). JKR mentioned something about why Sirius "had" to die. In other words, whatever Harry eventually learns about it will be something that "had" to happen for a reason in the plot. Whatever Harry learns about Lily and Sirius will drive his opinions, his actions, or something that affects the plot. Harry's not just going to learn once again that Lily was good at potions. He's not going to get a revelation about Lily which only serves to show him that she loved him. He already knows that -- for goodness sake, she *died* for him. The revelation of why Sirius had to die isn't going to be redundant. Harry won't learn that Sirius had to die because Bella wanted him dead or Snape hated him. Harry already knows that. Sherry Harry has to find and destroy the horcruxes and figure out how to vanquish Voldemort, and that along with the interaction between him and his friends and whatever enemies come along should be enough. wynnleaf Which just goes to show that we're all different about what we enjoy about the books. What I dread the most is a long series of horcrux hunts, something akin to the TriWizard Tasks. To me, the Tasks were just vehicles to carry along the *real* story which had nothing much to do with whether Harry could get an egg from a dragon or get past the merpeople. wynnleaf From jnoyl at aim.com Mon Jun 4 05:22:18 2007 From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:22:18 -0700 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore Message-ID: <2334E6FB-A1EF-46FB-B0B6-559990B1EE06@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169753 limerent had a question about the cursed opal necklace. My thoughts are more broad. Listening to the story on CD, I can not believe how soon I became really irritated/mad at everyone and the way they simply "blow off" any and all of Harry's concerns. It was even worse then reading the book. It is like Hermy, Ron, Ginny, Nev, Minnie (the "I don't need to listen to children, I just need to star the punishments"), and DoubleDumb all seem to be under some mind charm to ignore everything Harry says. The opal necklace is a very specific item in that, as I read it, DoubleDumb and Snape knew that Dray had to kill DoubleDumb. When the necklace showed up, it would be clear to both of these people that this was an attempt by Dray and they now had a student severely injured and neither did anything to protect the students (such as hitting Dray with some veritaserum). The need to keep Snape able to protect Dray was more important than the life of any student. When Ron was poisoned, they still considered Snape and Dray more important than the life of another student. I started book 1 disliking DoubleDumb and each book has only made me hate the man more. Despite not liking HBP, it certainly followed canon with a DoubleDumb who does nothing and allows Snape and Dray free reign over the school and students. The other thing that I really noticed listening to HBP is that Harry keeps smelling flowers. This starts in his room in #12 where he smells flowers and gun powder (wonder where he ever smelled fired gun powder?). Then he smells it again with Ginny, then he smells it ove the love potion in Slug's class, and then he again smells it when Ginny comes up to him. I know JKR won't do it, but it sure seems as though Harry (and many other people) are under the influence of a love potion or other mind altering concoction. I have "shipped" H/G since book 1, but HBP was just not believable and I almost hope that book 7 not only clears things up but gives Harry are believable love interest. Right now, just based on canon characters, I still think Ginny is a good fit for Harry, but the relationship just wasn't "real" in the book. JLyon From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 06:23:32 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:23:32 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he is) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169754 > Sherry now: > I actually agree with you, and I disagree. I don't think we'll get, > and I hope we don't get chapter upon chapter of Snape's back story. > The several chapters about Tom Riddle in HBP were the points of the > book that put me to sleep every time. I hope we are not treated to > another flood of *any* character's back story. I thought that some > years ago, after POA I think, someone asked JKR if she would give us > more back story on the Marauders, and she said no, not much, because > it's Harry's story she's writing, not the adult characters' > stories. I suppose we'll have to get some information about Snape, > but I hope it's brief, told in few words and doesn't take up much > book space. Jen: I agree with your sentiment in general, Sherry, but did find the backstory about Riddle compelling for understanding how he transformed into Voldemort and became the person he was, someone completely entwined in Harry's life by his own choices and someone Harry needed to understand and move past in order to meet him on his own terms. Likewise Snape is someone entwined in Harry's life by his own choices and a person Harry also needs to put in perspective and grow beyond. Learning information about Snape's past can help humanize him, I think, even if some of what he learns doesn't end up making Snape look like a better person. Voldemort was humanized a bit in Harry's eyes when he learned of his beginnings. wynnleaf: > But we're almost certain that JKR is in fact going to produce some > revelations about Snape. Why do we need *any* revelations about > Snape if they are only to convince us that he's just as bad as > killing Dumbledore would lead one to believe? JKR doesn't need > those revelations about Snape if he's really evil. She only needs > revelations about Snape if she's got to change the opinion of her > characters -- which is currently that he's an evil, murdering > traitor. Jen: I don't think any additional revelations would be important for learning Snape is evil, but they could be important for Harry to learn who Snape is and what his motivations are. What it really comes down to for me is not believing proof of Snape's loyalty could possibly be enough to turn Harry's heart. A person learns about love, forgiveness and mercy from those capable of expressing similar feelings and concepts, so not matter what Harry knows Snape has done or will find out about, it's the backstory of Dumbledore, and more importantly Lily, which I believe will teach Harry to open his eyes and heart. wynnleaf: > The huge interest in Why Dumbledore Trusted Snape is almost > certainly going to be addressed. Why will JKR address this? Will it > be so we can all learn that Dumbledore was wrong to trust Snape? > Really? If Snape is really evil, we already learned that in HBP. Do > we really need to learn that all over again? Harry certainly > believes that Dumbledore's trust was misplaced. Why would JKR > produce the Reason Dumbledore Trusted Snape, just so Harry can > say, "Wow, Dumbledore really was foolish after all -- just like I > already thought." No, the only reason to find out why Dumbledore > trusted Snape is to find out that Snape was trustworthy. Jen: Harry does deserve an explanation for why Dumbledore trusted Snape enough to clear him as a DE, to allow him to teach at Hogwarts and to let him become a part of Harry's life while knowing Snape turned over the propehcy and would likely turn his hatred of James onto Harry, especially once Harry arrived at Hogwarts and looked just like his dad. Then, when Harry understands why Dumbledore chose to trust Snape and why it was critical to give him a second chance, Harry still needs to come to peace with Snape on his own terms, imo. Dumbledore's trust and Harry's trust are two different things. Dumbledore trusted Snape because he believed him trustworthy, but Snape's actions did not affect Dumbledore's life as they have Harry's. Jen From mkemp at aandr.com.au Mon Jun 4 07:01:18 2007 From: mkemp at aandr.com.au (pickle_jimmy) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:01:18 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169755 It's been a while since I visited HPfGUs, but I was contemplating HP the other day, and I came up with a theory as to how Harry will kill Voldy without having to turn evil. My assumptions are: 1) Harry will survive book 7 because it started out a children's book, and so the ending will need to be "happy" (this is also why I don't think Dumbledore is dead, but that is a discussion for another post). Not really a good children's story if the main hero is killed off in the end. 2) Voldemort dies. Also because a good children's story doesn't leave kiddies wondering if Voldemort will come back to get Harry later on - I don't think we will be left in any doubt. 3) Harry doesn't turn evil, and wont AK Voldemort. A hero cant go round killing people, it just isn't right. So, if Voldy must die, but Harry can't do it, how does it happen? Enter the Mirror of Erised. Voldy and Harry are facing off in the final battle (which takes place at Hogwarts). Harry has destroyed all the horcruxes, only Voldy to go. Voldy chases Harry through the castle casting AKs left right and centre, until finally he has Harry trapped - or does he?? He thinks it is Harry, because it is his one desire, but it is actually just a "reflection" in the Mirror of Erised he is advancing on. The Harry in the mirror does everything Voldy hopes he will do, cowering, wincing, pleading, etc. Finally, Voldy casts an AK at the mirror but the spell rebounds, and his own cruelty and arrogance kills him. This is also when Dumbledore reappears: "Well done Harry" (in the throaty Dumbledore voice), but again... another post. So, what do you think - Voldemort too caught up in his own self importance to realise what he is about to do. The Mirror of Erised getting a revival. Voldemort's first downfall was from a rebounding curse, why not his last. Cheers Pickle Jimmy From hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 4 08:19:16 2007 From: hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk (Mark Hyder Yahoo) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:19:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7: The end of Voldemort References: <667638.37780.qm@web60725.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c501c7a681$0b5859c0$4001a8c0@FAMILY> No: HPFGUIDX 169757 > Pickle Jimmy: > So, if Voldy must die, but Harry can't do it, how does it happen? It could be done by Neville Longbottom The prophecy might have been for Neville Longbottom Thanks Mark William Hyder Harry Potter Web Site mail at hyder-harry-potter.hostselect.net markhyder2001 at hotmail.com IM: hyder_harry_potter hyder-harry-potter.hostselect.net AIM: hyderpotter Skype ID: markhyder From mkemp at aandr.com.au Mon Jun 4 10:11:21 2007 From: mkemp at aandr.com.au (pickle_jimmy) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:11:21 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: <00c501c7a681$0b5859c0$4001a8c0@FAMILY> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hyder Yahoo" wrote: > > > Pickle Jimmy: > > > So, if Voldy must die, but Harry can't do it, how does it happen? > > > It could be done by Neville Longbottom > The prophecy might have been for Neville Longbottom > I don't think you understand my angle - I dont think that any of the kids in the book will kill anyone - Heck, if Draco Malfoy (the most evil kid in the books, with the stamping on Harry's nose until it broke) cant bring himself to AK Dumbledore, how does Neville take the leap from Herbologist to Killer?? I dont want to see any of the students get to the point where they could cast AK and mean it enough to kill anyone, this is what brings me to think Voldy will kill himself - we already know he isnt upset about killing people. Cheers Pickle Jimmy From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 10:36:11 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:36:11 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169759 > > > Pickle Jimmy: > > > So, if Voldy must die, but Harry can't do it, how does it > > > happen? > > Mark Hyder: > > It could be done by Neville Longbottom > > The prophecy might have been for Neville Longbottom > Pickle Jimmy: > Saying none of the kids are likely to kill LV. Goddlefrood; Having looked over the original theory, I must say it seems inordinately unlikely to me. Lord Voldemort may be arguably certifiable, but he's not dumb. In order to kill himself with an AK reflecting from the Mirror of Erised he'd have to be one of the world's greatest suckers, and, well, he simply is not. Additionally the Mirror of Erised is an inanimate object and all the inanimate objects we have so far seen hit by AKs (think of the Magical Brethren in the MoM or the masonry the blond Death Eater took large chunks out of during the field day at Hogwarts) have smashed. Why would the Mirror of Erised be any different? In my opinion it would simply be obliterated and shatter into many disparate parts were an AK to hit it. The idea that a rebounding curse may finish off LV is not wholly without its merit, but the idea that this would be a rebounding AK off anything but an animate being is one that is rather too much to swallow. It's actually rather unlikely, IMO, that LV will be finished by any kind of hate spell, but rather more likely, in my divination, that a love spell would finish him. It is those I expect Harry to become familiar with somewhere during the course of DH and I'd go further and say that it will be something that is based on the use of Dragon's blood. Not unlinked to the protections placed on him by a certain Lily Potter, with a little help from the man in charge, one Albus Dumbledore. Lily found out about the ancient magic, as LV called it, from someone, who better than DD? Or perhaps, as has been stated earlier, the spell to neutralise LV will be the one DD used in the Atrium during their discourse. That spell is not one that can be lightly disregarded in the overall scheme of things, and if we hear a gong to sound LV's downfall, then I for one would not be completely taken aback. btw, Dumbledore is dead, dead, dead, sorry, but possibly not totally without his uses. Unless of course I've misunderstood you. Goddlefrood From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 12:42:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:42:10 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169760 > wynnleaf > I need to be clear about what I mean. I don't mean that we, the > readers, don't want to learn more about certain things. Hey, there's > loads of stuff that I want to learn and JKR may or may not cover it. > But whatever revelations JKR includes are to move the plot and/or > change and shape character's opinions and actions. Any supposed > revelation that doesn't do that, isn't really a revelation, and with a > huge book and a lot of things to cover, putting a lot of time into > something that doesn't move the plot or drive or change characters is > pretty much pointless. > > There's no reason to change Harry's, or any other character's opinions > about Snape for the *worse.* Harry's and other character's opinions > of Snape are already about as bad as they can get. Alla: I understood what you meant and in general in any other finished work I would have agreed with you. The point that I was trying to make is that IMO we do not know what revelations will be the revelations and which ones are pointless filter. Snape motivations remain a mystery in many senses whether Snape is good or evil, are they not? I do not see a reason why we will not learn Snape motivations if he is evil. I mean, we may of course. Another example - say we learn that during prank night Snape wanted to kill Remus not just because he is a dark creature, but because he loved Lily and wanted to eliminate the competition. Would it make Snape look worse? Sure - on one hand, on another hand it will make him more human and play to reveal in much speculated Snape/Lily angle. That's my point - that what seems to you as only pointing to Snape being worse and worse an worse, may reveal something **else**, something we may need to learn in the story and not just as pointless filter. > > Alla > > They will serve to uncover Snape motives further - like Snape > > possibly delaying the Order in OOP may show that Snape is acting > > basically because of his life debt and nothing else, and especially > > if life debt plays a role at the end, that may play out very nicely. > > wynnleaf > Sure, JKR could show that Snape is basically acting due to a life > debt. Is that *new*? No, it's not. Harry *already* knows that Snape > considers himself to have a life debt to James. This is not new and > doesn't need a revelation all about how OOTP worked out to tell Harry > the life debt exists. The only reason to show more about Snape's > motives is if it's going to make a difference to Harry. Just showing > Harry that Snape really is just as bad as Harry thought isn't making a > difference. Alla: But we still do not know how Life debt works precisely, are we not? And JKR seems to leave it a mystery on purpose, no? What if we learn that that night Snape was hit especially bad with Life debt magic and was forced to act eventually even if he did not want to? What if something like that happens in book 7? Foreshadowing and all that. Speculations, speculations obviously > wynnleaf > Harry doesn't need to know anything further about Snape's motives > unless Snape Harry's opinion of Snape needs to change in some way. If > Snape is just going to go on being evil and loyal to Voldemort, Harry > doesn't need to learn more about Snape's psyche, because it won't > change Harry's actions if it just confirms what Harry already thinks. Alla: Snape is not the only character Harry needs to learn about IMO. What if whatever he learns during Prank helps him understand James even better? Hero journey, becoming own father and all that stuff. Sorry, just watched that cool documentary on Star Wars and Hero Journey As I said, I think that whatever we learn about Prank will be huge - I agree book 7 has a lot of info to cover and why we need to learn more about it, I have no clue now, but I sure am going to try to guess while I still can :) JMO. Alla From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Jun 4 13:23:56 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:23:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RAB - Regulus or not? (was: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180963436.25889.1193314119@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169761 On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:05:58 -0000, "amis917" said: > JKR may be leading us astray here but I like believing she is not. I > read it like JKR is saying that RAB is Regulus. Well, based on the initials in translated versions of the books, the idea that RAB is, if not Regulus, at least a Black, is all but confirmed. So naturally it must be entirely false. --Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 4 13:27:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:27:34 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169762 Alla: > > I am just responding to this, because to me it is a very good > example of how JKR cleverly put blanks in the prank night. > > Sure, Sirius says that, but there are ellipses "..." just everywhere > in those two paragraphs where it matters IMO. Pippin: But why would Sirius and Lupin be hesitating to cover up motives that they don't know about? Their *own* motives, now, that's fertile ground and I thank you for drawing my attention to it. The Marauders were watching Snape as carefully as he was watching them, and if they didn't think he had arrived at Lupin's secret, then he probably hadn't. As PoA shows us, you can't do it relying on the calendar alone. If the PoA dates of Lupin's absences are accurate at all, then he arranged to be absent at other times besides the full moon and some of his full moon absences weren't noticeable because they coincided with evenings, weekends, holidays and so forth. Without an additional clue to look for a correllation between Lupin's absences and the full moon, as Hermione did, Snape couldn't have deduced the connection just by looking at the dates. He got as far as noticing Lupin was gone every month, but wouldn't have enough data to see that Lupin was *always* gone on the full moon. But then Snape saw Madame Pomfrey taking Lupin to the willow, and conditions changed. Now Snape could track a presence instead of an absence, and the correlation between Lupin's visits to the willow with Madame Pomfrey and the full moon would become clear. And *that*, my dears, explains why Sirius didn't care that the prank would have outed Lupin. Snape was going to find out anyway, you see, and just like Viktor Krum, Sirius decided to end the game on his terms. He knew Lupin would understand. Of course if Lupin was in on it, he'd understand even better :) Pippin From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 13:35:59 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:35:59 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169763 Betsy Hp: > I think that's where the lack of realism comes in a little. Fellow > students don't strike back in the way they would in real life, IMO. > Ginny isn't jumped by Hufflepuffs... Amiable Dorsai: Yes, because 'Puffs are known for their aggressiveness. There are several other reasons why the 'Puff's are unlikely to "jump" Ginny: Ginny *is* known for her aggressiveness, several years' exposure to Fred and George have probably got everyone a little wary of Weasleys, and, of course, who's going to stand up for an obnoxious loudmouth like Smith? She's also, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, a friend of Hermione Granger's--more on that in a bit. Betsy Hp: >...Hermione isn't jumped by Ravenclaws. Amiable Dorsai: Marietta nearly got six other Ravenclaws expelled or worse. Do you think it's possible that those Ravenclaws (except for Cho) are just a little unhappy with her? Also, in Hogwarts terms, Hermione is the equivalent of a 6'-5" fullback (for those of you who think footballs are spherical, fullbacks are chosen to be big enough and strong enough to block or knock down other players). Pretty much any Hogwarts student (well, except Ron)is going to think twice about pissing off someone who can hit back as hard as Hermione can. A Ravenclaw will probably think three times. Betsy Hp: >I think it's because (I *hope* it's because) JKR has a > sense of where and when the Trio will learn their final lesson on > how to treat others. Amiable Dorsai: You mean, save their lives, defend them from monstrous evil, help them with their homework, that sort of thing? Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 13:57:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:57:28 -0000 Subject: Opal Necklace and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <2334E6FB-A1EF-46FB-B0B6-559990B1EE06@aim.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169764 JLyon wrote: > The other thing that I really noticed listening to HBP is that Harry keeps smelling flowers. This starts in his room in #12 where he smells flowers and gun powder (wonder where he ever smelled fired gun powder?). Then he smells it again with Ginny, then he smells it ove the love potion in Slug's class, and then he again smells it when Ginny comes up to him. I know JKR won't do it, but it sure seems as though Harry (and many other people) are under the influence of a love potion or other mind altering concoction. I have "shipped" H/G since book 1, but HBP was just not believable and I almost hope that book 7 not only clears things up but gives Harry are believable love interest. Right now, just based on canon characters, I still think Ginny is a good fit for Harry, but the relationship just wasn't "real" in the book. Carol responds: I'm snipping your first paragraph simply because, while I understand how you feel, I don't share your feelings, nor do I dislike Dumbledore or consider him "dumb." I can't alter your feelings, so I won't try, but I understand clearly where those other characters' doubts were coming from (and, of course, it was necessary to the plot for Draco to succeed in fixing the cabinet). But regarding the smell of flowers, my reading is that Ginny wears some sort of flowery cologne, which Harry was dimly aware of and associated with her in his unconscious mind, so that's what he smelled (among other things) in the Amortentia potion. When he encounters the smell again, Ginny is actually present, wearing her cologne, and he eventually recognizes it as Ginny's "scent." I don't think that any characters other than Ron after he eats the chocolates intended by Romilda (a semi-bad Gryffindor like McClaggen, hooray!) are under the influence of a love potion. As for Harry and Ginny, I agree that they've been intended for each other since Book 1 (why else have the little girl running after the train?), but I haven't liked Ginny since OoP, and I agree that the romance or whatever it was was badly handled and badly timed--blooming just as Harry is serving his detentions and supposed to be regretting using an unknown curse that almost resulted in another student's death. (I didn't like Ginny's reaction to Sectumsempra as "something good," either. Wonder if she still feels that way now that she knows it was invented by Snape, whom she thinks is an evil murderer?) Carol, wondering if Harry will reject all of the HBP's useful spells, even Muffliato, now that he knows who invented them From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 4 13:59:53 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:59:53 -0000 Subject: The Liar, The Witch and The Werewolf Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169765 I was re-reading the first chapter of GoF yesterday, and I wondered what Peter Pettigrew would have been doing in the wayside inn where he supposedly met the Ministry witch Bertha Jorkins. Voldemort says he stopped there because he was hungry. But Peter can steal all the food he needs as a rat! Why risk taking human form just for that? It would have been most foolish. Even Peter's not that stupid. (Those who are not interested in an Evil Lupin answer to this question can stop reading now ;)) Now that we know what happened to Morfin, I have my doubts that Peter was ever at that inn, or if he was, it was in a glass case tucked under Lupin's arm. Perhaps it was Lupin that Bertha recognized, despite her faulty memory, because she never forgot the person who hexed her after she followed him and saw him kissing Florence. :) Voldemort twice says that he would never have expected Wormtail to think of bringing Bertha to him. Well, maybe it wasn't Peter who did it. Maybe it was Lupin, bringing his master not one, but two of the ingredients Voldemort would need for his rebirthing. Flesh of a servant and blood of an enemy. But Voldemort found another use for Bertha. And then, to protect his most valuable spy, Voldemort modified Peter's memory just as he'd once modified Morfin's, so that Peter thinks he did just as Voldemort claims. No wonder Peter looks so hunched these days, bowed under the burden of crimes he never committed. Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 14:14:13 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:14:13 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169766 > > wynnleaf > > There's no reason to change Harry's, or any other character's > opinions > > about Snape for the *worse.* Harry's and other character's > opinions > > of Snape are already about as bad as they can get. > > Alla: > > I understood what you meant and in general in any other finished > work I would have agreed with you. The point that I was trying to > make is that IMO we do not know what revelations will be the > revelations and which ones are pointless filter. > > Snape motivations remain a mystery in many senses whether Snape is > good or evil, are they not? I do not see a reason why we will not > learn Snape motivations if he is evil. I mean, we may of course. > > > Another example - say we learn that during prank night Snape wanted > to kill Remus not just because he is a dark creature, but because he > loved Lily and wanted to eliminate the competition. Would it > make Snape look worse? Sure - on one hand, on another hand it will > make him more human and play to reveal in much speculated Snape/Lily > angle. wynnleaf But there is no reason to make Snape "more human and play to reveal in much speculated Snape/Lily angle," unless it is going to change what Harry will do, how he'll act, etc., or in some other way drive the plot. Just making Snape seem more human is not the point of the book. The point is how it affects Harry. If making Snape more human doesn't change something, the revelation is unnecessary. Some may feel it would be possible that Evil!Snape is still going to be given mercy by Harry and making Snape "more human" will affect that, but JKR doesn't need a lot of revelations about Snape -- why Dumbledore trusted him, that he cared about Lily, humanizing stuff in his background maybe, who was at fault in the werewolf prank, etc. -- simply to have Harry spare his life. After all, Pettigrew betrayed Harry's parents to their deaths and Harry didn't need any long backstory to make Peter "more human" in order to spare his life. If Harry is going to actually *forgive* Snape, it's going to not be just because Snape is more human. Harry won't forgive him for murdering Dumbledore because he learns Snape liked Lily or why Dumbledore unwisely trusted him. Sparing a bad person's life briefly to hand him over to the authorities (like with Peter) is rather different from actually *forgiving* the person who murdered Dumbledore before his eyes. And if Harry is going to have to forgive an evil Snape who murdered Dumbledore and who serves Voldemort, why won't Harry need to forgive other Death Eaters and even Voldemort himself? The thing is, revelations about Snape will change Harry's actions or opinions. But there needs to be some sort of internal literary consistency. A character development that has Harry forgive evil, murdering, traitor Snape makes no sense if Harry isn't forgiving any other evil murderers. A character development that has Harry simply grant mercy to Snape doesn't need lot's of excuses and revelations, if such revelations weren't necessary to be merciful to Peter. Alla > That's my point - that what seems to you as only pointing to Snape > being worse and worse an worse, may reveal something **else**, > something we may need to learn in the story and not just as > pointless filter. wynnleaf Oh, there's lots of things that could be revealed, but within the story itself, the point isn't what "we may need to learn," but what *Harry* will need to learn. Within the confines of the story, it's all about what Harry thinks, learns, and does -- not about what the reader thinks and learns. Basically we learn along with Harry. A revelation is for Harry's benefit. So, yes, there can be revelations about Snape, or any other character or situation, that may reveal something "else," but those revelations have to *affect* Harry's choices, growth, etc. If Harry learns why Dumbledore trusted Snape, and Harry is not changed by what he learns, then the answer has no point. Jen: A person learns about love, forgiveness and mercy from those capable of expressing similar feelings and concepts, so not matter what Harry knows Snape has done or will find out about, it's the backstory of Dumbledore, and more importantly Lily, which I believe will teach Harry to open his eyes and heart. wynnleaf It may well be revelations about Lily or Dumbledore that will affect Harry's changes of heart far more than any revelations about Snape. But to what *end* does Harry's heart change? It's not just Harry getting some sort of warm feelings, or compassionate feelings, or whatever. His choices, opinions, actions, in some way have to be affected by revelations. As far as any revelations relate to Snape, they have to *change* something about Harry's choices. Jen: Harry does deserve an explanation for why Dumbledore trusted Snape enough to clear him as a DE, to allow him to teach at Hogwarts and to let him become a part of Harry's life while knowing Snape turned over the propehcy and would likely turn his hatred of James onto Harry, especially once Harry arrived at Hogwarts and looked just like his dad. wynnleaf We may feel Harry deserves many things, but a literary character "deserving" something does not mean that they'll get it. Harry deserved to have a father figure and JKR still killed off Sirius. If he couldn't have a father figure, Harry "deserved" to have someone as a trusted mentor and JKR killed Dumbledore off, too. Harry deserves not to lose any more friends, but he probably will anyway. Harry deserving something isn't why he'll learn why Dumbledore trusted Snape. He'll get that revelation for the same reason he'll get any other revelation -- to move the plot. > > > Alla > > > They will serve to uncover Snape motives further - like Snape > > > possibly delaying the Order in OOP may show that Snape is acting > > > basically because of his life debt and nothing else, and > especially > > > if life debt plays a role at the end, that may play out very > nicely. > > > wynnleaf > > Sure, JKR could show that Snape is basically acting due to a life > > debt. Is that *new*? No, it's not. Harry *already* knows that > Snape > > considers himself to have a life debt to James. This is not new > and > > doesn't need a revelation all about how OOTP worked out to tell > Harry > > the life debt exists. The only reason to show more about Snape's > > motives is if it's going to make a difference to Harry. Just > showing > > Harry that Snape really is just as bad as Harry thought isn't > making a > > difference. > > > Alla: > > But we still do not know how Life debt works precisely, are we not? > And JKR seems to leave it a mystery on purpose, no? > > What if we learn that that night Snape was hit especially bad with > Life debt magic and was forced to act eventually even if he did not > want to? What if something like that happens in book 7? > Foreshadowing and all that. wynnleaf If we learned that Snape had already fulfilled his life debt to Harry (which it seems to me Dumbledore indicated happened in PS/SS), then why would that drive the plot further? Learning about the past is primarily important for what Harry will now do. And suppose Harry learns that the life debt is still in play? *How* would Harry learn a life-debt drove Snape to action at a certain time? Who exactly would ever tell Harry that? Only Snape would possibly know about it, and is he going to announce that to Harry? And Harry would naturally believe this murderer/traitor/death eater when he says he's acting under a life debt to Harry? Of course not. It would be foolish of Harry to trust any revelations directly from Snape at this point. At this point, Harry hates Snape and considers him a liar (to Dumbledore and the Order), a traitor, a murderer, a Death Eater, and loyal to Voldemort. He thinks Snape hates him, is a fanatic about pureblood, and hated both his parents. At this point, Harry will act on what he believes about Snape. Without revelations changing some of Harry's thinking, Harry will continue to act on those beliefs. Revelations that simply confirm Harry's beliefs aren't helpful to the plot. Any extra revelation about Snape (such as regarding a life debt), is useless if it won't change Harry's viewpoint or actions because of his beliefs above -- that Snape is a traitor, murderer, liar, etc. > Alla: > > Snape is not the only character Harry needs to learn about IMO. > What if whatever he learns during Prank helps him understand James > even better? Hero journey, becoming own father and all that stuff. > Sorry, just watched that cool documentary on Star Wars and Hero > Journey wynnleaf Sure, there are other revelations besides about Snape. And I certainly did not intend to imply that all DH revelations will be about Snape. Harry's got other things to learn about other characters. But much speculation about the Prank has been how Harry could learn about extra Bad Things about Snape. New bad things about Snape won't drive the plot or change Harry at all. Since Harry already thinks his dad saved the life of a mean, nasty, evil Dark guy, I don't see how finding out that Snape did something else nasty is going to change Harry's opinion of James. If Harry learned that Snape had actually known Lupin was a werewolf and went in to try and kill him, that doesn't change James' actions *at all,* so it couldn't give Harry something new to learn about James. The only difference would be if Harry also learned that James also *knew* Snape went in there to kill Lupin, and yet James was still trying to save Snape's life. Yet if James knew Snape was trying to kill Lupin, it makes the whole thing look a lot more like James trying to save Lupin, not Snape -- in which case, there's no life debt. A big problem with this scenario is that if James knew Snape was trying to kill Lupin, neither Lupin nor Sirius ever seemed to learn about it. If they'd thought Snape's actions were an attempt to murder Lupin, it would certainly have been mentioned in all the heated comments about the Prank in POA. And with only two people left alive who are privy to the intricate details of what went on (Snape and Lupin) who exactly is going to tell Harry that Snape went in to kill Lupin? Lupin? Lupin doesn't seem to know that. Snape? Why would Snape tell Harry and in what context that would somehow affect Harry's opinion to the better about *James*? So we're back to any revelations about the Prank needing to change Harry's viewpoint in some way. New evidence that Snape is evil doesn't change a thing. Evidence that James saved an evil person doesn't change anything. Evidence that James pulled a known would-be murderer out of the tunnel takes away the life debt from Snape and gives it to Lupin instead, besides being extremely problematic in that other characters have already contradicted such a scenario. So we're left with any revelations about the Prank changing how Harry thinks about the two remaining characters -- Snape and/or *possibly* Lupin. Harry's opinion about Snape can't get any worse, so any change there would have to be for the better. wynnleaf, who thinks major revelations are to drive the plot and the characters decisions, not to just give the reader interesting tidbits, or because either the characters or readers are deserving. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 14:14:25 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:14:25 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169767 "wynnleaf" wrote: > > Many posters who believe Snape is either Ever So Evil, loyal to > Voldemort, or loyal to Dumbledore, but still really nasty, speculate > that DH is going to have further revelations showing us new Bad Things > about Snape. Neri: Umm, you seem to forget the most obvious possibility -- that Snape is loyal to himself, but must save Harry because of his debt to James, as Dumbledore implies in SS/PS. >wynnleaf: > These include (in part) 1. Snape wanted to kill > Were!Lupin while in school 2. Snape tried to get Sirius killed in OOTP > 3. Snape's actions in "alerting" the Order and Dumbledore in OOTP > were really part of a plot he had going with Voldemort. 4. Snape > only saved Harry in PS/SS because he had to maintain Dumbledore's > trust. The list can go on and on and on. > > But we're not going to find out those things. Why? JKR doesn't need > to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, > hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. Neri: But it appears that she still needs to convince certain readers . Clarifications of the Snape plot that are directed to the *readers* rather than to Harry were already included in HBP. For example, Snape explains in Spinner's End that he was sent by Voldemort himself as a spy to Dumbledore, thus solving the mystery of why would Voldemort accept Snape back. Note that Harry wasn't present in Spinner's End, has never heard this explanation in any other way, and doesn't need to since he has never wondered why would Voldemort accept Snape back. But the *readers* obviously wanted and needed to know this, as well as many other things, so Bella was sent to Snape by the Author with a detailed laundry list. Since we're still missing a few key items it's a good bet that we will get a revised laundry list in DH. It may be in another chapter that isn't from Harry's point-of-view, but this time featuring Snape with Voldemort himself (I find it telling that Snape is the only major DE we haven't yet seen together with Voldemort). It also seems likely that Lupin will be drafted to supply Snape's definitive history at school. As JKR promised: "by the end if Book 7 you will know everything you need to know" (and note she didn't say "*Harry* will know everything he needs to know") >wynnleaf: > JKR, in her > interview with Emerson and Melissa back in 2005, commented that > Harry's hatred of Snape is now "personal" and that his greater hatred > would be important for when they meet again. Neri: I can't remember JKR mentioning Harry's "hatred" in this context. The theory that Harry's hatred to Snape is going to play the central role in their next meeting is only a theory. What JKR actually said was this: ********************************************************** http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil? JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories. ************************************************************ The way I read the above, when JKR says "it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again", by "it" she means the original question "is Snape evil", *not* Harry's feelings about Snape. You will also notice that JKR is quite aware that HBP launches 10,000 Snape theories, implying she's also aware that DH needs to include the definitive Snape answers for the *theorists*, not necessarily for Harry. >wynnleaf: > Sorry, but JKR has no > reason at all to show Harry or anyone else that they need to hate Snape. > > No one needs to learn "by the way, Snape is really even Worse Than You > Thought," because there's nothing much worse than betraying the > prophecy to Voldemort which led to the Potter's deaths, killing > Dumbledore, and being a Death Eater. > Neri: The "hatred" to Snape is a secondary issue here, certainly for the readers if not for Harry. The main issue is that JKR has spent the entire series building the mystery of Snape's background, motives and loyalties, and it's now pay time. The readers demand definitive answers and JKR knows that well. "Betraying the prophecy" was presented as something Snape did unintentionally. Being a Death Eater was also kept very vague - we pointedly were not told of any crimes that Snape had performed during his career. Killing Dumbledore is still theorized by many readers to be some kind of a "ruse" or a trick, and JKR knows this too. She has purposely built ambiguity into all of Snape's actions and background, but in DH this ambiguity needs to end. >wynnleaf: > This is a long book coming up and JKR isn't going to be spending time > explaining to us things that won't move the plot or change any > opinions of the characters. > > Learning that Snape really *was* working with Voldemort in OOTP, or > really *did* help in getting Sirius killed tells us absolutely nothing > if Snape is Evil -- because if JKR isn't going to show us Snape is > really Loyal, then we can just assume he had generally bad motives for > whatever he did, and we don't need explanations of How He Did It or > Exactly What He Did. > Neri: You seem to assume that the only readers that are really interested in Snape's motives are DDM!Snapers, and the rest of us don't care about them and will just be happy to find out that he's generally Evil. Not so. We too have spent a lot of time analyzing Snape, we too have contributed our humble share towards of the above 10,000 theories, and we too need our questions answered. Why did he make the Unbreakable Vow? Why did he save Dumbledore in the beginning of the year and killed him in its end? Why does it appear that he didn't plan on killing Dumbledore at that time and was forced to it by Draco's unexpected action? What exactly was his game as a double-triple-quadruple agent during all these years? What was he trying to achieve during the Occlumency lessons? During the MoM battle? What are exactly his connections with the Malfoys? Why did he care about what happen to the Potters so much that he warned Dumbledore? The answer "Snape was just generally Evil" is far from being sufficient here and JKR knows it. It certainly wasn't sufficient that Peter or Crouch!Moody were "just generally evil" ? JKR still supplied us with detailed explanations of their characters, motives and schemes. Naturally this involved some interesting revelations, like Peter spying for Voldemort for a whole year before GH or Crouch murdering his own father. Note that at the points when these revelations were given they didn't move the plot anymore, nor did they change our opinion that these characters were evil, but JKR still spent the time on them. If, as I suspect, the life debt magic is the key to the Snape mystery, then the culmination of his plot will be when he pays his debt and saves Harry's life from Voldemort, and this must come to the readers as a big surprise sometime in the climax of DH, so by then the readers must be convinced that Snape isn't DDM. Therefore I see an obvious plot reason for JKR to reveal before that most of the details about his Evilness. I'm sure it's going to be at least as interesting as Crouch's and Peter's stories . Neri From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 14:35:05 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:35:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169768 wynnleaf, who thinks major revelations are to drive the plot and the characters decisions, not to just give the reader interesting tidbits, or because either the characters or readers are deserving. Sherry now: I snipped the rest of your post because I wanted to go in a kind of different direction. I agree that any revelations about any character have to move the plot ahead, and I think JKR can do that either way, by revealing good or bad motivations. I don't want to speculate on it, because I simply do not give a damn about Snape's past, good or bad. I don't care why Dumbledore trusted him; I don't care if he loved lily or anything else about him. However, having said that, it seems that most readers expect there to be big revelations about Snape in the last book, and I don't really expect that necessarily. Many people thought the DA would play a big role after OOTP, that Lupin would step up and become parental toward Harry, that Neville and Luna would play bigger roles after OOTP, and yet none of that happened. Often when we have thought a certain plot development would carry on into the next book, it hasn't. JKR swept away the anger toward Dumbledore at the beginning of HBP, dealt with Harry inheriting Sirius' estate and several other plot points in a few brief paragraphs. She could settle Snape's past in a few paragraphs in just the same way. Even if all it did was confirm to Harry what a terrible person he was. I rather suspect it will be more that Snape's motives were a mixture of bad and good, but I doubt anything will mitigate Snape's murder of Dumbledore for Harry. But I do not want to go over that ground again. It's just that I don't expect huge revelations about Snape, though I expect some, unfortunately, because JKR has said there will be some. Personally, I'd be happy if we saw almost no Snape in the last book, and I hope to goodness we don't have page upon page of back story for the "Greasy Git". sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 14:47:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:47:09 -0000 Subject: The Liar, The Witch and The Werewolf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169769 Pippin wrote: > > I was re-reading the first chapter of GoF yesterday, and I wondered what Peter Pettigrew would have been doing in the wayside inn where he supposedly met the Ministry witch Bertha Jorkins. Voldemort says he stopped there because he was hungry. > > But Peter can steal all the food he needs as a rat! Why risk taking human form just for that? It would have been most foolish. Even Peter's not that stupid. Carol responds: Clever and entertaining as always, Pippin, but I can't argue with a hypothethetical explanation based on the assumption that Lupin is ESE. I agree that it's odd that Pettigrew would stop at a wayside inn, but the inn was in Albania, where Bertha had just visited her great aunt, IIRC, and maybe Wormtail assumed that an English wizard who had been "murdered" thirteen years before wouldn't be recognized by rural Albanians. (I certainly wouldn't recognize a murder victim I'd seen on the news thirteen years ago if that person showed up in, say, a Starbucks where I was having coffee.) And wizards seem to have a habit of wearing their heads low over their faces if they don't want to be recognized. If the light is dim and he's hooded, what likelihood would there be that Memory-charmed Bertha would recognize him? But Wormtail, it seems, is smarter and more talented than his former friends and teachers think--not only did he learn to become an Animagus (and escape cleverly when Lupin turned into a werewolf (though it wasn't nice to Stun Ron and Crookshanks, Wormtail, not nice at all), but he made the potions that restored Voldemort first to fetal form and then to his old body somehow magically restored. (He even cut off his own hand--something not everyone could do--out of loyalty to, or fear of, Voldie. I don't see how you can blame *that* on ESE!Lupin.) Anyway, Wormtail doesn't deny being the spy who ratted on the whole Order, and we know he was the SK who betrayed the Potters, not to mention that he has a Dark Mark burned into his arm (and Harry saw him, the short hooded man, kill Cedric). At any rate, I can see Wormtail, tired of living as a rat, craving "people food" and taking what he saw as the very small risk of being recognized in order to have a real meal for a change. (Remember how he sniffed the air at a Halloween feast, perhaps our first clue that there's something "human" about this rat?) And, based on what we've seen, I think he'd have been clever enough to talk poor dim-witted Bertha into taking a walk in the moonlight. (Maybe she was desperate for male companionship!) At any rate, I don't think we need to bring ESE!Lupin and more Memory Charms into this part of the story to find an explanation for Wormtail's stopping at a wayside inn. (Don't get me wrong; I think that Lupin is *weak* and Snape, for one, knows it. But I think it's stretching canon to bring him in here.) Regarding Wormtail as a cringing hunchback in HBP--I think that Voldemort has been treating Wormtail very badly now that he has no more use for him (he no longer needs an able-bodied servant to make potions, milk Nagini, and murder teenage boys), which explains not only why Wormtail is hunchbacked (too many Crucios) but why he prefers "assisting" and spying on the tart-tongued, sarcastic, contemptuous Snape to returning to Voldemort to ask for a new assignment. Carol, whose only problem with her own hypothesis is the question of where Wormtail found the wizard money to buy his meal at the inn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 14:51:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:51:08 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe (was: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169770 > wynnleaf > These are good examples. Many of us speculate on what's important > about Lily or why Sirius had to die and in most of the speculation > there's this implicit realization that the revelations about Lily or > about why Sirius had to die are actually going to be important to what > will happen in the book -- not just For Harry's Information (a sort of > FYI). JKR mentioned something about why Sirius "had" to die. In > other words, whatever Harry eventually learns about it will be > something that "had" to happen for a reason in the plot. Whatever > Harry learns about Lily and Sirius will drive his opinions, his > actions, or something that affects the plot. Harry's not just going > to learn once again that Lily was good at potions. He's not going to > get a revelation about Lily which only serves to show him that she > loved him. He already knows that -- for goodness sake, she *died* for > him. The revelation of why Sirius had to die isn't going to be > redundant. Harry won't learn that Sirius had to die because Bella > wanted him dead or Snape hated him. Harry already knows that. Magpie: This is a bit of a tangent, but I was recently thinking about this question of why Sirius had to die for plot reasons. I wrote this in my lj but thought I might share it here. Hope nobody minds! Here it is: This was written in response to a paper I saw at Phoenix Rising (which was great) about PoA as a Gothic novel. The paper concentrated solely on PoA and showed how it followed the tropes and themes of the Gothic novel, including its anxiety about the failure of the patriarchal line (that's ultimately conquered when Harry learns it was he and not James that chased away the Dementors). Hearing about PoA discussed in terms of the Gothic makes me think how funny it was that at the time it came out, and even afterwards in GoF, we saw Sirius as a character presented as a man on his own who was part of *Harry's* family as one of the Marauders. He was like an uncle, along with Remus and even Peter. Harry saw him as family and a connection to his father. But then in OotP it turns out Sirius actually exists in the context of this big, clanking Gothic structure of his own: the Black family. And that's what got me thinking about his death. One of the things that seems kind of important about the Black family is it's so deeply connected to Slytherin and Purebloods. Like, if ultimately Slytherin has to be integrated into the school, how does JKR go about attacking its problems? The obvious solution seems to be that she went Gothic, creating this family with a house full of secrets that is being destroyed from within. Sirius' father isn't really shown, but the mere fact that his mother is mad and screaming kind of indicates a failure there. Sirius and Regulus both failed in different ways as adults. So why did Sirius have to die, besides Harry going on alone? Honestly, I think it may be important for Sirius to have died because Harry is his heir. In inheriting the Black House, which of course symbolizes all the secrets and tragedies of the Black family (literally and figuratively) Harry has become an Heir to the Black family in Sirius' place. Just as PoA gave us the Shrieking Shack that held the Potter family secrets Harry has now inherited and taken ownership of the even more insane Black family secrets-- secrets it's going to be harder for him to uncover on his own. I was reminded of this when we were talking here about the way Ron and Hermione didn't back Harry up on his Malfoy obsession in HBP the way they'd always been by his side before. I thought this was explained on both the superficial and deeper level. Superficially, HBP is the first time Harry himself really isn't being targeted, so that gives Ron and Hermione a reason that they can be interested in their own things. In the past they haven't just been interested in the mystery because Harry was interested in it; there was a shared sense of threat that isn't there in HBP. Harry is the only one who senses the threat in HBP, I think because it goes beyond just someone trying to kill someone for him. In the PoA paper the writer (Brandy Ball Blake) talked about the Gothic's obsession with horror and terror, with horror being more like revulsion (decaying bodies and gore--like Dementor's hands) and terror, which is connected to the sublime and obscurity of potentially horrible events. I think one could make a case for some of the anxiety Harry feels about Malfoy being connected to terror-- meaning that although everyone keeps telling him there's no rational thing to fear, Harry doesn't quite fear something rational. It's not just that he has logical reasons to think Malfoy's up to something, but he's not literally worried about people dying or a specific person dying. He just really has a feeling that something dreadful is going to happen because of Malfoy--and he's right. (I may have totally gotten the whole idea of terror wrong there, btw--would appreciate corrections if Harry's fear of what's going to happen via Malfoy doesn't fit the terror definition at all.) On a deeper level, it's important Ron and Hermione don't feel that sense of threat, because HBP has Harry alone dipping into Slytherin. He does it symbolically in all sorts of ways--submersing himself in Slytherin memories, watching Slytherins while immobilized more than once, taking a Slytherin's shortcuts in class, befriending young! Snape, using cunning to get the memory (while Ron and Hermione first assume Dumbledore will be teaching him more battle skills), watching Slytherins on the map, trying to get into the room that holds the Draco and his secret (which turns out to be, wonderfully, the room for hiding things). But more importantly, his obsession with Malfoy entangles Harry alone in his new family. He calls on Kreacher, the Black slave he's inherited, instead of Dobby, to spy on Draco who is himself a Black. Kreacher specifically brings up to Harry when he gives him his task, so underlining that he knows Harry is using him to spy on "family." (Dobby, meanwhile, frantically insists that Draco is just a very bad boy--as if afraid of Harry's interest, and particularly not liking Harry's getting his information through Kreacher.) One of the first reasons Harry is suspicious of Draco in HBP is that he thinks he's "taken his father's place" while Ron and Hermione, like most others, think Draco's age and general Draco-ness make him not a threat. The one time previously in canon that Harry and Draco had a brief meeting of the minds that shut out other people a bit was in PoA where Draco told Harry that if it were his family, he would want revenge on Sirius Black. Harry, iirc, is a bit unnerved by this and says "Malfoy knows..." Ron and Hermione think he's crazy for listening to Draco, who's just trying to make him do something stupid, but it's a little bit more than that. In HBP we see Draco really wasn't kidding when he faces his own anxieties about the failure of his patriarchal line and tries to take it over himself and protect his mother (love that moment he slams out when Snape tries to approach the subject of Draco being upset at what happened to his father). In both PoA and HBP the one boy is just a little more subtly tuned in to the other's family anxiety than other people. Iirc, one of the first things Harry says upon looking at the Black Tapestry is, unsurprisingly, to say, "You're related to the Malfoys!" So how great is it that they are now essentially part of the same family? I feel like Harry is the heir on the patrilineal side, having inherited the house from Sirius, to whom he was first connected through his own father and his friends. Regulus was, of course, Sirius' only sibling and younger brother. The only Black woman in Grimmauld Place in Harry's experience has been Mrs. Black, who is mad and dead. The Order spends most of its time shutting her behind her curtains, trying to not listen to her, and also not listening to Kreacher loudly adoring her. Draco, then, inherits from the distaff side as the child of Narcissa, herself one of three sisters. Andromeda also has a child-- a girl. She's been disinherited but also forces herself into Harry's male line via Lupin even when he's trying to shut her out. Bellatrix is obviously also female and it is she Snape thinks has been teaching Draco Occlumency. Draco seems to work with Narcissa more smoothly than he does with Lucius previously (even as they're somewhat at odds in terms of what they're doing). Sirius and the other Marauders were all in the Fire House, the house of Will. Draco, his mother, his aunt--and even Snape who seems to fit in here somewhere--is in the Water house of Emotion. To go further into the female stuff, Slytherin is also the house with the chamber (rather than the Tower), the locket and ring (rather than the sword). Don't know where all this is going, of course. I just love Harry almost unwittingly being drawn into the drama of the family he inherited. And I wonder if that won't be an important reason Sirius had to die, so that Harry would become a man of both families and have Sirius' place vacated. -m From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 15:08:31 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:08:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169771 > Sonya wrote: > > > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and > Narcissa's relationship? > Carol responds: > > Since others have provided you with the description of Lucius Malfoy > that specifically points out his resemblance to Draco, I'll just call > your attention to a theory of Neri's called ACID POPS. I don't > subscribe to the theory myself, but I did come up with the words that > the acronym stands for, "Alas, Cissy Is Despondent, Perhaps Old Pal > Severus?" that was considered insufficiently passionate of SHIPpy, and > it was changed to "Alas, Cissy Is Despondent, Perhaps Obsessively > Passionate Severus?" > > At any rate, Neri's description of Narcissa canonically shedding tears > on Severus's chest is classic, as is the rest of his theory even > though,as I said, I don't subscribe to it. > > He's kindly provided what he calls "ACID POPS references for new guys": > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138593 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138790 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139141 > Neri: Thanks for supplying this information, Carol (and for supplying the cool acronym). I perhaps need to clarify here that although I have admittedly derived a lot of pleasure from being a rabid SHIPper , ACID POPS is in fact a very serious Snape theory. It answers in a simple way at least two Snape mysteries that no other theory I know of can explain in less than several paragraphs of energetic hand waving. The first mystery is of course why did Snape make the Unbreakable Vow. The second is why did Draco turn against Snape and Narcissa in HBP. Note that the second mystery is what I term an "official mystery", that is, Harry explicitly wonders about it in HBP. In fact it is the first thing he asks himself while overhearing the talk between Snape and Draco before Christmas: ***************************************************************** HBP Ch. 15: Harry pressed his ear still more closely against the keyhole. . . . What had happened to make Malfoy speak to Snape like this ? Snape, toward whom he had always shown respect, even liking? ****************************************************************** Until the end of HBP we don't get an answer to this question. Instead the question becomes even more pressing, since Draco still resents Snape and doesn't share his plan with him even after Snape saves his life in the bathroom, with the critical results on the tower. Therefore I believe we require an answer to this question too in DH. A simple answer would be that Draco got some of the vibrations between Snape and Narcissa and suspected that they had plotted together against his father. Need I remind you that JKR has mentioned Hamlet as a favorite reading? Neri, who has just managed to stop himself from shouting down the corridor "Snapy lurves Cissy! Snapy luuuuuurves Cissy!" ... oops... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 15:51:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:51:12 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169772 > wynnleaf > We may feel Harry deserves many things, but a literary character > "deserving" something does not mean that they'll get it. Harry > deserved to have a father figure and JKR still killed off Sirius. > If he couldn't have a father figure, Harry "deserved" to have > someone as a trusted mentor and JKR killed Dumbledore off, too. > Harry deserves not to lose any more friends, but he probably will > anyway. > > Harry deserving something isn't why he'll learn why Dumbledore > trusted Snape. He'll get that revelation for the same reason he'll > get any other revelation -- to move the plot. Jen: I'm talking about what moves the plot! You interpreted what I said to mean I personally think Harry 'deserves' information but it's all right there in HBP what Harry's blocks are about trusting Snape and he never received a full answer: "AND YOU LET HIM TEACH HERE AND HE TOLD VOLDEMORT TO GO AFTER MY MOM AND DAD"; "Haven't you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?"; "Well, I don't! [referring to Dumbledore saying he trusted Snape]" (HBP, 'The Seer Overheard') How does the part of the plot that is about Harry and Snape move if Harry believes these things? Learning why Dumbledore trusted Snape will likely explain why he was allowed to teach at Hogwarts and why Dumbledore trusted him even after the Potters died, after Sirius died, up to and through the night he himself died, but it doesn't mean Dumbledore's ironclad reason will be the whole of Harry's trust as well. It might be the basis for Harry to come to that same belief and understanding but now Harry has some things to resolve in his own mind about Snape's actions that Dumbledore isn't around to explain. wynnleaf: > Any extra revelation about Snape (such as regarding a life debt), is > useless if it won't change Harry's viewpoint or actions because of > his beliefs above -- that Snape is a traitor, murderer, liar, etc. Jen: I see it as a possibility that what Harry really needs to learn is how destructive a person's actions can be when hatred is allowed to rule; Snape seems to be the one in the position to show him that. Sirius and James, for all their flaws, appeared to move on after Hogwarts in the short time they had to do so. They joined the Order, James married and had a family and Sirius became Harry's godfather and the Protector of all the Potters when asked to be Secret Keeper. Yes, they were brought down by betrayl from the inside, but their intentions and actions are presented as essentially in trying to do the right thing when a threat was in their midst. What happened to Snape? We don't know much at all about his life at the tail end of Hogwarts and up to the point he took the prophecy to Voldemort. What we do know is that some 20 years later the Marauders are still very much a part of his life, a resentment and hatred he nurses. Was Sirius thinking about Snape while in Azkaban or when he took off to find Peter? Nope, not a word about that. In fact, he's completely surprised when Lupin talks about him in the Shrieking Shack and then refers to him rather distantly in GOF as someone he wasn't sure what happened to after Hogwarts. Was James spending time thinking about what Snape did to him when there was a threat against his family? Very doubtful. So far Snape's claims about his own innocence and the Marauders' guilt haven't made a dent in Harry's hatred. Harry paused to worry about his own father after the Pensieve scene but was reassured when he learned from Sirius and Lupin that yes, life marched on and James moved with it. So what about Snape's continued victim status is going to move Harry? I see that it might be time for Harry to learn what intense hatred can do to a person, how it can fuel actions and override judgement to the point that a life can be taken over and become very small. Isn't that what Harry is trying to move past? To realize he must forgive and move on, the very thing Snape never did? Where you see that it will only fuel Harry's hatred, I see the possibility for Harry to learn more about Snape and say, 'uh-oh, no, I'm turning into him myself now and that's *not* what I want for my life, it's not what my parents, Sirius or Dumbledore wanted for me when they died to protect me.' Jen From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 4 16:19:33 2007 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:19:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Room of Requirement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46643B95.60504@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169773 De-lurking after a few years of silence....probably missed any earlier theories along these lines, and if so I apologise for re-visiting them belatedly, BUT - Its just occured to me, we have never been give any info about WHO created the RoR. What other secret rooms do we know of in Hogwarts? The Chamber of Secrets! Who is associated with the CoS? Salazar Slytherin. What is the defining magic of the RoR? It transfigures - it becomes whatever the seeker needs it to become. Transfiguation seems to be a magic associated with Gryffindor House, with Dumbledore and MacGonagall being the Transfiguration Professors. So could the RoR be the creation of Godric Gryffindor himself? Could it be, that should the seeker require it, the RoR would transfigure into the original secret room that Godric Gryffindor created? Possibly one in which he left some of his own personal artifacts? Could this even be the space into which the Trio are falling on the UK cover art? Hmmmmmm..... digger From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Jun 4 16:29:18 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:29:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1180974558.21473.1193351599@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169774 > Amiable Dorsai: > Marietta nearly got six other Ravenclaws expelled or worse. Do you > think it's possible that those Ravenclaws (except for Cho) are just a > little unhappy with her? Hermione failed to prevent it from happening. If she'd just stopped to THINK for a second, she would have done something (anything, even warning them so it would act as a deterrent) that would actually stop Marietta from revealing it, rather than having a hex for an after-the-fact punishment that appears right in front of Umbridge and removes all doubt as to what Marietta has told her being true. What if Shacklebolt hadn't been there? What warning did the DA have? Even a simple alarm bell for the coins, instead of or in addition to the "sneak" hex, would have been helpful. -- Random832 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 16:32:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:32:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)/Why we'll get no further revelelations that Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169775 > Neri: It answers in a > simple way at least two Snape mysteries that no other theory I know of > can explain in less than several paragraphs of energetic hand waving. > The first mystery is of course why did Snape make the Unbreakable Vow. > The second is why did Draco turn against Snape and Narcissa in HBP. > Note that the second mystery is what I term an "official mystery", > that is, Harry explicitly wonders about it in HBP. Magpie: Harry wonders about it, but I don't think it's the official mystery you're making it out to be for us. Draco doesn't turn against Snape or Narcissa--even Harry doesn't think so. He wonders about Draco speaking to Snape in the way he does, but also thinks they're working together. Draco's trying to do the job himself and resents all attempts to keep him in the child role via protecting him or anything else. Draco is changing his feelings radically about what Snape represents and what he means to him, and I think you lose that if it becomes about something outside himself like an affair between Snape and Narcissa. The bonds between Draco, Snape and Narcissa seem stronger than ever in HBP because it's a time of crisis. Neri: In fact it is the > first thing he asks himself while overhearing the talk between Snape > and Draco before Christmas: > > ***************************************************************** > HBP Ch. 15: > > Harry pressed his ear still more closely against the keyhole. . . . > What had happened to make Malfoy speak to Snape like this ? Snape, > toward whom he had always shown respect, even liking? > ****************************************************************** > > Until the end of HBP we don't get an answer to this question. Instead > the question becomes even more pressing, since Draco still resents > Snape and doesn't share his plan with him even after Snape saves his > life in the bathroom, with the critical results on the tower. > Therefore I believe we require an answer to this question too in DH. A > simple answer would be that Draco got some of the vibrations between > Snape and Narcissa and suspected that they had plotted together > against his father. Need I remind you that JKR has mentioned Hamlet as > a favorite reading? Magpie: Err...but we did get an answer to the question. We even got Draco's own version of the answer, that Snape was trying to steal his glory. Why should Draco share his plan with Snape just because Snape saved him? Draco's trying to be the man here and that means he has to do the task that he's been given. He certainly can't go to Snape with the fact that he's realizing he's not a killer when Snape is, he thinks, a killer himself who can't be allowed to see his weakness. I think Draco has enough Hamlet going on in HBP without having to introduce a complicated Oedipal love triangle. We even have Draco blaming Harry (not Snape or Narcissa) for Lucius' imprisonment. And where Draco is certainly challenging father-figure Snape in the book and lashing out as him (which is imo normal) he's certainly not angry at Narcissa that we ever see. He's becoming paranoid that Snape does not have his own best interests at heart. It's imo about Draco himself and their relationship. Everything seems based on around Lucius leaving so Draco has to step up into his place, not that Draco has to punish people for betraying Lucius. Jen: What happened to Snape? We don't know much at all about his life at the tail end of Hogwarts and up to the point he took the prophecy to Voldemort. What we do know is that some 20 years later the Marauders are still very much a part of his life, a resentment and hatred he nurses. Was Sirius thinking about Snape while in Azkaban or when he took off to find Peter? Nope, not a word about that. In fact, he's completely surprised when Lupin talks about him in the Shrieking Shack and then refers to him rather distantly in GOF as someone he wasn't sure what happened to after Hogwarts. Was James spending time thinking about what Snape did to him when there was a threat against his family? Very doubtful. Magpie: True, but there again I think we undercut what we have if it turns out it was always Snape driving his own hate. What makes it compelling and understandable for me so far--and for Harry too, a little--is that it's not just Snape being a mean, vindictive person and hurting himself with his own hate. He *is* doing that, but his hatred is also something Harry can understand, because Harry, too, feels hatred. Not because he constantly hates people for no reason, but because he feels frustrated and rejected and put upon. That's why when he watched the Pensieve sequence he couldn't make himself automatically jump into James' pov. He saw an "innocent" (which he doesn't usually think of Snape as) being harassed. I think it's very important that Snape's accusations against James are real. The Prank seems to have hit that idea as well. It's understandable how Snape feels, both to have been saved by a person he never wanted to owe anything to, and under those circumstances. If Snape was actually trying to kill Lupin there...I just don't see how it works. If he turned the would-be Prank into a murder attempt it wouldn't be a humiliating memory for him in the way it is. And if he was going in to kill a werewolf, why would he have felt he was in danger? He wouldn't have decided that afterwards when he was in denial. Now, what could have happened in that case (though we've still been given no story other than that Snape didn't know Lupin was a werewolf at the time) is that Snape went in to kill Lupin, then froze, then James dragged him out. But that, to me, just sounds far too convenient with Snape being placed in a way to absolve the Marauders even though they didn't know it. Sure it shouldn't make a difference since they didn't know that Snape knew...but it does. Jen: So far Snape's claims about his own innocence and the Marauders' guilt haven't made a dent in Harry's hatred. Harry paused to worry about his own father after the Pensieve scene but was reassured when he learned from Sirius and Lupin that yes, life marched on and James moved with it. Magpie: Actually, I disagree. They have made a dent. Harry's pausing to worry and try to rationalize what he saw in the Pensieve was important--it was the only time he's ever done that for Snape. Every doubt Harry has about the Marauders inspires him to be a different man himself. I think the little dents, those moments where Harry has twinges of feeling something he doesn't want to feel, whether it's sympathy for Snape or conscience about Malfoy, are the only hints we've got to go on for where personal Harry-revelations might be lurking. Jen: So what about Snape's continued victim status is going to move Harry? I see that it might be time for Harry to learn what intense hatred can do to a person, how it can fuel actions and override judgement to the point that a life can be taken over and become very small. Isn't that what Harry is trying to move past? To realize he must forgive and move on, the very thing Snape never did? Magpie: But Snape's victim status is something Harry's always fought against. It's a sore spot for him. He doesn't like seeing Snape as a victim, and when he can he puts it out of his mind. Now, just as wynnleaf said that Snape being evil isn't anything new...well, neither is Snape being a victim. Harry's heard and been shown more than once how Snape was treated by MWPP: he saw the map insulting him in PoA, heard Snape's story of the Prank and the life-saving revision of the Prank, saw the scene in the Pensieve. He actually liked Snape in the form of the HBP and, unwittingly identified with him, used Sectumsempra assuming "enemies" meant Harry's own enemies when, ironically, the exact opposite was true--so that the HBP himself had to run in and save "his" side. So to me it seems like what we're not going to get either way is a total revision of Snape. We can't, because we've already been given two versions that are different. We've seen Snape as a vindictive bully. We've seen him as a victim. What Harry's been unable to do is *reconcile* the two, and that, I think, is what he's going to get in DH. He doesn't need a story about how Snape was really always evil--I don't think that will teach him about the danger of hatred, because that makes Snape comfortably "the other" as the would-be murderer of Lupin all along. That's what happens to evil people when they become consumed with hate. Nor, imo, does he need a story of how Snape was picked on--that makes him "the other" too. Harry doesn't like identifying with that person. That's Neville or Luna, and while Harry likes and would protect them, he doesn't identify with them if he can help it. The Snape with whom Harry *does* identify happily is the HBP, the kid who's funny and snarky and rebellious and maybe a little arrogant. That's the guy I think he needs to reconcile with real Snape and through whom he'll gain understanding about both of them. That's the guy that showed Harry could go down the same path, after all, when he reached for the Prince's wish-fulfillment spell "for enemies" and wound up doing something he didn't mean to do. "Such Dark Magic, Potter!" I do agree that Harry needs to see something that he doesn't want to turn into himself, but I think that means getting away from Snape doing evil things in school or being victimized in school. That's the backstory, I think--interesting, isn't it, that Harry gets all that before he "meets" Snape at his own age, finally, in his sixth year? Any revelations about Snape being victimized by MWPP or doing bad things to them are at this point, imo, pointless because nothing will top the Pensieve or Snape being the eavesdropper for examples of sheer bad acts on both sides. I think the revelations now need to be a bit more about Snape the person independent of his hating or being hated by the Marauders. The Prank can still come into it, but I think it has to be more about who this boy *was* that they were Pranking, or other things in his life, instead of just whether he was really not being Pranked or not since as I've said, I don't think that either overturns or sheds light on anything. -m From Meridel1 at aol.com Mon Jun 4 16:02:24 2007 From: Meridel1 at aol.com (Meridel1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:02:24 -0400 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C974D8E05DB0D0-E60-FE4@WEBMAIL-RA08.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169776 Pickle Jimmy: It's been a while since I visited HPfGUs, but I was contemplating HP the other day, and I came up with a theory as to how Harry will kill Voldy without having to turn evil. Meredith: Why would Harry killing Voldemort make him (Harry) evil?? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 16:57:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:57:10 -0000 Subject: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snape is Really Evil (even if he i In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169777 wynnleaf wrote: JKR doesn't need to convince Harry, or any other character, that Snape is a Bad Man, hates Harry, is disloyal to Dumbledore, and EVIL. > > Neri: > But it appears that she still needs to convince certain readers . Carol responds: Very true! Neir: > Clarifications of the Snape plot that are directed to the *readers* rather than to Harry were already included in HBP. For example, Snape explains in Spinner's End that he was sent by Voldemort himself as a spy to Dumbledore, thus solving the mystery of why would Voldemort accept Snape back. Note that Harry wasn't present in Spinner's End, has never heard this explanation in any other way, and doesn't need to since he has never wondered why would Voldemort accept Snape back. But the *readers* obviously wanted and needed to know this, as well as many other things, so Bella was sent to Snape by the Author with a detailed laundry list. Since we're still missing a few key items it's a good bet that we will get a revised laundry list in DH. It may be in another chapter that isn't from Harry's point-of-view, but this time featuring Snape with Voldemort himself (I find it telling that Snape is the only major DE we haven't yet seen together with Voldemort). Carol responds: I agree that "Spinner's End" was for the reader's benefit, but far from clarifying Snape's motives and answering all out questions, the chapter merely added to Snape's ambiguity. We see him as he is with the Death Eaters and we hear the version of events that he prepared for Voldemort (with one or two additions for Bella's benefit), but all we really learn is what he wants the DEs and Voldemort to think his motivations are (the cover story he had prepared before going to Voldemort at the end of GoF; "If you are ready; if you are prepared...." "I am," said Snape), not the real or whole truth truth by any means. We see certain gaps in his story, for example, the details of Dumbledore's "serious injury" and Snape's own role in stopping the curse from killing DD and his sending the Order to save Harry and friends). But there would be no point in a chapter with Snape telling Voldemort these same half-truths. That happened at the end of GoF. Anyway, that chapter raised more questions in most readers' minds than it answered, most notably how much he knew about Draco's mission and why he took the Unbreakable Vow. the only question it really answered is how he managed to stay alive--a combination of being able to "hoodwink" the Dark Lord with his superb Occlumency and the particular half-truths he tells Bella, which, as he notes, are the same answers he gave to Voldemort. But Rita Skeeter isn't the only one who knows how to put a particular slant on the truth or make the facts appear in a certain light or select the part of the truth that will persuade or appeal to a particular reader/listener or achieve a particular goal of the speaker or writer. Snape also uses this tactic with Draco, telling him about one provision of the Unbreakable Vow but not the crucial one, or giving the DEs a reason to stop Crucioing Harry ("He's for the Dark Lord!") which probably isn't his real reason. (DD, of course, uses the same tactic, for example, the reason he gives Voldemort for not trying to kill him in the MoM.) wynnleaf: > > JKR, in her interview with Emerson and Melissa back in 2005, commented that Harry's hatred of Snape is now "personal" and that his greater hatred would be important for when they meet again. > > Neri: > I can't remember JKR mentioning Harry's "hatred" in this context. The theory that Harry's hatred to Snape is going to play the central role in their next meeting is only a theory. Carol: And yet, what can she mean besides hatred or the desire for revenge? As Harry puts it, "And if I meet Severus Snape along the way, so much the better for me, so much the worse for him" (HBP, quoted from memory). Harry and Snape are clearly going to meet again, and as it stands now, they'll meet as enemies, at least on Harry's part. DDM!Snape (or even an OFH!Snape who wants Voldie dead) will have a hard time aiding Harry (or the Order) under the current circumstances (unless someone else in the Order knows what Snape promised Dumbledore and didn't want to do). And Harry has to use some form of Love magic to defeat LV, which is why he and no one else can kill or destroy Voldemort, but if he's motivated by hatred and the desire for revenge, as he clearly is at the end of HBP, that isn't going to work. So, for his own sake, Harry has to get past his personal grudge against Snape, not for Snape's sake but for Harry's development as a character and for the sake of the plot. Or that's how I read "Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort." And we know how Harry feels about Voldemort, from "He killed my parents!" in SS/PS to the torture scene in the graveyard and the possession in the MoM. Harry's "personal" feeling toward Voldemort is hatred and a desire for revenge. As Harry says in HBP, "I'd want him dead, and I'd want to do it." (I *wish* I knew what DD was up to stirring that desire for revenge when elsewhere he talks about the power of Love. Snape isn't the only character I have questions about!) And now "Harry/Snape" is even more personal. *Of course*, it's about hatred and a desire for vengeance, at least on Harry's side. Harry isn't saying, "I can hardly wait to see Snape so I can forgive him." If Snape and Harry are on the same side, whether because of the life debt or form some other reason, and if Snape killed Dumbledore because he had to, because not to do so would have matters even worse, Harry has to know that. And even if they're not, JKR isn't going to have Harry committing murder for revenge. What kind of hero would he be, what kind of example for young readers, if the boy who stopped Lupin and Black from becoming murderers and acting on their desire for vengeance against Wormtail became a murderer himself. And did DD stop Draco from becoming a murderer )or show him that he wasn't one) only so that Harry, the hero of the story, would become a murderer himself? I really don't think so. JKR has brought Harry's hatred of Snape to peak intensity for a reason, and I don't think that reason is to show us that Snape deserves that hatred and is just a bad guy who should be AK'd on the spot. If "Harry/Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort" doesn't mean that Harry now hates Snape as much or more than he hates Voldemort because Snape has personally injured him (Snape's killing DD as opposed to Voldemort's killing the parents Harry never knew), then what does it mean? What personal feelings does Harry have for either of them than hatred and the desire for revenge? Neri: > The way I read the above, when JKR says "it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again", by "it" she means the original question "is Snape evil", *not* Harry's feelings about Snape. You will also notice that JKR is quite aware that HBP launches 10,000 Snape theories, implying she's also aware that DH needs to include the definitive Snape answers for the *theorists*, not necessarily for Harry. Carol: She's talking about two things here, what will happen when Harry and Snape meet again and the question of whether Snape is evil, which is clearly central to the plot and possibly the most important question that the book will answer. And while that question is important to readers, and she's carefully concealing it from us in interviews and building up Snape's ambiguity throughout the whole series, it's also central to the plot, which centers on Harry, who now thinks that snape is evil. And what Harry finds out about Snape, before or after their confrontation, will somehow shape the plot. (Unlike Horcruxes, which were touched on without elucidation in CoS and only came into the plot as important elements in HBP, Snape has been important since Book 1, becoming more mysterious and ambiguous with each book. And in almost every book, Harry has asked questions about him and received only partial answers. JKR has Harry ask those questions because she wants the reader to ask the same questions. We aren't wholly trapped in his pov ("Spinner's End," for one) and we can, if we're careful readers, set aside his personal responses and interpretations and look only at Snape's words and actions, but we're still, even then, seeing him from the outside, and even when we try to be objective, we still arrive at different conclusions based in part on our feelings for the characters and our preconceptions about them. That's what JKR wants from the reader--10,000 snape theories while we wait in limbo for the last book. But it's not what she wants for *Harry.* Harry, the protagonist, must have his questions about Snape answered, probably in ways he doesn't anticipate (but we readers, being outside the book, may come closer to guessing). JKR wouldn't have him raise those questions if she weren't planning to provide the answers. As she told Salman Rushdie, *everything* depends on whether Snape is good or evil. And there's no OFH! option that I can see. It comes down to whether he's good (DDM) or evil (ESE/VDM). (Rushdie: ... So, is Snape good or bad? (crowd laughs, applauds and screams and Jo chuckles). In our opinion, everything follows from it. JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right....) But they're talking about the plot of DH (and the series as a whole) and the relationship between Harry and snape, not just the readers' expectations. > Neri: > The "hatred" to Snape is a secondary issue here, certainly for the readers if not for Harry. The main issue is that JKR has spent the entire series building the mystery of Snape's background, motives and loyalties, and it's now pay time. The readers demand definitive answers and JKR knows that well. Carol: I can't agree. Harry's hatred for Snape is the protagonist's view of and reaction to another important character, and since this is Harry's story, not snape's, it's Harry's view that has to change (or, less interestingly, be validated). And as the protagonist in a Bildungsroman, Harry has to mature, to learn valuable lessons about himself--not that he's a wizard or the chosen One but who he is as a person, what his strengths and weaknesses are, and, if the themes of the book are what I think they are, how to show true mercy (different from sparing Wormtail just to turn him over to the Dementors), how to forgive those who have trespassed against him. (JKR is a Christian, after all, and Harry needs to learn and apply the lesson that DD taught him on the tower.) I don't mean the inhuman multiple-murderer, sociopath and megalomaniac Voldemort, who has only one-seventh of a human soul. I mean the very human Snape, who for all his faults has been protecting Harry in various ways for seven books. > Neri: > You seem to assume that the only readers that are really interested in Snape's motives are DDM!Snapers, and the rest of us don't care about them and will just be happy to find out that he's generally Evil. Not so. We too have spent a lot of time analyzing Snape, we too have contributed our humble share towards of the above 10,000 theories, and we too need our questions answered. Why did he make the Unbreakable Vow? Why did he save Dumbledore in the beginning of the year and killed him in its end? Why does it appear that he didn't plan on killing Dumbledore at that time and was forced to it by Draco's unexpected action? What exactly was his game as a double-triple-quadruple agent during all these years? What was he trying to achieve during the Occlumency lessons? During the MoM battle? What are exactly his connections with the Malfoys? Why did he care about what happen to the Potters so much that he warned Dumbledore? Carol: Exactly. She's set up the character and the series in such a way that those questions will occur to the reader, so that we will wonder about his loyalties and motives and some of us (not necessarily adult readers who analyze everything but many child readers, especially the younger ones who can't recognize subtlety, irony, and inference) will see him as "evil" for docking points unfairly and subjecting eleven-year-olds to sarcasm and therefore assume that he must be evil in other respects as well. But although she cares about her readers and wants to keep us in suspense as long as possible (I mean, she doesn't want to spoil the plot for us by giving away any surprises, particularly about Snape, whose Boggart and Patronus she won't even reveal), she's writing primarily for herself, and for her as for many readers, this is Harry's story. And it's Harry's questions, Harry's relation to Snape, Harry's develop as a character that matter. > Neri: > The answer "Snape was just generally Evil" is far from being sufficient here and JKR knows it. Carol: No disagreement there. Both the reader and Harry need to know Snape's motives and whether or not he's evil, and the details are necessary to establish his motives and enable both Harry and the reader to understand him. I know that some readers just want to sweep him under the rug (and then stomp him into a bloody pulp), but that's not going to happen. Snape is central to the plot and therefore to Harry; JKR has made that crystal clear. Neri: It certainly wasn't sufficient that > Peter or Crouch!Moody were "just generally evil" ? JKR still supplied us with detailed explanations of their characters, motives and schemes. Naturally this involved some interesting revelations, like Peter spying for Voldemort for a whole year before GH or Crouch murdering his own father. Note that at the points when these revelations were given they didn't move the plot anymore, nor did they change our opinion that these characters were evil, but JKR still spent the time on them. Carol: Well, yes and no. Till PoA and even well into that book, Scabbers was just Ron's pet rat (eaten by the evil Crookshanks in Ron's view, a nice dark comic parallel to Sirius Black being out to murder Harry) and Peter Pettigrew was just MPP's inept friend, a little fat boy who died a hero. JKR has to establish his true character to solve the mysteries in PoA and set up Wormtail's role in GoF. Barty Jr. is, of course, disguised as Mad-Eye Moody and for many readers comes across as a good guy for much of the book (I hated him for his treatment of Draco and Neville and wondered how he knew so much about the means used to put Harry's name in the GoF, but I never dreamed that he was Barty Crouch Jr., whose story has also been introduced and needs to be explained). The details about Barty Jr. are like the wrap-up of murder mystery, necessary to resolve the plot of that book but not necessary to move the series in general forward. (I expect, though, that we'll find out a bit more about Barty Jr. in connection with the Longbottoms.) But Snape is another matter. He's been a mystery for six books now, and he'll have to be "wrapped up" in DH regardless of whether he's evil or not. But, just as Harry (and many or most readers) thought that Peter and "Moody" but they turned out to be very bad guys, I expect that Harry and the readers who agree with him that Snape is evil will be equally surprised. There's really no point in concealing information about Snape and his motives if he's already evil. Harry "knows" that. (And anyone who wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." Or Harry's promise to himself never to do something again, like his promise never to interfere in other people's business or spy on anyone again back in SS/PS. "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" is a bright red flag of the same sort waved in the reader's face.) Carol, crossing her fingers that Harry's growth to maturity (and it's no coincidence that he comes of age in DH) will involve developing the capacity to understand and forgive an ally who is not a friend From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 17:46:13 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:46:13 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pickle_jimmy" wrote: > > > Enter the Mirror of Erised. Voldy and Harry are facing off in the > final battle (which takes place at Hogwarts). Harry has destroyed all > the horcruxes, only Voldy to go. Voldy chases Harry through the > castle casting AKs left right and centre, until finally he has Harry > trapped - or does he?? He thinks it is Harry, because it is his one > desire, but it is actually just a "reflection" in the Mirror of > Erised he is advancing on. The Harry in the mirror does everything > Voldy hopes he will do, cowering, wincing, pleading, etc. Finally, > Voldy casts an AK at the mirror but the spell rebounds, and his own > cruelty and arrogance kills him. > > This is also when Dumbledore reappears: "Well done Harry" (in the > throaty Dumbledore voice), but again... another post. > > So, what do you think - Voldemort too caught up in his own self > importance to realise what he is about to do. The Mirror of Erised > getting a revival. Voldemort's first downfall was from a rebounding > curse, why not his last. > > Cheers > > Pickle Jimmy > Dondee: Interesting thought, but it doesn't jibe with the prophesy "...and either must die at the hand of the other..." Your theory is Voldie being killed by his own hand not Harry's. Also, no sound comes from the mirror - big giveaway that it's not really Harry. I like the idea of Voldie dying because of his own cruelty and arrogance - and in a way he will, because of his unwillingness and inability to love. Cheers, Dondee From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 4 18:48:23 2007 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:48:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Room of Requirement In-Reply-To: <46643B95.60504@ntlworld.com> References: <46643B95.60504@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <46645E77.5000503@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169779 digger wrote: > De-lurking after a few years of silence....probably missed any earlier > theories along these lines, and if so I apologise for re-visiting them > belatedly, BUT - > > Its just occured to me, we have never been give any info about WHO > created the RoR. What other secret rooms do we know of in Hogwarts? The > Chamber of Secrets! Who is associated with the CoS? Salazar Slytherin. > What is the defining magic of the RoR? It transfigures - it becomes > whatever the seeker needs it to become. Transfiguation seems to be a > magic associated with Gryffindor House, with Dumbledore and MacGonagall > being the Transfiguration Professors. So could the RoR be the creation > of Godric Gryffindor himself? Could it be, that should the seeker > require it, the RoR would transfigure into the original secret room that > Godric Gryffindor created? Possibly one in which he left some of his own > personal artifacts? Could this even be the space into which the Trio are > falling on the UK cover art? > > Hmmmmmm..... > > digger > > Just a couple of other things..... Dumbledore's office is on the seventh floor, with a griffin door The entrance to Gryffindor Common room/Tower is on the seventh floor The RoR is off a seventh floor corridor Seems like the seventh floor is Gryffindor property . From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 19:27:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:27:09 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe (was: Why we'll get no further revelations that In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169780 Magpie wrote: > This is a bit of a tangent, but I was recently thinking about this question of why Sirius had to die for plot reasons. I wrote this in my lj but thought I might share it here. Hope nobody minds! > > Here it is: > This was written in response to a paper I saw at Phoenix Rising (which was great) about PoA as a Gothic novel. The paper concentrated solely on PoA and showed how it followed the tropes and themes of the Gothic novel . Hearing about PoA discussed in terms of the Gothic makes me think how funny it was that at the time it came out, and even afterwards in GoF, we saw Sirius as a character presented as a man on his own who was part of *Harry's* family as one of the Marauders. He was like an uncle, along with Remus and even Peter. Harry saw him as family and a connection to his father. > > But then in OotP it turns out Sirius actually exists in the context of this big, clanking Gothic structure of his own: the Black family. And that's what got me thinking about his death. One of the things that seems kind of important about the Black family is it's so deeply connected to Slytherin and Purebloods. Like, if ultimately Slytherin has to be integrated into the school, how does JKR go about attacking its problems? The obvious solution seems to be that she went Gothic, creating this family with a house full of secrets that is being destroyed from within. Sirius' father isn't really shown, but the mere fact that his mother is mad and screaming kind of indicates a failure there. Sirius and Regulus both failed in different ways as adults. > > So why did Sirius have to die, besides Harry going on alone? Honestly, I think it may be important for Sirius to have died because Harry is his heir. In inheriting the Black House, which of > course symbolizes all the secrets and tragedies of the Black family > (literally and figuratively) Harry has become an Heir to the Black > family in Sirius' place. Just as PoA gave us the Shrieking Shack > that held the Potter family secrets Harry has now inherited and > taken ownership of the even more insane Black family secrets-- > secrets it's going to be harder for him to uncover on his own. > > > In the PoA paper the writer (Brandy Ball Blake) talked about the Gothic's obsession with horror and terror, with horror being more like revulsion (decaying bodies and gore--like Dementor's hands) and terror, which is connected to the sublime and obscurity of potentially horrible events. Carol responds: What an interesting way to look at the books (though I don't your example of Harry following Draco quite fits). I'd love to get hold of that paper. For the benefit of anyone not familiar with the Gothic novel and its conventions, here's a definition adapted from the famous literary critic M. H. Abrams's "Glossary of Literary Terms": "The Gothic novel, or "Gothic romance" . . . flourished through the early nineteenth century. Authors of such novels set their stories in the medieval period, often in a gloomy castle replete with dungeons, subterranean passages, and sliding panels, and made plentiful use of ghosts, mysterious disappearances, and other sensational and supernatural occurrences; their principal aim was to evoke chilling terror by exploiting mystery, cruelty, and a variety of horrors. The term "gothic" has also been extended to denote a type of fiction which lacks the medieval setting but develops a brooding atmosphere of gloom or terror, represents events which are uncanny, or macabre, or melodramatically violent, and often deals with aberrant psychological states." http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/novel.htm ("Gothic" as used here refers, of course, to novels like Matthew Lewis's "The Monk" and Horace Walpole's "the Castle of Otranto," not to teenagers who wear black and pierce their tongues. Charlotte Bronte uses some of the Gothic conventions in "Jane Eyre" and Jane Austen parodies them in "Northanger Abbey.") And you're right about the distinction between horror, which is extreme fear combined with revulsion, and terror, which is extreme fear combined with "the sublime"--something awe-inspiring and greater than oneself but perilous. In LOTR, for example, Shelob evokes horror but the Ring Wraiths evoke terror. In the HP books, the Inferi evoke horror (though only Snape's poster shows what they can actually do to their victims--Harry hasn't seen it first-hand yet and I hope he doesn't) but the murder of Dumbledore evokes terror in both Harry and the reader. (If it had been Fenrir who killed Greyback, we'd have had horror instad; it hardly bears thinking about.) The Dementors seem to me a combination of both; their soul-sucking powers inspire terror, but their scabby hands inspire horror. I feel a shudder of revulsion just thinking about them. I think the author of the paper must have been thinking of the Gothic novelist Ann Radcliffe's essay, "On the Supernatural in Poetry," which reads in part: "Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them. I apprehend, that neither Shakspeare nor Milton by their fictions, nor Mr. Burke by his reasoning, anywhere looked to positive horror as a source of the sublime, though they all agree that terror is a very high one; and where lies the great difference between horror and terror, but in the uncertainty and obscurity, that accompany the first, respecting the dreaded evil?" http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/gothic/radcliffe1.html (The link is to the first page of the essay, not to the page containing the quotation, which is on pp. 5-6.) Regarding the sublime, the best authority (unless you want to go back to Longinus) is Edmund Burke (to whom Radcliffe refers): "Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling. When danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible; but at certain distances, and with certain modifications, they may be, and they are, delightful, as we every day experience. " The sublime, IOW, inspires awe, and at too close a range, terror (in contrast to beauty, which, according to Burke, inspires tenderness and affection). Regarding terror, Burke says, "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear. For fear being an apprehension of pain or death, it operates in a manner that resembles actual pain. Whatever therefore is terrible, with regard to sight, is sublime too, whether this cause of terror be endued with greatness of dimensions or not; for it is impossible to look on anything as trifling, or contemptible, that may be dangerous." http://www.bartleby.com/24/2/ (The link is to the Table of contents; the relevant chapters are Part I, chapters 6 and 7 and Part II, chapters 1 and 2.) At any rate, I'm sure that the author of the paper on the Gothic elements in PoA had these famous essays in mind, given her linking of terror to the sublime and her distinction between horror and terror (which, IMO, is valid whatever we may think of Radcliffe and Burke and their very eighteenth-century ideas). To get back to the HP series, I think a whole book could be written on its Gothic elements if the writer could find the right angle or thesis. (It's one thing to point out the Gothic imagery and conventions and another to explore its thematic significance. We do see a lot of pureblood patriarchal lines dying out in the HP books, but might there be a connection between that particular Gothic element and the Gothic imagery in general and some larger theme? I think that would be worth exploring if anyone is interested.) Anyway, I'm sure that *one* reason that Sirius Black "had to die" is for Harry to inherit his house, but since that has already happened as of HBP, I don't think it's the big reason we've been promised in DH (which, IMO, ties in with the specific way he died, going through the veil rather than being AK'd like most of the other dead characters). But you're certainly right about the presence or even prevalence Gothic elements in the HP books, which also tie in with Snape (sweeping black robes, blood-red wine, and sliding bookcases at Spinner's End for starters) and Hogwarts itself (hidden chambers, underground passageways, dungeons, ghosts, and a generally medieval atmosphere created by suits of armor and candlelit corridors). Maybe we should look for connections between the HP books and "Northanger Abbey," given JKR's fondness for Jane Austen. Carol, now wondering whether the madwoman in the hallway is a spoof or parody of the madwoman in the attic From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 4 19:37:59 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:37:59 -0000 Subject: Prank and various responsibilities WAS: Re: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169781 Pippin: > As PoA shows us, you can't do it relying on the calendar alone. > If the PoA dates of Lupin's absences are accurate at all, then > he arranged to be absent at other times besides the full moon > and some of his full moon absences weren't noticeable because > they coincided with evenings, weekends, holidays and so forth. > > Without an additional clue to look for a correllation between > Lupin's absences and the full moon, as Hermione did, > Snape couldn't have deduced the connection just by looking at > the dates. He got as far as noticing Lupin was gone > every month, but wouldn't have enough data to see that Lupin > was *always* gone on the full moon. Dana: So what other information did Hermione have? Because essentially she would face the same difficulties as Snape had when it comes to putting Lupin's disappearances next to a lunar chart. So Hermione had the Boggart that was a moon but Snape had something else besides witnessing Madam Pomfrey guide Lupin across the grounds and noticing that Lupin disappeared every month. Pg 314 UKed Paperback chapter "A very Frosty Christmas". `Sometimes you remind me a lot of James. He called it my "furry little problem" in company. Many people were under the impression that I owned a baldy behaved rabbit.' End quote canon. I disagree that Snape couldn't have deduced the connection by looking at the dates and comparing it to a lunar chart because that is what Hermione did. If Snape already came to the conclusion that Lupin disappeared every month then he would have plenty of data to see that it was always on a full moon. Because comparing the data to a lunar chart would have done the trick. If he only noticed Lupin being gone on one night I would agree with you but *every month* indicates Snape was on to these monthly disappearances which would have provided enough data. Snape would only have needed two or three months and compare them to the lunar chart and he would have enough to make the conclusion. He then only had to monitor the full moon nights and see if the next disappearance would again be on a full moon night to make the suspicion final. I believe that Snape witnessing Lupin, being brought to the willow by Madam Pomfrey, was because Snape was indeed keeping track of Lupin BECAUSE it was a full moon night. Also canon clearly shows that Lupin transformed only at night during the full moon but that he was still sick (or looking bad enough) enough to not teach his classes during the day. So Snape did not have to notice Lupin only being gone during the evenings but especially during the day when only a group of 3 marauders were causing havoc around the castle. So he could even have noticed this during the weekends and not just on schooldays, unlike Hermione as she was only able to notice when Lupin was absent during class. Pippin: > And *that*, my dears, explains why Sirius didn't care > that the prank would have outed Lupin. Snape was going to find > out anyway, you see, and just like Viktor Krum, Sirius decided > to end the game on his terms. He knew Lupin would understand. > Of course if Lupin was in on it, he'd understand even better :) Dana: This I actually agree with but probably for different reasons then you do ;o) Sirius never states that Snape did not know what Lupin was, that was only Lupin. I do not believe Lupin was in on it because I do not believe the ordeal was premeditated on Sirius's part and that means Lupin was already behind the willow when the whole ordeal took place. JMHO Dana From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 19:36:10 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:36:10 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169782 > > lizzyben04: > > Right now, the text seems to say that they SHOULD be > > prejudiced against the other house, because the "others" are all > > less worthy. That bugs. > > > Alla: > > That is of course if one characterises this as prejudice, because > IMO the dislike of evil is not prejudice, but well deserved dislike > of evil. > > Slytherin house purebloods are better than anybody else ideology is > IMO evil ideology, and unless JKR pulls the rug and portrays > Slytherins as misunderstood sweeties, I do not see at all what is so > prejudicial about disliking what they stood for. > > I said many times, I can totally see Houses uniting at the end and > doubt that JKR promotes the idea that every single child sorted in > Slytherin is evil, totally ridiculous IMO. > > But I do think that this ideology will be abandoned by leaders of > Slytherin house, whoever they will be at least - healing and all > that before unity comes. IMO. > Well, first of all, even if you accept the contention that Slytherin = evil, Harry & co. are not only prejudiced against that House. They truly do believe that Gryfindors ROCK, & feel free to hiss & boo Hufflepuffs & Ravenclaws when required. Harry thinks of the other houses as basically irrelevant, & basically ignores them. Or else he will have some stock stereotyped opinion on them (hufflepuffs = losers). He's been there 6 years, but he still apparantly hasn't bothered to learn the names, or recognize the faces, of 3/4 of his class. They're just a faceless horde to him, not "actual people" at all. The only "actual people", as in, people that matter, are his own house. That's cliquish in the extreme, as it does make it seem like Harry thinks that his House is *better* than others. And why wouldn't he, since all his authority figures keep telling him that? Second, I don't accept the contention that Slytherin=evil. I think that's Harry's stereotype, which readers have adopted as well. Go with me here, though I know this is a subversive reading. Harry *is* bigoted & prejudiced against Slytherins. With Harry, we're basically placed in the mind of a bigot - he truly believes that none of "them" have any worth, that "they" are all evil, immoral, less worthy, even less human. He would have no problem, say, denying a job to a Slytherin, excluding them, or treating them badly because of their House. Heck, Harry & co. might not have a problem expelling or rounding up all Slytherins, cause they're all bad, right? Harry doesn't look at people as individuals, but judges them, instantly, based on a label. That's what bigotry is all about. Now, you can argue that Slytherins deserve it, etc. but Harry is bigoted against them in that he can't see them as "actual people". He's assumed that Slytherins all share the exact same beliefs, etc. w/o seeing them as individual human beings. For example, Harry thinks that all Slytherins believe in pure-bloodism, but that's not necesarilly the case. Snape, for example, is a half-blood & doesn't seem to show any prejudice as an adult. Slughorn accepts "Muggle" students into his class & his club. He's based that on his interactions w/only 3 Slytherins: Draco, Crape & Goyle, who are all the sons of DE, so presumably share the extreme DE view. However, even Draco seems to waver from those beliefs & warns Hermione of danger. As for the other Slytherins, well, Harry doesn't talk to them, so who knows what they think? He's never bothered to find out, but went to the snap judgment instead, based on a stereotype. You can believe that Slytherins are evil & dominating, justifying Harry's treatment. But there's a split in the text between the way Houses are characterized, and how they're actually treated. At Hogwarts, Slytherins are not a "dominant group" at all, but are instead part of a hated, mistrusted minority group. They're disliked by 3/4 of the school, taunted, bullied by Fred & George, slighted by DD & other teachers, booed by other students. Within Hogwarts society, Slytherins are at the bottom of the barrel, and they know it. Harry's actually the one in the "majority," dominant group within Hogwarts. HP & Hermione may decry the mistreatment of minority groups (elves, giants), but they never stop to think about how they themselves have stereotyped & dehumanized another group. Quite ironic in it's own way. The anti-bigots are bigoted themselves, & the anti-classists have created their own class system w/Griffyndors on top. So, here's where the text conflicts for me. Harry & cos. treatment of Slytherins is actually pretty consistent with how "majority" groups treat other "minorities" in society. The minority group represents "the other", and is distrusted, stereotyped & dehumanized by the rest of society. In Harry & co.'s attitude, we can see how bigotry leads society to do horrible things to minority groups. Harry & co, at this point, would be fine with disposing of all Slytherins as a group, because they can no longer see them as individuals. And because the "other" is seen as evil, wrong, less human, anything the majority group does to this minority group is seen as totally OK & justified. With Harry Potter, the reader gets a chance to see the world through the eyes of a bigoted person, and actually share that bigotry - in a way that would never happen if JKR attempted to stereotype or dehumanize an actual minority group. That's why I say that either JKR is doing a brilliant examination of bigotry & stereotypes, or she's indulging in it. > > lizzyben04: > > I hate Umbridge, but the trio basically > > abandoned her to die in the forest, and then laughed at her mental > > trauma. If you stop for a second, you're horrified by some of these > > things, but the text never seems to want us to stop & evaluate the > > morality of these actions. So many times, injuries & humiliations > > of "the bad guys" are simply played for laughs. Is JKR making an > > ironic commentary on how we lessen the humanity of "others", or is > > she actually DOING IT? I'm starting to wonder. > > Alla: > > maybe she just enjoys her fictional villains getting her dues? I do > think it is very telling that she said that Umbridge is still around > because it is fun to torture her. > That quote isn't very reassuring to me. "Fun to torture her?" Ugh. IMO, "fun" and "physical torture" should never be in the same sentence. That quote suggests that JKR does think it's totally funny when people get tortured, physically harmed, or humiliated - as long as they're a "bad guy", of course. And in the series, "bad guy" seems to include everyone who Harry doesn't like. Umbridge is a horrible person, but I don't think that means that she should be tortured, assaulted, or whatever happened there. Whatever it was, she nearly died, & seems to have PTSD, while the heroes laugh it up. I just thought that scene was twisted. It seems to highlight an undercurrent of nastiness & cruelty that runs throughout the novels. I assume that we'd all agree that nobody, even a "bad person", should be tortured or murdered. That we should act to save someone, even someone we dislike, who is being physically harmed or is in danger of death. That's what I mean by a basic moral standard. Yet there are very few characters in the Potterverse who actually live up to this minimal standard. The only ones who try to save their enemies are Harry, Dumbledore & (oddly) Snape. For everyone else, if they don't like someone, they'll feel totally justifed in hurting that person or leaving that person to die. Sirius lures Snape to death by werewolf, Hermione lures Umbridge to death by centaur, Sirius breaks Ron's leg, Harry nearly kills Draco, etc. And these are the heros! It's interesting to note that almost every time, that person is eventually recovered & rescued by Snape. That's why I do like the guy - he doesn't distinguish, but will try to save enemies & allies alike. It's a very different code than that of most other characters. > > > lizzyben04: > > And it reminds me a bit > > of the moral relativism we see in our own political world, where we > > can feel justified using torture or immoral practices against > > someone because, after all, they're the "bad guys." Just ugh. What > > kind of lesson is that? If that's not ever changed in these novels, > > if Harry & co. don't learn the dangers of that kind of black & > white > > thinking, what is the moral message? "It's OK when we do it"? > > Alla: > > Sure, agreed about RW, think that Potterverse employs a bit > different standards though. How many times in RL we think that evil > escaped punishment again? See, if you do not perseive Slytherin > purebloodism as real evil, my analogy is meaningless, but since I > do, I think it works. > I can't do that. Because basically, everyone feels justified in what they do. The Death Eaters even felt justified, because they thought that the Muggles deserved it, after all. Simply thinking that a person is "wrong" or "evil", and therefore deserves mistreatment, does not make that mistreatment moral or right. Yeah, I get that Harry & co. think Slytherin ideology is bad, but that doesn't give them a right to use torture, inhumane treatment, or murder - any more than the DE's have a right to kill people that they disagree with. If you start believing that you have a "right" to torture people cause you assume that they're bad, based upon a label, that's the path of Abu Ghraib. No thanks. And I'm hoping against hope that JKR isn't promoting the message that Slytherin = evil, because that goes against everything she's said about the importance of choices. So, it's all about your choices - unless, when you're eleven years old, a singing hat chooses *for you* & slots you into a house where you are destined to be EEEVVVILL. So much for free will. So much for individuality. Sytherin= evil & that's that. Why should anyone try to reach out to, or understand a Slytherin? I realize that these novels are fiction, but they do have a message nonethelss. And right now, that message seems to be that you can divide the world into "us" & "them", and feel free to mistreat "them". > > > lizzyben04: > > I'm hoping against hope that this is true, as well. But so far, the > > hints in that direction have been very subtle. Did Harry really > feel > > bad about his attack (almost murder!) of Draco? > > > Alla: > > Um, another intepretation of Harry's **attack, almost murder of > Draco** is Harry defending himself from Draco. > Nah, even Harry himself doesn't try this argument. He's shocked & horrified by what he did, and doesn't even try to claim it was justified self-defense (though Ginny does, another reason I don't like her very much). He realizes that his hate has led him almost to murder. This moment, IMO, is one that gives Harry a moment of clarity. He does see, for a while, that extreme measures aren't justified, even against someone you hate. For a moment, he can see Draco, and Snape, as human beings rather than stereotypes. But the fog takes over again, & he dismisses the evil of his actions to whine about the detentions instead. This scene gives me hope, cause I do think that JKR is pointing to the dangers of where stereotypes & dehumanization can lead. lizzyben04 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 20:06:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:06:11 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169783 Lizzyben04: > Second, I don't accept the contention that Slytherin=evil. I think > that's Harry's stereotype, which readers have adopted as well. > Go with me here, though I know this is a subversive reading. Alla: I am giving myself more credit as a reader, I am afraid than just to follow Harry stereotypes. I do not believe that Slytherin house is evil, but I absolutely believe that ideology they follow are. I am not sure if this reading you are talking about is subversive, but it is not new :) JKR calls Salasar Slytherin on her site: "One of the four celebrated Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Salazar Slytherin was one of the first recorded Parselmouths, an accomplished Legilimens, and a notorious champion of pureblood supremacy." Pureblood supremacy sounds as a very loaded, very deliberate choice of words to me to draw associations with RW. I was very pleased when I saw this. I participated in many arguments where it was stated that Voldemort corrupted Slytherin house and Slytherin was just badly misunderstood. It seems to me that JKR does not think he was. Slytherin thought that in the darkest hours of witchhunt the muggleborn kids do not deserve to be in Hogwarts, not just in his house, but in Hogwarts. I think those kids needed the most protection, the most training. To me he sounded like bigot. Oh, and this guy as we all know left a tiny snakey in Hogwarts to kill Muggleborns. Sorry, I do not think I am adopting any sterotypes when I say I believe that this is evil. Lizzyben04: Harry > *is* bigoted & prejudiced against Slytherins. With Harry, we're > basically placed in the mind of a bigot - he truly believes that > none of "them" have any worth, that "they" are all evil, immoral, > less worthy, even less human. He would have no problem, say, denying > a job to a Slytherin, excluding them, or treating them badly because > of their House. Heck, Harry & co. might not have a problem expelling > or rounding up all Slytherins, cause they're all bad, right? Harry > doesn't look at people as individuals, but judges them, instantly, > based on a label. That's what bigotry is all about. Now, you can > argue that Slytherins deserve it, etc. but Harry is bigoted against > them in that he can't see them as "actual people". > > He's assumed that Slytherins all share the exact same beliefs, etc. > w/o seeing them as individual human beings. For example, Harry > thinks that all Slytherins believe in pure-bloodism, but that's not > necesarilly the case. Snape, for example, is a half-blood & doesn't > seem to show any prejudice as an adult. Slughorn accepts "Muggle" > students into his class & his club. He's based that on his > interactions w/only 3 Slytherins: Draco, Crape & Goyle, who are all > the sons of DE, so > presumably share the extreme DE view. However, even Draco seems to > waver from those beliefs & warns Hermione of danger. As for the > other Slytherins, well, Harry doesn't talk to them, so who knows > what they think? He's never bothered to find out, but went to the > snap judgment instead, based on a stereotype. > Alla: Sure, JKR said that they are not all bad, I doubt all kids in Slytherin are. But why would Harry NOT think that they all share same beliefs, which I think he will outgrow if the only ones he interacts with are Malfoy and his goons? If Slytherins who are not evil exist, and they certainly should be, maybe JKR had a reason to not show them? Because even episodic Slytherin who substitutes for Draco in HBP is shown to be a bigot. I think there is a reason for that. Oh, and no I do not see Draco **wavering** from those beliefs at all. What you read as a warning to Hermione, I read as gleeful issuing of the death threats to Trio. Lizzyben04: > I assume that we'd all agree that nobody, even a "bad person", > should be tortured or murdered. That we should act to save someone, > even someone we dislike, who is being physically harmed or is in > danger of death. Alla: Person, yes, fictional character - absolutely not, I do not agree. I am awaiting with delight whatever torture awaits Umbridge and depends on how Snape does in book 7, I am looking forward to his torture as well. lizzyben: > And I'm hoping against hope that JKR isn't promoting the message > that Slytherin = evil, because that goes against everything she's > said about the importance of choices. So, it's all about > your choices - unless, when you're eleven years old, a singing hat > chooses *for you* & slots you into a house where you are destined to > be EEEVVVILL. So much for free will. So much for individuality. > Sytherin= evil & that's that. Why should anyone try to reach out to, > or understand a Slytherin? Alla: Reach out to, yes, heal, yes, but no, sorry till the purebloodism is abandoned, I do not think healing can happen. IMO of course. > > Alla: > > > > Um, another intepretation of Harry's **attack, almost murder of > > Draco** is Harry defending himself from Draco. > > Lizzyben04: > Nah, even Harry himself doesn't try this argument. He's shocked & > horrified by what he did, and doesn't even try to claim it was > justified self-defense (though Ginny does, another reason I don't > like her very much). He realizes that his hate has led him almost to > murder. This moment, IMO, is one that gives Harry a moment of > clarity. He does see, for a while, that extreme measures aren't > justified, even against someone you hate. For a moment, he can see > Draco, and Snape, as human beings rather than stereotypes. But the > fog takes over again, & he dismisses the evil of his actions to > whine about the detentions instead. This scene gives me hope, cause > I do think that JKR is pointing to the dangers of where stereotypes > & dehumanization can lead. Alla: I do not care whether Harry tries this argument or not, honestly. To me as a reader it is an undisputed fact that what Harry was doing in that scene was defending himself from one of the most horrible curses in the WW. Draco was the one who fired first ? NOT Harry, so no I do not see anywhere in the book the almost murder interpretation. I accept your right to see it of course, but will never figure out where people see it. He defended himself **twice** with relatively harmless hexes and only wet and on the floor, I would say quite desperate, he tries Sectusemptra. The only responsibility I hold Harry to is to defend himself with the curse he does not know anything about, I certainly do not hold him to try to murder Draco with the curse he knows about. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 4 20:06:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:06:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) Message-ID: <106927.1180987563690.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169784 From: Dana >Hagrid was tricked into telling the secret on how to get passed >Fluffy. Bart: Was he, now? Or, was he under orders to give up the secret? OK, here's the thing. Either, for the purpose of moving the stories along, JKR has made Hagrid TOO stupid, or it is part of an undercurrent, where Hagrid knows far more than he pretends to know. For example, he is clearly familiar with many of the lower elements of society; he shops at Nokturn Alley, goes to the worst bars, etc. He is quite expert at handling magickal creatures (although I do believe that his unfortunate expectations of others to be almost as capable are real), able to create new breeds (and, as the blast-ended Skrewts WERE approved, in advance, for the tri-Wizard tournament, I believe that he DID have authorization, although it may have been part of a more blanket authorization under some sort of Hogwarts Research allowance). The key to all of this is Dumbledore's reaction to Harry when Harry comes to in PS/SS (and, I apologize, I don't have the exact quote in front of me, although I've used it before). I will look it up again, but it is on the order of, "I knew you could do it!" That, plus the fact that Harry's friends were the perfect group to solve the puzzle (note that they left Neville behind; they were lucky to know the Herbology question). So, here are the possibilities: 1) The faculty at Hogwarts are composed of a bunch of incompetents. 2) JKR is a lousy writer. 3) The perp was intended to get through the traps. We can discuss other possibilities as people come up with them, but I think we can discount #1 and #2. Now, the fact that the traps matched the expertise of Harry and his friends, combined with DD's reaction, implies to me these: 1) DD intended Harry to get through. 2) Tommy Q came closer to winning than DD had intended by luring DD away. 3) This was designed as a training exercise for Harry. 4) Getting more controversial: Harry's friends were picked for him in advance. I think Hermione was in on it (and have given reasons in the past for this belief); the meeting with the Weasleys (and Ron in particular) was arranged without their knowledge. 5) Dumbledore did not interfere with Harry's upbringing, because he saw that it created a "hero complex" within him. (JKR would call it character strengthening, probably). Hagrid was TOLD to let Fluffy's secret out at the appropriate times. The dragon rescue was set up as another "character building" exercise. There are far too many coincidences in PS/SS; I would like to think that most of them are NOT coincidences. If Hagrid had been confined to Hogwarts the whole time, I might believe his shown naivety. But he has been in the real world, and the lowest parts of it at that. So, how stupid IS Hagrid? Bart P.S. Longshot prediction of the day. Everybody who knew Lily says that Harry has Lily's eyes. Harry remembers a blinding flash of green. What if it was a LITERALLY blinding flash of green? What are the implications of Harry not having eyes LIKE Lily's, but Harry having Lily's eyes? Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 4 20:35:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:35:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)/Why we'll get no further revelelations that Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169785 > Magpie: > True, but there again I think we undercut what we have if it turns > out it was always Snape driving his own hate. What makes it > compelling and understandable for me so far--and for Harry too, a > little--is that it's not just Snape being a mean, vindictive person > and hurting himself with his own hate. He *is* doing that, but his > hatred is also something Harry can understand, because Harry, too, > feels hatred. Not because he constantly hates people for no reason, > but because he feels frustrated and rejected and put upon. That's > why when he watched the Pensieve sequence he couldn't make himself > automatically jump into James' pov. He saw an "innocent" (which he > doesn't usually think of Snape as) being harassed. I think it's > very important that Snape's accusations against James are real. Jen: Just to be clear, I'm not one proposing that Snape wanted to kill Lupin or anything I would put in the category of Evil!Snape. That's not how I read Snape's motivation or personality thus far even without much to go on. In many ways he comes across as being like Harry as a boy, too curious for his own good, and the person you describe above - frustrated, harassed, rejected. I just take that in a different direction as far as what Harry will learn from adult Snape. The problem now for Harry as I see it is he gives Snape more power than Snape actually has and doesn't recognize the reality of the events he's blaming Snape for, a very similar situation to what possibly transpired for Snape with the Marauders and continues into present day. For instance, Sirius going to the MOM. Harry wants to pin the blame for that on Snape. Whether Snape had more to do with that event - or if taunting was the extent of it - what Harry is overlooking is the more important aspect that loyalty and love took Sirius to the DOM to protect Harry. Whatever hatred of Snape was incited inside Sirius by having to work with him again, it's pretty clear in the story that Sirius' motivation has always been love and loyalty for James and trying to make good on his second chance with Harry. That overrides hating Snape as a priority and always did. Contrast Harry maybe accepting that truth in DH with what transpired for Snape in the Shack. Snape is bent on getting Sirius caught for whatever motivation. When he enters the Shack there's an opportunity to learn the truth of what happened but instead what does he do? He insists on believing his own truth, nurturing his anger that James never appreciated him for trying to save his life and that Sirius is a murderer and needs to be captured. He still hasn't learned to see a situation with new eyes, something I'm certain Harry will learn in the end and thus move past Snape in the process. Another example is Dumbledore's death. Whatever motivated Snape to take the Unbreakable, and perhaps it was concern for Draco or a sense of loyalty to Narcissa, the most important thing Harry can learn about the tower imo is that Dumbledore's immense love and desire to protect Harry and Draco was more important than whatever caused Snape to be in that position. Snape didn't *make* something happen to Dumbledore if Dumbledore didn't choose for that to happen (I'm not saying this exonerates Snape for his own actions if he really did cast an AK, just saying what seems the more important insight for Harry to take away to guide his own path for the defeat of Voldemort.) Contrast Harry opening his eyes to this truth eventually with Snape's run across the grounds. The most important moment in the sequence appears to be Snape making sure Harry knows a truth that Snape vehemently believes: that he was once the Half-Blood Prince, he was *somebody* with ideas, cleverness & brains, and the Marauders stole from him and used his own spells against him just as Harry is doing. Why, why was that so crucial in that moment with everything that's transpired? Snape appears unable to see the truth, that he lost everything because of *himself* and his choices, not because of anything the Marauders did or didn't do all those years ago. (All imo of course.) As Harry realizes this truth about Snape, he can also start to see how important it is not to shift guilt and blame for his very real actions. I've always liked the idea presented at various times on this list that as Harry grows he is doing what every young man strives to do developmentally, at least in their own minds, of integrating and bypassing their father figures. Snape does represent the critical parent to Dumbledore's lenient one. > Jen: > So far Snape's claims about his own innocence and the Marauders' > guilt haven't made a dent in Harry's hatred. Harry paused to worry > about his own father after the Pensieve scene but was reassured when > he learned from Sirius and Lupin that yes, life marched on and James > moved with it. > > Magpie: > Actually, I disagree. They have made a dent. Harry's pausing to > worry and try to rationalize what he saw in the Pensieve was > important--it was the only time he's ever done that for Snape. > Every doubt Harry has about the Marauders inspires him to be a > different man himself. I think the little dents, those moments > where Harry has twinges of feeling something he doesn't want to > feel, whether it's sympathy for Snape or conscience about Malfoy, > are the only hints we've got to go on for where personal Harry- > revelations might be lurking. Jen: I don't believe Harry was doing that for Snape though. He was doing that to reconcile a side to his father he didn't believe existed and when he saw proof, he actually took it in and it concerned him. He didn't reject the information coming in that caused cognitive dissonance for him as Snape habitually does. Instead he held it, examined it, felt bad about it and tried to do something to resolve the apprehension he felt. And the conclusion he came to was a pretty mature thing, that his father wasn't perfect. *And* I think it will turn out to be important Harry has this ability because my expectation is it's the same thing Lily was able to do to reconcile falling in love with someone who had behavior that bothered her at times or if she was friendly with Snape, to eventually make peace with the 'Mudblood' comment directed her way. So Snape provided the raw materials with his memory, yes, but Harry is the one who dealt with what he saw, reconciled it and moved on. That's behavior adult Snape hasn't exhibited yet as I read him. Magpie: > So to me it seems like what we're not going to get either way is a > total revision of Snape. We can't, because we've already been given > two versions that are different. We've seen Snape as a vindictive > bully. We've seen him as a victim. What Harry's been unable to do > is *reconcile* the two, and that, I think, is what he's going to get > in DH. Jen: I definitely agree and once again just take it to a different place. Reconciling Snape is important because it takes away some of the power Harry sees Snape holding over him right now and reduces Snape down to human level again. Whatever actions Snape may prove to have taken in the course of his life, he isn't almighty, the person behind the scenes making sure everyone Snape hates and Harry loves is dead. Snape's choices appear to have made him a bitter and resentful person who is alone for all intents and purposes now. If anything I could see the pathos of Snape being the thing that combines with other factors to allow Harry to see him in a new way. Magpie: > The Snape with whom Harry *does* identify happily is the HBP, the > kid who's funny and snarky and rebellious and maybe a little > arrogant. That's the guy I think he needs to reconcile with real > Snape and through whom he'll gain understanding about both of them. > That's the guy that showed Harry could go down the same path, after > all, when he reached for the Prince's wish-fulfillment spell "for > enemies" and wound up doing something he didn't mean to do. "Such > Dark Magic, Potter!" Jen: Obviously I'm biased in seeing Snape's losses as a sad thing and that his life needs to be a cautionary tale for Harry more than anything else. It's a possibility for the story because what appears most crucial for Harry to get in DH is how golden it is that love protects him from Voldemort in a way *no* one else is protected, NO one. The people Harry has seen fight Voldemort and die because of it, the people who succumb to his 'lure of power' and live the life of DEs, those who were once drawn in and attempt to leave - NONE of them have the advantage Harry has and he's squandering it with his petty hatred of Snape. It seems clear something will transpire to allow Harry to rise above this hatred and I recognize many of us see this happening in different ways while agreeing it's a probably outcome of the Harry-Snape dynamic. Magpie: > That's the backstory, I think--interesting, isn't it, that Harry > gets all that before he "meets" Snape at his own age, finally, in > his sixth year? Any revelations about Snape being victimized by > MWPP or doing bad things to them are at this point, imo, pointless > because nothing will top the Pensieve or Snape being the > eavesdropper for examples of sheer bad acts on both sides. Jen: There's no need to belabor the point, no. There is a need to understand how the boy who was the Half-Blood Prince became a DE however. What we saw in the Pensieve, the stories we've heard so far, don't give me any sense of what caused that progression. He's not a Draco, raised in a family with a dad who's a DE and the path is laid out for him to accept or reject. There are no obvious markers in his history for being lured to Voldemort like Regulus was, where his family saw value in his joining up at first. What turned Snape on that path is important and it may involve some darkness or it may not. I'm just open to that possibility if it's presented. Jen From sonya_bxxx at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 20:17:55 2007 From: sonya_bxxx at hotmail.com (newbie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:17:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169786 Wow! what a response - this is so much better than my friends and family starng at me like I'm crazy (not for the outlandish theories, that's fine). No its more like *bewilderment* "she talking about potter again?" or *confused* "who the hell is Narcissa?" Or more predictably *bored* "here we go, someone shut her up!" Lol. I'm not sure of protocol - in truth I wanted to reply to each post...but that may have been tedious. I have to admit the secret love child theory is very un-potterish. But the loved Narcissa is still staying with me... I lurve the unrequited love that Narcissa unabashedly uses to manipulate snape. But sadly I feel the need for romance. Oh yes, she in my head liked him back a bit - or was at least drawn to him at tough times... my main thing is Narcissa knowing exactly where he lived and Bellatrix completely in the dark. Also his rection on first opening the door and calling her by her first name then his quiet smirk when Bellatrix walks in. I think Narcissa has been there before...Plus the pressing his hands to her lips. That's quite intimate! Yup I think I may be a Snape/Narcissa shipper (though I like the idea of him having crush on Lily; I think it may be a slight betrayl on his character). Narcissa, pure blood, great wizard family, beautiful... much easier to picture. Thanks - those were ace reads - glad I'm not the only one who thinks it! Snape and Cissy! Evilest couple with potential to be good. Sonya From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Jun 4 22:55:05 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:55:05 +0200 Subject: Six Horcruxes - is Dumbledore right? Message-ID: <004e01c7a6fb$6661b530$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 169787 Hi all, usually I do not like to discuss topics for the 77th time, not to speak of starting discussion #78 about a question that has already seen hundreds and hundreds of mails. But - never say never, and here it is: How many Horcruxes of Lord Voldemort were created? Well, Dumbledore tells us there are six, and so most of the time we discussed what are these Horcruxes. From time to time mails, mainly from new members, are sent to the list, speaking of seven Horcruxes. These mails are answered by the old listies - seven is the total number of soul pieces, because one resides in LV's body, and six Horcruxes keep this piece earthbound. This is what Dumbledore tells, this was my own point of view until recently - but I'm really not sure anymore after my last rereading of HBP before the last book is published. Though, the HP Lexicon still is clear: "Riddle hit upon the idea of creating not just one Horcrux to protect part of his soul, but several at once: a grand total of six Horcruxes, so that he would eventually have a seven-part soul, with six parts concealed in various Horcruxes and the seventh remaining in his body." http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/devices/horcruxes.html Let me quote two pieces of canon - HBP, ch 23, Horcruxes "What I don't understand, though - just out of curiosity - I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces? I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven -?" (...) "Seven! Isn't it bad enough to think of killing *one* person? Please forget about Dumbledore's interpretation and tell me - six Horcruxes, or seven, and are you sure? Slughorn had explained about how to make one Horcrux, that means one soulbit in the body plus one soulbit in the Horcrux. Riddle questions "split your soul ONCE" and contrasts it with the magical potential of "seven" - splitting the soul seven times for seven Horcruxes. His next sentence seems to indicate seven soulbits (that's six Horcruxes), but Slughorn again seems to speak of seven Horcruxes (seven murders, seven splits). In my opinion this dialogue is at least not clear. I really have problems to believe Tom and Slughorn speak about six Horcruxes without mentioning the word "six" once. Let me skip some pages and come to the discussion about this very question between Harry and Dumbledore in the same chapter. "He made seven Horcruxes?", said Harry, horror-struck, while several of the portraits on the walls made similar noises of shock and outrage.(...) "... no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of the soul ... remains inside his regenerated body." Harry obviously has the same problems as I do ;). His interpretation of the dialogue Tom-Slughorn is "seven Horcruxes". Dumbledore is very clear, though. But he doesn't explain why. So we have an - at least in my opinion - unclear dialogue about the number of Horcruxes in question, but Dumbledore clearly states that there must be six. There are various interpretations of this. a) The vagueness of the Tom-Slughorn dialogue is not intended by JKR, she simply didn't manage to make the situation clear. I do not like the interpretation, and it contradicts my estimation of her as a writer. On the contrary I believe, that she has written the Horcrux related parts of the text very carefully. b) Dumbledore intentionally misleads Harry. This would fit into the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory. I don't like it too much, since I'm not a Harrycrux supporter, but here it is. c) Dumbledore is wrong, and we will learn it at a crucial point of the story An unclear dialogue, all characters interpretating it incorrectly, so there is a good opportunity to have a major plot twist. For example, Harry destroys the sixth Horcrux, confronts Voldemort - Voldemort laughs and presents Horcrux #7. Now, THIS would be the JKR I know. Besides, c) could be combined with b). d) I'm hunting for a fake locket :). Well, you are free to rip my soul.... erm posting into seven pieces. Or eight. Miles From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 23:21:35 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort Message-ID: <670330.77324.qm@web60721.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169788 I think Harry will forgive Voldie before Voldie dies. How Harry kills him I know not. danielle ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Mon Jun 4 23:35:12 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:35:12 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169789 To get right to the point, the one part of all the Harry Potter books that has always struck me was in book 5 when JKR stated that Petunia's and Lily's eyes were very different. For some reason that sentence stuck out to me, more than any other, as a clue and I have not forgotten it. I have asked numerous friends what they thought of it and no one seemed to have any good answers for me so I let it slide- forgotten until today. Today I was reading what JKR said about DH and this is one thing she said: "you might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7 After reading that, I went back and tried to figure out what she may have said that was giving a lot away and the word "eye" stuck out to me. This reminds me again about that sentence in book 5 saying Lily and Petunia's eyes were "very different"... any ideas? It's killin' me you guys. Honestly, I need some thoughts. From SMacLagan at msn.com Tue Jun 5 00:38:51 2007 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:38:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169790 Sonya wrote: > > I've been wondering does anyone have any suspicions about Snape and > Narcissa's relationship? I know it may seem a bit out there, but > odds of Malfoy being Snapes kid? Welcome, Sonya. At JKR's site she answers someone's question about Luna possibly being Snape's daughter by saying, "Snape does not have a daughter." I noted that she didn't say, "Snape does not have any children." Thanks for the interesting theory. London Granddaughter From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 01:32:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:32:56 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169791 zanooda: > Hi, Peggy! You are right, the students were able to Apparate inside the > Great Hall, but there was a reason for that. Remember, the instructor > says: "As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or > Disapparate within Hogwarts. The headmaster has lifted this > enchantment, purely within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to > enable you to practice" (HBP, p.382 US hardback). Hope it helps! And more evidence about apparition, from Snape himself in POA: "Harry was trying to hear what the voices were saying. They were drawing nearer -- "He must have Disapparated, Severus. We should have left somebody in the room with him. When this gets out --" "HE DIDN'T DISAPPARATE!" Snape roared, now very close at hand. "YOU CAN'T APPARATE OR DISAPPARATE INSIDE THIS CASTLE! THIS -- HAS -- SOMETHING -- TO -- DO -- WITH -- POTTER!" Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has told us that people can't apparate or disapparate inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, Montague did both. Snape knows that students can't do this & presumably asked Montague what happened, yet doesn't question Montague's story. Montague is reported as being "confused", yet also supposedly told the whole story to Slytherins. I don't know - it doesn't make sense, but I'm about to give up & call it a plot hole. lizzyben04 From srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 02:00:06 2007 From: srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com (S.R.) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:00:06 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169792 > Karen: > "you might have got the impression that there is a little bit > more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7 > This reminds me again about that sentence in book 5 saying > Lily and Petunia's eyes were "very different"... any ideas? S. R. : The only thing I can think of is that maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood. Is it possible that one or the other was actually adopted? Or, perhaps they're only half sisters and don't share the same father or the same mother. To expand upon 'eyes', we at least know IMO that Harry is the son of Lily and James and that we're not going to find out that there was an affair or anything. Harry has his mothers eyes and looks very much like his father. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jun 5 03:08:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: <670330.77324.qm@web60721.mail.yahoo.com> References: <670330.77324.qm@web60721.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4664D39A.6090201@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169793 danielle dassero wrote: > I think Harry will forgive Voldie before Voldie dies. How Harry kills > him I know not. Bart: I think Voldemort is unredeemable, and Tom Riddle died a long time ago. There's nobody left to forgive. Forgiving Voldemort is like forgiving a tornado. With the destruction of his soul, he has lost his humanity; he is now more like a force of nature. Bart From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 03:34:21 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:34:21 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169794 Lizzyben: > Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has told us that people > can't apparate or disapparate inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, Montague > did (*snip*) > I don't know - it doesn't make sense, but I'm about to give up & call > it a plot hole. Ceridwen: I've been thinking about this for a while. The only conclusion that seems to work for me (it may not work for you) is that Montague began Apparating while he was at the Borgin and Burkes end of the cabinets, but was whisked back to Hogwarts during the attempt, and ended up in the toilet. By the way, does that mean that Montague ended up in the commode? Or in the lavatory? Ceridwen. From kamilaa at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 03:41:41 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:41:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Liar, The Witch and The Werewolf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169795 I was re-reading the first chapter of GoF yesterday, and I wondered what Peter Pettigrew would have been doing in the wayside inn where he supposedly met the Ministry witch Bertha Jorkins. Voldemort says he stopped there because he was hungry. But Peter can steal all the food he needs as a rat! Why risk taking human form just for that? It would have been most foolish. Even Peter's not that stupid. maybe Wormtail assumed that an English wizard who had been murdered" thirteen years before wouldn't be recognized by rural Albanians. (I certainly wouldn't recognize a murder victim I'd seen on the news thirteen years ago if that person showed up in, say, a Starbucks where I was having coffee.) And wizards seem to have a habit of wearing their heads low over their faces if they don't want to be recognized. I certainly wouldn't recognize a murder victim I'd seen images of thirteen years ago either; if nothing else, the aging process, complete with hair color changes, changes in weight, and the normal wrinkles and so forth developing, and then add to that the fact that your mind is sure that the person you're remembering is *dead* and therefore can't be enjoying a double mocha latte across the way, and I'll agree with you that just once, that far away, I'm sure Wormtail was completely sure he'd be safe. I'd bet a lot of people might take that dare in similar circumstances. Carol, whose only problem with her own hypothesis is the question of where Wormtail found the wizard money to buy his meal at the inn Pippin covered that one; and just as Wormtail can steal all the food he needs as a rat, so too could he gnaw into a Wizard's pouch or a Witch's purse and then carry off a nice fat Galleon or two. Kamil From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 5 04:00:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:00:18 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169796 > Alla: > > Sure, JKR said that they are not all bad, I doubt all kids in > Slytherin are. But why would Harry NOT think that they all share same > beliefs, which I think he will outgrow if the only ones he interacts > with are Malfoy and his goons? > > If Slytherins who are not evil exist, and they certainly should be, > maybe JKR had a reason to not show them? Julie: The reason JKR hasn't "shown" them is because Harry hasn't SEEN them. And Harry is our filter, thus we haven't seen them either. Harry's only had direct interactions with a few Slytherins, mostly Draco and his friends. He's judged the whole House by the few with which he's had those interactions. As for why Harry would NOT think that they all share the same beliefs, he would and does as he's been portrayed so far. And that attitude isn't unusual for a teenager. Teenagers are natural clique- formers and joiners, and readily accept an US versus THEM philosophy. Whether it's the Jocks versus the Geeks, the Cheerleaders versus the Goths, or the Gryffindors versus the Slytherins, it is all about US=everything good and worthy, and THEM=everything bad and unworthy. Each side views the other side with extreme prejudice, looking no further than their own stereotypes and expectations. Then high school school ends and we grow up. At least, most of us do ;-) That's the point I think Lizzy is trying to make, that part of growing up is looking past your own biases and expectations and really SEEING others for who they are, not for what they look like, what school group (or House) they belong to, what sport they play or don't play, what car they drive or how nice their clothes (dress robes) are, etc. As you point out above, JKR has said Slytherins are not all bad. Which means that pretty much can be taken as fact. One excellent way of showing Harry maturing into a man of fairness and strong principles would be for Harry to recognize that fact. And not necessarily by waiting for a "good" Slytherin to come to *him* and change his perceptions, but perhaps by reevaluating his perception first and then seeking out that good Slytherin--or two, or four. If I were Harry's mother, that is the kind of thing that would make me proud, not how many Quidditch games he can win or how many "O"s he can get on his Owls. Julie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 04:01:04 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:01:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)/Why we'll get no further revelelations that Snap Message-ID: <380-22007625414750@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169797 Jen: Just to be clear, I'm not one proposing that Snape wanted to kill Lupin or anything I would put in the category of Evil!Snape. That's not how I read Snape's motivation or personality thus far even without much to go on. In many ways he comes across as being like Harry as a boy, too curious for his own good, and the person you describe above - frustrated, harassed, rejected. I just take that in a different direction as far as what Harry will learn from adult Snape. The problem now for Harry as I see it is he gives Snape more power than Snape actually has and doesn't recognize the reality of the events he's blaming Snape for, a very similar situation to what possibly transpired for Snape with the Marauders and continues into present day. Magpie; Ah! I see. My post was pretty much all based on this specific idea, that we would learn that during the Prank Snape really knew Lupin was a werewolf and was trying to kill him etc. In terms of Snape just being revealed to be ESE, there I totally agree with what that would presumably be showing Harry. And that whatever we learn about Snape's loyalties now, I think we will learn what led to his joining the DEs. Even if he's DDM I think that's important, because even if he is really DDM, he was a real DE before that. That was a choice that probably defined the rest of his life. (Not the last defining choice, but a defining choice, surely.) -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 04:17:57 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 04:17:57 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169798 Carol: Harry's hatred for Snape is the protagonist's view of > and reaction to another important character, and since this is Harry's > story, not snape's, it's Harry's view that has to change (or, less > interestingly, be validated). And as the protagonist in a > Bildungsroman, Harry has to mature, to learn valuable lessons about > himself--not that he's a wizard or the chosen One but who he is as a > person, what his strengths and weaknesses are, and, if the themes of > the book are what I think they are, how to show true mercy (different > from sparing Wormtail just to turn him over to the Dementors), how to > forgive those who have trespassed against him. (JKR is a Christian, > after all, and Harry needs to learn and apply the lesson that DD > taught him on the tower.) I don't mean the inhuman multiple-murderer, > sociopath and megalomaniac Voldemort, who has only one-seventh of a > human soul. I mean the very human Snape, who for all his faults has > been protecting Harry in various ways for seven books. wynnleaf I agree. Yes, many readers have lots of questions. And many readers either do or don't agree with Harry's opinions and may need to be convinced in various directions. But by and large, readers follow Harry. If, in the *end,* Harry sees certain things as true, it's likely that the reader will realize that this is what JKR wants *us* to see as well -- she doesn't have to have separate revelations just to convince the reader. For instance, although many think Snape is DDM, that's not what we're left with at the end of HBP. We DDM!Snape proponents are expecting revelations in DH to *change* the status of what Harry knows about Snape at the end of HBP. If Snape is really evil, JKR doesn't need to have a set of revelations just to convince us he's really evil. All she needs to do is leave Snape as he stands at the end of HBP, with no added revelations to change Harry's opinion, and none to give us DDM!Snape readers any confirmation that Snape isn't serving Voldemort. Any appearance of having been DDM can simply be chalked up under the heading of "Things Snape did to Keep his Cover." JKR reveals things to readers primarily *through* Harry. As was already pointed out, the Spinners End chapter really revealed almost nothing at all, because practically everything Snape said in it could be taken as truth, lies, twisted truth, or twisted lies, all depending on where Snape's loyalties were and his intentions. The only real revelation we got was that Snape took an Unbreakable Vow, and the only part of the Vow we could be sure we understood was the part about protecting Draco, since we weren't even given confirmation that either Snape knew what the task was, or even that the task was to kill Dumbledore. So the only true revelation *did* in fact move the plot very strongly *and* that revelation was also given to Harry, the protagonist, who is the primary character for whom revelations are ultimately meant. In other words the only real revelation was Snape's taking the Vow, which Snape's character then inadvertently passed along to the prime recipient of revelations, Harry. > > Neri: > > You seem to assume that the only readers that are really interested > in Snape's motives are DDM!Snapers, and the rest of us don't care > about them and will just be happy to find out that he's generally > Evil. Not so. We too have spent a lot of time analyzing Snape, we too > have contributed our humble share towards of the above 10,000 > theories, and we too need our questions answered. Why did he make the > Unbreakable Vow? Why did he save Dumbledore in the beginning of the > year and killed him in its end? Why does it appear that he didn't plan > on killing Dumbledore at that time and was forced to it by Draco's > unexpected action? What exactly was his game as a > double-triple-quadruple agent during all these years? What was he > trying to achieve during the Occlumency lessons? During the MoM > battle? What are exactly his connections with the Malfoys? Why did he > care about what happen to the Potters so much that he warned Dumbledore? wynnleaf JKR's fans have loads of questions, many of which will not be answered in the books -- she's even said that. High interest in a particular point isn't what will make JKR include the answers. The revelations are for the benefit of the story's protagonist. But further, the reasons we readers *have* these pressing questions about Snape is because JKR has really built the story so that we'd be in part focused on that. She doesn't want us focused on it just as some sort of intellectual exercise. The questions that JKR has made clear are important will be important because finding out the answers will drive the plot and affect Harry. > > > Neri: > > The answer "Snape was just generally Evil" is far from being > sufficient here and JKR knows it. wynnleaf The reason it's not sufficient and we all know it is probably because it's not the way JKR has been planning it out. We all "know it" because we can sense that just being evil doesn't fit how Snape has acted. Which of course works perfectly if JKR hasn't written Evil!Snape. wynnleaf And here's the thing Carol pointed out that is sooo cool. >Carol: > There's really no point in concealing information about Snape and his > motives if he's already evil. Harry "knows" that. (And anyone who > wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable > narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just > of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." Or > Harry's promise to himself never to do something again, like his > promise never to interfere in other people's business or spy on anyone > again back in SS/PS. "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" is a > bright red flag of the same sort waved in the reader's face.) wynnleaf Absolutely correct! I started noticing this over the thing in OOTP of "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" If ever there was a promise that wouldn't come true, that just was obvious. Writers often use this sort of comment on the part of a character as a kind of "set up" for that character to be proven wrong. And clearly JKR has set up Harry several times with having Harry think he "knows" something or is "sure" of something, only to discover it just wasn't so, or didn't happen. I would love to see a list of all of these in the series. Has anyone ever done that? It's basically what "Harry knew" or what Harry knew he'd "never" do, or what Harry was "sure" of. I had forgotten the promises to himself to not interfere in other people's business or spy on anyone. We have confirmation that JKR was setting him up with those thoughts. There's the one in OOTP in the Occlumency chapter where Harry thinks that whatever else, it wouldn't ever be him that would lure Sirius out of #12 Grimmauld Place. Another one where we have confirmed that Harry was wrong. Then at the end of OOTP when Harry knows he'll never forgive Snape. And at the end of HBP in The Phoenix Lament, Harry believes he "knows" that Fawkes is gone for good, just like Dumbledore. Another that is possibly a similar thing is in OOTP, when Harry saw the memory of Snape's where the small boy is crying and the woman is cowering from the man with the hooked nose. Harry reflects later on this incident, in the same manner as some of his other reflections where he thinks he "knows" something or is "sure" of something. "He was sure he had just broken into Snape's memories, that he had just seen scenes from Snape's childhood, and it was unnerving to think that the crying little boy who watched his parents shouting was actually standing in front of him with such loathing in his eye..." The "he was sure" part struck me as a possible time where Harry sees memories and is simply "sure" that he's got it all figured out, and we readers tend to assume he's correct. I don't know if this really fits the pattern or not. Are there any more? wynnleaf, thinking that JKR writing that Harry "knows" something or is "sure" of something is a signal to us that Harry will be proven wrong. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jun 5 04:50:53 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:50:53 -0400 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169799 How can it be made out that if Harry had killed Draco in the bathroom it would have been murder? Draco had been attempting to cast an Unforgivable Curse, specifically Cruciatus. Harry's been Crucio-ed; he knows what it feels like. He also knows what can happen to people who get Crucio-ed often, as he's met Mr. & Mrs. Longbottom. At worst it would have been manslaughter. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jun 5 04:45:28 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:45:28 -0400 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169800 "Amiable Dorsai: Marietta nearly got six other Ravenclaws expelled or worse. Do you think it's possible that those Ravenclaws (except for Cho) are just a little unhappy with her? Also, in Hogwarts terms, Hermione is the equivalent of a 6'-5" fullback (for those of you who think footballs are spherical, fullbacks are chosen to be big enough and strong enough to block or knock down other players). Pretty much any Hogwarts student (well, except Ron)is going to think twice about pissing off someone who can hit back as hard as Hermione can. A Ravenclaw will probably think three times." I guess in American HS terms, the Griffindors would be the Jocks, the Ravenclaws the Nerds, and the Slytherins the Socs, while the Hufflepuffs would be those who couldn't get into any of the cliques? Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 05:32:47 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Draco and the Lightning Struck Tower/Zabini/Wine/Necklace Message-ID: <725812.20148.qm@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169801 Everone seems fairly certain that Draco sent the poisoned mead to Slughorne and arranged for Katie to find the necklace. But Draco denies this to Dumbledore and Zabini was specefically mentioned by JKR as sitting in Rosmerta' s bar around the time of the necklace incident. So why can't the perpertrator by Zabini? I know a lot of people think that JKR's introduction of Zabini in HBP was sort of a treat for the fans. But it would fit JKR pattern of introducing a character in the book who turns out to be a villian. For instance Q in PS P.P in POA (as a rat) Barty Couch, Jr in GOF What do you think? --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drdara at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 05:58:24 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? Message-ID: <391743.53415.qm@web60723.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169802 Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has told us that people can't apparate or disapparate inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, Montague did both. Snape knows that students can't do this & presumably asked Montague what happened, yet doesn't question Montague's story. Montague is reported as being "confused", yet also supposedly told the whole story to Slytherins. I don't know - it doesn't make sense, but I'm about to give up & call it a plot hole. lizzyben04 Danielle here: Montague was stuck in teh cabinet, the one that has access to both hogwarts and borgins shop in knockturn alley. malfoy had it fixed from borgins end so that way the death eaters could access hogwarts from the cabinet through the room of requirement ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drdara at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 05:59:34 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort Message-ID: <768968.52500.qm@web60723.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169803 danielle dassero wrote: > I think Harry will forgive Voldie before Voldie dies. How Harry kills > him I know not. Bart: I think Voldemort is unredeemable, and Tom Riddle died a long time ago. There's nobody left to forgive. Forgiving Voldemort is like forgiving a tornado. With the destruction of his soul, he has lost his humanity; he is now more like a force of nature. Bart Danielle again: well that is the point, harry forgives Voldie, harry has powers voldie does not, the power of forgiveness would just stump and torture voldie to no end. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mkemp at aandr.com.au Tue Jun 5 06:15:48 2007 From: mkemp at aandr.com.au (pickle_jimmy) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:15:48 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Having looked over the original theory, I must say it seems > inordinately unlikely to me. Lord Voldemort may be arguably > certifiable, but he's not dumb. In order to kill himself with > an AK reflecting from the Mirror of Erised he'd have to be one > of the world's greatest suckers, and, well, he simply is not. An AK reflected off of a child protected with his mother's love has already "nearly" finished him off (if not for horcruxes, maybe it would have) > Additionally the Mirror of Erised is an inanimate object and all > the inanimate objects we have so far seen hit by AKs (think of > the Magical Brethren in the MoM or the masonry the blond Death > Eater took large chunks out of during the field day at Hogwarts) > have smashed. Why would the Mirror of Erised be any different? Canon does describe curses and jinxes ricocheting, bouncing, and being rebounded back at the attacker, so it is not unheard of to rebound a jinx/curse... If you believe that Dumbledore is dead, then you already note that while one AK can leave people perfectly "untouched" (Riddle's family), another can have a totally uplifting (Dumbledore over the tower wall) effect - not all AKs have physical destruction in mind. And while the Mirror of Erised doesn't move, it *is* a magical object, unlike the brickwork at hogwarts or the statues at the MoM - which did suffer under the attack of the death eaters. In response to other questions: Q. why would Harry have to turn evil to kill Voldey? A. sending out a curse isnt like pulling the trigger on a gun, you cant accidentally AK someone, "you have to mean it" - which means you have to want to kill. I think it is hard to say Harry still good if he has successfully AKed someone Q. What about the Prophecy A. The prophecy says "and?either?must?die?at?the? hand?of?the?other?for?neither?can?live?while?the?other?survives" It does say "at the hand" not "by the hand" which may only mean that they are both in close proximaty when one dies - Harry was "close at hand" when Voldy bites the dust... All I am saying is that I see a Frodo/Gollum kind of ending where, when Voldemort perishes it is not because he is cursed by Harry or Neville. I think the Mirror is a cool magical device, and it should make a comeback - I'm suggesting that maybe it could be Voldy's downfall. But... if not the Mirror, I am still inclined to think that JK will use some "device" from one of the other books - it just seems to be her style. Pickle Jimmy From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Tue Jun 5 06:27:35 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:27:35 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169805 Karen wrote: > > > > > "you might have got the impression that there is a little bit > > more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye > > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7 > > > > > This reminds me again about that sentence in book 5 saying > > Lily and Petunia's eyes were "very different"... any ideas? > > > Anne Squires: This topic interests me. I looked up the quote about Petunia's eyes in OotP. It's in chapter two, "A Peck of Owls," page 38 (US paperback): "Her large, pale eyes (so unlike her sister's)were not narrowed in dislike or anger." JKR definitely emphasizes that the eyes of the two sisters are very different from each other. It seems she wants the reader to remember Lily's eyes and focus on the fact that the eyes are "unlike" each other. I don't know what this means though. In the RW brothers and sisters often have different colored eyes. I just don't know what significance this has in JKR's world. S. R. wrote: The only thing I can think of is that maybe Lily and Petunia > aren't sisters by blood. Is it possible that one or the other > was actually adopted? Or, perhaps they're only half sisters > and don't share the same father or the same mother. Anne Squires again: Lily and Petunia have to be related by blood. If they weren't Harry wouldn't have to think of no. 4 as home and return each year to where his mother's blood dwells. There wouldn't be any blood protection if they weren't related by blood. S. R.'s comment has got me wondering if maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters. Cousins? But, I don't see the point really. Why would the fact that Petunia is some other relative to Harry be important plot wise? Let's see, hmmm. 1. She has to be related by blood or no blood protection. 2. Her eyes are not like her sister's. 3. JKR said, "She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." If she's not a squib (but, that's a good guess), and she's not a witch, then she's....what? A Muggle, right? What's surprising about that? So, she's not a Muggle? Then she must be......I've got nothing. Some kind of ocd creature who has to clean. I definitely think there is a clue here. I just can't figure it out. Wait, wait, wait. This just occurred to me as I was writing this post. Maybe S. R. is absolutely correct. Maybe point no. 1 is not true. Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. Perhaps DD just assumed that Petunia and Lily were blood sisters. Would DD have had reason to suspect otherwise? Maybe DD had assumed all these years that the blood protection was in place at no. 4 when in actuality it wasn't. What if there isn't any blood protection and there never has been? When DD makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. And the eyes have been the clue. Also, Petunia looks nothing,absolutely nothing like Lily. In the universe of JKR siblings and other family members almost always look like each other. Plot wise this would be crucially important because everyone assumes Harry is safe at no. 4 until his birthday. What if he isn't? Anne From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 5 06:48:16 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:48:16 -0700 Subject: Wizard Ages, Physical vs. Real In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <393922750.20070604234816@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169806 I've been thinking about how Wizards live longer than Muggles, and how, at least in Jo's own depictions, people such as McGonnegal and Hagrid look somewhat younger than they would if they were Muggles. This has led me to use a bit of speculation and elementary Calculus to derive a formula for how old a Witch or Wizard should appear physically, based on their real age. The equation I derived is: Ac^2 Ap = Ac - --------- 400 Where: Ac = Chronological (Real) Age Ap = Physical Age (Compared to Muggles) Applying this formula we get the following physical ages for leading characters. Ages given are as of the start of DH according to HP-Lexicon, except "Harry at Godric's Hollow", and Dumbledore, Slughorn, and Madame Marchbanks, whose approximate ages at the time of HBP are given: Harry at GH (1): Appears 1 Ginny (16): Appears 15 H, R & H (17): Appear 16 Bill (27): Appears 25 Snape (39): Appears 35 L. Malfoy (43): Appears 38 Hagrid (69): Appears 57 McGonnegal (72): Appears 59 Slughorn (100?): Appears 75 Dumbledore (157?): Appeared 95 (at death) Mme. Marchbanks (200?): Appears 100 This adjustment seems to agree with visual depictions of the characters and the increased longevity of Wizards, and is helpful, to me at least, in visualizing certain characters not often depicted. Comments welcome. Dave From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jun 5 08:06:54 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:06:54 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169807 Wynnleaf > The reason it's not sufficient and we all know it is probably > because it's not the way JKR has been planning it out. We > all "know it" because we can sense that just being evil doesn't fit > how Snape has acted. Which of course works perfectly if JKR hasn't > written Evil!Snape. Dana: You all know it (well DDM!Snapers that is) and therefore you all will be wrong because it will be the expected way for JKR to write Snape. Many Snape fans are expecting JKR to turn HBP around because Snape can't be ESE but that isn't much of a revelation either because Snape was never before HBP portrait as ESE so turning it around in DH will just be ever so lame. It will also not be much of a challenge for Harry to once again find out he was wrong about Snape. The challenge for Harry will be to be right about Snape but then to make different choices and proof he is the better man then Snape would ever be able to be. That is something Snape has been trying to do throughout the books; be the better man then everybody else especially the marauders and Harry. wynnleaf > Absolutely correct! I started noticing this over the thing in OOTP > of "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" If ever there was a > promise that wouldn't come true, that just was obvious. Writers > often use this sort of comment on the part of a character as a kind > of "set up" for that character to be proven wrong. And clearly JKR > has set up Harry several times with having Harry think he "knows" > something or is "sure" of something, only to discover it just > wasn't so, or didn't happen. > wynnleaf, thinking that JKR writing that Harry "knows" something or > is "sure" of something is a signal to us that Harry will be proven > wrong. Dana: Precisely JKR has been setting the reader up to expect that Harry will be wrong again but this time she will not turn it around because she will make Harry right. Harry doesn't have to come to terms with Snape. The only one Harry has come to terms with is himself. He must learn that it wasn't his fault that the people he loved died for him. They wanted to die for him just like he puts his life on the line for them any time. He must reconcile with this fact and like Jen stated in a previous post take away the power Snape holds over him and grow past this, just as he did with Peter. Harry will be the better man because he will learn that no matter how much he is right he will never let the feeling of hatred lure him to the side of evil like it did Snape. JKR doesn't have to proof Snape is on LV side for the same cause LV is fighting for but she will show us that hatred can hollow the heart to such a point that one can make evil decisions because one thinks that vengeance is the only way for the heart to stop bleeding but it isn't (like she showed Harry trying to use unforgivables twice when he is in deep pain and turns it around into hatred against those he holds responsible). It poisons the heart and makes it cold. Snape never loved anyone because he never wanted to let anybody get close to him and why he had no friends but only alliances. DD offered Snape his friendship and Snape rejected it because he did not trust DD. The question never was why did DD trust Snape but why did Snape not trust DD and the answer is because DD could not see the pain Snape felt and he did not want to aid Snape in resolving that pain. He took Snape for granted. That pain was not inflicted by anyone other then Snape himself and he cherished and nursed it until it grew over his head to such an extent that it directed his choices. For Snape this pain was caused by the anxiety of failing to be considered somebody, to be considered weak and why him being called a cowards strikes a nerve with him so much. In CoS DD says to Harry that it is not our abilities that make us who we are but the choices we make and what do we see of Snape? We see that Snape wants to be recognized to be somebody by knowing more curses then the 7th year students, by knowing potions better then anyone, by being the best in DA and later DADA (the discussion Harry had about how best to repel a Dementor) and by trying to be the most important person in DD's life and by showing everyone that he was risking his life for the cause. And why he tries to proof over and over that Harry is no one and should not deserve all the attention he is getting. He resented James and Sirius before they probably ever laid a hand on him because here were two boys that had everything going for them. Who came from rich families, who were good looking, who didn't have to make an effort to be found interesting and liked, while Snape had to proof himself in every direction or so he thought. Snape never saw that Sirius too did not come from a loving family and that he had to fight for his right to be within that family and that he actually lost that battle. Snape probably idolized Sirius's background; it was probably everything Snape ever wanted to have and why he called himself the Half-Blood Prince. The Black's were considered to be practically royal and what does Snape give himself? A royal title. The marauders never saw Snape as an easy victim because Snape never presented himself as such. If you clime on a peddle stool then nothing is more challenging for people then try to push you off. Bullying Snape would probably never have been so appealing to the marauders if Snape had just been a stupid, clumsy kid like Neville was in the beginning. They would probably just pity him and consider him not worth the attention but to me Snape presented himself as a challenging opponent while he probably wasn't and why he lost to them over and over (and no not just because it was two to one because we see that Expelliarmus is a spell that can disarm more then one opponent at the same time). I believe that is why Snape mocked Harry at the end of HBP because Harry might think he is all that but he is to incompetent to kill a fly let alone have enough power to win a battle with Snape. Snape forgot the most important lesson life has to offer and that no matter what you are; people will accept who you are, as long as you open yourself up to them. Snape never accepted himself and he blamed everyone especially the marauders for that lack of acceptance. He bullied his students into acceptance and he tried to make Harry accept him over his own father which was never going to happen. We all think Snape hated Harry because he hated James but I believe Snape hated Harry because like James, Harry pushed Snape into a background position. Snape became his outer shell and compartmentalized every feeling he had except the one he nourished and cherished so much. It fueled his hatred for those who were better then him, who he thought, never had to struggle for anything in their lives. To me Snape went to LV because he could not find the acceptance he graved for with DD after the werewolf incident. It wasn't the marauders bullying Snape, it was not being accepted by an authority figure like DD. Snape's dad was a muggle and probably never understood anything about the wizarding world in the same way the Dursley's did not want to understand that part of the world. DD gave Snape a second chance after Snape showed remorse of delivering the prophecy to LV and DD was right Snape was not responsible for the choices LV made because of it but DD was wrong about something and that is that Snape would not have been remorseful if he did not have the debt to James because he would have seen it as a fitting punishment for James. After LV's downfall he resented the marauders even more because if it hadn't been for them then he would not have been in a position where DD held the power of judgment over him again. I do believe that Snape grew attached to his position at Hogwarts because it substituted his search for recognition until Harry came to Hogwarts and started challenging (willingly or unwillingly) that position again. I do believe that JKR made Snape switch sides again because he could get more acceptances from LV and was more appreciated for his efforts then DD gave him, hence the argument in the forest that DD took to much for granted and Snape not wanting to do it anymore. Snape was not loyal to either one but his search for acceptance and recognition was directing his choices and so were his feelings of revenge of never getting what he deserved because of those marauders. Remember what Narcissa stated in HBP, he will reward you above all of us. Snape did not only think about the appreciation LV would have but also how the DEs will think about him and the respect he will receive from them unlike that bunch that runs around DD, those ungrateful bunch of no goods. He did not take the vow to safe Draco because the vow did not safe Draco from being on the wrong side and the vow did not have an influence on Draco's decision to not kill DD. He just couldn't as was already predicted. Snape and Harry are each others opposites, while having endured pretty much the same things throughout their life's, Harry never wanted that eternal glory that Snape accused him of wanting from the first time they met. Harry never let an urge for recognition guide him in his actions and now he has to learn that revenge will not make his heart stop bleeding. Snape let his urges and hatred guide him in making the wrong decisions and Harry just like his mother did in the pensieve scene, has to make a decision to not let a powerful emotion keep him from making the right choice. Lily did not stand up for Snape because she liked him but she stood up against James while already loving him dearly because what he was doing was wrong. Harry like his mother needs to show Snape that no matter what Snape did, he will meet Harry on Harry's terms and not on Snape's. Like Jen states Harry will take away the power Snape has over him and Harry will win not because he will be proven wrong again but because Snape should be pitied and that is Snape's worst nightmare to be revealed for what he actually is, a man that is nothing more then his abilities and out there alone with no one that would be willing to fight for him as he killed the only one who ever did. Snape will be facing the responsibilities of the choices he made throughout his life and that no one was responsible for the predicament he got himself into but just Severus Snape himself and then he probably will do an unselfish thing for once in his life. So in other words the revelation that Snape indeed made the evil choices he made because he wallowed in sad memories and could not control his emotions and allowed himself to be provoked so easily with other words, he was as weak as he claimed those people were that wore their hearts on their sleeves. Snape was very wrong, love is not a weakness as love empowers and being loved by many will never make you stand alone. Snape closed his heart and now has to face the world alone because the respect he thinks he gained by his actions in HBP are as hollow as one could possibly get. No-one respecting Snape on that side of the fence will be willing to give their life for Severus Snape but all the people on Harry's side will want to give their life's to him without thinking twice. And what will Harry do in DH he will show that he is willing to sacrifice himself for Snape not because he forgives Snape or suddenly likes Snape but because it is the only right thing to do and thus the revelation of Snape being worse then ever WILL drive the plot forward because it will be far more challenging for Harry to do the right thing while he has been so right about Snape then it is for being proven wrong one more time. JMHO Dana From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 08:39:33 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:39:33 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "anne_t_squires" wrote: >> Lily and Petunia have to be related by blood. If they weren't Harry > wouldn't have to think of no. 4 as home and return each year to where > his mother's blood dwells. There wouldn't be any blood protection if > they weren't related by blood. S. R.'s comment has got me wondering > if maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters. Cousins? But, I don't see > the point really. Why would the fact that Petunia is some other > relative to Harry be important plot wise? > > Let's see, hmmm. > > 1. She has to be related by blood or no blood protection. > 2. Her eyes are not like her sister's. > 3. JKR said, "She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. > Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." > > If she's not a squib (but, that's a good guess), and she's not a > witch, then she's....what? A Muggle, right? What's surprising about > that? So, she's not a Muggle? Then she must be......I've got > nothing. Some kind of ocd creature who has to clean. > > I definitely think there is a clue here. I just can't figure it out. > > Wait, wait, wait. This just occurred to me as I was writing this > post. Maybe S. R. is absolutely correct. Maybe point no. 1 is not > true. Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. > Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. Perhaps DD just assumed > that Petunia and Lily were blood sisters. Would DD have had reason to > suspect otherwise? Maybe DD had assumed all these years that the > blood protection was in place at no. 4 when in actuality it wasn't. > What if there isn't any blood protection and there never has been? > When DD makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. And the eyes have been > the clue. Also, Petunia looks nothing,absolutely nothing like Lily. > In the universe of JKR siblings and other family members almost always > look like each other. Plot wise this would be crucially important > because everyone assumes Harry is safe at no. 4 until his birthday. > What if he isn't? > > Anne Leah: The 'no blood protection due to adoption' is an interesting idea. Against the idea: I believe DD must have explained the blood protection to Petunia to some extent, to explain why she needed to take Harry in. If Petunia had been able to turn round to DD, and sar, "Very sorry, but that won't work" and not have all the bother of taking in Hzrry, wouldn't she have done so. I would also think that the blood protection had in some way to be invoked by DD and if there was no blood link then that invocation wouldn't have taken" For the idea: At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood protection. Was she lying about being Lily's blood sister in order to get some quid pro quo from DD? But wouldn't DD have sensed this and any invocation still not have worked? Leah > From lauren1 at catliness.com Tue Jun 5 06:50:03 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:50:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil References: Message-ID: <097f01c7a758$ee882950$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169809 Neri: (snip) > Not so. We too have spent a lot of time analyzing Snape, we too > have contributed our humble share towards of the above 10,000 > theories, and we too need our questions answered. Why did he make the > Unbreakable Vow? Why did he save Dumbledore in the beginning of the > year and killed him in its end? Why does it appear that he didn't plan > on killing Dumbledore at that time and was forced to it by Draco's > unexpected action? What exactly was his game as a > double-triple-quadruple agent during all these years? What was he > trying to achieve during the Occlumency lessons? During the MoM > battle? What are exactly his connections with the Malfoys? Why did he > care about what happen to the Potters so much that he warned Dumbledore? Hi, I, too, have been confused by how, through the earlier books, Dumbledore kept telling Harry that he trusted Snape, only for us to read, in HBP, how he took the Unbreakable Vow, etc. Now we really don't know whether to trust Snape or not, especially when he appeared to kill Dumbledore. Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Tue Jun 5 10:13:37 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:13:37 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169810 Anne's post has got me thinking now... "Wait, wait, wait. This just occurred to me as I was writing this post. Maybe S. R. is absolutely correct. Maybe point no. 1 is not true. Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted." Ok so Lily and Petunia are not sisters- let's take the leap and make that statement. Petunia seems to hate HP quite a bit and seems really jealous in PS/SS when she talks about how her sister was a witch and her parents were so proud to have a witch in the family. She also seems so jealous of Harry throughout the books too, part of the many reasons why she may treat him badly. What if she relates to Harry and is jealous of him because she came from a similiar situation? What if she was an orphan or what if her parents left her and Lily's parents took her in because they had a little girl close to her age... What are your thoughts on this? From lauren1 at catliness.com Tue Jun 5 09:36:50 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 02:36:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort References: Message-ID: <099401c7a758$f776b0e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169811 Pickle_Jimmy: (snip) He thinks it is Harry, because it is his one > desire, but it is actually just a "reflection" in the Mirror of > Erised he is advancing on. (snip) Hi, I can't believe this but I just realized that Erised is "desire" backwards. Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lauren1 at catliness.com Tue Jun 5 08:16:24 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 01:16:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort References: <8C974D8E05DB0D0-E60-FE4@WEBMAIL-RA08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <098b01c7a758$f31615e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 169812 Pickle Jimmy: It's been a while since I visited HPfGUs, but I was contemplating HP the other day, and I came up with a theory as to how Harry will kill Voldy without having to turn evil. Meredith: Why would Harry killing Voldemort make him (Harry) evil?? Hi, Because committing murder is a bad thing, and if Harry kills someone, he'll lose part of his soul, won't he? Thanks Lauren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 10:37:04 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:37:04 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169813 > Pickle Jimmy: > An AK reflected off of a child protected with his mother's > love has already "nearly" finished him off (if not for > horcruxes, maybe it would have) Goddlefrood: That was rather my point. Harry is an animate being, the curse rebounding off an animate being would not be terribly outrageous, a curse rebounding off an inanimate object, especially a Mirror, while it has been shown to happen for certain spells, has not been shown to happen for a Killing Curse. JKR generally shows something to we readers in a way that when it later becomes significant, as would be an AK reflecting off the Mirror of Erised, we are not completely taken aback, akin to an "Oh yeah, I remember that" type moment. The times that has happened are several in the series so far, just not with regard to an AK. > Pickel Jimmy: > If you believe that Dumbledore is dead, then you already > note that while one AK can leave people perfectly "untouched" > (Riddle's family), another can have a totally uplifting > (Dumbledore over the tower wall) effect - not all AKs have > physical destruction in mind. Goddlefrood: It's not that *I* believe it, it's that I believe JKR. She has said Dumbledore is dead during the Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp in 2006. Unless she was referencing Aberforth or an as yet unmet Dumbledore then there is no reason at all to cling to the notion that he will somehow be alive. He's not. In any event I always thought he was dead without wholly writing off the possibility that he was not, even before it was confirmed by the lady herself that he had shuffled off this mortal coil. Sorry if you are a member of www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com, but there it is. > Pickle Jimmy: > And while the Mirror of Erised doesn't move, it *is* a > magical object. Goddlefrood: Indeed it is, if it makes an appearance in some capacity then fine, but in the manner described in the original theory is not terribly likely, no more nor less than that. > Pickle Jimmy: > A. sending out a curse isnt like pulling the trigger on a gun, > you cant accidentally AK someone, "you have to mean it" - which > means you have to want to kill. I think it is hard to say Harry > still good if he has successfully AKed someone. Goddlefrood: The blond Death Eater during the hootananny at Hogwarts may not have meant to kill Gibbon, but he did. Naturally an AK has to be meant and I agree that it is almost beyond thinking that Harry will use an AK on LV. That he may use another spell, based on love, which has been foreshadowed from the beginning, IMO, is not so easily written off. There are things worse than death anyway, as the late lamented Albus would have told us. That piece of foreshadowing may well turn out to be what awaits LV. Why not just have him turn back into less than the meanest ghost? That was certainly a condition that gave LV little pleasure. If we presume that the Horcruxes will have been destroyed by the time LV and Harry have their final confrontation then LV would not be anchored, as he had been previously, and thus less able, particularly if, as I expect the WW is united against him at the end, to return. Here's where I say that the reanimated LV has a soul piece in him from another of his Horcruxes, leaving only 3 more for Harry to find. Now wouldn't that be a nice surprise for our hero? That may well explain why there is to be a mystery left at the end. Either that or we will be left wondering if LV had another Horcrux that Harry never accounts for before the end of book 7. > Pickle Jimmy: > A. The prophecy says "and either must die at the hand of the > other?for?neither?can?live?while?the?other?survives" > It does say "at the hand" not "by the hand" which may only > mean that they are both in close proximaty when one dies - > Harry was "close at hand" when Voldy bites the dust... Goddlefrood: A nice thought, but unlikely IMO. at the hand and close at hand are hardly synonymous. Again I refer to JKR, she has said that the Prophecy was worded very carefully by both her and Sybil Trelawney. Additionally there is this: 'But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you ... which makes it certain, really, that -' 'That one of us is going to end up killing the other,' said Harry. 'Yes.' p. 479 - HBP Bloomsbury Hardback Edition. The entire sequence that precedes this makes it clear enough that either Harry, but especially Dumbledore, are wrong about what will happen should the above 'close at hand' have merit. While Dumbledore admits to making some huge mistakes, for this matter, IMO, he did not make an error. For what it's worth I do have a theory about where the events that lead to Voldemort's neutralising will take place. I have sketched it here before. Basically it is that the final showdown will take place at Godric's Hollow. The beginning of Harry's involvement with LV and its end would be then a full circle. If it involves something we have seen in a different context before then it may be of interest to start inquiring what is it we have seen, that has appeared innocuous, that could lead to LV's demise. That's where the gong to sound him out comes in, as briefly alluded to in my previous post on this thread. Once again I say Dumbledore will have a part to play, but not as a living entity. Yet again JKR has referred to this, albeit in a snippet of hearsay from an actor who shall remain nameless. Dumbledore was giving her trouble during the writing of DH as he who is not being named said, and I suspect it is DD's turn for a little backstory, which may be contained in reminiscences from those who knew him, and probably from Aberforth largely. I doubt if it will be as extensive as the backstory provided by JKR in HBP for Tom Riddle, but I predict it will be there. That is, however, the subject of a rather substantial post that is currently under preparation by self so I'll leave it here for now. Goddlefrood From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 11:34:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:34:03 -0000 Subject: On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169814 > Julie: > The reason JKR hasn't "shown" them is because Harry hasn't SEEN them. > And Harry is our filter, thus we haven't seen them either. Harry's > only had direct interactions with a few Slytherins, mostly Draco and > his friends. He's judged the whole House by the few with which he's > had those interactions. Alla: Well, yes, sure and in RL I would say this is ridiculous - to judge the whole House by the selected few. But this is the work of fiction and when after six books Harry is opening his eyes more and more to other houses and still nothing happening with Slytherin, I have to wonder, you know? Maybe they are not **supposed to** exist? But of course there is book 7, etc. I am even totally understanding Magpie's idea - that Harry will discover that Slytherins we see are not just bigots, but there is hidden good in them. But this is the long way from saying that House Slytherin is just misunderstood in general and figting against *pureblood supremacy* is not fight against evil, but being prejudiced, you know? Julie: > That's the point I think Lizzy is trying to make, that part of > growing up is looking past your own biases and expectations and > really SEEING others for who they are, not for what they look like, > what school group (or House) they belong to, what sport they play or > don't play, what car they drive or how nice their clothes (dress > robes) are, etc. Alla: Um, well, sure, except I think political views **are** quite legitimate way of looking on who the person is and judging the person by that view, you know? I said many times - I totally accept that what Harry sees of Slytherins is not **everything** that is where. What I do **not** accept is that what Harry sees is a lie and **pureblood supremacy** is not really bad, etc. I am sure he will get a reason to see further, etc. He already felt a drop of pity for Malfoy after all. But to me it will never change the fact that "purebloods are better" just have to go away. JMO, Alla From xellina at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 12:49:26 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:49:26 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Liar, The Witch and The Werewolf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00706050549q77aa74b1re3ca6a51917a66e9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169815 2007/6/4, pippin_999 : > Perhaps it was Lupin that Bertha recognized, despite her faulty memory, > because she never forgot the person who hexed her after she followed > him and saw him kissing Florence. :) > Cassy: Personally, I love ESE!Lupin theory and I like your speculations, but what really interested me in this post was how do we know it was Lupin hexing Bertha? I don't remember Goff very well; I mean is it just an idea of yours or do we have canon proof? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 13:30:13 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:30:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169816 Sonya: > I have to admit the secret love child theory is very un-potterish. > But the loved Narcissa is still staying with me... I lurve the > unrequited love that Narcissa unabashedly uses to manipulate snape. > > But sadly I feel the need for romance. Oh yes, she in my head liked > him back a bit - or was at least drawn to him at tough times... my > main thing is Narcissa knowing exactly where he lived and Bellatrix > completely in the dark. Also his rection on first opening the door > and calling her by her first name then his quiet smirk when Bellatrix walks in. I think Narcissa has been there before...Plus the pressing his hands to her lips. That's quite intimate! > Dungrollin: I was, for a while, quite enamoured of the idea that Snape and Narcissa had something going in secret, and then Voldemort gave Narcissa to Lucius as a reward for some service (killing Regulus?), and it was losing Narcissa which sent Snape to Dumbledore. Perhaps Lucius keeps Narcissa topped up with a love potion, and once Lucius was put in Azkaban the effects started to wear off, and Narcissa started to realise that her life was a lie. In this scenario Draco could be Snape's son, and Snape would know that if anything happened to Lucius Draco would suffer, which is why we got the twitch at the end of GoF when Harry mentioned Lucius being at the graveyard. But I don't think it'll work out, since DD said it was how Voldemort interpreted the prophecy which prompted Snape's betrayal of the Death Eaters. There's certainly something about Snape and the Malfoys that we don't yet know, and given that we've had the clues from so early on, it will probably be important. For what it's worth, here's my post-HBP version of what made Snape move back to DD's camp (which does involve the Malfoys), and to which I still adhere. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160658 Unfortunately the LOLLIPOPS-stained fingers of HPfGU listies weren't forthcoming in providing support or agreement (despite my oodles of canon), but hey, it's my theory, it definitely floats and I'm sticking with it! Dungrollin From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 5 13:52:48 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:52:48 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169817 > > Dana: > > You all know it (well DDM!Snapers that is) and therefore you all will > be wrong because it will be the expected way for JKR to write Snape. > Many Snape fans are expecting JKR to turn HBP around because Snape > can't be ESE but that isn't much of a revelation either because Snape > was never before HBP portrait as ESE so turning it around in DH will > just be ever so lame. It will also not be much of a challenge for > Harry to once again find out he was wrong about Snape. The challenge > for Harry will be to be right about Snape but then to make different > choices and proof he is the better man then Snape would ever be able > to be. That is something Snape has been trying to do throughout the > books; be the better man then everybody else especially the marauders > and Harry. colebiancardi: well, Snape has been portrayed as ESE before HBP; there were many discussions around his loyalties for a long time. So, I think it is unfair to state that the ESE!Snape is something new. Back to the original topic at hand. My thoughts on revelations and why we should get them and what should we get (of course, all of this is in my humble opinion) There are three shades of Snape: DDM, ESE and OFH (which I tried to coin as TopWizard, but that never took off!!). If Snape is OFH - to be the Top Dog in the Wizarding World, we will not get any more revelations or need them. Nothing that was in the books before, the Prank, the remorseful story told to DD, Spinner's End, the death of DD, nothing, needs to be explained. Snape's motivations are for himself and nothing else. His choices, whether it is trying to save Harry from Quirrell's spell, showing Fudge his dark mark, the Unbreakable Vow, saving DD at the beginning of HBP to being the cause of his death at the end, were all done in a calculated manner to see which would be the most beneficial to him. Snape acts as DDM one day and ESE another. He has no loyalties except to himself and he wants the power. That is the reason & the motivation. Now, regardless if Snape is DDM (which I believe 99.99999%) or ESE (the rest of the percentage), we would need the revelation of what the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him so much. I would also like, but it is not necessary, the reason why Snape became a DE. And how Snape managed to hookwink either DD or LV, depending on the flavor he is. If Snape is DDM, I would like, although it is not necessary, the reason why he took the UV. We don't need more on the Prank (although I would love it). We don't need more about the UV or Spinner's End if he is ESE. If he is ESE, that chapter is self-explanatory and really doesn't need anything more. If Snape is DDM, a few words on the UV, as I stated above, would be nice, but isn't really needed. I really cannot think why we would need more other than that. He is one of the three flavors above and one of those, OFH, needs further no explanation or reasons. colebiancardi From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 14:37:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:37:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and the Lightning Struck Tower/What Harry "knows" In-Reply-To: <725812.20148.qm@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169818 career advisor: > Everone seems fairly certain that Draco sent the poisoned mead to Slughorne and arranged for Katie to find the necklace. > > But Draco denies this to Dumbledore and Zabini was specefically mentioned by JKR as sitting in Rosmerta' s bar around the time of the necklace incident. Magpie: I wouldn't be surprised if Zabini was introduced for a reason and that he was doing something when he was lolling against that pillar-- helping, even, or switching places with Draco, who knows? But Draco doesn't deny the necklace or mead to Dumbledore. He denies (but Snape sees through it) sending the necklace earlier, but he doesn't deny it when Dumbledore puts it to him on the Tower. He acknowledges that Dumbledore is correct but says that Dumbledore didn't know who was behind the necklace and mead. When Dumbledore says he did, that it was Draco, Draco asks why Dumbledore didn't stop him. What he does deny is that his "heart wasn't in it"--but that denial, imo, isn't any more believable than the earlier denial to Snape that he didn't send the necklace. wynnleaf: I would love to see a list of all of these in the series. Has anyone ever done that? It's basically what "Harry knew" or what Harry knew he'd "never" do, or what Harry was "sure" of. Magpie: Well, two that come to mind, one that's already been overturned and doesn't quite fit, is Ron saying how Hermione is a nightmare and he hopes he isn't in her house in PS. (Guess what--she's in his house and his best friend and he fancies her!) And my favorite that hasn't come true is, of course, in OotP in "The Sorting Hat's New Song": 'And it wants all the houses to be friends?' said Harry, looking over at the Slytherin table, where Draco Malfoy was holding court. 'Fat chance.' Oh, Harry. You're done for!:-) Dana: It will also not be much of a challenge for Harry to once again find out he was wrong about Snape. The challenge for Harry will be to be right about Snape but then to make different choices and proof he is the better man then Snape would ever be able to be. Magpie: I don't think that's much of a challenge since Harry already does this. He knows he's a better man than Snape and that his choices proove it, and he knows he's right about Snape. He's hardly thinking about going out and joining the DEs or becoming a murderer over his own hatred of Snape. Also, Harry hasn't been proven wrong about Snape all that much. In PS/SS he was right that Snape hated him, but pegged him wrong as the guy trying to steal the stone etc. I don't see why this seems to be remembered as Harry being so very wrong about him as a person. After that Harry really didn't bank much on Snape being the bad guy. He may have suspected him in OotP, but he still passed on the message about Sirius. And in HBP he was right about him, so he's already been proven right about him. What's to prove again? In terms of just technical plot challenges I think it would obviously at least be more challenging to explain how Snape was DDM when he just killed the man (without it being as torturous and silly as some fan theories) than how he's actually bad, since that's already been explained. That doesn't mean Snape's going to be DDM, but Snape being ESE and Harry realizing it and seeing himself as the better person who makes better choices is the state of things already. The Snape you describe is already the person Harry sees, including the way it was always his fault, even the Marauders' treatment of him (and what little responsiblity they had was still Snape's fault because he didn't let it go and they punished him because of his interest in the Dark Arts etc). Harry has essentially become James in this version...and I don't think that's a triumph since James' generation wasn't the one to get everything right, imo. This version is basically the non-revelatory one, where Snape just has to speechify about why he was bad all along--nobody appreciating him, everyone else sucks, he never loved anyone because nobody loved him, etc. Harry doesn't need to learn anything about Snape, exactly, Snape's just there for Harry to pull himself up and pity and say: You are a pitiful man, and I am above you. Which is a tiny change from now in that now he thinks if he meets him along the way he'll kill him, but more of a development rather than a change. Harry can also be better than Dumbledore, who was a nice guy but not as smart as Harry, who realized that anyone who was such a jerk to him and his family had to be a bad guy who would throw away a second chance. Harry can appreciate Dumbledore for what he tried to do, but in the end he's the teacher here, not DD, because the ultimate lesson was the leopard not changing its spots, not whatever Dumbledore was motivated by. Dumbledore was suckered because he "likes to see the good in people." Harry was right. Not because Harry had any real logical theory for ESE!Snape himself, or because he understands him (when he meets him in his HBP Prince form he mistakes him for a great guy), but because his feelings of hatred inspired by Snape's treatment of him were a truer guide. And since Snape is done for if he's ESE, Harry won't have to deal with him much beyond stating his superiority. ESE!Snape will be dead or in Azkaban, so punished whether Harry does it or not. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 15:01:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:01:53 -0000 Subject: /What Harry "knows" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169819 Magpie: > This version is basically the non-revelatory one, where Snape just > has to speechify about why he was bad all along--nobody appreciating > him, everyone else sucks, he never loved anyone because nobody loved > him, etc. Harry doesn't need to learn anything about Snape, exactly, > Snape's just there for Harry to pull himself up and pity and say: > You are a pitiful man, and I am above you. Which is a tiny change > from now in that now he thinks if he meets him along the way he'll > kill him, but more of a development rather than a change. Alla: Um, how is it a tiny change if Harry will go from hating Snape to forgiving him? And I think it will be much more difficult for Harry to forgive Snape knowing that he is evil or OFH or whoever as long as he, you know, did not kill Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. I mean if Snape is DD!M, sure Harry will go through reevaluation of his views, but if Snape is not completely DD!M, but at least a little bit grey in a sense that responsibility for murder is his and his only, but the motivations are something that Harry will be able to understand, I think it will be difficult for Harry to forgive Snape, but he will still do it. JMO, Alla From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 15:19:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:19:32 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169820 Ceridwen: > I've been thinking about this for a while. The only conclusion > that seems to work for me (it may not work for you) is that > Montague began Apparating while he was at the Borgin and Burkes end > of the cabinets, but was whisked back to Hogwarts during the > attempt, and ended up in the toilet. lizzyben: Well, maybe, but that seems like a messy explanation that goes against canon thus far. The 2 cabinets seem to form a "path" between B&B and Hogwarts. If Montague was at the B&B end, he could apparate into the shop or Hogsmeade - but he still couldn't apparate into the Hogwarts bathroom, because nobody can apparate into Hogwarts. If he's at the Hogwarts end, the same rule applies - people can't apparate from within Hogwarts, either. So - how did it happen? Logically, it seems like there's only a couple options: Montague didn't apparate: How was he moved? 1. Physical movement - Someone found Montague in the Cabinet & moved him to the bathroom; or else Montague somehow moved on his own w/o remembering that. 2. Magic - The cabinet itself somehow spit Montague out, or some type of magical side effect/dimension split occured to release Montague w/o him actually apparating. Montague did apparate: How? 1. Over-ride? - maybe there's some unknown spell or exception that allows students to apparate in spite of the anti-apparition ban. There's been no hint of such a spell, or that Montague or anyone else would know how to do this, so I don't like this explanation. 2. Elves? - They're the only people who can apparate within Hogwarts - maybe an elf did a side-along apparition with Montague? 3. The anti-apparition ban was lifted - The more I think about this, the more likely this seems. The apparition teacher said that Dumbledore temporarily lifted the ban for their apparition class. Maybe DD lifted the apparition ban so that Montague could apparate back? DD usually seems to know what goes on, & can make himself invisible. Maybe he heard/saw what happened, and lifted the ban so that Montague could apparate back. I'm so totally wasting time w/this small point, but it doesn't seem like there's a ready explanation. Ceridwen: > By the way, does that mean that Montague ended up in the commode? > Or in the lavatory? lizzyben: It sounds like he ended up stuck in the commode, which is why Snape, Umbridge & Draco had to get him out. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 5 15:38:31 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:38:31 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169821 Dana: You all know it (well DDM!Snapers that is) and therefore you all will be wrong because it will be the expected way for JKR to write Snape. Many Snape fans are expecting JKR to turn HBP around because Snape can't be ESE but that isn't much of a revelation either because Snape was never before HBP portrait as ESE so turning it around in DH will just be ever so lame. Wynnleaf I think this is a common misconception repeatedly coming up as regards revelations. JKR writes the books for herself and also with her readers in mind. But what happens in the books is to move the plot and affect the characters. Revelations may certainly affect the readers, but the primary purpose is to affect the protagonist. Saying that "Many Snape fans are expecting JKR to turn HBP around because Snape can't be ESE but that isn't much of a revelation either because Snape was never before HBP portrait as ESE so turning it around in DH will just be ever so lame" is missing the point. Whatever revelation JKR builds in isn't solely put in just to get the reader to think one thing and then later think another. It's not just some parlor trick or riddle or whatever. JKR is trying to move *plot* and change *characters* first and foremost. That's her work as a writer -- not just to create gimicks. Yes, she likes to misdirect readers, but she does that in general by misdirecting her protagonist and letting the reader assume the protagonist has it right. Harry has *always* hated Snape and has distrusted him throughout the series. Revelations that just reinforce what Harry already thinks don't much move the plot and certainly don't move Harry personally. If you think about it, practically every revelation in the series has been a revelation to *Harry* because he's the one who has to have his thoughts and actions affected by the revelation. Remember, revelations are *first* for the characters, and only secondarily for the readers as they follow the characters thoughts and actions. In any case, fans are quite divided about Snape being good or evil or out-for-himself. Even if JKR wanted to choose one of those solutions simply to surprise her readers, she'd have a problem because any of those three answers would only surprise a portion of the fans. There are plenty of people who will be thoroughly shocked if Snape turns out DDM, after all. And for those of us who read and discuss the theories all the time, perhaps *none* of the options will actually "surprise" us. The point is to have a revelation for Harry. To the extent that the reader is following Harry's viewpoint, the reader is also surprised, and since the majority of readers *do* appear to follow Harry's viewpoint in most cases of the plot, revelations will tend to surprise readers. colebiancardi: Now, regardless if Snape is DDM (which I believe 99.99999%) or ESE (the rest of the percentage), we would need the revelation of what the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him so much. I would also like, but it is not necessary, the reason why Snape became a DE. And how Snape managed to hookwink either DD or LV, depending on the flavor he is. If Snape is DDM, I would like, although it is not necessary, the reason why he took the UV. wynnleaf But *why*, if Snape is ESE, would "we would need the revelation of what the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him so much?" JKR isn't writing any revelations just because fans express a "need to know." Hey, there's loads of stuff many of us die-hard fans think we just desperately "need to know." That's not the point. The point is what *Harry* needs to know. If Harry is right, and Snape is ESE, why does Harry need to know what the remorseful story was that Snape told Dumbledore, or why exactly Dumbledore trusted Snape? If Harry is correct, and Snape's remorse was not honest, and Dumbledore's trust was completely misplaced, why does Harry need to know the details? The only reason (from a literary perspective) that Harry needs further details about these matters is if those revelations will somehow *change* how he thinks, acts, etc., or otherwise drive the plot. Alla: Um, how is it a tiny change if Harry will go from hating Snape to forgiving him? And I think it will be much more difficult for Harry to forgive Snape knowing that he is evil or OFH or whoever as long as he, you know, did not kill Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. I mean if Snape is DD!M, sure Harry will go through reevaluation of his views, but if Snape is not completely DD!M, but at least a little bit grey in a sense that responsibility for murder is his and his only, but the motivations are something that Harry will be able to understand, I think it will be difficult for Harry to forgive Snape, but he will still do it. wynnleaf I agree that Harry might not find out something completely clearcut like Snape always being completely DDM, and yet Harry could still forgive Snape. But whatever revelations are provided for Harry, there will have to be some sort of *impetus* for Harry to do something different than he would have done without the revelations. So, if for instance Harry forgives Snape, somehow whatever revelations come along would need to provide an impetus for that, because at the end of OOTP continuing through HBP, Harry is sure that he will *never* forgive Snape. By the way, on the "what Harry knows" aspect, I was specifically talking about narrated comments throughout the series in which Harry is reflecting on something that is *not* a fact, but he is feeling "sure" or that he "knows" a particular thing primarily through some sort of gut feeling. Often it's that he'll "never" do something. When I said that those portions of the text may be signals that Harry is in fact being set up to be wrong, I was specifically referring to those particular kinds of narrative bits -- not just anything in general that Harry feels or knows. If anyone can recall any others than the one I listed, it would be very interesting to see them. So far, I've got: Harry thinking he'll never eavesdrop again or pry into other people's business. (PS/SS I think) Harry thinking he'll "never" do anything to lure Sirius out of Grimmauld Place. OOTP, Occlumency Harry thinking he'll "never" forgive Snape. OOTP (last chapters?) Harry being "sure" Fawkes, like Dumbledore, is gone for good. (HBP, Phoenix Lament) And perhaps, in OOTP Harry being "sure" he'd seen the memories of Snape as a child and Snape's parents in the memories. (OOTP, a later occlumency lesson, can't recall chapter) I feel certain that there are more. I'd love to see some more from earlier in the books where we've got confirmation that Harry really was set up by JKR to be wrong. But remember, I'm specifically talking about a particular kind of wording that the writer uses. Harry is thinking about something he's seen or done previously and thinking about what he believes he's "sure" of, or what he thinks will "never" happen. wynnleaf From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jun 5 15:48:56 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:48:56 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169822 colebiancardi: > Now, regardless if Snape is DDM (which I believe 99.99999%) or ESE > (the rest of the percentage), we would need the revelation of what > the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him so > much. I would also like, but it is not necessary, the reason why > Snape became a DE. And how Snape managed to hookwink either DD or > LV, depending on the flavor he is. If Snape is DDM, I would like, > although it is not necessary, the reason why he took the UV. Dana: Maybe it is just me but the reason for DD's trust in Snape will not explain Snape's loyalty one bit. Someone else's trust is not a security on how a person fullfills that trust. LV trusts Snape too and he must have his reasons. James trusted Peter and he still betrayed him. DD's trust in Snape was already explained in HBP, Snape said he regretted how LV interpretted the prophecy and DD believed him. colebiancardi: > We don't need more on the Prank (although I would love it). We > don't need more about the UV or Spinner's End if he is ESE. If he > is ESE, that chapter is self-explanatory and really doesn't need > anything more. If Snape is DDM, a few words on the UV, as I stated > above, would be nice, but isn't really needed. > > I really cannot think why we would need more other than that. He is > one of the three flavors above and one of those, OFH, needs further > no explanation or reasons. Dana: Well for me it will be fine if JKR never mentions Snape again but I mustn't get my hopes up. Snape unfortunately is part of the main story about Harry's life and I believe he was put in there to show what the other side of love can do to a person and the influences it has on the personal choices that person makes because of it. I do not believe Snape's motives were because he is ESE or DDM but because he is the only important person in his own world. Your OFH is based on him wanting to rule the WW but to me it is about Snape wanting to be the centre of his own world. To him appriciation probably is love but it actually has far less dept then actual love. I would love more information about the prank but not because I want to understand Snape's motives for going in but I like to know more about Sirius's motives for giving him the information about how to get passed the willow and James's for saving Snape. I probably will never get it but oh well you can't have everything. Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jun 5 16:04:02 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:04:02 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169823 Wynnleaf: > Harry has *always* hated Snape and has distrusted him throughout > the series. Revelations that just reinforce what Harry already > thinks don't much move the plot and certainly don't move Harry > personally. If you think about it, practically every revelation in > the series has been a revelation to *Harry* because he's the one > who has to have his thoughts and actions affected by the revelation. > > Remember, revelations are *first* for the characters, and only > secondarily for the readers as they follow the characters thoughts > and actions. Dana: Yes, the only problem is that Harry has been there done that. He has been repeatedly wrong about Snape and did it affect his hatred for him? No, it didn't because Snape still treated him like a little piece of vermin after that. After all Snape is said to have done in the five previous books Harry still questions DD and specifically asks him how he can be sure that Snape is still on their side. Harry being wrong one more time will not change Harry's feelings about Snape. Harry's revelation does not have to be Snape was good after all, the revelation Harry has to go through is one of the heart, his own heart. That it is not worth to hate someone so much even if there is every reason to hate him for eternity and that will only be truly dramatic if Snape proved Harry was right about him in the end and not Harry was wrong about him one more time. I do not like the idea that JKR would make Snape DDM because DD was dieing anyway that was still not a judgment Snape should have made. It is not up to Snape to decide when someone's time has finaly arrived. To me it would be far more interesting to have Snape stray on the path of evil while Harry is strong enough to resist going the same route. JMHO Dana From djmitt at pa.net Tue Jun 5 15:42:29 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:42:29 -0000 Subject: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) In-Reply-To: <106927.1180987563690.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169824 Hagrid knows more than we think he knows. He knows about the horcruxes. I say this because in the PS/SS in the scene at the hut on the rock at one point Harry asks Hagrid "But what happened to Vol- sorry I meat UKW? Hagrid's reply is "Good Question....Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. DUNNO IF HE HAD ENOUGH HUMAN LEFT IN HIM TO DIE." Sounds like to me he knows about the horcruxes. That is why he was on Knockturn Alley in CoS. Word got out that one of the horcruxes was surfacing and he was looking for it. Donna From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 5 17:01:15 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:01:15 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169825 >>colebiancardi wrote: Now, regardless if Snape is DDM (which I believe 99.99999%) or ESE (the rest of the percentage), we would need the revelation of what the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him so much. I >>wynnleaf wrote: >>But *why*, if Snape is ESE, would "we would need the revelation of >>what the remorseful story was that he told DD & why DD trusted him >>so much?" >>The point is what *Harry* needs to know. If Harry is >>right, and Snape is ESE, why does Harry need to know what the >>remorseful story was that Snape told Dumbledore, or why exactly >>Dumbledore trusted Snape? If Harry is correct, and Snape's remorse >>was not honest, and Dumbledore's trust was completely misplaced, why >>does Harry need to know the details? The only reason (from a >>literary perspective) that Harry needs further details about these >>matters is if those revelations will somehow *change* how he thinks, >>acts, etc., or otherwise drive the plot. colebiancardi: For DDM!Snape, the revelation *could* drive the plot & it would change Harry's mind about Snape, fer sure. If the revelation is about Regulus (which I think it is) and if {wishful thinking} Regulus is still alive, that would drive the plot along. If ESE!Snape is reveled, the reasons why Dumbledore trusted Snape may be an important factor - I don't know if it will or not, but in any case, how Snape managed to hood-wink either Dumbledore (if ESE) or LV (if DDM) is an important plot point - this revelation *could* help Harry. > Dana: > Maybe it is just me but the reason for DD's trust in Snape will not > explain Snape's loyalty one bit. Someone else's trust is not a > security on how a person fullfills that trust. LV trusts Snape too > and he must have his reasons. James trusted Peter and he still > betrayed him. DD's trust in Snape was already explained in HBP, > Snape said he regretted how LV interpretted the prophecy and DD > > >believed him. colebiancardi: Oh yes, it could explain Snape's loyalty. The trust DD had in Snape is a very important factor. If ESE, the question is how did Snape hook-wink DD? If DDM, Harry needs to know this. Also, LV doesn't trust Snape. He does not. LV has Wormtail hiding out in Snape's lair and LV did not confide in Snape about Draco's plans at all. What was explained in HBP was Harry's POV. DD stated that Snape had remorse over the prophecy, but DD never stated WHAT it was that made him trust Snape. DD tells Harry back in GoF, when Harry asked him about the trust factor, that was something between him & Snape and not Harry. So, there is something more - because the prophecy is Harry's business. colebiancardi From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Tue Jun 5 17:15:05 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:15:05 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169826 Someone please read what I'm thinking most recently and try to find some reason why this couldn't be true. I really think it makes a lot of sence but I want others to check it. Furthermore, do we know who is older- Petunia or Lily? Ok so let me make a leap and say that Lily and Petunia are not related by blood (as others have suggested to me). Petunia hates her sister and let me propose why. Imagine a muggle family- a young man, a woman, and their adorable daughter (Petunia). Now for whatever reason, they decide to adopt another child- Lily. Petunia is now not the only child and is angry about having to share her parents' attention with another. Quite typical for children. Now time goes by and her sister becomes favored and Petunia is still jealous. Then, Lily is found to be a witch and her parents are so proud. Well that is just it for Petunia! She is enraged with her sister and jealous like crazy. Now, her sister is murdered and the time comes for her to raise Harry as her own. She is going to do exactly the oposite of what her parents did to their little new comer (Lily). She is going to mistreat Harry not only because he is her sister's son but also because she does not want her son to feel the way she did growing up. Now what are your thoughts on this? I have gotten responces from others saying that then there would be no blood protection at no. 4 then if Petunia and Lily were not blood related. However, someone else said, "At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood protection. " Interesting... maybe she knows that there is no blood relation with her and Lily... Thoughts please... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 17:18:12 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:18:12 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? - Montague In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > > zanooda: > > "As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or > > Disapparate within Hogwarts. The headmaster has lifted this > > enchantment, purely within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to > > enable you to practice" (HBP, p.382 US hardback). > lizzyben04: > Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has told us that people > can't apparate or disapparate inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, > Montague did both. zanooda again: You know, the quote that I gave may lead to a very different conclusion. This entire passage only shows that the No-Apparition-in- Hogwarts rule is not absolute. If DD could lift the enchantment, maybe some other magical occurence could lead to the same result. Maybe when the Cabinet broke, some kind of anomalous magic field was created around it, which interfered with Hogwarts' anti-Apparition defense. I personally don't have any definite opinion on this, just wanted to point out that this passage can be read in different ways :-). It shows that the anti-Apparition defense really exists, but at the same time it shows that this defense is not impenetrable. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Tue Jun 5 17:23:19 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:23:19 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia weren't sisters Was: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169828 Anne Squires wrote: Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. > > Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. Perhaps DD just assumed > > that Petunia and Lily were blood sisters. Would DD have had > reason to > > suspect otherwise? Maybe DD had assumed all these years that the > > blood protection was in place at no. 4 when in actuality it > wasn't. > > What if there isn't any blood protection and there never has been? > > When DD makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. And the eyes have > been > > the clue. Also, Petunia looks nothing,absolutely nothing like > Lily. > > In the universe of JKR siblings and other family members almost > always > > look like each other. Plot wise this would be crucially important > > because everyone assumes Harry is safe at no. 4 until his > birthday. > > What if he isn't? > > > > Anne > > > > Leah: > > The 'no blood protection due to adoption' is an interesting idea. > > Against the idea: I believe DD must have explained the blood > protection to Petunia to some extent, to explain why she needed to > take Harry in. If Petunia had been able to turn round to DD, and > say, "Very sorry, but that won't work" and not have all the bother > of taking in Harry, wouldn't she have done so. > > For the idea: At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, Petunia > looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood > protection. Was she lying about being Lily's blood sister in order > to get some quid pro quo from DD? But wouldn't DD have sensed this > and any invocation still not have worked? > > Leah Anne Squires replies: I've had a chance to think about this very issue. I also think DD would have explained things to Petunia, at least to some extent. Therefore, maybe: 1. Petunia didn't listen/pay attention to DD because she can't stand magic and didn't want details about a magic spell. She didn't pay any attention to "the freak" and just asked him to "get on with it." Or 2. Petunia doesn't know that she and Lily aren't related by blood. Maybe that information is hidden in her parents' papers in the attic. It's something HRH could discover. Or 3. She is lying like Leah says. We don't know the details of the deal between DD and Petunia to take in Harry. There has to be a very strong incentive or Petunia, aunt or not, would never have agreed. She is definitely getting something out of the bargain; so, maybe she lied. Leah also wrote: "I would also think that the blood protection had in some way to be invoked by DD and if there was no blood link then that invocation wouldn't have taken" And Leah wrote: But wouldn't DD have sensed this and any invocation still not have worked? Anne Squires again: I think this is a valid point. If Lily and Petunia weren't sisters then whatever spell DD did cast to extend blood protection to no. 4 would not have "taken." Furthermore, wouldn't DD have sensed this? I believe that DD possibly would *not* have sensed this. DD thinks Lily was Petunia's sister. He wouldn't be on the lookout for the spell failing, especially if Petunia was lying to him. Also, DD is the most powerful wizard in the world. Maybe he just assumed his spell would work because all his spells always work. (Hubris anyone?) In addition to this, at the time DD must have been in quite a state; he had to find protection for the BWL and he had to find it fast. Perhaps he wasn't in the right mindset to pick up on the fact that the blood protection spell didn't work. Anne Karen Wrote: Ok so Lily and Petunia are not sisters- let's take the leap and make that statement. Petunia seems to hate HP quite a bit and seems really jealous in PS/SS when she talks about how her sister was a witch and her parents were so proud to have a witch in the family. She also seems so jealous of Harry throughout the books too, part of the many reasons why she may treat him badly. What if she relates to Harry and is jealous of him because she came from a similiar situation? What if she was an orphan or what if her parents left her and Lily's parents took her in because they had a little girl close to her age... What are your thoughts on this? Anne Squires replies: I think there is merit in this idea. The series has more than one orphan: Harry, Neville (yes, I know his parents are technically alive, but to me Neville counts as an orphan), Tom Riddle, the other orphans at Tom's orphanage, Hagrid (whose mother deserted him and his father died). "Orphan" seems to be a running motif throughout the series. Also, it would be great irony if Petunia were an orphan who was well-treated by her family, but still resented them because of her jealousy. Or perhaps Lily was the orphan and Petunia resented this interloper, this "freak" who wasn't even "normal" being taken in by her parents. On a different note, I have been trying to think of clues that the blood protection is not in place. 1. Lily and Petunia look nothing alike and their eyes are very different in a universe where all relatives tend to strongly resemble each other. 2. In the summer before second year Dobby was able to get through the wards. A **Malfoy** elf was able to breach the security in place. Perhaps the blood wards (if they exist) can somehow read intentions, but the fact remains that a member of the Malfoy household was able to get into no. 4 and this elf was actively trying to sabotage Harry. He was trying to prevent Harry from returning to Hogwarts. Intentions aside, Dobby was working against Harry and he was able to get in. 3. In the summers before years four and five Harry was having disturbing dreams which came from LV. To me this shows that LV is able to breach the blood protection. If he can get in to no. 4 mentally, then maybe he can get in physically. Also, don't forget that LV now has Harry's blood inside of him; he was able to touch Harry in the graveyard. Maybe that's enough to get him through the blood wards, if they do, in fact, exist. 4. We have the examples of Scabbers and Fake Moody not being what we thought. I personally expect more of this type of thing. Something, or someone will not be what we were told. And it will be very important. When we look back there will several clues to this twist. I'm beginning to think this idea that Petunia is not Harry's aunt might be one of these anticipated plot twists. Anne Squires From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 17:23:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:23:09 -0000 Subject: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169829 --- "Donna" wrote: > > Hagrid knows more than we think he knows. He knows > about the horcruxes. ... Hagrid's reply is "... > DUNNO IF HE HAD ENOUGH HUMAN LEFT IN HIM TO DIE." ... > > Donna bboyminn: A good theory and one that is possible, but I think it is more likely that Hagrid is just commenting on Voldemort's changed snake-like physical appearances. Voldemort no longer looks human, so it is reasonable for people to assume he has done something to reduce his humanity. It is also possible that Hagrid was commenting on Voldemort general and excessive Evilness. The more evil and less compassionate you become the less human you become. Still, I'm not discounting your idea completely. The is certainly a reasonably suspicious statement from Hagrid. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 5 17:35:42 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:35:42 -0000 Subject: Draco's Birthday (was: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169830 > Julie, who's also considered other Draco theories, like Draco's birth > being deliberately induced early so as to avoid him being born in the > last days of the seventh month (Draco's birthday is instead in the > early days of the sixth month), an event which could have > implications about his ultimate role in the books. SSSusan: Yes, June 5 apparently, per JKR's website. Herself wishing Draco Malfoy a happy birthday?? What's up with that, folks? What does it mean for Draco in DH (if anything)? Or did she wish him happy birthday at her site before this year as well? Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 17:38:20 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0000 Subject: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? - Montague In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169831 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "lizzyben04" wrote: > > >> zanooda: > > >> "As you may know, it is usually impossible to > >> Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts. The > >> headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely > >> within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to > > > enable you to practice" (HBP, p.382 US hardback). > > > > lizzyben04: > > > Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has > > told us that people can't apparate or disapparate > > inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, Montague did both. > > > zanooda again: > > You know, the quote that I gave may lead to a very > different conclusion. This entire passage only shows > that the No-Apparition-in-Hogwarts rule is not absolute. > ... > > It shows that the anti-Apparition defense really exists, > but at the same time it shows that this defense is not > impenetrable. > bboyminn: Here is the question that I have, when we hear that you can't apparate inside, into, or out of Hogwarts, what does that mean. Does it mean it is impossible, or does it mean you will pay a tremendous price if you try. Is it functionally impossible or are the consequences of doing so so grave as to make it impossible. Also, Montague, in a sense, was in a nether-world; he wasn't anywhere, he wasn't at Hogwart, he wasn't outside Hogwarts, he was in some magical in-between world. And perhaps, being jambed inside a toilet was the price he paid for entering Hogwarts by Apparation. Yes, you can penetrate the anti-apparation protections at Hogwarts, but what good does it do if you are disabled as a consequence? If an entire army ends up jambed and therefore trapped in the toilet and further disabled for several week as they recover from the experience. So, in the simplest terms, is the anti-apparation protection an impenetrable barrier or is it a punishment for trying? Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 18:13:21 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:13:21 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, Sirius - favorite moments / re: Why Sirius had to die-maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169832 > >>Betsy Hp > > This is like, my favoritest thread EVER! I love you, Jen. :-D > >>Jen: HEE, you know what this means don't you? You have to start > a 'what I like about the Sirius character' thread. MWAHAHAHAHA. > Betsy Hp: And I've been meaning to do so for *forever*. So, favorite Sirius moments, just for you, Jen. Basically I love any moment he's with Harry. Sirius is *so* focused on making sure Harry is safe and okay. Though I agree that Harry didn't look to Sirius as a father (more big brother or uncle), I do think Sirius saw himself as filling James' shoes and being a father for Harry. I specifically like the moment Harry fire-calls him after the Pensieve scene. I like what Sirius said to Harry there about being young and stupid, and I loved his eager fondness in remembering James. This wasn't a guy remembering a heroic saint, this was a guy remembering his best friend, and I liked that. Full confession time: I liked Sirius in the Pensieve scene. Oh, I hate what he and James did to Snape of course, but I loved how carefree and beautiful and arrogant Sirius was. And I really loved how close he was with James. That interplay after Lily stormed off, "Reading between the lines, mate, I'd say she doesn't like you" was perfect. (That's a guess at the line since I'm away from my books at the moment.) The ultimate tragedy with Sirius, IMO, is that he was never allowed to rise to his full potential. Locked away in Azkaban, then locked away in Grimmauld Place, I think that final fight at the MoM is where Sirius was finally coming into his own, finally doing what he'd been wanting to do from the beginning: save Harry. And then he died. Brutal, JKR, brutal. (And part of the reason I cannot buy the "Snape did it with cunning use of psychology" thing. Sirius would *never* stay in a safe place while Harry was in danger. Never. To suggest otherwise is to complete misunderstand Sirius, IMO.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169770 > >>Magpie: > > Honestly, I think it may be important for Sirius to have died > because Harry is his heir. > Betsy Hp: It's an interesting idea (and the best thematic explanation for Harry's use of Kreacher in HBP, IMO). I like it because it suggests that Sirius won't fully die out, I guess is the phrase. Family lines is a huge deal in Potterverse. Harry is constantly being parsed for parts belonging to his family (down to his knobbly knees ). And it's strange, but the ultimate blow of Sirius's death for me, came when Phineas Black referred to him as the last of the Blacks. It was like there was all this history that was suddenly lost. > >>Magpie: > I feel like Harry is the heir on the patrilineal side, having > inherited the house from Sirius... > Draco, then, inherits from the distaff side as the child of > Narcissa... Betsy Hp: Ooh, interesting. Like a mirror image of the Gaunts? I'm thinking Morfin and Merope specifically. There's something there that I'm having a hard time putting my finger on. Sort of like the Gaunts are an example of failing your family line or something? It'd tie in to Ron talking about his father saying you have to inter-marry with Muggleborns to keep your family healthy. (This may well be steering too close to eugenics, frankly. But I will say, no Gothic story is complete without some sort of sexual taboo, and incest is an easy one that the Gaunts seemed to embrace.) I have a feeling this can probably tie into the union of the four Houses that I think will symbolize the healing of the WW. I'm just not sure how. Betsy Hp (having fun thinking out loud if nothing else ) From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 18:13:32 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:13:32 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169833 "karen" wrote: do we know who > is older- Petunia or Lily? > > Ok so let me make a leap and say that Lily and Petunia are not > related by blood (as others have suggested to me). Petunia hates her > sister and let me propose why. > > Imagine a muggle family- a young man, a woman, and their adorable > daughter (Petunia). Now for whatever reason, they decide to adopt > another child- Lily. Petunia is now not the only child and is angry > about having to share her parents' attention with another. Quite > typical for children. Now time goes by and her sister becomes favored and Petunia is still jealous. Then, Lily is found to be a witch and her parents are so proud. Well that is just it for Petunia! She is enraged with her sister and jealous like crazy. Now, her sister is murdered and the time comes for her to raise Harry as her own. She is going to do exactly the oposite of what her parents did to their little new comer (Lily). She is going to mistreat Harry not only because he is her sister's son but also because she does not want her son to feel the way she did growing up. Now what are your thoughts on this? I have gotten responces from others saying that then there would be no blood protection at no. 4 then if Petunia and Lily were not blood related. However, someone else said, "At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood protection. " Interesting... maybe she knows that there is no blood relation with her and Lily... Thoughts please... TKJ replies: I think that DD would of known the family dynamic. He would of known if they were blood related or not. Why I think this I'm not all too sure, but there had to be an eye kept on the house of some sort no? Then why would they have known Lilly had magical powers? The theory I had come up with a while ago is that they are fraternal twins. They were close until they were going to go off to a good (secondary?) school, that Petunia was all proud about going to and Lilly got her letter for Hogwarts. This made her parents proud and they fumbled all over Lilly as Petunia said, making her horribly jealous and bitter. Or maybe Lilly was always the favored twin and Petunia got into a better school than her and was reveling in it. She was finally the better one then arrives the letter from Hogwarts. IDK it's just my theory. Feel free to pick it apart. TKJ From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jun 5 18:43:31 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:43:31 -0000 Subject: Draco's Birthday (was: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169834 > SSSusan: > Yes, June 5 apparently, per JKR's website. > > Herself wishing Draco Malfoy a happy birthday?? What's up with that, > folks? What does it mean for Draco in DH (if anything)? Or did she > wish him happy birthday at her site before this year as well? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Hickengruendler: Yes, she did. She wished him a Happy Birthday for three years in a row, now. I do think it bodes well for a possible redemption of him, (but so did HBP anyway). I don't think she would sent him Birthday wishes, if she saw him as irredeemable or anything like that. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 18:45:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:45:58 -0000 Subject: /What Harry "knows"/Draco's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169835 > Magpie: > > > This version is basically the non-revelatory one, where Snape just > > has to speechify about why he was bad all along--nobody > appreciating > > him, everyone else sucks, he never loved anyone because nobody > loved > > him, etc. Harry doesn't need to learn anything about Snape, > exactly, > > Snape's just there for Harry to pull himself up and pity and say: > > You are a pitiful man, and I am above you. Which is a tiny change > > from now in that now he thinks if he meets him along the way he'll > > kill him, but more of a development rather than a change. > > > Alla: > > Um, how is it a tiny change if Harry will go from hating Snape to > forgiving him? And I think it will be much more difficult for Harry > to forgive Snape knowing that he is evil or OFH or whoever as long as > he, you know, did not kill Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. > > I mean if Snape is DD!M, sure Harry will go through reevaluation of > his views, but if Snape is not completely DD!M, but at least a little > bit grey in a sense that responsibility for murder is his and his > only, but the motivations are something that Harry will be able to > understand, I think it will be difficult for Harry to forgive Snape, > but he will still do it. Magpie: Because ESE!Snape is toast. So Harry says "I'm better than you" and then Snape is either killed or in Azkaban. What else can Harry do? The only alternative is that he stews about him for his entire life, which Harry isn't going to do regardless. If Snape is DDM he's already grey--he *did* get Harry's parents killed and everything else. He just makes himself more difficult because he can't just be slotted into the bad guy spot and dealt with that way. It's nice for Harry if he can decide that rather than not forgiving Snape he can forgive him, but if Snape's on the bad side I don't think that will amount to much, practically speaking. Harry will still be able to fight against him tooth and nail and not rest until he's dead or in prison. ESE!Snape is sort of comforting if only because he's consistent for Harry. There's no danger of Snape ever becoming completely good, because we've seen him, objectively, being bad. Not bad meaning working for Voldemort necessarily (not since Harry's known him, if he's DDM, I mean) but genuinely doing nasty things. Not just things like being the eavesdropper but genuinely making Harry furious and miserable. Even though objectively in Harry's world it might be better all around if Snape were DDM and DD's death had some meaning, Harry wants Snape to be ESE. SSSusan: Yes, June 5 apparently, per JKR's website. Herself wishing Draco Malfoy a happy birthday?? What's up with that, folks? What does it mean for Draco in DH (if anything)? Or did she wish him happy birthday at her site before this year as well? Magpie: This is the third time she's wished him happy birthday.:-D The first time was pre-HBP. It was when I started to have serious hope for HBP, I remember.:-) -m From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jun 5 18:47:58 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:47:58 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169836 colebiancardi: > Oh yes, it could explain Snape's loyalty. The trust DD had in Snape > is a very important factor. If ESE, the question is how did Snape > hook-wink DD? If DDM, Harry needs to know this. Also, LV doesn't > trust Snape. He does not. LV has Wormtail hiding out in Snape's > lair and LV did not confide in Snape about Draco's plans at all. > What was explained in HBP was Harry's POV. DD stated that Snape > had remorse over the prophecy, but DD never stated WHAT it was that > made him trust Snape. DD tells Harry back in GoF, when Harry asked > him about the trust factor, that was something between him & Snape > and not Harry. So, there is something more - because the prophecy > is Harry's business. Dana: DD was never going to tell Harry who had brought the prophecy to LV and considered Snape's remorse enough to keep the information from Harry forever and thus making the reason's for that trust something between Snape and himself. DD did explain the reason for Snape's return in HBP when he specifically states he believed that it was Snape's greatest regret and the reason that he returned (HBP pg 513 UKed chapter "the seer overheard"). Harry's point of view has nothing to do with it because it does not change what DD said, we witnessed what DD said. Snape might not have lied at all he might truly have had remorse about HOW LV interpreted the prophecy because he still had that annoying debt. So no additional hoodwinking neccessary and to be on LV's side he doesn't have to believe in LV himself just not double cross him openly for him to find out and because Snape does not have a deathwish being loyal to LV doesn't take much effort just make sure he has not reason to kill you is all it takes. In GoF DD specifically states that he believed that Snape was never guilty of DE activity just like Ludo Bagman. We see that DD wants to give Draco a change to come over to the right side even though Draco has made two murder attempts. Snape never betrayed the trust DD had in him before the Potters died and afterwards there was no reason for Snape to betray DD but something changed and that was LV's return to power. LV's trust is not as unconditional as that of DD but he nevertheless shared Draco's task with Snape. Most Snape fans believe that DD confided in Snape in everything but DD never did that with anyone, he probably shared the most with Harry. So actually LV sharing information with Snape on an assignment that Snape was not even part of, is an indication LV did trust Snape. LV himself did not know how Draco was going to preform his task, he just had the assignement to bring DEs into the castle and from Snape's reaction it seems he knew that part too. Snape in Spinner's End uses precisely the same words DD used with Harry that the reason's for LV's trust in Snape is between the Dark Lord and himself. There is nothing more, DD trusted Snape would never go back to LV's side because he believed Snape was truly remorseful of what he had done and that him going against LV and providing DD with the necessary information was enough proof for DD to put his trust in Snape. As we see it didn't take much for him to believe Sirius story either even before DD talked to Harry and Hermione. Still someone's trust is not enough to determine Snape's loyalties, unless you want to suggest that DD blackmailed Snape and keep him in check by those means but that is not what trust is (or at least not DD's trust). The ironclad reason DD might have thought he had for his trust is him saving Snape from a life in Azkaban for being a DE and that Snape would be honorable enough to never sell out DD. We see that other people loyal to DD, are people DD personally helped out of a tight situation or has helped them by giving them a chance to a normal life. Another possibility is that DD believed that Snape truly wanted LV finished and that he for that reason would never sell out DD, Harry and the Order. But like DD said about Snape not continuing the occlumency lessons, some wounds are too deep for healing. DD referred only to Snape's hatred for James but he forgot to include Snape's hatred for Sirius, Lupin and ultimately Harry and maybe DD himself for letting the marauders get away with what Snape perceived as an attempt on his life. Maybe that is the reason we will see the prank again to understand why DD made the decisions he made after that night and we will then understand everybody's part in it. DD probably thought that Snape's remorse included that he regretted ever joining up and therefore he never thought about the reason's for Snape joining the DE's and I believe the circumstances that led Snape to LV in the first place repeated themselves on more then one occasion and I believe that Snape lost faith in DD but that DD wanted to hold on to his trust in Snape and that Snape would do the right thing in the end, but he didn't. DD is not an old fool for trusting Snape because somewhere deep down there probably was some good still lingering inside Snape but Snape is not a good occlumens for nothing. He can compartmentalize his feelings to such an extent that they no longer can balance his search for revenge. Maybe Snape truly hated DD for never picking his side, for never acknowledging Snape. I truly believe that the problems with Snape inability to let go of the past had more to do with DD then with the marauders because I truly believe that if DD had expelled them after that night that Snape would have let go and unfinished business has a tendency to comeback when one least expect it. So now we only have to wait for Snape to make an attempt on Lupin's life and Snape has eliminated every single person he thought to have responsibility in that night's events. I would not be surprised if Snape delivered the information about Peter to Lucius with the intention that Peter would sell out Sirius and maybe Lupin but that one bit Snape in the butt when Peter actually sold out James. Speculation of course but I do believe that the revelations about Snape will make the story of the marauders versus Snape fall into place and come full circle. DD put his trust in the wrong man as I believe he lost trust in Sirius and Snape set it up so in OotP that DD actually held Sirius responsible for the DoM ordeal. What more can a guy wish for, the one person that did not get the right punishment is now believed to have betrayed DD's trust and put Harry in danger and better yet he is now believed to be death. Yes, believed because I'm not convinced Sirius is actually dead, of course that is a different discussion but what fun would it be if Sirius thwarted Snape again and then say the joke is on you again Snivellus. You need to get up a little earlier to get ride of me. Oh well a girl can dream can't she? JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 18:46:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:46:19 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169837 wynnleaf: > And here's the thing Carol pointed out that is sooo cool. Carol: Thanks. > > >Carol: > > There's really no point in concealing information about Snape and his motives if he's already evil. Harry "knows" that. (And anyone who wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." Or Harry's promise to himself never to do something again, like his promise never to interfere in other people's business or spy on anyone again back in SS/PS. "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" is a bright red flag of the same sort waved in the reader's face.) > > wynnleaf > Absolutely correct! I started noticing this over the thing in OOTP of "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" If ever there was a promise that wouldn't come true, that just was obvious. Writers often use this sort of comment on the part of a character as a kind of "set up" for that character to be proven wrong. And clearly JKR has set up Harry several times with having Harry think he "knows" something or is "sure" of something, only to discover it just wasn't so, or didn't happen. > > I would love to see a list of all of these in the series. Has anyone ever done that? It's basically what "Harry knew" or what Harry knew he'd "never" do, or what Harry was "sure" of. > Are there any more? Carol responds: Well, you've listed some of mine already, but the "Harry knew" motif is most noticeable to me when he "knows" he's going to die or be expelled. Not once has he been right on those occasions (of course). Another example that jumps out at me relates to the teacher that Harry thinks is Mad-Eye Moody in GoF: "...Moody was drinking from his hip flask. Madam Rosmerta, the pretty landlady, didn't seem to think much of this.... Perhaps she thought it was an insult to her mulled mead. But *Harry knew* better. Moody had told them all during their last Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson that he preferred to prepare his own food and drink at all times, as it was so easy for Dark wizards to poison an unattended cup" (GoF Am. ed. 322). This passage is a lovely blend of fact and fiction (as concerns the story--I know that it's *all* fiction!). Aside from what Rosmerta thinks, which Harry is only guessing, what he *knows* is Barty Jr.'s cover story, the real Mad-eye's reasons for drinking from a hip flask, which Barty Jr. is borrowing as he borrows Moody's identity, mannerisms, and magical eye. The real reason that Fake!Moody drinks from a hip flask is so that he can publicly drink Polyjuice with no one the wiser. So what Harry know is a partial truth that he mistakes for the whole truth, a cover story that he's swallowed hook, line, and sinker. (Okay, that's a really bad mixed metaphor, but you get the point.) JKR uses a similar tactic when various characters (including Harry and his friends but not restricted to them) analyze events and conversations involving other people. Usually, they discover or stumble onto part of the truth but are wrong in other respects. For example, Hermione is right that Tonks is depressed but wrong in thinking that she blames herself for Sirius Black's death. The conversation that Harry overhears in the Three Broomsticks in PoA is another excellent example of information mixed with misinformation and misinterpretations. It's like the presentation of clues and red herrings throughout all the books). We're constantly being both led and misled, along with Harry, with his perceptions and preconceptions becoming ours if we're not careful. And yet, from the moment we learn that Harry's parents *weren't* killed in a car accident, despite the narrator's stating it as a fact, and especially from the moment "he was going to be expelled, he just knew it" (SS Am. ed. 130) turns out to be false (far from being expelled, he's made Gryffindor Seeker and given a state-of-the-art broom), we should be alerted to Harry's knowledge and perceptions being less than reliable. Carol, thinking that we should watch for instances of "Harry knew" that haven't yet been disproved (and for implied "knowledge" and assumptions where the word "knew" is not actually used) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 19:05:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:05:42 -0000 Subject: /What Harry "knows"/Draco's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169838 > > Alla: > > > > Um, how is it a tiny change if Harry will go from hating Snape to > > forgiving him? Magpie: > Because ESE!Snape is toast. So Harry says "I'm better than you" and > then Snape is either killed or in Azkaban. What else can Harry do? > The only alternative is that he stews about him for his entire life, > which Harry isn't going to do regardless. If Snape is DDM he's > already grey--he *did* get Harry's parents killed and everything > else. He just makes himself more difficult because he can't just be > slotted into the bad guy spot and dealt with that way. It's nice for > Harry if he can decide that rather than not forgiving Snape he can > forgive him, but if Snape's on the bad side I don't think that will > amount to much, practically speaking. Harry will still be able to > fight against him tooth and nail and not rest until he's dead or in > prison. > Alla: I do not think I understand. I am not even talking about completely ESE Snape here, I think, but about the one that is Greyer than DD!M. And I want to ask again, I guess. How is it forgiving a man, who let's say committed a murder because he thought he had no other way to help the good guys, but *without DD asking him to** does not amounts to much? Harry will still think that Snape murdered his mentor, but Harry will be able to identify with Snape's reasoning, MAYBE, that he felt helpless, trapped, maybe Snape indeed saw that there was no hope for DD to live, but DD himself still thought that there is hope. You do not think it will be **huge** thing for Harry to forgive this Snape? Keep in mind, for the purpose of this I am talking about **any** Snape, who killed DD of his own initiative, for whatever reason. Alla. From caleksandrova at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 18:38:07 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:38:07 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia weren't sisters Was: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169839 Anne Squires wrote: > Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. > Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. Perhaps DD just assumed > that Petunia and Lily were blood sisters. Would DD have had reason > to suspect otherwise? Maybe DD had assumed all these years that the > blood protection was in place at no. 4 when in actuality it wasn't. > What if there isn't any blood protection and there never has been? > When DD makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. Karina: The spell must indeed have worked. Voldemort himself confirms it in GoF: "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..." It does sound like the blood protection that is being discussed here, because of that phrase "while he is in his relations' care". -- Now, my ideas about the quote from JK Rowling: "She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." Petunia could not be a Squib because her parents were muggles, while by definition Squib is someone born to _magical parents_ without magical talent. However she could have had the same _feelings_ that Squibs may have. I think what that implies is that when the Evans family realized that Lily is a witch, and there a whole wizarding world out there, Petunia really wished to be a witch too. That's why she knows more about the wizarding stuff than she usually shows. She must have questioned everyone about it, and found out about Azkaban, Dementors, Voldemort... And of course, she was receiving letters from Dumbledore. But in the end, she was not a witch and couldn't become one. She was jealous of Lily, and became bitter, and turned away from all things magic, from the unfairness of it all. She rejected Lily because she was what Petunia wanted to be. I bet that's why she is upset and angry, whenever her sister is mentioned. I also think that jealousy of Harry - of the fact that he is a wizard - contributes to the way Petunia has treated him. It's not _the fear of magic_ as in Vernon, but more _jealousy_ that speaks in Petunia. I could draw parallels to a known Squib - Filch. We know that he wants to learn magic, as we've seen the KwikSpell letter he had. We also see how bitter he is about his inability to use magic: spying on students, banning all magic and magical toys from the corridors, wishing to use corporal punishments on them, etc... It's all jealousy, really. That quote does not indicate to me the possibility that Petunia and Lily weren't sisters. -- As far as different eyes, I have no ideas, none at all, but I'll be watching this topic with interest. Karina From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 5 19:52:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:52:13 -0000 Subject: The Liar, The Witch and The Werewolf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169840 > Pippin wrote: > > > > I was re-reading the first chapter of GoF yesterday, and I wondered > what Peter Pettigrew would have been doing in the wayside inn where he > supposedly met the Ministry witch Bertha Jorkins. Voldemort says he > stopped there because he was hungry. > > > > But Peter can steal all the food he needs as a rat! Why risk taking > human form just for that? It would have been most foolish. Even > Peter's not that stupid. > > Carol responds: > Clever and entertaining as always, Pippin, but I can't argue with a > hypothethetical explanation based on the assumption that Lupin is ESE. > I agree that it's odd that Pettigrew would stop at a wayside inn, but > the inn was in Albania, where Bertha had just visited her great aunt, > IIRC, and maybe Wormtail assumed that an English wizard who had been > "murdered" thirteen years before wouldn't be recognized by rural > Albanians. And wizards seem to have a habit of wearing their heads low over their faces if they don't want to be recognized. Pippin: But he thinks his old friends are hunting for him! At least, that's the reason we're given for his return to Lord V. He may be wearing his head down on his chest (I assume you meant hood, but I like head better!) but even so, does he speak Albanian? Fluently? When did he learn it? Or does he point to what he wants with his mutilated hand? Wanted murderers aren't supposed to make spectacles of themselves, and a foreigner in rural Albania could expect to stand out, even if it's a wizarding inn (which, BTW, we don't know.) It's not just Bertha he'd be afraid of running into, but Lupin, Sirius, and even more dangerous Order members like Mad-eye. After all, Peter isn't to know that Sirius has fled to the tropics or that Dumbledore thinks it might be rather helpful if Voldemort had a servant who owes Harry Potter a debt. Carol: Anyway, > Wormtail doesn't deny being the spy who ratted on the whole Order, and > we know he was the SK who betrayed the Potters, not to mention that he > has a Dark Mark burned into his arm (and Harry saw him, the short > hooded man, kill Cedric). Pippin: Hey, if you had a wand pointing at me, I'd probably confess to whatever you wanted, especially if I thought *you* did it, and you had three children as potential hostages. It wouldn't be the only false confession in canon, either. We don't know how long Peter had a dark mark burned into his arm -- but assuming Dumbledore knew to look for it as soon as Snape defected, before Voldemort's fall, (as DDM!Snapers must) how did DD miss finding it? Easy, if it wasn't there until Peter the SK was captured and forced to give up the secret. The weak point of the Secret Keeper spell as Sirius and James used it is that the identity of the SK himself is no safer than the minds of those protecting it. In fact we actually *see* Lupin apparently using legilimency to discover the identity of the real Secret Keeper: "But then...", Lupin muttered, staring at Black so intently it seemed he was trying to read his mind,"...why hasn't he shown himself before now? Unless" -- Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the rest could see,"--unless *he* was the one...unless you switched... without telling me?" Very slowly, his sunken gaze never leaving Lupin's face, Black nodded. So, is there a reason that Lupin couldn't have actually discovered this some twelve years earlier and used it to bargain for Lily's life? Next point, Harry did not see anyone kill Cedric. Here's the canon: >From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, "*Kill the spare.*" A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night: "*Avada Kedavra!*" A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. JKR was asked whether Wormtail had killed Cedric with Voldemort's wand. Her answer was "Correct" -- and of course it will still be correct and very clever if it turns out someone besides Peter is using the Wormtail name and that person killed Cedric. The identity of Wormtail is what Neri likes to call an official mystery, meaning that it has been questioned in canon, and therefore it's up for grabs even if we think it isn't any more. I know it sounds far-fetched, but JKR has taken advantage of confusion over names before. Judging by the Mark Evans business and the Ronil Wazlib mixup, both of which appear after Barty Jr is exposed, she could be plannning to do it again. Carol: > At any rate, I can see Wormtail, tired of living as a rat, craving > "people food" and taking what he saw as the very small risk of being > recognized in order to have a real meal for a change. Pippin: Um, people food is what rats eat. Though I can see the temptation of a last civilized meal before rejoining Voldemort, it seems a bit nervy for our Peter. He has physical courage, but only when he has protection, and he's supposed to be running for his life. Rats are never happy out in the open. Cassy: Personally, I love ESE!Lupin theory and I like your speculations, but what really interested me in this post was how do we know it was Lupin hexing Bertha? Pippin: We don't. Canon doesn't specify. I was speculating. Sorry that wasn't clear. Pippin From mykdzrspld at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 5 19:34:57 2007 From: mykdzrspld at sbcglobal.net (richard tripp) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <729546.23529.qm@web82309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169841 Since we are relaying theories here, what if.... The situation was simlar to that of Harry being placed in the Dursleys' home. Going with the theory that Petunia and Lily aren't twins, though obviously would have been the same or close to the same age, what if something happened to Lily's parents and she was placed with at the time the remaining blood relatives? Then they would still be blood (I find it very hard to believe that DD would over look a detail like "blood relation" when placing Harry with the Dursleys) and the protection would still be there. I don't know, just a theory right? jessica From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 20:14:41 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:14:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470706051314s468e743ah3f47941917e934b6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169842 Jeremiah: (Chiming in) Ok, so to start off, this subject began with Petunia's eyes not being the same as Lily's eyes. So, some of you have asked if that means they are not related by blood? How did you jump to that? Honestly, not every single sibling has the same eyes. My brother's eyes and my eyes aren't alike. Shape and color vary even between siblings. Second, there's a metaphore here. Petunia's eyes are different becasue she sees the world as a constant struggle for normality and acceptance. lily's eyes saw the world as being filed with magic and possibilities. Their eyes are different in more than one way. How they see the world and their place in it is completely different from eachother. Plus, Lily'e eyes are green. I can't remember what color Petunia's are but my brother's eyes are pale blue and mine are hazel green. And, yes, we have the same parents. Not only that, maybe lily & Petunia's mom got remaried at some point! We have no idea. On 6/5/07, Tandra wrote: > > "karen" wrote: > > do we know who > > is older- Petunia or Lily? > > > > Ok so let me make a leap and say that Lily and Petunia are not > > related by blood (as others have suggested to me). Petunia hates her > > sister and let me propose why. > > > > Imagine a muggle family- a young man, a woman, and their adorable > > daughter (Petunia). Now for whatever reason, they decide to adopt > > another child- Lily. Petunia is now not the only child and is angry > > about having to share her parents' attention with another. Quite > > typical for children. Now time goes by and her sister becomes > favored and Petunia is still jealous. Then, Lily is found to be a > witch and her parents are so proud. Well that is just it for Petunia! > She is enraged with her sister and jealous like crazy. Now, her sister > is murdered and the time comes for her to raise Harry as her own. She > is going to do exactly the oposite of what her parents did to their > little new comer (Lily). She is going to mistreat Harry not only > because he is her sister's son but also because she does not want her > son to feel the way she did growing up. Now what are your thoughts on > this? I have gotten responces from others saying that then there would > be no blood protection at no. 4 then if Petunia and Lily were not > blood related. However, someone else said, "At the end of 'Will and > Won't' in HBP, Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about > the blood protection. " Interesting... maybe she knows that there is > no blood relation with her and Lily... Thoughts please... > > TKJ replies: > I think that DD would of known the family dynamic. He would of known > if they were blood related or not. Why I think this I'm not all too > sure, but there had to be an eye kept on the house of some sort no? > Then why would they have known Lilly had magical powers? > > The theory I had come up with a while ago is that they are fraternal > twins. They were close until they were going to go off to a good > (secondary?) school, that Petunia was all proud about going to and > Lilly got her letter for Hogwarts. This made her parents proud and > they fumbled all over Lilly as Petunia said, making her horribly > jealous and bitter. > > Or maybe Lilly was always the favored twin and Petunia got into a > better school than her and was reveling in it. She was finally the > better one then arrives the letter from Hogwarts. IDK it's just my > theory. Feel free to pick it apart. > > TKJ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jun 5 20:20:48 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:On Children and the Message-ID: <8478626.1181074848342.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169843 From: Bruce Alan Wilson >I guess in American HS terms, the Griffindors would be the >Jocks, the Ravenclaws the Nerds, and the Slytherins the Socs, >while the Hufflepuffs would be those who couldn't get into any >of the cliques? Bart: Or, if Cedric is any indication, too cool to need cliques. I have one theory, just based on what happened to Harry, not to mention a number of pupils who appear to not be in the ideal House for them: if the student has a choice, that weighs heavily on the Sorting Hat. Now, for example, I doubt that an M-born can get into Slytherin, no matter HOW much they want to be, but half-bloods certainly can. But that would explain why, for example, Harry is not in Slytherin, Neville is not in Hufflepuff, Cedric was not in Gryffindor, and Hermione is not in Ravenclaw. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 20:20:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:20:31 -0000 Subject: Draco's Birthday (was: Snape and Malfoy (Narcissa)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169844 Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > Yes, June 5 apparently, per JKR's website. > > > > Herself wishing Draco Malfoy a happy birthday?? What's up with that, folks? What does it mean for Draco in DH (if anything)? Or did she wish him happy birthday at her site before this year as well? Hickengruendler: > > Yes, she did. She wished him a Happy Birthday for three years in a row, now. > > I do think it bodes well for a possible redemption of him, (but so did HBP anyway). I don't think she would sent him Birthday wishes, if she saw him as irredeemable or anything like that. Carol adds: Hi, SSS! I've missed your posts lately. I think the *timing* of Draco's birthday is very interesting since the events in the tower occur in early June, possibly on his birthday itself. Was Draco a "man" at the time that he let the DEs into Hogwarts with the intention of killing Dumbledore with them as back-up, or can he still claim being underage by a day or two if the Aurors arrest him for reckless endangerment and attempted murder? Would a few days make a difference in the eyes of the Wizengamot? (I tend to think they wouldn't.) Would Snape's vow to protect Draco (which was not limited like the "watch over him" provision by Draco's mission for the Dark Lord) still hold despite Draco's being of age, or would it expire (like Harry's blood protection) on the protected person's seventeenth birthday? I agree that Draco's presence on the birthday list (like Snape's) is a good sign and it may also indicate that she considers him a major character, unlike, say Dean Thomas and Seamus Finnigan, whose birthdays remain unknown. Carol, hoping for a new FAQ poll on JKR's site before it's too late! From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 5 20:33:07 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:33:07 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169845 > colebiancardi: > > Oh yes, it could explain Snape's loyalty. The trust DD had in Snape > > is a very important factor. If ESE, the question is how did Snape > > hook-wink DD? If DDM, Harry needs to know this. Also, LV doesn't > > trust Snape. He does not. LV has Wormtail hiding out in Snape's > > lair and LV did not confide in Snape about Draco's plans at all. > > What was explained in HBP was Harry's POV. DD stated that Snape > > had remorse over the prophecy, but DD never stated WHAT it was that > > made him trust Snape. DD tells Harry back in GoF, when Harry asked > > him about the trust factor, that was something between him & Snape > > and not Harry. So, there is something more - because the prophecy > > is Harry's business. > > Dana: > DD was never going to tell Harry who had brought the prophecy to LV > and considered Snape's remorse enough to keep the information from > Harry forever and thus making the reason's for that trust something > between Snape and himself. colebiancardi: In your opinion, of course. The point I was making was that Dumbledore told Harry it had nothing to do with him & it was between Snape & DD. Now, since Snape's deliverance of the prophecy to LV did cause Harry's parents deaths. That has a lot to do with Harry; it isn't just between DD & Snape > > DD did explain the reason for Snape's return in HBP when he > specifically states he believed that it was Snape's greatest regret > and the reason that he returned (HBP pg 513 UKed chapter "the seer > overheard"). Harry's point of view has nothing to do with it because > it does not change what DD said, we witnessed what DD said. colebiancardi: IMHO, no, DD didn't state that WAS the reason why Snape turned his back on LV and became a spy for Dumbledore. Harry interrupted Dumbledore in mid-sentence - about the reason why he turned (not returned). DD never stated that the "reason why Snape turned his back on LV was the prophecy". Harry's own POV does have a lot to do with it, because he offered that lame excuse up at the end of HBP to the others and they were kinda disbelieving it as well. > Dana: > Snape never betrayed the trust DD had in him before the Potters died > and afterwards there was no reason for Snape to betray DD but > something changed and that was LV's return to power. LV's trust is > not as unconditional as that of DD but he nevertheless shared Draco's > task with Snape. Most Snape fans believe that DD confided in Snape in > everything but DD never did that with anyone, he probably shared the > most with Harry. colebiancardi: huh? You think that DD trusted Snape when he was a deatheater? Where does Dumbledore state that? DD knew Snape was a Deatheater - in GoF, DD states that "Snape is no more of a Deatheater than I am" - but this is after Snape turned his back on the Deatheaters. I am sure that DD held a lot back from Harry and a lot back from Snape. I think that Snape knew more on certain things than Harry did. When Harry tries to tell DD about Snape & Draco, DD cuts him off. I don't think that DD shared even half of what he knew with Harry. I think that Snape knows a lot more, only thru the shear number of YEARS that Snape has worked with DD and the lack of years on Harry's side. > So actually LV sharing information with Snape on an > assignment that Snape was not even part of, is an indication LV did > trust Snape. colebiancardi: ok...So, the fact that LV would kill anyone who talked about it - that is all about trust as well? Again, LV doesn't trust Snape. He questions him and he performs Legimins on Snape, which is why Snape has to guard himself with Occulmacy. That doesn't sound like a trusting soul to me. > Dana: > Still someone's trust is not enough to determine Snape's loyalties, > unless you want to suggest that DD blackmailed Snape and keep him in > check by those means but that is not what trust is (or at least not > DD's trust). > colebiancardi: of course DD didn't use blackmail or an UV on Snape to entrust his loyalty. But neither did DD take Snape at face value either. DD isn't stupid; Unlike Draco, DD recruited Snape to spy on LV and become a double agent. Draco was just going to go into hiding. Snape's loyalty had to be something more than a long face & a story about "remorse" over the prophecy. > Dana: > So now we only have to wait for Snape to make an attempt on Lupin's > life and > Snape has eliminated every single person he thought to have > responsibility in that night's events. colebiancardi: WOW! Snape is not responsible for the death of Sirius. Snape has never tried to kill Lupin, and he had plenty of opportunities in PoA with the monthly potion. Snape delivered 1/2 of the prophecy to LV, but by turning to DD, ensured his place, IMHO, that he was working against LV and tried to prevent the deaths of the Potters. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 5 20:37:20 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:37:20 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: <099401c7a758$f776b0e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Merryfield" wrote: > > Pickle_Jimmy: > (snip) > He thinks it is Harry, because it is his > one > desire, but it is actually just a "reflection" in the Mirror of > > Erised he is advancing on. > (snip) Lauren: > Hi, > I can't believe this but I just realized that Erised is "desire" backwards. > Thanks Geoff: Perhaps you've missed the inscription on the mirror: Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi If you write this backwards, you get: ishow no tyo urfac ebu tyo urhe arts desire which makes more sense when spaced correctly as: I show not your face but your heart's desire. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 20:37:36 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:37:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: <729546.23529.qm@web82309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <729546.23529.qm@web82309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40706051337h776e05e5ra770d0fbd7074d63@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169847 jessica wrote: > > Since we are relaying theories here, what if.... > > The situation was simlar to that of Harry being placed in the Dursleys' > home. Going with the theory that Petunia and Lily aren't twins, though > obviously would have been the same or close to the same age, what if > something happened to Lily's parents and she was placed with at the time the > remaining blood relatives? Then they would still be blood (I find it very > hard to believe that DD would over look a detail like "blood relation" when > placing Harry with the Dursleys) and the protection would still be there. I > don't know, just a theory right? > montims: and here I am again... She DOES say "my" mother and father, not "our", in PS - *"I was the only one who saw her for what she was -- a freak! But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family!"* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 20:47:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:47:08 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169848 > > Dana: > > So now we only have to wait for Snape to make an attempt on Lupin's > > life and > > Snape has eliminated every single person he thought to have > > responsibility in that night's events. > > colebiancardi: > > WOW! Snape is not responsible for the death of Sirius. Snape has > never tried to kill Lupin, and he had plenty of opportunities in PoA > with the monthly potion. Snape delivered 1/2 of the prophecy to LV, > but by turning to DD, ensured his place, IMHO, that he was working > against LV and tried to prevent the deaths of the Potters. > Alla: The list member whose writings I simply love ( among many others) and agree with once said that maybe it will all turn out to be about Snape grudge indeed. Now, I cannot exclude the possibility obviously and do not really want to. But Snape meticulously waiting to strike out at every single Marauder.. Bleh. I hope not. I hope he is not **that** pathetic. I mean, I think Jen's theory about him being responsible in some way for Sirius death makes sense, but not Snape making his life purpose to kill James, Sirius and Lupin. Although, Snape seems to me to make his life purpose to make Harry's life miserable sounds to me to be **that** pathetic, but still. But yes, one can wonder indeed. I totally hold Snape responsible for death of James and Lily. In part of course, Voldemort bears more blame. Snape **himself** took credit for Sirius' death, whether one believes him or not. All we left is Lupin indeed. Hmmmm, Dana, I do not want you to be right - not because I have any sympathy for Snape, but because I find him much more fascinating and multilayered evil if he has some dignity and won't do something that pathetic, but I won't exclude the possibility JMO of course and speculative one at that, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 5 21:14:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:14:21 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169849 Dana: > DD did explain the reason for Snape's return in HBP when he specifically states he believed that it was Snape's greatest regret and the reason that he returned . Harry's point of view has nothing to do with it because it does not change what DD said, we witnessed what DD said. Snape might not have lied at all he might truly have had remorse about HOW LV interpreted the prophecy because he still had that annoying debt. So no additional hoodwinking neccessary and to be on LV's side he doesn't have to believe in LV himself just not double cross him openly for him to find out and because Snape does not have a deathwish being loyal to LV doesn't take much effort just make sure he has not reason to kill you is all it takes. Carol responds: Well, yes. But what DD was still concealing as of the end of HBP is his "ironclad" reason for trusting Snape, which is not what Harry presents it to be in the hospital wing and which is not the same as Snape's reason for returning to our side. We *know* how Snape hoodwinked Voldemort, assuming he's DDM. He used his superb Occlumency to lie to him without detection. What we don't know is what he said to Dumbledore to "hoodwink" him, *if* that's what he did. And revealing how LV interpreted the Prophecy (informing DD that he's specifically targeting the Potters) doesn't sound like hoodwinking to me. (Life debt or no life debt, that can't be interpreted as loyalty to Voldemort.) But that *isn't* the reason that Snape trusts Snape "completely," which we still don't know. So Harry's pov does have everything to do with it. We still know only what he knows, and we also see him accidentally distorting what DD has told him to fit his view of the facts. He tells everyone present that DD's "ironclad" reason for trusting Snape was Snape's remorse over the Potters' deaths: Tonks says that she'd love to know what convinced DD to trust Snape, and Harry says "I know!" They all turn to him and he adds,"Snape passed Voldemort information that made Voldemort hunt down my Mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore that he hadn't realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead" (HBP Am. ed. 616). Harry's version is false on at least two counts, setting aside that Snape could not have known that the information would lead to the Potters' deaths when he passed it to Voldemort because he could not possibly have known whom the Prophecy referred to. More important, it *isn't* the reason for DD's trust in Snape (which we still don't know), and Snape came to DD with his tale of remorse and began spying for DD "at great personal risk" *before* Godric's Hollow. His remorse came from Voldemort's interpretation of the Prophecy, not from the deaths themselves, and probably predates the deaths by some months or Snape could not have spied for DD "at great personal risk." Harry knows from DD's explanation after his first excursion into DD's Pensieve in GoF that Snape's return to "our side" predates GH *and* he knows that DD has just refused, only hours before, to explain why he "trust[s] Severus Snape completely," but he has conveniently and understandably forgotten this distinction and these details when he presents his version of events to his friends in the hospital wing. I don't know about you, but I think that many readers were jolted by Harry's jumbling of the facts here and viewed it as a signal that Harry will be corrected later. (Either that or JKR is confused herself and I don't think that's the case.) Dana: > In GoF DD specifically states that he believed that Snape was never guilty of DE activity just like Ludo Bagman. Carol: Actually, Dumbledore doesn't say that he never believed that Snape was "guilty of DE activity." (He'd be pretty naive to believe that considering that he knows that Snape was the eavesdropper. and it would be difficult for Snape to spy on LV--or return to him at the end of GoF on DD's orders--if he hadn't been a Death Eater.) Nor does he, for that matter, excuse Ludo Bagman of passing information to DEs. Ludo himself admits doing so, but not knowing that "old Rookwood" was a DE. What DD says in the Pensieve regarding Snape is, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am" (GoF Am. ed. 390-91). Harry wonders after his return whether Bagman has been involved with the DEs since, though he only manages to say, "Er, Mr. Bagman?" DD responds that Bagman "has never been accused of Dark activity since" (which, of course, gives us no indication of DD's real view of Bagman). Then Harry wonders about snape, whose face rises out of the Pensieve at exactly that moment, and DD says, "No more has Professor Snape." that response in itself merely indicates that Snape, like Bagman, hasn't been *accused* of being involved with Dark wizards since that time (but, of course, we've already heard his testimony in the Pensieve, as has Harry). But Harry isn't satisfied and asks, "What made you think he'd really stopped supporting Voldemort, Professor?" And Harry gets even more of a nonresponse than he gets in HBP, where DD at least hesitates and considers telling him the truth. Here, he says, "That Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself" (604). At any rate, DD is not a "stupid old man" who believes that neither Snape nor Bagman was ever involved with Death Eaters. And ift would be rather stupid of Snape to reveal his Dark Mark infront of him and report on its status in GoF if he did. Carol, who hopes that Harry gets his facts straight in DH, whatever additional information is revealed > From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 21:38:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:38:44 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, Sirius - favorite moments / re: Why Sirius had to die-maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169850 > Betsy Hp: > And I've been meaning to do so for *forever*. So, favorite > Sirius moments, just for you, Jen. Jen: Omigosh, you actually did it! You know what's funny, I started thinking about Sirius after my comment and realized many of his character moments are tinged with something besides pure pleasure for me and yet, he's right up at number two or three of my favorite characters. I decided it's because he signals the return of all Harry has lost as well as not distancing himself from Harry like so many of the other males do. Plus finding out how how ill-equipped he is to actually give those things to Harry - the dichotomoy of the character. Sirius is just sort of a tragic figure to me, doomed from the start and backed into a corner in OOTP before being offed - brutal, like you said. BetsyHp: > Full confession time: I liked Sirius in the Pensieve scene. Oh, I > hate what he and James did to Snape of course, but I loved how > carefree and beautiful and arrogant Sirius was. And I really loved > how close he was with James. That interplay after Lily stormed > off, "Reading between the lines, mate, I'd say she doesn't like > you" was perfect. (That's a guess at the line since I'm away from > my books at the moment.) Jen: This was one of those scenes tinged with something where I didn't care for him, lol. Too much on the carefree and arrogant side. I liked the scene you mentioned in the fire with Sirius remembering James more than actually seeing them in action. ;) Okay, my own favorite moments (besides Gary Oldham portraying him in POA, hehe): * Sirius and Lupin together in the Shack when they first meet up again and start piecing together what happened - all that manly man stuff going on until Snape and Peter mess everything up. * "Harry...I as good as killed them," he croaked. * "Panting slightly and sweeping his long dark hair out of his eyes, Harry's godfather Sirius, turned to face him. 'Hello, Harry,' he said grimly, 'I see you've met my mother.'" I don't know why JKR introduced him in OOTP without naming him, but it worked. * Last but not least, his sense of freedom and release when battling Bellatrix and then the ultimate freedom from his adult life of almost continual imprisonment when he falls through the Veil. It seems right to me now even though I really hated OOTP when he died (and the revelation of the prophecy and DD's explanation didn't give me a warm feeling, either). Thanks, Betsy, it's fun to go down memory lane as we get closer to the end. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 22:13:31 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:13:31 -0000 Subject: /What Harry "knows"/Draco's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169851 > Alla: > > I do not think I understand. I am not even talking about completely > ESE Snape here, I think, but about the one that is Greyer than DD! M. Magpie: I guess I forget that people consider a Snape that goes back and forth in any way. To me it seems like he's either LVM or DDM. I don't think he can be both. LVM is completely black, because he's both loyal to LV and a jerk who hates Harry unfairly. DDM Snape is grey because he's a jerk who hates Harry but also committed to Dumbledore's side. Alla: > And I want to ask again, I guess. How is it forgiving a man, who > let's say committed a murder because he thought he had no other way > to help the good guys, but *without DD asking him to** does not > amounts to much? > > Harry will still think that Snape murdered his mentor, but Harry will > be able to identify with Snape's reasoning, MAYBE, that he felt > helpless, trapped, maybe Snape indeed saw that there was no hope for > DD to live, but DD himself still thought that there is hope. > > You do not think it will be **huge** thing for Harry to forgive this > Snape? Magpie: Isn't that DDM Snape? If he murdered DD to help the good guys then Harry has to accept that Snape's one of the good guys. Though I doubt that if he is DDM that's quite the way it worked--because like you, that really does seem like a bit much for Snape to have decided on his own. Besides which, I think the murder had to in some way be an answer to "Severus, please," which indicates something going on betten DD and Snape that they both know about. It would still be very difficult for Harry to accept his murder or Dumbledore if that was Snape's improvisation. But yes, I do agree it would be a big deal if Harry had to forgive Snape and see him as DDM with that happening. What I don't think would be as big of a deal is if Harry forgave ESE!Snape, because practically that wouldn't amount to much. He would basically be like Peter Pettigrew II. To me that's the distinction in Harry's forgiveness in ESE vs. DDM Snape. Harry hasn't forgiven Peter in any big way, but he rarely thinks about him. He's not tied to him with the kind of resentment he feels for Snape. He doesn't make Harry so angry. He's able to step in and say "Don't become murderers over him--let the Dementors have him." I don't think there's anything that interesting in Harry going from the way he feels about Snape now (which is more akin to when he wanted to kill Sirius--but far more personal and angry) and the way he feels about Peter now. If Snape is If he is LVM it seems like there has to at least be some element to why or how he's been LVM that is a slap upside the head to Harry and I can't see where it is now. Because it just seems like whatever happens it has to be a moment of serious re-cognition for Harry where he looks back at his own feelings and, like Lizzie Bennett, suddenly sees everything differently because he understands Snape's motivations. If Snape's motivations were bad ones, I don't think that's much of a change. And as an aside, this also applies to Dumbledore. I think Harry's got to be moving towards an understanding of why Dumbledore trusted Snape and how Dumbledore saw the world. I think we got a foreshadowing of it in the Tower in the way Dumbledore dealt with Draco. If Snape was actually a worse man than Dumbledore thought, if Dumbledore was tricked by Snape, it makes for ultimately a very different Dumbledore than DDM!Snape does. It's the difference between Harry basically forgiving or avenging Dumbledore as a victim and learning from him as a mentor and a guide. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 5 22:18:28 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:18:28 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe (was: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169852 Magpie: > This was written in response to a paper I saw at Phoenix Rising > (which was great) about PoA as a Gothic novel. The paper > concentrated solely on PoA and showed how it followed the tropes > and themes of the Gothic novel, including its anxiety about the > failure of the patriarchal line (that's ultimately conquered when > Harry learns it was he and not James that chased away the > Dementors). Hearing about PoA discussed in terms of the Gothic > makes me think how funny it was that at the time it came out, and > even afterwards in GoF, we saw Sirius as a character presented as a > man on his own who was part of *Harry's* family as one of the > Marauders. He was like an uncle, along with Remus and even Peter. > Harry saw him as family and a connection to his father. Jen: I don't know much about the Gothic novel but did happen to search for that information a couple of weeks ago when wondering if Snape would fit the role of a Gothic character. From what I read, POA doesn't seem like the most obvious example of having a Gothic theme so I'd be curious to read that paper if you have a link. Carol explained some elements present and I did think of the remark from Sirius about Peter handing over the 'last of the Potter line'; that was analyzed quite a bit prior to the prophecy as being significant for why Harry was targeted by Voldemort (Heir of Gryffindor). When learning about the Gothic novel, I thought more of OOTP and the Blacks too, as well as thinking some of the imagery present at Grimmauld reminded me of "The Fall of the House of Usher" (not exactly a traditional Gothic novel but with those influences), i.e., Sirius having death omens around him and looking not exactly cadaverous anymore but not well either, particularly his state of mind. Then there was the foreboding and sense of claustrophobia about the decrepit house, Harry's dream on the first night there and of course, the painting coming alive as the screaming madwoman; all elements seemed to combine to indicate a terrible tragedy having taken place or being in the offing (in retrospect). Magpie: > But then in OotP it turns out Sirius actually exists in the context > of this big, clanking Gothic structure of his own: the Black > family. And that's what got me thinking about his death. One of > the things that seems kind of important about the Black family is > it's so deeply connected to Slytherin and Purebloods. Like, if > ultimately Slytherin has to be integrated into the school, how does > JKR go about attacking its problems? The obvious solution seems to > be that she went Gothic, creating this family with a house full of > secrets that is being destroyed from within. Sirius' father isn't > really shown, but the mere fact that his mother is mad and > screaming kind of indicates a failure there. Sirius and Regulus > both failed in different ways as adults. Jen: A failure, yes, and Mr. Black's absence gives a sense of the patriarchal figure having no power to save any of them from their fates. Yet there's the idea the failure wasn't complete with the introduction of R.A.B., most likely Regulus, and then Sirius dying but living on in the underworld. I can see those ideas tying into your thoughts here about Harry. Magpie: > So why did Sirius have to die, besides Harry going on alone? > Honestly, I think it may be important for Sirius to have died > because Harry is his heir. In inheriting the Black House, which of > course symbolizes all the secrets and tragedies of the Black family > (literally and figuratively) Harry has become an Heir to the Black > family in Sirius' place. Just as PoA gave us the Shrieking Shack > that held the Potter family secrets Harry has now inherited and > taken ownership of the even more insane Black family secrets-- > secrets it's going to be harder for him to uncover on his own. Jen: One thing to add here: JKR answers the direct statement that Harry as Heir of Gryffindor is a kaput theory, and her comment was: '[Pause] yeah - well, yeah.' Yes, the answer probably needs to be looked at as JKR hesitating to squash a theory but that's too boring for me , so I prefer the explanation that she's hesitating because there is one heir of Gryffindor still alive in Aberforth. But what if that pause was because she knows Harry isn't a blood heir exactly but his being an heir of the Blacks is much more significant than what we've been shown so far? There's unfinished literal business with the locket located at Grimmauld but this seems like a perfect place to insert something that's always bothered me and is a bit obsessive-compulsive of me: The Permanent Sticking charm on the family tapestry and the fact that it's one major artifact the Order can't get rid of in the House of Black. Lol, it's silly but now I see where there could be some significance to that - everything in the house *shouldn't* be removed and cleaned away as if the family never existed and especially not that tapestry. Magpie: > On a deeper level, it's important Ron and Hermione don't feel that > sense of threat, because HBP has Harry alone dipping into > Slytherin. Jen: I agree this was a big part of HBP. It really was the Slytherin book just as I think of POA as the Gryffindor book and GOF as the Hufflepuff one (messages of inclusiveness). Harry was on his own journey connecting with parts of himself that interestingly enough, he was finally given permission to connect with from Dumbledore. Dumbledore, who really is the ultimate Slytherin when it comes to ambition - bringing down his second Dark Lord after all - is also the messenger trumpeting the news of Harry as a Black heir and starting him on his journey by taking Harry to meet Slughorn, the first Slytherin Harry doesn't outright detest even though he doesn't exactly like Slughorn, either. Magpie: > Don't know where all this is going, of course. I just love Harry > almost unwittingly being drawn into the drama of the family he > inherited. And I wonder if that won't be an important reason Sirius > had to die, so that Harry would become a man of both families and > have Sirius' place vacated. Jen: One problem with the way JKR writes (to me) is she dabbles so much in different genres that my guess is you offered a more thorough explanation than she ever would! She seems to consider many tantalizing possibilities that tend to waft off into a couple of concrete actions meant to sum up the entire situation. So in this case, what I could see taking place is something else you considered awhile back, IIRC. Weren't you the one suggesting that the information in HBP about the curse-that-wasn't on inheriting Grimmauld Place might come back into play? Because it didn't have any real meaning in that situation or rather, it fizzled out to nothing so there really wasn't a reason to bring it up. I liked that scenario, that Draco and Harry, (familial cousins if not blood brothers, lol) will come together out of necessity when only someone connected to Slytherin House can open the locket. That seems like a very concrete action JKR would take, leaving readers to fill in the blanks of the how that occurred and what the deeper connections are. Jen, liking the entire essay very much. :) From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jun 5 22:50:10 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:50:10 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169853 colebiancardi: > In your opinion, of course. The point I was making was that > Dumbledore told Harry it had nothing to do with him & it was between > Snape & DD. Now, since Snape's deliverance of the prophecy to LV > did cause Harry's parents deaths. That has a lot to do with Harry; > it isn't just between DD & Snape Dana: DD never stated that it had nothing to do with Harry; he just stated that it was a matter between him and Professor Snape. And because DD never had any intention to ever reveal that information because he did not hold Snape responsible for LV's choices, it would never be anything else then between him and Snape. DD never revealed to anyone that it was Snape bringing the prophecy to LV and the only once that knew Snape was there that night were DD, Snape, the bartender and Trelawney but the later two probably did not know what it was about. Dana before: > > DD did explain the reason for Snape's return in HBP when he > > specifically states he believed that it was Snape's greatest > > regret and the reason that he returned (HBP pg 513 UKed > > chapter "the seer overheard"). Harry's point of view has nothing > > to do with it because it does not change what DD said, we > > witnessed what DD said. colebiancardi: > IMHO, no, DD didn't state that WAS the reason why Snape turned his > back on LV and became a spy for Dumbledore. Harry interrupted > Dumbledore in mid-sentence - about the reason why he turned (not > returned). DD never stated that the "reason why Snape turned his > back on LV was the prophecy". Harry's own POV does have a lot to > do with it, because he offered that lame excuse up at the end of > HBP to the others and they were kinda disbelieving it as well. Dana: It specifically states that DD believed that it was Snape's reason for his *return* not turned. Harry does not stop DD in mid-sentence. He is talking about Snape greatest regret. Snape himself states the same thing in Spinner's end that he told DD a story of his deepest regret. JKR states that Snape told DD his story and DD believe it. Maybe it isn't all there is to it but her quote was before HBP came out and not after so at this point it might as well be all there is to it. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Ali: Why specifically does Dumbledore trust Snape? JK Rowling replies -> Another excellent and non-answerable question. I shall merely say that Snape has given Dumbledore his story and Dumbledore believes it. colebiancardi: > huh? You think that DD trusted Snape when he was a deatheater? > Where does Dumbledore state that? DD knew Snape was a Deatheater - > in GoF, DD states that "Snape is no more of a Deatheater than I > am" - but this is after Snape turned his back on the Deatheaters. Dana: Maybe I totally misread the books but didn't Snape returned to the side of good while he was a DE and still was a DE which made it possible for him to spy for DD? Snape came to DD before LV's downfall and him giving DD information is what made DD trust Snape. After that Snape didn't do anything specific for DD but was merely a teacher at his school. The trust issue comes from Snape's return to the side of good and DD trusted Snape enough to give him a job as a teacher. Snape was still in LV's service because otherwise Snape would never have lived long enough to take the teaching job because that too was started before LV's downfall. And if Snape was no longer in LV's service then he would never have been able to return to him at the end of GoF. Snape might or might not have been an active DE, after he went to DD but both LV and his fellow DEs still believed Snape to be a DE and only because of DD was Snape never charged with being one. colebiancardi: > ok...So, the fact that LV would kill anyone who talked about it - > that is all about trust as well? > > Again, LV doesn't trust Snape. He questions him and he performs > Legimins on Snape, which is why Snape has to guard himself with > Occulmacy. That doesn't sound like a trusting soul to me. Dana: Mhhh both Bella and Narcissa seem to think LV trusts Snape and Narcissa might have used it to boost Snape's ego but Bella surely did not and even she admits LV trusts Snape. LV's trust is not unconditional and he does not trust blindly and revokes trusts as easily as changing socks but that doesn't mean that he does not trust his DEs with specific information when he believes that DE to be loyal to him. His reasons to trust his followers has nothing to do with the way DD trusts people and breaking that trust surely has a lot more consequences then breaking DD's trust and thus all the more reason not to go about it lightly. colebiancardi: > of course DD didn't use blackmail or an UV on Snape to entrust his > loyalty. But neither did DD take Snape at face value either. DD > isn't stupid; Unlike Draco, DD recruited Snape to spy on LV and > become a double agent. Draco was just going to go into hiding. > Snape's loyalty had to be something more than a long face & a story > about "remorse" over the prophecy. Dana: Well I disagree I think DD did take Snape at face value and because Snape did nothing to break that trust before LV's return to power, there was no reason for DD to re-evaluate that trust. Sorry but I disagree with you that DD recruited Snape to spy on LV. I believe Snape offered his service to DD so he could repay the debt he owed James and I believe DD took the offer as an indication that Snape truly wanted to help in the fight against LV and protecting the Potters. The former might have been true or false but the later was surely true because of the debt he owed James. Only at the end of GoF did DD send Snape back to LV. I believe that Snape only gave DD specific information concerning the Potters and nothing more then that. He never closed the door behind him and it even is specifically suggested that he held the door wide open by his association with Lucius. Also Snape specifically states that he was sent to spy on DD and if you look at the definition of a double spy then he only pretends to work for one party while actually working for the other (not for both) and mostly it are people who are captured or pretend to have defected and then are send back to spy on the camp of origin and they pretend to spy for the camp who send them there. So in that case it is DD who send Snape to spy on LV which was Snape's camp of origin. So in the strictest sense Snape is pretending to spy for DD but is actually spying for LV and for what is said in canon this seemed to be more true then the other way around as Snape's information does nothing for the Order but it seemed to at least eliminate two Order Members and in HBP he helped to get ride of the only one LV ever feared. Makes you wonder doesn't it. Will need a really good excuse to iron that flat in my opinion and DD selling out his own Order Members so Snape can keep his cover with LV is not going to cut it with me because a man so against the killing of people would never give his spy the green light to provide a murderous lunatic with information that would lead to the death of the people who are fighting for his cause. I do not think there was more to the story of DD's trust in Snape. I might be proven wrong in DH but I actually do not believe it will be so because DD is no longer there to tell the story himself and why I think JKR included it in HBP. DD isn't stupid but that doesn't mean that he can't believe in a person that did not deserve to be believed in or not for the reasons DD believed in him. DD was very noble to give so much unconditional trust to Snape and it is not up to DD to live up to that trust but Snape's and DD might not have found sufficient evidence (although I believe he did start to worry in HBP and why he was so angry with Snape) to revoke that trust. Just because Harry questions that trust does not make it a good enough reason to stop trusting Snape. If that was the case then DD should have stopped trusting Lupin just because Snape said so. But yes, I do believe that DD made a critical error with Snape and that is he underestimated the power behind Snape's hatred. And again I do not thing we should question DD's trust in Snape but Snape's trust in DD. I think it is much more crucial then for whatever reason DD trusted Snape because like I stated above it is not up to DD to live up to the trust he gives but the person he gives it to. colebiancardi: > WOW! Snape is not responsible for the death of Sirius. Snape has > never tried to kill Lupin, and he had plenty of opportunities in PoA > with the monthly potion. Snape delivered 1/2 of the prophecy to LV, > but by turning to DD, ensured his place, IMHO, that he was working > against LV and tried to prevent the deaths of the Potters. Dana: Might I remind you that Snape did want to have Lupin soul sucked too? He could not mess with the potion for the simple fact that it would not kill Lupin but make him a danger to the student body and that it would implicate Snape as being the one who would have caused it. And the same goes for poisoning Lupin. Snape is not going to murder anyone that could lead to him as the perpetrator. If he wants them dead then he is surely not going to spend time in Azkaban for it. Snape claims to have helped in the disposal of Black himself and I do believe that he helped LV get Harry to the DoM and by notifying the Order it would be a sure thing that Sirius would never stay behind. I also believe that he tried all year without success to get Sirius out of hiding. Maybe there is still some merit in Harry thinking Sirius might be poisoned who knows. But Snape surely with his statement towards DD helped to set the stage for DD to blame Sirius for the whole events. And surely I still hold the theory that Kreacher had nothing to do with it and that the memory to implicate him as the one betraying Sirius and thus Harry was planted to lead DD away from the person that truly betrayed Harry and thus Sirius. But that is just again speculation. Alla: > Hmmmm, Dana, I do not want you to be right - not because I have any > sympathy for Snape, but because I find him much more fascinating and > multilayered evil if he has some dignity and won't do something that > pathetic, but I won't exclude the possibility Dana: Well to be honest with you I do think he would do something as pathetic as that and he showed throughout the books how pathetic he truly is by bullying his students and especially Harry and Neville and to be honest with you I always felt that Snape's bullying of Neville was as personal as his bullying of Harry. Hatred truly does make people's mind work in a pathetical kind of way and wanting to take revenge CAN absorb people's minds in such a way that they will not rest till they have it. I never saw Snape as multilayered at all and I certainly do not see him having any dignity. I only saw a man absorbed by his hatred that even could not teach Harry something as important as occlumency because Harry witnessed his father and Sirius bully Snape. That to me is pathetic that you can't stand above something that happened 20 years ago. James is dead, Sirius was still a wanted criminal and spent most of his adult live behind bars and still Snape could not rise above it? I personally do not see why Snape's part in the story should be any bigger then a pathetic man that could never learn from his own mistakes because he blamed everybody else for not getting the live he thought he deserved? JMHO Dana From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 19:38:33 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:38:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily and Petunia weren't sisters Was: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706051238i5a313cc0xa9fd42447299d58b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169854 > > Anne Squires wrote: > > > Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. > > Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. Perhaps DD just assumed > > that Petunia and Lily were blood sisters. Would DD have had reason > > to suspect otherwise? Maybe DD had assumed all these years that the > > blood protection was in place at no. 4 when in actuality it wasn't. > > What if there isn't any blood protection and there never has been? > > When DD makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. > > Karina: > > The spell must indeed have worked. Voldemort himself confirms it in GoF: > > "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than > I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long > ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore > invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he > is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..." > > It does sound like the blood protection that is being discussed here, > because of that phrase "while he is in his relations' care". montims: Oh dear - I wasn't going to enter this one, but thinking about it: It COULD be that DD is in error in believing that they are blood relatives, but that LV does not know this - if Snape (or another spy - Wormtail would have heard this discussed often both at the Burrow and Hogwarts, I am sure) believed the protection was unbreakable ancient magic, and told LV so, he would not have even attempted to break it. He saw the result of his Lily-blocked AK, after all, and wouldn't want to risk a recurrence... I thought first of all that the WW would know everything about Lily's family, but it's true that her ancestors were muggles, and her parents died young. If Lily herself wasn't aware that she and Petunia weren't true sisters, there is no real reason why the WW would have investigated very deeply... Obviously, since the AK, everything Potter is public WW history, but before this? Hmmm..... By the way, I believe Petunia is older than Lily. JMO. I'm almost convinced now... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Tue Jun 5 23:37:03 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:37:03 -0000 Subject: Lily and Petunia weren't sisters Was: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706051238i5a313cc0xa9fd42447299d58b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Anne Squires wrote: > > > > > Maybe Lily and Petunia aren't sisters by blood after all. > > > Maybe one or the other was indeed adopted. > > Karina: > > > > The spell must indeed have worked. Voldemort himself confirms it in GoF: > > > > "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than > > I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long > > ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore > > invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he > > is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..." > > > > It does sound like the blood protection that is being discussed here, > > because of that phrase "while he is in his relations' care". > > > montims: > > Oh dear - I wasn't going to enter this one, but thinking about it: It COULD > be that DD is in error in believing that they are blood relatives, but that > LV does not know this - if Snape (or another spy - Wormtail would have heard > this discussed often both at the Burrow and Hogwarts, I am sure) believed > the protection was unbreakable ancient magic, and told LV so, he would not > have even attempted to break it. He saw the result of his Lily- blocked AK, > after all, and wouldn't want to risk a recurrence... > > I thought first of all that the WW would know everything about Lily's > family, but it's true that her ancestors were muggles, and her parents died > young. If Lily herself wasn't aware that she and Petunia weren't true > sisters, there is no real reason why the WW would have investigated very > deeply... Obviously, since the AK, everything Potter is public WW history, > but before this? Hmmm..... By the way, I believe Petunia is older than > Lily. JMO. > > I'm almost convinced now... > > Karen: I feel it's possible that they could be cousins, as someone replied earlier. However, going along with the thought that there is no blood relationship... what about if DD knew about it and Voldemort didn't. DD did place that crazy lady with the cats down the street from Harry to look over him. Maybe he knew they weren't related by blood and felt like he needed something extra to protect harry. If Harry was protected by the blood thing then why the need for this woman. Forgive me for forgetting her name but I am re-reading 1-6 now. This blood protection is very strong though so there would be no need for her whatsoever. > From mkemp at aandr.com.au Tue Jun 5 23:54:57 2007 From: mkemp at aandr.com.au (pickle_jimmy) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:54:57 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > SNIP > Once again I say Dumbledore will have a part to play, but not > as a living entity. > SNIP > Goddlefrood > Sounds like you're alluding to a "Dumbledore died to again seal some kind of old magic protection on Harry theory - similar to Lilly's"?? Voldemort: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! ... Sorry if I have put words in your mouth, not my intent ... Actually, this seems a little shallow for a person of your thinking Goddlefrood - it is more like something I'd come up with :-) Though it would explain the fervor to which you defend the dumbledore is dead line :-) "Cant seal your love with your martyrdom if you dont die" I look forward to your actual posted theory, and not my rantings :-) Cheers Pickle Jimmy From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 6 00:00:04 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:00:04 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169857 > Dana: > DD never stated that it had nothing to do with Harry; he just stated > that it was a matter between him and Professor Snape. > And because DD never had any intention to ever reveal that > information because he did not hold Snape responsible for LV's > choices, it would never be anything else then between him and Snape. > DD never revealed to anyone that it was Snape bringing the prophecy > to LV and the only once that knew Snape was there that night were DD, > Snape, the bartender and Trelawney but the later two probably did not > know what it was about. > colebiancardi: yes, it IS a matter between DD & Snape. Not Harry. So, in my opinion, that translates to - doesn't involve Harry, which doesn't involve Harry's parents. Snape did give up half the prophecy; that I am sure DD holds Snape responsible for. > Dana: > It specifically states that DD believed that it was Snape's reason > for his *return* not turned. Harry does not stop DD in mid-sentence. > He is talking about Snape greatest regret. Snape himself states the > same thing in Spinner's end that he told DD a story of his deepest > regret. JKR states that Snape told DD his story and DD believe it. > Maybe it isn't all there is to it but her quote was before HBP came > out and not after so at this point it might as well be all there is > to it. > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm > > Ali: Why specifically does Dumbledore trust Snape? > JK Rowling replies -> Another excellent and non-answerable question. > I shall merely say that Snape has given Dumbledore his story and > Dumbledore believes it. colebiancardi: again, Harry does stop DD in mid-sentence. If you look at the Am Ed Hardcover of HBP: "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to the be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned ---" "But he's a very good Occlumens, isn't he, sir?" said Harry p 549 the dashes tell me at least there is more to what DD was going to say. Also, DD states it is HIS belief, not what Snape told him. So, yes, I believe there is more to it and it hasn't been revealed. If the remorse is the only reason, I would think that to be very lame and DD shouldn't have entrusted Snape to be spy for him. > Dana: > Maybe I totally misread the books but didn't Snape returned to the > side of good while he was a DE and still was a DE which made it > possible for him to spy for DD? Snape came to DD before LV's downfall > and him giving DD information is what made DD trust Snape. colebiancardi: Snape was never "on the side of the good" before; he was just a student. He turned against LV and joined forces with DD's efforts. He remainded in the DE's camp, but once he joined forces with DD, he was no longer a true "DE". That was his cover. So, DD didn't trust Snape while Snape was really a DE. DD trusted Snape after Snape turned, not while Snape was on LV's side. > Dana: >After that > Snape didn't do anything specific for DD but was merely a teacher at > his school. The trust issue comes from Snape's return to the side of > good and DD trusted Snape enough to give him a job as a teacher. > Snape was still in LV's service because otherwise Snape would never > have lived long enough to take the teaching job because that too was > started before LV's downfall. colebiancardi: again, Snape turned against LV before LV was defeated the first time around. We don't know when Snape turned - but we do know it was before Sept of 1981, when DD gave Snape the job as a teacher at Hogwarts, in order to give Snape his cover to LV. Snape is a double-agent at this point. It may have occured during the summer, for all we know. It could have occured right before Harry's birth in July of 1980. We don't know when it happened, but Snape was a double-agent working against LV and the DeathEaters. He only kept pretending to be a DE in order to spy for Dumbledore. And we don't know that Snape was "merely a teacher" at Hogwarts between Sept and Oct 31, 1981. Snape was still reporting to LV (feeding false info, I would assume and gathering info) and then reporting his findings back to DD. It is what he has done since the end of GoF; I cannot imagine why he wasn't doing this back then either. > > Dana:And if Snape was no longer in LV's service then he would never have > been able to return to him at the end of GoF. Snape might or might > not have been an active DE, after he went to DD but both LV and his > fellow DEs still believed Snape to be a DE and only because of DD was > Snape never charged with being one. colebiancardi: Double-Agent: A double agent is someone who pretends to spy on a target organization on behalf of a controlling organization, but in fact is loyal to the target organization. Double agents may be agents of the target organization who infiltrate the controlling organization, or may be previously loyal agents of the controlling organization who have been captured and turned by the target; Double agents are often used to transmit disinformation or to identify other agents as part of counter-espionage operations. They are often very trusted by the controlling organization, since the target organization will give them true, but useless, information to pass along. The term "double agent" is often used in popular media erroneously to refer to someone acting simply as a spy or secret agent. A spy simply relays information from a target to his or her controlling organization. from Wikipedia, the quickest way to look things up!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_agent so, if Snape is DDM, then he was only pretending to be a DE. That is why DD states that Snape used to be a DeathEater but is no longer one. LV thinks that Snape is his man; it works to his advantage to let DD think that Snape is DD's man. I am of the DDM!Snape, so I believe that Snape is truly loyal to Dumbledore and not LV; but it can work either way. Hence, the debates. If Snape is LV's man, then he is a triple agent, not a double-agent - again, from Wikipedia A triple agent pretends to be a double agent for the target organization, but in fact is working for the controlling organization all along. Usually, he keeps the trust of the target organization by feeding information to them that apparently is very important but is in fact misleading or useless. acy. That doesn't sound like a trusting soul to me. > > Dana: > Mhhh both Bella and Narcissa seem to think LV trusts Snape and > Narcissa might have used it to boost Snape's ego but Bella surely did > not and even she admits LV trusts Snape. colebiancardi: no, Bella did not trust Snape. She trusts LV and because of her fear of or love for him(LV), she will not speak against LV - Snape caught her there. Bella never admits that LV trusts Snape; even after his explainations in Spinner's End, she still is doubtful: from Am Ed Hardcover, p31 "Bellatrix still looked unhappy, though she appeared unsure how best to attack Snape best" > > colebiancardi: > > of course DD didn't use blackmail or an UV on Snape to entrust his > > loyalty. But neither did DD take Snape at face value either. DD > > isn't stupid; Unlike Draco, DD recruited Snape to spy on LV and > > become a double agent. Draco was just going to go into hiding. > > Snape's loyalty had to be something more than a long face & a story > > about "remorse" over the prophecy. > > Dana: > Well I disagree I think DD did take Snape at face value and because > Snape did nothing to break that trust before LV's return to power, > there was no reason for DD to re-evaluate that trust. > > Sorry but I disagree with you that DD recruited Snape to spy on LV. I > believe Snape offered his service to DD so he could repay the debt he > owed James colebiancardi: It could be that DD asked Snape to be spy for him as a test of trust as well. James wasn't in danger from LV; Harry was. The life-debt was to James, not to Harry, so I am not sure how that was to repay the debt to James. > Dana: > So in that case it > is DD who send Snape to spy on LV which was Snape's camp of origin. > So in the strictest sense Snape is pretending to spy for DD but is > actually spying for LV and for what is said in canon this seemed to > be more true then the other way around as Snape's information does > nothing for the Order but it seemed to at least eliminate two Order > Members and in HBP he helped to get ride of the only one LV ever > feared. Makes you wonder doesn't it. colebiancardi: nope, it doesn't make me wonder at all. What you had defined was not a double agent, but a triple agent (see above for defination). > Dana: > DD was very noble to > give so much unconditional trust to Snape and it is not up to DD to > live up to that trust but Snape's and DD might not have found > sufficient evidence (although I believe he did start to worry in HBP > and why he was so angry with Snape) to revoke that trust. colebiancardi: noble isn't the same as stupid. For DD to give unconditional trust to Snape based on the lamest of excuses is stupid, IMHO. It isn't a smart move on the LEADER of the Order of the Phoenix and the whole of the wizarding community at stake. Think about it. DD wouldn't have the balance of his organization and the wizarding community hang in the balance of a former DE based on remorse. That is incompendence of the highest level. And DD isn't incompendant. And it took DD 20 years to find this "critical error"? I don't think so. I think the reason why DD got angry with Snape (the conversation with Hagrid) is because Snape didn't want to do Draco's deed - which was killing DD. Snape wanted out, which meant Snape would have died. > Dana: > Might I remind you that Snape did want to have Lupin soul sucked too? colebiancardi: because he thought Lupin was in cahoots with Sirius, who at that time, was still considered a mass-murderer > Dana: He could not mess with the potion for the simple fact that it would > not kill Lupin but make him a danger to the student body and that it > would implicate Snape as being the one who would have caused it. And > the same goes for poisoning Lupin. colebiancardi: How could it be traced back to Snape? Lupin could have taken anything, pumpkin juice for instance, and keeled over dead. How does that road lead back to Snape? > Dana: > Snape claims to have helped in the disposal of Black himself and I do > believe that he helped LV get Harry to the DoM and by notifying the > Order it would be a sure thing that Sirius would never stay behind. colebiancardi: and I don't - I think Spinner's End is just that. A web that was spun to deceive Bella, Cissy and readers alike into thinking that Snape had a hand in Sirius's death - and Snape does give "full credit" to Bella for killing Sirius. Sirius went; Harry told Snape, in code, to tell Sirius to stay behind. So whose fault was it, really, that Sirius went? colebiancardi From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 6 00:05:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:05:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Ages, Physical vs. Real In-Reply-To: <393922750.20070604234816@mindspring.com> References: <393922750.20070604234816@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4665FA5B.9060809@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169858 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Ac^2 > Ap = Ac - --------- > 400 > > Where: > Ac = Chronological (Real) Age > Ap = Physical Age (Compared to Muggles) Bart: You are thinking of them as a separate species; not unlike the various "human years/dog years" calculations. What we have is a situation where the medical care is far better than Muggle medical care; I suspect that if Muggles got the same level of care, they would live just as long (and that Squibs apparently do live just as long, as do M-born wizards). Therefore, maturity takes the same rate, but aging would be much slower. Bart From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 00:06:23 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:06:23 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169859 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Message #169826 >"karen" wrote: > Ok so let me make a leap and say that Lily and Petunia are not > related by blood (as others have suggested to me). > snip > I have gotten responces from others saying that then there would be > no blood protection at no. 4 then if Petunia and Lily were not blood > related. "K": Personally I believe the following quote from JKR answers both of the above. ------ Ani Morison for Sunday Star Times New Zealand - My question is why does Harry keep going back to the Dursleys, when he is closer to the Weasleys than he is to them? JK Rowling: That has been explained in the books to an extent, it has been explained in the books but possibly you haven't yet finished this book when it is made very clear. Harry receives magical protection from his mother's sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won't continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother, so Dumbledore wants him to go back one more time to ensure the protection continues to his 17th birthday and after that he really is on his own. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm ------ >"karen": > However, someone else said, "At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, > Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood > protection. " Interesting... maybe she knows that there is no blood > relation with her and Lily... "K": See above. I find it more likely that Petunia and her family have also been provided some form of protection for taking in Harry. It appears Petunia was not aware of the 'coming of age' at 17 and perhaps Petunia's protection ends when Harry turns 17. Surely that would be enough to get her attention. :-) From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 6 00:12:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:12:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: <098b01c7a758$f31615e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <8C974D8E05DB0D0-E60-FE4@WEBMAIL-RA08.sysops.aol.com> <098b01c7a758$f31615e0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <4665FC0A.9050307@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169860 Lauren Merryfield wrote: > Because committing murder is a bad thing, and if Harry kills someone, > he'll lose part of his soul, won't he? Bart: You have a broader definition of murder than most. First of all, Voldemort is no longer a human being; most of his soul is gone. Second of all, he has proven that, as long as he is alive, he will keep on killing. Voldemort's is building up an army; his goal is conquest. This is not a personal matter; this is a matter of war. And if Voldemort dies, the war is over. It's even more than the old, "If you had a chance to kill Hitler, would you have?" Hitler dying would not have stopped Germany, but it's been shown that Voldemort dying will destroy the effectiveness of the Death Eaters (although it didn't happen fast enough for Neville's liking the first time around). Bart From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 6 00:46:01 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:46:01 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, Sirius - favorite moments / re: Why Sirius had to die-maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169861 Betsy Hp: > > And I've been meaning to do so for *forever*. So, favorite > > Sirius moments, just for you, Jen. Jen: > Omigosh, you actually did it! SSSusan: Sirius? Did I hear someone say Sirius?? ::ears perking:: Jen: > You know what's funny, I started thinking about Sirius after my > comment and realized many of his character moments are tinged with > something besides pure pleasure for me.... I decided it's > because he signals the return of all Harry has lost as well as not > distancing himself from Harry like so many of the other males do. Sirius is just sort of a tragic figure to me, doomed from the > start and backed into a corner in OOTP before being offed - > brutal, like you said. SSSusan: Sigh. So very, very true. :( BetsyHp: > > Full confession time: I liked Sirius in the Pensieve scene. Oh, > > I hate what he and James did to Snape of course, but I loved how > > carefree and beautiful and arrogant Sirius was. SSSusan: What a beautifully turned phrase, Betsy. I think it's hard to admit, perhaps, to appreciating that aspect of Sirius because he's being such a prat in that same scene, but you've expressed it so well that it really does make sense. BetsyHp: > > And I really loved how close he was with James. That interplay > > after Lily stormed off, "Reading between the lines, mate, I'd > > say she doesn't like you" was perfect. (That's a guess at the > > line since I'm away from my books at the moment.) SSSusan: Damn, you're close! Here's the actual: "Reading between the lines, I'd say she thinks you're a bit conceited, mate." :) And I agree with you about enjoying the glimpse we get of the friendship between the two. We knew they were close because we knew Sirius turned to James & his family when he wanted no more of his own Black family, but I love JKR's showing us the way they were together. Jen: > Okay, my own favorite moments (besides Gary Oldham portraying him > in POA, hehe): > > * Sirius and Lupin together in the Shack when they first meet up > again and start piecing together what happened - all that manly > man stuff going on until Snape and Peter mess everything up. SSSusan: LOL. All that 'manly stuff!' I liked this scene for how they cut through all the years of built-up assumptions & doubts and got right back to where they needed to be. Jen: > * "Panting slightly and sweeping his long dark hair out of his > eyes, Harry's godfather Sirius, turned to face him. 'Hello, > Harry,' he said grimly, 'I see you've met my mother.'" I don't > know why JKR introduced him in OOTP without naming him, but it > worked. SSSusan: Love this as well. Wit laced with just the teensiest bit of sarcasm (because I don't care for overdone sarcasm myself). Jen: > * Last but not least, his sense of freedom and release when > battling Bellatrix and then the ultimate freedom from his adult > life of almost continual imprisonment when he falls through the > Veil. It seems right to me now even though I really hated OOTP > when he died .... SSSusan: Wow. You're much braver than I to be able to look at it this way. I'm still hung up on the loss part of it, the waste of it, the brutal unfairness of it for him and for Harry. As to some additional favorite moments for me, I'd add: *Any time Sirius was bounding along as Padfoot, particularly on his (yes, unwise, but still...) trip to King's Cross to see Harry off to Hogwarts. *His encounter w/ Snape at Grimmauld Place. Yes, indeed, that is one of my favorite Sirius moments. I loved how determinedly he embraced that parental role for Harry, defending Harry, sticking up for him, trying to protect him. Snape was *so* goading Sirius, taunting him, and yet he didn't cave in the slightest. Yeah, he went a little overboard at the end, but I still loved him in that scene. Hot & fiery & fiesty & not *just* because of an old schoolboy feud but because he was working to protect Harry. As to one of my least favorite Sirius moments... absolutely it's when we see him after he's been stuck at GP for months, depressed, feeling useless, wasting away, miserable. Not how I prefer to think of him near the end of his life. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Jun 6 00:27:59 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:27:59 -0400 Subject: Lily and Petunia weren't sisters Was: Petunia's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169862 I like this theory. It ties into what happens to Squibs? Some, like Filch, find employment in the Wizardling World; others, like Mrs. Figg live in the Muggle world but still maintain ties to it. We don't know anything about the (late?) Mr. Figg. Was he a Muggle? A fellow-Squib? A wizard? We don't know. I'm going to take a leap of speculation. Squibs who marry Muggles pretty much withdraw from the Wizardling World, but maintain some discreet ties to it as they know that their children have a better-than-average chance of being Mageborn. Even if their children are all Muggles, sometimes they may hand down knowledge to the next generation, although after a while the tradition may be lost. Remember Slughorn's reference to a famous potioneer with the surname Granger? Wanna bet that he had a Squib son who became Hermione's great-great-grandfather? (Remember, Hermione's father is a dentist. A potioneer is the closest thing that the Wizardling World has to a scientist. Perhaps great-great-grandpa Granger had taken that scientific bent into the Muggle World and passed it on, along with a sleeping potential for magic.) What if a similar dynamic was in the Evans family? Petunia said that her parents were proud of having a Witch in the family. Most Muggle parents, I think, would be more scared than proud, I should think, at least at first. If Harry's Evans grandparents were Squibs, or one of them, or even (perhaps) if one set of Evans great-grandparents had been and some tradition that magic was real had been handed down. I think that this would explain 'she's not a Squib, but. . .' 'She's not a squib but HER mother/father was.' 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 gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 00:57:44 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:57:44 -0000 Subject: Book 7: The end of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169863 > Pickle Jimmy: > Sounds like you're alluding to a "Dumbledore died to again > seal some kind of old magic protection on Harry theory - > similar to Lilly's"?? > Voldemort: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame > on me! > ... Sorry if I have put words in your mouth, not my intent ... > Actually, this seems a little shallow for a person of your > thinking Goddlefrood - it is more like something I'd come up > with :-) Goddlefrood: As I say it's a work in progress, but the above pre-empts it in no way at all. To lose one theory would be unfortunate, to lose two looks like carelessness. The blood protection on Harry ends at 17 so I see no reason why anyone else has to die to protect Harry for that purpose. Others will undoubtedly die, but not to install any further protections. I'd suggest Harry would be able to take advantage of DD's knowledge of blood protection, but not to hide himself. Voldemort's no fool, but he's not familiar with many of DD's magic tricks, as DD himself told Tom when he applied for the DADA job. LV underestimates certain brands of magic and the love based ones will, in my divination, be one of them. That, again, is on the list to write up, but I've no idea when it will appear. Before DH anyway is all I'll commit to. Goddlefrood lamenting DD almost as much as Fawkes did, but feeling better for the song. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 01:00:20 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:00:20 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169864 > Dana: > DD never stated that it had nothing to do with Harry; he just stated > that it was a matter between him and Professor Snape. wynnleaf Typically that phrase implies "It's none of your business. It's only between me and the other person." Unless Dumbledore was lying, that means that his reasons for trusting Snape *aren't* over Snape's remorse over taking the partial prophecy to Voldemort, because that obviously *isn't* just a matter between Dumbledore and Snape. Dana > And because DD never had any intention to ever reveal that > information because he did not hold Snape responsible for LV's > choices, it would never be anything else then between him and Snape. wynnleaf Dumbledore would have known that at any time Harry might have asked who the Death Eater was who took the partial prophecy to Voldemort, as Harry would have realized that Dumbledore must have known who it was. Since that *is* Harry's business, Dumbledore could not deny him that info if he asked. So, no I don't think Dumbledore would have no "intention to ever reveal that information." > > Dana before: > > > DD did explain the reason for Snape's return in HBP when he > > > specifically states he believed that it was Snape's greatest > > > regret and the reason that he returned (HBP pg 513 UKed > > > chapter "the seer overheard"). Harry's point of view has nothing > > > to do with it because it does not change what DD said, we > > > witnessed what DD said. wynnleaf However, Dumbledore *never* said that Snape's remorse is why he trusted him. Not at all. Period. Immediately after telling Harry that was Snape's greatest regret and the reason that he returned, Harry asks Dumbledore specifically why he could be sure of Snape. "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." Now if Dumbledore had just finished telling Harry why he *trusted* Snape, as opposed to simply saying why Snape "returned," then he could have answered Harry by repeating that he trusted Snape because of his great regret. But that's not what happened. Dumbledore considered telling Harry something more, decided against telling Harry, and then repeated that he trusted Snape completely. So no. Dumbledore never said that he *trusted* Snape because of his regret. > Dana: > It specifically states that DD believed that it was Snape's reason > for his *return* not turned. Harry does not stop DD in mid-sentence. > He is talking about Snape greatest regret. Snape himself states the > same thing in Spinner's end that he told DD a story of his deepest > regret. wynnleaf To repeat: Dumbledore never said that the reason Snape returned was the reason he trusted Snape. Dana JKR states that Snape told DD his story and DD believe it. > Ali: Why specifically does Dumbledore trust Snape? > JK Rowling replies -> Another excellent and non-answerable question. > I shall merely say that Snape has given Dumbledore his story and > Dumbledore believes it. Wynnleaf You seem to assume that the story JKR is refering to is regarding Snape's regret over the prophecy. Unfortunately for this argument, JKR never said that. She only said that Snape had told Dumbledore his story -- which could refer to practically anything. > Dana: > Maybe I totally misread the books but didn't Snape returned to the > side of good while he was a DE and still was a DE which made it > possible for him to spy for DD? Snape came to DD before LV's downfall > and him giving DD information is what made DD trust Snape. After that > Snape didn't do anything specific for DD but was merely a teacher at > his school. The trust issue comes from Snape's return to the side of > good and DD trusted Snape enough to give him a job as a teacher. > Snape was still in LV's service because otherwise Snape would never > have lived long enough to take the teaching job because that too was > started before LV's downfall. wynnleaf Yes, Snape came to Dumbledore prior to Voldemort's fall. In fact, since the Potters learned they needed to go into hiding around the time of Harry's Christening, Snape may have come to Dumbledore as long as a year before the Potter's deaths as the Potters appear to have been alert to Voldemort targeting them about then. This, by the way, makes it clear that Harry got the story wrong in the hospital wing, because he said that Dumbledore trusted Snape because of his regret for the Potter's deaths, where it is obvious that Dumbledore trusted Snape well *before* their deaths. > Dana: > Well I disagree I think DD did take Snape at face value and because > Snape did nothing to break that trust before LV's return to power, > there was no reason for DD to re-evaluate that trust. wynnleaf Because Snape may have done nothing to *break* Dumbledore's trust during his time as a spy, doesn't mean that Dumbledore initially allowed him to spy for him simply because of his remorse. I'm sure working together over a long period of time *cemented* that trust, but it surely didn't originate just in believing a sad story. Remember that Dumbledore did not solely trust Snape to spy for him. He also trusted him to take over in locus parentis for 1/4 of the kids in the school -- we're talking lots of kids. I don't know what your view of Dumbledore is. He *does* allow a certain amount of risks to occur in the school. But making a former Death Eater a Head of House isn't just a minor risk, or even a temporary risk -- we're talking about someone who would directly affect hundreds of kids, not just as a teacher, but as their head of house. No, I certainly *don't* think that Dumbledore did this just based on a sob story of how remorseful Snape felt. And since, as we can see from Dumbledore's conversation with Harry, he *never* said that Snape's remorse was Dumbledore's reason for his trust, I think we can fairly well assume that it was something more concrete than just regret. Dana > Sorry but I disagree with you that DD recruited Snape to spy on LV. I > believe Snape offered his service to DD so he could repay the debt he > owed James and I believe DD took the offer as an indication that > Snape truly wanted to help in the fight against LV and protecting the > Potters. wynnleaf It is possible that spying was Snape's idea. However, when Snape first approached Dumbledore, admitting to being a Death Eater and having served Voldemort, he would have to consider the strong possibility that Dumbledore would hear his story and simply turn him over to the MOM for Azkaban. However, we don't *know* who suggested the spying. The problem for Snape is that once he was willing to go to Dumbledore, there weren't a lot of options. If he openly left Voldemort, he could be hunted down like Karkaroff. Or he could go to Azkaban. Or he could go into hiding. Or he could spy. If Dumbledore believed Snape had really turned, he would realize that Snape had few options. Dana Only at the end of GoF > did DD send Snape back to LV. wynnleaf That's speculation without canon support. Dumbledore could just as well have sent Snape to spy in the first place. Dana > I believe that Snape only gave DD specific information concerning the > Potters and nothing more then that. He never closed the door behind > him and it even is specifically suggested that he held the door wide > open by his association with Lucius. wynnleaf Actually, this is highly unlikely. Dumbledore said that Snape was a spy for them, not that he just brought one piece of crucial information. If Snape had only come to Dumbledore with one piece of info, and then went out to spy, but never actually brought any spy info to Dumbledore (the initial info on Voldemort targeting the Potters being before Snape became Dumbledore's spy), then Snape really wouldn't have been a true spy at all -- just a one-time informant. Dana > Also Snape specifically states that he was sent to spy on DD and if > you look at the definition of a double spy then he only pretends to > work for one party while actually working for the other (not for > both) and mostly it are people who are captured or pretend to have > defected and then are send back to spy on the camp of origin and they > pretend to spy for the camp who send them there. wynnleaf Luckily for us, this objection is easy overridden by JKR's quote below from the Melissa and Emerson interviews: Melissa: It goes back to the question of whether Snape is a double-double-double-triple- JKR: [Laughs] Double-double-quadruple-to-the-power-of - yeah. wynnleaf So even JKR admits that Snape isn't really just a "double agent" in the technical sense of the word, but a multiple-double agent. >Dana > I do not think there was more to the story of DD's trust in Snape. I > might be proven wrong in DH but I actually do not believe it will be > so because DD is no longer there to tell the story himself and why I > think JKR included it in HBP. wynnleaf Considering that JKR has already said that in writing DH, Dumbledore was giving her trouble, I think we *will* be hearing from him -- whether in pensieve memory or whatever. Dana DD isn't stupid but that doesn't mean > that he can't believe in a person that did not deserve to be believed > in or not for the reasons DD believed in him. DD was very noble to > give so much unconditional trust to Snape wynnleaf If Dumbledore trusted a Death Eater just because the Death Eater showed up and said "I'm really sorry," then he wasn't "noble," he was incredibly foolish. Can anyone imagine Dumbledore trusting Barty Jr or Peter just because they claimed they were sorry, and then putting them in charge of 1/4 of the school kids? Dana > I think it is much more crucial then for whatever reason DD trusted > Snape because like I stated above it is not up to DD to live up to > the trust he gives but the person he gives it to. wynnleaf Not when Dumbledore is a leader of many people, with the safety of others entrusted to him. No, it *was* Dumbledore's responsibility to place his trust with great care. After all, he put Snape in charge of many, many children. It's one thing to decide that the children will be okay with a sarcastic and difficult teacher. It's quite another to decide that they'll be safe with a Death Eater just because the Death Eater said he was sorry. Yes, it's still Snape's part to live up to that trust, but it was Dumbledore's responsibility to choose carefully. Dana > Snape claims to have helped in the disposal of Black himself wynnleaf I am uncertain anyone would consider Snape so very, very untrustworthy and yet place so very *much* trust in his comments to a woman (Bella) who he dislikes and who very clearly dislikes him and would like to bring him down from his position with Voldemort. wynnleaf From kat7555 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 01:16:02 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:16:02 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, Sirius - favorite moments / re: Why Sirius had to die-maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > >> Thanks, Betsy, it's fun to go down memory lane as we get closer to > the end. > > > Sirius became one of my favorite characters the minute he asked Harry to live with him. I always wanted him to confront the Dursleys over their mistreatment of Harry. I loved the scenes with Sirius and Lupin and how they were able to repair their friendship. Kathy Kulesza From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 01:26:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:26:30 -0000 Subject: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169866 Dana wrote: > > Might I remind you that Snape did want to have Lupin soul sucked too? > > colebiancardi responded: > > because he thought Lupin was in cahoots with Sirius, who at that time, was still considered a mass-murderer Carol adds: Just responding to this one small point because I pretty much agree with colebiancardi's responses. Snape doesn't say, "Two more for the Dementors tonight." What he actually says is "Two more Azkaban tonight" (PoA Am. ed. 339). Snape is attempting a citizen's arrest of the man he thinks has been trying to murder Harry and his accomplice, whom he has been telling DD all along has been letting Black into the castle (338). Snape doesn't mention Dementors until Lupin has accused him of allowing a "schoolboy grudge" to distort his judgement, hermione has started to interfere, and Black brings up the rat, at which point Snape taunts Black (and only Black) about possibly receiving "a little kiss" from the Dementors. He threatens to call the Dementors, but it's as empty a threat as his occasional threats to expel Harry. And then he starts to "drag the werewolf" and says, "Perhaps the Dementors will have a kiss for him too" (560). There is, however, no indication that he actually intends to do any such thing. Having been knocked out and consequently lost his opportunity to bring the transformed werewolf to what passes for justice in the WW, Snape wakes up to find four unconscious people, three of whom he takes to the hospital wing. He hands the unconscious Black over, not to the Dementors directly, but to Fudge, the Minister for Magic, who has the legal authority to order the escaped prisoner and supposedly extremely dangerous murderer Sirius Black to be soul-sucked (or sent back to Azkaban as Snape originally stated). Had Snape succeeded in turning *Lupin* over to Fudge, Lupin would not have been soul-sucked. The Dementors at that time were still under Ministry control, and Lupin would have been escorted to Azkaban to await trial (presumably after transforming back to human form), which is exactly what Snape indicates with "Two more for Azkaban tonight." The exact same thing, minus the werewolf complications, would have happened to Pettigrew had he not escaped thanks to Lupin's transformation, and it's what *Harry* wants to happen once he discovers that Pettigrew, not Black, is the "murderin' traitor": "He can go to Azkaban," says Harry. "If anyone deserves that place, he does." So Pettigrew, too, would have been handed over to the Dementors (presumably by Fudge, not Harry) to be escorted to Azkaban and left there in their terrible company like Hagrid and Sirius Black before him. Not to sound like Snape in one of his memorable but not exactly shining moments, but I see no difference between Harry's intention and Snape's, judging from Snape's original comments and his actions (as opposed to his outbursts and sneers after he was provoked). The only difference in these intended actions, neither of which was ever accomplished, is that Harry was right about Pettigrew's guilt and Snape was wrong about Lupin's. (I won't go into Lupin's year-long policy of concealment or Snape's reasons for thinking that Lupin, rather than Crookshanks, was Black's accomplice as they're irrelevant here. The point is that he had the opportunity to take a bound and gagged Black to the Dementors and he took him to Fudge instead.) Carol, who thought that this was going to be a short post! From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 6 01:37:03 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:37:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Harry "knows", Was Why we'll get no further revelations Snape was Evil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46660FBF.7080200@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169867 Dana wrote: > Maybe it is just me but the reason for DD's trust in Snape will not > explain Snape's loyalty one bit. Someone else's trust is not a > security on how a person fullfills that trust. LV trusts Snape too > and he must have his reasons. We don't know how much, if at all, Voldy trusts Snape. We DO know that Dumbledore did not just say, "Snape is on our side." He did not just say, "I'm certain that I can trust Snape." He said, more than once, "I trust Severus Snape COMPLETELY." (emphasis mine). How often in the books has he shown that level of certainty about ANYTHING? This is not just a belief. He had to have insurance. At least once, in HBP, he appeared to be on the verge of telling Harry, but did not. This is at least an indication that whatever this insurance was, it was important that it be kept a secret, even from Harry. There are only two ways that I can see ESE!Snape: 1) JKR is as good a plotter as she is a mathematician. 2) JKR will show the insurance, show that we SHOULD of known about the insurance, and show how Snape manages to do the seemingly impossible task of negating the insurance. In other words, if it turns out that ESE!Snape is true, JKR is either a much better writer than I thought, or a much worse one. Bart "There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't." - J. K. Rowling. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 01:51:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:51:15 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Sirius, Sirius - favorite moments / re: Why Sirius had to die-maybe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169868 Betsy Hp: > > > And I've been meaning to do so for *forever*. So, favorite > > > Sirius moments, just for you, Jen. > > Jen: > > Omigosh, you actually did it! > > SSSusan: > Sirius? Did I hear someone say Sirius?? ::ears perking:: > Alla: Betsy, Betsy, Betsy I am hurt . You did not do it for me as well, you only did it for Jen. NOW I know for sure which one of us you like better. Now, back to Sirius. I cannot choose my favorite Sirius moments. I love all about him - good and bad, even it is very bad. As Katy said I started to like Sirius when he offered Harry home. For the first time I saw an adult offering Harry love - not because he wanted something from Harry but just because. Add to this the innocent man suffering in hell of Azkaban and me coming from the country where so many innocents who opposed the regime suffered unjustly and I was sold, my heart was with Sirius since then. I love Sirius when he leaves his safe haven and rushes to Harry when he needs him in GoF - eating rats and all that. I love Sirius friendship with James and deep love which he is still able to feel for Harry after twelve years in Azkaban. I love Sirius recklessness and Sirius arrogance and yes, him being a bully in pensieve scene. Why I love it? Because I see complex character on the page who does good things and bad things, who reacts differently to people and events and who still loves Harry. Sirius found his place in my heart when he offered what I think is act of love to Harry and I think he died for Harry too. Was I disappointed when I realized that as somebody said Sirius was primarily created to make sure Harry experiences another loss and that's it? Sure, I was. I know it is Harry's story and he is my favorite character, but I sure hope there will be good reason Sirius was killed, plot wise, because Harry has to go alone, well just does not really cut it for me. Alla. From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Wed Jun 6 02:00:07 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:00:07 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169869 This thread as discussed a variety of topics as it's evolved through various disucssions however it started by myself noticing that there was a lot of emphasis on the fact that lily's and petunia's eyes were very different (book 5). JKR also stated: "you might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7 JKR puts a lot of emphasis on eyes it seems and has also said it was important that harry's eyes were like his mother's. Now here's a bit I found online today from a 2000 BBC Newsround interview that I just wanted to add to the discussion. Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like ... JK: Why do you want to know this? I just vaguely wondered. JK: Why? Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes. JK: Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm going to say no more, very clever. And I'm going to ask one other question which you'll say isn't clever at all. The significance of the place where Harry and his parents lived, the first name -- Godric Gryffindor. JK:Very good, you're a bit good you are, aren't you? Thank you. JK:I'm impressed. My editor didn't notice, I said to her haven't you noticed any connection between where Harry's parents were born, not born, where they lived, and one of the Hogwarts houses and she's sitting there going erm... I'm not being rude about Emma she's a brilliant editor, the best I've ever [had]. But no she didn't pick that up either. You're a bit good you are. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jun 6 02:43:23 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:43:23 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169871 Karen wrote: > JKR puts a lot of emphasis on eyes it seems and has also said it was > important that harry's eyes were like his mother's. Now here's a bit > I found online today from a 2000 BBC Newsround interview that I just > wanted to add to the discussion. > > Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your > world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit > like ... > > JK: Why do you want to know this? > > I just vaguely wondered. > > JK: Why? > > Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily > Potter's eyes. > > JK: Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. > I'm going to say no more, very clever. > Anne Squires now: I have seen this quote before. I have always assumed that JKR was referring to Legilimency in this statement. At that point, 2000, Legilimancy was "something, maybe, coming." Anne From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jun 6 03:08:13 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:08:13 -0000 Subject: What Dumbledore "believes" (was Re: What Harry "knows") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169872 > > Dana: > > It specifically states that DD believed that it was Snape's reason > > for his *return* not turned. Harry does not stop DD in mid- sentence. > > He is talking about Snape greatest regret. Snape himself states the > > same thing in Spinner's end that he told DD a story of his deepest > > regret. JKR states that Snape told DD his story and DD believe it. > > Maybe it isn't all there is to it but her quote was before HBP came > > out and not after so at this point it might as well be all there is > > to it. > > > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm > > > > Ali: Why specifically does Dumbledore trust Snape? > > JK Rowling replies -> Another excellent and non-answerable question. > > I shall merely say that Snape has given Dumbledore his story and > > Dumbledore believes it. > > colebiancardi: > > again, Harry does stop DD in mid-sentence. If you look at the Am Ed > Hardcover of HBP: > > "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized > how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it > to the be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he > returned ---" > "But he's a very good Occlumens, isn't he, sir?" said Harry > > p 549 > > the dashes tell me at least there is more to what DD was going to say. > Also, DD states it is HIS belief, not what Snape told him. So, yes, > I believe there is more to it and it hasn't been revealed. If the > remorse is the only reason, I would think that to be very lame and DD > shouldn't have entrusted Snape to be spy for him. Julie: I'm wondering if we shouldn't take what Dumbledore's "believes" with the same grain of salt as what Harry "knows"? Every time Dumbledore says "I believe..." my suspicion is that he is leaving something very important out of the equation. Just as Harry's "knowing" something usually indicates he'll be proven wrong, does Dumbledore's "I believe" indicate that he's dancing around the edges of the truth, revealing only the smallest part of it? The first example of this from Dumbledore was in PS/SS--"I do *believe* he (Snape) worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even." It's a short and simple explanation, but it doesn't explain why Snape *continues* to work so hard year after year to protect Harry. I know some think Snape's in a constant battle to pay off that "debt" he supposedly still owes James (Dumbledore in fact never refers to it as an actual "life debt"), and it could be that Dumbledore is hedging his bets here (like always!) and not telling Harry the true scope of the debt. The question would be why, since Harry knowing that Snape is constrained from physically harming him rather than choosing to restrain himself isn't likely to change much in their acrimonious relationship, IMO. (And Dumbledore did not hestitate to explain the life debt principle when it was activated between Harry and the man *he* saved, Peter Pettigrew.) The main reason I don't buy it is because there is nothing whatsoever in canon that implies a life debt carries over from father to son. In fact it goes against JKR's own sentiment (expressed through Dumbledore), that it is our choices which define us and our fates, not our parents' choices or any other sort of predetermination. So I think it's more likely there is something else, something even more substantive than a sense of indebtedness left unpaid, that motivates Snape to continually protect Harry from physical harm. Besides these two "beliefs" Dumbledore relates to answer Harry's probing questions (both not so strangely referring to the most enigmatic character in the books), are there any other instances where Dumbledore uses "I believe..." to preface a requested explanation, especially when that request comes from Harry? I.e., other instances where Dumbledore gives an answer that while likely true, is NOT the whole story or perhaps not even the most important element of the story? Julie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 03:09:50 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:09:50 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe (was: Why we'll get no further revelations that Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169873 > Jen: I don't know much about the Gothic novel but did happen to > search for that information a couple of weeks ago when wondering if > Snape would fit the role of a Gothic character. From what I read, > POA doesn't seem like the most obvious example of having a Gothic > theme so I'd be curious to read that paper if you have a link. Magpie: I wish I did. Unfortunately it was just a paper I went to--hopefully it will be in the Phoenix Rising compendium. The basic idea was that in terms of the Gothic trappings (which you're right, Grimmauld Place is FULL of), there's the Dementors (both horror and terror there), and a haunted house full of secrets (Hogwarts itself and more specifically the Shrieking Shack). I'll bet the Grim counts too. Oh, also Gothic novels often have a female who is the one behaving in an ethical way and punished for it--in this case Hermione being shunned by Harry and Ron for turning in the broom. Snape is also there to tear down Harry's view of his father-- he even says that flat out: In case you had some idea your father was some sort of hero when he saved me... When the book starts Harry learns there's this guy broken out of prison who will try to kill him, but that doesn't mean much because people always are. Until he finds out this man is family. This starts an anxiety about the failure of the paternal line. He starts hearing the moment of failure in his head when the Dementors come in--he hears his mother die. A death he had somewhat blamed on himself because she died for him. LV had told him his parents died bravely, but the Dementors echoes reveal something a little different. James is ineffective, essentially. He does nothing wrong, but Harry hears "panic" and "stumbling" and then not James standing firm but Voldemort's high laughter. Sirius and Lupin are part of that same failure of the paternal line to protect his mother with their Secret Keeper plot. Harry is ultimately able to keep them from disintegrating further by becoming murderers, that does not make them stronger and again they fail and Peter escapes. But Harry is then himself able to dispel the anxiety about the paternal line (symbolized by Dementors) himself. The Gothic concerns itself often with both anxiety about the failure of the paternal line and the overcoming of that anxiety. The Blacks, of course, get into the whole incestuous crubling of the family from within and all that--interestingly the paper didn't even touch on that; she was just analyzing PoA. > Jen: A failure, yes, and Mr. Black's absence gives a sense of the > patriarchal figure having no power to save any of them from their > fates. Yet there's the idea the failure wasn't complete with the > introduction of R.A.B., most likely Regulus, and then Sirius dying > but living on in the underworld. I can see those ideas tying into > your thoughts here about Harry. Magpie: Oh, I think RAB is a failure too, because he died--and probably without actually destroying the Horcrux. Which is not to put down Regulus if that's who he was. He died heroically and I think saved his own soul if that was in danger. But I think it's significant that he shouldn't have been able to actually complete the blow he tried to strike on his own. Jen: > There's unfinished literal business with the locket located at > Grimmauld but this seems like a perfect place to insert something > that's always bothered me and is a bit obsessive-compulsive of me: > The Permanent Sticking charm on the family tapestry and the fact that > it's one major artifact the Order can't get rid of in the House of > Black. Lol, it's silly but now I see where there could be some > significance to that - everything in the house *shouldn't* be removed > and cleaned away as if the family never existed and especially not > that tapestry. Magpie: Oh no, I totally agree. I love that Sirius can't remove the history of all the people who lived there. Nor can he get rid of his own pedigree--he came from these people. They couldn't get rid of him either--here he is inheriting the house despite being blasted off the tree. > Jen: I agree this was a big part of HBP. It really was the Slytherin > book just as I think of POA as the Gryffindor book and GOF as the > Hufflepuff one (messages of inclusiveness). Harry was on his own > journey connecting with parts of himself that interestingly enough, > he was finally given permission to connect with from Dumbledore. > Dumbledore, who really is the ultimate Slytherin when it comes to > ambition - bringing down his second Dark Lord after all - is also > the messenger trumpeting the news of Harry as a Black heir and > starting him on his journey by taking Harry to meet Slughorn, the > first Slytherin Harry doesn't outright detest even though he doesn't > exactly like Slughorn, either. Magpie: Definitely and (plugging own theories) OotP was the Ravenclaw book. Could there be more brain fever in that book? > Jen: > So in this case, what I could see taking place is something else you > considered awhile back, IIRC. Weren't you the one suggesting that > the information in HBP about the curse-that-wasn't on inheriting > Grimmauld Place might come back into play? Because it didn't have > any real meaning in that situation or rather, it fizzled out to > nothing so there really wasn't a reason to bring it up. Magpie: Right! Yes, that was me. It seems like certainly something has to be done with the Black House and family--I think we all agree Harry will be opening that locket however he does it. But yeah, I do feel like that whole "we'll have to test this because the Blacks really ought to have charms making sure only Blacks can inherit..." should go somewhere. Another neat paper I went to at PR was about repitition in HP and how JKR always does everything at least twice, pretty much. The paper even gave one example that I'd totally never noticed where something I remembered as happening once actually happened twice, the first time showing us what normally happened, so that when something odd happened the second time we would know it was strange. I would not at all be surprised if we saw someone test a heridity-type charm once in OotP, and will see it again with different results in DH. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 03:24:53 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:24:53 -0000 Subject: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169874 > > Donna wrote: > > > > Hagrid knows more than we think he knows. He knows > > about the horcruxes. ... Hagrid's reply is "... > > DUNNO IF HE HAD ENOUGH HUMAN LEFT IN HIM TO DIE." ... > > bboyminn: > > A good theory and one that is possible, but I think it > is more likely that Hagrid is just commenting on > Voldemort's changed snake-like physical appearances. > Voldemort no longer looks human, so it is reasonable > for people to assume he has done something to reduce > his humanity. Mike: Yeah, but when would Hagrid have had the chance to see Voldemort? Would the DEs, or anybody else be spreading the news about Voldy's appearance? I rather doubt that he would allow that to happen. News that the leader looks like a human snake would tend to detract from the appeal of becomming a DE for possible new recruits. So Hagrid's only other choice, imo, is Dumbledore. Which *could* also mean that Dumbledore told Hagrid *why* Voldy looks like he does. Not necessarily getting all involved, just telling Hagrid, "the guy has been experimenting with splitting apart his soul. He's already lost considerable chunks of it." Then leave Hagrid to his imagination. > bboyminn: > It is also possible that Hagrid was commenting on > Voldemort general and excessive Evilness. The more > evil and less compassionate you become the less > human you become. Mike: This is a good alternate read. But would that inspire the phrasing "HUMAN LEFT IN HIM"? I don't know, that seems to be a specific phraseology that was inspired by a specific knowledge. I think Donna is quite possibly correct in her interpretation. > > Donna > > Sounds like to me he knows about the horcruxes. That is why he > > was on Knockturn Alley in CoS. Word got out that one of the > > horcruxes was surfacing and he was looking for it. > > > Steve/bboyminn: > Still, I'm not discounting your idea completely. This > is certainly a reasonably suspicious statement from > Hagrid. Mike: I like the idea that Hagrid knew or suspected the Horcruxes. Not sure about the rumor that one was surfacing in CoS. Lucius, who had the Horcrux and caused it to surface in CoS, didn't know it was a Horcrux if you believe Dumbledore. The cavalier way that Lucius treated one of "Lord Voldemort's old school things", tends to make me believe that that was how Lucius thought of the Diary. That makes a rumor hard to get started. BTW, I still think that the Diary was a key part of Voldemort's plan to complete his quest for immortality. Somehow, that Diary Revenant was going to be his new, non-aging body. Mike, who wonders what LV's plan B for immortality is ;-) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 03:41:16 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:41:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169875 >Carol: > And anyone who > wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable > narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just > of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< "Isn't it wonderful, this observation of Carol?" Neri asked Faith. "All we have to do is just watch for the phrase `Harry knew', and we'll immediately know that he's wrong." Faith was sitting at her favorite desk in the corner of the Canon Museum, working on some research project. Around were alleyways and roads bordered by large and small canons, teetering piles of broken and damaged furniture, winged catapults and Fanged Frisbees, chipped bottles of congealed potions, dragon eggshells, corked bottles whose contents still shimmered evilly, several rusting swords, and a heavy bloodstained axe. "What?" said Faith distractedly, marking something in her notebooks, "oh, not again, Neri. How many times do I have to explain this to you? The narrator must be reliable at least 95% of the time, especially in a fantasy series, especially with a mystery plot going. There's nothing worse that can happen to such a narrator than losing its reliability in the reader's eyes." She went back to her notebooks. "But there are still those remaining 5%?" said Neri hopefully. "Wouldn't it be great if we had some kind of a er a red flag, to let us know when the narrator is *really* unreliable?" "Such a red flag doesn't exist. It's a theorist myth. Now stop bothering me, I need to get some work done." Neri sat himself on the edge of Faith's desk, but she just ignored him. At last he suggested: "You could at least check that thing with the `Harry knew' phrase, couldn't you?" "I don't need to. I know it doesn't work". Neri waited, but Faith just continued ignoring him. "OK," said Neri finally. "I'll check it myself." He took out his wand, waved it in a wide arc at the Canon Museum at large, and said aloud: "Accio `Harry knew'!" "NO!!! DON'T!!!" Screamed Faith. She jumped from her chair, caught Neri by the arm and pulled him down the floor and under a heavy cabinet. And just in time, because hundreds of canonballs landed where they had both sat a second ago and smashed the desk to smithereens. "Oops, sorry," said Neri in a small voice. "You just had to do it, you just had to " muttered Faith, dusting her school uniforms. "My favorite desk now look what you've done " But Neri was already examining one of the canonballs. It was engraved with the words: ******************************************************** "Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering too, and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain" ******************************************************** "He was right about it," said Neri, disappointed. "But maybe this one " He picked up another canonball and read the words engraved on it: ******************************************************** The little creature on the bed had large, bat-like ears and bulging green eyes the size of tennis balls. Harry knew instantly that this was what had been watching him out of the garden hedge that morning. ******************************************************** "Right again " said Neri and picked another ball: ******************************************************** "No one asked your opinion, you filthy little Mudblood," he spat. Harry knew at once that Malfoy had said something really bad because there was an instant uproar at his words. ******************************************************** "Well, he can't be correct all the time!" exclaimed Neri. He picked up another canonball and another and another : ******************************************************** Ginny had already been in the Chamber of Secrets for hours .Harry knew there was only one thing to do. "Wait there," he called to Ron. "Wait with Lockhart. I'll go on." ******************************************************** ******************************************************** Harry knew perfectly well that Dudley only put up with Aunt Marge's hugs because he was well paid for it, ******************************************************** ******************************************************** Professor McGonagall considered him intently. Harry knew she was deeply interested in the Gryffindor team's prospects; ******************************************************** ******************************************************** "Which job did he want, sir? What subject did he want to teach?" Somehow, Harry knew the answer even before Dumbledore gave it. "Defense Against the Dark Arts." ******************************************************** "What? No way!" said Neri. "Harry's wrong half the time, everybody knows that." He looked around. "I know! Snape! We have to find something Harry thinks he knows about Snape!" Neri frantically dug into the large pile of canonballs. "Didn't Carol say it would work about anyone and anything, not just Snape?" Asked Faith in a rather smug tone. Neri wasn't listening to her. A special canonball had just caught his eye. "Ha! Found it!" ******************************************************** "Antidotes!" said Snape, looking around at them all, his cold black eyes glittering unpleasantly. "You should all have prepared your recipes now. I want you to brew them carefully, and then, we will be selecting someone on whom to test one " Snape's eyes met Harry's, and Harry knew what was coming. Snape was going to poison him. ******************************************************** "He was wrong!" said Neri triumphantly. "Snape didn't poison him!" "Well, technically we don't know that he was wrong," pointed out Faith. "Perhaps Snape was *going* to do it at that moment, and it's all moot anyway because Creevey just came in and took Harry to the weighting of the wands, so we don't know how this scenario would have developed." "I foresee a big argument with the Snape fans. They'll all tell you that Snape would never even *consider* poisoning a student." "What do you think? Not even Harry? Not even for a moment? Not even something that just causes a mild stomach ache?" "OK, OK, so if you're so smart, you find it." "Sure, no problem," said Faith. She rolled up her sleeves, took out her wand and pointed it at the large pile of canonballs. "Accio `Harry knew' but proved wrong!" "NO!!! DON'T!!!" Screamed Neri, caught Faith by the arm and was ready to pull her under the cabinet. But there was no need. A single little canonball lifted out of the pile and landed gently onto Faith's outstretched hand. "What? Just one?? In the whole darn series??? What can it be????" Neri tried to read the tiny font on the canonball: ******************************************************** Cedric was going to get there first. Cedric was sprinting as fast as he could toward the cup, and Harry knew he would never catch up, Cedric was much taller, had much longer legs -- Then Harry saw something immense over a hedge to his left, moving quickly along a path that intersected with his own; it was moving so fast Cedric was about to run into it, and Cedric, his eyes on the cup, had not seen it -- "Cedric!" Harry bellowed. "On your left!" ******************************************************** "So Harry did catch up after all, so to speak, " said Neri. "But do you mean that's all? This isn't even a case of unreliable narrator, exactly. And there wasn't any mystery involved. Just a simple plot turn, of the kind that happens five or ten times in a chapter. Is this the only case in the series in which `Harry knew' but definitely proved wrong? Wait a minute " he squinted suspiciously at Faith. "How do I know you're not cheating?" "I never cheat about canon," said Faith indignantly. "So unless you can show me another `Harry knew' phrase where he's proved wrong, please stop wasting my time with red flags. I need to get some work done." Neri Notes to TBAY beginners: A general introduction to Theory Bay: http://hpfgu.org.uk/faq/history.html#11 Introducing Faith: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith From Meridel1 at aol.com Wed Jun 6 03:23:35 2007 From: Meridel1 at aol.com (Meridel1 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:23:35 -0400 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C97601339A4E49-1624-6544@MBLK-M30.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169876 Karen: Someone please read what I'm thinking most recently and try to find some reason why this couldn't be true. I really think it makes a lot of sence but I want others to check it. Furthermore, do we know who is older- Petunia or Lily? Now what are your thoughts on this? I have gotten responces from others saying that then there would be no blood protection at no. 4 then if Petunia and Lily were not blood related. However, someone else said, "At the end of 'Will and Won't' in HBP, Petunia looks 'oddly flushed' when DD is talking about the blood protection. " Interesting... maybe she knows that there is no blood relation with her and Lily... Thoughts please... Meredith: Hi all. I'm new here and am currently re-reading all 6 books before #7 comes out. I've just started #6. However, this particular topic is something I've been thinking about for quite awhile now. I definitely feel that the Durselys are going to figure prominently in #7 - but exactly how, I'm not sure. However, as far as the Lily/Petunia/Harry relationship goes.... this might be really far-fetched - but has anyone considered the possibility that Lily isn't Harry's biological mother? From windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 04:06:53 2007 From: windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com (danielle dassero) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:06:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could this be Petunia? In-Reply-To: <46662EDD.000007.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169880 >From: "Debi" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could this be Petunia? >Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:49:49 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) > >A non-magical character will perform magic in "desperate circumstances." Jo >said this would happen back in 1999, in >a Barnes and Noble chat, but it has yet to occur. She said, >"There is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances >to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in the >world I am writing about." > >I always thought this might mean Argus Filch, but could it >actually mean Petunia does magic to protect her family, or >possibly ----BIG STRETCH --- Harry? > >Your thoughts on the subject? > >The DCat Debbie, I've always thought she was talking about Merope Gaunt myself. Merope was always squib-like in front of her family. After both dad and brother get locked away in Akazaban, she does magic that helps her get Tom Riddle Sr. Plus I think JKR said that Petunia wasn't a squib or magical. But we do have 1 more book to go, so it could be a possibilty. Danielle _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 04:14:51 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:14:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could this be Petunia? In-Reply-To: <46662EDD.000007.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169881 The DCatA non-magical character will perform magic in "desperate circumstances." Jo said this would happen back in 1999, in a Barnes and Noble chat, but it has yet to occur. She said, "There is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about." I always thought this might mean Argus Filch, but could it actually mean Petunia does magic to protect her family, or possibly ----BIG STRETCH --- Harry? Your thoughts on the subject? Sherry: I believe that on JKR's web site she says, perhaps in the rumors or FAQ sections, that Petunia will never do magic. Check out www.jkrowling.com As for who will do magic late in life, my vote and my personal hope is that it will be Mrs. Figg. I love her, and I'd hate to see a horrible person like Filch be able to do magic. I shudder to think what he could do to the students! Sherry From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 04:34:40 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:34:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe/Sirius, Sirius, Sirius Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706052134q7cea5389y251dcd084017d869@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169882 Magpie: So how great is it that they are now essentially part of the same family? I feel like Harry is the heir on the patrilineal side, having inherited the house from Sirius, to whom he was first connected through his own father and his friends. Regulus was, of course, Sirius' only sibling and younger brother. The only Black woman in Grimmauld Place in Harry's experience has been Mrs. Black, who is mad and dead. The Order spends most of its time shutting her behind her curtains, trying to not listen to her, and also not listening to Kreacher loudly adoring her. Draco, then, inherits from the distaff side as the child of Narcissa, herself one of three sisters. Debbie: Dumbledore states that Harry inherited the house because Sirius named him in his will, not because Harry is some sort of heir at law under some sort of convoluted analysis of the tapestry (the version JKR wrote with Charlus Potter on it). In any event, Harry is not literally a Black through the male line, so this only works symbolically based on Sirius' choice of Harry as heir. I think that's what you meant, but wanted to clarify. Jen: The Permanent Sticking charm on the family tapestry and the fact that it's one major artifact the Order can't get rid of in the House of Black. Lol, it's silly but now I see where there could be some significance to that - everything in the house *shouldn't* be removed and cleaned away as if the family never existed and especially not that tapestry. Magpie: Oh no, I totally agree. I love that Sirius can't remove the history of all the people who lived there. Nor can he get rid of his own pedigree--he came from these people. They couldn't get rid of him either--here he is inheriting the house despite being blasted off the tree. Debbie: Sirius is much more like his family than he would like to admit. We witness his mother railing against the enemies of pureblood domination -- mudbloods and blood traitors and the like -- but it isn't substantially different from the way Sirius rails against his own family, or Crouch Sr. or anyone else on his enemies list. And he is as fanatical as his cousin Bella, though their causes are different. I think this is the real tragedy of Sirius Black. He cannot escape who he is, and he is a member of the Black family. (Likewise, Regulus was a member of the family, and his apparent attempt to thwart Voldemort's plan -- assuming our surmises are correct -- is consistent with the Blacks as a pureblood family with superior notions about themselves but not a bunch of Voldemort supporters.) Alla: Sure, I was. I know it is Harry's story and he is my favorite character, but I sure hope there will be good reason Sirius was killed, plot wise, because Harry has to go alone, well just does not really cut it for me. Debbie: This is where I'm going to really get in trouble with all the Sirius fans, but in addition to the genre requirement that the hero lose his mentors and face the ultimate challenge alone, Sirius had to go because, well, he provided a lousy example. We know (well, we think we do) that the power of love will be a key to Harry's success against Voldemort. Sirius' most powerful character trait was his loyalty to those he loved and his willingness to put himself at risk to the point of recklessness to protect those. But that's not the role model Harry needs. Most people (Voldemort excepted, of course) are willing to go out of the way for a friend. Sirius carries that principle to the nth degree. However, the love Harry needs to learn is love of his enemies, and Sirius, who is as contemptuous of his enemies (and his inferiors such as Kreacher and Pettigrew) as he is protective of his friends, is an obstacle to Harry's achievement of that higher form of love. Sirius, who allows his contempt to color his judgment, isn't interested in any such thing. And Harry doesn't need his advice either. Take the First Task in GoF. Sirius was happy to provide advice, and Harry was happy to take it. It wasn't bad advice (since Krum used the conjunctivitis curse Sirius would have suggested), but Fake!Moody's advice was much better. Magpie: So why did Sirius have to die, besides Harry going on alone? Honestly, I think it may be important for Sirius to have died because Harry is his heir. In inheriting the Black House, which of course symbolizes all the secrets and tragedies of the Black family (literally and figuratively) Harry has become an Heir to the Black family in Sirius' place. Just as PoA gave us the Shrieking Shack that held the Potter family secrets Harry has now inherited and taken ownership of the even more insane Black family secrets-- secrets it's going to be harder for him to uncover on his own. Debbie: You mean hard for him to uncover without the assistance of his house elves? But truthfully, Harry's treatment of house elves (including Kreacher, whom he despises as a traitor) is a vast improvement over Sirius. But that's an aside. The main point I have here is that, rather than simply uncovering Black family secrets (although there are clearly horcrux secrets to be discovered) I see Harry's pureness of heart as a cleansing or purification agent of the pureblood tendencies of 12GP itself. The Order taking over was not enough to scrub it clean of dark influences. Only Harry can do that, just as only Harry can defeat Voldemort. Betsy Hp: And I've been meaning to do so for *forever*. So, favorite Sirius moments, just for you, Jen. Debbie: ::sigh:: I confess that I have no favorite Sirius moments. Unlike most fans, my reaction to Sirius is to want to protect Harry from him. (See? I'm not so hardhearted as to cite falling through the veil as my favorite Sirius moment . . .) Debbie who always saw Sirius as part of the problem and not (unlike Snape) as part of the solution to the WW's woes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nervewracker2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 04:11:05 2007 From: nervewracker2000 at yahoo.com (nervewracker2000) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:11:05 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169883 Anna: does the mere act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is really split into a hundred- some-odd pieces? Geoff: > Killing rips the soul apart..."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) > > In a war situation, people are killed but his stress lies on murder as a premeditated act against another person which I think is not quite the same. > > Even so, if the souls of Aurors are split, it doesn't follow that they are going to rush off and create Horcruxes; perhaps the soul pieces remain together but separate - if you see what I mean. Nervewracker: The act of killing a human being even if unintentional can tear a person apart. Even those who have steeled themselves to do it (if it is part of their job) as in the case of the aurors, the act of killing somebody is bound to affect them in some way. I think the killing involved in creating a horcrux is different in that it is just a means to an end, there has to be a conscious intention of sending that broken piece of the soul into the repository. Not every act of murder leads to the creation of a horcrux. Few wizards know how to do this since it is very advanced Dark Magic and it is considered a taboo even to discuss about it. Even if known, few would willingly part with a piece of their soul just to achieve immortality. From abha_j at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 05:20:30 2007 From: abha_j at yahoo.com (Abha Jain) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:20:30 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169885 Anna: does the mere act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or is the soul only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil murder, or has the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? Voldemort did countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is really split into a hundred- some-odd pieces? Geoff: > Killing rips the soul apart..."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) > > In a war situation, people are killed but his stress lies on murder as a premeditated act against another person which I think is not quite the same. > > Even so, if the souls of Aurors are split, it doesn't follow that they are going to rush off and create Horcruxes; perhaps the soul pieces remain together but separate - if you see what I mean. Nervewracker: The act of killing a human being even if unintentional can tear a person apart. Even those who have steeled themselves to do it (if it is part of their job) as in the case of the aurors, the act of killing somebody is bound to affect them in some way. I think the killing involved in creating a horcrux is different in that it is just a means to an end, there has to be a conscious intention of sending that broken piece of the soul into the repository. Not every act of murder leads to the creation of a horcrux. Few wizards know how to do this since it is very advanced Dark Magic and it is considered a taboo even to discuss about it. Even if known, few would willingly part with a piece of their soul just to achieve immortality. ------------------- Abha: (de-lurking after a long time to put in my 2 pennies) I don't think Aurors are supposed to do killing as part of their jobs anyways. Remember - AK is an unforgivable curse even if the Aurors use it. IIRC, there is nowhere any mention of a killing by an auror in the canon. Aurors only try to bind the evil-monger wizards and send them to Azkaban. This should put aurors at a cosiderable disadvantage though, compared to the evil wizards. I do not see a resolution to this - comments, anyone? From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 05:38:56 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:38:56 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169886 > >Carol: > > And anyone who > > wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable > > narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just > > of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." Neri > "Isn't it wonderful, this observation of Carol?" Neri asked Faith. > "All we have to do is just watch for the phrase `Harry knew', and > we'll immediately know that he's wrong." wynnleaf After which, Neri, you go on with a list of places in canon where it says "Harry knew" and Harry was correct in his knowledge. Now granted, Carol didn't actually come back and confirm or contradict my comments on this way of looking at what "Harry knew," but since I've been very interested in this for quite some time, I had posted a bit more lengthy description of exactly what we're talking about over this "Harry knew" angle. Because quite obviously, as I said previously, this is not meant to include every instance of the combination of the words "Harry knew." Here's what I said, which you appear to have either missed or chose to ignore. Perhaps you only wanted to address Carol's comment. Wynnleaf previously: wynnleaf now Now, using that as a guide, we can cross out all the examples for which Harry "knows" something that is already an obvious fact, not just a gut feeling. Soooo.... > ******************************************************** > "Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering too, and then Harry > knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering > terrible pain" > ******************************************************** > wynnleaf Harry had the factual evidence literally in his face. This was not a gut feeling. He "knew" because it was a fact. Therefore, it doesn't count. > ******************************************************** > The little creature on the bed had large, bat-like ears and bulging > green eyes the size of tennis balls. Harry knew instantly that this > was what had been watching him out of the garden hedge that morning. > ******************************************************** wynnleaf Once again, Harry knew for a fact that the same eyes he was looking at were the ones that had looked at him earlier. Therefore, it doesn't count. Two down. > ******************************************************** > "No one asked your opinion, you filthy little Mudblood," he spat. > > Harry knew at once that Malfoy had said something really bad because > there was an instant uproar at his words. > ******************************************************** wynnleaf The "instant uproar at his words," is what is making Harry know this for a fact -- no gut feeling here, coming about after, what did I say before? -- "reflecting on something that is *not* a fact." Yep, Harry could hear the displeasure of others and therefore knew this for a fact. He "knew" because he had evidence, not a gut feeling. > ******************************************************** > Ginny had already been in the Chamber of Secrets for hours .Harry knew > there was only one thing to do. > > "Wait there," he called to Ron. "Wait with Lockhart. I'll go on." > ******************************************************** wynnleaf We could actually argue this one. Was this really the only thing that could be done? Somehow, Fawkes was cognizant of the circumstances to come help. Was Dumbledore? It's hard to say if Harry was truly the only option, or whether in fact there were other options and Harry's "saving people" thing simply told him he *had* to do this, sort of like with the merpeople in GOF. > ******************************************************** > Harry knew perfectly well that Dudley only put up with Aunt Marge's > hugs because he was well paid for it, > ******************************************************** wynnleaf Another one where Harry actually knows for a fact that Dudley is paid to do it. Once again, it doesn't fit the qualifications of reflecting on something which Harry doesn't know for a fact and having a strong gut feeling. > > ******************************************************** > Professor McGonagall considered him intently. Harry knew she was > deeply interested in the Gryffindor team's prospects; > ******************************************************** wynnleaf Another fact Harry already is aware of. Another one that doesn't count. > > ******************************************************** > "Which job did he want, sir? What subject did he want to teach?" > Somehow, Harry knew the answer even before Dumbledore gave it. > "Defense Against the Dark Arts." > ******************************************************** wynnleaf Yet again, I don't think this was a gut feeling Harry arrives at after reflecting on something for which he doesn't have facts. Harry knows the DADA position is open every year (at the time he didn't know it began to be open every year *after* this event). He knows that Voldemort is seriously interested in Dark Arts. It's a rather obvious guess based on facts. Besides that I didn't read this as some sort of inner certain knowledge Harry felt, so much as that thing that happens to everyone now and again when you just can sense what someone is about to say. > ******************************************************** > "Antidotes!" said Snape, looking around at them all, his cold black > eyes glittering unpleasantly. "You should all have prepared your > recipes now. I want you to brew them carefully, and then, we will be > selecting someone on whom to test one " > > Snape's eyes met Harry's, and Harry knew what was coming. Snape was > going to poison him. > ******************************************************** > wynnleaf Now this is one I'd count. Why? Harry isn't working from any facts. He has never seen or heard of Snape poisoning any student. Snape has never poisoned him before. As far as Harry knows, no one has ever died in Snape's classes. Harry has no facts to go on except Snape's comment that "we will be selecting someone on whom to test one..." In fact, practically any kid I've ever heard of, after seeing Snape make over-the-top threats for years, wouldn't even *believe* this threat. So Harry "knowing" Snape is going to poison him is almost certainly incorrect. Yes, right, Harry -- Snape was going to poison you right there in class -- nice way to curry favor with Dumbledore and keep his spying/teacher position! After all, Snape knows Dumbledore gives 3rd and 4th chances, even to teachers who poison Dumbledore's favorite students. Right. Sometimes I wonder about Harry. > ******************************************************** > Cedric was going to get there first. Cedric was sprinting as fast as > he could toward the cup, and Harry knew he would never catch up, > Cedric was much taller, had much longer legs -- > > Then Harry saw something immense over a hedge to his left, moving > quickly along a path that intersected with his own; it was moving so > fast Cedric was about to run into it, and Cedric, his eyes on the cup, > had not seen it -- > > "Cedric!" Harry bellowed. "On your left!" > ******************************************************** >Neri > "So Harry did catch up after all, so to speak, " said Neri. "But do > you mean that's all? This isn't even a case of unreliable narrator, > exactly. And there wasn't any mystery involved. Just a simple plot > turn, of the kind that happens five or ten times in a chapter. wynnleaf Yep, Harry was wrong. However, Harry was basing his knowledge not on a gut feeling, but on clear facts that Cedric was ahead, taller, longer legs, etc. Harry was not reflecting on some gut feeling without facts. He was simply assessing facts. It turns out he was still wrong, but I wouldn't count it as an example. Well, that pretty much takes care of all your examples. Remember, it's not just anywhere you see "Harry" and "knew" in combination. We're talking about Harry having some gut feeling about something for which he does not have factual evidence. Or some gut feeling about what he thinks he'll do in the future. Harry knew he'd never eavesdrop again -- obviously not based on facts, but his own hopes. Harry knew he wouldn't ever lure Sirius out of Grimmauld Place -- not based on facts, but a gut feeling and what Harry was promising himself. Harry knew he'd never forgive Snape. Based purely on his own current feelings. He has no facts about what he may truly feel or think in the future. Harry knew Fawkes was gone for good. He clearly has no facts to support this. It's just a gut feeling. (I keep using that phrase, don't I?) The reason I questioned my own inclusion of Harry's assessment of Snape's memories from the occlumency lessons is specifically because of what Harry thought he "knew." On the one hand, he was reflecting back on things he'd seen for which he really didn't have any clear facts, yet on the other, there was at least strong evidence that indeed the couple where the man was shouting at the woman was Snape's parents, because of the hook nose. And of course, these *were* Snape's memories, as Harry knew for a *fact.* No gut feeling about that part. wynnleaf, who wonders if Carol could further describe what *she* means by this sort of phrasing of Harry "knowing" or being "sure" of something or that something will "never" happen. From jim at trueartistgroup.com Wed Jun 6 05:05:25 2007 From: jim at trueartistgroup.com (Jim Zangara) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:05:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] These two things stand out References: <466630FA.00000B.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: <001001c7a7f8$4b41cd00$4101a8c0@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169887 Debi wrote: > Which would make Harry a descendant of > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And > is > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some > way? Jim muses: I think these quotes actually lend credence to the theory the Harry and/or Harry's scar is one of the horcruxes. We know Voldy wanted something of Griffindor's and the only known relic of his was the sword. We also know Harry's scar is not a normal curse scar and is hard wired into Voldy's emotions. I think this was done inadvertently by ole Voldy boy and he is still unaware of it at the moment else why would he want to kill Harry? I never noticed the name similarities before. Thanks for bringing that up. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 06:08:12 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:08:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169888 Wynnleaf: Remember, it's not just anywhere you see "Harry" and "knew" in combination. We're talking about Harry having some gut feeling about something for which he does not have factual evidence. Or some gut feeling about what he thinks he'll do in the future. Sherry: Did you forget about Draco in HBP? Because Harry had a gut feeling, and he was sure right! It's the turning point, where Harry is right, and now nobody will believe him, instead of the tired boring, Harry is always wrong. it's time for Harry, the *hero* to be right. Sherry From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 10:23:48 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:23:48 -0000 Subject: Revisiting a Mistake - On Dementors (Was Re; Divination etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169889 > Goddlfrood before enlightenment: > A theory I hold that Demenetors initially came about from > being soulless wraith type creatures, very much akin to the > ringwraiths in LOTR but able to breed. Goddlefrood now: Come, come, Goddlefrood, you really should be more careful when making such bold assertions. This is unsustainable as even a cursory glance at sources well known should have told you. It simply is not on, and shows a lack of research ;-) This gives the lie to the above quote from the previous: 'One young Canadian boy earlier asked her how Dementers breed. "I was just so pleased that he thought about it and pleased that I had the answer," Rowling told The Canadian Press. These evil creatures don't, by the way, breed but grow like a fungus where there is decay.' So there you have it, Dementors do not breed, whatever gave you the idea that they did? They grow like fungus, obvious when one thinks a little about it ;-) The source is here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-canadianpress-moore.htm > Goddlefrood from the pre-renaissance: > Question 6 - Where did Dementors originate and why have > they left the service of the MoM other than inducements > from LV? Goddlefrood post-renaissance: You may recall that in GoF LV says the Dementors are his natural allies, or words to that effect. That he sought their alliance and created a situation where there was decay so that they could grow like fungus should have been apparent. Whether this means they are like fungi or another kind of bacilli could not be determined. Botanists may be interested to delve further into this issue. That'll teach you, Goddlefrood, to check your material before making wild assertions. Then again, when has such an injunction ever worked on you previously, sometimes I despair :-< Goddlefrood From deeoblockedo at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 6 10:53:23 2007 From: deeoblockedo at yahoo.co.uk (deeoblockedo) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:53:23 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: <4666375F.00000F.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169890 > Dobbycat: > OK, my mind is working overtime, but here are a couple more > possibilities to mull over: > A) Lily and Petunia were both adopted, by a couple from the > magical community > or > B) Lily and Petunia's parents and possible grandparents were > squibs, or had a magical ancestor and then not another magical > child was born to the filmily line until Lily, that magical > ancestor being Godric Gryffindor. Deeoblockedo: Thinking along these lines what if Petunia is also a witch - not a squib - but was digusted at having magic as she didn't want to have magical powers. As she never went to a magical school to learn how to do magic this would tie in with JKR saying that she could not perform magic. From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Wed Jun 6 11:16:50 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:16:50 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: <46662C8E.000003.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > > > Karen: > > > "you might have got the impression that there is a little bit > > more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye > > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#book:7 > > > This reminds me again about that sentence in book 5 saying > > Lily and Petunia's eyes were "very different"... any ideas? > > > S. R replied: > > The only thing I can think of is that maybe Lily and Petunia > aren't sisters by blood. Is it possible that one or the other > was actually adopted? Or, perhaps they're only half sisters > and don't share the same father or the same mother. > > > Dobbycat's Thoughts on the subject: > > I'm thinking several things here, Petunia CAN do magic, she > just isn't very good, or she's the female version of Snape, > unpopular and she has a grudge against the magic community > and has turned her back on it & her magic. As for the eyes, > the difference is either to mark how very different Petunia > and Lily are, both in temperament and talent, or possibly > --- and this is a stretch here --- Lily magically changed > her eyes or the strength of her magic or of the magic in her > caused her eyes to change and somehow this has been passed > on to Harry, either by nature or through the rebounded curse > that also gave him his scar. > > Hmmmm, food for thought my little magic minions > > the DCat Karen's responce: I read in an interview with JK last night (an old interview) that non magical people can do magic in extreme circumstances. However, in another interview (I'm sorry but I can't remember the source) she said that Petunia can't and never will do magic. > From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Wed Jun 6 11:18:57 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:18:57 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: <466630FA.00000B.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > > Quotes from JK" > > Quote/ > A huge piece of information is coming about Lily Potter. "...you'll find > out something incredibly important about her in Book 7. But I can't tell you > what those things are so I'm sorry, but yes, you will find out more about > her because both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to > do. " > /End Quote > > And > > Quote/ > The significance of the place where Harry and his parents lived - the first > name... Godric Gryffindor. Very good, you're a bit good you are aren't you. > I'm impressed. You're not going to tell me but... My editor didn't, I said > to her - Haven't you noticed the connection between where Harry's parents > lived and one of the Hogwarts houses? And she said no, no - I'm not being > rude about Emma, she's a brilliant editor, the best ever. But no she didn't > pick that up either, you're a bit good you are. > /End Quote > > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is related > to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a descendant of > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And is > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some > way? > > The DCat's mind is working overtime > > DCat > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Karen: That's what I'm thinking- can't find anything that doesn't support your answer because I think a lot of what's been discussed on the Petunia's Eyes thread would support your thoughts. I think you might be right on. > From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 6 11:20:40 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:20:40 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169893 > Sherry: > Did you forget about Draco in HBP? Because Harry had a gut feeling, and he > was sure right! It's the turning point, where Harry is right, and now > nobody will believe him, instead of the tired boring, Harry is always wrong. > it's time for Harry, the *hero* to be right. > colebiancardi: Harry is always willing to suspect Draco - they've been at each other since the beginning. He notices that Draco drops out of Quidditch, that Draco is becoming pale and withdrawn, that Draco is acting in a secretive manner. Also, Harry did spy on Draco on the train to Hogwarts, so he "knew" something was up with Draco, due to the conversation that Draco had with his cronies. If it wasn't for that, I don't know if Harry would have tailed Draco with such determination thru-out the year. If you are referring to Draco's last stand, where Harry *knew* that Draco wasn't going to kill DD, again, Harry observed the wavering and the lowering of the wand. The DE's then entered, so we will never *know* if Harry was correct in that observation (although I believe he was), but again, that wasn't a gut feeling - he saw Draco's actions. The reason why I like Harry - despite all the times he is wrong, he still manages to get the job done. Although, it seems, that his some of his actions in one book opens up another can of worms that keeps us thru the series - such as saving Wormtail from the hands of Sirius and Remus. colebiancardi From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Wed Jun 6 11:22:12 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:22:12 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: <001001c7a7f8$4b41cd00$4101a8c0@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Zangara" wrote: > > Debi wrote: > > Which would make Harry a descendant of > > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And > > is > > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some > > way? > > Jim muses: > I think these quotes actually lend credence to the theory the Harry and/or > Harry's scar is one of the horcruxes. We know Voldy wanted something of > Griffindor's and the only known relic of his was the sword. We also know > Harry's scar is not a normal curse scar and is hard wired into Voldy's > emotions. I think this was done inadvertently by ole Voldy boy and he is > still unaware of it at the moment else why would he want to kill Harry? > > I never noticed the name similarities before. Thanks for bringing that up. Karen: I would have to agree- JK has made the scar seem really important in the next book and it seems like most of the book will be on finding the horcruxes. > From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 12:40:32 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 05:40:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169895 -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of karen Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:19 AM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: These two things stand out --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is related > to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a descendant of > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And is > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some > way? > Sherry now: JKR answered this on her web site quite a while ago, I think. She says Harry is definitely not the heir of Gryffindor. There are a number of people who speculate that Dumbledore could have been, and that the house in Godric's Hollow could have been his house. I don't really think one way or the other about it. I hope we'll see Godric's Hollow for the sentimental value of Harry revisiting it, but I don't really expect any major plot revelations. As for lily being adopted, if that were the case, than everything Dumbledore said or thought about the blood magic, Harry being protected as long as he can still call the home the place where his mother's blood lives, would be a lie or foolish ignorance. I already have serious problems with the whole idea of Harry being left at the Dursleys, and if it turned out that it had been unnecessary all along because Lily wasn't blood kin to Petunia, that would make Dumbledore pretty monstrous, I think. if he knew, of course. Sherry From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jun 6 13:00:52 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:00:52 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169896 > Deeoblockedo: > > Thinking along these lines what if Petunia is also a witch - not > a squib - but was digusted at having magic as she didn't want to > have magical powers. As she never went to a magical school to > learn how to do magic this would tie in with JKR saying that she > could not perform magic. > Anne Squires: The following quote from JKR is found on her website. It is from Sunday 15 August 2004, J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival. Link: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet. Anne now: So there you have it, "She is a Muggle." From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 13:05:26 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:05:26 -0000 Subject: Heir of Gryffindor (was: These two things stand out) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169897 dobbycat: > > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is related to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a > descendant of Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And is this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some way? > > Sherry: > JKR answered this on her web site quite a while ago, I think. She says Harry is definitely not the heir of Gryffindor. Dungrollin: No, unfortunately she didn't say it outright like that. Quote from http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm ****************************** MA: What about Harry's family ? his grandparents ? were they killed? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so- he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah MA: Another one bites the dust. ****************************** Dungrollin: I've always hated this quote, (and it's possible I've gone on about this before, though I don't remember...) because I don't understand Melissa's inference that what JKR says about Harry's grandparents in any way shuts down Harry as Gryffindor's heir theories. Just because she needed them out of the way, doesn't mean they can't have been descendents of Gryffindor. JKR's seeming uncertainty ("Oh $#!&, what did I just say to make her think that... I can't backtrack now, or everyone will know that Harry *is* the heir of Gryffindor...") makes me think that even if harry *isn't* the heir, she wasn't intending to shut down that line of speculation with her comments on Harry's grandparents. Unfortunately I don't think the interview (which was presumably recorded for the transcript) is available in audio ? if anyone knows that it is and can point me to it, please do, because I'd *love* to hear exactly how that part sounds. Dungrollin From dougsamu at golden.net Wed Jun 6 13:09:36 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:09:36 -0400 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes Message-ID: <99C458D2-2F78-49C2-A4D0-D4E50826686D@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169898 > Nervewracker: .... > Few wizards know how to do this since it is very advanced > Dark Magic and it is considered a taboo even to discuss about it. doug: There is no canon to suggest that the spell is in any way advanced or complicated, merely that it is obscure. ___ __ From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jun 6 13:25:53 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:25:53 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169899 "Debi" dobbycat wrote: Which would make Harry a descendant of Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar. Anne Squires: This is from "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005 with Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz. MA: What about Harry's family ? his grandparents ? were they killed? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. Anne again: So, Harry is not the Heir of Gryffindor. > Slitherin? And is > > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in > some > > way? > > > > > > Sherry now: > JKR answered this on her web site quite a while ago, I think. She says > Harry is definitely not the heir of Gryffindor. There are a number of > people who speculate that Dumbledore could have been, and that the house in > Godric's Hollow could have been his house. I don't really think one way or > the other about it. I hope we'll see Godric's Hollow for the sentimental > value of Harry revisiting it, but I don't really expect any major plot > revelations. > > As for lily being adopted, if that were the case, than everything Dumbledore > said or thought about the blood magic, Harry being protected as long as he > can still call the home the place where his mother's blood lives, would be a > lie or foolish ignorance. I already have serious problems with the whole > idea of Harry being left at the Dursleys, and if it turned out that it had > been unnecessary all along because Lily wasn't blood kin to Petunia, that > would make Dumbledore pretty monstrous, I think. if he knew, of course. > > Sherry > From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 6 14:14:53 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:14:53 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169900 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "anne_t_squires" wrote: > > > > > Deeoblockedo: > > > > Thinking along these lines what if Petunia is also a witch - not > > a squib - but was digusted at having magic as she didn't want to > > have magical powers. As she never went to a magical school to > > learn how to do magic this would tie in with JKR saying that she > > could not perform magic. > > > > Anne Squires: > > The following quote from JKR is found on her website. It is from > Sunday 15 August 2004, J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival. > > Link: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 > > Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? > > Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. > She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other > books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit > more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it > is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am > giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet. > > > Anne now: > > So there you have it, "She is a Muggle." > Ken: Not so fast. "She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]." What *was* JKR laughing about??? We do have the example that Merope gave up her powers at the end or lost them to traumatic shock. I have to agree with Debi, Deeoblockedo. and some others that it is at least possible that Petunia too was a witch. Her dislike of witchcraft seems intense and deep. It might be a native personality trait, not a reaction to Lily. She might just have lost her magical power by turning her back on it and refusing Hogwarts. Rowling says she is being indiscreet in the quote above. Telling us that Petunia is not a Squib, that she is a Muggle is hardly indiscreet. Lily would not have been a Mudblood if her parents were a witch and wizard so we knew that Petunia wasn't a Squib already and she gives every appearance of being a Muggle. So where's the indiscretion? Is it hiding behind that pair of buts? I'm not one to stifle speculation but I do think that Petunia and Lily being unrelated is a dead end, at least as far as the protection provided by Privet Drive is concerned. It will expire anyway when he turns 17 and that should happen within the first 200 pages of DH, I would think. Whether Harry lives or dies by the end, I presume he will survive past page 200. An attack at the Dursleys before he is 17 might happen if a plot twist makes it possible but it isn't likely to be fatal. I'm a bit perplexed by the importance that DD puts on this protection anyway. It only applies while he is at the Dursleys, Harry can be attacked anywhere else. Keeping him safe between school years is important of course. I just can't see any reason why those few weeks between the end of HBP and his 17th birthday would be so critical to DD. After his birthday Harry will be exposed anyway. Unless there is more to it than that it would seem a bit pointless for Harry to go back "home" in DH. DD wants him to do it, even if only "briefly". What would a brief visit accomplish? On the face of it only a few moments of protection. Unless there is more to it. Ken PS: My apologies to any list members who got private messages from me that appeared to be posts to the list and were wondering why. Our DSL link has been down for a few days while ATT-Yahoo danced around as long as they could before telling me that the DSL modem they made us buy when we signed on had failed and that *we* were responsible for the cost of a new one. For some reason this caused YahooGroups to see my email address as bouncing and for some reason *this* caused all my recent posts to all my YahooGroups to go out as private emails instead of posts to groups. There never was anything wrong with our email account, I could monitor it at work via the web. I think it is all fixed now.... From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 14:21:20 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:21:20 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169901 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > > > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is > related > > to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a > descendant of > > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar > Slitherin? And is > > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in > some > > way? > Sherry now: > JKR answered this on her web site quite a while ago, I think. She says > Harry is definitely not the heir of Gryffindor. There are a number of > people who speculate that Dumbledore could have been, and that the house in > Godric's Hollow could have been his house. I don't really think one way or > the other about it. I hope we'll see Godric's Hollow for the sentimental > value of Harry revisiting it, but I don't really expect any major plot > revelations. Montavilla47: I just had a very thought. If Godric's Hollow is the ancestral home of Godric Gryffindor, and it *doesn't* belong to James or Dumbledore, then who might it belong to? It's unlikely to be Sirius, as we don't see Gryffindor on the Black Family Tapestry. Harry would have noticed that, I think. Could it have been Lupin's home? Possibly. Poor Lupin! Not only can't he get a job, but his friends end up blowing up his house! Or--what if the Heir of Gryffindor is Peter Pettigrew? Hehe. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 15:15:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:15:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's mistakes (was What Harry "knows")/Why Sirius Had To Die/Petunia's Ey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169902 > > Sherry: > > Did you forget about Draco in HBP? Because Harry had a gut feeling, > and he > > was sure right! It's the turning point, where Harry is right, and now > > nobody will believe him, instead of the tired boring, Harry is > always wrong. > > it's time for Harry, the *hero* to be right. > colebiancardi: > > Harry is always willing to suspect Draco - they've been at each other > since the beginning. He notices that Draco drops out of Quidditch, > that Draco is becoming pale and withdrawn, that Draco is acting in a > secretive manner. Also, Harry did spy on Draco on the train to > Hogwarts, so he "knew" something was up with Draco, due to the > conversation that Draco had with his cronies. If it wasn't for that, > I don't know if Harry would have tailed Draco with such determination > thru-out the year. Magpie: Right, it doesn't start on a gut feeling--he sees and hears that Draco is doing something. He's not assuming things he doesn't know. Though at the same time, this *is* a case where Harry's instinct is better than other people's because of something he understands, and I don't think that's completely unheard of for Harry. He's not "always wrong" as people are saying. He had a feeling Snape hated him the first day and he was right, for instance. In this case, Harry is right about Draco not just because of the facts that he sees but because he is in a position where this time Harry's experience gives him more insight. He understands Voldemort, knows he doesn't care how old Draco is, and he also understands the kind of situation Draco is in in ways that the other characters don't. (It even harkens back to PoA when Ron and Hermione were amazed that Harry was "listening to Malfoy" about Sirius Black when Harry said "Malfoy knows..." Harry does have a nose for certain things and an understanding of certain things that other characters don't--every character has more instinctual understanding of feelings that they kind of share.) colebiancardi: > If you are referring to Draco's last stand, where Harry *knew* that > Draco wasn't going to kill DD, again, Harry observed the wavering and > the lowering of the wand. The DE's then entered, so we will never > *know* if Harry was correct in that observation (although I believe he > was), but again, that wasn't a gut feeling - he saw Draco's actions. Magpie: Harry actually doesn't say he "knew" that Malfoy wouldn't have killed Dumbledore. He perhaps significantly uses Dumbledore's term: "believe." The quote is: "His animosity was all for Snape, but he had not forgotten the fear in Malfoy's voice on that Tower top, nor the fact that he had lowered his wand before the other Death Eaters arrived. Harry did not believe that Malfoy would have killed Dumbledore. He despised Malfoy still for his infatuation with the Dark Arts, but now the tiniest drop of pity mingled with his dislike. Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now, and what was Voldemort making him do under threat of killing him and his parents?" So Harry thinks of the facts first, and those are the fear in Malfoy's voice and that he *saw* him lower his wand. He now *believes* that Malfoy would not have killed Dumbledore. It's a gut feeling, but he acknowledges it as such. He's using Dumbledore's term. He believes it--and this has led him to see Malfoy's situation very differently than he had at the beginning of the year. Now he sees the situation from Malfoy's pov, from the eyes of someone who is not a killer but is being threatened to do things that are not of his own desire under threat of killing him and his family. This, I think, is the opposite of the sort of thing we're talking about, where Harry "will never forgive Snape--never!" or where he says, "The hat wants all the houses to be friends?", looks at Malfoy at the Slytherin table and says "Fat chance." Harry is now open to more possibilities and uncertainty. colebiancardi:> > The reason why I like Harry - despite all the times he is wrong, he > still manages to get the job done. Although, it seems, that his some > of his actions in one book opens up another can of worms that keeps us > thru the series - such as saving Wormtail from the hands of Sirius and > Remus. Magpie: Exactly--I think this is in many ways the basis for the victory in the books. Harry and the kids in his generation will make plenty of mistakes, but will learn enough in time, and make the kind of mistakes, that will lead to victory (at least some--I don't think every mistake is just a good thing, some they may have to fix or live with). While the adults are important to the plot, they also will probably eventually just have to get out of the way. I think this is particularly true in the Cabinet Plot. Would it have been better, for instance, if Draco confided in Snape about his plan? In the short-term and superficially, of course! Assuming Snape was DDM, if Draco had told him the plan Snape would have just headed him off at the pass. Draco would have been neutralized, perhaps ultimately packed off to witness protection, and Dumbledore would not have faced the DEs on the Tower. But I believe (heh) that in the end it will probably work out far more for the best what they really got--a Draco that went through everything he did right up until the end and then couldn't just accept protection. Debbie: Dumbledore states that Harry inherited the house because Sirius named him in his will, not because Harry is some sort of heir at law under some sort of convoluted analysis of the tapestry (the version JKR wrote with Charlus Potter on it). In any event, Harry is not literally a Black through the male line, so this only works symbolically based on Sirius' choice of Harry as heir. I think that's what you meant, but wanted to clarify. Magpie: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Harry inherits the family because he and Sirius are family through love and through Sirius' choice of Heir. Harry isn't a Black by blood (at least in any significant way as far as we know, whatever Potters might show up on the Tapestry). Harry and Sirius became family through James and the events we learned about first in PoA. Debbie: Sirius is much more like his family than he would like to admit. We witness his mother railing against the enemies of pureblood domination -- mudbloods and blood traitors and the like -- but it isn't substantially different from the way Sirius rails against his own family, or Crouch Sr. or anyone else on his enemies list. Magpie: I love the moments where Sirius sort of has these little snob echoes in what he does--like specifically, when he's telling Snape not to do something in Grimmauld Place which is "his house, you see," he does it while addressing the ceiling. Debbie: But that's an aside. The main point I have here is that, rather than simply uncovering Black family secrets (although there are clearly horcrux secrets to be discovered) I see Harry's pureness of heart as a cleansing or purification agent of the pureblood tendencies of 12GP itself. The Order taking over was not enough to scrub it clean of dark influences. Only Harry can do that, just as only Harry can defeat Voldemort. Magpie: I would even go further and say it was a mistake to try to scrub it clean. Harry describes them as "making war" on the house, a war Sirius fully supports, and the house is fighting back from being "cleansed" in a way that pretty much wants the whole family wiped out. I think there needs to be more healing in the family in order to drive out the dark influences--learning on the side that supports it, and willingness to accept them if they do. Ken: Not so fast. "She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]." What *was* JKR laughing about??? We do have the example that Merope gave up her powers at the end or lost them to traumatic shock. I have to agree with Debi, Deeoblockedo. and some others that it is at least possible that Petunia too was a witch. Her dislike of witchcraft seems intense and deep. It might be a native personality trait, not a reaction to Lily. Magpie: How can it be possible that she was a witch when she is a Muggle? Never has and never will do magic. If she is a witch she has done magic and she is not a Muggle. Refusing to go to school does not make you a Muggle or take away your magic. Harry (and all the kids) did magic before they went to school. Hagrid can do magic despite being expelled. JKR: So where's the indiscretion? Is it hiding behind that pair of buts? Magpie: Well, she could be "squib-like" in that she knows stuff about the WW despite not being able to do magic. At least I think that fits what she says without flat-out saying she's lying, which is what she is doing if she's saying Petunia is a Muggle when what she really means is that she's a Witch. -m (who also notes that Merope Gaunt was no more ever a Squib than Neville ever was--Squibs don't blow things up accidentally--and is hoping that if any Squibs do magic it will be Filch) From april.minor at arkansas.gov Wed Jun 6 15:24:36 2007 From: april.minor at arkansas.gov (arminor75) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:24:36 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169903 > Anne Squires: > > This is from "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne > Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005 with > Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz. > >> MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. > > JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. > > > Anne again: > > So, Harry is not the Heir of Gryffindor. > > > April: I don't think JKR's response was definitive on this point. Without seeing her face and hearing her voice, it is impossible to tell, but her response seems uncertain. She definitely could have been surprised by the conclusion that having the grandparents dead shut down any heir of Gryffindor theories (a conclusion I don't understand) and just responded the best she could under those circumstances trying not to give anything away. The "well" in her response is what bothers me, like she was going to say something else and thought better of it. I've thought for a long time that Lily and Petunia aren't truly "full" sisters based on the "eye" clues. I tend to favor the idea that they are still blood related (thus keeping the blood protection spell) but not full sisters. (Could be half sisters, cousins, etc.) Based on the JKR quote, we are going to find out something "incredibly important" about Lily. I cannot help but think that must tie into her family/the Dursleys. From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 15:37:17 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (shmantzel) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:37:17 -0000 Subject: Tapestry!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169904 I was reading the bit about the tapestry and I got to thinking about it with its Permanent Sticking Charm. Now I want to enjoy theoreticizing ;) and in the many months I have been a part of this group, I haven't seen this topic, so hopefully you will indulge me in this. Maybe the fact that the tapestry couldn't be removed was to show Sirius that he can't purge everything from the house, but maybe this is another plot device. What do you think we would find if the Permanent Sticking Charm was taken off and we could look behind the tapestry? A wall? or maybe something else? From sam2sar at charter.net Wed Jun 6 15:43:38 2007 From: sam2sar at charter.net (Stephanie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:43:38 -0000 Subject: Could this be Petunia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > > The DCatA non-magical character will perform magic in "desperate > circumstances." Jo said this would happen back in 1999, in a Barnes and > Noble chat, but it has yet to occur. She said, "There is a character who > does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but > that is very rare in the world I am writing about." > > I always thought this might mean Argus Filch, but could it actually mean > Petunia does magic to protect her family, or possibly ----BIG STRETCH --- > Harry? > > Your thoughts on the subject? > > > > Sherry: > I believe that on JKR's web site she says, perhaps in the rumors or FAQ > sections, that Petunia will never do magic. Check out > > www.jkrowling.com > > As for who will do magic late in life, my vote and my personal hope is that > it will be Mrs. Figg. I love her, and I'd hate to see a horrible person > like Filch be able to do magic. I shudder to think what he could do to the > students! > > Sherry > Sam: I have never considered Mrs. Figg. I think that she is a likely candidate. Protecting Harry could somehow give her the push she needs. Most likely accidentally by fear or anger. I think that I need to think about this some more. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 6 16:17:33 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:17:33 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Riddle's Nephew? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169906 aussie: Before you call me an idiot, think , not about Snape and Tom Riddle .... but about their mothers. Merope Gaunt had a "heavy face" and, although she wasn't good with the wand, was gifted with potion making. She brewed the love potion without going to classes and maybe without reading. When she gave birth to Tom and gave his name, there were very few living witnesses who could say all that happened. Eileen Prince had "heavy brows". She was very gifted with Potion making, as proved by the book that was passed onto Severus. Even though Hermione deeply researched the name "Prince", the only one she could find was Severus's mother ... no family line was evident of Eileen's parents. If That potion book was about 50 years old when Lupin saw it, that would put Eileen in Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle. It could be they were in the same year and so the same age. That got me thinking ... What if Merope had TWINS !!! Tom and Eileen. Eileen may have been adopted out as a baby, and no word of her was given to Tom since he was hard enough to handle in the orphanage already. The woman who talked to Dumbledore was distraught while talking anything about Tom Riddle, so Dumbledore could have easily missed signals that there was a twin sister. She displayed magical abilities just as other Muggle borns did, and would have been invited to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom. Then, several years after leaving school, she married Tobas Snape ... a muggle, just like Merope did. Not saying it is true ... just What if it is true? How would that change the way Voldemort seemed to forgive and trust Snape? How would that connect their abilities of mind reading? I hope I haven't become the one you love to argue against now. Aussie (going off-line for a few hours before checking the way this discussion is going) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 16:26:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:26:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169907 Carol earlier: > > And anyone who wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of the unreliable narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or anything, not just of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the phrase "Harry knew." Neri responded, TBay-style:> > "Isn't it wonderful, this observation of Carol?" Neri asked Faith. > "All we have to do is just watch for the phrase `Harry knew', and > we'll immediately know that he's wrong." > > "What?" said Faith distractedly, marking something in her notebooks, > "oh, not again, Neri. How many times do I have to explain this to you? The narrator must be reliable at least 95% of the time, especially in a fantasy series, especially with a mystery plot going. There's nothing worse that can happen to such a narrator than losing its reliability in the reader's eyes." She went back to her notebooks. > > "But there are still those remaining 5%?" said Neri hopefully. > "Wouldn't it be great if we had some kind of a er a red flag, to let us know when the narrator is *really* unreliable?" > > "Such a red flag doesn't exist. It's a theorist myth. Now stop > bothering me, I need to get some work done." > "I never cheat about canon," said Faith indignantly. "So unless you > can show me another `Harry knew' phrase where he's proved wrong, > please stop wasting my time with red flags. I need to get some work done." > Carol responds: "Well done, Neri. Well done, Neri," said Dumbledore, clapping his hands. Of course, the narrator has to be right at least 95% of the time, or there would be no point in reading the books. We'd just be confused. But the point of the unreliable narrator is to mislead the reader into believing that he's *always* reliable because he *usually* is. And, of course, there's not just one red flag ("surely" is another). Of course, not all passages with "Harry knew" indicate the unreliable narrator; sometimes, as you indicate, Harry really does "know" what the narrator says he knows. I'm talking about inferences and hearsay passing as knowledge. And sometimes there's no flag at all, but Harry, or the narrator presenting Harry's pov (or, for that matter, Frank Bryce's) is simply wrong. It's one of a number of devices (conversations in which the characters are mistaken, actions that occur outside Harry's view, partially overheard and misinterpreted conversations, red herrings disguised as clues, to mislead the reader. Any time the narrator is reporting events and conversations in a straightforward manner, without interpretation or commentary (or feelings on Harry's part)--any time it's stripped from any element of subjectivity, IOW, we can trust it. For example, there's nothing unreliable in "Nobody else was looking. Harry bent low to retrieve the book, and as he did so, he saw something scribbled along the bottom of the back cover in the same small, cramped handwriting as the instructions that had won him his bottle of Felix Felicis...." (HBP Am. ed. 193). There's a clue buried in there, however--We've seen that small, cramped handwriting before on Severus Snape's DADA exam in OoP. If the narrator is simply saying that Harry is hungry or that he split Cedric Diggory's bookbag with a curse, we can take it as fact. "Snape was being mean to Harry" is a bit more doubtful, especially when it's not backed up by actions, and "Snape hated Harry" is always Harry's perception, whether or not it's true. But I'm talking about places in which the narrative clearly reveals Harry's perception, which turns out to be untrue. I've already given you two "Harry knew" quotes, but I'll repeat them here of the sort I'm talking aabout, but I'll repeat them here: "He was going to be expelled, he just knew it" (SS Am. ed. 130) turns out to be false (far from being expelled, he's made Gryffindor Seeker and given a state-of-the-art broom). While this perception is quickly turned around, it helps to establish the narrator as unreliable. And the lengthy quote on Fake!Moody drinking from a hip flask, "Perhaps she [Rosmerta] thought it was an insult to her mulled mead. But *Harry knew* better. Moody had told them all during their last Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson that he preferred to prepare his own food and drink at all times, as it was so easy for Dark wizards to poison an unattended cup" (GoF Am. ed. 322) is only partially true. As I already explained, what Harry *knows* is Barty Jr.'s cover story, the real Mad-eye's reasons for drinking from a hip flask, which Barty Jr. is borrowing as he borrows Moody's identity, mannerisms, and magical eye. The real reason that Fake!Moody drinks from a hip flask is so that he can publicly drink Polyjuice with no one the wiser. So this "Harry knew" quote is a splendid example of misdirection by the unreliable narrator that makes us believe, with Harry, that "Moody" is Moody and fail to see what Fake!Moody is really doing. To address Sherry's point before I go on: Sherry: Did you forget about Draco in HBP? Because Harry had a gut feeling, and he was sure right! It's the turning point, where Harry is right, and now nobody will believe him, instead of the tired boring, Harry is always wrong. it's time for Harry, the *hero* to be right. Carol responds: Harry, as usual, is partially right. After all, he followed Draco to Borgin and Burkes, where Draco threatened Borgin, and it's obvious that he's up to something more than usually bad. Harry also knows that Draco has vowed vengeance for his father's imprisonment. But he arrives at some wrong conclusions as well as right ones, and I'm pretty sure that DD knew more than he did about what Draco was up to. (Not enough, unfortunately.) But I'm not talking about Harry's detective skills, which have certainly improved (if you don't count spying on Draco and getting his face stomped on) since SS/PS, nor his judgment of character, which is slowly but surely improving. He's starting to understand and appreciate Neville and Luna and even to understand and feel a tinge of pity for Draco (whom he nevertheless still holds in contempt). The last step, IMO, will be to understand Snape. But I'm not talking about Harry as a character. I'm talking about a narrative technique that misleads the reader by presenting Harry's reactions and impressions as fact. If the whole book were told in the style of "Spinner's End," it would probably be easier to judge events and characters for ourselves, but it would also be less easy to empathize with Harry. The third-person limited omniscient narrator is a wonderful device for leading the reader to empathize with the pov character, usually the protagonist, but to make the same mistakes in judgment that he does. Which is why readers who don't want to make those mistakes would do well to look out for it. Anyway, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that "Harry knew" *always* throws up a red flag, or that it's the only indication that the narrator is unreliable. That isn't the case, and I'm guilty of casually tossing out an overgeneralization, just as JKR casually tosses out exaggerations (hands the size of a garbage bin lid on a person who's only head and shoulders taller than everyone else and can ride on a train). Other examples of the unreliable narrator involve "surely": "His head was surely going to burst with pain" (GoF Am. ed. 661); "He would surely die of this agony, Snape was going to torture him to death or madness" (HBP Am. ed. 603) just before Snape rescues him from the Crucio. Sometimes there's no red flag; we just know (or learn later) that what Harry "knows" isn't true: "He was going to die like Cedric; those pitiless red eyes were telling him so" (GoF 661); "Kreacher, it transpired, had been lurking in the attic" (OoP Am. ed. 516)--but "lurking in the attic" is Kreacher's cover story; he was really visiting Narcissa Malfoy. So, thank you, Neri, for forcing me to clarify and revise my position. And next time I toss out a casual remark about the unreliable narrator, please be aware that it's based on a thorough observation of JKR's narrative technique. Carol, who will try to be careful of overgeneralizations but fears that they're as unavoidable as typos (e.g., "hiding their faces behind their heads"--meaning "hoods," as Pippin rightly guessed) From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Jun 6 16:26:31 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:26:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181147191.8402.1193782629@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169908 > Karen's responce: > I read in an interview with JK last night (an old interview) that non > magical people can do magic in extreme circumstances. However, in > another interview (I'm sorry but I can't remember the source) she > said that Petunia can't and never will do magic. The quote you're thinking of, if i'm right about what you're thinking of, isn't quite so strong as you remember it. "She's a muggle, but..." - one has to wonder what a "muggle, but..." is, and how this differs from simply being a muggle - perhaps the fact (known to JKR) that she's going to do magic despite not being a witch is what makes the difference. And of COURSE she's not a squib. You can't be a squib if your parents aren't magical, that's part of the definition. It's in fact ALL we have in canon differentiating squibs from muggles. --Random832 "No, she's not a squib, she's a muggle, but.... although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 16:54:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:54:20 -0000 Subject: Heir of Gryffindor (Was: These two things stand out) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169909 Montavilla47: > I just had a very thought. If Godric's Hollow is the ancestral home of Godric Gryffindor, and it *doesn't* belong to James or Dumbledore, then who might it belong to? > > It's unlikely to be Sirius, as we don't see Gryffindor on the Black Family Tapestry. Harry would have noticed that, I think. Could it have been Lupin's home? Possibly. Poor Lupin! Not only can't he get a job, but his friends end up blowing up his house! > > Or--what if the Heir of Gryffindor is Peter Pettigrew? > > Hehe. > Carol responds: Considering that Dumbledore owned the Sword of Gryffindor, just as Hepzibah Smith owned her ancestor Helga Hufflepuff's cup and the Gaunts owned their ancestor Salazar Slytherin's locket, I think it's likely that he was the Heir of Gryffindor (and that his place has been taken by Aberforth). At any rate, JKR says that we should be thinking about Dumbledore's family, and why would his family be important if not for that reason? I suspect that Dumbledore provided the Potters with the house in Godric's Hollow, which is never presented as their own, when they first appeared to be in danger but before that danger became so extreme that he suggested the Fidelius Charm. Sidenote on the Petunia's eyes thread: Sisters don't have to resemble each other. Look at blond, blue-eyed Narcissa and black-haired, dark-eyed Bellatrix, who also has "hooded" eyes, unlike Narcissa. No one is theorizing that Narcissa is adopted just because of her coloring (and a name that falls outside the Black family tradition of star and constellation names). Lily and Petunia are both flower names, so they follow the same family tradition, and Petunia doesn't resemble her own son, Dudley, either, except for the blond hair. JKR has enough to deal with in DH without making nonsense of the blood protection subplot. I do expect, though, for Petunia's revelations to tie in with Godric's Hollow, or rather, to relate to Lily and Petunia's own Squib*like* connection with the WW. (I wouldn't be surprised if she, but not Vernon, knows that Mrs. Figg is a Squib.) Carol, wondering why Salazar Slytherin would own something so feminine as a locket and agreeing with Sherry that Mrs. Figg will be the one to perform magic late in life From caleksandrova at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 16:54:18 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:54:18 -0000 Subject: What Dumbledore "believes" (was Re: What Harry "knows") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169910 Julie wrote: > The first example of this from Dumbledore was in PS/SS--"I do > *believe* he (Snape) worked so hard to protect you this year because > he felt that would make him and your father even." > Besides these two "beliefs" Dumbledore relates to answer Harry's > probing questions (both not so strangely referring to the most > enigmatic character in the books) [...] Karina: What was the second "belief"? I keep re-reading your message, and the belief concerning why Snape was working to protect Harry is the only one I saw. > are there any other instances > where Dumbledore uses "I believe..." to preface a requested > explanation, especially when that request comes from Harry? I.e., > other instances where Dumbledore gives an answer that while likely > true, is NOT the whole story or perhaps not even the most important > element of the story? Karina: Perhaps this explation of why Harry's scar hurts, which Dumbledore gives to Fudge in GoF, may be what you are looking for: "Harry is as sane as you or I. That scar upon his forehead has not addled his brains. I believe it hurts him when Lord Voldemort is close by, or feeling particularly murderous." Perhaps Dumbledore didn't want to expand on the topic in front of Fudge. And then the scar and the Harry's ability to feel what Voldemort is feeling through it has become important in HBP. Primarily, when Dumbledore uses phrase "I believe", he's talking about actual facts, like Fred and George trying to send Harry a toilet seat, or the number of forbidden by Filch objects... Karina From colwilrin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 16:32:56 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:32:56 -0000 Subject: Heir of Gryffindor (was: These two things stand out) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169911 Dungrollin wrote: "I've always hated this quote, (and it's possible I've gone on about this before, though I don't remember...) because I don't understand Melissa's inference that what JKR says about Harry's grandparents in any way shuts down Harry as Gryffindor's heir theories. Just because she needed them out of the way, doesn't mean they can't have been descendents of Gryffindor. JKR's seeming uncertainty ("Oh $#!&, what did I just say to make her think that... I can't backtrack now, or everyone will know that Harry *is* the heir of Gryffindor...") makes me think that even if harry *isn't* the heir, she wasn't intending to shut down that line of speculation with her comments on Harry's grandparents." Colwilrin: I also would love to hear the tone of voice from that interview. I don't believe that the question directly eliminated Harry as heir of Gryffindor. That exact question was never asked. More dispositive is DD's statement to Harry at the end of COS where he states of the sword: that only a TRUE Gryffindor could pull it out of the hat. >From the moment DD used that phrasing, I was convinced that Harry is the heir. I always assumed it came down from James' side, and would explain his financial security. Also, JKR's comment about James being born late in life and a "treasure" alludes that he is another treasure...maybe the first treasure being the Gryffindor vault full of money and jewels. It also provides a certain circularity to the entire series. Gryffindor and Slytherin started as what the hat described as closest of friends. It would be fitting that their heirs would end the relationship at long last. One last thought on heirs. We know that V wants to be immortal...but just in case that didn't work...would he have enough ego and foresight to try and have an heir to continue the Slytherin line? AND if so...who? From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 6 17:17:05 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:17:05 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Ken: > > Not so fast. "She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]." What *was* JKR > laughing about??? > > We do have the example that Merope gave up her powers at the end or > lost them to traumatic shock. I have to agree with Debi, > Deeoblockedo. and some others that it is at least possible that > Petunia too was a witch. Her dislike of witchcraft seems intense and > deep. It might be a native personality trait, not a reaction to > Lily. > > Magpie: > How can it be possible that she was a witch when she is a Muggle? > Never has and never will do magic. If she is a witch she has done > magic and she is not a Muggle. Refusing to go to school does not > make you a Muggle or take away your magic. Harry (and all the kids) > did magic before they went to school. Hagrid can do magic despite > being expelled. > Ken: At the time she gave birth to Tom Riddle, Merope was a Muggle. Neither I nor the author would be cheating very much to claim that a Petunia who was so frightened by her first accidental "magical emission" that she blocked her magical talent forever after "never has and never will do magic". It is only a slight stretch of the truth and there is canon precedent for a self induced loss of magical power. It certainly would be in character for Petunia to do this! > JKR: (Ken again, actually): > So where's the indiscretion? Is it hiding behind that pair of buts? > > Magpie: > Well, she could be "squib-like" in that she knows stuff about the WW > despite not being able to do magic. At least I think that fits what > she says without flat-out saying she's lying, which is what she is > doing if she's saying Petunia is a Muggle when what she really means > is that she's a Witch. > I don't think it is any sense lying to say that a Petunia who shut down her magical gift as a child is a Muggle now. She is a Muggle now and in this scenario she never would have done and can no longer do any intentional magic. One could argue semantically whether the definition of Muggle legitimately covers such a person, I suppose. But that is a finer point than I am interested in. On the same line one could argue that once a witch, always a witch. Even if you assert that in the case of Merope this postulated Petunia would never have consciously used her power and would have developed no skill at magic. It is much harder to call her a witch in that case. The thing is that Rowling seems to be dancing around something in that quote and for now all we can do is guess about what it might be. Another idea entirely, and one I mentioned yesterday in a post that Yahoo sent as private email instead of a group post, is that the spectrum of Witch/Wizard, Squib, and Muggle is not complete. There may be other possibilities too but one plausible possibility that intrigues me is that some people are transparent to magic. Magic spells don't affect them directly, they pass through them without effect as light passes through glass. Such a person could see the Leaky Cauldron, # 12 Grimmauld, or Hogwarts plain as day. You could kill them by crushing them with a big rock you levitated but you could not AK them. Could Petunia be ... probably not because if Rowling were going to include such people in the Potterverse she probably would have foreshadowed it by now and since I've had this notion for quite a while I probably would have picked up on any clues. Perhaps there are other options yet that someone might see and that might apply to Petunia. And now here is my wacky theory of the day, excuse me if someone else has already mentioned it. Petunia really, really hates magic for some reason. What if Lily and Snape never had a romance but were friends and she had him over occasionally on the summer holiday? What if "that awful boy" then was Snape and the reason Petunia hates him so is that he was her (Petunia's!!!) boyfriend for a while and the parting was not amicable?? It is another possible reason for a Petunia who clearly hates magic with a passion now to have become quite familiar with it earlier in her life. Ken From colwilrin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 17:02:31 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:31 -0000 Subject: Using available resources-or if I was Harry, What would I do....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169913 Paul wrote: 3. Dragons. Numerous references as to how tough it is to use magic against them. Could a dragon be domesticated/trained to be used as a defensive/offensive weapon? Colwilrin: I love this one. I fully expect to see Norbert in the last book. With the numerous references to dragon's blood and Hagrid's need to show he was right about one of his creature projects, this would be fitting. It would also provide a vehicle to bring Charlie in with Norbert. Hopefully we will get to find out all 10 uses of the blood! I would love to see Norbert come to Hagrid's aid at a crucial point. I also agree that Firenze and the centaurs will have an important role in DH. IMO, all those represented by the Magical Brethren fountain will. Slowly, JKR has given us a liaison to some of the "species"...ex: Dobby, Firenze, Flitwick is part goblin? From caleksandrova at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 17:21:00 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:21:00 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169914 Abha wrote: > I don't think Aurors are supposed to do killing as part of their > jobs anyways. Remember - AK is an unforgivable curse even if the > Aurors use it. IIRC, there is nowhere any mention of a killing by an > auror in the canon. Aurors only try to bind the evil-monger wizards > and send them to Azkaban. > This should put aurors at a cosiderable disadvantage though, > compared to the evil wizards. I do not see a resolution to this - > comments, anyone? > While we haven't seen Aurors use Avada Kedavra, they were given permission by the Ministry of Magic to use Unforgivable curses on Death-Eaters, in the time before the Voldemort's first defeat. These permissions probably will be given again, seeing how Scrimgeour goes about things, imprisoning one of the Knight Bus drivers (did he have a trial?). GoF, Ch. 27: "[Crouch Sr.] rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemorts supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects." Karina From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 17:34:07 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:07 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169915 > > > Dobbycat (snip): > > B) Lily and Petunia's parents and possible grandparents were > > squibs, or had a magical ancestor and then not another magical > > child was born to the filmily line until Lily, that magical > > ancestor being Godric Gryffindor. > TKJ: I like the idea that her family wasn't surprised to have a with in the family but proud. So, maybe her grandparents were squibs, or somewhere up the line so there was a knowledge of the wizarding world but no exact contact. Maybe they watched each generation, hoping the magic would come back into the family somewhere, and they finally got it in Lilly and were excited about it. My only question is does that still make her a mudblood(man I hate that word) If there was magic somewhere in the family before but it was missing for a couple generations? Though how would anyone know all this? Well besides DD who kept an eye on the family over the years possibly waiting for the magical generation to pop up. I do also think that Petunia may have powers that she chooses not to use. I think she got a letter from Hogwarts too, but turned it down. That is the only thing to take out of the quote from JKR, The whole I'm giving a lot away here quote says to me she does have magical ability of some sort. And yes everyone keeps quoting the Petunia will never do magic quote. IDK how old this quote is exactly but what's to say things haven't changed from when that was said. I mean she killed people in the last book she claimed to not have originally planned to kill. So, what's saying she can't make Petunia do magic in the same way? The only thing I do know is I CAN'T wait for my book to arrive in the mail. Why won't July hurry up and get here!! :-) From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 17:38:24 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:38:24 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: <466630FA.00000B.01664@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169916 "Debi" wrote: Quotes from JK" > Quote/ > The significance of the place where Harry and his parents lived - the first > name... Godric Gryffindor. Very good, you're a bit good you are aren't you. > I'm impressed. You're not going to tell me but... My editor didn't, I said > to her - Haven't you noticed the connection between where Harry's parents > lived and one of the Hogwarts houses? And she said no, no - I'm not being > rude about Emma, she's a brilliant editor, the best ever. But no she didn't > pick that up either, you're a bit good you are. > /End Quote > > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is related > to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a descendant of > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar Slitherin? And is > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in some > way? > TKJ: I like the idea that maybe Harry is a decendant of Gryffindor. But if that is the case why would the sorting hat have thought about putting him in Slytheran(sp) From djmitt at pa.net Wed Jun 6 17:28:07 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:28:07 -0000 Subject: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169918 > > Ken: > > At the time she gave birth to Tom Riddle, Merope was a Muggle. Neither > I nor the author would be cheating very much to claim that a Petunia > who was so frightened by her first accidental "magical emission" that > she blocked her magical talent forever after "never has and never will > do magic". It is only a slight stretch of the truth and there is canon > precedent for a self induced loss of magical power. It certainly would > be in character for Petunia to do this! > colebiancardi: hold yer horses!! Merope was never a Muggle, even when she gave up Magic. Dumbledore doesn't know why she chose not to live or why she didn't use her magic to survive, but I don't believe DD stated that Merope was a Muggle. Petunia is a Muggle, IMHO. Anyone who has ever had to clean house would know that if Petunia could use magic to clean her house, she would. She is obsessive about keeping a sterile home. Even if she "denied" her "wizardship", I think she would have kept that bit o' magic for herself. colebiancardi From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 17:58:13 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:58:13 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169919 colebiancardi: > > hold yer horses!! Merope was never a Muggle, even when she gave up > Magic. Dumbledore doesn't know why she chose not to live or why she > didn't use her magic to survive, but I don't believe DD stated that > Merope was a Muggle. > > Petunia is a Muggle, IMHO. Anyone who has ever had to clean house > would know that if Petunia could use magic to clean her house, she > would. She is obsessive about keeping a sterile home. Even if she > "denied" her "wizardship", I think she would have kept that bit o' > magic for herself. > > colebiancardi > TKJ: I think that she does have magical ability but absolutely REFUSES to use it. I think she keeps her house so clean by muggle means despite magic. I know everyone says she doesn't have magical abilities based on a quote from JKR, but my question is how old is said quote and what's to say things didn't change as she was writing the new book. SHe did declare that she had killed people that weren't originally slated to be killed. The only example I can think of are the Creevy(sp) brothers. They both seem to have magical ability. That to me says that maybe it's a generational thing. If one child has magical ability there is a decent chance the others will as well. There are no other examples in the books that can think of of muggle siblings at Hogwarts. (if I'm wrong please let me know) I've babbled long enough...lol to end it all, I think Petunia definitely has magical abilities but just refuses to use them at any cost. TKJ :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 18:00:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:00:11 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snapety, Snapoonchik WAS: Re: /What Harry "knows"/Draco's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169920 > > Alla: > > > > I do not think I understand. I am not even talking about > completely > > ESE Snape here, I think, but about the one that is Greyer than DD! > M. > > Magpie: > I guess I forget that people consider a Snape that goes back and > forth in any way. To me it seems like he's either LVM or DDM. I > don't think he can be both. LVM is completely black, because he's > both loyal to LV and a jerk who hates Harry unfairly. DDM Snape is > grey because he's a jerk who hates Harry but also committed to > Dumbledore's side. Alla: Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories? Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then > Alla: > > And I want to ask again, I guess. How is it forgiving a man, who > > let's say committed a murder because he thought he had no other > way > > to help the good guys, but *without DD asking him to** does not > > amounts to much? > > > > Harry will still think that Snape murdered his mentor, but Harry > will > > be able to identify with Snape's reasoning, MAYBE, that he felt > > helpless, trapped, maybe Snape indeed saw that there was no hope > for > > DD to live, but DD himself still thought that there is hope. > > > > You do not think it will be **huge** thing for Harry to forgive > this > > Snape? > > Magpie: > Isn't that DDM Snape? If he murdered DD to help the good guys then > Harry has to accept that Snape's one of the good guys. Though I > doubt that if he is DDM that's quite the way it worked--because like > you, that really does seem like a bit much for Snape to have decided > on his own. Alla: This is what in mind I call Severely Siguine's Snape. I know I said many times that I consider that theory to be a stroke of genius on her behalf, but I am going to say it again - Sanguine, if you are listening, you are a genius. So, is it a DD!M Snape? Um, for the most part, sure in my opinion, except for the part where DD does not **order** Snape to kill him, like at all. I will be very happy if this theory comes true, really, because it plays significantly on Snape character flaws that IMO lead to his downfall. Truly, I will be just as happy as with LID Snape here or Evil one, because this theory does not **absolve** Snape of responsibility for murder at all. And that is what I am primarily concerned with. This Snape is indeed trapped into taking a vow, and he does not tell DD about third provision. Not because he wants to kill DD or anything, but because Snape never admits his mistakes in canon, he is too proud and arrogant and hopes to deal with it himself and outsmart vow. And here we go, Oooops. I am summarizing the theory, but here is the link again if anyone is interested, if I am misstating anything, sorry Siguine. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135892? threaded=1&l=1 Right so on the Tower Snape truly feels that there is no other way. Maybe DD indeed dying from green goo, maybe not. But Snape feels that he won't escape unless he offs DD and he indeed may hate himself for putting **himself** in such position. The key difference is **of course** that DD does not feel that he needs to die and his please in Siguine interpretation is that Severus, please, please do not tell me that my trust in you was incorrect afterwards. Meaning as I understand it that DD's trust in Snape is still not wavering, but he sort of wants to make sure? Magpie: Besides which, I think the murder had to in some way be > an answer to "Severus, please," which indicates something going on > betten DD and Snape that they both know about. Alla: Answer meaning on DD orders? Then I hope not. Severus, please certainly has to be explained IMO but I do not think that murder necessarily has to be an answer to it. JMO, Alla From jim at trueartistgroup.com Wed Jun 6 17:59:32 2007 From: jim at trueartistgroup.com (Jim Zangara) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:59:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How Stupid IS Hagrid (was: Prank, etc.) References: Message-ID: <005401c7a864$6fd08140$3f2c530a@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169921 Donna Writes: >Ps. by the way the DE's know about the horcruxes. Voldy says this in > his return speech in the GofF. When he says about they, meaning the > DEs, ,know of the extreme measures that he took to become immortal. > I would assume the Malfoy's, being DEs, would know about the > horcruxes. Granted, probably not where all of them are located, but > maybe some of them like the diary.k Jim responds: That is directly countered by cannon. DD says Malfoy had no idea the book contained part of Voldy's soul or he would never have been so careless with it. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 18:52:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:52:47 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169922 > Ken: > > At the time she gave birth to Tom Riddle, Merope was a Muggle. Neither > I nor the author would be cheating very much to claim that a Petunia > who was so frightened by her first accidental "magical emission" that > she blocked her magical talent forever after "never has and never will > do magic". It is only a slight stretch of the truth and there is canon > precedent for a self induced loss of magical power. It certainly would > be in character for Petunia to do this! Magpie: She's never called anything else but a witch. The fact that she was not able to do any magic due to her depression does not get her called a Muggle by anyone that I remember. I think it would absolutely be cheating for JKR to claim that Petunia was a Muggle, and that she never has and never would do magic, when what she really meant was the she was a witch, frightened by her first accidental emission and blocking herself from then on. She obviously did do magic if that's what scared her. You can't be a witch until you demonstrate doing magic. Ken: > I don't think it is any sense lying to say that a Petunia who shut > down her magical gift as a child is a Muggle now. She is a Muggle now > and in this scenario she never would have done and can no longer do > any intentional magic. One could argue semantically whether the > definition of Muggle legitimately covers such a person, I suppose. But > that is a finer point than I am interested in. Magpie: I think it is lying in a way that JKR claims that she does not do. She tries to be careful about the information she gives out, but she doesn't lie. We have had the word Muggle defined for us in canon, and it does not fit a witch who isn't doing magic, or a witch who is depressed and so unable to do magic or afraid to do so that I can see. I believe CoS says a muggle is someone with not a drop of magical blood in their veins, and that this is what the Dursleys (which includes Petunia) are according to the narrator, who in that instance does not seem to be in Harry's pov. It's not even the word "Muggle" that she seems to be dancing around when I read it. It seems more like "Squib" is the thing she thinks reminds her of what Petunia really is. I guess the CoS thing could be a narrator's joke, as if this is Petunia's view of what she is, or what she insists she is, but I see little point in this revelation that makes it worth that kind of flat-out misinformation for so long (as opposed to Harry's pov that his parents died in a car crash, overturned when he learns the truth). Why would Harry even care if Petunia was not a Muggle but, in fact, she was a some new word for this thing she is--a CouldHaveBeenNeverWas? What would that change or matter? (Not that I believe it--from everything Petunia says I think she'd have been quite happy to be a witch and so impress her parents the way Lily did. She seems to resent being passed over for Lily's gift, not fear it in herself.) Ken: > The thing is that Rowling seems to be dancing around something in that > quote and for now all we can do is guess about what it might be. Magpie: I agree. But that's why if I'm trying to figure out or guess what she's dancing around it seems logical to start with the facts she's giving me instead of doing my own dancing around exactly those things. If she says Petunia is a Muggle, that she has never done and never will do magic, how would I get anywhere near the answer if I don't start with that premise? Why not start with the idea that she is not someone who can do magic (and so not a Witch) but that perhaps shares other things with Squibs, who have certain sensitivities despite not being able to do so? She is a Muggle, but... doesn't to me imply "She is a Muggle but really she's a witch" or "She's a Muggle but that's only what she calls herself because she didn't want to be a witch" or "She's a Muggle but in her case only through choice..." Why not something that acknowledges the first fact but goes on to explain why she's not like other Muggles: "She's a Muggle but has experienced magic" or "She's a Muggle but has been given certain magical objects to use..." or whatever? Tandra: My only question is does that still make her a mudblood(man I hate that word) Magpie: Err...so why not use the real term, Muggle-born? Tandra: I know everyone says she doesn't have magical abilities based on a quote from JKR, but my question is how old is said quote and what's to say things didn't change as she was writing the new book. SHe did declare that she had killed people that weren't originally slated to be killed. Magpie: So she's lying, if unintentionally so, because Petunia is no longer a Muggle like she said before. Though I can't imagine why she would, late in the series, decide to throw in this kind of backstory about Petunia. Is it going somewhere having to do with Harry? Alla: Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories? Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then Magpie: Honestly? I kinda do when I'm looking at canon. *ducks and hides* At least for LiD and OFH Snape. (Speaking of shockingly indiscreet, I think both of those are just filed in my head under "Plot Device! Snape" if these are the theories as I understand them--I think that for intance, Snape's feeling in Debt to the Potters is an important part of his character in canon.) Snape's already Grey in canon whichever way he goes. Alla: This is what in mind I call Severely Siguine's Snape. I know I said many times that I consider that theory to be a stroke of genius on her behalf, but I am going to say it again - Sanguine, if you are listening, you are a genius. So, is it a DD!M Snape? Um, for the most part, sure in my opinion, except for the part where DD does not **order** Snape to kill him, like at all. I will be very happy if this theory comes true, really, because it plays significantly on Snape character flaws that IMO lead to his downfall. Truly, I will be just as happy as with LID Snape here or Evil one, because this theory does not **absolve** Snape of responsibility for murder at all. And that is what I am primarily concerned with. Magpie: I don't want to absolve Snape of the murder either. I don't think he can be absolved given the way killing is set out in the books. Even if it was the last thing he wanted to do I think he's still taking that sin onto himself. Alla: This Snape is indeed trapped into taking a vow, and he does not tell DD about third provision. Not because he wants to kill DD or anything, but because Snape never admits his mistakes in canon, he is too proud and arrogant and hopes to deal with it himself and outsmart vow. And here we go, Oooops. Magpie: As much as I'm fine with the idea that Snape concealed the third part of the vow, it's a shame we had no way for sure of realizing that Dumbledore didn't know that--and neither did Dumbledore. His "Severus, please," whatever it meant (and what did it mean?) was totally clueless--he had no way to know what was coming. And it's unfortunately splitting hairs as well to have to be told in the next book that yes, of course Dumbledore had heard about the UV (he heard about it from Harry at the very least) but he didn't know about the last part or he thought the Vow was fake. It just seems too complicated an explanation of HBP. Not that this means I couldn't be wrong--what do I know? Alla: The key difference is **of course** that DD does not feel that he needs to die and his please in Siguine interpretation is that Severus, please, please do not tell me that my trust in you was incorrect afterwards. Magpie: If "please do not tell me that my trust in you was incorrect afterwards" is a factor I'm afraid I can't go along with it. Dumbledore has no reason for thinking his trust in Snape was incorrect. He trusts in Snape completely last time we checked, and now here is Snape just as he wanted. If he doesn't know about this third provision he's got even less reason (less than none, which he has now imo) for suddenly asking him if his trust was mistaken, and his pleading begins as soon as Snape appears. Magpie: Besides which, I think the murder had to in some way be > an answer to "Severus, please," which indicates something going on > betten DD and Snape that they both know about. Alla: Answer meaning on DD orders? Then I hope not. Severus, please certainly has to be explained IMO but I do not think that murder necessarily has to be an answer to it. Magpie: I don't think it has to be the answer either. It just has to be *something* where they both know what he's talking about. It doesn't necessarily have to be Dumbledore referring to an order to kill him, I agree. -m From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Wed Jun 6 19:53:23 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:53:23 -0000 Subject: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of karen > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:19 AM > To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: These two things stand out > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debi" wrote: > > > Is it possible that Lilly was adopted by the Evans, and that she is > related > > to Godric Gryffindor in some way? Which would make Harry a > descendant of > > Godric Gryffindor as Voldemort is a descendant of Salizar > Slitherin? And is > > this why the Potter's were living in Godrics Hollow? Family land in > some > > way? > > > > > > Sherry now: > JKR answered this on her web site quite a while ago, I think. She says > Harry is definitely not the heir of Gryffindor. There are a number of > people who speculate that Dumbledore could have been, and that the house in > Godric's Hollow could have been his house. I don't really think one way or > the other about it. I hope we'll see Godric's Hollow for the sentimental > value of Harry revisiting it, but I don't really expect any major plot > revelations. > > As for lily being adopted, if that were the case, than everything Dumbledore > said or thought about the blood magic, Harry being protected as long as he > can still call the home the place where his mother's blood lives, would be a > lie or foolish ignorance. I already have serious problems with the whole > idea of Harry being left at the Dursleys, and if it turned out that it had > been unnecessary all along because Lily wasn't blood kin to Petunia, that > would make Dumbledore pretty monstrous, I think. if he knew, of course. > > Sherry Karen: I'm thinking Lily and Petunia are cousins or distant relatives and that Petunia's family adopted Lily. That way there is still the blood protection. I do not think they're sisters though. > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 20:07:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:07:15 -0000 Subject: The Trio's popularity (was:On Children and the "Other") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169925 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think that's where the lack of realism comes in a little. > > Fellow students don't strike back in the way they would in real > > life, IMO. > > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > There are several other reasons why the 'Puff's are unlikely > to "jump" Ginny: Ginny *is* known for her aggressiveness, several > years' exposure to Fred and George have probably got everyone a > little wary of Weasleys, and, of course, who's going to stand up > for an obnoxious loudmouth like Smith? > > Also, in Hogwarts terms, Hermione is the equivalent of a 6'-5" > fullback... Betsy Hp: I'm itching to point out how fear is the tyrant's best friend. But I'll admit that I was casually exaggerating the Ravenclaws' and Hufflepuffs' reactions. No one is going to do the equivalent of dragging Ginny into a corner and rubbing Nair in her hair. But I also think that the Trio are not thought of completely favorably by their peers. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > You mean, save their lives, defend them from monstrous evil, help > them with their homework, that sort of thing? Betsy Hp: See, I just don't think the general Hogwarts population, really sees the Trio this way. I think there's a sort of vague understanding that Harry is the "Chosen One" and I'm sure most students are rooting for Harry to beat Voldemort. But most folks notice only their own lives, and as of HBP they're losing their parents and siblings and friends. And not only are the Trio not doing anything noticably to stop it, they're not even enough part of their peer's lives to give them a kind word or two. Not that we've seen anyway. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169641 > >>Pippin: > > I don't think we can safely say that no one except Cho was > offended by Hermione's trick. I can state from unfortunate personal > experience that Brits won't always tell you straight out when > they're offended. Take the way the House Elves react to Hermione's > hat tricks. They don't let her know they're offended, they quietly > go about their business as usual, only their business no longer > includes cleaning Gryffindor Tower. > > I can see the DA reacting in similar fashion. No one is going to > be so direct as to tell Hermione they disapprove of her; they go > about their business, but it no longer includes responding to the > coins. Betsy Hp: I think this might go towards the general feeling of the Hogwarts students towards the Trio. I'm not sure it's really all that friendly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if anything the Trio may be seen a bit more negatively than anything. You've got the members of the DA who, as Pippin points out, probably have a healthy distrust for anything Hermione is involved in. Even if the Ravenclaws are less forgiving of Marietta than Cho has been, they're daily reminded of the trick Hermione played on them all. Even if the Hufflepuffs dislike Zach Smith as badly as Ron and Harry and Ginny do (though I honestly see no reason for them to feel that way) I'm sure they all recognized the blow-off expressed by Ginny hexing Zach when he asked his questions. It's interesting that no one approached any member of the Trio with questions about the MoM once Zach tried and failed. And Harry wasn't all that friendly with Ernie's attempts at camaraderie either. Of course the Slytherins have no reason to like the Trio at all, but even the members of Harry's Gryffindor class have good reason to not like the Trio all that much. Perhaps that was the whole point of all those dating adventures in HBP. Patil and Lavender have reason to be annoyed at Hermione and Ron. Dean and Seamus have reason to be annoyed at Harry. All in all, while I doubt that the Trio are full on *hated* by their peers (except for a select few ), I'm not sure they're all that well liked. Which should make the need for unity, as foreshadowed by the Sorting Hat, an interesting trick indeed. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 6 20:37:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:37:18 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snapety, Snapoonchik WAS: Re: /What Harry "knows"/Draco's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169926 > > > Alla: > > > > > > I do not think I understand. I am not even talking about > > completely > > > ESE Snape here, I think, but about the one that is Greyer than DD! > > M. > > > > Magpie: > > I guess I forget that people consider a Snape that goes back and > > forth in any way. To me it seems like he's either LVM or DDM. I > > don't think he can be both. LVM is completely black, because he's > > both loyal to LV and a jerk who hates Harry unfairly. DDM Snape is > > grey because he's a jerk who hates Harry but also committed to > > Dumbledore's side. > > > Alla: > > Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories? > Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then > > > > > Alla: > > > And I want to ask again, I guess. How is it forgiving a man, who > > > let's say committed a murder because he thought he had no other > > way to help the good guys, but *without DD asking him to** does not > > > amounts to much? > This Snape is indeed trapped into taking a vow, and he does not tell > DD about third provision. Not because he wants to kill DD or > anything, but because Snape never admits his mistakes in canon, he is > too proud and arrogant and hopes to deal with it himself and outsmart > vow. And here we go, Oooops. > Pippin: This sounds more like a version of ESE!Lupin where he thought he had no other way to help the good guys, the good guys in this case including his fellow werewolves, and thought he could outsmart Voldemort and Dumbledore both. Hmmm, I wonder if the theory would be more popular if I named it Grey!Lupin? But regardless of who the villain is, if Harry has to give up hatred for his own sake, because it is poisoning his heart and weakening his power to love, then I don't see what knowing the backstory has to do with it, especially things that make young!Snape look worse. But if Harry and Snape have to *trust* each other, not just cease hostilities, then they will need to understand one another a whole lot better than they do now. I note this passage in GoF: --- "It is time for you to lay aside your old differences and trust each other." Harry thought Dumbledore was asking for a near miracle. Sirius and Snape were eyeing each other with the utmost loathing. "I will settle, in the short term," said Dumbledore, with a bite of impatience in his voice, "for a lack of open hostility. You will shake hands. You are on the same side now. Time is short, and unless the few of us who know the truth stand united, there is no hope for any of us." -- I think it is as Dumbledore feared, and the lack of trust between Sirius, Snape and Harry has already cost both Sirius and Dumbledore himself their lives. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 20:40:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:40:45 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169927 TKJ wrote: > > I think that she does have magical ability but absolutely REFUSES to use it. I think she keeps her house so clean by muggle means despite magic. > > I know everyone says she doesn't have magical abilities based on a quote from JKR, but my question is how old is said quote and what's to say things didn't change as she was writing the new book. SHe did declare that she had killed people that weren't originally slated to be killed. Carol responds: In addition to the statement s in every book that the Dursleys are Muggles ("not a drop of magical blood in their veins," per CoS and the cited quote about Petunia being a Muggle that people are arguing against because of the "but," JKR made a statement in the Rumours section of her website that should put an end to any speculation that Petunia is a witch who rejected her magic (as opposed to the Muggle sister of a witch of whom she's jealous, which is what canon tells us): [Rumour:] Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies [JKR's answer:] No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to do so. Carol again: I really don't see how JKR can get any plainer than that. Now, she *has* said that "there's more to Petunia than meets the eye" and that it has to do with a conversation Petunia overheard between Lily and "that awful boy" (whom Harry assumes is James, but many readers believe that he's mistaken). But I think we're going to learn (along with Harry) what Petunia *knows* about Lily (and Voldemort and other aspects of the WW, maybe beyond that one conversation), not what Petunia is--canonically, Lily's Muggle sister. Almost certainly, we'll learn the contents of Dumbledore's "last," the note that was tucked into Harry's blankets when he was left on her doorstep, and maybe the rest of the correspondence (DD's part, anyway). And JKR has also said that the blood protection is real: "Harry receives magical protection from his mother's sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won't continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother, so Dumbledore wants him to go back one more time to ensure the protection continues to his 17th birthday and after that he really is on his own." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm So it seems pointless to speculate about one of the sisters being adopted or whatever. The blood connection is real, and JKR has never dropped the tiniest hint that they're not really sisters. However, I've always considered it interesting that the first part of the first chapter of SS/PS, is from the arch-Muggle, Vernon's, pov rather than from Petunia's. She reminds me of Lupin in PoA, very touchy and obviously hiding something. Vernon's explanation for Petunia's becoming upset every time her sister is mentioned, given to us by the limited omniscient narrator, is simple embarrassment at being connected with abnormal people: "He didn't blame her--if *he'd* had a sister like that" (5). He wonders about the people in cloaks and the name "Harry Potter" that he's overheard, but is afraid to approach Petunia about it. When he tentatively asks her if she's heard from her sister lately, she says sharply, "No. why?"--very similar to Lupin's reaction when Harry wonders if Lupin knew Sirius Black. when he mentions the people in cloaks and wonders whether it has anything to do with "*her* crowd," Petunia purses her lips and sips her tea. To me it's obvious that she knows something that she's concealing from Vernon. Maybe she hasn't heard from her sister directly, but I think she may have heard from Dumbledore, who has only recently suggested the Fidelius Charm to the Potters. Maybe he's mentioned it to Petunia, along with the name of the supposed Secret Keeper? And *somebody* has told them both that the Potters have a son named Harry only a month younger than Dudley. At any rate, there's more to learn from Petunia. Maybe terror for her family, fear that they'll no longer be protected when the blood protection expires on Harry's seventeenth birthday (she clearly assumed that it would last till he was eighteen) will prompt her to disclose her secrets in exchange for protection. Carol, expecting Mrs. Figg rather than Petunia to perform a feat of magic in the Battle of Privet Drive From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 20:57:53 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:57:53 -0000 Subject: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Abha Jain" wrote: > IIRC, there is nowhere any mention of a killing by an auror in the > canon. Yes, there is! In GoF, "Padfoot returns" ch. Sirius says: "Rosier and Wilkes - they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell" (p.531 US hardcover). Later, in Karkaroff hearing scene ("The Pensieve"), Crouch says: "Rosier is dead. He was caught shortly after you were too. He preferred to fight rather than come quietly and was killed in the struggle" (p.589). Moody mentions that Rosier took a chunk of his (Moody's) nose with him, which means that he took part in this battle. It is possible that Moody killed Rosier, although not certain, IMO, because other Aurors could be present as well. However we don't know how exactly Rosier died, was it AK or something else that killed him. And, for the record, I don't believe that *any* killing splits a soul, although I admit that it should affect a person in some way. zanooda, who believes that only a cold-blooded murder of a defenseless victim can split a soul. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 6 21:07:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Snapety, Snapoonchik WAS: Re: /What Harry Message-ID: <24314079.1181164031246.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169929 >Alla: >Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories? >Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then Bart: How about combining them, and just theorizing that Snape is OFf His LID? Now, back to your originally scheduled conversation.... Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jun 6 21:54:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:54:52 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169930 > Alla: > > Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories? > Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then > > Magpie: > Honestly? I kinda do when I'm looking at canon. *ducks and hides* > At least for LiD and OFH Snape. (Speaking of shockingly indiscreet, > I think both of those are just filed in my head under "Plot Device! > Snape" if these are the theories as I understand them--I think that > for intance, Snape's feeling in Debt to the Potters is an important > part of his character in canon.) Snape's already Grey in canon > whichever way he goes. Jen: Wait a sec, DDM Snape gets to be grey, too?? You mean in the sense of before and after Snape, that he's Grey because he was a DE and now he's returned to Dumbledore? Because I don't see how a DDM!Snape can be Grey. His redemption is supposed to be a *complete* reversal when all was said and done. All his actions will make sense for a fully redeemed Snape when his loyalty and motives are revealed, even the tower where he is supposed to be acting on DD's orders to kill him (or there was no AK is the second option, I suppose). And Dumbledore's man *through and through* as I understand the concept, at least how I interpret the canon version of that statement, would be a Snape who has renounced the following if he subscribed to them during the time he was Voldemort's man: the dark arts, pureblood superiority, and *real* ties (not the double-agent pretend ties) and loyalty to Voldemort or his followers which would in any way supersede his loyalty to Dumbledore. Otherwise I don't see how he's DD's man through and through if he has other masters (so to speak) that have caused him to falter in his loyalty to Dumbledore. Jen From jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 21:46:47 2007 From: jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com (jr_pumpkin) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:46:47 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Riddle's Nephew? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > aussie: > > > Eileen Prince had "heavy brows". She was very gifted with Potion > making, as proved by the book that was passed onto Severus. > jr_pumpkin: (I teach school, and have just gotten done, so now I FINALLY have time to reread the books, and am still in PS/SS. So,......) Maybe it has been too long since I read the book, but I don't remember HBP saying the potion book was Eileen's. I vaguely remember Hermione guessing that the 'girly' writing may have been hers, but I could have dreamed that!!! :) aussie: > What if Merope had TWINS !!! Tom and Eileen. > > Eileen may have been adopted out as a baby, and no word of her was > given to Tom since he was hard enough to handle in the orphanage > already. The woman who talked to Dumbledore was distraught while > talking anything about Tom Riddle, so Dumbledore could have easily > missed signals that there was a twin sister. > > jr_pumpkin again: While I am glad to see a new theory, I think this may be a little too Star Wars-ish. JKR may be using an 'adventure story planning guide' (Hero with good friends/sidekicks, mentors dying left and right, struggling with the bad side of himself, etc.) but I haven't noticed any story lines that are almost EXACTLY like others. This is JMO, though. And I can't possibly have seen and read as much as this whole community either. So, please let me know If I am way off base here. ;) Off to lurkville, jr_pumpkin From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 6 22:07:11 2007 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:07:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169932 ---> Anne Squires: > > 1. She has to be related by blood or no blood protection. > 2. Her eyes are not like her sister's. > 3. JKR said, "She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. > Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." > > If she's not a squib (but, that's a good guess), and she's not a > witch, then she's....what? A Muggle, right? What's surprising about What's wrong with you people? of course she's Lilly's sister! DD couldn't be wrong there - your adoption theory seems very far fetched to me... However, who said she's not a witch? mayby Petunia was so shocked or scared of discovering her magic abilities in the midst of a muggle family, that she was the first victim of her policy to "squash out all of the magic" from her. To me Petunia seems an extremely anxious person - full of fears and repressions. Her cleaning certainly indicates an OCD tendency.... maybe the reason for her severe anxiety is exactly the fear of the magic within her... Besides, I think JK hinted that someone known as a muggle will do some magic in book 7 - I really believe it could be Petunia (perhaps Dudley will be in danger). From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 22:22:11 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:22:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169933 Tandra: My only question is does that still make her a mudblood(man I hate that word) Magpie: Err...so why not use the real term, Muggle-born? TKJ: Because my point is can she still be called by this slur if it turns out to be that there was magic in her fam a generation or two ago? From hautbois1 at comcast.net Wed Jun 6 22:54:47 2007 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:54:47 -0000 Subject: The Riddle House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169934 Forgive me if this has been covered, I haven't posted in quite a long while. So, I'm doing my reread prior to DH's release and I'm currently on GOF. Something minor struck me as I read through the first chapter. On the bottom of pg4 (American hrdcvr) it says: "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use..." I'm wondering who this "wealthy man" is. Who would have a reason to keep the house all these years? Perhaps Dumbledore? Maybe Lucius Malfoy? Will the house come into play? Is there a horcrux hidden there? Just something that popped into my head while reading. If this has been covered, would someone point me in the right direction? Pat From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jun 6 23:00:41 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:00:41 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Tandra: > My only question is does that still make her a mudblood(man I hate > that word) > > Magpie: > Err...so why not use the real term, Muggle-born? > > TKJ: > > Because my point is can she still be called by this slur if it turns > out to be that there was magic in her fam a generation or two ago? > Anne Squires: As I understand the definition of "mudblood," anyone with at least one Muggle grandparent is "not pure;" thus, a "mudblood." Therefore, by this definition she could be called this slur even if she did have magic in her family several generations back. >From JKR's website: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 Section: F.A.Q. Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical? The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents. If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 6 23:06:57 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:06:57 -0000 Subject: Gothic novels and parodies ( was:Why Sirius Had to Die-maybe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169936 Carol: > Maybe we should look for connections between > the HP books and "Northanger Abbey," given JKR's > fondness for Jane Austen. houyhnhnm: Fascinating discussion by you and Magpie. I wish I could contribute something to it. Alas, I don't know much about literary analysis (but I know what I like). Your mention of /Northanger Abbey/ immediately made me think of black veils, though. I have a feeling that the black veils in HP are allusions to the allusion. I picked the book up today to have a look at it again and the description of Catherine Morland jumped out at me from the first page. I have another feeling that it may have been an intentional joke on Rowling's part. ***She had a thin awkward figure, a sallow skin without colour, dark lank hair, and strong features.*** I slogged through /Mysteries of Udolpho/ once. I found it extremely heavy going. I can't remember what was behind the black veil. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 7 01:33:08 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:33:08 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169937 Jen: > Because I don't see how a DDM!Snape can be Grey. > His redemption is supposed to be a *complete* reversal > when all was said and done. All his actions will make > sense for a fully redeemed Snape when his loyalty and > motives are revealed, even the tower where he is > supposed to be acting on DD's orders to kill him (or > there was no AK is the second option, I suppose). And > Dumbledore's man *through and through* as I understand > the concept, at least how I interpret the canon version > of that statement, would be a Snape who has renounced > the following if he subscribed to them during the time > he was Voldemort's man: the dark arts, pureblood > superiority, and *real* ties (not the double-agent > pretend ties) and loyalty to Voldemort or his followers > which would in any way supersede his loyalty to > Dumbledore. Otherwise I don't see how he's DD's man > through and through if he has other masters (so to > speak) that have caused him to falter in his loyalty to Dumbledore. houyhnhnm: I believe Snape made the starkest *choice* of any character in the books (and will still be able to claim that distinction by the end of the last one). He slid nearly all the way all the way down an evil road. But something turned him around, something completely internal I think. With his face in the abyss, with no friends or family to help pull him back, no promise of future happiness, no hope of reward, he chose Right for its own sake alone. Don't call him coward. That's the way I see the character, anyway. So Snape is redeemed already. But he is not healed. He has not renounced, or overcome, or even acknowledged the need to transcend the bad emotional habits that lead him astray in the first place. Anger, resentment, hatred, he hasn't learned to accept them and let them go. He represses emotions instead. So he has not fully conquered the little Dark Lord that lives inside (that lives inside of everyone ). I believe his will has decided for the right side to the death, but his nature has not fully embraced the Light. That is how I see Snape being "grey" even though I am convinced that he is DDM through and through. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 7 01:39:52 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:39:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape Message-ID: <380-2200764713952343@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169938 > Magpie: > Honestly? I kinda do when I'm looking at canon. *ducks and hides* > At least for LiD and OFH Snape. (Speaking of shockingly indiscreet, > I think both of those are just filed in my head under "Plot Device! > Snape" if these are the theories as I understand them--I think that > for intance, Snape's feeling in Debt to the Potters is an important > part of his character in canon.) Snape's already Grey in canon > whichever way he goes. Jen: Wait a sec, DDM Snape gets to be grey, too?? You mean in the sense of before and after Snape, that he's Grey because he was a DE and now he's returned to Dumbledore? Because I don't see how a DDM!Snape can be Grey. His redemption is supposed to be a *complete* reversal when all was said and done. All his actions will make sense for a fully redeemed Snape when his loyalty and motives are revealed, even the tower where he is supposed to be acting on DD's orders to kill him (or there was no AK is the second option, I suppose). And Dumbledore's man *through and through* as I understand the concept, at least how I interpret the canon version of that statement, would be a Snape who has renounced the following if he subscribed to them during the time he was Voldemort's man: the dark arts, pureblood superiority, and *real* ties (not the double-agent pretend ties) and loyalty to Voldemort or his followers which would in any way supersede his loyalty to Dumbledore. Otherwise I don't see how he's DD's man through and through if he has other masters (so to speak) that have caused him to falter in his loyalty to Dumbledore. Magpie: I consider DDM!Snape to be already grey simply because he's a real jerk.:-) I mean, even if he is shown to be fully loyal to Dumbledore and not Voldemort since he left the DEs (which is how I would define DDM), he'll have done bad things that are not explained as really being for the good--meaning made sarcastic remarks, been mean to Harry, abused his authority etc. So that's what I mean by grey in this case. Not that he has any sort of mixed loyalty, because I just don't think that would work, but that Snape's never going to be completely white any more than his underpants were when they turned him upsidedown. To me--I assume that's basically what you are talking about for DDM Snape too. When he's revealed as DDM it will show that he didn't murder DD for personal gain or Voldemort, but Harry won't also learn that all those years he was mean to him he was just acting to make Harry strong or something like that. He's just too dark a guy to ever really be light to me. ronnie: However, who said she's not a witch? mayby Petunia was so shocked or scared of discovering her magic abilities in the midst of a muggle family, that she was the first victim of her policy to "squash out all of the magic" from her. Magpie: JKR said she's a Muggle, in the books and in interviews. It's been quoted several times in the thread. ronnie: Besides, I think JK hinted that someone known as a muggle will do some magic in book 7 - I really believe it could be Petunia (perhaps Dudley will be in danger). Magpie: I believe JKR said "someone"--she did not say someone "known as a muggle." She also said Petunia would never do magic. TKJ: Because my point is can she still be called by this slur if it turns out to be that there was magic in her fam a generation or two ago? Magpie: Oh, I see. I'm not sure. Anne Squires: As I understand the definition of "mudblood," anyone with at least one Muggle grandparent is "not pure;" thus, a "mudblood." Therefore, by this definition she could be called this slur even if she did have magic in her family several generations back. Magpie: I think Mudblood only means Muggle-born. Thus someone is "half a wizard" if they have a Muggle-born parent, but a Mudblood if they are a Muggle-born. Though I'm sure Lucius would consider a single drop of Muggle blood dirty. I wonder what would he make of the Wizarding child of Malfoy squibs? -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jun 7 03:32:02 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:32:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169939 Carol: > However, I've always considered it interesting that the first part > of the first chapter of SS/PS, is from the arch-Muggle, Vernon's, > pov rather than from Petunia's. She reminds me of Lupin in PoA, very > touchy and obviously hiding something. Vernon's explanation for > Petunia's becoming upset every time her sister is mentioned, given > to us by the limited omniscient narrator, is simple embarrassment at > being connected with abnormal people: "He didn't blame her--if > *he'd* had a sister like that" (5). > To me it's obvious that she knows something that she's concealing > from Vernon. Maybe she hasn't heard from her sister directly, but I > think she may have heard from Dumbledore, who has only recently > suggested the Fidelius Charm to the Potters. Maybe he's mentioned > it to Petunia, along with the name of the supposed Secret Keeper? > And *somebody* has told them both that the Potters have a son named > Harry only a month younger than Dudley. Jen: You're saying JKR couldn't use Petunia as the limited omniscient narrator in this chapter because she would give too much away? That's a new idea to me and it fits so well with a comment by JKR that you touched on in your post (from FAQ section of her website): "Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that " JKR goes on to say the 'last' refers to letters written only to Petunia. Now that you've mentioned the bit about the narrator, I want to take one last stab at deducing why Dumbledore would have contacted Petunia prior to the night he delivered his 'last' letter along with Harry. It's seems highly unlikely the blood protection would come up prior to the night of Godric's Hollow since the outcome of Lily's sacrifice was such a phenomenal event and it had to take place in order for Dumbledore to place his charm on Harry. Dumbledore says as much in "The Lost Prophecy," that he made his decision after Lily died. I suppose it's possible Dumbledore revealed the Secret Keeper and the fact that the Potters were hidden by the Fidelius like you mentioned, Carol, but it's not Dumbledore's modus operandi to give out more information than necessary to anyone, let alone someone he wouldn't know well. It would more likely be up to Sirius (Peter) to contact Petunia on Lily's behalf if Lily wanted Petunia to have such information. *Unless*....there's something I've wondered about since we found out Sirius was Harry's godfather. Since he was also the Secret Keeper, sworn to die if needed in order to save the secret, how does that mesh together? Then Harry loses his godfather. Presumably the Potters would still be alive but it's not like *all* risk would be removed even after the Secret Keeper died with the secret, would it? It's not called a foolproof plan by Dumbledore, just their 'best chance.' Maybe during the time Sirius was Secret Keeper, Lily, estranged from her sister, requested Dumbledore contact Petunia about being Harry's guardian should something happen to herself, James and Sirius. And that would have started a communication from Dumbledore to Petunia. (It's not clear if it was a two-way communication.) The only thing I'm not sure about is why Lily would want Petunia to be guardian since there's nothing to show they cared for each other. Unless Lily thought Harry would be safer in the Muggle world. Carol: > At any rate, there's more to learn from Petunia. Maybe terror for > her family, fear that they'll no longer be protected when the blood > protection expires on Harry's seventeenth birthday (she clearly > assumed that it would last till he was eighteen) will prompt her to > disclose her secrets in exchange for protection. Jen: Petunia is such a curious person it seems likely she would read Dumbledore's letters even if she didn't respond. What if Dumbledore wanted to caution her that Voldemort is very adept at using a person's family and friends when targeting someone? And that as Lily's last living relative, Petunia and her family could be in grave danger. But...that doesn't quite work with Petunia agreeing to take Harry because she's taking on *more* danger by doing so. Once her supposedly hated sister was gone, Petunia should be able to wash her hands of the situation, right? I'd say yes, but not if 1) she had some feelings left for Lily and/or 2) Dumbledore stressed in the last letter that Voldemort's followers were 'almost as terrible as he' and that somehow Petunia and her family would be protected in exchange. Is it possible the blood protection works both ways? Maybe that's the answer. It's inside Harry because of the sacrifice but we don't know how the charm Dumbledore sealed with Petunia works. > Carol, expecting Mrs. Figg rather than Petunia to perform a feat of > magic in the Battle of Privet Drive Jen, thinking Mrs. Figg performing magic during a battle at Privet Drive would be a highlight of DH. :) From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Jun 7 03:32:33 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:32:33 -0400 Subject: Could this be Petunia? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169940 The person who will do magic late in life under desperate circumstances will, I have long maintained, be Uncle Vernon under the Most Unlikely Person hypothesis. For Vernon, the person who most hates and fears magic, to find out that he himself has mageblood would be the ultimate kick in the pants. I have a wonderful vision of him searching the genealogies of all of Dudley's girlfriends to be absolutely sure they have no mageblood. 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 aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 7 03:58:40 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:58:40 -0000 Subject: Green Potion, Regulus, Snape, and DD (was: Dumbledore's Past?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169941 > > Jen: ... I do believe McGonagall is the > right age though approximately, although I can't remember the > evidence for why I think that's true. The Lexicon has her as a > student in Gryffindor starting in approx. 1936 and Riddle in > Slytherin in approx. 1937. On another note, that's the third > character who would have been in Hogwarts with Riddle: Hagrid, > McGonagall and Eileen Prince. Eileen would most likely be the one to > know Riddle the best if she was in Slytherin. Wonder if that will > have relevance? > Aussie: Another person at Hogwarts around the same time of Tom Riddle was Neville's Gran. McGonagall knew she had failed Charms and advised Neville to still go ahead and study it. About Eileen Prince, I posted in mesage 169906 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169906 that Eileen and Merope (Riddle's mother) had some similar features. Look for the post "Is Snape Riddle's nephew?" Have fun Aussie From Meridel1 at aol.com Thu Jun 7 03:47:16 2007 From: Meridel1 at aol.com (Meridel1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:47:16 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C976CDACC1D6C5-C40-A805@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Carol: > But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say > 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? > Why, obviously because there were letters before > that. Actually, he didn't even say that.? He doesn't?say the? word, "letter". He said, "Remember my last, Petunia". Meredith From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 05:17:14 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:17:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: These two things stand out In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0706062217x2272ba27k28649c3b12e3a1b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169943 "Debi" wrote: Quotes from JK" > Quote/ > The significance of the place where Harry and his parents lived - the first > name... Godric Gryffindor. Lynda: Wow! I'm surprised here! I'd figured out the Godric's Hollows/Gryffindor connection years ago and quite frankly figured that nearly all the "faithful" had too! And then to read that even her editor hadn't realized... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 7 06:01:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:01:18 -0400 Subject: What Dumbledore "believes" (was Re: What Harry "knows") In-Reply-To: <1181162471.6884.64002.m47@yahoogroups.com> References: <1181162471.6884.64002.m47@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C976E066518E54-C80-A26B@webmail-md15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169944 Julie wrote: > The first example of this from Dumbledore was in PS/SS--"I do > *believe* he (Snape) worked so hard to protect you this year because > he felt that would make him and your father even." > Besides these two "beliefs" Dumbledore relates to answer Harry's > probing questions (both not so strangely referring to the most > enigmatic character in the books) [...] Karina: What was the second "belief"? I keep re-reading your message, and the belief concerning why Snape was working to protect Harry is the only one I saw. Julie: In my original post I quoted an earlier post regarding Dumbledore's belief that Snape reporting the Prophecy to Voldemort was the greatest regret of Snape's life. (This of course it what Harry thinks is Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape, and Dumbledore basically let him think it.) So, sorry, I added the "first" example (meaning chronologically within the books, not the first one presented in my argument) in addition to the already previously cited example! Karina: Perhaps this explation of why Harry's scar hurts, which Dumbledore gives to Fudge in GoF, may be what you are looking for: "Harry is as sane as you or I. That scar upon his forehead has not addled his brains. I believe it hurts him when Lord Voldemort is close by, or feeling particularly murderous." Perhaps Dumbledore didn't want to expand on the topic in front of Fudge. And then the scar and the Harry's ability to feel what Voldemort is feeling through it has become important in HBP. Primarily, when Dumbledore uses phrase "I believe", he's talking about actual facts, like Fred and George trying to send Harry a toilet seat, or the number of forbidden by Filch objects... > > Julie: I should have clarified that I'm referring to the times when Dumbledore uses "I believe" to state his opinion of *someone else's* motivations or mental state (believing Snape saved Harry because of the debt he owed James, believing revealing the Prophecy to LV is Snape's greatest regret). At least in these two instances Dumbledore also uses "I believe" to offer an explanation for that person's actions, an explanation that seems to be either incomplete (Snape keeps trying to save Harry, book after book) or insufficient (Dumbledore trusting Snape based only on Snape's show of regret over spilling the Prophecy). . . As with your example, it may be that Dumbledore doesn't want to expand the other topics either. In your example, he doesn't want to give the doubting Fudge too much information, and in the case of Snape's actions it seems Dumbledore doesn't want to give Harry too much information, whether to protect Snape's privacy or for some other reason is something we'll hopefully find out in DH. . Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dragondancer357 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 05:38:20 2007 From: dragondancer357 at yahoo.com (Anna) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:38:20 -0000 Subject: Voldamort's original body Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169945 I've been reading a lot lately, on Leaky Cauldron mostly, and to my surprise, I haven't yet come across any reference to Voldemort's original body when he attacks the Potters in Godric's Hollow. Voldemort later says "I was ripped from my body, less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost" (GoF). What then, happened to his body? It's not mentioned in any of the accounts of that night, that I've seen. His body might have crumpled like usually happens with the Avada Kedavra curse. Or maybe his body disintegrated when his soul was ripped from it. To my knowledge, it's not clear if he had DE support that night or if he went alone to Godric's Hollow. If he had DE, they might have taken his body away. It seems to me that his body should have disappeared somehow, so that some people don't know for sure if he's -finished-. Thoughts? Anna From xellina at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 10:42:27 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:42:27 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: <8C976CDACC1D6C5-C40-A805@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C976CDACC1D6C5-C40-A805@mblk-d38.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00706070342lce26444qe4059a7eac4f5c7d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169946 2007/6/7, Meridel1 at aol.com : > Carol: > > But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say > > 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? > > Why, obviously because there were letters before > > that. > > > > Actually, he didn't even say that. He doesn't say the > word, "letter". He said, "Remember my last, Petunia". > > Meredith > Cassy: Well, it still implies that there had been certain previous communication between them. I doubt that Dumpledore phoned or floopowdered Petunia, so either they spoke in person, or he sent her letters. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 11:31:01 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:31:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00706070342lce26444qe4059a7eac4f5c7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169947 > > Meredith: > > Actually, he didn't even say that. He doesn't say the > > word, "letter". He said, "Remember my last, Petunia". > Cassy: > Well, it still implies that there had been certain previous > communication between them. I doubt that Dumpledore phoned > or floopowdered Petunia, so either they spoke in person, or > he sent her letters. Goddlefrood: I trust you're all familiar with this: "So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that " From: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=55 If not then check out the full response at JKR's site on the above link. It *was* a letter he referred to as his last. All the best Goddlefrood From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 11:59:03 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:59:03 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169948 > Carol responds: > > And, of course, there's not just one red flag ("surely" is another). > Of course, not all passages with "Harry knew" indicate the unreliable > narrator; sometimes, as you indicate, Harry really does "know" what > the narrator says he knows. I'm talking about inferences and hearsay > passing as knowledge. And sometimes there's no flag at all, but Harry, > or the narrator presenting Harry's pov (or, for that matter, Frank > Bryce's) is simply wrong. Neri: To say that "sometimes" Harry really does know is IMO somewhat of an understatement. A simple counting will show you that the times Harry does know overtake the times he's wrong by a factor of *at least* 30. I don't see how something that works once in 30 times could be considered a "red flag". Saying that there are additional "red flags", like "he knew" or "surely" doesn't solve the problem, because I'm pretty sure that if I were to count cases of "he knew" and "surely" in which Harry was correct I'd get similarly large factors. Naturally, in *hindsight* it is easy to see that Harry "knowing" something about one teacher (for example that McGonagall is interested in the prospects of the Gryffindor team) is completely innocent while he's "knowing" something about another teacher (that Moody only drinks from his hipflask) is part of a mystery. Hindsight is a great thing. But a red flag is something that is usually supposed to work without the benefit of hindsight. > Carol: > "He was going to be expelled, he just knew it" (SS Am. ed. 130) turns > out to be false (far from being expelled, he's made Gryffindor Seeker > and given a state-of-the-art broom). While this perception is quickly > turned around, it helps to establish the narrator as unreliable. > > And the lengthy quote on Fake!Moody drinking from a hip flask, > "Perhaps she [Rosmerta] thought it was an insult to her mulled mead. > But *Harry knew* better. Moody had told them all during their last > Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson that he preferred to prepare his > own food and drink at all times, as it was so easy for Dark wizards to > poison an unattended cup" (GoF Am. ed. 322) is only partially true. As > I already explained, what Harry *knows* is Barty Jr.'s cover story, > the real Mad-eye's reasons for drinking from a hip flask, which Barty > Jr. is borrowing as he borrows Moody's identity, mannerisms, and > magical eye. Neri: If I now count again, I see that two cases in which Harry "knew" and was actually wrong, the Cedric case that Faith discovered and the expelling case, don't actually have much to do with any mystery plot. The third, the Moody case, is problematic because the real Moody does drink only from his hip flask, and therefore Harry was technically correct. His mistake was that this wasn't the real Moody, but the narrator never actually tells us that Harry "knows" that this is the real Moody. However, even if I do accept this case, then by my count the "Harry/he knew" trick is employed by the unreliable narrator for mystery purposes exactly *once in the entire series*. As a whole, I find that JKR isn't at all big about using unreliable narrator technique to trick her readers, probably because she is not interested in undermining the reliability of the narration in the books. For example, lets look at the case that is frequently considered The Classic Exemplar of unreliable narrator tricking in the series, especially in regard to Snape as a red herring villain ? the case of Quirrell talking with the unknown person in SS/PS. Read it again and notice the position of the narrator: ********************************************************** Then, about a week before the exams were due to start, Harry's new resolution not to interfere in anything that didn't concern him was put to an unexpected test. Walking back from the library on his own one afternoon, he heard somebody whimpering from a classroom up ahead. As he drew closer, he heard Quirrell's voice. "No ? no ? not again, please ?" It sounded as though someone was threatening him. Harry moved closer. "All right ? all right ?" he heard Quirrell sob. Next second, Quirrell came hurrying out of the classroom, straightening his turban. He was pale and looked as though he was about to cry. He strode out of sight; Harry didn't think Quirrell had even noticed him. He waited until Quirrell's footsteps had disappeared, then peered into the classroom. It was empty, but a door stood ajar at the other end. Harry was halfway towards it before he remembered what he'd promised himself about not meddling. All the same, he'd have gambled twelve Philosopher's Stones that Snape had just left the room, and from what Harry had just heard, Snape would be walking with a new spring in his step ? Quirrell seemed to have given in at last. ********************************************************** You don't see here any "Harry knew that Snape had just left the room". On the contrary -- the narrator is quite explicit about the difference between Harry's limited point of view and objective realty. It is made clear that Harry didn't see Snape, didn't recognize Snape's voice, and was only "gambling" it was Snape ? his personal conclusion based on the available evidence. The reader is left free to consider this evidence himself/herself and assess if Harry's conclusion is the correct one, or if a different conclusion can be reached based on the same evidence. Even those parts of the narration that have a slightly vague position ? "it sounded as though someone was threatening him" and "looked as though he was about to cry" ? turn out to be *reliable* in the end. And of course a real clue is included for those readers that made the correct conclusion: Quirrell straightening his turban. In addition, as I wrote her before, we have no evidence of JKR ever using what I term "non description" to trick her readers, except once when it is Harry himself who tricks the reader (the not using Felix on Ron case). This is another example of JKR avoiding shameless use of unreliable narrator technique in her mystery plotting. So based on what we have seen until now I'd be very cautious using unreliable narrator considerations to theorize anything about Snape, for example. Neri From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jun 7 13:08:50 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:08:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169949 > Carol: > > However, I've always considered it interesting that the first part > > of the first chapter of SS/PS, is from the arch-Muggle, Vernon's, > > pov rather than from Petunia's. She reminds me of Lupin in PoA, very touchy and obviously hiding something. Vernon's explanation for > > Petunia's becoming upset every time her sister is mentioned, given to us by the limited omniscient narrator, is simple embarrassment at being connected with abnormal people: "He didn't blame her--if *he'd* had a sister like that" (5). > > > To me it's obvious that she knows something that she's concealing > > from Vernon. Maybe she hasn't heard from her sister directly, but I think she may have heard from Dumbledore, who has only recently > > suggested the Fidelius Charm to the Potters. Maybe he's mentioned > > it to Petunia, along with the name of the supposed Secret Keeper? > > And *somebody* has told them both that the Potters have a son named Harry only a month younger than Dudley. > > Jen: You're saying JKR couldn't use Petunia as the limited > omniscient narrator in this chapter because she would give too much > away? That's a new idea to me and it fits so well with a comment by > JKR that you touched on in your post (from FAQ section of her > website): Dung: That's brilliant! It's new to me, too. (Goodness, Carol, you're on form at the moment! The pressure to come up with new takes before the end of all this fun is showing!) Jen: > "Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just > say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, > obviously because there were letters before that " > > JKR goes on to say the 'last' refers to letters written only to > Petunia. Now that you've mentioned the bit about the narrator, I > want to take one last stab at deducing why Dumbledore would have > contacted Petunia prior to the night he delivered his 'last' letter > along with Harry. > > It's seems highly unlikely the blood protection would come up prior > to the night of Godric's Hollow since the outcome of Lily's sacrifice was such a phenomenal event and it had to take place in order for Dumbledore to place his charm on Harry. Dumbledore says as much in "The Lost Prophecy," that he made his decision after Lily died. Dung: Yes, I agree. Jen: > I suppose it's possible Dumbledore revealed the Secret Keeper and the fact that the Potters were hidden by the Fidelius like you mentioned, Carol, but it's not Dumbledore's modus operandi to give out more information than necessary to anyone, let alone someone he wouldn't know well. It would more likely be up to Sirius (Peter) to contact Petunia on Lily's behalf if Lily wanted Petunia to have such > information. > > *Unless*....there's something I've wondered about since we found out Sirius was Harry's godfather. Since he was also the Secret Keeper, sworn to die if needed in order to save the secret, how does that mesh together? Then Harry loses his godfather. Presumably the > Potters would still be alive but it's not like *all* risk would be > removed even after the Secret Keeper died with the secret, would it? It's not called a foolproof plan by Dumbledore, just their 'best > chance.' Dung: Well actually, having a dead SK is perfect, because then nobody else can ever be told the secret again. The weakness of fidelius lies in the SK, while the SK stood firm, the Potters were safe, if the SK had died without revealing the secret, their hiding place would have been completely safe. Jen: > Maybe during the time Sirius was Secret Keeper, Lily, estranged from her sister, requested Dumbledore contact Petunia about being Harry's guardian should something happen to herself, James and Sirius. And that would have started a communication from Dumbledore to Petunia. (It's not clear if it was a two-way communication.) The only thing I'm not sure about is why Lily would want Petunia to be guardian since there's nothing to show they cared for each other. > Unless Lily thought Harry would be safer in the Muggle world. Dung: I think the last thing they'd have been planning for was orphaned! Harry. James and Lily were the last line of defence, if they died, they imagined, so would Harry. They could never have predicted what happened at GH. Although... thinking about it, if they didn't know about the prophecy, they might have thought that Voldy was after them, rather than Harry, so they could have wondered if Harry would be orphaned, I suppose. But if they did know it was Harry that Voldy was after, I don't think it would have occured to them that they might die and that Harry might live. > Carol: > > At any rate, there's more to learn from Petunia. Maybe terror for > > her family, fear that they'll no longer be protected when the blood protection expires on Harry's seventeenth birthday (she clearly > > assumed that it would last till he was eighteen) will prompt her to disclose her secrets in exchange for protection. > > Jen: Petunia is such a curious person it seems likely she would read Dumbledore's letters even if she didn't respond. What if Dumbledore wanted to caution her that Voldemort is very adept at using a person's family and friends when targeting someone? And that as Lily's last living relative, Petunia and her family could be in grave danger. > > But...that doesn't quite work with Petunia agreeing to take Harry because she's taking on *more* danger by doing so. Once her supposedly hated sister was gone, Petunia should be able to wash her hands of the situation, right? I'd say yes, but not if 1) she had some feelings left for Lily and/or 2) Dumbledore stressed in the last letter that Voldemort's followers were 'almost as terrible as he' and that somehow Petunia and her family would be protected in > exchange. Dung: I'm reminded of this bit in OotP: ********************* "But he's gone," said Uncle Vernon impatiently, without the slightest sign that the murder of Harry's parents might be a painful topic. "That giant bloke said so. He's gone." "He's back," said Harry heavily. [ ] "Back?" whispered Aunt Petunia. She was looking at Harry as she had never looked at him before. And all of a sudden, for the very first time in his life, Harry fully appreciated that Aunt Petunia was his mother's sister. He could not have said why this hit him so very powerfully at this moment. All he knew was that he was not the only person in the room who had an inkling of what Lord Voldemort being back might mean. ********************* OotP, ch2, UK p39. Then, Petunia says and does little while Vernon gets all hot under the collar and tries to throw Harry out. Until the howler arrives, and the howler *terrifies* Petunia, she looks as though she might faint, she's still trembling. She insists that Harry must stay, and makes up an excuse about the neighbours talking to appease Vernon. Petunia may not have known or even believed that Voldemort could come back, if she thought the protection was just to keep them safe from the DEs, she would, by now, think that they were secure. To hear that Voldemort *himself* was again at large would make her realise that she still needs the protection. But How did Petunia find out about Voldemort? Canon gives us two options: 1. Dumbledore's correspondence explained about Voldemort 2. The conversation Petunia overheard where she learned about dementors. Whatever was in Dumbledore's "last", (the letter he left with Harry) is the reason why Petunia actually agreed to take Harry in, and why she insists that he must stay when Uncle V tries to throw him out. The other letters, from beforehand, we know absolutely nothing about from the books, just from that evil comment from JKR. I wondered, briefly, whether DD had lent James' invisibility cloak to Petunia, but I don't think that can be right, because somebody would have had to collect it, and we have no canon that Petunia was in contact with anybody at all from the time DD left Harry and the letter on their doorstep. Alternatively, what happens if we hypothesise that when Vernon asks Petunia if she's heard from her sister lately, and she replies "No, why?" she is in fact lying? Could Petunia be the GH witness under the invisibility cloak? Unlikely, I think, but worth opening up for speculation Dungrollin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 7 14:05:13 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:05:13 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169950 > > Magpie: > She's never called anything else but a witch. The fact that she was > not able to do any magic due to her depression does not get her > called a Muggle by anyone that I remember. I think it would > absolutely be cheating for JKR to claim that Petunia was a Muggle, > and that she never has and never would do magic, when what she > really meant was the she was a witch, frightened by her first > accidental emission and blocking herself from then on. She obviously > did do magic if that's what scared her. You can't be a witch until > you demonstrate doing magic. > Ken: Merope is never called anything but a witch, sure. She isn't called much at all in that period when she lost or gave up her power because the period is brief and it is seldom mentioned. I don't think it would be cheating at all for JKR to call Petunia a Muggle if she had in fact been born with magical power and then blocked it as soon as she became aware of it. She did not actually have to "perform" magic to become aware of it. For example if she were in London and realized that only she and Lily could see the Leaky Cauldron she would know she had magical power. > > Magpie: > I believe CoS says a muggle is someone with not a drop of > magical blood in their veins, and that this is what the Dursleys > (which includes Petunia) are according to the narrator, who in that > instance does not seem to be in Harry's pov. It's not even the > word "Muggle" that she seems to be dancing around when I read it. It > seems more like "Squib" is the thing she thinks reminds her of what > Petunia really is. > Ken: I take those comments about "a drop of magical blood" to be colorful language, not technically rigorous statements. Lily and Petunia share the same blood after all and this is the key to Harry's continued protection at the Dursleys. If the drop of blood definition is what determines if you are a muggle then both Lily and Petunia have to be witches or muggles, since they have the same blood. I think the most accurate definition of muggle is one who has no magical power. That fits the end of life Merope as well as a postulated Petunia who refused to be a witch. Didn't Neville at one point say that his family thought that he was "all muggle" for a long time? Neville certainly had much more than a drop of magical blood in him even if he had turned out to be a squib, which is really just a muggle born to magical parents. It would be nearly impossible to take the average muggle off the street and determine whether or not they had a drop of magical blood in their ancestry. And having that drop of blood would not then make them a witch or wizard. The meaningful dividing line between muggle and witch is magical power. If you don't have it you are a muggle, if you do you are a witch. Canon gives at least one clear example of someone who lost their power and mentions that there are others. It does not give a special name to these people. To me, they have become muggles. If you want to continue to call them witches or wizards you are of course free to do so. They are odd sorts of witches that can't do magic though. > > Ken: > > The thing is that Rowling seems to be dancing around something in > that > > quote and for now all we can do is guess about what it might be. > > Magpie: > I agree. But that's why if I'm trying to figure out or guess what > she's dancing around it seems logical to start with the facts she's > giving me instead of doing my own dancing around exactly those > things. If she says Petunia is a Muggle, that she has never done and > never will do magic, how would I get anywhere near the answer if I > don't start with that premise? Why not start with the idea that she > is not someone who can do magic (and so not a Witch) but that > perhaps shares other things with Squibs, who have certain > sensitivities despite not being able to do so? She is a Muggle, > but... doesn't to me imply "She is a Muggle but really she's a > witch" or "She's a Muggle but that's only what she calls herself > because she didn't want to be a witch" or "She's a Muggle but in her > case only through choice..." Why not something that acknowledges the > first fact but goes on to explain why she's not like other > Muggles: "She's a Muggle but has experienced magic" or "She's a > Muggle but has been given certain magical objects to use..." or > whatever? > Ken: Perhaps I am not perfectly clear about what you mean by the above. You appear to be skating up to the same sort of guess that I made but from a different direction. Petunia is not a Squib, but .... Petunia is a Muggle, but .... The author is hiding something here. She long hinted at the importance of Lily's eyes. Carol is of the opinion that this was a reference to Harry being able to worm that memory out of Slughorn, partly because his eyes reminded Slughorn of Lily's. OK, I agree that could be all there is to it but I was expecting something more of a bombshell than something so mundane from the buildup the resemblance got. Maybe it is something similarly mundane that she is hiding with her Petunia dance. Or maybe there is a bombshell about both Petunia and about Lily's eyes still to go off in DH. It would not bother me in the least if she was hiding the fact that Petunia could have been a witch but refused, or that she is some hitherto unmentioned class of person that is neither fully witch or fully muggle. It would bother me a lot if this elaborate dance about Petunia is merely hiding the fact that she knows something she hasn't told Harry yet. That isn't something to hide, that is dead obvious from the text. Petunia knows tons of things about the magical world and Lily that she has never told Harry. If it isn't something more interesting than that, I can't see why Rowling was so careful in that interview. But then I also still hold out hope that there is more to the Lily's eyes thing than just batting them at Slughorn to get a memory. Ken From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 15:26:03 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:26:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706070826q23dfaf9cx24d4763013ebcd97@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169951 > > Ken: > > Merope is never called anything but a witch, sure. She isn't called > much at all in that period when she lost or gave up her power because > the period is brief and it is seldom mentioned. I don't think it would > be cheating at all for JKR to call Petunia a Muggle if she had in fact > been born with magical power and then blocked it as soon as she became > aware of it. She did not actually have to "perform" magic to become > aware of it. For example if she were in London and realized that only > she and Lily could see the Leaky Cauldron she would know she had > magical power. montims: I don't believe that is the case - muggle families must accompany their wizard children there often - viz Hermione's parents in the shops and the bank. That does not give them "magical power" Ken: > > The meaningful dividing line between muggle > and witch is magical power. If you don't have it you are a muggle, if > you do you are a witch. Canon gives at least one clear example of > someone who lost their power and mentions that there are others. It > does not give a special name to these people. To me, they have become > muggles. If you want to continue to call them witches or wizards you > are of course free to do so. They are odd sorts of witches that can't > do magic though. montims: they are squibs, surely... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 7 16:18:26 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:18:26 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169952 > > Magpie: > > I agree. But that's why if I'm trying to figure out or guess what > > she's dancing around it seems logical to start with the facts she's > > giving me instead of doing my own dancing around exactly those > > things. If she says Petunia is a Muggle, that she has never done and > > never will do magic, how would I get anywhere near the answer if I > > don't start with that premise? Why not start with the idea that she > > is not someone who can do magic (and so not a Witch) but that > > perhaps shares other things with Squibs, who have certain > > sensitivities despite not being able to do so? She is a Muggle, > > but... doesn't to me imply "She is a Muggle but really she's a > > witch" or "She's a Muggle but that's only what she calls herself > > because she didn't want to be a witch" or "She's a Muggle but in her > > case only through choice..." Why not something that acknowledges the > > first fact but goes on to explain why she's not like other > > Muggles: "She's a Muggle but has experienced magic" or "She's a > > Muggle but has been given certain magical objects to use..." or > > whatever? > Ken: > > Perhaps I am not perfectly clear about what you mean by the above. You > appear to be skating up to the same sort of guess that I made but from > a different direction. Petunia is not a Squib, but .... Petunia is a > Muggle, but .... The author is hiding something here. She long hinted > at the importance of Lily's eyes. Magpie: I wasn't skating up to any guess, actually. I was just saying that since Rowling doesn't flat-out lie in interviews I thought if she said Petunia was a Muggle I should assume she was a Muggle as we've always been given to understood the term in canon. It seems like all the responses to other things she's said where people put a lot of effort into making her say the opposite didn't work out--like the imo clear hints about R/Hr that were explained as something else. Or Snape isn't a vampire "that she knows of" or whatever she said was a hint that Snape was a vampire. I'm not bothered by the idea of Rowling revealing Petunia to be a repressed witch in itself. It requires a whole lot of 'splainin' to make it work with her happily saying over and over that she's a Muggle--for instance, by suggesting that while Lily developed as every other Wizard we've seen by showing signs of magic before she went to Hogwarts, Petunia must have, for instance, been walking with Lily and seen the Leaky Cauldron and realized she and Lily were the only ones who could see it and somehow recognized this meant she had magical powers that she was thereafter able to repress so thoroughly that she didn't even show the uncontrolled signs other kids show. She can't even have been frightened by doing magic--she must have been frightened by, in this case, seeing a pub. And also the fact that canon says that Petunia, as a Dursley, has not a drop of magical blood must be just colorful language (even though in this series "magical blood" is a very real thing) because Lily and Petunia have the same blood. Except they get their blood from their parents, who are Muggles. So the parents must have magical blood too. Making the line "The Dursleys were what Wizards called Muggles (not a drop of magical blood in their veins)" really colorful. I mean, I know that the split between Wizards and Muggles is not as clear as some Wizards would like because of Muggle-borns and Squibs. But it's so far seemed clearer than someone being able to be both at the same time. You say we just decide what we're going to call Merope, but it still seems clear to me that Merope, even at her death, has a abilities a Muggle can not have. Had she recovered, she would have recovered her abilities like Tonks did, presumably. Just as Petunia, if she's repressing her magic, is just as much a witch as Hermione is when Hermione's not doing magic. Ken: It would bother me a lot if this elaborate dance about > Petunia is merely hiding the fact that she knows something she hasn't > told Harry yet. That isn't something to hide, that is dead obvious > from the text. Petunia knows tons of things about the magical world > and Lily that she has never told Harry. If it isn't something more > interesting than that, I can't see why Rowling was so careful in that > interview. But then I also still hold out hope that there is more to > the Lily's eyes thing than just batting them at Slughorn to get a memory. Magpie: But surely it's possible she *could* come up with something that was satisfying without Petunia being a witch--which wouldn't necessarily be that much of a bombshell to Harry anyway? I mean, even in this scenario Petunia is a Muggle for all intents and purposes, right? She's not going to do magic, ever. It just seems like okay, there's this question about Petunia being a Squib (who are not Wizards). This makes Rowling think of a secret about Petunia, something that's going to be revealed. What she tells us is: a) That this question hints at something that's going to be revealed b) Petunia is not a Squib c)Petunia is a Muggle d) There's more to her than meets the eye e) That all this is shockingly indiscreet. f) That Petunia has never done magic and never will. So my point is, maybe we just have no clue and can't yet guess what the answer is because we don't have the information? Maybe the answer is just *more* surprising than what we readers can come up with based on our limited information. For us, there's only Muggle, Witch, Squib. Rowling didn't say "She's not a Squib; her parents are Muggles" or whatever. She said she was a Muggle (and why say that at all if that's the very thing she's concealing?). It doesn't necessarily have to mean that Petunia must be a different one of the three. Maybe the answer is something completely surprising and tied more specifically to the technical aspects of the plot rather than Petunia just being a different class of being. I mean, the thing about Petunia just knowing what she's not telling is that what she knows would presumably be important. Where as while I can't say for sure that Petunia being a repressed Witch goes nowhere, it doesn't automatically have anything to do with Harry at all. Mrs. Figg being a Squib, for instance, didn't matter to Harry except that she was working for Dumbledore. Petunia is a Muggle with a long history with Wizards--she could, for instance, have had stuff done to her that are important. She could be involved in any number of magical things without being a witch herself. With the added plus that it wouldn't involve JKR lying or bending the definitions of words we've seen in canon even more than Wizards do casually (Neville and Merope are both referred to as Squibs when the person means is that they are incompetent with magic; Neville's family uses "all Muggle" to say they are afraid he is a Squib. But everyone knows what they mean.) -m From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 7 16:19:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldamort's original body Message-ID: <14197315.1181233190411.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169953 From: Anna >I've been reading a lot lately, on Leaky Cauldron mostly, >and to my surprise, I haven't yet come across any reference >to Voldemort's original body when he attacks the Potters in >Godric's Hollow. Voldemort later says "I was ripped from my >body, less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost" (GoF). >What then, happened to his body? It's not mentioned in any >of the accounts of that night, that I've seen. His body might >have crumpled like usually happens with the Avada Kedavra curse. >Or maybe his body disintegrated when his soul was ripped from >it. Bart: Well, what do we know? From the descriptions of the reactions, it appears that it was known that Morty was just merely dead, but not really, most sincerely dead (and note that it WAS thought that Pete the Rat was really, most sincerely dead). And there WAS an explosion. This leads to the following possibilities: 1) There was at least one reliable witness. 2) It was NOT likely that the body was found intact; that would support the really most sincerely dead scenario. 3) If the body was destroyed, then the reliable witness factor comes in again. 4) If the body was mostly destroyed, that would explain it the conclusion. So, my best guess is that the body was mostly or entirely destroyed, and, in either case, but particularly the latter, there may have been a reliable witness. Bart From amis917 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 7 16:23:26 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:23:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169954 Dung: I think the last thing they'd have been planning for was orphaned! Harry. James and Lily were the last line of defence, if they died, they imagined, so would Harry. They could never have predicted what happened at GH. Although... thinking about it, if they didn't know about the prophecy, they might have thought that Voldy was after them, rather than Harry, so they could have wondered if Harry would be orphaned, I suppose. But if they did know it was Harry that Voldy was after, I don't think it would have occured to them that they might die and that Harry might live. Amis917 now: I think that the Potters knew something of the prophecy. Why else would they specifically go into hiding? Surely everyone in the Order and fighting against the Death Eaters were in danger of being killed. As I'm sure has been speculated before, I think that Dumbledore gave the Potters and the Longbottoms some kind of warning. I believe this warning to be the reason they went into hiding in the first place. I don't think we have any evidence from cannon that the Longbottoms were also in hiding. However, they were tortured, possibly over information about the whereabouts of the Potters. I do, however, think that the Potters would have planned for some alternate care for Harry in the case of their deaths. Especially when they thought that the person they were going to leave Harry with, Sirius, had betrayed the Order. I'm not sure that this would be with the Dursleys. I do agree with Jen, however that it is possible Lily thought Harry would be safer in the Muggle world. Dumbledore likely offered to assist in his protection. Dung: I wondered, briefly, whether DD had lent James' invisibility cloak to Petunia, but I don't think that can be right, because somebody would have had to collect it, and we have no canon that Petunia was in contact with anybody at all from the time DD left Harry and the letter on their doorstep. Alternatively, what happens if we hypothesise that when Vernon asks Petunia if she's heard from her sister lately, and she replies "No, why?" she is in fact lying? Could Petunia be the GH witness under the invisibility cloak? Unlikely, I think, but worth opening up for speculation Amis 917: I don't think that Petunia was at GH, but I do think she was lying. I do think it is possible that Lily or Dumbledore attempted to contact her to warn her she and her family may be in danger. The more I think about it, I get the idea that Petunia has a greater understanding of the magical world than she lets on to. We get our ideas of Petunia's feelings on the WW from Harry and Vernon. Could she be pretending?? Was she asked by Dumbledore in one of letters to completely distance herself form the WW?? While this is also unlikely, it could be possible. Couldn't it? All in my opinoin, of course :) Amis917 From caleksandrova at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 16:21:05 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:21:05 -0000 Subject: The Riddle House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169955 Pat wrote: > "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived > there nor put it to any use..." > > I'm wondering who this "wealthy man" is. Who would have a reason to > keep the house all these years? Perhaps Dumbledore? Maybe Lucius > Malfoy? Will the house come into play? Is there a horcrux hidden > there? Karina: I used to think it was Voldemort's, but then why did he kill Frank Bryce, the man he was paying to take care of the place a bit... So that doesn't make sense. Lucius Malfoy is certainly wealthy, but somehow I doubt it was him. Wouldn't Voldemort contact Lucius to let him know that he's alive and living in Lucius' house?.. But Lucius was surprised by Voldemort's resurrection as anyone. Also somehow I don't think Voldemort would publicize his Muggle relatives, and why would Lucius buy this Riddle House located in a Muggle village, unless he knew its significance to Voldemort... I think Dumbledore is a possibility. I've always thought it was fishy how Dumbledore found out about Frank Bryce's disappearance/death. If he was the owner of Riddle House, and was paying Frank to take care of gardening and such, he'd know when something happened to him. Dumbledore implied that he read about it in a Muggle newspaper, though... If Dumbledore was the owner, then I doubt there's a Horcrux there. He'd be able to locate it. After all, he found the Horcrux in the Gaunt's house, and we've seen how skilled he is with detecting magic. In conclusion, none of these (Voldemort, Malfoy, Dumbledore) seem satisfying, although all of them are possibilities. Karina From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 16:33:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:33:59 -0000 Subject: Voldamort's original body In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Anna" wrote: > > I've been reading a lot lately, on Leaky Cauldron mostly, > and to my surprise, I haven't yet come across any reference > to Voldemort's original body when he attacks the Potters in > Godric's Hollow. Voldemort later says "I was ripped from my > body, less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost" (GoF). > What then, happened to his body? It's not mentioned in any > of the accounts of that night, that I've seen. His body might > have crumpled like usually happens with the Avada Kedavra curse. > Or maybe his body disintegrated when his soul was ripped from > it. To my knowledge, it's not clear if he had DE support that > night or if he went alone to Godric's Hollow. If he had DE, > they might have taken his body away. It seems to me that his > body should have disappeared somehow, so that some people don't > know for sure if he's -finished-. Thoughts? > > Anna > Carol responds: I have the same problem. If his body was found, mutilated or otherwise, he would be firmly believed to be dead. If his body wasn't found, how does anyone know for sure that he didn't just run away after killing the adult Potters and failing to kill Harry. Is it only Dumbledore's (and spy!Snape's) word that Voldemort was after the Potters? Why is everyone celebrating? (I personally think that Snape showed DD his fading or faded Dark Mark, which indicates a dead or powerless Voldemort, and that DD already knew about the Horcruxes, but I don't think that DD is going to share that information with anyone.) And the people coming out from under the Imperius curse right and left would not be enough for everyone in the WW to think that LV had been overthrown. How could the Daily Prophet know about that so quickly? And how did they know that Harry had survived and had a cut that was not yet a scar? Dumbledore must have told them. Unless Peter Pettigrew, in the role of friend of the family, reports that he's found the Potters dead and that he suspects Sirius Black, their Secret Keeper, of betraying them. But he'd have had a hard time explaining why he didn't rescue Baby!Harry. It had to be Dumbledore sending word to the Ministry and the Ministry informing the Daily Prophet. Which still doesn't answer your question and mine about Voldemort's body. My guess is that it vaporized (and Peter Pettigrew, witness to the disintegration in rat form, somehow knowing that Voldie would come back, took Voldemort's wand and hid it). Carol, who has never found a satisfactory answer to your question and hopes to hear what others think From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Jun 7 17:04:39 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:04:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181235879.31461.1193994027@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169957 > Magpie: > I wasn't skating up to any guess, actually. I was just saying that > since Rowling doesn't flat-out lie in interviews I thought if she > said Petunia was a Muggle I should assume she was a Muggle as we've > always been given to understood the term in canon. It's not clear that our understanding of the term exactly matches what she intends by it in corner cases such as these. (also, she did lie in an interview at least once - in agreeing that her statements about Harry's grandparents tended to shut down Heir of Gryffindor theories when clearly they do nothing of the sort whether such theories are false or not.) -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 17:32:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:32:46 -0000 Subject: TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169958 Neri wrote: > To say that "sometimes" Harry really does know is IMO somewhat of an understatement. A simple counting will show you that the times Harry > does know overtake the times he's wrong by a factor of *at least* 30. > I don't see how something that works once in 30 times could be > considered a "red flag". > > Saying that there are additional "red flags", like "he knew" or > "surely" doesn't solve the problem, because I'm pretty sure that if I > were to count cases of "he knew" and "surely" in which Harry was > correct I'd get similarly large factors. > > Naturally, in *hindsight* it is easy to see that Harry "knowing" > something about one teacher (for example that McGonagall is interested > in the prospects of the Gryffindor team) is completely innocent while > he's "knowing" something about another teacher (that Moody only drinks > from his hipflask) is part of a mystery. Hindsight is a great thing. > But a red flag is something that is usually supposed to work without > the benefit of hindsight. > As a whole, I find that JKR isn't at all big about using unreliable > narrator technique to trick her readers, probably because she is not > interested in undermining the reliability of the narration in the > books. For example, lets look at the case that is frequently > considered The Classic Exemplar of unreliable narrator tricking in the > series, especially in regard to Snape as a red herring villain ? the > case of Quirrell talking with the unknown person in SS/PS. Read it > again and notice the position of the narrator: > > > ********************************************************** > Then, about a week before the exams were due to start, Harry's new > resolution not to interfere in anything that didn't concern him was > put to an unexpected test. Walking back from the library on his own > one afternoon, he heard somebody whimpering from a classroom up ahead. > As he drew closer, he heard Quirrell's voice. > > "No ? no ? not again, please ?" > > It sounded as though someone was threatening him. Harry moved closer. > > "All right ? all right ?" he heard Quirrell sob. > > Next second, Quirrell came hurrying out of the classroom, > straightening his turban. He was pale and looked as though he was > about to cry. He strode out of sight; Harry didn't think Quirrell had > even noticed him. He waited until Quirrell's footsteps had > disappeared, then peered into the classroom. It was empty, but a door > stood ajar at the other end. Harry was halfway towards it before he > remembered what he'd promised himself about not meddling. > > All the same, he'd have gambled twelve Philosopher's Stones that Snape > had just left the room, and from what Harry had just heard, Snape > would be walking with a new spring in his step ? Quirrell seemed to > have given in at last. > ********************************************************** > > > You don't see here any "Harry knew that Snape had just left the room". > On the contrary -- the narrator is quite explicit about the difference > between Harry's limited point of view and objective realty. It is made > clear that Harry didn't see Snape, didn't recognize Snape's voice, and > was only "gambling" it was Snape ? his personal conclusion based on > the available evidence. The reader is left free to consider this > evidence himself/herself and assess if Harry's conclusion is the > correct one, or if a different conclusion can be reached based on the > same evidence. Even those parts of the narration that have a slightly > vague position ? "it sounded as though someone was threatening him" > and "looked as though he was about to cry" ? turn out to be *reliable* > in the end. And of course a real clue is included for those readers > that made the correct conclusion: Quirrell straightening his turban. > > In addition, as I wrote her before, we have no evidence of JKR ever > using what I term "non description" to trick her readers, except once > when it is Harry himself who tricks the reader (the not using Felix on > Ron case). This is another example of JKR avoiding shameless use of > unreliable narrator technique in her mystery plotting. So based on > what we have seen until now I'd be very cautious using unreliable > narrator considerations to theorize anything about Snape, for example. Carol responds: When did I ever say that the unreliable narrator was related to the mystery aspect of the novel? My whole point is that Harry's (or some other pov character's) perceptions shape the way the narrative is told, and that includes what Harry "knows." Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "red flag," but it works as a red flag for me. (Harry knows that, does he? Oops.) Let me give you other examples of the unreliable narrator, which may or may not be related to the mystery of the individual novel or the overall Snape mystery. (I notice that you snipped "Kreacher, it transpired, was lurking in the attic.") The most obvious early example, which we know to be unreliable even as we read it, is "He'd lived with the Dursleys . . . ever since he'd been a baby and his parents had died in that car crash" (SS am. ed. 29), this is clearly Harry's perception, based on what Aunt Petunia has told him, and it's clearly incorrect, as we've been told in the previous chapter that Lily and James were killed by Voldemort. This passage operates *for me* as a red flag that the narrator is limited by a particular character's point of view (that's what a third-person limited omniscient narrator *is*, by definition) and that the pov will not always be accurate. (I mentioned a less obvious example of the possible unreliability of the narrator regarding Vernon's view of Petunia's behavior in the previous chapter; I really think that Vernon is wrong and that Petunia is hiding something, which is why JKR chose Vernon's pov rather than hers for that chapter. More examples of the unreliable narrator (not involving "Harry knew" but involving Harry's perception). A lovely one from SS/PS: "It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes--and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead" (126). This short passage is absolutely brilliant because the juxtaposition of the simultaneous events, Snape's looking into Harry's eyes and the pain in his eyes, *implies* cause and effect. Some readers to this day believe that Snape caused the pain in Harry's scar. And then there's "Snape's sudden, sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee" (217)--as we find out from Quirrell later, there's nothing sinister about it. He's trying to prevent Quirrell from jinxing Harry's broom again. I've already cited examples from GoF and OoP, but I want to mention the use of Frank Bryce's "innocent eye" pov in GoF. When the narrator, reporting from Frank's pov, says, "Owing, no doubt, to a build-up of earwax, he had heard the word 'Quidditch,' which was not a word at all" (GoF am. ed. 2), the reader again *knows* that the narration is unreliable. (Note "no doubt" as our signal word or red flag here, not that it's needed.) Why place the limited omniscient narrator in Frank's head, then? Obvious. To give us Wormtail's or Voldemort's thoughts would give too much away, so we get an observer who doesn't know what's going on, but correctly deduces that he's overhearing a plot between a murderer and his accomplice. The technique continues clear through HBP, with, for example: "This [his E in Potions] was the end of his ambition to be an Auror" (Am. ed. 103). Wrong. He gets into Potions because Slughorn accepts E students. Neither Harry nor the reader knows that, but the reader alert to Harry's tendency to jump to drastic conclusions may suspect that he's wrong some chapters before that suspicion is confirmed. Or "She [Mrs. Weasley] gave Lupin an annoyed look, as though it was his fault that she was getting Fleur for a daughter-in-law instead of Tonks, but Harry, glancing across at Fleur, who was now feeding Bill bits of turkey off her own fork, thought that Mrs. Weasley was fighting a long-lost battle" (340). Here Harry, already misled along with the reader by Hermione's theories about Tonks's depression and Mrs. Weasley's dislike of Fleur, fails to connect the look with Lupin's remark that Tonks has her own family and to infer the correct cause of Mrs. Weasley's annoyance, Lupin's rejection of Tonks's affections. Only on a careful rereading is it clear how JKR has misled us. Carol, who doesn't understand Neri's resistance to the (occasionally!) unreliable narrator, which is a sophisticated literary technique that JKR uses masterfully From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 17:30:32 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:30:32 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D8EE8CE-28E4-4FE1-A633-662882ACF774@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 169959 shmantzel wrote: > I was reading the bit about the tapestry and I got to thinking > about it > with its Permanent Sticking Charm. > > Maybe the fact that the tapestry couldn't be removed was to show > Sirius > that he can't purge everything from the house, but maybe this is > another plot device. > > What do you think we would find if the Permanent Sticking Charm was > taken off and we could look behind the tapestry? A wall? or maybe > something else? Ah! The Secret Cache of Horcruxes Cunningly Transfigured Into a Wall Theory? I think the tapestry's fulfilled most of it's plot expectations -- it's told us about the Sirius-Malfoy-Lestrange connections (Harry never asks this sort of question himself), which may or may not become vital in DH, but it's already pointed out the state of wizarding genetics as one big orgiastic soup. I bet a permanent sticking charm _can_ be taken off, though. After all, an Unbreakable Vow can be broken. jadon From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 16:56:40 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:56:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Six Horcruxes - is Dumbledore right? In-Reply-To: <004e01c7a6fb$6661b530$15b2a8c0@miles> References: <004e01c7a6fb$6661b530$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: <6C0C0C87-6865-4CD1-B840-77FD2C8F0750@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 169960 On 4 Jun 2007, at 23:55, Miles wrote: > But - never say never, and here it is: How many Horcruxes of Lord > Voldemort > were created? > > Well, Dumbledore tells us there are six, and so most of the time we > discussed what are these Horcruxes. From time to time mails, mainly > from new > members, are sent to the list, speaking of seven Horcruxes. Six for practical reasons: 1) it probably takes quite a while to hunt down horcruxes. Assuming two have been destroyed (and we don't know that RAB _did_ destroy the locket), that's four mini-quests in 608 pages. Five might get a bit repetitive. 2) we _trust_ DD ... even though he's wrong, erm, a lot of the time, he does have a reputation for mysteriously understanding Voldemort's brain. 3) we've got used to the idea of there being six. If we suddenly find out there were seven, there's got to be a plot twist around it, or we'll wonder: what was the point of believing in six for two years? E.g. Harry, believing he has destroyed all horcruxes and V is now approaching mortal, attacks in final confrontation and -- oops, Harry dies. 4) if we're going to deviate from the audience-accepted number, we could at least do it in a sensible way, starting with _not_ telling Slughorn how many pieces we're going to be splitting our soul into... > "He made seven Horcruxes?", said Harry, horror-struck, while > several of the > portraits on the walls made similar noises of shock and outrage.(...) > "... no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of the > soul ... > remains inside his regenerated body." Maybe Harry's right here. That last piece is closer to a horcrux than a soul, and as for the death -- the death of V's soul as the culmination of sequence of horcrux creations could qualify. jadon From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 18:33:18 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:33:18 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Concerning Horcuxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169961 > Anna: > does the mere act of killing someone -- anyone -- split the soul, or > is the soul only split when one does a particulary nasty/evil > murder, or has the concious intention of creating a Horcrux? > Voldemort did countless murders, yet he only supposedly created 6 > Horcruxes. Do you think his soul is really split into a hundred- > some-odd pieces? jadon: I think a murder is just one ingredient in creating a horcrux, which IMO requires: *someone's death *any old object *intent (Bellatrix on Crucio: "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? [...] You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain") *a spell or incantation (just like any other piece of magic in HP) Without the last two, there'd be horcruxes all over the place and a whole lot of oddly-immortal half-people. Pettigrew might have thirteen, and could LV put up with that? (--Worthless servant! Fail me again and I'll use you for Avada Kedavra practise! --Yes Lord V, I'm sorry -- but one part of my soul fell through this London drain, and another bit got washed into the Atlantic--) It would also be a failsafe preparation for entering a dementor- guarded Azkaban. There's a _reason_ that the only person [we know of] using horcruxes in LV. It takes a lot more than murder. From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 17:57:52 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 18:57:52 +0100 Subject: Using available resources (or: can Harry think for himself?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169962 grouchymedic_26149 wrote: > Been trying to put myself in Harry's shoes and think...who or what > resources would I use in his present situation. > > 1. Moody > 2. Slughorn > 3. Dragons > 4. Thestrals > 4b. Buckbeak > 5. Pensieve > 6. Weasleys > 7. Firenze > 8. Binns jadon: But since when does Harry actually use his brain? He either sends a note to Hagrid (or Sirius, and yes, hello, Mirror) or waits till he's desperate, then asks Hermione. And Hermione has two resources: a muggle background, and the library. The library has failed her before, and Harry's got the muggle background too. So I think we're back to the old standby: wait till a magical object with 'Idea! Up to this point obscure solution to insoluble problem!' engraved on it gets thrown at Harry's head by the DADA teacher/a moving staircase/Peeves. > < grouchymedic_26149's full list as I'm replying to each point: > 1. Alastor Moody. Moody would be a good source for intelligence > re...past behaviors and habits of Voldemort's crowd. Exceptional > knowledge of charms and spells, like disillusionment, for example. > Moody thinks like a death eater. > 2.Slughorn. Potions/antidote expert. Former head of Slytherin,IIRC, > would know most of the current crop of death eaters from teaching > them. ( strengths/weaknesses/fears, etc...) > 3. Dragons. Numerous references as to how tough it is to use magic > against them. Could a dragon be domesticated/trained to be used as a > defensive/offensive weapon? > 4.Thestrals. Good at finding their way, hardly ever get lost, can't > see them if you haven't seen death. A possible means of stealthy > transportation for a young horcrux hunter that wants to operate in > secrecy. Covered with an invisibility cloak, and riding a thestral, > the ministry would not be able to track his movements. ( you know > Scrimgour is going to try to tail Harry) Buckbeak. Alternate means > of transportation that the ministry couldn't monitor. Also, > Buckbeak was very protective of Harry and Hagrid at the end of HBP, > attacking Snape after Snape and company attacked Harry and Hagrid. > 5. The pensieve. Harry needs to learn the ins and outs of > extracting memories for future reference and analysis. Location of > horcruxes, past events, etc... > 6. Bill and Charley Weasley. A curse breaker that can possibly teach > Harry "traces of magical concealment". Bill Weasley, a magical > creatures expert that would know the strengths, weaknesses, and > capabilities of numerous creatures. > 7. Firenze. In SS/PS when Firenze rescued Harry in the forest, and > made the statement, "I set myself against what is lurking in this > forest, with humans at my side, if I must", or words to that > effect, makes me believe Firenze could be a useful ally. Doesn't > appear to be any love lost between Firenze and Voldemort. > 8. Prof. Binns. History of magic teacher. DD says Hogwarts is " a > stronghold of ancient magic." Maybe magic that Harry can utilize, if > Binns can enlighten him. jadon: 1: Moody's a member of the Order. He's probably going to be on the track of the horcruxes before Harry even gets back from Little Whinging. (At least I hope so. The Order can't disintegrate just because DD dies. Harry -- Final heroic confrontation with LV: yes. Being left alone to track down obscure magical objects when there are people trained for the job: no. Or was this the point of DD instructing Harry not to tell anyone anything useful?) 2: I'm not convinced Slughorn is going to be any more use for anything but supporting the crystallised pineapple industry. 3: Yes, that is the crazy and fantastic sort of thing Harry might come up with, with a little prompting from Hagrid and Hermione's copy of _Lord of the Rings_ 4 and 4b: Been there, done that. Thestrals aren't reliable: a lot of people, especially DEs, have 'seen death' 5: Oh no, not the pensieve! 6 and 7: I especially like Firenze 8: Yes, but can you imagine Harry ever thinking of asking Binns on his own? The point is: is Harry going to pull together and become some sort of decisive, DA-style leader? I don't think that'll happen _until_ he's stumbled around for most of the book, if at all. jadon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 18:55:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:55:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169963 Carol earlier: > > > However, I've always considered it interesting that the first part of the first chapter of SS/PS, is from the arch-Muggle, Vernon's, pov rather than from Petunia's. She reminds me of Lupin in PoA, very touchy and obviously hiding something. Vernon's explanation for Petunia's becoming upset every time her sister is mentioned, given to us by the limited omniscient narrator, is simple embarrassment at being connected with abnormal people: "He didn't blame her--if *he'd* had a sister like that" (5). > > > > > To me it's obvious that she knows something that she's concealing from Vernon. Maybe she hasn't heard from her sister directly, but I think she may have heard from Dumbledore, who has only recently suggested the Fidelius Charm to the Potters. Maybe he's mentioned it to Petunia, along with the name of the supposed Secret Keeper? And *somebody* has told them both that the Potters have a son named Harry only a month younger than Dudley. > > > > Jen: You're saying JKR couldn't use Petunia as the limited omniscient narrator in this chapter because she would give too much away? That's a new idea to me and it fits so well with a comment by JKR that you touched on in your post (from FAQ section of her website): > > Dung: > That's brilliant! It's new to me, too. (Goodness, Carol, you're on form at the moment! The pressure to come up with new takes before the end of all this fun is showing!) Carol responds: Thank you! Small correction; I didn't say that JKR avoided using Petunia as the narrator (JKR doesn't use first-person narrators), just that, IMO, she avoided having the limited omniscient narrator report events from Petunia's perspective and chose Vernon's instead because, as Jen states, using Petunia's more knowledgeable perspective would give too much away. (I think that she uses Frank Bryce's naive pov in GoF for a similar reason; she doesn't want the reader to know what Voldemort and Pettigrew are thinking or how they interpret their own conversation. In "Spinner's End," she doesn't use a pov character at all because all of them know more than she wants the reader to know. Instead, she uses a third-person dramatic narrator who reports the actions and conversation from an objective pov without entering the minds of any of the characters.) BTW, someone in this thread attributed the quote from JKR's website explaining that "Remember my last" indicates a previous correspondence between DD and Petunia to me, but the words, as Jen states in her post, are JKR's own. ("We have corresponded," says DD when he meets Petunia in HBP, and evidently he doesn't just mean the "last" letter he left on the doorstep or the Howler itself.) I expect that we'll find out what Petunia is concealing not only from Harry but from Vernon in DH. BTW, we have more of what I suspect to be the unreliable narrator when Aunt Petunia looks out the window in PoA after seeing the escaped prisoner Sirius Black on the news: "Aunt Petunia . . . whipped around and peered intently out the window. *Harry knew* [Neri alert!] Aunt Petunia would simply love to be the one to call the hot line number. She was the nosiest woman in the world and spent most of her life spying on the boring, law-abiding neighbors" (PoA Am. ed. 17). But suppose that Aunt Petunia "knew" that Sirius Black had been the Potters' Secret Keeper and had reason to fear that he would show up on Privet Drive? Maybe he's also "that awful boy" who told Lily about Dementors--"awful" because he grew up to "betray" her sister and brother-in-law to their deaths and "murder" thirteen people? > > Jen: > Now that you've mentioned the bit about the narrator, I want to take one last stab at deducing why Dumbledore would have contacted Petunia prior to the night he delivered his 'last' letter along with Harry. > > > > It's seems highly unlikely the blood protection would come up prior to the night of Godric's Hollow since the outcome of Lily's sacrifice was such a phenomenal event and it had to take place in order for Dumbledore to place his charm on Harry. Dumbledore says as much in "The Lost Prophecy," that he made his decision after Lily died. > > > I suppose it's possible Dumbledore revealed the Secret Keeper and the fact that the Potters were hidden by the Fidelius like you mentioned, Carol, but it's not Dumbledore's modus operandi to give out more information than necessary to anyone, let alone someone he wouldn't know well. It would more likely be up to Sirius (Peter) to contact Petunia on Lily's behalf if Lily wanted Petunia to have such information. > > Maybe during the time Sirius was Secret Keeper, Lily, estranged from her sister, requested Dumbledore contact Petunia about being Harry's guardian should something happen to herself, James and Sirius. And that would have started a communication from Dumbledore to Petunia. (It's not clear if it was a two-way communication.) The only thing I'm not sure about is why Lily would want Petunia to be guardian since there's nothing to show they cared for each other. > > Unless Lily thought Harry would be safer in the Muggle world. > > Dung: > I think the last thing they'd have been planning for was orphaned! Harry. James and Lily were the last line of defence, if they died, they imagined, so would Harry. They could never have predicted what happened at GH. Although... thinking about it, if they didn't know about the prophecy, they might have thought that Voldy was after them, rather than Harry, so they could have wondered if Harry would be orphaned, I suppose. But if they did know it was Harry that Voldy was after, I don't think it would have occured to them that they might die and that Harry might live. Carol responds: Not being particularly prone to speculation, I just want to point out that Petunia's behavior (a tendency to blurt out information that she's previously concealed on two occasions, one in SS/PS when Hagrid shows up and one in OoP after the Dementor attack; that peeking out the window when she sees Sirius Black on the news; and her touchiness and avoidance of the subject of her sister in the first chapter of SS/PS) combined with her knowledge, however limited, of Voldemort, Dementors, the exploded house, etc.; her reference to the conversation with the "awful boy," and her "correspondence" with Dumbledore (which, IMO, implies two-way communication), suggests that Petunia is bursting to tell Harry the secrets she has kept in all these years and that we'll learn them in DH. Regarding the "correspondence, which is clearly with Dumbledore himself, perhaps he told her that he suspected that the Potters were in danger and that he had given them and their son Harry a hiding place in Godric's Hollow. It's quite possible that she didn't want to think about it or talk about it, or that he had extracted a promise from her not to discuss what he told her with her husband or anyone else. Carol, who knows only that "there's more to Petunia than meets the eye" and suspects that that "more" relates to the Potters' backstory rather than to Petunia herself From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 19:01:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:01:58 -0000 Subject: Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: <2D8EE8CE-28E4-4FE1-A633-662882ACF774@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169964 --- dracojadon at ... wrote: > > shmantzel wrote: > > > ... reading .. about the tapestry ...with its > > Permanent Sticking Charm. > > > > Maybe the fact that the tapestry couldn't be > > removed was to show Sirius that he can't purge > > everything from the house, but maybe this is > > another plot device. > > > > What ... if the Permanent Sticking Charm was taken > > off and we could look behind the tapestry? A wall? > > or maybe something else? > jadon: > > Ah! The Secret Cache of Horcruxes Cunningly > Transfigured Into a Wall Theory? > > I think the tapestry's fulfilled most of it's plot > expectations --... it's already pointed out the state > of wizarding genetics as one big orgiastic soup. > > I bet a permanent sticking charm _can_ be taken off, > though. After all, an Unbreakable Vow can be broken. > > jadon > bboyminn: As usual, I'm off on my own tangents here. First to Sirius's purge of the House; I think this was a mistake. In his momentary anger, he made an emotional decision that none of the artifacts mattered. He hated the history of his family. But here is the thing, today is tomorrows history. He and Harry have the opportunity to make future Black Family History mean something positive. They had the potential opportunity to give great postive weight to those many symbols of the Black Family. I think in time, had things worked out better for Sirius and Harry, they both would have regretted trashing all those family artifacts. I think as things are, Harry will deeply regret not having them around because to him they don't represent the negative history of the family, they represent Sirius. I think this was driven home to Harry very clearly when Mundungus started nicking the Family treasures. If they meant nothing to Harry, if they symbolized nothing to him, he wouldn't have cared, but he did care, and cared very much, because the loss of those family treasure was a further loss of Sirius. I have speculated that part of the next book will about Harry enlisting the help of Mundungus and Kreacher to return all the Black Family artifacts that they can possibly recover. This represent punishment and redemption for Mundungus, and it represent the return of object that Kreacher holds in great reverence. I think this will ingraciate Harry to Kreacher and soften their relationship. When Kreacher sees that Harry respects and values the Black Family through the family artifacts, Kreacher's respect for Harry will grow. Why all this, well, to get the Locket back of course. All that I have suggested will be a secondary benefit to reclaiming the artifacts. Next, the Horcrux task seems of massively impossible, that I have to wonder if in the end, they will actually matter? Of course, they DO matter, but since the task is so impossible, I have to wonder if there isn't some other way to defeat Voldemort that Harry will find. Something very unexpected and very accidental I suspect, but still, we don't even know what one of the Horcruxes is, that makes it very difficult to find. Many of us suspect Dumbledore was wrong about Nagini being the last external Horcrux. Again, the task seems so impossible that I can't help thinking in the end, eliminating all the Horcruxes won't matter. As to the Tapestry, sorry but I think it is just what it is. No secret passageways concealed behind. Still that would be a nice twist to the plot. Maybe the cover of the UK edition shows the Trio stumbling into the Black Family Treasure Vault hidden under the house and accessed by a secret passageway hidden behind the tapestry. Like I said, I don't think so, but really, it is an intriguing thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 19:11:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:11:52 -0000 Subject: Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > As usual, I'm off on my own tangents here. > > ... > > As to the Tapestry, sorry but I think it is just what > it is. No secret passageways concealed behind. Still > that would be a nice twist to the plot. Maybe the > cover of the UK edition shows the Trio stumbling > into the Black Family Treasure Vault hidden under > the house and accessed by a secret passageway > hidden behind the tapestry. Like I said, I don't think > so, but really, it is an intriguing thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > bboyminn: Ou... Ou... Ou... I just had another thought, what if Kreacher has been transferring all the trashed artifacts into the family vault. Transferring or the Transfer Charm is what I call it when the Elves transfer food from the school kitchen below up to the house tables above. This seems to be something Elves are especially good at. What if all the family treasure and all the purged objects including the Locket have been transfer on the sly to the in-house Family Vault by a devious Kreacher. That would be a nice twist. In this case Kreacher wouldn't actually have to enter the Vault; simply transfer objects. Plus it leaves the Trio free to discover the secret of the Black Family House. Very cool idea, now that I think about it. Steve/bboyminn From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Thu Jun 7 19:02:24 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:02:24 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow - where is it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169966 Excuse me if this has already been covered because I am new to the list. I am wondering how Harry is going to find the place where his parents were killed. We know that wherever they were, because of the Fidelius Charm they were at a location concealed from all except the Secret Keeper and those to whom he told the secret. So even if someone came to the village of Godric's Hollow they would never ever find the house even if they looked for many years. Voldemort found them because Pettigrew, the Secret Keeper, told him. Sirius knew where to come when the Potters were killed because he already knew the secret. Hagrid came to rescue the baby Harry from the wreckage of the house - perhaps he already knew the secret? Or perhaps the Fidelius charm automatically became defunct with the deaths of the Potters? Harry has said that he wants to go to Godric's Hollow to visit the graves of his parents. But it would be strange if he didn't want to visit the site where his parents met their deaths and where he miraculously defeated LV. the question is, how will he find it? There may be a simple answer to this, and I apologise again if it has already been discussed at length. I'm also wondering whether the Deathly Hallows is anything to do with the graveyard where James and Lily Potter are buried. Speculation, speculation! Sylvia. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 7 19:29:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:29:24 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: <1181235879.31461.1193994027@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169967 > > Magpie: > > I wasn't skating up to any guess, actually. I was just saying that > > since Rowling doesn't flat-out lie in interviews I thought if she > > said Petunia was a Muggle I should assume she was a Muggle as we've > > always been given to understood the term in canon. Random: > > It's not clear that our understanding of the term exactly matches what > she intends by it in corner cases such as these. (also, she did lie in > an interview at least once - in agreeing that her statements about > Harry's grandparents tended to shut down Heir of Gryffindor theories > when clearly they do nothing of the sort whether such theories are false > or not.) Magpie: I think she's been pretty clear about what these terms mean since they are important terms in canon, though. A bit like saying what we mean by somebody being in Gryffindor isn't what she means. Sure we could probably come up with another definition, but why? I wouldn't say she lied about shutting down the Heir of Gryffindor theory. She's being asked questions and speaking off the cuff. I don't think she was able to really work out the logical steps from one to the other, however the interviewer made them. And nobody would expect her, as the author, to be able to do that any better than anyone else. What would be a lie, imo, would be if she'd said that the theory was shut down when it was actually true. I wouldn't hold her to knowing whether or not a theory was shut down by a particular answer in this case, but I think her saying, "Yeah...well, yeah" indicates not that yes, Harry's grandparents dying a normal death means Harry can't be the Heir (one is not dependent on the other) but that the larger question is correct: Harry's relatives in generations beyond his parents is not an issue and Harry is not the Heir of Gryffindor. I think she's just be not quite on top of the conversation (a sort of "Oh dear, Maths," type moment where she's not working it out). I think her "Yeah" indicates not that she's followed the same logic as the interviewer, but that yeah, that theory isn't correct. Iow, I don't think she'd agree that Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor theory was shut down when it wasn't, just as I don't think she would, in knowing that she's talking about the fact that Petunia is a witch, say she was a Muggle accidentally. She can make a mistake (which I think she's doing by agreeing that Harry's grandparents dying normally=Harry can't be the Heir of Gryffindor), but she says she has never knowingly lied. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 19:33:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:33:47 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169968 Ken wrote: > > I don't think it would be cheating at all for JKR to call Petunia a Muggle if she had in fact been born with magical power and then blocked it as soon as she became aware of it. She did not actually have to "perform" magic to become aware of it. For example if she were in London and realized that only she and Lily could see the Leaky Cauldron she would know she had magical power. Carol responds: I previously cited a quote from the Rumours section of JKR's site that, for me, definitively answers the question you and Magpie are arguing. Possibly it got lost overlooked amid the other points I made in my post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169927 so I'll cite it again: [Rumour:] Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies [JKR's answer:] No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to do so. In my previous post, I forgot to include the link to the Rumours page, which can be found at http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37 So JKR has done more than simply call Petunia a Muggle, both in canon and in interviews. She has said flat out that Petunia has never performed magic and never will. I really don't see how she could state any more plainly that Petunia is not and never will be a witch. Carol, who thinks that not even Petunia would turn down a Hogwarts letter or squash the magic out of herself if she had that inborn talent (which made her parents so proud of "freaky" Lily) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 20:16:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:16:39 -0000 Subject: Tapestry!!! (and Splinching!!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169969 bboyminn wrote: > First to Sirius's purge of the House; I think this was a mistake. In his momentary anger, he made an emotional decision that none of the artifacts mattered. He hated the history of his family. But here is the thing, today is tomorrows history. > I think in time, had things worked out better for Sirius and Harry, they both would have regretted trashing all those family artifacts. > I have speculated that part of the next book will about Harry enlisting the help of Mundungus and Kreacher to return all the Black Family artifacts that they can possibly recover. This represent punishment and redemption for Mundungus, and it represent the return of object that Kreacher holds in great reverence. I think this will ingraciate Harry to Kreacher and soften their relationship. When Kreacher sees that Harry respects and values the Black Family through the family artifacts, Kreacher's respect for Harry will grow. Carol: A Sirius, erm, serious mistake to get rid of the artifacts, yes. But it was probably a good idea to purge the curtains of Doxies and get rid of Boggarts and robes that tried to strangle people. Vials of blood and sawed-off Troll's legs don't add much to the decor, either. :-) But silver cups with the family crest I think Harry would want, and, much as Harry hates Bellatrix Lestrange, it might be, as you imply, a good idea to let Kreacher hold onto that photograph just to placate him. I know that some posters think it was heartless of DD to mention Sirius Black's treatment of Kreacher just after Black's death, but maybe he knew or guessed that Black had made Harry his heir and that Harry might be inheriting Kreacher, in which case, his advice on how to treat him (not following Black's example) may have been both wise and well-intentioned. So rather than taking away Kreacher's treasures, he could be put in charge of caring for them (except, of course, a certain locket). I'm not sure about redemption for the "smelly sneak thief" currently in Azkaban for impersonating an Inferius, but there's clearly a connection between him and Aberforth (the Hog's Head barkeeper and spy for Albus since at least the time of LV's DADA interview) and Dung may have the locket, so he'll come back into the story somehow. bboyminn: > As to the Tapestry, sorry but I think it is just what it is. No secret passageways concealed behind. Still that would be a nice twist to the plot. Maybe the cover of the UK edition shows the Trio stumbling into the Black Family Treasure Vault hidden under the house and accessed by a secret passageway hidden behind the tapestry. Like I said, I don't think so, but really, it is an intriguing thought. Carol: I think the tapestry has at least one seemingly mundane but actually crucial function left to perform. Someone (probably Hermione) will see Regulus's name on it, Harry will remember that he was a Death Eater who got cold feet and was killed, and an alarm will go off in their heads. ("RAB!" they shouted together.) I think that the UK children's book shows Gryffindor's vault at Hogwarts (note the rubies, which also appear on Gryffindor's sword, and DD's statement to Karkaroff in GoF that he would never state that he knows all of Hogwarts' secrets). I'm out of posts for the day, so I'm going to toss out an unrelated wild idea here (despite having just stated that I prefer analysis to speculation ). I wonder if Splinching, first mentioned in passing in GoF and demonstrated by Susan Bones in the first Apparition lesson in HBP will play a role in HBP. (Why mention it if it doesn't? Why have Ron leave just a single eyebrow behind in his Apparition exam, which seems just silly unless it foreshadows something bigger?) What if someone (a bad guy?) is Splinched and not allowed to reunite the parts of his body? Any other thoughts on how Splinching might play a role in DH? Carol, imagining Harry tossing the Splinched body parts of Lord Voldemort one by one through the Veil, realizing full well that it won't really happen that way From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Jun 7 20:19:38 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:19:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181247578.1551.1194028163@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169970 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:29:24 -0000, "sistermagpie" said: > > > Magpie: > > > I wasn't skating up to any guess, actually. I was just saying > that > > > since Rowling doesn't flat-out lie in interviews I thought if > she > > > said Petunia was a Muggle I should assume she was a Muggle as > we've > > > always been given to understood the term in canon. > > Random: > > > > It's not clear that our understanding of the term exactly matches > what > > she intends by it in corner cases such as these. (also, she did > lie in > > an interview at least once - in agreeing that her statements about > > Harry's grandparents tended to shut down Heir of Gryffindor > theories > > when clearly they do nothing of the sort whether such theories are > false > > or not.) > > Magpie: > I think she's been pretty clear about what these terms mean since > they are important terms in canon, though. I agree that the bulk of cases are perfectly clear. But, any of the theories given here, really _anything_ that she could have said after the "but", are edge cases. We have _no_ information in canon on whether such individuals could or could not be called "muggles", because there are no examples. And don't forget that we have one piece of evidence that "muggle" can apply to a 'squib' born even of a pureblood family. Fanon tends to ignore that. (I really think "Fanon" should be a TBAY character) This alone indicates that our understanding of the word "muggle" is in conflict with JKR's. The "she knows things" angle for that statement isn't credible. OF COURSE she knows more about the wizarding world than the average muggle - her sister was a witch, she's the reluctant guardian of Harry Potter, etc. That would be utterly unsurprising and certainly not worth "I'm being shockingly indiscreet" for hinting at that, if that were indeed the "but". There has to be something. Regarding the Heir of Gryffindor thing - can you just answer one thing? If he _is_ the Heir of Gryffindor, and it's supposed to be a surprise, what else could she have said? -- Random832 From fiziwig at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 19:56:57 2007 From: fiziwig at yahoo.com (Gary) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:56:57 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow - where is it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169971 sylviampj: > > Excuse me if this has already been covered because I am new to the > list. > > I am wondering how Harry is going to find the place where his > parents were killed. We know that wherever they were, because of the > Fidelius Charm they were at a location concealed from all except the > Secret Keeper and those to whom he told the secret. So even if > someone came to the village of Godric's Hollow they would never ever > find the house even if they looked for many years. gary: Clearly Hagrid was able to find the house on the night he picked up the infant HP, so apparently once the Potters were dead the charm was broken. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jun 7 20:38:36 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:38:36 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: <1181247578.1551.1194028163@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169972 Random: > I agree that the bulk of cases are perfectly clear. But, any of the > theories given here, really _anything_ that she could have said after > the "but", are edge cases. We have _no_ information in canon on whether > such individuals could or could not be called "muggles", because there > are no examples. And don't forget that we have one piece of evidence > that "muggle" can apply to a 'squib' born even of a pureblood family. > Fanon tends to ignore that. (I really think "Fanon" should be a TBAY > character) This alone indicates that our understanding of the word > "muggle" is in conflict with JKR's. Hickengruendler: I agree with you up to a point. Especially, since the status of whoever will do magic in Deathly Hallows (or whoever did magic, if she meant Merope, which I don't think) will probably change. We must know this character right now either as a Muggle or a Squib (again, except if she meant Merope), and if said character has done magic, he is likely seen as a wizard/witch. But I would say that "Petunia never did any magic and never will" (see the link in Carol's latest post) is really crystal clear. While there may be some way for JKR to sneak around the Muggle statement, this second one really doesn't leave any other explanation, as that Petunia never did any magic and never will. Random: > The "she knows things" angle for that statement isn't credible. OF > COURSE she knows more about the wizarding world than the average muggle > - her sister was a witch, she's the reluctant guardian of Harry Potter, > etc. That would be utterly unsurprising and certainly not worth "I'm > being shockingly indiscreet" for hinting at that, if that were indeed > the "but". There has to be something. Hickengruendler: But this point was totally downplayed within the books up until OotP. Therefore Petunia having further knowledge could come as quite a surprise for several readers. And besides, maybe the surprise is not, that she has further knowledge, which really could be guessed, but maybe it is about what exactly she knows, that could give Harry some further explanation. Random: > Regarding the Heir of Gryffindor thing - can you just answer one thing? > If he _is_ the Heir of Gryffindor, and it's supposed to be a surprise, > what else could she have said? > -- Hickengruendler: How about "No, this doesn't rule it out." or "Did I say that?" I remember a question from before the release of book 5, where someone asked her, if Trelawney's first prophecy Dumbledore is talking about at the end of PoA would play a role, and she answered something like "Very Good". I am sure she wanted this revelation to be a surprise as well (especially since it happened at the end of the book), but she was pretty honest in this statement nonetheless. From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Jun 7 20:56:49 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:56:49 -0000 Subject: Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169973 bboyminn: > I think in time, had things worked out better for > Sirius and Harry, they both would have regretted > trashing all those family artifacts. I think as > things are, Harry will deeply regret not having > them around because to him they don't represent > the negative history of the family, they > represent Sirius. No: HPFGUIDX 169974 Here is something I have pondering.. Petunia and Lily had to get along at some point being sisters. Not always, but generally.. Lily gets her letter and Petunia is jealous. Naturally. I would have been had my sister gotten one and not me.. LOL Petunia punishes Lily by normal sibling hatred for a while but it blows over. Lily goes to school and hooks up with James. All is good. Petunia hooks up with Vernon. All is good. Petunia confides in Vernon about her sisters "ability" and Vernon gets freaked. Petunia wants to be with Vernon and knows he doesn't like magic. So... is it possible she just pretends to hate her sister to keep Vernon happy and not leave her on the weirdness factor? Is it possible that Petunia puts on a front to make it look like she hates her sister to keep Vernon happy? She may have been having a hidden relationship with Lily behind doors Vernon isn't in. Make sense? It would seem that Petunia may have been in the Magic world without Vernon knowing about it. Not necissarily physically in the world, but involved in some way. What better cover than to pretend you hate your sister and all she stands for including her magic. Lana From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 19:30:45 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:30:45 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <885C9C9D-06E9-4B84-90FF-4C07B305DF17@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 169975 > bboyminn: > > I have speculated that part of the next book will > about Harry enlisting the help of Mundungus and > Kreacher to return all the Black Family artifacts > that they can possibly recover. jadon: I don't think so. Harry -- in contrast to LV -- doesn't care about stuff. He cares about people. He cared about Mundungus nicking Black heirlooms because it showed a lack of respect for Sirius. Maybe Sirius would have would have regretted the odd thing fifty years later, but most of the things removed were dark artefacts. That's _how_ he's going to "make future Black Family History mean something positive". > bboyminn: > Sirius's purge of the House; I think this > was a mistake. In his momentary anger jadon: Not momentary. He cleared out to live with James as soon as he could. He's never shown any signs of regretting that. > bboyminn: > what if > Kreacher has been transferring all the trashed artifacts > into the family vault jadon: I think that's one of the points of Kreacher: save anything that might become important, because yes, occasionally Sirius And The Teenagers can be a little over-enthusiastic. From autr61 at dsl.pipex.com Thu Jun 7 21:38:03 2007 From: autr61 at dsl.pipex.com (sylviampj) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:38:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amis917" wrote: > > >>>> I do, however, think that the Potters would have planned for some > alternate care for Harry in the case of their deaths. Especially when > they thought that the person they were going to leave Harry with, > Sirius, had betrayed the Order. >>> The Potters didn't believe that Sirius had betrayed the order. Other people thought that after the Potters died. The Potters knew he wasn't the Secret Keeper any more but after they were killed noone else knew that they had switched to Peter Pettigrew. I'm not sure whether they would have made special provision for Harry. Harry was with them and I don't think that they ever for one moment envisaged that he would survive if they died. But I'm reminded of the scene in OOTP where Molly Weasley tackles the Boggart and sees it take the shape of all the members of her family in turn, including Harry which is rather touching. She weeps on Remus Lupin's shoulder and says something like 'half the family are in the order - I wonder whether they'll all survive' and Lupin says something like 'Do you really think that the Order would let Ron and Ginny starve if anything happened to you and Arthur?' (I'm sorry, i don't have my copy of OOTP to hand to give the exact quotation). the point is that the Order of the Phoenix at both times was very close- knit and there was an understanding that if someone died that provision would be made for their children. Sylvia. From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Jun 7 21:55:32 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:55:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63EFACA3-F9B5-44D5-8999-48815E28EAA6@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 169977 On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:33:47 -0000, "justcarol67" > Carol, who thinks that not even Petunia would turn down a Hogwarts > letter or squash the magic out of herself if she had that inborn > talent (which made her parents so proud of "freaky" Lily) One perennial theory is that Petunia is the older sister, misjudged what her parents' reaction would be, and has regretted it ever since. It's apparently not possible to become a "licensed wizard" without completing [at least to fifth year] a Hogwarts education - that's why expelees have their wands snapped. So perhaps if she refused such an education, the authorities would have arrived to somehow remove or bind her magic. From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 22:00:33 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:00:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: <63EFACA3-F9B5-44D5-8999-48815E28EAA6@fastmail.us> References: <63EFACA3-F9B5-44D5-8999-48815E28EAA6@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <8ee758b40706071500r4162d945l1ee3498b5b3edf6c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169978 On 6/7/07, random832 at fastmail.us wrote > It's apparently not possible to become a "licensed wizard" without > completing [at least to fifth year] a Hogwarts education - that's why > expelees > have their wands snapped. So perhaps if she refused such an > education, the > authorities would have arrived to somehow remove or bind her magic. montims: But surely the only muggle children offered a place at Hogwarts are those who have inadvertantly performed magic, and their families are relieved to find out at the age of 11, that the reason is that they are wizards. Petunia has never performed magic... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 7 22:16:28 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:16:28 -0400 Subject: Petunia and Lily In-Reply-To: <1181250268.77172.80782.m51@yahoogroups.com> References: <1181250268.77172.80782.m51@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C97768A141E638-1940-C45D@FWM-R15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169979 Lana wrote: Is it possible that Petunia puts on a front to make it look like she hates her sister to keep Vernon happy? She may have been having a hidden relationship with Lily behind doors Vernon isn't in. Make sense? It would seem that Petunia may have been in the Magic world without Vernon knowing about it. Not necissarily physically in the world, but involved in some way. What better cover than to pretend you hate your sister and all she stands for including her magic. Julie: And is she pretending to hate her nephew too? That's my biggest problem with this theory. If she secretly cared for her sister, then she would certainly care for her sister's only child, IMO. If so, then how could she possibly treat Harry so badly? And I'm not even talking about locking him in the closet, giving him only leftover food and hand-me-down clothes, etc. I'm talking about denying him even the *tiniest* bit of human affection. I just don't believe it's possible for Petunia to have any truly caring feeling for Harry (or Lily) and deny it to Harry so completely. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Jun 7 23:44:13 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:44:13 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Petunia and Lily References: <1181250268.77172.80782.m51@yahoogroups.com> <8C97768A141E638-1940-C45D@FWM-R15.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <012d01c7a95d$c2236260$0202a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 169980 > Lana wrote: > Is it possible that Petunia puts on a front to make it look like she > hates her sister to keep Vernon happy? She may have been having a > hidden relationship with Lily behind doors Vernon isn't in. Make > sense? > > It would seem that Petunia may have been in the Magic world without > Vernon knowing about it. Not necissarily physically in the world, > but involved in some way. What better cover than to pretend you > hate your sister and all she stands for including her magic. > > Julie wrote: > > And is she pretending to hate her nephew too? That's my biggest problem > with this theory. If she secretly cared for her sister, then she would > certainly care for her sister's only child, IMO. If so, then how could she > possibly treat Harry so badly? And I'm not even talking about locking him > in the closet, giving him only leftover food and hand-me-down clothes, > etc. > I'm talking about denying him even the *tiniest* bit of human affection. I > just don't believe it's possible for Petunia to have any truly caring > feeling > for Harry (or Lily) and deny it to Harry so completely. > Lana: However, if Petunia blames Harry for Lilys death, she wouldn't necessarily be capable of showing Harry affection. When a mother dies in childbirth, it is not uncommon for the father to detach and not be able to show the child affection. This situation may be no different. Petunia may have loved her sister dearly and blames magic and Harry for her loss. From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 23:09:46 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:09:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tapestry!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <931053.29625.qm@web27310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169981 Steve wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > As usual, I'm off on my own tangents here. > > ... > > As to the Tapestry, sorry but I think it is just what > it is. No secret passageways concealed behind. Still > that would be a nice twist to the plot. Maybe the > cover of the UK edition shows the Trio stumbling > into the Black Family Treasure Vault hidden under > the house and accessed by a secret passageway > hidden behind the tapestry. Like I said, I don't think > so, but really, it is an intriguing thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > bboyminn: Ou... Ou... Ou... I just had another thought, what if Kreacher has been transferring all the trashed artifacts into the family vault. Transferring or the Transfer Charm is what I call it when the Elves transfer food from the school kitchen below up to the house tables above. This seems to be something Elves are especially good at. What if all the family treasure and all the purged objects including the Locket have been transfer on the sly to the in-house Family Vault by a devious Kreacher. That would be a nice twist. In this case Kreacher wouldn't actually have to enter the Vault; simply transfer objects. Plus it leaves the Trio free to discover the secret of the Black Family House. Very cool idea, now that I think about it. Steve/bboyminn But do not H,H & R find some of the items in K 'nest' not in a vault? --------------------------------- Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 7 23:24:05 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:24:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Voldemort's original body In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070607232405.64945.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169982 > Anna: > I've been reading a lot lately, on Leaky Cauldron mostly, > and to my surprise, I haven't yet come across any reference > to Voldemort's original body when he attacks the Potters in > Godric's Hollow. Carol responds: I have the same problem. If his body was found, mutilated or otherwise, he would be firmly believed to be dead. Simon: The point I think is-one rip is 1/2 & 1/2 2nd is 1/4, 1/4 and 1/2 3rd 1/8, 1/8 then 1/4 & 1/2 etc etc etc The body was ripped away at Godric's Hollow, so the body one does not exsist now. Could he (Tom) have been made to call on one and so only five Houcruxes be around now? From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 00:03:09 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:03:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Riddle House In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470706071703p26a79849k26540b672640469c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169983 Pat wrote: > "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived > there nor put it to any use..." > > I'm wondering who this "wealthy man" is. Who would have a reason to > keep the house all these years? Perhaps Dumbledore? Maybe Lucius > Malfoy? Will the house come into play? Is there a horcrux hidden > there? Karina: I used to think it was Voldemort's, but then why did he kill Frank Bryce, the man he was paying to take care of the place a bit... So that doesn't make sense. Lucius Malfoy is certainly wealthy, but somehow I doubt it was him. Wouldn't Voldemort contact Lucius to let him know that he's alive and living in Lucius' house?.. But Lucius was surprised by Voldemort's resurrection as anyone. Also somehow I don't think Voldemort would publicize his Muggle relatives, and why would Lucius buy this Riddle House located in a Muggle village, unless he knew its significance to Voldemort... I think Dumbledore is a possibility. I've always thought it was fishy how Dumbledore found out about Frank Bryce's disappearance/death. If he was the owner of Riddle House, and was paying Frank to take care of gardening and such, he'd know when something happened to him. Dumbledore implied that he read about it in a Muggle newspaper, though... If Dumbledore was the owner, then I doubt there's a Horcrux there. He'd be able to locate it. After all, he found the Horcrux in the Gaunt's house, and we've seen how skilled he is with detecting magic. In conclusion, none of these (Voldemort, Malfoy, Dumbledore) seem satisfying, although all of them are possibilities. Karina ========================================= Jeremiah: Yeah, I thouhgt about DD being the owner... kinda funny, too, and it sort of explains why DD would have been ont op of Frank's death. I don't see why it why it can't be LV seeing as how Sirius could be a Firebolt while being an "escaped prisoner" and even if LV is concidered either "dead" or "too pathetic to need a bank account" I don't see why gringots wouldn't carry on with payments to Frank. It would also explain why LV would know that Frnak hadn't married when Frank lied to LV saying his wife was waiting for him. Hmmm... maybe the woner will remain a mystery. Or maybe JKR will tell us on her website if not in DH. :) (Please tell us, Jo!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 00:06:40 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:06:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could this be Petunia? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470706071706k78973a40y5a10e7ddd1f68f56@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169984 Jeremiah: (6/7/2007) I think JKR ruled out Petunia and Dudley. I "heart" miss Arabella Figg and I want her to kick someone's butt! Just whack 'em with the cat-food-filled bag and then snatch Harry's wand and "shazam!" blow off someone's head. LOL Ah. I'm having a rough day at work, can you tell? So, my vote is for the "Figg-ster." On 6/6/07, Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > The person who will do magic late in life under desperate circumstances > will, I > have long maintained, be Uncle Vernon under the Most Unlikely Person > hypothesis. > For Vernon, the person who most hates and fears magic, to find out that he > himself has mageblood would be the ultimate kick in the pants. I have a > wonderful vision of him searching the genealogies of all of Dudley's > girlfriends > to be absolutely sure they have no mageblood. > > 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] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bearhug at tpg.com.au Fri Jun 8 01:17:47 2007 From: bearhug at tpg.com.au (The Cuthills) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:17:47 +1000 Subject: Chocolate Frog Cards References: <948bbb470706071706k78973a40y5a10e7ddd1f68f56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> No: HPFGUIDX 169985 Hi, I am new to this group so I don't know if this question has been raised before, but I have been wondering for a long time about the chocolate frog cards. Dumbledore either says (or is quoted as saying) that he doesn't mind what *they* do to him so long as they don't take him off the chocolate frog cards. At face value it seems like a throwaway remark, but as we all know, JKR often makes a throwaway remark in one book that is a vital plot point in another book. JKR has confirmed that DD is dead (oh, poop), but he's taken his place in his portrait and is still on the CFC...is that important or significant? Is there more to a CFC than meets the eye? Just wondering Anne From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Fri Jun 8 01:47:31 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:47:31 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's original body In-Reply-To: <20070607232405.64945.qmail@web27311.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169986 > > Anna: > > > I've been reading a lot lately, on Leaky Cauldron mostly, > > and to my surprise, I haven't yet come across any reference > > to Voldemort's original body when he attacks the Potters in > > Godric's Hollow. > > Carol responds: > > I have the same problem. If his body was found, mutilated or > otherwise, he would be firmly believed to be dead. > > Simon: Could he (Tom) have been made to call on > one and so only five Houcruxes be around now? > Anne Squires now: I don't think a wizard with horcruxes uses them up. IOW, if LV had only one horcrux then he couldn't be killed no matter how many times he was AKed. The only way he could be killed is if the horcrux were destroyed first. I think the only reason LV has so many horcruxes is that he likes redundancies; he wanted to have insurance in case his horcruxes were found and destroyed. (This is how DD destroyed Grindelwald, imho.)At least this is the way I understand the concept. I do concede that I could be mistaken. Also, there aren't five around now at any rate. LV created six. Two have been destroyed (diary, ring) this leaves four(Slytherin locket, Hufflepuff cup, something from Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, Nagini). Personally I believe that Nagini is not a horcrux. I think this is a clue that a horcrux could be in a living entity. But that is a completely different discussion. Anne Squires From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 8 02:30:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:30:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chocolate Frog Cards In-Reply-To: <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> References: <948bbb470706071706k78973a40y5a10e7ddd1f68f56@mail.gmail.com> <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> Message-ID: <4668BF4F.3010107@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 169987 The Cuthills wrote: > book that is a vital plot point in another book. JKR has > confirmed that DD is dead (oh, poop), but he's taken his > place in his portrait and is still on the CFC...is that > important or significant? Is there more to a CFC than > meets the eye? Bart: I'm going to repeat something that I said before, but met with no response. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DUMBLEDORE. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 8 02:40:43 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:40:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape Message-ID: <380-2200765824043938@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 169988 > Magpie: > I think she's been pretty clear about what these terms mean since > they are important terms in canon, though. Random: I agree that the bulk of cases are perfectly clear. But, any of the theories given here, really _anything_ that she could have said after the "but", are edge cases. We have _no_ information in canon on whether such individuals could or could not be called "muggles", because there are no examples. Magpie: If we're talking about someone like the person that Petunia's being described as in this scenario, a Muggle-born girl who is frightened of herself as magic before she's ever even done any and somehow manages to repress it in herself I think the more obvious is question is why would we assume there are any of these people? It seems to go against everything we've been told. The ones in canon who are witches who lose their powers temporarily are called witches. Petunia is more like the tree that falls in the forest and nobody heard it. Random: (I really think "Fanon" should be a TBAY character) This alone indicates that our understanding of the word "muggle" is in conflict with JKR's. Magpie: Not really, imo. "Muggle" is also a derogatory term. Neville's family saying that he's "all Muggle" meant they thought he was a Squib or a poor Wizard. Neville saying that he is "practically a Squib" means that he's an incompetent Wizard--he's not a Squib. They're using a word that means something else intentionally to exaggerate. Such as when in our world, say, a kid might have called another kid who misses a fly ball a "spaz" after the former name for the charity for people with cerebral palsy. It's not in conflict with JKR's understanding of the word, it's just using the word in a different context as an insult. Its use in those cases depends on the understanding that the word is being used incorrectly for exaggeration. Random: The "she knows things" angle for that statement isn't credible. OF COURSE she knows more about the wizarding world than the average muggle - her sister was a witch, she's the reluctant guardian of Harry Potter, etc. That would be utterly unsurprising and certainly not worth "I'm being shockingly indiscreet" for hinting at that, if that were indeed the "but". There has to be something. Magpie: There's something--but it doesn't have to be that she's not a Muggle or that she is a Witch. I don't think it's so very obvious that Petunia is hiding something, actually, to casual readers. It only really comes out in OotP, and I could easily believe that JKR could here be, in her mind, referring to whatever interesting secret Petunia has. Even if people have figured out she knows stuff, the secret itself could still be a surprise. Or it could be something else. I just don't see how it could be that she is or was ever able to perform magic. Or even why that would be such a big deal to the story. It's kind of an even less relevent version of Neville being almost the Prophecy boy, a fact that means absolutely nothing to the story or to Neville, ultimately. Even if Petunia could have been a witch, she's not, so it doesn't matter. Random: Regarding the Heir of Gryffindor thing - can you just answer one thing? If he _is_ the Heir of Gryffindor, and it's supposed to be a surprise, what else could she have said? Magpie: Anything but "yeah" when asked if the theories about Harry being the Heir of Gryffindor had been shut down.:-) She could have said "I'm not saying he is or he isn't, but why would it shut it down?" or "I don't know...does it?" Or what she said once earlier in a different interview: Q: Is Harry related to Godric Gryffindor? JKR: "People are always wondering who Harry might be related to. Maybe he is ;)" JKR isn't trying to mess with us imo; she's basically in the position of being someone who has "read" all the books so knows more than we do. She doesn't want to spoil us, but she will talk about the story. So if somebody hits her with a question that she knows is true, I can't see why she'd say it isn't or make a mistake. For instance, what if someone post-GoF had had this fictional exchange based on the Heir of Gryffindor one: Fake Interviewer: What about Sirius' family--does he have any sisters? JKR: No. Fake Interviewer: That sort of shuts down the theories about Sirius being related to Narcissa Malfoy then. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. Fake Interviewer: Another one bites the dust. Magpie again: There were not Sirius related to Narcissa theories that I know of, but the point is, I can't imagine that if JKR had been hit with that pre-OotP that she would ever had said "yeah" anymore than I would if I were talking to someone who hadn't read OotP. Because I would know that Sirius and Narcissa are related. If I were not wanting to share the fact yet not wanting to lie, I could say something like "No sisters, definitely." Random: One perennial theory is that Petunia is the older sister, misjudged what her parents' reaction would be, and has regretted it ever since. It's apparently not possible to become a "licensed wizard" without completing [at least to fifth year] a Hogwarts education - that's why expelees have their wands snapped. So perhaps if she refused such an education, the authorities would have arrived to somehow remove or bind her magic. Magpie: Binding a witch's powers happens a lot on Charmed, but we've never seen it in the Potterverse (and if it were possible I think we definitely would have)--on the contrary, Hagrid still does magic, so nobody bound anything. So far we've never seen it to be possible. Hagrid's wand was snapped, but he was thought to have killed someone. We don't know that that's always what happens when you're expelled--Sirius' wand may have been snapped as well, and Bellatrix's and Barty's, but they could grab another and use it. If Petunia regretted her decision, I'm sure she could have gone to Hogwarts later. I don't think an 11 year old would be held accountable for a bad decision. Not that Petunia would have gotten a chance to misjudge her parents' decision. They'd get the letter when it came to her and a Wizard would come and explain it to all of them. Regardless, Petunia has never performed magic, so I don't think she'd have any reason to get the letter. - From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 03:18:40 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:18:40 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169989 Ok so there have been rumblings that someone that Harry thinks is an ally will turn on him. Lupin's name came up. I thought about this and see that it could happen. Here's my argument: LV find out that he is undercover amongst the Werewolves and goes to him. Tells him that even if he is defeated that the WW will never accept Werewolves among them. Especially, now with DD gone what hope does he have? LV explains to him that if he helps he promises to let the werewolves be and not have to live in hiding. Lupin thinks about it and doesn't want to help him but is scared by the idea of what is going to happen to him when he isn't needed by the Order anymore and the WW is happily free of LV and how he will most likely be treated badly and turns on the Order and helps LV. Ok, I've babbled on long enough. Does anyone agree? Disagree? TKJ From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 04:01:11 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:01:11 -0000 Subject: Did the Potters have more than one Secret Keeper? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169990 This evening I've read a couple of messages stating that Sirius was actually the Potters' secret keeper at some point. But was he? I don't believe so. IMO someone (Snape of course!) warned Dumbledore that there was going to be an imminent attack on the Potters. DD offered to be their SK and James refused, preferring his best friend Sirius. Sirius then came up with the 'clever' plan to have Peter be the SK while letting everyone assume that he [Sirius] was the SK. Do you suppose it's even possible to change SKs once the charm has taken effect? Now about the house at Godric's Hollow -- from how Flitwick explained it, the charm was actually on the Potters, not the house. So the ruins would have been visible to all and Harry shouldn't have any trouble finding them. Snape's Witch From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 04:10:43 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:43 -0000 Subject: Voldamort's original body In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169991 > > "Anna" wrote: > > > > > > What then, happened to his body? It's not mentioned in any > > of the accounts of that night, that I've seen. > Carol responds: > > I have the same problem. If his body was found, mutilated or > otherwise, he would be firmly believed to be dead. If his body > wasn't found, how does anyone know for sure that he didn't just run > away after killing the adult Potters and failing to kill Harry. Mike: My question is more basic: If there was no body, how does the WW know it was Voldemort? For that matter, how does the WW even know there was an attack on Harry? One cut on a baby's forehead considering the state of the house (according to Hagrid), should not necessarily bring one to conclude the cut was the result of magical intrusion. (Much less that it was a result of a rebounding AK) > > Anna: > > His body might have crumpled like usually happens with > > the Avada Kedavra curse. Or maybe his body disintegrated > > when his soul was ripped from it. Mike: If the explanations from Lupin and Snape's DADA posters are any indication, at least when a Dementor sucks out the soul, the body remains - in fact, remains alive. Now maybe the soul being "ripped" out, as you've pointed out, would have a different effect on the condition of the body it is being ripped from. Add to that, it was an AK that caused the soul to be ripped out ... ? We've seen that an AK can have a devestating affect on inanimate objects. Could JKR be hinting at the state of being of Voldemort at this point in his *life*? > Carol: > > Is it only Dumbledore's (and spy!Snape's) word that Voldemort was > after the Potters? Why is everyone celebrating? (I personally think > that Snape showed DD his fading or faded Dark Mark, which indicates > a dead or powerless Voldemort, and that DD already knew about the > Horcruxes, but I don't think that DD is going to share that > information with anyone.) > > And how did they know that Harry had survived and had a cut > that was not yet a scar? Dumbledore must have told them. > > It had to be Dumbledore sending word to the Ministry and the > Ministry informing the Daily Prophet. Mike: I agree with you, Carol. I think Dumbledore started the "boy who lived" stories and I also agree that Dumbledore knew (or at least strongly suspected) that Horcruxes were in play. How he knew that Harry had survived an AK, especially with all JKR has said that "this has never happened before", is more problematic. So, how and why Dumbledore got this whole story out so quickly will probably remain another enigmatic move by a man following his own secret agenda. At least that's my way of looking at things, or I'd go crazy over the inconsistencies. I also think we have the case of a new, young writer (JKR) on her first book, not expecting her readership to parse her story to the nth degree. ;-) > > Anna: > > To my knowledge, it's not clear if he had DE support that > > night or if he went alone to Godric's Hollow. If he had DE, > > they might have taken his body away. It seems to me that his > > body should have disappeared somehow, so that some people don't > > know for sure if he's -finished-. > Carol: > Which still doesn't answer your question and mine about Voldemort's > body. My guess is that it vaporized (and Peter Pettigrew, witness to > the disintegration in rat form, somehow knowing that Voldie would > come back, took Voldemort's wand and hid it). Mike: JKR has as much as told us that Pettigrew was there, by implication, in canon and in her interviews. Lacking some *new* revelation, in DH, I'll stick with this line of reasoning. But, your right Carol, we still haven't answered the question of Voldemort's body. So it's speculation time again. ;-) Mine is - the AK, "a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it", rebounding back on the one that just conjured that powerful magic, was like a powerful laser beam reflecting back onto the beam generator. The magical energy that Voldemort had summoned is explosively released causing his body to magically disintegrate. I think of Obi Wan Kenobe when Darth Vader *kills* him with his light sabre (Star Wars, Vol IV). Since I'm a Harry!Crux believer, I add that element into the mix. But I shant bore you with that much discussed story. Let's keep it civil. :D Mike, throwing out his two knuts and retracting those other two knuts about the Harry-Horcrux, now's not the time. _____________________________________________________________ In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169982 > Simon: The point I think is-one rip is 1/2 & 1/2 2nd is 1/4, 1/4 and 1/2 3rd 1/8, 1/8 then 1/4 & 1/2 etc etc etc Mike: Actually, we were discussing Voldemort's body not his soul, but since you brought it up. When discussing the Horcruxes with Tom, Slughorn refers to the soul "portion" and "part". The implication being that murder tears off a part of the soul, not that it divides it in half then half again with each subsequent murder. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily mean that Voldie has only 1/64th of a soul left in his regenerated body (assuming he made all 6 Horcruxes). > Simon: The body was ripped away at Godric's Hollow, so the body one does not exsist now. Could he (Tom) have been made to call on one and so only five Houcruxes be around now? Mike: If you are saying, in your first sentence, that Voldemort's remaining soul (in his body) was destroyed at GH, what survived? Seeing as how his soul was the *only* thing to survive Godric's Hollow, what would it advantage Voldemort to go pick up another soul piece? The soul is the only piece of the puzzle Voldemort has, it's the other pieces he needs now. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 07:42:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:42:41 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: <380-2200760323750843@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169992 > Magpie: > Of course Hermione's responsible for Marietta ending up > with the pustules. That's why Harry's so proud of his > friend in HBP. Look at how well her hex holds up. Goddlefrood: I agree on this point. There was something I wanted to add to the discussion of the SNEAK pustules even though it may not be thought possible to do so. Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Blomsbury Hardback), did Poppy not apply it to Marietta? Madam Sprout had given a large supply of the stuff to Madam Pomfrey and it would be well known to her, methinks. Perhaps Poppy doesn't like sneaks and felt it apposite to leave Ms. Edgecombe with her pustules. Only a small thought. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 8 07:55:33 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:55:33 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169993 TKJ: > Ok so there have been rumblings that someone that Harry thinks is > an ally will turn on him. Lupin's name came up. I thought about > this and see that it could happen. Here's my argument: Dana: I'm not sure why there is a need for yet another person betraying Harry in DH. HBP is the first half of two and someone already turned out to be a traitor there (as it stands now). DH will be about revealations of the truth, there is no need for yet another traitor in DH to make the story go forward. JMHO TKJ: > LV find out that he is undercover amongst the Werewolves and goes > to him. Tells him that even if he is defeated that the WW will > never accept Werewolves among them. Especially, now with DD gone > what hope does he have? LV explains to him that if he helps he > promises to let the werewolves be and not have to live in hiding. Dana: Harry and Tonks will be his hope. Lupin resents the fact that he is a werewolf himself and that it made him a ready-made spy. Lupin does not live in hiding he justs considers himself to dangerous to let people come to close to him. That will not change just because LV would promise him to let the werewolves be. The werewolves side with LV not for acceptance but to be able to get victims without someone stopping them. Lupin never had the urge to want to be like that. He never wanted to be responsible for turning another person into something he doesn't want to be himself. The better life he wants for the werewolves has nothing to do with the werewolf part of their being but with the human part. LV is not offering them recognition as humans but just that they can be werewolves all they like. That is not an ambition Lupin has of wanting to be. He wants acceptance that he is a human with a problem, not a werewolf that needs to be able to pick his victims freely. LV has nothing to offer what Lupin truly wants, not for himself and not for the werewolves. TKJ: > Lupin thinks about it and doesn't want to help him but is scared by > the idea of what is going to happen to him when he isn't needed by > the Order anymore and the WW is happily free of LV and how he will > most likely be treated badly and turns on the Order and helps LV. Dana: Lupin was never scared of what is going to happen to him, he was always prepared to not be accepted for what he was. The only thing he was scared of is that his friends would not accept him as a friend if they found out his secret but no one ever did, not even right after DD's death as they encourage him to show his feelings for Tonks. Lupin wants to be liked by his friends and why he cuts them more slack then he ought too but that is a long way from betraying his friends because he is scared of what the WW thinks of him. LV is not able to give him the acceptance Lupin wants because joining up with LV will not take away the bigotry or make it able for Lupin to be accepted as a Wizard. LV will just be able to provide easy accessible meat and that is not what drives Lupin. It is not Lupin's werewolf side that graves for acceptance but his human side and the werewolves turning to LV will just make the WW fear the werewolves even more because they will be living up to the fear people have for them. I think people should cut Lupin some slack because he never gave in to the struggle he endured living among the WW population while it would have been easier to just join the werewolves and live among them. Also the werewolves do not trust Lupin either because he has been living among wizards. The change for werewolves will not come from an outside source and LV can not provide that for Lupin either. The only way werewolves can live among the WW population is if they would want to live among them as fellow humans and not prey on them. The more werewolves acknowledge that they are humans for the most part and just werewolves once a month, the more they would be able to be part of society but as long as they want to be werewolves and deny their human identity of their being then they will never be able to get closer to acceptance. They will just live up to the fear people have for them. Change does not happen from the outside but from the inside. It is not the WW that has to accept werewolves but werewolves wanting to be part of society, if they do not then acceptance from the other side does not matter. The same goes for Remus, he has to accept that people who care for him to accept him for WHO he is and not reject him for WHAT he is. Some people will but they are not the people you want to as your friend anyway and that will never change not even if the WW publicly acknowledges werewolves. Also I very much doubt that JKR, who is against bigotry, will make the person, she gave a problem that would cause him to endure a lot of such bigotry, live up to that bigotry by making him a traitor. Lupin is a much stronger person then people give him credit for and he is definitely not a person that only thinks of himself even if it seems that way because he was scared to lose DD's trust by revealing the truth of what the marauders did when they were young. Sure it was a mistake but that does not mean he will be going to run to LV because he is to scared to face the upcoming war as a person and is to scared of what might happen to him personally. It was only DD's trust he did not want to lose. JMHO Dana From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 8 11:29:55 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:29:55 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169994 > TKJ: > > Ok so there have been rumblings that someone that Harry thinks is > > an ally will turn on him. Lupin's name came up. I thought about > > this and see that it could happen. Here's my argument: > > Dana: > I'm not sure why there is a need for yet another person betraying > Harry in DH. HBP is the first half of two and someone already turned > out to be a traitor there (as it stands now). DH will be about > revealations of the truth, there is no need for yet another traitor > in DH to make the story go forward. JMHO > > colebiancardi: Ahhhh, yes....the first half of two and the "supposed" traitor is revealed in the middle of the book :) DH, in my humble opinion, will be the revelation that the "supposed" traitor in HBP is not the traitor and there actually is another (re: PoA - Sirius was the "supposed" traitor until the end when it was revealed that it was Peter all along!). So, if JKR follows her normal style, which I have no doubt she will, the revelation of the true traitor will come forward and that is important to the plot. As you stated, DH is the 2nd half of the a bigger book, and it will be stripping away the misconceptions that Harry has in the first half(HBP) IMO colebiancardi From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jun 8 12:05:57 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:05:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169995 > Jen: You're saying JKR couldn't use Petunia as the limited > omniscient narrator in this chapter because she would give too much > away? That's a new idea to me and it fits so well with a comment by > JKR that you touched on in your post (from FAQ section of her > website): > Dung: > That's brilliant! It's new to me, too. (Goodness, Carol, you're on > form at the moment! The pressure to come up with new takes before > the end of all this fun is showing!) Carol: > Thank you! Small correction; I didn't say that JKR avoided using > Petunia as the narrator (JKR doesn't use first-person narrators), > just that, IMO, she avoided having the limited omniscient narrator > report events from Petunia's perspective and chose Vernon's instead > because, as Jen states, using Petunia's more knowledgeable > perspective would give too much away. Jen: Thank you for clearing up my mistake there, Carol. From the information in your post, I finally understand all the different types of narrators and resultant povs for relevant chapters in the series and can look for those occurrences in DH. I wonder, is there any chance JKR will open Privet Dr. from Petunia's pov, sort of a nice symmetry with book 1, or will Petunia's information only come from conversations with Harry? I'd love to hear from inside her head exactly what she thought of Lily and how she now sees Harry. And as a total aside, any chance we'll *ever* get inside Snape's head?? He's another character I'd like to hear from directly (and to paraphrase Fred, 'don't we all.' ) > Dung: > Well actually, having a dead SK is perfect, because then nobody > else can ever be told the secret again. The weakness of fidelius > lies in the SK, while the SK stood firm, the Potters were safe, if > the SK had died without revealing the secret, their hiding place > would have been completely safe. Jen: Okay, that makes sense and also means it would be dumb of LV to actually kill the SK then. Not that he wouldn't anyway. ;) Dung: > I think the last thing they'd have been planning for was orphaned! > Harry. James and Lily were the last line of defence, if they died, > they imagined, so would Harry. They could never have predicted what > happened at GH. Although... thinking about it, if they didn't know > about the prophecy, they might have thought that Voldy was after > them, rather than Harry, so they could have wondered if Harry would > be orphaned, I suppose. But if they did know it was Harry that > Voldy was after, I don't think it would have occured to them that > they might die and that Harry might live. >Amis: > I do, however, think that the Potters would have planned for some > alternate care for Harry in the case of their deaths. Especially > when they thought that the person they were going to leave Harry > with, Sirius, had betrayed the Order. I'm not sure that this would > be with the Dursleys. I do agree with Jen, however that it is > possible Lily thought Harry would be safer in the Muggle world. > Dumbledore likely offered to assist in his protection. > Sylvia: The Potters didn't believe that Sirius had betrayed the > order. Other people thought that after the Potters died. The > Potters knew he wasn't the Secret Keeper any more but after they > were killed noone else knew that they had switched to Peter > Pettigrew. I'm not sure whether they would have made special > provision for Harry. Harry was with them and I don't think that > they ever for one moment envisaged that he would survive if they > died. Jen: One small correction to my idea that Lily went to Dumbledore out of concern for who would be guardian for Harry should something happen to the Potters and Sirius - as Snape's Witch pointed out in #169990, Sirius was never actually the SK and I'd agree with that. However, he was still in line to be SK while being Harry's godfather from what I can ascertain about the timeline, so that alone wouldn't stop Lily from thinking ahead. Now, to answer the above comments: I'm not sure why they went to the trouble of making Sirius Harry's godfather if they didn't hope by some slim chance that Harry might survive them? I understand it may have been symbolic only but that's not something the WW seems big on, especially during a time when there's a war on and the Potters are on the losing side. It seems more like a functional thing to have a 'rushed' ceremony appointing Sirius as Harry's godfather at the last minute with the expectation he might be called into service. Although the more I think about it, the more I wonder why. Wouldn't it be more likely if they trust Sirius completely that *he* would die first when Voldemort kills him out of frustration for not revealing the secret? As Dung said, the Potters were the *last* line of defense, not the first. Hmmm. Dung: > But > How did Petunia find out about Voldemort? Canon gives us two > options: > 1. Dumbledore's correspondence explained about Voldemort > 2. The conversation Petunia overheard where she learned about > dementors. > > Whatever was in Dumbledore's "last", (the letter he left with > Harry) is the reason why Petunia actually agreed to take Harry in, > and why she insists that he must stay when Uncle V tries to throw > him out. The other letters, from beforehand, we know absolutely > nothing about from the books, just from that evil comment from JKR. Jen: True we don't know what was in the other letters, but we still have...er...42 hours, 17 days and some odd minutes to speculate according to the TLC counter, lol. What interests me the most is why Dumbledore might contact Petunia in the first place. He either did that because Lily asked or he decided to contact Petunia on his own imo. The two reasons I can think of for Lily requesting it of him would be 1) wanting Dumbledore to send something to Petunia since they are estranged and she knows it highly possible she's going to die (in which case Petunia may have a letter or object for Harry that she finally coughs up in DH), or 2) concern for Harry's future. But what would cause Dumbledore to contact an unknown relative on his own if that's what occurred? The only plausible reason I can think of would be Harry's future. Dumbledore knew the entire propehcy, understood how Voldemort operated and must have at least *suspected* Voldemort would attempt to kill one of the babies once it was clear he'd been handed the the first part of the prophecy. Dumbledore knowing the entire prophecy also meant knowing 'and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,' which Dumbledore could have surmised meant the baby being attacked would be marked but not die. That seems like a possibility anyway. Meaning while Dumbledore didn't know exactly what would happen with Lily's sacrifice, he could have suspected there might be a way for the baby to live even after the parents died. Maybe? Dung: > Alternatively, what happens if we hypothesise that when Vernon asks > Petunia if she's heard from her sister lately, and she replies "No, > why?" she is in fact lying? Could Petunia be the GH witness under > the invisibility cloak? Unlikely, I think, but worth opening up for > speculation Jen: LOL, I like this one. Unlikely, yes, but an interesting thought. :) From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 8 12:50:01 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:50:01 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169996 > colebiancardi: > > Ahhhh, yes....the first half of two and the "supposed" traitor is > revealed in the middle of the book :) DH, in my humble opinion, > will be the revelation that the "supposed" traitor in HBP is not > the traitor and there actually is another (re: PoA - Sirius was the > "supposed" traitor until the end when it was revealed that it was > Peter all along!). So, if JKR follows her normal style, which I > have no doubt she will, the revelation of the true traitor will > come forward and that is important to the plot. As you stated, DH > is the 2nd half of the a bigger book, and it will be stripping > away the misconceptions that Harry has in the first half(HBP) Dana: There will be no new traitor revealed because DH will not be about turning HBP around but about the revelations of Harry's heart. The realisation that he is stronger then the pull of revenge and hatred that can drive a man to the side of evil. That is the real culprit in my opinion that will be revealed and that Harry has to beat to prepare him for his confrontation with LV. The next battle Harry has to endure is not a physical one against a true culprit that will suddenly jump out of the wood work and states "Harry you are wrong again about Sni.. um Severus Snape, it was I all along." Harry's final battle will be totally on the psychological plain, a battle with the raging forces inside himself and when he wins that battle then the truth finally becomes clear, so clear as water and he will then know precisely how to defeat LV. For the record Sirius revelation of not being the traitor was not the end of the book like we see with the other books, the true end of the book was when Harry found his father inside of him and the true story of PoA, Harry finding his father through his father's friends, finding that the true power of love is living very strongly inside him, now he only has to realise what enlightens that power and LV will be toast. JMHO Everyone is so fixated on wanting to clear Snape of all responsibility that people seem to forget that the story is about Harry and his journey of growth. Harry will not be wrong but he will rise above the pettiness of revenge and hatred unlike Snape ever was able to do. It is Harry's fools journey (see tarot) and the final instalment will not be about defeating someone by physically killing or hurting that person or by being proven wrong. It will be the truth that will set Harry free but not Snape's truth but the truth of Harry's heart. As I stated before and will state again DD's trust in Snape is not an airtight clause that would prevent Snape from ever betraying DD. It is not DD that has to live up to the trust he gives but the people he gives it to. And there are many possibilities why Snape betrayed DD's trust in him but he nevertheless did and no matter what you believe was his reason but nothing in JKR's world justifies the killing of other people and if she makes an exception with Snape then indeed I will ask Lupinore if I can hire his wood chipper. JMHO Dana, who totally doesn't care about the rules of literature and does not believe JKR will let her story be dictated to how it supposed to be instead of her writing it as she wants it to be. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 8 13:11:27 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:11:27 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169997 Goddlefrood: >I agree on this point. There was something I wanted to add to the discussion of the SNEAK pustules even though it may not be thought possible to do so. Ceridwen: Heh. I don't see why not. DH isn't quite out yet. ;) Goddlefrood: Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Blomsbury Hardback), did Poppy not apply it to Marietta? Ceridwen: Maybe she did. Maybe it didn't work. I'm sure, if such a cure is available and known, that the healers at St. Mungo's tried it too, on her parents' behest. Goddlefrood: Madam Sprout had given a large supply of the stuff to Madam Pomfrey and it would be well known to her, methinks. Perhaps Poppy doesn't like sneaks and felt it apposite to leave Ms. Edgecombe with her pustules. Ceridwen: I expect you're right that Madam Pomphrey is familiar with bubotuber pus. She is a competent nurse: she has seen to many of Harry's injuries. He has never gone to St. Mungo's for treatment after a problem at school. In my opinion, whether Poppy doesn't like sneaks has no bearing on Madam Pomphrey doing her job. This is not only a case of personal feelings, but of a life's-work. Her professional standing, her position within her workplace, depends on her doing her job professionally, which means being divorced from feelings about a particular student and whether or not that student "deserved" what he or she got. Look at the man who oversees her efforts: Dumbledore, who gave Snape, Lupin, Draco, and possibly others, second chances, and who objected strenuously when Umbridge tried to physically assault Marietta herself. Hogwarts is not a place where "s/he deserved it" is a valid reason for shirking duty; as if Madam Pomphrey ever would. Ceridwen. From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 13:30:35 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:30:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Pensieve Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169998 Hello, I am a bit of a lurker in this group and I confess that I have not read all messages, so if this has been discussed, kindly point me to the relevant thread and I'll happily stay away. DD's pensieve has all his thoughts hidden away. Does his death cause those to disappear? If not, then it could prove the greatest ally to Harry as he embarks on his journey [what that journey is another thread, though]. When he was alive, DD had the choice of showing Harry what he needed to see and the time. Now that DD has gone [my head says he has, while my heart... we always know they never see eye-to-eye], Harry can find out DD's thoughts and plans (GH, LV's death, Harry's scar etc). We may see DD in a new light, which could have been the "problematic" thing for JKR. What do the members here think about this? Regards Sridhar From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jun 8 13:43:52 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:43:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 169999 > Carol: > > Thank you! Small correction; I didn't say that JKR avoided using > Petunia as the narrator (JKR doesn't use first-person narrators), just that, IMO, she avoided having the limited omniscient narrator report events from Petunia's perspective and chose Vernon's instead because, as Jen states, using Petunia's more knowledgeable perspective would give too much away. Dung: Right. ::rolls up sleeves:: I'm going to attack PS chapter 1, and work out where Vernon could be wrong... ::loading:: p7-8 (UK). ************************* Mr Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work and Mrs Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled a screaming Dudley into his high chair. None of them noticed a large tawny owl flutter past the window. ************************* None of them noticed *at the time*. But then Vernon goes out to work. A fluttering owl is not an owl on a long journey, it's an owl near its destination, isn't it? It could be going to Mrs Figg, although she lives two streets away, but it could equally be going to Petunia. Someone sending their condolences on the death of her sister? It's after this that we're fully into Vernon's point of view, btw, for the first page and a bit we are talking in generalities about both the Dursleys. So here are all the bits which are from Vernon's pov, where he talks about Petunia, and where Vernon (and therefore the reader) could be being misled . P9 (UK). ************************* There was no point in worrying Mrs Dursley, she always got so upset at any mention of her sister. ************************* Vernon could obviously be misled about *why* Mrs Dursley got so upset. P10 (UK). ************************* Mrs Dursley had had a nice, normal day. She told him over dinner all about Mrs Next Door's problems with her daughter and how Dudley had learnt a new word (`Shan't!'). ************************* Ha! That's what *she* says. Vernon's no legilimens. P11 (UK). ************************* "Er ? Petunia, dear ? you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" As he had expected, Mrs Dursley looked shocked and angry. After all, they normally pretended she didn't have a sister. "No," she said sharply. "Why?" ************************* But does Vernon know *why* Petunia looks shocked and angry this time? Her response, the `no' is said sharply, rather than bemusedly, surprisedly, or even reproachfully. And then the immediate `why?' P11 (UK). ************************* Mr Dursley wondered whether he dared tell her he'd heard the name `Potter'. He decided he didn't dare. Instead he said, as casually as he could, "Their son ? he'd be about Dudley's age now, wouldn't he?" "I suppose so," said Mrs Dursley stiffly. "What's his name again? Howard, isn't it?" "Harry. Nasty, common name, if you ask me." ************************* If he *had* dared to tell her he'd heard the name `Potter', would Petunia have been obliged to say something JKR didn't want her to? P11-12 (UK) ************************* The Potters knew very well what he and Petunia thought about them and their kind ... ************************* Again, this is Vernon speaking for Petunia. I think it unlikely that he's completely misjudged her feelings about her sister, but I think it's possible that he doesn't know the truth about the source of those feelings, and that she's hiding something from him. Carol: > (I think that she uses Frank Bryce's naive pov in > GoF for a similar reason; she doesn't want the reader to know what > Voldemort and Pettigrew are thinking or how they interpret their own > conversation. In "Spinner's End," she doesn't use a pov character at > all because all of them know more than she wants the reader to know. > Instead, she uses a third-person dramatic narrator who reports the > actions and conversation from an objective pov without entering the > minds of any of the characters.) Dung: Heh. You're soooo right. But back to Petunia in PS In chapter 2 we're in Harry's pov, but there's one thing worth pointing out P22 (UK). ************************* "You could just leave me here," Harry put in hopefully (He'd be able to watch what he wanted on television for a change and maybe even have a go on Dudley's computer). Aunt Petunia looked as though she'd just swallowed a lemon. "And come back and find the house in ruins?" she snarled. ************************* If DD gave Petunia a thorough explanation of what happened (or what he suspected) happened at GH in the letter he left with Harry (or the hypothetical one delivered by the tawny owl the morning PS begins), Petunia may be under the impression that it was Harry who blew up the house at GH. She certainly knows the house blew up. I can't find anything else at the beginning of PS which could be read differently, so I'll stop there. Carol: > BTW, we have more of what I suspect to be the unreliable narrator when Aunt Petunia looks out the window in PoA after seeing the escaped > prisoner Sirius Black on the news: > > "Aunt Petunia . . . whipped around and peered intently out the window. *Harry knew* [Neri alert!] Aunt Petunia would simply love to be the one to call the hot line number. She was the nosiest woman in the world and spent most of her life spying on the boring, law-abiding > neighbors" (PoA Am. ed. 17). > > But suppose that Aunt Petunia "knew" that Sirius Black had been the > Potters' Secret Keeper and had reason to fear that he would show up on Privet Drive? Maybe he's also "that awful boy" who told Lily about > Dementors--"awful" because he grew up to "betray" her sister and > brother-in-law to their deaths and "murder" thirteen people? Dung: Indeed. Similarly, it's also intriguing that at the end of PoA it is only Uncle Vernon who goes to meet Harry at King's Cross. There is no mention of Petunia being there. And given what they talk about... ************************* "What's that?" he [Vernon] snarled, staring at the envelope Harry was still clutching in his hand. "If it's another form for me to sign, you've got another ?" "It's not," said Harry cheerfully. "It's a letter from my godfather." "Godfather?" spluttered Uncle Vernon. "You haven't got a godfather!" "Yes, I have," said Harry brightly. "He was my Mum and Dad's best friend. He's a convicted murderer, but he's broken out of wizard prison and he's on the run. He likes to keep in touch with me, though keep up with my news check I'm happy " ************************* We can speculate that Petunia may have had something to add, had she been present. Dungrollin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 8 13:47:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:47:42 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170000 > Goddlefrood: > > Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn > froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Blomsbury Hardback), did Poppy > not apply it to Marietta? Pippin: It's clear that Eloise Midgen's acne has not been entirely cured, despite Madam Pomphrey's best efforts, and Marietta's case, according to Hermione, is much worse: "it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look like a couple of cute freckles." Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 8 14:36:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:36:05 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170001 TKJ: > LV find out that he is undercover amongst the Werewolves and goes to > him. Tells him that even if he is defeated that the WW will never > accept Werewolves among them. Especially, now with DD gone what hope > does he have? LV explains to him that if he helps he promises to let > the werewolves be and not have to live in hiding. > > Lupin thinks about it and doesn't want to help him but is scared by > the idea of what is going to happen to him when he isn't needed by the > Order anymore and the WW is happily free of LV and how he will most > likely be treated badly and turns on the Order and helps LV. > Pippin: Ah, a new ESE!Lupin theorist! You've come to the right place You might consider that far from turning traitor in Book Seven, Lupin has been serving two masters for a long time. But see my published works http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/146764?var=1&l=1 Lupin's motives are as yet a mystery, but I believe the solution is already laid out for us. You have only to consider Harry's hopeless situation in OOP, in almost constant pain, in dread of the monster inside him, feeling "contaminated", the same word Lupin uses in HBP to describe the effects of the werewolf bite, expected to hold back his anger no matter what, feeling that he's let Dumbledore down and can't ask for his help, subjected to a government sponsored smear campaign and a progressive attempt to eliminate his rights and take away everything he enjoys about being a wizard. He has friends, but much as he loves them, they don't really understand, and he's too ashamed of his feelings to tell them. Now multiply that by a lifetime, and you have an idea about what it's like to be Remus Lupin. It would take more than the patience of a saint to put up with all that, it would take the forbearance of an angel, and Remus, alas, is only human. It's hard to imagine the Lupin of PoA turning to Voldemort, but consider that towards the end of OOP, Harry was seeing Snape (Snape!) not only as an ally but his only hope. In his desperation to save Sirius, all his misgivings and antagonism just evaporated. They came back soon enough, but if he thought Snape had actually helped him, if Sirius had been saved, I think it would have had a powerful effect on Harry. It would henceforth have been very difficult for him to refuse anything that Snape asked. And Voldemort has always been able to charm the people he needed. Harry has been taken in more than once. Now, no matter how much Harry has hated, he's never wanted to feel Voldemort's power rising within him or use it on his enemies. I think he will face that temptation in Book Seven. He'll be strong. But Lupin is weak, and weak people, as Snape told us, stand no chance against the Dark Lord's powers. Dana: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169993 It is not the WW that has to accept werewolves but werewolves wanting to be part of society, if they do not then acceptance from the other side does not matter. The same goes for Remus, he has to accept that people who care for him to accept him for WHO he is and not reject him for WHAT he is.Some people will but they are not the people you want to as your friend anyway and that will never change not even if the WW publicly acknowledges werewolves. Pippin: I think OOP shows us very strongly what is wrong with this line of reasoning. It is just not enough to have acceptance from your friends. That can't make up for being deprived of your rights or being considered so monstrous no stranger would ask you to dinner, or let you be near their children, or even share a hospital room with you. Dana: Also I very much doubt that JKR, who is against bigotry, will make the person, she gave a problem that would cause him to endure a lot of such bigotry, live up to that bigotry by making him a traitor. Pippin: Lupin's is not the voice against bigotry in canon. What has he ever done to win acceptance for werewolves? He has always tried to conceal what he was, as a student and then as a teacher. It's Hermione who has been working to change the hearts and minds of the WW. If she continues to believe in equal rights, and tells Harry why, despite Lupin's treachery, he should too, it will do far more for the cause of civil rights in the RW than creating pity for werewolves, who after all don't exist. Pippin From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Fri Jun 8 15:01:39 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:01:39 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170002 "grouchymedic_26149" wrote: > > Been trying to put myself in Harry's shoes and think...who or what > resources would I use in his present situation. > 3. Dragons. Numerous references as to how tough it is to use magic > against them. Could a dragon be domesticated/trained to be used as a > kdefensive/offensive weapon? Paul Anne Squires: It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using dragons in DH. At the very least in the new art we can see that the trio use a dragon for transportation. Quoting MuggleNet: "Scholastic has released the cover art for the deluxe edition of the American Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." David Saylor, Vice President, Creative Director, Scholastic described the art: "Set during a highly dramatic sunset, Harry, Hermione, and Ron--clothes in tatters--cling atop a flying dragon in this astonishing artwork created by Mary GrandPr? for the deluxe edition. As mist creeps down towering hillsides to a village below, questions arise about where the trio is headed and what has led them to this spellbinding moment." Link to art @MuggleNet http://www.mugglenet.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=2097&pos=0 Anne Squires who is really excited about new art for DH From mmcgah at houston.rr.com Fri Jun 8 14:13:04 2007 From: mmcgah at houston.rr.com (mjm1089) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:13:04 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the Boggart (POA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170003 I am re-listening to POA on books on tape (easiest way for me to have time to "reread") and just got to the part about Lupin's first DADA class with the boggart. This may have already been discussed, but a quick google search did not come up with anything from this site. I was directed to sites of how this supports the sibling theory of Harry and Hermione. Any other ideas as to why Lupin didn't let Hermione tackle the boggart? At the end of the book she does take on the boggart for the exam and says that it was McGonagle saying she had failed everything. But can boggarts talk? I would think if any had talked it would have been Neville's Snape boggart, but all he did is glare menacingly. And the banshee did scream, but no talking. If this has already been discussed, I apologize, please direct me to the links, unless you would like to discuss again :) mjm1089 From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jun 8 15:32:18 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:32:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? References: Message-ID: <003f01c7a9e2$334c9b30$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170004 > > Goddlefrood: > > Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn > > froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Blomsbury Hardback), did Poppy > > not apply it to Marietta? > > Pippin: > It's clear that Eloise Midgen's acne has not been entirely cured, > despite Madam Pomphrey's best efforts, and Marietta's case, according > to Hermione, is much worse: "it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look > like a couple of cute freckles." Shelley: Here's my theory, for what it's worth. The pustules are ongoing because the effects of the breaking of that trust is ongoing. In order words, as long as the rest of the DA feel the effects of being discovered, Marietta will feel the effects of the hex. It may be that the bubotuber pus antidote works, but that the pustules are reforming anyway. I think Hermione was vengeful enough to not have it be a one-time breakout that would disappear, but have it be something like a Scarlet Letter that would announce for a very long time Marietta's transgression to her fellow classmates. If you remove the hex, then you remove the effects, and that is more of a job for a competent DADA teacher instead of a school nurse. Shelley From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jun 8 16:06:34 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:06:34 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170005 > Anne Squires: > > It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using dragons in DH. At the very least in the new art we can see that the trio use a dragon for transportation. > > Quoting MuggleNet: > > "Scholastic has released the cover art for the deluxe edition of the > American Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." > Link to art @MuggleNet > http://www.mugglenet.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=2097&pos=0 Dungrollin: I note that again, Ron and Hermione are in robes, and Harry not. Is it therefore the same episode as the vault on the cover of the UK children's version? Or is this a sign that while Ron and Hermione will return to Hogwarts, Harry won't? Hmm... From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jun 8 15:40:31 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:40:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chocolate Frog Cards References: <948bbb470706071706k78973a40y5a10e7ddd1f68f56@mail.gmail.com> <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> <4668BF4F.3010107@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <004901c7a9e3$58f46330$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170006 > Bart: > I'm going to repeat something that I said before, but met with no > response. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DUMBLEDORE. > > Bart Please give relevant cannon for this theory. When, for instance, do we see the teachers reporting that DD is away, and yet he's still at the castle? When do we hear reports of DD doing anything outside of the castle while he know that he's right there talking to one of the trio (Harry-Ron-Hermione)? When do two people see him at the same time in two different places? For what it's worth, when DD is mentioning the bravery of his brother Alberforth when the Daily Prophet reported his incident with "inappropriate charms with goats", he said that it wasn't sure that counted for full bravery, as he didn't think Alberforth couldn't read. Therefore, I think it's highly unlikely that his brother is even a stand-in for DD at times, as he's just not DD in intelligence, and would be noticed right off the bat. I've reread all the books up to book 5, and have seen not even a small hint that there is "more than one" of Dumbledore. Please provide cannon..... Shelley From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 8 16:15:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:15:01 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy?/Say it isn't so, Lupin! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170007 > > Magpie: > > > > > Of course Hermione's responsible for Marietta ending up > > with the pustules. That's why Harry's so proud of his > > friend in HBP. Look at how well her hex holds up. > > > > Goddlefrood: > > I agree on this point. There was something I wanted to add to > the discussion of the SNEAK pustules even though it may not be > thought possible to do so. > > Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn > froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Blomsbury Hardback), did Poppy > not apply it to Marietta? > > Madam Sprout had given a large supply of the stuff to Madam > Pomfrey and it would be well known to her, methinks. Perhaps > Poppy doesn't like sneaks and felt it apposite to leave Ms. > Edgecombe with her pustules. Magpie: As charming as it would be to have a school nurse who decides which students deserve to be cured of hexes and which ones don't, why assume she didn't use it? The pus didn't seem to work on Eloise Midgen either. The cure isn't a secret. Marietta would have learned about it herself, as would Cho have. Dana: The change for werewolves will not come from an outside source and LV can not provide that for Lupin either. The only way werewolves can live among the WW population is if they would want to live among them as fellow humans and not prey on them. The more werewolves acknowledge that they are humans for the most part and just werewolves once a month, the more they would be able to be part of society but as long as they want to be werewolves and deny their human identity of their being then they will never be able to get closer to acceptance. Magpie: While I agree on Lupin's view of himself, this seems to be suggesting that werewolves are persecuted because they don't want to be human. The opposite seems to be true. Werewolves are indeed barred from participating in their society fully whether they are human or not. Greyback is one werewolf who wants to prey on others, but I don't think we're supposed to assume he speaks for most. Society has turned its back on all werewolves including those like Lupin. This could lead to them both to considering a better life under LV whether or not they are like Greyback and to be more angry and so want to hunt freely. LV appeals to the extreme end like Greyback, but the WW drives away the ones who want to be human as well. Greyback's message has an undercurrent of revenge against the people who have mistreated them when they did nothing wrong. -m From amis917 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 8 16:26:15 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:26:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170008 > Dung: > Right. ::rolls up sleeves:: > I'm going to attack PS chapter 1, and work out where Vernon could be > wrong... > > ::loading:: > > p7-8 (UK). > ************************* > Mr Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work and > Mrs Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled a screaming Dudley > into his high chair. > None of them noticed a large tawny owl flutter past the window. > ************************* > > None of them noticed *at the time*. But then Vernon goes out to work. > A fluttering owl is not an owl on a long journey, it's an owl near > its destination, isn't it? It could be going to Mrs Figg, although > she lives two streets away, but it could equally be going to Petunia. > Someone sending their condolences on the death of her sister? > Amis917: I think your analysis of this scene is right on. IMO, this owl is one of our hints to Dumbledore's communication with Petunia. If the owl flutters past their window, it is likely to be delivering something. I, personally, belive that Petunia has been made aware of the ongoing war for her own safety. I think this letter is likely Dumbledore giving her the most recent news. >Dungrollin: > P11 (UK). > ************************* > "Er ? Petunia, dear ? you haven't heard from your sister lately, have > you?" > As he had expected, Mrs Dursley looked shocked and angry. After all, > they normally pretended she didn't have a sister. > "No," she said sharply. "Why?" > ************************* > > But does Vernon know *why* Petunia looks shocked and angry this time? > Her response, the `no' is said sharply, rather than bemusedly, > surprisedly, or even reproachfully. And then the immediate `why?' Amis917: IMO, Petunia hasn't heard from her sister lately. She now knows, infact, that that would be impossible. She recieved word earlier that day, from Dumbledore, that she had been killed. > Dung: > Heh. You're soooo right. But back to Petunia in PS > > In chapter 2 we're in Harry's pov, but there's one thing worth > pointing out > > P22 (UK). > ************************* > "You could just leave me here," Harry put in hopefully (He'd be able > to watch what he wanted on television for a change and maybe even > have a go on Dudley's computer). > Aunt Petunia looked as though she'd just swallowed a lemon. > "And come back and find the house in ruins?" she snarled. > ************************* > > If DD gave Petunia a thorough explanation of what happened (or what > he suspected) happened at GH in the letter he left with Harry (or the > hypothetical one delivered by the tawny owl the morning PS begins), > Petunia may be under the impression that it was Harry who blew up the > house at GH. She certainly knows the house blew up. Amis917: I have recently become quite interested in this quote. I came upon it using the Lexicon's portkey search feature (which you really should check out if you haven't). I like this because at this point of the story, Harry doesn't know that he can do magic. Petunia and Vernon, of course, suspect that he might be able to. I think this gives us the hint that Petunia knows more about what happened that night than the potters were simply killed. She says as much later when Hagrid comes for Harry and she screams "she went and go herself blown up and we got landed with you!" (PS UK pb p 44) It' also interesting because (as I found using the Portkey) it's "A little while later, Uncle Vernon suggests that Harry can't be trusted to remain alone in the new car, presumably because he'd harm it in some way." This could be used to argue that either Vernon also knows some details about what happened to Lily, or he simply thinks the possibily of Harry being able to do magic would endanger his belongings. I think it could also be used to argue that the Dursleys knew that Harry could do magic and would be invited to attend Hogwarts. As Hagrid says "His name's been down every since he was born." (PS UK pb p 43) I would think it likely that Dumbledore would have included this in his correspondence with Petunia. Something about how his schooling would be taken care of; he'd be able to go to Hogwarts. Although Petnuia doesn't give evidence of this she says she assumed Harry could do magic because his parents could. Vernon gives some possible evidence in the conrtrary. 'We swore when we took him in we'd put a stop to that rubbish,' said Uncle Vernon, 'swore we'd stamp it out of him!' (PS UK pb p 43) This tells us that while they suspected Harry could do magic, Vernon at least, didn't understand it. I guess all of this makes me more confused than I was when I started. IMO Petunia knows much more of what's going on that she lets Vernon or Harry believe. I think Dumbledore told her about what happened to Lily and why it was important for Harry to stay with them. I also think he included in the letters about Harry's magical ability and his eventual studies at Hogwarts. Amis917 From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jun 8 15:45:17 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:45:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chocolate Frog Cards References: <948bbb470706071706k78973a40y5a10e7ddd1f68f56@mail.gmail.com> <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> Message-ID: <005501c7a9e4$0373b220$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170009 > Anne: > I am new to this group so I don't know if this question has > been raised before, but I have been wondering for a long time > about the chocolate frog cards. Dumbledore either says (or > is quoted as saying) that he doesn't mind what *they* do to > him so long as they don't take him off the chocolate frog > cards. At face value it seems like a throwaway remark, but > as we all know, JKR often makes a throwaway remark in one > book that is a vital plot point in another book. JKR has > confirmed that DD is dead (oh, poop), but he's taken his > place in his portrait and is still on the CFC...is that > important or significant? Is there more to a CFC than > meets the eye? Shelley: I think it's very significant that DD is on the Chocolate Frog Cards, and yes, there is more than meets the eye to them. I have long thought that the Chocolate Frog Cards have been DD's way of spying on people and gathering information. However, now that he's dead and only a portrait, it's unclear if the moving of "himself" from portrait to portrait includes moving himself through the Chocolate Frog cards as well. This would be an excellent way for Harry to gather information in the future when he's searching for the Horcruxes. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 8 17:02:22 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:02:22 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170010 Pippin: > I think OOP shows us very strongly what is wrong with this > line of reasoning. It is just not enough to have acceptance from > your friends. That can't make up for being deprived of your > rights or being considered so monstrous no stranger would ask > you to dinner, or let you be near their children, or even > share a hospital room with you. Dana: And yet he still tries to live as any other wizard and against all odds he maintains himself and keeps control even though life is getting harder by the day. OotP does not show us there is something wrong with this reasoning because it is Hermione, Winky, Dobby and the rest of the house elves that show us that change cannot be pressed upon a group that doesn't want change. Dobby does not have the support of his kind and still he changed and now is paid for his services. The rest of the house elves shunt him for it and are disgraced by his way of thinking. Winky can't get over losing her master and is not able to perform normally; she is resisting the change she endured when both her masters were no longer there to serve. Hermione tries to free the house-elves against their will and it leads to them no longer cleaning the Gryffindor tower and not more free house-elves. Change can only exist if one person within such a group chooses to change and no matter how hard the struggle, maintains his chosen path. And Lupin does and although he strays for a moment when he rejects Tonks love for him in HBP, at the end it got him back on the right track. > Pippin: > Lupin's is not the voice against bigotry in canon. What has > he ever done to win acceptance for werewolves? He has always > tried to conceal what he was, as a student and then as a teacher. > It's Hermione who has been working to change the hearts and > minds of the WW. If she continues to believe in equal rights, > and tells Harry why, despite Lupin's treachery, he should too, > it will do far more for the cause of civil rights in the RW than > creating pity for werewolves, who after all don't exist. Dana: Yes, he is because he chooses to remain living among wizards and not chose the life that has been dedicated for werewolves by Greyback. Lupin was send to spy on the werewolves but he in order to do that had to gain some trust and now with Greyback gone, Lupin might become the factor of change within the werewolf group and with them and his friends together, after LV is defeated, they can start to demand to be given rights like other humans within their society do. I'm sorry but to me it seems ESE!Lupin is just a figure of the imagination and actually proofs JKR's point because applying the suspicion to him being ESE is what the rest of the WW does too, that werewolves cannot be trusted. Yes, he has tried to conceal WHAT he was but not WHO he was and he was just scared that people would not judge him for who he was but for WHAT he was. He has trouble attaching himself to people because of that and when he does attach himself then he is again very afraid to lose it but that does not make him a traitor. On the contrary, his problem of telling the truth in PoA because of the internal conflict he was struggling with, indicates that he would never want to betray his friends and he could not chose between revealing a secret he shared with one group of friends to a person who gave him a chance to a normal life, who made it possible for him to have these friends. So instead he denied Sirius using his animagus form to enter the castle. It was wrong no doubt about it but he still did not want to just betray any of them. Sure he states that he just did it because he was scared of losing DD's trust but he also gives himself the guilt of his friends becoming illegal animagi, while James and Sirius are surely not people who could be told what to do and even if Lupin had been against it they would have done it anyway. Hermione has not been changing the hearts and minds of the WW because people do not take her endless preaching seriously. Although she has the heart in the right place she only looks at it from her own point of view and not from those she is making a statement for. It is somewhat like setting free minks by environmentalist, these animals are not sweet cuddly creatures and in one such an attempt they killed every single pet they came across in their search for freedom. So they saved the lives of these animals while causing the death of many others. That was not what they set out to do but it nevertheless had this result. Setting these animals free is not the way and it actually had a negative effect on public opinion because these animals were so aggressive that no one was sorry they ended up as coats. Change within human communities has to come from within the community and the people it involves because people not living their lives they do, cannot possibly understand what it is like for them and then when the people who's rights it concerns fight for it then people outside these groups can fight along side them as supporting factor. The house-elves should be given the right to chose if they want to change or not. You cannot force freedom as Hermione perceives it upon them. Winky is free but totally miserable and that means it would never work to force them to be free. The only thing the WW can do is allow the house-elves to serve people on their own conditions so that giving them clothes is no longer needed to release them from their obligations. Treat them bad and you find yourself without a servant but still they must want these changes in regulations themselves or otherwise it will not work. It is just my opinion but I do not think any of the books gives indication that Lupin was put in there to show a disease will give you no other option then to be ESE. Lupin is extremely brave regardless of not believing enough in himself. Lupin will open up the way for those werewolves that will choose to be human first and werewolf second and eventually when more werewolves chose to live in harmony with the WW the more the bigotry against them will decrease. Molly was a bigot against werewolfs but she still respected Remus and let him comfort her. Harry can't even see the dangerous part Lupin has to him and neither could his dad. So the more people you know who are what they are the more acceptance will grow but it still has to come from within and them making the first step and proof that they are not out there to kill and make as many werewolves as they possibly can. Greyback is like that but like Remus, werewolves not under his (Greyback) control might not specifically want to chose such a life either. JMHO Dana From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 17:16:13 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:16:13 -0000 Subject: Voldamort's original body In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > If you are saying, in your first sentence, that Voldemort's remaining > soul (in his body) was destroyed at GH, what survived? Seeing as how > his soul was the *only* thing to survive Godric's Hollow, what would > it advantage Voldemort to go pick up another soul piece? The soul is > the only piece of the puzzle Voldemort has, it's the other pieces he > needs now. Sridhar, feeling bad to have to snip of the entire thread, says: Is it possible that LV's curse rebounded from Harry, "due to an ancient magic that was invoked", and became Harry's curse on LV instead? Now, instead of the Harry!crux theory, we have a "LV is a horcrux of Harry" theory!!! Seems wacky, but interesting to me :) As long as Harry is living, LV remains in some form. LV thought he was resuscitating himself with Harry's blood, but could it be that he giving life to the part of Harry's soul inside him? That could explain the "gleam in DD's eye" in GoF. Sridhar, who is really looking forward to what fellow members would say to this theory by an overactive imagination. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 8 17:39:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:39:47 -0000 Subject: Chocolate Frog Cards In-Reply-To: <004901c7a9e3$58f46330$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > I'm going to repeat something that I said before, but met with no > > response. THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DUMBLEDORE. > > Please give relevant cannon for this theory. We first meet him, by reference, in Goblet of Fire, when Dumbledore refers to Abe not worrying about headlines. We actually see his picture in Order of the Phoenix, when Moody shows it to Harry. J.K. Rowling, in http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80: Q:Why is the barman of the Hog's Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledore's brother? "Ooh?you are getting good. Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Audience member: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue. That is all that I am going to say. [Laughter]. Well yes, obviously. I like the goat clue?I sniggered to myself about that one." Now, as far as Abe standing in for Albus, not much we can find about that. But, as far as Albus standing in for Abe, we do have one little clue: Sirius has told Harry that Abe has a long-standing grudge against Dung Fletcher. Yet, Harry sees Abe dealing with Dung over Sirius' posessions. I am not saying that I even believe that this is a fact. All I'm saying is that Rowling can be VERY tricky, so when she says that Dumbledore is definitely dead, it is worth noting that there is more than one Dumbledore running around. Bart From loptwyn at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 16:58:55 2007 From: loptwyn at yahoo.com (Alice) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:58:55 -0000 Subject: Chocolate Frog Cards In-Reply-To: <005501c7a9e4$0373b220$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170013 > Shelley: > I think it's very significant that DD is on the Chocolate Frog Cards, and > yes, there is more than meets the eye to them. I have long thought that the > Chocolate Frog Cards have been DD's way of spying on people and gathering > information. And Albus Dumbledore is apparently on a large number of the Chocolate Frog Cards, too (I think it's Ron in the first book who says something like, "Oh, Dumbledore, I've got dozens of him" to Harry when he gets his first one). Alice >:> From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 17:45:15 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:45:15 -0000 Subject: Montague & the Capulets Re: Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170014 > >Carol > > >Until Montague tells his Slytherin friends that he was trapped in > limbo between Hogwarts and B&B, no one even knows that he was in the > Vanishing Cabinet (except, of course, the Twins and their friends, who > don't bother to tell Madam Pomfrey this important information) don't bot > doesn't even tell his Slytherin cronies, Crabbe and Goyle, that he's > fixing the Vanishing Cabinet in HBP. Neither they nor Snape know what > he's up to in HBP. They just think, as the other Slytherin kids do, > that Montague's adventure was an entertaining story. > > > Nikkalmati > You know what that means don't you? If Hermione had followed her good > instincts and revealed how Montague was injured, there would in all likelihood > have been steps taken to secure the cabinet. There would have been no repaired > cabinet, no DEs in Hogwarts and no death of DD. > I think Jo would want her readers to see this little slip, the rejection of > the good impulse, leads to bad consequences. > Nikkalmati > That's a great point. It does seem like JKR links these small moral failures to larger consequences in the future. Sort of like karmic justice. And maybe this truly explains why Montague's entrapment is mentioned so often in the novel. It's not really the apparition, or the side effects, that matter. JKR just wants to remind us, again & again, of the actual consequences of Fred & George's prank. It's a bit like Hermione's hexing of Marietta. When it's first mentioned, the reader cheers Hermione - what a clever trick! Then Cho criticizes' Hermione's decision - the reader ignores her. Then Marietta is brainwashed by DD & co. so that she can't mention the hex - perhaps justified, but it's still a little bit creepy. Did Marietta deserve that? Then, it's mentioned again, months later, & the reader starts to feel some unease - wait, this girl is still hexed? Is that fair? The novel slowly draws the reader from cheering the action, to feeling moral unease about it. The same thing happens w/Montague. Fred & George initially justify the action because Montague was docking points as a member of the "Inquistorial Squad." Because we know that the IS is bad, readers are encouraged to see this as deserved punishment. They seem to think he'll turn up OK, & no one contradicts them. Plus F & G are the good guys, so if they're not worried about it, why should the reader? But then, the novel repeatedly reminds readers of the real consequences of this action - first Montague turns up stuck in a toilet, then we hear he would have died without a risky apparition, then we see that his parents are called, then we see that he's STILL in the clinic, months later. Hermione worries that they should tell the truth, but no one does. Finally, that prank allows Death Eaters to enter the school. So, the Montague prank goes from "oh well, he deserved it," to a real recognition & grappling w/the moral consequences of this action. JKR doesn't let us forget Montague, as Fred & George did. She shows where revenge & cruelty toward an enemy can lead. I don't think his name is a coincidence. "Montague" was the last name of one of the feuding families in Romeo & Juliet. Romeo Montague takes revenge on Tybalt Capulet, before finally dying himself as a result of the feud. The Slytherins & Gryfindors are like the Montagues & Capulets - both engaging in violence & revenge in an endless cycle. With Montague, JKR is showing where that cycle leads: death & destruction. By taking revenge on Montague, F&G unwittingly allow death to enter Hogwarts, and destroy their own world. All are punish'd. At the end of Romeo & Juliet, the Prince bemoans the death & destruction that has resulted from the ancient feud. "Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague! See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love. And I for winking at your discords too Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd." But this is a rather bleak end - all enemies fallen & destroyed by the cycle of revenge. I'm hoping that the Harry Potter saga doesn't end this way! What other way out is there? How else can the cycle be ended? "Montague" is mentioned in another famous soliloquy from Romeo & Juliet, in which Juliet muses about what the name actually means: "'Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is nor hand nor foot Nor arm nor face nor any other part Belonging to a man. O be some other name. What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." She realizes that "Montague" is just a label, just a name, and she looks beyond that name to see the actual person. Juliet & Romeo actually fall in love with their enemy. They replace hatred with love, and thereby succeed in ending the cycle of revenge between their families. I think "Montague" symbolizes both the dangers of the Hogwarts feud, and the possible solution. Instead of using revenge & violence, Harry will have to use kindness & forgiveness. Like Juliet, he'll have to learn to see beyond the label. In the end, I think Harry is going to be called upon to love his enemies, however difficult that may be. That's the only way out of the cycle. lizzyben04 From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 18:14:05 2007 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:14:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170015 > > Dung: > Right. ::rolls up sleeves:: > I'm going to attack PS chapter 1, and work out where Vernon could be > wrong... > > ::loading:: > > p7-8 (UK). > ************************* > Mr Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work and > Mrs Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled a screaming Dudley > into his high chair. > None of them noticed a large tawny owl flutter past the window. > ************************* > > None of them noticed *at the time*. But then Vernon goes out to work. > A fluttering owl is not an owl on a long journey, it's an owl near > its destination, isn't it? It could be going to Mrs Figg, although > she lives two streets away, but it could equally be going to Petunia. > Someone sending their condolences on the death of her sister? > > Lyra One more "owl-ish" bit from pages 3-4 of U.S. version of PS/SS, after Vernon goes to work: "Mr. Dursley always sat with his back to the window in his office on the ninth floor. .... *He* [emphasis in original] didn't see the owls swooping past in broad daylight; though people down in the street did ... Mr. Dursley, however, had a perfectly normal, owl-free morning." Vernon had an owl-free morning. No word on how many owls Petunia might have encountered that day. From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 18:23:01 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:23:01 -0000 Subject: LAST AND FINAL BRAGGING RIGHTS CONTEST by TigerPatronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170016 Hello fellow HPers, The VERY LAST BRAGGING RIGHTS CONTEST will begin soon. Everybody, start thinking about your predictions for HPDH. I've been delaying the start of the contest b/c I wanted to include questions about "teasers" like JKR had last time, like the "lion guy" and chapter titles. So far this time, we got nuttin'. Therefore, I'm soliciting QUESTIONS for the compulsory section. With the lack of any hard data about the inside of the book, please reply to this post or email possible questions concerning the cover or things which just have to happen. I will solicit for Ruthless Minions at a later date. Thanks to those folks who have already volunteered. You're truly ruthless. I am insane busy until about July 20ish. The manuscript for my next novel must be in by then (luckily) so I'm typing like mad. Please forgive my silence and lack of discussion. Yours in Potter, TK Kenyon, author of *RABID: A Novel* www.tkkenyon.com WATCH FOR THE NAME-A-CHARACTER CONTEST BENEFITTING POLARIS PROJECT ON EBAY! *STARRED REVIEW* A priest, a professor, the professor's wife, and his mistress--it sounds like the set-up for a dirty joke, but debut novelist Kenyon isn't fooling around. What begins as a riff on Peyton Place (salacious small-town intrigue) smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. You would think that in attempting to deal with so many different themes-- shady clergy, top-secret scientific research, marital infidelity, lust, love, honor, faith-- Kenyon would run the risk of overwhelming readers. But, and this is why Kenyon is definitely an author to watch, she juggles all of her story's elements without dropping any of them--and, let's not forget, creates four very subtle and intriguing central characters. This is a novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice (think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf)-- that makes us laugh, wince, and reflect all at the same time. Kenyon is definitely a keeper. -- David Pitt, Booklist, December 1, 2006 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 19:09:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:09:56 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique and the SK switch (Was: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170017 Jen wrote: > Thank you for clearing up my mistake there, Carol. From the information in your post, I finally understand all the different types of narrators and resultant povs for relevant chapters in the series and can look for those occurrences in DH. Carol responds: You're welcome. I could have included omniscient narrators, but JKR doesn't use them, thank goodness, but as long as were talking about all the different types, I thought I'd throw them in. (To explain the "thank goodness" part, I think it's confusing when an author jumps from one mind to another. A consistent point of view, even if it's occasionally inaccurate, has distinct advantages, especially if it's the protagonist's.) > Jen: > I wonder, is there any chance JKR will open Privet Dr. from Petunia's pov, sort of a nice symmetry with book 1, or will Petunia's information only come from conversations with Harry? I'd love to hear from inside her head exactly what she thought of Lily and how she now sees Harry. And as a total aside, any chance we'll *ever* get inside Snape's head?? He's another character I'd like to hear from directly (and to paraphrase Fred, 'don't we all.' ) > Carol responds: I don't think that will happen, simply because JKR generally deviates from Harry's pov when he's absent or too young to have a pov. She does occasionally slip outside it to show him asleep or to show Hermione setting Snape's robes on fire (she also describes a dream he doesn't remember; mentions that, unknown to Harry, Neville is also lying awake; and describes his pale face and glittering eyes when he says he's going to enter the third-floor corridor--funny that we should encounter the same description as Snape leaves to encounter Voldemort near the end of GoF!) but generally, her pov character is Harry, and I see no reason for her to switch to Petunia or Snape in DH. What I think will happen is Petunia showing Harry the letters from Dumbledore (and maybe some old Muggle photographs that she's kept hidden from Vernon?). I expect that she'll tell him what she knows about the WW and Lily (and "that awful boy," and maybe even apologize for being so afraid that he'd blow up the house that she tried to suppress his magic. (Or whatever--a first-person narrative from Petunia resembling the one from Barty Crouch Jr. minus Veritaserum. It's possible that we'll get something of the same, minus any apology because it would be out of character, from Snape. But either way, we won't get inside their heads. We'll only hear what they tell Harry. (It's possible, however, that we'll have another "Spinner's End"-style chapter involving Snape and Draco; I'd like that because I want to know what's happening with them, but it won't help *Harry.* Another possibility is a conversation between Harry and Draco that sheds a bit of light on Snape, but the problem is, Draco is also a wanted fugitive and will be in danger of capture if he shows his face in the WW. Obviously, I could be wrong on all counts. But as far as narrative technique goes, JKR only deviates from Harry's pov when she has a good reason, and since DH is going to be about finding the answers and wrapping everything up (with, no doubt, some red herrings and wrong conclusions along the way so we'll know this is really a Potter book ;-) ), I don't think she'll go outside his pov. No "Riddle House"- style chapters in particular. Or, if she does, she'll find a way for Harry to discover that information, too. > > Dung: > > Well actually, having a dead SK is perfect, because then nobody else can ever be told the secret again. The weakness of fidelius lies in the SK, while the SK stood firm, the Potters were safe, if the SK had died without revealing the secret, their hiding place would have been completely safe. > > Jen: Okay, that makes sense and also means it would be dumb of LV to actually kill the SK then. Not that he wouldn't anyway. ;) Carol responds: I don't think that swearing to die rather than telling the Secret is part of the Fidelius Charm, as Dung suggests. It's not an Unbreakable Vow (which strikes me as very Dark magic); it's just placing a secret inside a trusted person. Certainly, Peter didn't die from revealing the Secret. He just violated the Fidelity placed in him. But what I don't understand is why they thought that the SK would be in danger at all. The Fidelius Charm wasn't common knowledge, AFAWK, until Sirius Black's name as the supposed SK appeared in the Daily Prophet after his arrest. The only reason Voldemort knew about the Fidelius Charm was because Peter told him not only that he was the Secret Keeper but the Secret itself (or maybe just the Secret?). So Voldemort had no reason to go after the SK (whether or not he would have killed him after forcing him to tell the Secret). I've never understood why Sirius Black thought he should go into hiding as a decoy (which he didn't do, in any case. He checked on Peter Pettigrew instead). It's not as if the whole WW knew about the Fidelius Charm. (DD knew about it because he'd suggested it and he may have told Snape, but they didn't know the Secret itself or who the SK was.) Was it *Lupin* rather they were trying to throw off track with the SK switch, so that he would tell Voldemort to go after the wrong person? But why tell Lupin the plan in the first place if they thought that he was the spy? (It's clear from PoA that they did tell Lupin the plan; they just didn't tell him the actual Secret or about the change in SKs.) Just cast the Charm using Sirius as the SK, go into hiding, and keep their mouths shut. No need for Black to hide, so they would think, because only he, the Potters, and Wormtail would know the Secret. (Of course, it wouldn't have worked with Wormtail as the spy; he'd have told Voldemort that Black was the SK and would have been in real danger, but it would have worked like a charm, pun intended, if Lupin had really been the spy. Ironically, Black's brilliant SK-switch idea shifted the danger from himself to the Potters, more unintended consequences, a favorite JKR motif.) At any rate, if Lupin had really been the spy, the obvious thing to do would be to keep the whole Fidelius Charm plan from him, not just the Secret itself. That way, Voldemort could never have learned about it at all. I guess that Black was trying to undo the supposed blunder of revealing it to him with the SK switch. I'm getting off-track here since we're supposed to be discussing what Petunia knew, but I'm trying to sort out my own confusion. I do think that Dumbledore, who informs people of what he thinks they need to know, would have told Petunia that the Potters were in serious danger and that he feared that they had told the secret of their hiding place to a trusted friend who was actually Voldemort's spy, and he may have given the name of that friend as Sirius Black (see Petunia's terrified reaction in PoA when Vernon says, "Lunatic could be coming up the street right now!" Poa Am. ed. 17). He wouldn't necessarily have mentioned the Fidelius Charm. He would think, based on the Prophecy, that Harry would survive, and would want to prepare Petunia for the possibility that she would need to take Harry in to protect him from the clutches of his supposedly evil godfather. and finding Harry on her doorstep would confirm DD's dire predictions. (Presumably he promised her some sort of protection if she took in her orphaned nephew, which she did "grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took [him]." And she knows about *Harry's* blood protection, which DD says is mentioned in the letter tucked into Harry's blanke, so maybe DD states there that it will extend to her family, too, of she takes him in, OoP Am. ed. 836.) Jen: > Now, to answer the above comments: I'm not sure why they went to the trouble of making Sirius Harry's godfather if they didn't hope by some slim chance that Harry might survive them? I understand it may have been symbolic only but that's not something the WW seems big on, especially during a time when there's a war on and the Potters are on the losing side. It seems more like a functional thing to have a 'rushed' ceremony appointing Sirius as Harry's godfather at the last minute with the expectation he might be called into service. > > Although the more I think about it, the more I wonder why. Wouldn't it be more likely if they trust Sirius completely that *he* would die first when Voldemort kills him out of frustration for not revealing the secret? As Dung said, the Potters were the *last* line of defense, not the first. Hmmm. Carol responds: My impression is that the christening or baptism or whatever ceremony made Sirius Black Harry's godfather took place somewhat earlier than the Fidelius Charm, when they first realized that they were in danger. It's possible that DD told them about the Prophecy without telling them its details, but even if he didn't, they were both Order members, and Order members were being killed off one by one, and the possibility that Harry could be orphaned would occur to them as it occurs to Molly regarding her own underage children in OoP. They would have known through DD (who knew it through Snape) that there was a spy in the Order, and they would have turned to their most trusted friend in hopes that if they were killed, he would take care of Harry. DD for all we know, may have asked Lily if she had any relatives in case alternate arrangements were necessary; I doubt that he could have anticipated the blood protection, but I do think he suspected that Black was the spy and might betray them, even before the danger became so acute that he suggested the Fidelius Charm. Or he may have taken it upon himself to find a possible guardian for Harry in case the need arose, in which case he would already have "corresponded" with Petunia, who seems to be expecting but not wanting to hear, bad news about her sister in SS/PS. ("Er--Petunia, dear--you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" ... ."No, she said sharply. Why?" SS Am. ed. 7.) She hasn't heard directly from Lily, but I think she's heard from DD. Anyway, I think that the christening or baptism predates the Fidelius charm by some months. The absence of either Pettigrew or Lupin from the ceremony indicates that DD had told them, or they had figured out for themselves, that the spy giving out information about Order members is someone close to them. Black, of course, would have been in as much danger as everyone else, but he was the only one they truly trusted. And he would not yet have been in any special danger as the supposed SK if my idea of the timing is right. Certainly, there's no point in making him Harry's godfather *after* the Fidelius Charm, and at that point, the Potters were in hiding, anyway. > Jen: What interests me the most is why Dumbledore might contact Petunia in the first place. He either did that because Lily asked or he decided to contact Petunia on his own imo. The two reasons I can think of for Lily requesting it of him would be 1) wanting Dumbledore to send something to Petunia since they are estranged and she knows it highly possible she's going to die (in which case Petunia may have a letter or object for Harry that she finally coughs up in DH), or 2) concern for Harry's future. Carol: Or she could have feared that Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, might die, too. James gives DD the Invisibility Cloak, which rather suggests that he expects to die and expects Harry to live. Maybe DD did tell them about the Prophecy when he suggested the Fidelius Charm, and maybe Lily mentioned her sister as an option if anything happened to them and their intended SK. That seems to me more likely than DD just taking matters into his own hands. Certainly, Petunia has at least one letter that she was supposed to have shown Harry already, the one that was tucked inside his blankets, but Lily wouldn't know about that. Concern for Harry's safety and future would be her sole motive in giving DD her sister's name, I think. Of course, she wouldn't expect Sirius Black to betray them, but she could easily have expected him to be killed as the McKinnons and Bones and Prewitts and Benjy Fenwick and so many others had been. Better to take him out of the WW altogether if anything happened. (She might even have thought, as James would not have, that Harry would be safer with her sister than with the recklessly courageous, Voldemort-hating Sirius Black. Just a thought!) > Jen: > But what would cause Dumbledore to contact an unknown relative on his own if that's what occurred? The only plausible reason I can think of would be Harry's future. Dumbledore knew the entire propehcy, understood how Voldemort operated and must have at least *suspected* Voldemort would attempt to kill one of the babies once it was clear he'd been handed the the first part of the prophecy. Dumbledore knowing the entire prophecy also meant knowing 'and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,' which Dumbledore could have surmised meant the baby being attacked would be marked but not die. Carol responds: Exactly. DD may state that the Prophecy would never have come true if Voldemort hadn't acted on it (paraphrased), but that doesn't mean he has no belief in it at all. "Mark him as his equal" and "either must die at the hand of the other" imply that "the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord" will survive their first encounter. IOW, that encounter will somehow "mark" him and give him powers somehow "equal" to those of the Dark Lord (and possibly "the power that the Dark Lord knows not" as well). And if, as I postulate, Snape showed DD his faded or fading Dark Mark immediately after the attack on GH, DD would have deduced from it that LV had been somehow defeated (not utterly or permanently destroyed because I'm sure that DD already suspected at least one Horcrux) and also that Harry, "the one with the power," had survived. And he would have sent Hagrid immediately to GH with orders to take Harry to his relatives in Surrey to make sure that Sirius Black, their supposed betrayer, didn't get there first and take Harry straight to Voldemort. Carol, thinking that DD was looking out for Harry's best interests in placing him with the Dursleys and that he had that plan in mind, minus the blood protection (he could not have anticipated Lily's sacrifice, or could he?), for at least a week or two before the Potters died From twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 8 18:18:10 2007 From: twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk (twodrink.ange) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:18:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: <380-2200765824043938@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170018 > Magpie: > Regardless, Petunia has never > performed magic, so I don't think she'd have any reason to get the letter. Petunia is the dark horse and holds the key. I've done some browsing on the web on the theory of Alchemy is, I think the strongest. If you follow this line it ties up so much. Its origins is mainly Egyptian. The Flower of life is used in many religions, Pagan being one. I think Lily and Petunia may be keepers of something to do with that. Why their names are of flowers is the clue. Jealousy seems to be the strongest motive for Petunia's behaviour, combined with fear. She blatantly doesn't wan't anything to do with the magical world as it scares her so much and Harry is a constant reminder of the danger she is in. JKR makes it clear that Lily's eyes are a major plot device. Again, the egyptians have a huge history of eyes and the power of them. Like the all-seeing eye, eye of ra etc. The emerald tablet would also fit in. Voldermort gave Lily the choice, maybe he suspected something but the prophecy took priority. Maybe Petunia is jealous that the power went to Harry instead of her? She does possess the knowledge that Harry needs tho. I think she is a guardian or some sort. Also with the Harry, Hermione are siblings theory, I think it's possible that they are soulmates, the yin,yang theory which may be what is the catalyst needed for some sort of ritual... Be interesting to see how it all resolves itself. twodrink.ange From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 19:53:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:53:03 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170019 Dana wrote: > There will be no new traitor revealed because DH will not be about turning HBP around but about the revelations of Harry's heart. Carol responds: While I actually agree that DH will be about Harry overcoming his desire for revenge and whatever other obstacles (both psychological and physical in the form of Horcruxes) stand in his way of defeating voldemort through love, I don't think we can state definitively that "there will be no new traitor" or that "DH will not be about turning HBP around." Based on both genre conventions (which, of course, JKR is free to adapt or ignore) and on the earlier books, I'd give the new traitor (not necessarily Lupin) a 50% chance and turning HBP around a much greater chance, at least 90% and probably greater than that. Obviously, you see it differently, and obviously, one of us is wrong, but it's premature to state absolutely that something will or won't happen. All we can do is state what we expect to happen and present our reasons and canon evidence for holding that view. Dana: > Everyone is so fixated on wanting to clear Snape of all responsibility that people seem to forget that the story is about Harry and his journey of growth. Carol responds: Everybody? Surely, there are at least four or five posters besides you who think that Snape is utterly despicable and evil. And even those of us who defend him are not trying to clear him of all responsibility. He chose to become a Death Eater. He revealed part of the Prophecy to Voldemort. There's no getting around those two choices, which were his own, regardless of what came afterward. Nor are we forgetting that "the story is about Harry and his journey of growth." That's what a Bildungsroman *is.* So, of course, we expect the books to focus on Harry and his psychological journey into adulthood, which, I agree with you, involves setting aside his desire for revenge (and, IMO, the temptation to use Unforgiveable Curses). As long as he wants to Crucio his enemies, he might as well be Draco Malfoy for all the power he'll have to defeat the Dark Lord. All the emphasis on Love magic being more powerful than Dark magic is in the books for a reason, but Harry has yet to understand what it's all about. Anyway, there's no "everybody" who's doing anything. The opinions on this list are as "many and varied" as the Dark Arts in Snape's description of them in HBP. Dana: > Harry will not be wrong but he will rise above the pettiness of revenge and hatred unlike Snape ever was able to do. It is Harry's fools journey (see tarot) and the final instalment will not be about defeating someone by physically killing or hurting that person or by being proven wrong. It will be the truth that will set Harry free but not Snape's truth but the truth of Harry's heart. Carol: I do think that Harry will be wrong, if only in his desire to seek vengeance on Snape. "He would never forgive Snape! Never!" just begs to be overturned. But that aside, I agree that he can't let Snape be his model regardless of where Snape's loyalties lie. He has to "rise above the pettiness of revenge and hatred." I think most people on the list (including most DDM!Snapers) share that view. (You see, we do have common ground that we can acknowledge without weakening our own respective positions.) I'm interested in your "fool's journey" idea as I don't know anything about Tarot. Can you clarify? It might very well tie in with the journey to adulthood of the protagonist of a Bildungsroman (which is what I see Harry undertaking--I'm not talking about Joseph Campbell and his "hero's journey" or anything like that). > Dana: > As I stated before and will state again DD's trust in Snape is not an airtight clause that would prevent Snape from ever betraying DD. Carol: But we still don't know DD's "ironclad reason" for trusting Snape because he didn't reveal it. All he said was that he trusted Severus snape completely. We can't judge whether that reason is "airtight" until we read it. Dana: > It is not DD that has to live up to the trust he gives but the people he gives it to. And there are many possibilities why Snape betrayed DD's trust in him but he nevertheless did and no matter > what you believe was his reason but nothing in JKR's world justifies the killing of other people and if she makes an exception with Snape then indeed I will ask Lupinore if I can hire his wood chipper. Carol: But we don't yet know that Snape betrayed DD's trust because we don't yet know what he meant by "Severus, please." And I'm afraid I can't agree that "nothing in JKR's world justifies the killing of other people." Otherwise, she wouldn't have Harry thinking (encouraged by Dumbledore) that he has to kill Voldemort (not that Voldie is truly human, but it's still killing if he does it) or Mad-Eye Moody killing only when he had to (it seems that he killed Evan Rosier, for example). And I think that *if* killing dumbledore was the only way for Snape to save Harry's and Draco's lives (especially Harry's), she would consider that justified. DD was going to die anyway, and JKR may think, as I do, that one death is better than four (DD's, snape's Draco's and, especially, Harry's). Maybe in your opinion nothing justifies killing Dumbledore, but I wouldn't be so sure without having read DH that JKR shares your views. And I rather expect that Harry won't share them, either, by the end of the book. (An aside: I *think* we agree in hoping that JKR will find some other way for Harry to permanently destroy LV than by casting an AK--the Veil, the Love room--something other than an AK or other Dark curse.) > > Dana, who totally doesn't care about the rules of literature and does not believe JKR will let her story be dictated to how it supposed to be instead of her writing it as she wants it to be. Carol, who isn't aware of any "rules of literature" but is pretty sure that JKR is aware of genre conventions and various narrative strategies and uses them to her advantage in telling the story she wants to tell From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 20:08:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:08:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170020 Sridhar wrote: > I am a bit of a lurker in this group and I confess that I have not > read all messages, so if this has been discussed, kindly point me to > the relevant thread and I'll happily stay away. > > DD's pensieve has all his thoughts hidden away. Does his death cause > those to disappear? If not, then it could prove the greatest ally to > Harry as he embarks on his journey [what that journey is another > thread, though]. Carol responds: I don't think that the Pensieve "has all [DD's] thoughts hidden away." For one thing, "all his thoughts" wouldn't fit in the Pensieve! He only takes out specific memories to examine them, often in relation to each other, and though we don't see him do it, he presumably puts them back into his head when he's through with them, just as Snape does in the Occlumency lessons. The Pensieve is not already full of DD's thoughts when Snape places his own three memories in it. Otherwise, he'd be in danger of putting DD's memories into his head instead of his own. Once Snape has returned the empty Pensieve to DD, DD can use it again for the various excursions that he and Harry take in HBP. It makes sense for the Pensieve to be empty when he places the new memories in it so that he and Harry won't accidentally stray into the wrong memory. And the memories that DD uses in HBP, whether they're his own or someone else's, have not been stored in the Pensieve itself but in bottles. (The ones that aren't his own are presumably restored to their respective bottles; those that are his own would probably be put back in his head since Harry has already seen them and has no need to revisit them.) I would not be surprised if Harry inherits the Pensieve and various bottled, labeled memories in DH, but not a Pensieve full of every memory DD ever had. And those memories, especially the ones relating to snape and/or godric's Hollow, could be very important to the plot of DH. Carol, noting that bottled memories don't disappear when their owner dies, as Bob Ogden's, Hokey's, Morfin Gaunt's, and Caractacus Burke's memories all demonstrate From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 20:30:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:30:16 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170021 Goddlefrood wrote: > > > > > Why, if bubotuber pus is effective against the more stubborn froms of acne (p. 172 - GoF, Bloomsbury Hardback), did Poppy not apply it to Marietta? > > Pippin: > It's clear that Eloise Midgen's acne has not been entirely cured, despite Madam Pomphrey's best efforts, and Marietta's case, according to Hermione, is much worse: "it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look like a couple of cute freckles." Carol responds: Good point. I also agree with Ceridwen that Madam Pomfrey is a professional who wouldn't pass judgment on a student and deny her a cure any more than she inquired what Hermione had done to "deserve" her elongated teeth in GoF or the St. Mungo's Healers inquire into the details of the family spats that send walnuts (or whatever) up people's nostrils. They just fix the damage as best they can. I would add that Marietta is a Ravenclaw, and she and her friends were probably good students. (that's what Ravenclaws are known for.) surely, one of them would have remembered learning about the uses of (diluted) bubotuber pus in their fourth year (which is when HRH learned about them). That aside, I suspect that magical acne is different from ordinary acne, however severe. Possibly acne caused by a (hypothetical) Pimple Potion or Pustule Potion could be cured by diluted bubotuber pus, or by an antidote with bubotuber pus as a key ingredient, but acne caused by a curse can only be cured by the specific countercurse. (Compare Sectumsempra. Also, spell damage and potion damage are treated in different sections of St. Mungo's, suggesting that different causes require different treatments.) Carol, again suggesting that the solution lies in finding the jinxed parchment and determining the spell that was placed on it (unless Hermione herself provides that information) From hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 8 17:59:19 2007 From: hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk (Mark Hyder Yahoo) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:59:19 +0100 Subject: Chocolate Frog Cards References: Message-ID: <00f301c7a9f6$bd08d4b0$4001a8c0@FAMILY> No: HPFGUIDX 170022 I do not think that Deatheaters get Chocolate Frog Cards. Thanks, Mark ELFY NOTE: Mark, could you please contact the list elves at the owner address? The owner address is HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Thanks! -- Ari Elf From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 21:05:07 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:05:07 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170024 > >>Dana: > And yet he [Lupin] still tries to live as any other wizard and > against all odds he maintains himself and keeps control even though > life is getting harder by the day. > Betsy Hp: Except that Lupin doesn't keep control of himself. During a time of great stress he neglected his medicine and transformed into a mindless beast driven by its desire to kill and eat human beings. At a school. For which he (correctly, IMO) lost his job. So Lupin is already aware that his ability to manage his dark side is not as good as it should have been. > >>Dana: > > On the contrary, his problem of telling the truth in PoA because of > the internal conflict he was struggling with, indicates that he > would never want to betray his friends and he could not chose > between revealing a secret he shared with one group of friends to a > person who gave him a chance to a normal life, who made it possible > for him to have these friends. > Betsy Hp: I'm not sure I've ever thought of things this way before, but Lupin *does* betray James in PoA. He allows James's son to be endangered by the man who caused the death of James and James's wife several years ago. We know that up until he finally talks to Sirius face to face at the end of PoA, Lupin thinks Sirius is a killer out to get Harry. But Lupin falls down in the job of keeping Harry safe. He witholds crucial information. So it cannot be a sort of oddly displaced loyalty to the last tattered idea of the Marauder friendship, because then we have to explain why Lupin puts more weight on his friendship with Sirius than his friendship with James. (The Lupin/Sirius ship would help things out here, but unfortunately it's been sunk by Herself.) So in the end, it really seems that Lupin's keeping secrets for selfish reasons, not for reasons of friendship. I'm not sure I follow all of Pippin's views of Lupin, but there's certainly something sinister about him and his odd disregard for others and unwillingness to act. Betsy Hp From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 21:51:39 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:51:39 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Dirty Little Secret Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170025 (All citation is to the U.S., Scholastic version of the books.) I would make the requisite facile apology for not having read every Petunia post on the list--in the off-chance that I'm being repetitive- -but you'd know I wasn't sincere. I value my sanity too highly. If someone has said this all before, by all means send them my way. I might enjoy the conversation. Now to the problem at hand: What *is* our horse-faced housekeeper hiding under her apron? Even before the evidentiary enticements of OoP and HBP, readers wondered about Petunia. Would she be Rowling's magical late-bloomer? What was in the letter DD left with baby Harry, that would induce her to take him in, against her every inclination? As the series finale looms ever closer, these inferious questions rise again, compounded now by the revelations of Books 5 and 6. People are revisiting the matter of her magical potential--in spite of Rowling's pointed clarification that Petunia is 100% certified Muggle meat--not even allowed the proximity of Squibdom. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 Alternatively, there has been wild speculation that she is an (erstwhile?) member of the Order of the Phoenix, rearing the hateful brat in exchange for DD's keeping that *awful truth* from Vernon. St. Mungo forefend! Though I am long on record as encouraging readers to subject Ms. Rowling's utterances to the highest of critical scrutinies, I think we must content ourselves that Petunia hasn't so much as a magical corpuscle in her bony little body. And, far from being justified by the text, the idea that she ever served in Dumbledore's ranks requires readers to contort themselves in unseemly acts of analytical acrobatics. To the contrary, the evidence to date fairly shrieks that Auntie was a Death Eater. Consider the following: The meager *parenting* Petunia offers Harry is clearly gained by powerful coercion. Although our story is shot through with the thespian antics of espionage, Petunia's unconcealed loathing for Harry is no ruse. Not that Vernon needs any encouragement to be nasty, but it is just as clear that, for more than 15 years, Petunia has perpetrated myriad acts of cruelty, petty and otherwise, in satisfaction of her own base emotions. Nor is Petunia compelled by any fear of incurring Vernon's displeasure. It is She who has the final word in the Dursley household. >From Vernon's demonstrated dread of raising *the Potter issue* with his wife in Book 1 (5, 7), to his rapid acquiescence when she quashes his ouster of Harry in Book 5 (40), it is clear who calls the shots. In OoP, Dumbledore acknowledges that Petunia never loved Harry, and only took him in " grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly " (836). The only question, is *why* she performs this repugnant office. Clearly, DD has some hold over her, something stemming from the past, something powerful enough that it usually controls her-- in equipoise against her deep hatred of the boy. And, when events finally threaten to break this established compliance, he can regain control with but the cryptic remonstration: "Remember my last!" (OoP 40). So just what *was* in that *last* little missive he sent to Petunia but not to Vernon? I assert that it was an explanation of how Dumbledore was aware, and had ample evidence to prove, that Petunia had collaborated with Lord Voldemort; that she was literally, or for all practical purposes, a Death Eater, and that, if she did not comply with his wish that she take young Harry in, he would see to it that she spend the rest of her days in Azkaban Fortress, under the watchful eyes of the dementors. Petunia's reaction to the news of the dementor attack in OoP is telling in this regard: "De-men-tors," said Harry slowly and clearly. "Two of them." "And what the ruddy hell are dementors?" [Vernon asked.] "They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban," said Aunt Petunia. (OoP 31) She didn't say, "Hang on, I've heard that word before..." or search her memory for so much a moment. Nor did she have any trouble instantly recalling the prison name. Rowling has Harry reflect--not only on the extraordinary occasion of Petunia's reference to things wizardly, but: "He was astonished that she had remembered this scrap of information about the magical world for so long " (OoP 32). In fact, she more than *remembered* this piece of trivia, it flew out of her lips before she could slap her hand over her mouth. Nor can we explain her memory as a function of the dementor's inherent ghastliness, for in this regard, Petunia knows too little. While indicating exactly where they work, she has no idea of their special horrors. It is not until *after* Harry explains that dementors not only suck "all the happiness" out of you, but can also "suck the soul out of your mouth" (OoP 34) that Petunia screams and starts shaking Dudley as if hoping to still "hear his soul rattling around inside him" (34). Petunia knows what dementors are because of their relation to Azkaban, and not the other way round. In contrast to her fluid blurt of information, Petunia then *jerkily* claims that her familiarity arises from hearing "that awful boy-- telling *her* about them--years ago" (OoP 32). Harry assumes she is referring to his parents--maybe so. She has already acknowledged, back in the hut on the rock, that Lily exposed her both to bits of the magical world, and to James. Claiming them as her source of information is the best spin she could possibly put on her curious announcement. Damage control. But, that would mean that she overheard these, to an innocent Petunia, necessarily irrelevant factoids, at a minimum, 14 years earlier (before GH). Likely even more than that. Thus, the reader is left with two possibilities: either Rowling is trying to demonstrate that Auntie has a mind like a steel trap, or the truth--regarding Petunia's heightened awareness of Azkaban--lies elsewhere. The force of implication is that Azkaban is a matter of intense personal interest to Petunia; an interest that has persisted-- resulting in her frequent review of the subject--lo, these past 14 years. Sans doute, Petunia *has* brooded about Azkaban, and it's dolorous guards, every single day, whenever she feels the impulse to rid herself of Harry. The encouragement that makes her grit her teeth and trudge on, is the prospect of wasting her exemplary housekeeping talents scrubbing the grout in that wretched wizarding goal, forevermore. This explains Dumbledore's somewhat superfluous explanation to young Riddle, that by entering the magical world, Riddle subjects himself to wizarding law (HBP 273). No rational reader would have felt a draft if DD had been less specific. We have no reason to challenge the Wizarding World's right to punish RiddleMort. And, though Riddle was undoubtedly a very bad boy, he wasn't stupid enough--a fortiori after DD demonstrated a preternatural awareness, and disapproval, of Riddle's orphanly misdeeds-- to screw the pooch by indiscretion in his subsequent schoolboy crimes, which had risen to multiple homicides before graduation. It's not so much that it was *wrong* to focus on the wizarding social contract, as it was over abundant. It smacks of the foundational information Rowling needed to lay in Book 5, to justify events to be revealed in Book 7. ("You need what's in there [OoP] if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in book seven." Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview, Part II. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705- tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm ) Muggle or no, if Petunia intruded into the WW in service of Lord Voldemort, she brought herself within the jurisdiction of the MoM, and remains subject to imprisonment in Azkaban. The idea of Muggles in wizarding institutions is also raised where, in Chapter 22, we find that two Muggles are in St. Mungo's for emergency services, thanks to Willy Windershins's biting doorknobs (OoP 490). These less radical examples serve the same end: to bring the upcoming notion, of Petunia in Azkaban, within fair bounds. Additionally, Rowling tells us that Muggle-borns are as bad as Muggles. "As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle." (J.K. Rowling Official Site, F.A.Q. section. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58 ). Yet, she also tells us that Muggle-borns can be Death Eaters * in rare circumstances* (Edinburgh Book Festival, Sunday, August 15, 2004. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm ) The logic follows that, in rare circumstances, a Muggle can be a Death Eater, too. So far, we have seen no such example. Now this distillation sits among us, all loaded and ready, the way Chekhov liked it. Then to, let us reconsider Rowling's "indiscretion" from her 2004 News item, more fulsomely: Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet. (J.K. Rowling Official Site: News August 15, 2004 http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 ) If Petunia is a consummate Muggle--which I don't doubt--and not a Squib at all, then why is *squib* a *very good guess?* I'll tell you why: because like a Squib, Death Eater Petunia has lurked on the threshold of the magical world. Recall Rowling's description of a Squib's lot: "Squibs are often doomed to a rather sad kind of half-life they will be exposed to, if not immersed in, the wizarding community, but can never truly join it. Sometimes they find a way to fit; Filch has carved himself a niche at Hogwarts and Arabella Figg operates as Dumbledore's liaison between the magical and Muggle worlds. (J. K. Rowling Official Site: Extra Stuff http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 ) Likewise, DE!Petunia carved herself a niche in the periphery of the magical world, as a Muggle-laison and operative for Voldemort. While not a Squib, herself, Petunia has behaved in a squibish manner; ergo, squib is a toasty warm guess. The earlier relationship with our villain also explains why Petunia is the only one in the kitchen, besides Harry, who has "an inkling of what Lord Voldemort being back might mean" (OoP 38). And she is demonstrably terrified. Once a DE, always a DE--or exit feet first. It's a marvelous Rock and a Hard Place: Dumbledore will slip her a one-way ticket to Azkaban if she reneges on the deal, and Voldemort will whack her for flipping sides. With regard to Petunia, what more could a reader ask for? Those who imagine that her odd *flush* in HBP bespeaks a sudden flood of maternal feelings for our hero should remove the rosy specs and review, not only the long history of maltreatment rained on Harry through the years, but the fact that Petunia has just been called an abusive and deplorable parent--in regard to both Harry and Dudley-- and that DD's *request* of another (especially dangerous) year's compliance tacitly raises her guilt, obligation, and penalty for lapse, right there in the sanctity of her own living room. Anger and humiliation are two time-honored reasons for going red in the face, and much more in keeping with the course of events. Additionally, Petunia having such a change of heart would be a massive step toward redemption. Rowling doesn't seem to want to redeem the Dursleys: 'I like torturing them,' said Rowling. 'You should keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon. (Cinescape interview, 16 November 2000: http://www.accio- quote.org/articles/2000/1100-cinescape-garcia2.htm ) Okay, you say. That was 2000, this is 2007, and maybe Rowling changed her mind. Will the old girl get the last minute *reprieve?* Odds are against it. Ambiguity has not been organically *built* into Petunia's behavior to support a *justified* alternative view. The force of the textual evidence is that she took Harry in under compulsion and has hated every minute of it. In OoP, Rowling interjects the howler immediately before Petunia orders Vernon to let Harry stay. This is appropriate technique: we are given a credible motivational basis to explain why Petunia would do such a *nice* thing. Therefore, her character isn't changed in respect to her long- standing loathing for Harry; indeed, we are shown that she must be threatened into compliance with her earlier agreement. (And, of course, Harry is treated, thereafter, as if Number 4 were his prison.) Between this series-consistent behavior and her hot cheeks in HBP we are given no causal basis, whatsoever, to explain a change in character, let alone such a profound one as *motherly feelings* would entail. Furthermore, redemption asks that her past sins not be *too* egregious (say, helping to axe Lily), yet, if they do not warrant dire punishment, we have no plausible explanation for her fixation with Azkaban, and so, no inducement sufficient to compel to her to act against her nature, by taking Harry in. In short, it would make a hash of things. The other way round is so much more felicitous. Why not squash her like a bug, and enjoy it? Then there is the matter of her pathological cleaning obsession. Lady Macbeth springs to mind: she rubs and rubs (in this case the kitchen surfaces) but the spot remains. Or should we say the mark? Does Petunia have some interesting body art on her left forearm? Possibly. For all we know she eschews short-sleeved cocktail dresses. Alternatively, DD might have cleaned her up. Wouldn't do to excite young Harry, prematurely. But I think the better answer is that she never had the Dark Mark, regardless of her affiliation with Voldemort. After all, the Dark Mark is used to call the Death Eaters to their Master's side. Petunia couldn't apparate, and Voldemort would hardly wait around while she hopped a bus. There is just no point in branding her with a summoning device. Even if she made it to a meeting, she would have caused a furor among the blood-elect, who would never have tolerated a Muggle presence in the circle of brotherhood. Voldemort could have no possible interest in sowing such unrest. Nor would he wish to expose his followers or meeting places to a pariah's scrutiny. More likely he dealt with her at a long arm's length, holding his nose the whole while. Finally, Voldemort cares about symbolism. Petunia may have been useful, but he wouldn't want his elite identifier gracing her foul Muggle hide. No, Petunia doesn't wear a physical Dark Mark. Still, her perpetual scouring is the external symptom of an inner mark. Her inept efforts to erase an interior filth that soap can't touch: the guilty residue of her transgressions. And so we see the perfectly charming noose of Petunia's plot arc, drawing to a close. Some remaining questions of interest are: What exactly did Petunia do for Voldemort? Did she play a role in Godric's Hollow? Will she, in a desperate attempt to re-ingratiate herself, turn on Harry when Voldemort comes knocking? (Especially if she's learned that Dumbledore is defunct?) Talisman, saying, let's have her go out after a *last vile move* that sets up the delightfully thorough smack down. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 21:58:11 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:58:11 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique and the SK switch (Was: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170026 > Carol responds: > But what I don't understand is why they thought that the SK would be > in danger at all. The Fidelius Charm wasn't common knowledge, AFAWK, > until Sirius Black's name as the supposed SK appeared in the Daily > Prophet after his arrest. zgirnius: I disagree here. I think one of the points of casting the Fidelius Charm is to make it possible for people to know where the Potters are without endangering the people or the Potters. The problem the Potters had was that Voldemort had a spy close to them, who was reporting on their movements. Without the Fidelius, this meant they could tell noone where they were, except for an extremely limited cricle of people (like Sirius) whom they trusted completely not to be the traitor, and not to pass on the information tro someone who might be. With the charm, it would again be possible to tell friends where they were hiding. Because, even though one of those friends was a spy, he or she would be unable to tell Voldemort (ro anyone else) the secret. But if this was the idea of using the charm, then the spy *would* be able to tell Voldemort that the charm was in use, which would put anyone suspected of being the SK in danger (not necessarily of death, for the reasons discussed in this thread) but certainly of capture and interrogation. Sirius considered himself a likely suspect, quite reasonably, in light of his close relationship with James. I think the idea was that if Sirius vanished, the spy would conclude that Sirius was the SK. From kamilaa at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 21:57:12 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:57:12 -0500 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170027 It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using dragons in DH. At the very least in the new art we can see that the trio use a dragon for transportation. I wonder if it would be possible to tell what variety of dragon this is from the art. I don't have my books to hand, so I can't prowl though FB to read up on color/confirmation issues (and that assumes MGP did the same thing before laying art to canvas), but personally I'm wondering if that is Norbert they are riding - if not, it's almost certainly one of Charlie's dragons. But personally, I hope it's Norbert. Kamil From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Fri Jun 8 22:05:10 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:05:10 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's original body/Mrs Figg/New Art Revealed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170028 In message #169956 Carol wrote: >I have the same problem. If his body was found, mutilated or >otherwise, he would be firmly believed to be dead. If his body wasn't >found, how does anyone know for sure that he didn't just run away >after killing the adult Potters and failing to kill Harry. Is it only >Dumbledore's (and spy!Snape's) word that Voldemort was after the >Potters? Why is everyone celebrating? Ann: I know that was posted a few days ago, but I've only just been thinking about this. Firstly, we don't know much about what happened at Godric's Hollow at all. For all we know there *was* a body. But if there was, remember, it had just had a house collapse on it. If so, I doubt a detailed description will be forthcoming. As to why we know so little about what happened that night, I think that's JKR assuming we'd fill in the basic blanks and knowing that she had more to add on the topic. The waiter recommends a side order of Shesezso to compliment the exquisite taste of this idea! Onwards and upwards. People have been wondering lately who might "perform magic late in life", so I thought I'd add my tuppence worth. This has to be a non-magical character, i.e. a muggle or squib, which means the candidates are Filch, Mrs Figg, or one of the three Dursleys. (Unless it's some character who's only been mentioned once before or something, which I would consider Not Fair.) Of the five, none of the Dursleys are late in life - IMHO, Petunia and Vernon are only in their forties. Not much has been made of Filch's age, and I think he's unlikely anyway, so my money's firmly on Mrs Figg. Lastly, seeing the DH special edition cover (which I think is great, by the by) made me wonder about the theories of regular/symmetrical repetition in the series. I'm vaguely convinced that DH will have something to do with PoA. But dragons have cropped up twice in the novels before: PS/SS (Norbert) and GoF (the First Task.) Does anyone else think there might be something to this? What happens in books 1 and 4 *only*? The first thing that comes to my mind is that both climax in a formal maze, the obstacle course in PS/SS and the Third Task in GoF, and then Voldemort turns up. Ann, expecting Mrs Figg to turn into a dragon in DH From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Fri Jun 8 23:21:11 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:21:11 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > Carol responds: > Possibly acne caused by a (hypothetical) Pimple > Potion or Pustule Potion could be cured by diluted bubotuber pus, or > by an antidote with bubotuber pus as a key ingredient, but acne caused > by a curse can only be cured by the specific countercurse. (Compare > Sectumsempra. Also, spell damage and potion damage are treated in > different sections of St. Mungo's, suggesting that different causes > require different treatments.) > > Carol, again suggesting that the solution lies in finding the jinxed > parchment and determining the spell that was placed on it (unless > Hermione herself provides that information) Sridhar says: I think that some "disease" or "disfigurement" caused by curses cannot be simply cured by potions. I remember canon (although writing this half-asleep means I don't remember the details) has a description of what happened to a girl who tried to magic her acne away. Poppy was able to cure her then, as the girl might have told her what she had tried to do. But Hermione has not revealed the hex she used, so I agree with Carol when she says that knowing the hex only would help to find the solution. Otherwise, any attempts at "curing" may only increase the problem, thereby Marietta had to be in St. Mungo's for a very long time Sridhar From horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 8 23:16:39 2007 From: horadesiesta at yahoo.co.uk (horadesiesta) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:16:39 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Dirty Little Secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > Some remaining questions of interest are: > > What exactly did Petunia do for Voldemort? > > Did she play a role in Godric's Hollow? > > Will she, in a desperate attempt to re-ingratiate herself, turn on > Harry when Voldemort comes knocking? (Especially if she's learned > that Dumbledore is defunct?) > > Talisman, saying, let's have her go out after a *last vile move* > that sets up the delightfully thorough smack down. > Another question - Do you think she knew a dark-haired wizard from up North that acted as her go-between when dealing with the DL? After all, Snape seems to be in every other area of the books. As to what Petunia did - I imagine that she passed on information (through Snape) about what the Potters and other wizarding families were up to, which led to their deaths. I think if that?s the case we should ask ourselves what LV promised them in return, the reason why she would do such a thing. Clara - wondering where Petunia?s loyalties lie. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 9 00:10:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:10:55 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170031 > > Pippin: > > I think OOP shows us very strongly what is wrong with this > > line of reasoning. It is just not enough to have acceptance from > > your friends. That can't make up for being deprived of your > > rights or being considered so monstrous no stranger would ask > > you to dinner, or let you be near their children, or even > > share a hospital room with you. > > Dana: > And yet he still tries to live as any other wizard and against all > odds he maintains himself and keeps control even though life is > getting harder by the day. > OotP does not show us there is something wrong with this reasoning > because it is Hermione, Winky, Dobby and the rest of the house elves > that show us that change cannot be pressed upon a group that doesn't > want change. Pippin: But he's not allowed to live as any other wizard. Legislation has been passed that keeps him from getting a job even if someone like Dumbledore wants to hire him. Lupin at least *does* want change, Sirius says Harry should hear him talk about Umbridge and her anti- werewolf legislation. Hermione did get sidetracked in OOP from her original focus on getting Wizards to recognize Elf rights, but she is still the loudest and most consistent voice against bigotry. She has yet to experience institutionalized anti-Muggleborn feeling first-hand, of course, but I'm guessing that's going to change now that Dumbledore has been silenced. Anyone think she's going to confine *her* protests to peaceable, legal avenues when her rights are threatened? > > Pippin: > > Lupin's is not the voice against bigotry in canon. What has > > he ever done to win acceptance for werewolves? He has always > > tried to conceal what he was, as a student and then as a teacher. > > It's Hermione who has been working to change the hearts and > > minds of the WW. If she continues to believe in equal rights, > > and tells Harry why, despite Lupin's treachery, he should too, > > it will do far more for the cause of civil rights in the RW than > > creating pity for werewolves, who after all don't exist. > > Dana: > Yes, he is because he chooses to remain living among wizards and not > chose the life that has been dedicated for werewolves by Greyback. > Lupin was send to spy on the werewolves but he in order to do that > had to gain some trust and now with Greyback gone, Lupin might become > the factor of change within the werewolf group and with them and his > friends together, after LV is defeated, they can start to demand to > be given rights like other humans within their society do. Pippin: Voldemort was gone for twelve years, and in that time things only got worse. Dana: > I'm sorry but to me it seems ESE!Lupin is just a figure of the > imagination and actually proofs JKR's point because applying the > suspicion to him being ESE is what the rest of the WW does too, that > werewolves cannot be trusted. Pippin: We'll soon know which theories are remarkably prescient and which are remarkably silly :) If I've invented all this, I'll be gobsmacked though. I never knew I had it in me ;) But you're right, Lupin's downfall, should it become public knowledge, will make things harder for werewolves. Yes, indeed. But nobody said it was going to be easy, did they? Dana: > On the contrary, his problem of telling the truth in PoA because of > the internal conflict he was struggling with, indicates that he would > never want to betray his friends and he could not chose between > revealing a secret he shared with one group of friends to a person > who gave him a chance to a normal life, who made it possible for him > to have these friends. So instead he denied Sirius using his animagus > form to enter the castle. It was wrong no doubt about it but he still > did not want to just betray any of them. Pippin: His reasoning was that Sirius was entering the castle through other means, by some dark arts he'd learned from Voldemort. That doesn't sound as if he had any doubts about Sirius's loyalty to the Dark Lord. If you really mean you believe he'd be loyal to a friend even when he thinks they've gone over to the Dark Side, then you're an ESE!Lupin supporter. Welcome! Dana: Sure he states that he just > did it because he was scared of losing DD's trust but he also gives > himself the guilt of his friends becoming illegal animagi, while > James and Sirius are surely not people who could be told what to do > and even if Lupin had been against it they would have done it anyway. Pippin: He could have stopped it at any time. All he had to do was tell them that it had to end or he'd go to McGonagall. I've never taken an actual count of the times we've seen Lupin tell Sirius what to do, but I guarantee it outweighs the times we've seen Sirius tell Lupin what to do. There are a lot of times when Sirius does what he wants and Lupin, though displeased, doesn't say anything. But when Lupin does talk, Sirius listens. Dana: > It is just my opinion but I do not think any of the books gives > indication that Lupin was put in there to show a disease will give > you no other option then to be ESE. Pippin: *Not* the disease, but *human* weaknesses. ESE!Lupin's downfall is not the wolf inside but his human failing of cutting his friends too much slack, which he rightly calls cowardice. I believe that Lupin genuinely honored Dumbledore and believed that Dumbledore's way (which I take to be gradual peaceful change) was a better path. But IMO, once he'd gained the trust of his fellow werewolves, he didn't have the guts to break with them over it. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 01:01:29 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:01:29 -0000 Subject: The Cure - Why not use it Poppy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sridharj_ap" wrote: > I remember canon (although writing this half-asleep means I don't > remember the details) has a description of what happened to a girl > who tried to magic her acne away. Poppy was able to cure her then, as > the girl might have told her what she had tried to do. zanooda: Yeah, that was Eloise Midgen. The poor girl tried to curse her acne off and lost her nose, if I understand it right. And yes, Madam Pomfrey "fixed her nose back on", but not to the right place, I'm afraid. Remember how before the Yule ball Ron says that Eloise's nose is off-center :-)? But you are right, I think she was able to tell Madam Pomfrey what hex she used. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 01:22:44 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:22:44 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the Boggart (POA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mjm1089" wrote: > > Any other ideas as to why Lupin didn't let Hermione tackle the > boggart? mjm1089 > Dondee: As I recall... Ron's spider!boggart lost it's leggs and went rolling towards Lavender, Lav Lav went scampering out of the way and spider! boggart came to a rest at Harry's feet. Before the boggart could transform into Harry's worst fear Lupin distracted it and then set Nevil on it to finish it off. Lupin tells Harry later that the reason he distracted the boggart was because he thought it was going to turn into Voldie and scare all the kids. I take this to mean that if spider!boggart had rolled elsewhere, or if Lav Lav had faced it, the lesson would have continued untill it was Harry's turn (imagine how much worse Harry would have felt if all his other classmates had had a go except for him). Hermione was not excluded or protected in this, she just wasn't the closest to the boggart. Cheers, Dondee From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Jun 9 02:50:35 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:50:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1742581097.20070608195035@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170034 Kamil: K> I wonder if it would be possible to tell what variety of dragon K> this is from the art. Looking through the Dragon breed descriptions in _FB_, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it is an Antipodean Opaleye (based on the "iridescent scales" and "pupil-less eyes"). If I'm right, this could have implications for the Horcrux hunt: _FB_ says that this breed lives in Australia and New Zealand. Does this mean that not all the Horcruxes are in the UK, or even the Northern Hemisphere?(!!) Another thing I find interesting about this dragon is that it really, really looks like he/she has human-like, opposable thumbs!! On a more general note, is anyone else getting the impression that this book may turn out to be in tone much more like traditional fantasy (e.g. LotR) than any of the previous six? Dave From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 02:51:26 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:51:26 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kamil wrote: > I wonder if it would be possible to tell what variety of dragon > this is from the art. The first thing I noticed was the *opal like* eye. Recalling such a beast in FBWTFT, I took a quick peek and found the Antipodean Opaleye (11). It's got a few miles on it's odometer, as I call it. But cheerful and obviously handy. What do you suppose they are all looking at? Just a few wisps of cloud, or could that be smoke wafting through the air? Talisman, fascinated by those long dragon fingers. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 03:01:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:01:38 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170036 Anne Squires wrote: > > It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using dragons in DH. At the very least in the new art we can see that the trio use a dragon for transportation. > Kamil responded: > I wonder if it would be possible to tell what variety of dragon this is from the art. I don't have my books to hand, so I can't prowl though FB to read up on color/confirmation issues (and that assumes MGP did the same thing before laying art to canvas), but personally I'm wondering if that is Norbert they are riding - if not, it's almost certainly one of Charlie's dragons. > > But personally, I hope it's Norbert. > > Kamil Carol adds: Thanks, Anne! I just made that cover art my new wallpaper, temporarily(?) replacing Harry and Voldemort in the arena (or it looks like an arena to me). I don't think that the dragon is Norbert because Norwegian Ridgebacks are jet-black, and I think Mary GrandPre would get that detail correct, if only because she knows how fans would react if she got it wrong. Based on the dragon's eye (the one we can see), its apparent docility, and its general appearance, I think it's an Antipodean Opal-Eye. Here's the description from FBAWTFT: "The Opaleye is a native of New Zealand, though it has been known to migrate to Australia when territory becomes scarce in its native land. Unusually for a dragon, it dwells in valleys rather than mountains. It is of medium size (between two and three tonnes). Perhaps the most beautiful type of dragon, it has iridescent, pearly scales and glittering, multicolored, pupil-less eyes, hence its name. The dragon produces a very vivid scarlet flame, but by dragon standards, it is not particularly aggressive and will rarely kill unless hungry. Its favorite food is sheep. . . ." (11). Granted, the Opaleye's native territory is rather far from England, but Charlie seems to deal with all sorts and species of dragons on the dragon reservation in Romania, including a Chinese fireball. According to FB, "wizards of all nations study a variety of dragon species" there (14). If Charlie can get a dragon from China for the TWT, why not New Zealand as transportation for the Chosen One? Also, the eyes look like opals to me. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chalmersjewelers.com/site/uploads/Image/OpalWhite_EKB.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chalmersjewelers.com/detail.lasso%3FID%3D53%26SectionID%3D1&h=483&w=648&sz=53&hl=en&start=14&sig2=FGKEKgGKX8iHWFEQkOrxQw&tbnid=LxX7lYgydqcpFM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=137&ei=RxFqRuLHL6KuggOhyonfAg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dopal%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DG If the image link doesn't work, go to the main site, http://www.chalmersjewelers.com/detail.lasso?ID=53&SectionID=1 which mentions that opals, an October birthstone, are Australia's national gemstone and states that Queen Victoria "adored" opals, giving one to each of her daughters to help dispel their reputation for bringing bad luck to people not born in October. Here's another photo, this one of opal jewelry (scroll down to see them all): http://www.campuscomm.k12.de.us/gemstone/opal/class3.html I could, of course, be completely wrong, but based on the drawing, I think we can rule out any dragon that's described as being black, scarlet, or blue or having a liking for human flesh. It could be a Romanian Longhorn, though, given the horn and the fact that Charlie is in Romania, or possibly a Common Welsh Green, though it doesn't look very green and the Welsh Green isn't described as having horns. I'm still going with the Opaleye, with the Romanian Longhorn as a close second. Carol, who's been expecting Charlie to make a contribution to the story and hoping that this dragon isn't all we'll get from him From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 04:04:11 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:04:11 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > What do you suppose they are all looking at? Just a few wisps of cloud,or could that be smoke wafting through the air? err.....or creeping mist. Noting that Scamander says Opaleyes like valleys, which are sometimes called *Hollows.* Dragons and Godric's Hollow, and a spellbinding moment..... Cheers T From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 9 04:18:38 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:18:38 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170038 > Magpie: > I wasn't skating up to any guess, actually. I was just saying that > since Rowling doesn't flat-out lie in interviews I thought if she > said Petunia was a Muggle I should assume she was a Muggle as we've > always been given to understood the term in canon. Ken: The thing is that I understand the term from canon somewhat differently than you do so I would not consider this a lie, flat out or otherwise. Does Rowling think more like me or you in this matter? If the former then this quess is plausible. If she thinks more like you, but still considers this only a small fib after all then it is still possible. It is just a guess about a matter of limited scope after all, not a grandiose Theory Of Everything. > Magpie: > Petunia must have, for instance, been walking with > Lily and seen the Leaky Cauldron and realized she and Lily were the > only ones who could see it and somehow recognized this meant she had > magical powers that she was thereafter able to repress so thoroughly > that she didn't even show the uncontrolled signs other kids show. > She can't even have been frightened by doing magic--she must have > been frightened by, in this case, seeing a pub. Ken: You try to make it sound totally implausible but Neville was a late bloomer and someone, opinion seems divided between Filch and Figgy, is going to be a much, much later bloomer in DH according to the author. Petunia could have gotten into her teen years without having a magical moment. Petunia didn't have to be frightened by a pub, she may already have been frightened by Lily's magic. What frightened her about the pub was not the pub but what being able to see the pub implied. The pub is just one scenario that would allow her to realize she was a witch without actively doing magic. Getting an invitation from Hogwarts without ever having performed magic would be another. I honestly don't see how you can seriously suggest that *Petunia* is incapable of suppressing her magical gift. If *anyone* in this series could do this it would be Petunia. After all, Vernon and Petunia seemed to be confident that they would be able to suppress Harry's talent for some reason. > Magpie: > And also the fact > that canon says that Petunia, as a Dursley, has not a drop of > magical blood must be just colorful language (even though in this > series "magical blood" is a very real thing) because Lily and > Petunia have the same blood. Except they get their blood from their > parents, who are Muggles. So the parents must have magical blood > too. Making the line "The Dursleys were what Wizards called Muggles > (not a drop of magical blood in their veins)" really colorful. > Ken: Well Petunia is an Evans not a Dursley but yeah, I think the drop of blood comment could just be a rhetorical exaggeration in this case. Petunia's blood is quite powerful magically according to canon, it is the source of Harry's protection at her home. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that a Muggle's blood could be so powerful? It is almost like a clue that is so obvious that we all miss it. I mean even if there is nothing more to it at all and Petunia is a Muggle in exactly the way you define Muggle, then Lily's sacrifice has put the lie to the claim that Petunia has not a drop of magical blood in her. Lily's sacrifice has made Petunia's blood quite powerfully magical until Harry turns 17. > Magpie: > I mean, I know that the split between Wizards and Muggles is not as > clear as some Wizards would like because of Muggle-borns and Squibs. > But it's so far seemed clearer than someone being able to be both at > the same time. You say we just decide what we're going to call > Merope, but it still seems clear to me that Merope, even at her > death, has a abilities a Muggle can not have. Had she recovered, she > would have recovered her abilities like Tonks did, presumably. Just > as Petunia, if she's repressing her magic, is just as much a witch > as Hermione is when Hermione's not doing magic. Ken: I didn't say, or didn't mean to say, that you could be both at the same time. I did say that one person could be both at different stages in their life and that is very different. I'm not sure what abilities Merope had at her death that a Muggle wouldn't have, do you have an example? Well before her death Merope barely had magical power in that lovely scene with her father and brother in the Gaunt hovel. She was a barely functioning witch at that time. Evidently she bloomed a bit when on her own but I don't see any reason to be confident that she would have recovered her power if she had lived past Tom's birth. I think she essentially gave up her life even as she had given up her power shortly before. That is probably an essential difference between your understanding and mine. I consider Merope's loss of power as final and she became Muggle at that point. I view it as being similar to the choice Arwen made when she married Aragorn. She became human and mortal. Tonks' case is far different. One of her powers was weakened by her furry problem. Otherwise she was still such a powerfully effective witch that she remained on active duty with the Order. > Magpie: > But surely it's possible she *could* come up with something that was > satisfying without Petunia being a witch--which wouldn't necessarily > be that much of a bombshell to Harry anyway? I mean, even in this > scenario Petunia is a Muggle for all intents and purposes, right? > She's not going to do magic, ever. > Ken: Yes, of course, on both counts. And if she isn't going to use my splendid idea, I hope she does come up with something equally splendid. I would not expect Petunia to do magic even if this notion turned out to be true. I would just be wonderfully ironic if Petunia had been a nascent witch who refused the calling. I wouldn't expect it to be significant to the plot in any way. I'd expect it to come out in a scene where Petunia reveals something else she knows that might be significant. Now wouldn't it be worth whatever damage you feel it would do to Rowling's veracity for the chance to "see" the expression on Uncle Vernon's face when Petunia drops *that* shoe? But then I'd be just as happy if it turned out the Petunia had merely been Snape's Muggle girlfriend for a while .... Ken ;-) From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 05:09:35 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:09:35 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170039 > "grouchymedic_26149" wrote: > > > > 3. Dragons. Numerous references as to how tough it is to use magic > > against them. Could a dragon be domesticated/trained to be used as a > > kdefensive/offensive weapon? > > > > Paul > > Anne Squires: > > It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using dragons in > DH. At the very least in the new art we can see that the trio use a > dragon for transportation. > snip mz_annethrope: This morning our household was discussing how HRH could ride a dragon given the difficulty of using magic against one. We were thinking that Aberforth could be an animagus, since Snape--another dragon animagus possibility--would be as likely to consent to be a beast of burdern as would an ordinary centaur. Then an easy solution occured to me. What if dragons understand Parseltongue? Slytherin's serpent understood Parseltongue. Dragons are sometimes classified as serpents. Perhaps all reptiles understand snake speech. ("Dragon" supposedly from Greek "derkomai" middle voice for "to stare fixedly" and according to my hated Greek professor refers to serpents, a certain law giver, and by extension any reptile). Harry might be able to "tame" this beast simply by speaking to it in its own language. mz_annethrope From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 09:51:48 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 02:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) Message-ID: <936970.91907.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170040 Goddlefrood with an Introduction: Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, deceased, the man behind the plan to rid the wizarding world of Lord Voldemort. This is a study of aspects of him, including something on his family. It will start with some biographical material and name analysis, move on from there to look at his deadness, then to some clues and extrapolations therefrom that must be considered as relevant to book 7, IMO and thereafter expand on whether we should consider him a manipulator or a trainer. Relationships will follow, first his early involvement with Harry and other Potters, second his knowledge of Lord Voldemort and thirdly his family. Before wrapping it all up with a conclusion Ill even throw in a little about his mistakes, which he himself admits are consequentially larger than those of others. What I will not be including, because Ive written quite extensively on it before, is anything to do with Fawkes the Phoenix. If the bird appears at any point it will be in passing only. There are also other matters that will only be touched on, but hopefully the above referred matters will be enough. As Im writing this I know itll be long, perhaps even up to meta level, so be aware of that, be very aware For flow Ill include footnotes for any references that come up, however, I will say now that any book references are from the Bloomsbury paperback editions of books 1 3 and the Bloomsbury hardback editions of books 4 6. Links to other sites contain the full versions of the various bits and pieces I take extracts from. ----------------------------- Who then is this wizard? Headmaster: Albus Dumbledore (Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, International Confed. of Wizards): - [1] His various honorifics there as at the point where Harry actually receives his first Hogwarts letter, after by a rough calculation, no less than 182 and few more than 192 have failed to reach him. Id predict that the Order of Merlin, First Class was bestowed for his defeat of Grindelwald, who is now dead, as confirmed by JKR in the Mugglenet / Leaky Interview, but who may not have been after his defeat. Its unclear if Dumbeldroe killed him to defeat him or not, Ill leave it to others to discuss that point if inclined to do so. Of the other listed titles Sorceror may be one Lord Voldemort covets, I think he does, hence Tom Riddles little outburst in the Chamber of Secrets during his and Harrys tte--tte. Both Sorceror and Warlock are somewhat synonymous with wizard, as we all know, I do not propose to get into their implications in this post as they have been discussed and analysed in several places Ive seen and while I enjoy analysis, in the instance of the words Warlock and Sorceror I think it avails us little to delve too deeply into their possible implications simply because I doubt it will have a bearing on DH, and it is what we can learn about DH that currently occupies my mind. Mugwump is a different story altogether. It is, IMO, possibly JKRs biggest joke on we poor readers who think there may be some significance in the Harry Potter books on any deep level. If Dumbledore is a Mugwump, a title he never lost even though he was stripped at times of some of the others, then JKR is telling us that he is a fencesitter. One dictionary definition says - Mugwump, Noun, Usage N. American: A neutral or uncommitted person. Does that sound like Dumbledore to you, because it does to me. He has shown a tendency not to commit to certain things such as telling Harry greatly needed information in my and probably many others reading of him. There will be more on this matter later on, probably somewhere in the conclusion. >From his chocolate frog card we learn: Albus Dumbledore, currently Headmaster of Hogwarts. Considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times, Professor Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragons blood and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and tenpin bowling. [2] More on this later, part of it ties in with his early interaction with the Potters, IMO. Dumbledore has stressed throughout the series the power of love and at some point prior to Lord Voldemort, as he then styled himself, coming to Dumbledore to seek the DADA post a pronouncement had been made to that effect, one that was well known enough for LV to refer to it during their interview: 'The old argument,' he said softly. 'But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncement that love is more powerful than any kind of magic, Dumbledore.' [3] Love will undoubtedly play a large part in the resolution of the series and if any love theories arrive before mine then Id be happy to discuss them with whomsoever it may be who puts them up. As for me, its the subject of another post that is really only in the planning stage at this time. Does his name tell us anything? JKR: Dumbledore is an old English word meaning bumblebee. Because Albus Dumbledore is very fond of music, I always imagined him as sort of humming to himself a lot. Especially music of the chamber variety it seems. The only place I have come across the word dumbledore is in The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy, which also contains the word hagrid, amongst its many thousands of others. Take it at face value, I do, for no better reason than a bee has little place in any folklore. There was someone called Eric the half a bee with whom Im familiar, but he was a gardener / handyman at one of my old schools, so is patently immaterial. The only other thought I had on this once was that one of his myriad Animagus forms could be a wasp, as a pun on the oft confused bee / wasp. There is a wasp buzzing around the Great Hall when Harry sits an OWL, although theres most likely nothing in that and were unlikely to find out if there is. Turning next to Albus, here is another interview portion: Stephen Fry: And the names I have to mention the names, you mentioned Mundungus being tobacco ... A lot of the names have very particular meanings; Albus Dumbledore is on the side of light his name means "white" in Latin. Alba was an old name for Britain. JK Rowling: It also means wisdom in Latin. [5] Therefore Albus means both wise and white. The implications of this seem quite obvious and Ill go no further into them here. Percival is more interesting, heres what thinkbabynames has to say about it: The boys name Percival \p(e)-rci-val, per-cival\ is of Old French origin, and its meaning is pierce the vale. Invented by a medieval poet in the 12th century for one of King Arthurs knights whose virtue was so great that he alone could retrieve the elusive Holy Grail, the chalice from Christs Last Supper. Wagners opera Parsifal is based on this knights tale. [6] Dont get too excited, thats vale not veil. Percy is a variant of Percival, and that Weasley will feel like one before the books are through, as Ive said before. I felt like a right Percy when I wandered into the middle of Wembley Stadium without clothing during the course of the European Cup Final, for instance. There are two historical Wulfrics I found, both lived a long time ago, one around 900 years ago and the other about a thousand years ago so it appears. One Wulfric of Haselbury, the more recent of the two, is a Catholic Saint who was born at or near Bristol, not too far from where JKR grew up. It is probably he who is the forebear of the middle name of Dumbledore. Some information on this Saint is at footnote [7], which includes the point that this Wulfric had the gift of prophecy. There was also a Wulfric Spot, but as he held little interest for me Ill leave it to those piqued by his name to find out more about him. Wulfric translates to modern English as wolf power or wolf ruler, which may tie in with why a certain Remus John Lupin was allowed howling room at Hogwarts, but there again it may not. Finally on the names, Brian. This from thinkbabynames again: The boy's name Brian \b-rian\ is pronounced BRY-en. It is of Celtic, Irish and Gaelic origin, and its meaning is "high, noble". Could also mean "strength". Historical: Brian Boru (10th century) was a warrior who became high king of Ireland and one of its greatest national heroes. He liberated the country from the Danes in 1014. [8] Brian Boru in Irish lore is often spoken of as the father of his people, in a punning kind of way, as he was a notorious womaniser apart from what thinkbabynames informs us about him, or so my forebears tell me (theyre Irish so may have a tendency to exaggeration :-)). If at all inclined link from footnote [9] to a little more on him. Brian was also, of course, the snail from The Magic Roundabout, which may be of interest when one bears in mind that both the loon writing this post and JKR are similar in age and from the same area. Brian was a favourite of many children who grew up in the UK of the 70s. Lets take a look now at Dumbledores function in the books. JKR here: I loved writing Dumbledore and Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. [10] There are those who would disagree about this, but Im not really one of them even though I do think hes manipulative. He is manipulative in a good what, naturally and for the benefit of all in the wizarding world, or so he thinks, which is important, IMO. Now this: Lizo: Does Dumbledore speak for you? JKR: Oh yes, very much so. Dumbledore often speaks for me. [11] We can, then, conclude quite safely that Dumbledore at times speaks for the author and gives us information she wants to give us. Hermione also fulfils this function by getting information from a myriad of books for our enlightenment. The introduction would not be complete without this on Dumbledores scar (a feature he shares with Gregory Goyle, amongst others): Q: How did Dumbledore get his scar in the London Underground? A: You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar. [12] One thought I had on this was that the final sentence of book 7 would read and that is how Dumbledore got his scar. Probably a false hope, but there you have it anyway. He may have got the scar quite deliberately in that he devised it himself. Something so useful is unlikel to have spontaneously appeared, or maybe he lent his left knee against a red hot imprint of the London Underground system inhis youth, although why that would be I would not like to say. The final bit of trivia about Dumbledore before moving on to the next tranche is in this: Q: So how old is he? JK Rowling: About 150. [13] A fair age, even apparently for a wizard, despite there being only two others so far, of whom we are aware, that are older than Albus. --------------------------- The Dead Wizard Hes really dead, sorry if any think otherwise. I know this, after this portion there should be little lingering doubt of this fact. First up id the lady herself expounding on Dumbledore at the Radio City Reading, in answer to an audience question: Cory Mayer: Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters or will we have the chance to see him in action once again? Since he is the most powerful wizard of all time and Harry Potter is so loyal to him, how could he really be dead? JK Rowling: Ohhhhhhhh (Jo puts her head in her arms and crowd cheers and applauds). I feel terrible (crowd laughs). The British writer Graham Green once said that every writer had to have a chip of ice in their heart. Oh no (Jo says half weeping while crowd laughs). I think you may just have ruined my career (crowd laughs). Umm, I really can't answer that question because the answer is in book seven but ... you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf. Let me just put it that way. I'm sorry (crowd moans and applauds). [14] And later: JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right. 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). Get over it, in other words. He has ceased to be. In a pre-GoF interview JKR explained some of the ground rules she set herself when planning the book series, the one pertinent to this portion being: JKR: when I started writing the books, the first thing I had to decide was not what magic can do, but what it can't do. I had to set limits on it - immediately, and decide what the parameters are ... and one of the most important things I - I decided was that magic cannot bring dead people back to life; that' - that's one of the most profound things, the - the natural law of - of - of death applies to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're properly dead, you know, they might be able to save very close-to-death people better than we can, by magic - that they - that they have certain knowledge we don't, but once you're dead, you're dead. So - erm - yeah, I'm afraid there will be no coming back fro- for Harry's parents. [15] Now, there may be some who seize on the word properly and perform contortions over Dumbledore not being dead. If any here are also members of www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com and cling to this then good luck. Albus had a good innings and has moved on, IMO, he put it like this 'After all, to the well-organised mind, death is but the next great adventure.' [16] If it turns out otherwise then I would happily eat my words, but I do not expect to have to do so. Having said all that he will have a part to play in Deathly Hallows and I want to have a look at some possibilities as to how that may come about. These thoughts will be interspersed in parts throughout the rest of this post, my favoured one being through the intermediary of Aberforth Dumbledore. I do not think it will be mostly through the medium of his portrait as some do, although that may be useful. What JKR has to say on the Hogwarts Headmasters portraits will come shortly, first this, from Dan Radcliffe (who Im now prepared to name): Jo came down to the set at one point and I said, "Oh hello, why are you here today?" And she said, "Oh I just needed a break from the book - Dumbledores giving me a lot of trouble." And I said, "But isnt he dead?" And she said, "Well, yeah, but its more complex ..." I was like, [briskly] "OK, Im not gonna ask anything else!" [17] In the next portion Ill be looking at more clues as to how it may have been transpiring that Dumbledore was giving our heroine trouble and will expand on a few matters therein. One thing I do not expect to see is Albus as a ghost. Whatever else he may have been, and bearing in mind also his next great adventure proclamation, he was happy or perhaps more likely fulfilled, having lived a full and complete life replete with good works. That it did not extend long enough to see LVs downfall would not make it otherwise as far as I am concerned. A further small reference: Q: What makes some witches/wizards become ghosts after they die and some not? A. You don't really find that out until Book VII, but I can say that the happiest people do not become ghosts. [18] That thing on portraits: JKR: They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledores office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. [12] So, as I say above, the portrait in his old office will have some input, but it is more probable in my view that there will be multiple ways in which Dumbledore will appear whether by himself or through his relative / relatives. Oh, and just because it was brought up recently I do not think his Chocolate Frog Card will be of any use for communication purposes. The impression I formed of them is that they only show a snapshot, more like the wizarding photographs and are not capable of speech. Its perhaps nice to think otherwise, but I do not, and again Ill happily eat my words if it turns out Im wrong and the CFCs are crucial to book 7. There is another matter concerning communication from beyond the grave that has been mentioned by JKR on her website: When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead? Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their death - think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. [19] Perhaps, then, Dumbledore will also be heard through an as yet undetermined mechanism. What could this be, and will it be more useful than a portrait or other potential methods? Not simply Pensieve memories anyway, methinks If, or when you read on there are further bits about possible mechanisms for Dumbledores participation in book 7. Youll be very glad you did read it, I assure you :-) ------------------------- Some clues that could be intriguing and of value in determining parts of how book 7 may play out in this portion. We have been informed that more will be told regarding Dumbledore in book 7 and that enquiries into his family background would lead to some strong clues regarding the direction of the seventh book. In the course of the combined Mugglenet / Leaky Cauldron interview Ms. Rowling (16th July 2005) said: You will - [pause] - you will know more about Dumbledore. I have to be sooo careful on this. [20] Also this: ES: Dumbledore is unrivaled in his knowledge of magic - Where did he learn it all? JKR: I see him primarily as someone who would be self-taught. However, he in his time had access to superb teachers at Hogwarts, so he was educated in the same way that everyone else is educated. Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more profitable than sweet wrappers. [20] Some of the speculation I have come up with on Dumbledores family is in a later portion of this post. It may be of interest, or it may not, make of it what you will, always presuming you have got this far and have the will to read on. Something else I do not propose to go into herein is Dumbledore being able to turn invisible without an Invisibility Cloak, as he informed us he could back in PS: 'I don't need a cloak to become invisible', said Dumbledore gently. [21] A mater that has hardly been touched on so far in this group, and largely due to Mr. Multiplicity being of such profound worth, is a question Ms. Rowling has asked us to consider. Whether it will be central or not is a different matter. I have had a say previously on this and hope that there are some other views out there. Many here would greatly appreciate them, believe you me. It is this, which I take the liberty of quoting in full: NAQ ... which means, 'never asked question'. Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak? Prior to posting this I had a quick look on-line, and realised that some fans have been speculating about this question. However, nobody has ever asked me about it, and they really should have done. Just to allay the fears of the justifiably suspicious, this isn't what we in the know call 'a Mark Evans situation.'* There IS a significant - even crucial - answer. [22] Another clue, that has been discussed here at HpfGU previously, is this: 'I will only truly have left the school when none here are loyal to me ... help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.' [23] Will there be a way of calling on Dumbledores aid when required, even though hes now dead? Do post some thoughts on this, if thought desirable. One more that I have seen little discussion of is from Barty Crouch Jnr, while in his guise as Mad-Eye. His views of Snape, I believe are expressed in this: 'Course Dumbledore trusts you,' growled Moody. 'He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?' [24] Was it simply his bitterness that a fellow Death Eater had escaped imprisonment in Azkaban, or is there something more to it? Discuss. We have seen Dumbledore perform some magic that is not yet explained. He is considered by many, as per the CFC, to be the greatest wizard of modern times. Both his seniors and juniors admire him, as one of his seniors says: 'I doubt it,' shouted Professor Marchbanks, 'not if Dumbledore doesn't want to be found! I should know ... examined him personally in Transfiguration and Charms when he did NEWTs ... did things with a wand I'd never seen before.' [25] This is a matter I expect to find out a good deal more about and I also anticipate that Harry will learn some of Dumbledores spells, which will assist him greatly in his quest to both find the remaining Horcruxes and neutralise Lord Voldemort. If he has time he can begin the clean up of the wizarding world too but that has been discussed very recently here and I have little to add to that discussion just now. There are many other clues, the above are just a small compilation that I personally think will have significance to book 7. On now to another aspect of Dumbledore I wish to consider in this post. ------------------------------ Is he a manipulator or a trainer? Several moons ago I posted something called A Bizarre Theory on a Grand Scale [26]. The basic premise in that theory was that Dumbledore had manipulated the situation in the wizarding world to get rid of Lord Voldemort through the Prophecy. Peter Pettigrew is involved in that theory, but I accept that his role may be not as I stated there. He will play his part, but this post is not about him. Heres how JKR sees Dumbledores role: JK Rowling: I dont want to say too much but Dumbledore is a very wise man who knows that Harry is going to have to learn a few hard lessons to prepare him for what may be coming in his life. He allows Harry to get into what he wouldnt allow another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to confront things hed rather protect him from. As people whove read the Order of The Phoenix will know; Dumbledore has had to step back from Harry to teach him some of lifes harder lessons. [27] It seems to be rather more than what the above suggests, IMO. Dumbledore keeps a *very * close eye on his charges, most particularly Harry and he gives them all the information they need to overcome whatever obstacles they might face. The entire point of HBP was that Dumbledore was preparing Harry to face Voldemort with as much information as he felt necessary for Harry to clear any obstacles to being able to neutralise LV. It was not all about Snape, just in case any wondered about that ;-) Albuss training of Harry for tasks ahead starts much much earlier than in HBP, however. It begins in PS. One of the earliest hints of this is Dumbledore saying to Harry about the Mirror of Erised, which has clawed feet, but then again so do several other objects in the books, this: 'If you ever do run across it, you will now be prepared' [28]. Dumbledore also ensures that Harry has his Invisibility Cloak handy having been the one to give it to him in the first place, probably on Jamess instruction to do so. When Harry has left it adjacent to the tower from whence Norbert has been taken off to Romania it is returned with a note saying Just in Case [29] Must be handy things to have, these Invisibility Cloaks, unless you are able to become invisible without one. Once Harry has been retrieved from the bowels of the school by Albus and has begun to talk about his experience and how HRH were able to figure out the conundrum of the Philosophers Stone itself Dumbledore interjects, saying 'You did do the thing properly, didn't you?' [30], which to this reader sounds very much like praise for following the clues and learning the lessons Dumbledore himself had been giving. Albus must have been pleased at that point that the boy done good, to coin a phrase. As this post has been and will be quite long enough Ill not get too much further into this matter, that is in terms of analysing each and every place in which Dumbledore was preparing Harry for his task ahead. What does interest me are certain things that may not have seemed obvious at the time, to the more sane anyway, but did seem to be clear pointers to some of the skills Harry has acquired that will benefit him to a greater or lesser extent throughout book 7. The first of these is a small piece of the debriefing from PoA where we find: So you did see your father last night, Harry ... you found him inside yourself.' [31] Harrys fathers spirit, in the sense of the fundamental emotional and activating principle determining a person's character, is in him and I expect this to be important. LV himself had some praise for James Potter when addressing Harry in the graveyard at Little Hangleton in GoF. By saying that Harry was expected to face LV ad die straight backed like his father I extrapolate that LV had some respect for James. Not a huge amount, perhaps, but some and ask yourself this too, when has LV ever praised anyone at all? Moving on Ill take a little look at what is likely to be pertinent in terms of Harrys quest. Dumbledore has told Harry what he needs to know, even if he has not told him everything. This is qualified much later on in the conclusion, so before becoming outraged, read on. Dumbledore was *guessing * what Harry needed to do, but as Ms. Rowling says: JKR: Harry now knows - well he believe he knows - what hes facing. Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I don't want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort. So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to do. ES: It's a tall order. JKR: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of previous six books has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going to say. [32] Note that she does not repeat Dumbledores list of Horcruxes being the locket, the cup, Nagini and something of Ravenclaws or Gryffindors. That leaves the door open to speculate on what all of the remaining Horcruxes might be. My thought on that matter is that the first three are correct and it will only be the last of the four that is surprising to both us and to Harry. Neither he nor his scar is one, on that Im quietly confident, but again, its not something for this post. Harry has the tools and the knowledge almost as of the end of HBP to do his task. It will have obstacles, but Dumbledore trained him up well. Whatever failings may be ascribed to Dumbledore this is not one of them IMO. Before wrapping up this portion a few final points, the first is to bear in mind that Dumbledore is an extraordinarily powerful wizard, considered by many the greatest of his age. This should be qualified with an assertion that it is extremely improbable, but not completely impossible for Dumbledore to manipulate situations. Back in the real world it is actually quite simple to manipulate choices, by providing a choice in the first place. The extrapolations from that are obvious enough to me, do we see the pattern yet? There actually may be something in my earlier theory as referred in footnote 26 is all Im prepared to say. Dumbledore learned a good deal from his old partner Nicholas Flamel, as this tells us: JK Rowling: I see him as about 150 I have said before that wizards unless they contract some horrible magical disease which does happen ... They didn't grow up together, in case you didn't hear that that was a question about whether Flamel and Dumbledore why they were friends if the man was alive 600 years ago. They became friends during Dumbledore's lifetime, they hadn't been friends from boyhood otherwise Dumbledore would be a bit of a rarity. [13] -------------------------------- DDs early involvement with Harry / Potters The protection of Harry, that is the steps taken to ensure neither stray AKs or other badly intended spells nor roaming Death Eaters or others, was cast around him at a young age, was put in place almost from birth. Dumbledore and Lily devised these protections together. DD would have done all the protections on Privet Drive and Harrys growing up, that is to the point when he reaches 17 and the protections end. Lily, who is indubitably, in my mind, Petunias sister, emplaced the protections that gave Harry his life and LV his first downfall. To what extent they collaborated on that effort is something I have mused on before. Think only of how young poor Lily was when she died while remembering that she was a gifted and noteworthy potioneer. Would she have been able to do it all herself, or was she assisted by the Supreme Mugwump? I believe she was however talented she may have been. Lily may have been the pre-eminent authority on potions of her time and Dumbledore is acknowledged as the pre-eminent blood expert of the wizarding world. Put them together and you could protect even Fudge from his army of heliopaths for a reasonable length of time. When Harry reaches 17 this will end and it has been speculated on that there would be a battle at Privet Drive whether on a small or a large scale at that point. For what it may be worth I agree with that idea, but with the proviso that any devilries at Privet Drive will take place later on. Harry will get to know and be able to step in to save the day there and it will be at that point where Petunia spills the beans on what she knows. Back briefly to the Invisibility Cloak. James gave it to Dumbledore before he died. We have been asked to divine why that was, as referred earlier. Harry receives the Cloak with this: Your father left this in my possession before he died. It is time it was returned to you. Use it well. [33] Dumbledore thinks highly of this Cloak and asks Harry to have it with him at all times, something Harry is likely to continue to do in book 7. Moodys two may also be handy ;-) Whither his prior relationship with Petunia? Did I mention shes Lilys sister already, oh I did. Albus had been a correspondent of Petunias alone even before the letter left with Harry on the doorstep. JKRs site will enlighten further on this. The links in a post of mine here at HPfGU from just a day or two ago. Its quite probable that Petunias knowledge of the wizarding world came from Lily and no other source. Lilys parents being so proud would no doubt have endlessly pressed her for stories from her experiences at school. Petunia certainly knows about what Albus did to ensure Harry was protected while a resident of Privet Drive. His letter on the doorstep most likely told her: 'Your Aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years.' [34] Clear enough from this snippet that she knows full well about the protection. Reinforced too by the howler DD sent to Petunia when Harry was on the verge of being exiled from the abode. If there is any merit in my thought that Lily and James were prepared to die for the greater good of the wizarding world then I would anticipate that Petunia was communicated with by Albus to ensure she would be prepared to do what was needed as Harrys only blood relative. The big question that has taken a good deal of time of many, not me happily, is a question of whether Harry and Dumbledore are related. I doubt it severely because otherwise, as has been said before, he would have taken Harry in himself. He may be many things but he is not crass. This is confirmed by the following: Professor Dumbledore is Harry's real grandfather/close relative of some description. If Dumbledore had been Harry's grandfather, why on earth would he have been sent to live with the Dursleys? [35] So there you have it. Harry and Dumbledore apart from not being Grandfather and Grandson are almost definitely not related. ------------------------------- His prior knowledge of Tom Riddle morphing into Lord Voldemort Post Toms school days. It is strongly inferred throughout HBP that Dumbledore has been aware for some time, and probably from before the time of the prophecy, of Tom Riddle's background. On this basis it is not unreasonable to suppose that Dumbledore, as well as LV, concluded that the half-blood wizard (the Potter's as yet unborn child) would be the greater of the two wizards to whom the prophecy could have referred. Dumbledore never thought LV was finished at Godrics Hollow, the first time, and his strategy towards training up Harry has been clear enough from the beginning of the series. The relevant portion on that aspect should have been read if youre still with me. At every turn Dumbledore is aware that all bad things in the wizarding world as it currently exists in canon flow from LV. In CoS he knows straight away that LV has been the one to open the Chamber as this would tell us: 'The question is not *who*,' said Dumbledore, his eyes on Colin. 'The question is *how* ...' [36] Later in CoS during the customary debriefing, of which well have no more, sadly, one matter that has interested many before comes up: 'Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his 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.' It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.' [37] How did this happen? Is Harry or his scar a Horcrux? I say purlease not. It makes little sense to me at all that he would be. Personally I believe that if Dumbledore suspected anything along this line, then rather than being cryptic and saying Nagini is a Horcrux, thus supposedly suggesting to Harry that a living being can be a Horcrux, he would have said it. Dumbledore does withhold information, but what possible reason could he have for withholding this? Unless of course he had no idea about Harry or his scar and their properties, which is equally implausible. Having said that I have written a number of posts o this subject before, and because it does not concern me for the purposes of this post Ill say no more on Horcruxes. What does pique my interest is what other mechanism could be at play for the transferral of powers. Its no more nor less than the old backfiring AK / not totally backfiring of AK trick, which should be familiar to all by now ;-) It has also been theorised that LV never had any choice about what he would become. That is improbable, IMO, because JKR cannot be said to be a stupid woman. If it is thought that LV had no choice then my interpretation would be that one is saying JKR is a poor plotter, and she really is not, now is she? LV could have chosen differently in his life course. The orphanage would have tried its best, and pre war London was not a pleasant place. At least they took the kids for excursions, even if those excursions led to disturbance for some other orphans due to Tom. No one should be completely without redeeming features and LV has some style and sartorial sense even if he is the epitome of evil for the HP series. Hes a bad lot now, nevertheless that does not mean he had no control over his choice of path. Tom certainly made some choices that are very relevant to the continuing saga, one was his choice of Harry as the boy to go after based on what he was informed about the prophecy. He has also chosen to dedicate a good portion of his second rise to eliminating Harry Potter. If JKR says choices define people then LV is defined as choosing the wrong path and from that path making wrong choices all the way, here she is again: JKR: Yes, definitely, because I think there's a line there between the moment in "Chamber of Secrets" when Dumbledore says so famously, It's our choices that define us, not our abilities, straight through to Dumbledore sitting in his office, saying to Harry, "the prophecy is significant only because you and Voldemort choose to make it so." If you both chose to walk away, you could both live! That's the bottom line. If both of them decided, "We're not playing," and walked away ... but, its not going to happen, because as far as Voldemorts concerned, Harrys a threat. They must meet each other. [32] Note they *must * meet each other, as the very first coup leader in this glorious land I live in said, there is no other way. Not to say hell AK LV though, he patently wont. Whatever happens to neutralise LV I expect to be to do with love and probably involve a gong sound. This bit on the gong has come up in interview and it is implied that more is to come, my interpretation being as you see above: JKR: The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out - I thought that people would - is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. When I mentioned that question to my husband - I told Neil that I was going to mention it to you - he said that it was because Dumbledore knows that there are two more books to come. As you can see, we are on the same literary wavelength. [Laughter]. That is not the answer; Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that. If you want to wonder about anything, I would advise you to concentrate on those two questions. That might take you a little bit further. [12] The first question, if any are wondering, is why LV survived. That has been answered in HBP so is no longer of much importance to book 7 except insofar as the Horcruxes must be destroyed, IMO. By the way, do not forget that a Horcrux is the container for the rent soul, not the soul piece itself. Dumbledore did not kill LV because he knew about the prophecy and by reasonable extrapolation wanted Harry to neutralise LV, or proximate to that. Or maybe it just goes to his being the epitome of goodness, for which see far above. Additionally it is not set in stone that LV must die. There should be something to be gleaned from: 'Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness -' [38]. Is this just a completely throwaway line? I think not, I think it strongly foreshadows that LV will not die in a conventional sense and move on to the wizarding equivalent of Hades, but be reduced to a point where he will no longer be a threat. I do not think he will be redeemed though, whatever else may happen to him. If he becomes a comedic type portrait a la Ma Black, constantly bemoaning his fate, then he surely would not like it too much, although he would be dead :-? He could not do a great deal as a ghost, either, except to perhaps be the second such entity to be able to deal effectively with Peeves. Ghosts cannot move on, so we are led to believe, and all of them must have led less than happy lives to not be able to pass over. One last small thing on LV and Dumbeldore. They are widely held to be the two most powerful wizards in the books. Dobby here: 'Dumbledore's powers rival those of he who must not be named at the height of his strength' 'there are powers Dumbledore doesn't ... no decent wizard ...' [39] How would Dobby know this, or was it just an insertion of the authorial voice? If he knew it other than from his author then who better than from his masters the Malfoys. All the Malfoys have a begrudging respect for Albus. There is also possibly slightly more to it in that Dumbledore, while not being a great user of Dark Magic, almost certainly knows a great deal about it. Only slightly less than Tom Riddle, or even about the same actually. He was around these mortal lands for a good deal longer than Tom. He took out Grindelwald and is old enough to have been about when the other powerful dark wizard that terrorised the wizarding world a century before the events in canon was at large. He may even have been that wizard, oops, I did not mean to say that ;-) ------------------------- Onwards and Upwards to the Family Dumbledore If Dumbledore did have a plan, however vague, to rid the wizarding world of Lord Voldemort then the only other person likely to be in the know about that, other than his late self, would be Aberforth and this is the reason Aberforth will be important in book 7. Aberforth is my favourite, and indeed the favourite of many, for being the member of the Order we have not yet properly met. He can step in to fill the role of expositor for his brother Albus. Aberforth may well be the one to teach Harry further about love magic and also be the one to explain about a certain Mr. Multiplicity. We already know he is Albuss brother, and also we can safely presume that Albus used him as a spy in the Hogs Head, a rather useful source of gossip on Death Eaters and Fletchers and Withershins, no doubt. 'Dumbledore ... had a number of useful spies.' [40]. Remus Lupin is spying on the werewolves and in one of my less lucid moments I posited that Goyle Snr. too is a spy. Snape, of course, Mrs. Figg. Mrs. Figg is someone Ive looked at a little. It has been proposed that she is related, as closely as being a sister to Albus and Aberforth. This I doubt. What I do think about Mrs. Figg is that her maiden name was Perkins [41]. A minor Ministry body with a squib for a daughter. Albus, being the all inclusive kind of man he was, found a use for Arabella. Always useful to get more than one method of spying organised and sensible in case any stray Dementors got sent to Little Whingeing, as they in fact wer by the six-gilled shark. Returning though to Aberforth, what is this all about?: 'My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practising inappropriate charms on a goat.' [42] Experimenting with goats, and there is notably a smell of goats in the Hogs Head. Hes still doing whatever he was doing with these animals it transpires, although goat smell is a killer to remove from carpets, let me tell you. That the Hogs Head barman and Aberforth Dumbledore are one and the same is hardly contentious, JKR helps again: Q: Why is the barman of the Hogs Head vaguely familiar to Harry? Is he Dumbledores brother? A: Ooh - you are getting good. Why do you think that it is Aberforth? [Audience member: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue. That is all that I am going to say. [Laughter]. Well yes, obviously. I like the goat clue - I sniggered to myself about that one. [12] Also, for the benefit of some who may be unfamiliar with both my rantings and JKRs interviews, this is where I extract the notion that Aberforth will be the member of the Order who is important and who we have not yet really met: Q: 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. [13] Look out for him from an early part of book 7. He will also have the locket Horcrux, by the by. A lot of the rest of this portion enters into really wild speculation, canon support will not be forthcoming if requested. Book 7 will explain all and if any of the speculations that have appeared by several of this groups members turn out correct then it may well be as much by luck as by good divination. One speculation we can exclude from this is: Dumbledore is really Ron/Harry from the future Your inventiveness knows no bounds, and I do not mean that sarcastically; these theories open up exhilarating new vistas of possibility ... but theyre wrong. Could it be that by speculating that Harry/Ron becomes Dumbledore, you are seeking reassurance that neither dies young? [43] If any wonder why Dumbledores family history should be dissected then look here: ES: Dumbledore is unrivaled in his knowledge of magic JKR: Mmhm. ES: Where did he learn it all? JKR: I see him primarily as someone who would be self-taught. However, he in his time had access to superb teachers at Hogwarts, so he was educated in the same way that everyone else is educated. Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more profitable than sweet wrappers. MA: His family? JKR: Family, yes. MA: Should we talk about that a little more? JKR: No. But you can! [Laughter.] [32] Whenever JKR refuses to talk about something there is felt to be more to it. Omissions speak as loudly in many cases as overt statements. We have nothing really to go on, but Dumbledores family, both precursors and possible offspring, even maybe a spouse or two brides for two brothers are not matters that should be overlooked. For a reason so far occluded from us JKR does not want we readers to know which Hogwarts Professors have spouses. A goat charmer may not of course attract the fairer sex to himself and I am of the opinion that he is not married. Albus though I could see as a married man. If he is then is it very far fetched to suggest, as I do, that he is old enough to be the great great grandfather of someone with whom we are familiar? Not Harry of course, as I said. Hermione? Possibly even Rubeus. Much to be pondered. Either would not be wholly unrealistic as they were favoured members of Dumbledores circle. There are no Dumbledores, Figgses, Hagrids or Grangers on the Black Family Tapestry, if thats of any import. A question that may bear further scrutiny is to wonder whether Dumbledore had a bad father, if so it may explain why Aberforth is not illiterate but also has a problem with goats. Dad never took him in hand, and who could blame the poor man, peculiarly if Aberforth showed a propensity for goats from an early age? "As I look back over the five published books," she says, "I realize that it's kind of a litany of bad fathers. That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where people didn't get good fathering." [44] OK, so it was not that wild, but perhaps itll get some thinking ----------------------------- Dumbledores Mistakes: ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes. [Laughter] Yes, I would agree. I would agree. ES: How can someone so JKR: Intelligent ES: be so blind with regard to certain things? JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. 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. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. Hes always the one who gives, hes always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that. [45] Dumbledore admits he makes mistakes. Other than perhaps the obvious ones what else could there be? The obvious ones are his failure to fully inform Harry about what he was facing until it was almost too late, his trust of Severus perhaps if that turns out to be misplaced (just mentioning it), his not insisting on being the Secret Keeper for the Potters, if he genuinely did not know otherwise his assuredness of Siriuss guilt and several more that Ill leave in my head for the time being. Leaving some room here for anyone interested to run with this :-) ------------------------------ The Wind Down and Conclusion Rubeus Hagrid, may I ask what your opinion of the current situation in the wizarding world is? 'Great man Dumbledore. S'long as we've got him, I'm not too worried.' [46] A great shame then that he is dead, peradventure the wizarding world now finds itself up the proverbial creek with no equipment for paddling. Harry will come right, though, have no doubt of that. Ill not venture a guess as to whether he lives or dies, at least not yet, as that matter is under review currently and may appear in a BEANS theory in due course. 'Remember, if the time should come when you have to make the choice between what is right, and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory.' [47] Those choices again, heres the right place to wrap that matter up, from my perspective at least. Do it for the Diggory, Harry. Well also find out a great deal more about Mr. Multiplicitys choices too. There is a bit more on this choice thingummy: You referred to the darkness in your books, and there's been a lot of talk and even concern over that. You have a choice when you're going to introduce a very evil character. You can dress a guy up with loads of ammunition, put a black Stetson on him, and say, "Bad guy. Shoot him." I'm writing about shades of evil. You have Voldemort, a raging psychopath, devoid of the normal human responses to other people's suffering, and there are people like that in the world. But then you have Wormtail, who out of cowardice will stand in the shadow of the strongest person. What's very important for me is when Dumbledore says that you have to choose between what is right and what is easy. This is the setup for the next three books. All of them are going to have to choose, because what is easy is often not right. [48] In my opinion that is the most important information we learned in GoF and it will, as I say, have a great deal to do with the action of book 7. Harrys path is laid out in front of him and Albus Dumbledore has played his part of the wise old mentor preparing his charge for the confrontation to come. This showdown I propose will take place at Godrics Hollow. It would be a very satisfactory way to conclude the Harry / Voldemort interaction, IMO, but obviously it matters little where it takes place as long as Harry prevails, and he will. What thereafter behoves the wizarding world in general is likely to be contained in the epilogue. A few things I predict on that front: (i) The Death Eaters will be disbanded and a certain Ludovic Bagman will have been show to be one of them. (ii) Hagrid and Olympe will be united in matrimony after Madam Maxime has displayed some fancy wand work in his defence at some point during book 7. (iii) The Centaurs will forgive and reintegrate Firenze, who may also become their leader and repair damaged relations between his kind and the rest of the wizarding world. (iv) Similar for the goblins with some assistance from Bill. Enough predictions for now. To ponder on I ask when has Dumbledore ever let Harry down? (Apart from leaving him with the Dursleys, not telling him about his history until the end of his fifth year, not mentioning the real reason why he trusts Snape etc. etc.) Very much the last thing now and just because the American Deluxe Cover was released while I was compiling this post Ill state an opinion, in agreement with Carols second choice, that the nearest described dragon in FB&WTFT is the Romanian Longhorn. They are, of course soaring through the clounds in some proximity to Godrics Hollow. One or two matters that I thought of interest, I hope you did too. Goddlefrood who is more than pleased if you are reading this signature line having read this post and much pleasant prestidigitation is hereby bestowed upon you for it. -------------------------- Footnotes: [1] p. 42 Chapter Four - The Keeper of the Keys PS [2] p. 77 - Chapter Six - The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-Quarters - PS [3] p. 415 - Chapter Twenty - Lord Voldemort's Request - HBP [4] Christopher Lydon, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12th October 1999 http://www.crusaders.no/%7Eafhp/interviews/connection/ [5] Harry Potter and the Magic of the Internet - 26th June 2003 http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/transcript/Default.asp?Ath=f [6] http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Percival [7] http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintw10.htm [8] http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Brian [9] http://www.project-iona.co.uk/hall_of_heroes/warriors/brian_boru_an_irish_giant [10] "J.K. Rowling Interview," CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, 13th July 2000 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm [11] Lizo Mzimba, moderator. Chamber of Secrets DVD interview with Steve Kloves and J.K. Rowling, February 2003. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm [12] J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival - Sunday 15th August 2004 http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 [13] Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-ITVcubreporters.htm [14] An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp: Readings and questions #2, August 2nd 2006 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html [15] Christopher Lydon, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12th October 1999 http://www.crusaders.no/%7Eafhp/interviews/connection/ [16] p. 215 - Chapter Fifteen - The Forbidden Forest PS [17] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2008889,00.html (11th February 2007 - Article) [18] Online chat transcript, Scholastic.com, 3 February 2000 http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/author/interview1.htm [19] http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=103 [20] http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-2.htm [21] p. 156 Chapter Twelve The Mirror of Erised - PS [22] http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=23 [23] p. 197 - Chapter Fifteen Aragog CoS [24] p. 410 - Chapter Twenty Five - The Egg and The Eye - GoF [25] p. 627 - Chapter Thirty-One OWLs - OotP [26] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153540 [27] JK Rowling Transcript 26th June 2003. http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/transcript/Default.asp?Ath=f [28] p. 157 - Chapter Twelve - The Mirror of Erised - PS [29] p. 190 - Chapter Fifteen - The Forbidden Forest - PS [30] p. 215 - Chapter Fifteen - The Forbidden Forest - PS [31] p. 312 - Chapter Twenty Two - Owl Post Again PoA [32] "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16th July 2005 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm [33] p. 148 - Chapter Twelve - The Mirror of Erised PS [34] p. 737 - Chapter Thirty-Seven - The Lost Prophecy OotP [35] From Rumours at Website http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=2 [36] p. 136 - Chapter Ten - The Rogue Bludger PS [37] p. 245 - Chapter Eighteen - Dobby's Reward - CoS [38] p. 718 - Chapter Thirty-Six - The Only One He Ever Feared OotP [39] p. 18 - Chapter Two - Dobby's Warning CoS [40] p. 152 - Chapter Ten - The Marauder's Map - PoA [41] GoF - Chapter Seven - Cabbage smell in tent borrowed from Perkins. [42] p. 394 - Chapter Twenty Four - Rita Skeeter's Scoop - GoF [43] http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=31 [44] J.K. Rowling Hogwarts And All, Sunday, Jul. 17, 2005 By LEV GROSSMAN http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083935-3,00.html [45] "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky Cauldron, 16th July 2005 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm [46] p. 623 - Chapter Thirty Seven - The Beginning - GoF [47] p. 628 - Chapter Thirty Seven - The Beginning GoF [48] Jensen, Jeff. "Rowling Thunder (parts 1 & 2)," Entertainment Weekly, August 4, 2000 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0800-ew-jensen.html ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 9 11:39:21 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:39:21 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170041 Pippin: > But he's not allowed to live as any other wizard. Legislation has > been passed that keeps him from getting a job even if someone like > Dumbledore wants to hire him. Lupin at least *does* want change, > Sirius says Harry should hear him talk about Umbridge and her anti- > werewolf legislation. Dana: Of course as I said it is getting harder day by day but it still doesn't mean that LV can offer what Lupin is missing. I totally agree with you that Lupin does want change and he has to fight for it but Lupin is not stupid, he knows perfectly well that blood revenge on the WW population will not change anything about what he wants to achieve or would like to achieve. Werewolves live in seclusion not because they were pushed out of society but because most of them were pushed into seclusion be Greyback rain as he can have control over them this way instead of having them develop their own conscience and a sense of self as humans. Also Lupin is not the only one that does not want to be judged on what he is as Madame Maxim got furious with Hagrid for him calling her part giant but she still joined Hagrid on a mission to persuade the giants to join DD side. Hagrid to was sympathetic to the giants suffering and the way they had to spend there existence and Hagrid himself does not have a life outside of Hogwarts. His expulsion from Hogwarts wasn't even overturned when Harry proved it was not Hagrid who was responsible for the killing of Myrtle. He is still not allowed to use magic. He even brings one with him and exposed Harry and Hermione to a pretty much uncontrollable unsociable Giant which is pretty dangerous as Hagrid himself would not be able to control him if he had gone on a rampage. Pippin: > Voldemort was gone for twelve years, and in that time things only > got worse. Dana: So? I haven't seen anything in canon to suggest that it was better before his downfall but it does seem to suggest that someone revealing Lupin's secret that a werewolf is teaching at Hogwarts seemed to have made it worse and yet we do not see a growing animosity towards that specific person unlike we see of that person himself. Pippin: > We'll soon know which theories are remarkably prescient and which > are remarkably silly :) If I've invented all this, I'll be > gobsmacked though. I never knew I had it in me ;) > > But you're right, Lupin's downfall, should it > become public knowledge, will make things harder for werewolves. > Yes, indeed. But nobody said it was going to be easy, did they? Dana: I apologies it was not specifically directed towards you and you are entitled to your own believe and theories but I just do not see anything suggested in canon that Lupin is craving to be recognized as a werewolf that would make a call to join LV's side appealing. LV is not promising the werewolves more rights as wizards or that he will change WW legislation so werewolves will be able to get paid work and thus improve Lupin's current situation. He only promises that they will be able to get their revenge on the WW by inflicting all the fear they can possibly inflict and fulfill their blood thirst on whoever they like. Lupin wants to be liked not be feared more and he specifically indicates he is not liked by the werewolves either because he bares the signs of living among the WW. He is not freely accepted in their mids either just like Hagrid is not accepted among the Giants, Dobby is not accepted among his kind and Firenze is shunted from his for associating himself with humans. In HBP Lupin is losing his grip for a moment and in that moment starts to believe that no one will see him as anything other then a werewolf and that his life as he tried to life it is meaningless but that hasn't anything to do with him being part of the werewolf society but with his failure to keep one of his close friend from dying on him again and him pushing Tonks away and attempting to deny his feelings for her because he believes she deserves better then him. His reaction to DD's death is not just about DD but about having lost every single person close to him that truly accepted Lupin for Lupin and who all went out of their way to help him have a better life and then Tonks and the people around remind him that he is not alone that there are still people that care for him and one in particular that loves him so that her life is totally meaningless without him. The public display of affection by holding Tonks hand in public is a giant leap from the Lupin that we have seen so far. Our place in society is not only directed on how legislation affects us but especially on how our friends and family supports us and it is the most important support we as humans can have and what makes us strong enough to fight for bigger things then just wallow in our own predicaments. Everyone has his problems, the Weasleys are not better off in this war then muggle-borns when LV makes his grab for power. They are blood traitors and are as easily killed as any other wizard or witch with a different background. Hagrid and his brother are related to the Giants and if they truly have sided with LV then they have to fight their own kind just like Lupin has his. Still, just like Lupin, Hagrid understood the predicament of the Giants enough for him to want to make an attempt to help his brother to a better life. Is that going to make him switch sides just because he is not accepted by a large part of society too and the WW is denying the Giants their rights to existence while LV probably promised them a better life? No because we see that regardless of the mistakes he makes his is totally loyal to DD and Lupin is too even though he made a crucial and very personal mistake in PoA. Lupin brought Harry in danger by keeping information from DD but so did Hagrid because Hagrid did not tell DD he messed up by revealing how to get passed Fluffy to a stranger, he then even slips up again and tells it to Harry himself. Snape slips up by withholding information from DD on several occasions and he actually is working (pretending whatever) for LV and his DEs but it is still not enough to conclude he is ESE. Pippin: > His reasoning was that Sirius was entering the castle through other > means, by some dark arts he'd learned from Voldemort. That doesn't > sound as if he had any doubts about Sirius's loyalty to the Dark > Lord.If you really mean you believe he'd be loyal to a friend even > when he thinks they've gone over to the Dark Side, then you're an > ESE!Lupin supporter. Welcome! Dana: You are forgetting that Sirius was not the only one that became an illegal animagus on Lupin's behalf and that Sirius was not the only one that roamed the castle, the grounds and Hogmead with a fully fletched werewolf. Lupin did not keep this information from DD to protect Sirius but to protect James and Peter, two friends who he believed to be dead. Loyalty to a friend does not dissolve into thin air the moment that person dies. It is even worse because that person is no longer there to defend his own actions. What is Lupin to do, smear his dead friends' names and just forget what James and Peter had done for him when they were young? That is why he is denying to himself that Sirius might be using his animagus form to get into the castle, not to protect Sirius from being caught but to protect the secret that Lupin once shared with his best friends. A secret that at the time made Lupin's life worth living and gave him the best time of his life he ever had. A secret that betrayed DD's safety precautions he set out so that Lupin could have a chance to be part of WW society. That made it possible for Lupin to have such great friends in the first place. Lupin did not want to jeopardize this memory to be anything other then the best time of his life when he felt fully accepted by the friends he was with. He did not want to betray the friends that made that possible and he also did not want DD to lose his trust in James, Peter and him for what they did when they were young. He made the wrong choice but not because he wanted to help Sirius to get to Harry. That is why Lupin was watching the map that night because he knew that Harry would want to be with Hagrid before Buckbeak was sentenced to death as he stated himself, he was not worried because he figured Harry was using his father's old invisibility cloak and so Sirius would not be able to see him. He probably watched the map very closely on other nights for any sign of Sirius making another attempt to enter the castle and by taking the map away from Harry he prevented Harry from wandering outside the castle grounds. But then he got the biggest shock of his life when not 3 people left Hagrid's cabine but 4 and one of them was an old time friend he believed to have been dead for 12 years. Would you have kept your cool and think about your regular chores. I wouldn't I even forget my keys if something happens out of the ordinary and lock myself out of the house. Peter showing up on the map is not just a revelation of him not being dead but it actually turns everything Lupin believed in for 12 years up side down. Could Sirius be innocent? Why has Peter been hiding? What is he doing with the trio and why was he in Hagrid's cabin? What really happened during the confrontation with Sirius 12 years ago? If Peter is alive could it be that Sirius did not kill those 12 muggles? Might he even be wrong about Sirius betraying the Potters? And if Peter was able to get away from Sirius could he do that again and kill the trio? I think by the time Lupin rushes off his head was already near imploding on itself by the mere rush of possibilities that soared through Lupin's head. All Logic was out of the window and the only thing he probably knew for sure is that he had to get there as fast as he could. To answer Betsy, Lupin did not betray James by keeping the information from DD because it could possibly have put Harry in danger because Lupin was keeping an eye on Harry personally in an attempt to make up for his reluctance to give their childhood secrets away. He could not have foreseen and neither could DD that Ron would break away and reveal their location in an attempt to recapture scabbers. Remember that security on the Gryffindor entrance was increased so it was unlikely that Sirius could get to Harry while he was sleeping again even if he was successful to enter the castle once more. Pippin: > He could have stopped it at any time. All he had to do was tell > them that it had to end or he'd go to McGonagall. I've never taken > an actual count of the times we've seen Lupin tell Sirius what to > do, but I guarantee it outweighs the times we've seen Sirius tell > Lupin what to do. There are a lot of times when Sirius does what > he wants and Lupin, though displeased, doesn't say anything. But > when Lupin does talk, Sirius listens. Dana: Why would he want to stop it at any time? It was the best time he ever had. Where they all felt so special for their own cleverness that is not proof Lupin is ESE now because James never told DD he was an animagus either not even when they left school. James could have registered with the MoM at any time and make him being an animagus legal but he never did and so could Sirius and Peter but they never did. You can't put all the blame for that in Lupin's shoes. Also there is no comparison to the schoolyard Sirius and the one we witness in PoA and onwards as Sirius is not in a position to explain himself to Harry or to pick a fight with Molly even if he had wanted nothing else. Lupin has to physically restrain Sirius from getting to Peter in PoA more then once, also Sirius on more then one occasion tells Lupin to hurry up. Sirius only listens to Lupin because of his own desire for Harry to understand and the same goes for him listening to Lupin to sit down (we actually see that Sirius probably restrained himself just like he did when Fred insulted him and Harry observes Sirius looking like he wants to smack Fred) and in the fire conversation Lupin again had to physically drag Sirius down again. Sirius is not listening to Lupin because Lupin is the more dominant one but because Sirius actually has no real choice but to listen. Lupin was there on the night of the DoM and he could not make Sirius stay behind because once Sirius makes up his mind he doesn't listen to anyone. Well Harry and James he still would have listened to but certainly not Lupin. He only actually listens to DD because he wants to be there for Harry but as we see he has no problem going against DD's orders to leave GP and even wants to come up to Hogsmead and he would have if Harry had agree to it. Pippin: > *Not* the disease, but *human* weaknesses. ESE!Lupin's downfall is > not the wolf inside but his human failing of cutting his friends too > much slack, which he rightly calls cowardice. > > I believe that Lupin genuinely honored Dumbledore > and believed that Dumbledore's way (which I take to be gradual > peaceful change) was a better path. But IMO, once he'd gained > the trust of his fellow werewolves, he didn't have the > guts to break with them over it. Dana: Where is it stated that the werewolves are his friends or that they fully trusted him and I got the impression that it was rather very difficult for him to gain their trust. He does not call them his equals because of who he is but for what he is. His human weakness and his disease are not two separate things. He cuts his friends too much slack BECAUSE he fears they will no longer like him for himself but turn around and judge him for being a werewolf. He does not want DD to know about the secret of what he and his friends did when they were young BECAUSE it involved his werewolf part and he is afraid that DD will start to see him as a werewolf because he no longer trusts Lupin's human part (and might even have been the reason for his temperary leaps as DD indeed sends Lupin to spy on the werewolves). Lupin does not want to be a werewolf and therefore he was so grim in HBP for being a ready-made spy and thus there being no one else to do the job unlike Snape who is so proud to be the only one to able to be within LV's inner circle that he raises himself to be the only one who risks his life for the Order. The werewolves could have considered Lupin a traitor for living a wizard's life and they are not shy in killing if they want to and they surely would if it became known information on their movements was passed to the opposite side. That is why Lupin keeps a low profile and contacts as little people as possible for he knows it could put their lives in danger. Lupin is already betraying his fellow werewolves by giving information on them to DD something he could not make himself do when it concerned his friends. Also I want to suggest the tiny trust the werewolves had for Lupin might actually give a hint to something else. That not all werewolf's hold the same believe that LV is the right way to go. Here is Lupin who lived among the wizards and who actually betrayed his own kind by doing so and yet he was not killed by them. The werewolves live under the suppression of Greyback who himself seems to live the way he wants too but he is not looking out for the werewolves well being as they still have to take care of themselves. So personally I do not see a Lupin turning to LV's side but him being a major factor for the werewolves to turn against LV. Lupin will be the door leading to the werewolves' choosing to be human first while LV only offers them a life as a werewolf something they already had and Lupin never wanted. Lupin did not just honor DD's way, he is fiercely loyal to him because he gave Lupin a chance to be human and not be considered for what he is. These things can't be separated because Lupin wants to be human. He only strays for a moment because he lost faith after the loss of another important friend and DD sending him to spy on the werewolves and because he denies himself love as he considers himself not good enough for her. Instead of DD's death being the final straw to push him over permanently towards the werewolves he actually makes a different choice after he sees that Fleur doesn't care about Bill's permanent disfiguration and after people tell him Tonks wants Lupin because of Lupin and does not care he is too old, too poor and too dangerous. Instead of losing faith completely he grabs that part of his human side and opens up to be with Tonks. Lupin does not have to break up with the werewolves because not all werewolves are like Greyback just like not all Giants are like we have seen of them as Gwarp seems to be adjusting reasonably well and Hagrid has not given up on him just because the rest of them sided with LV. I truly want to respect your theory and of course I cannot claim it is not so because we have to wait and see for DH but to me it just seems very unlikely just because he made a mistake. Snape brought the prophecy to LV and it let to the death of two people and ruined the lives of other people involved including Harry's for what he had to endure with the Dursley's, not to mention that the prophecy still puts him in danger as LV still is out there to kill him and yet DD forgives Snape for his mistake. The mistake Lupin made was not merely him being a weak human but it had everything to do with the part of him he himself still does not accept fully. JMHO Dana From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jun 9 12:32:26 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:32:26 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170042 > Dana: > I'm sorry but to me it seems ESE!Lupin is just a figure of the > imagination and actually proofs JKR's point because applying the > suspicion to him being ESE is what the rest of the WW does too, that > werewolves cannot be trusted. wynnleaf This comment concerns me because among the few people that espouse the ESE!Lupin, or at least Traitor!Lupin theories, I don't know *anyone* who believes Lupin's being a werewolf is what makes him suspicious. It is not what Lupin *can't* help (his being a werewolf), but his *choices* in his human form that have made him suspicious. I read Pippin's link to the ESE!Lupin Condensed post and wanted to comment about a couple of points and ask a question. I am not sure that I buy into the idea that Lupin has been a traitor all along. I see both sides of this one, but I do see this as a possibility, especially given the several extremely suspicious things Lupin does in POA. It is odd that for such a well-constructed book, all of the major "plot holes" seem to involve Lupin doing something inexplicable. Pippin made this observation that I'd never noticed before (pardon me if it's been discussed in depth elsewhere): Pippin <> Regardless of whether or not the stranger drinking with Hagrid was Lupin, it seems to me that it cannot have been Quirrell/Voldemort. Hagrid relates that the stranger had "his" hood over his head and made an effort to not be seen, therefore it is almost certain that this person was not using polyjuice, else he'd have used an innocuous persona so that Hagrid could see him and still think him a stranger. Use of the hood, and an effort not to be seen, makes it clear that Hagrid would have recognized this person if he'd seen him. However, Hagrid had a long conversation and did not recognize the voice. So it wouldn't have been Quirrell's voice, which he'd have been hearing regularly at that point. But if it was Voldemort, speaking out of the back of Quirrell's head, then Hagrid would be bound to notice over the course of a long conversation that the voice was not emanating from the face. Harry assumed originally (before he learns about Quirrell/Voldemort) that the stranger was either Snape or Voldemort. But it wasn't Snape, and it couldn't have been bodiless Voldemort, or Voldemort in the back of Quirrell's head. So this leaves the stranger with the dragon's egg a complete mystery. At the end of POA, Hagrid talked about the incident and his own culpability in giving away the information. But nowhere do we get a definitive answer from either a character or the narration, as to the identity of the stranger. Although we (the reader) may assume it was Quirrell/Voldemort, we are never given an explanation for why Hagrid didn't recognize the voice, or couldn't tell that the voice was coming from the other side of the head and covered by the back of the hood of the cloak. It seems more likely that this is a bit of misdirection by JKR, to make us assume that we knew who the stranger was, even though we were never told and there's plenty of internal evidence that it couldn't be who we assume. So who is it? In spite of some posters assumptions that there will be no further traitors, each and every book has culminated with the revelation of Harry having trusted, to one degree or another, a character who seems to betray Harry or others. Quirrell, Tom Riddle of the diary, Ginny (unwillingly), Scabbers (the supposedly faithful pet) revealed as past traitor and betrayed Ron's trust, fake!Moody, Kreacher who Harry trusts to tell him the truth of where Sirius is, even Umbridge who Harry would at least not have suspected of going against the MOM regulations and setting dementors on him, and Snape who appears to betray Dumbledore's trust. The odds are very high that JKR will have at least one more betrayal against the good guys in DH, and since it's the culminating book, it seems likely that the last betrayal will be the culminating betrayal -- bigger than all the rest. So it would make sense for the last traitor to have his/her treacherous roots all the way back into the first book, if not the backstory. Which means that JKR would need to have been planting the literary seeds in PS/SS. Pippin (from ESE!Lupin condensed) Why Lupin should have turned against Dumbledore, to whom he owed so much, will be resolved in Book Seven, IMO, but I believe it to be because Lupin found his adult life unbearable. He could not endure the social disadvantages of living as a werewolf, yet only among his own kind did he feel normal. I see him as conflicted, agonized by Voldemort's brutality, revolted by Fenrir, but seeing theirs as the only path, knowing they mean to use him against the people he loves but still hoping to get control of the situation without revealing to them what he's become. wynnleaf I see Lupin as the eternal fence-sitter. We readers are shown that Lupin grants his friends too much latitude. What we assume, without any real evidence, is that Lupin's only friends were the Marauders and in the Order. Yet Lupin was immediately very friendly to the werewolf in St. Mungos during OOTP, and speaks of the werewolves in HBP as his equals. Lupin could easily have friends among the werewolves. They don't have to all be like Fenrir. We learn in OOTP, that the MOM restrictions against werewolves that Umbridge wrote were originally brought out 2 years previously in the time of POA. Lupin and his kind have been dealing with the kinds of restrictions that makes employment very difficult to find and some werewolves may need to hunt to eat (HBP Christmas conversation with Harry). In OOTP, Sirius makes it clear that Lupin is very upset by these restrictions and at one point Lupin mentioned that similar sorts of restrictions on the goblins could turn them to Voldemort's side. Does this mean Lupin hates everyone on the Order side? No. I think Lupin cares about both sides, but works to benefit the werewolves (and thereby himself). That could have led him to support LV's agenda, at least as it affects the werewolves. I was very struck by the hospital scene at the end of HBP. Lupin is a very controlled fellow. He *never* looses his cool. Even when his good friend of many years dies immediately in front of him in OOTP, Lupin doesn't loose his cool. Yet in the hospital wing, his grief is, in Harry's opinion, almost "indecent" to witness. Why is this? Why is Lupin so uncharacteristically grief stricken -- *far* beyond his grief over Sirius? And even though he witnessed Sirius' death, but only heard about Dumbledore's? My guess: Lupin had been called in by Dumbledore to patrol the castle the night Dumbledore would be out. Dumbledore would have had to recall Lupin from his werewolf assignment. Therefore, Lupin would have known ahead of time that Dumbledore would be gone. When Draco got the cabinet working, the DEs were ready to go on their mission very, very quickly. Yet Draco was surprised to see Fenrir there. How did Fenrir hear about it and get there so quickly? I think Lupin may have alerted the werewolves and DE's that Dumbledore would be gone that night. Lupin would have expected a raid on the castle. But I don't think he expected, and may not have known, about Dumbledore himself being a target. I think when Lupin collapsed in grief it was *guilt* that was moving him, not just sadness at Dumbledore's passing. However, I don't think we're going to see Lupin revealed as this evil horrible person, so much as an oppressed person who ends up betraying many of his friends in order to support others of his kind and to try to find the path that benefits himself and others like him. I think his will be a very sad story, which has many RL parallels. Several recent posts have focused on why Lupin might support Voldemort. The primary reason I think Lupin is highly likely to be the traitor, or betray the Order in DH, is because 1. there is almost *certainly* going to be someone who Harry trusts who turns out to betray him or the Order -- this happens in *each* book and therefore there is a rather low likelihood that it won't happen again. And 2. Lupin is by far the most perfectly situated, in a literary perspective, to be that traitor. Whoever is going to betray Harry or the Order, JKR has *already* set the stage for that character to be a traitor. What do I mean by "set the stage?" She has already placed in canon for that character, whoever it is, motive, opportunity, the believable character traits or flaws, and the right balance within the themes/plot and so on to make it work. Oh, and she's hopefully set it up so that it will *really* surprise almost all readers. Lupin is the only major character I know who has been given what could become a motive -- the previously discussed werewolf angle. He has been given a clear opportunity as a spy among the werewolves. And he has *already* been established in canon as a character who, given the right pressures or motivations, betrayed Dumbledore and been willing to allow Harry and other students to be in danger for his own benefit. Further, he is the only major character who has a huge gap in time (the 12 years between the fall of LV and POA), for which we have no idea what he was doing, and canon has not made any attempt to tell us. Moreover, his character has done some extremely suspicious things which can only really be explained as plot-holes or by explanations that strain credulity. I particularly mean the repeated "forgetting" that he was turning into a werewolf in spite of direct reminders by other characters and his own long discussion about being a werewolf. And then his willingness to kill in cold blood (Lupin being quite cool compared to Sirius at the time) an unarmed, cringing and pleading man in front of 3 children without that man *ever* having been brought before authorities. And then there's the problem of when Lupin transformed at a time when the moon was already up and simply came out from a cloud. When JKR was questioned about this, she wouldn't really give a straight answer, meaning once again that something occurred with Lupin (in an otherwise very well-constructed book) that was either a plot hole or an intentional inexplicable event. And then there's the really lovely parallels and juxtapositions that would occur if Lupin was a traitor and Snape was found to be loyal. 1. Both characters have their roots in the backstory, which JKR clearly sees as extremely important. 2. Harry distrusts Snape, while trusting Lupin. He would find he had to trust Snape while his trust in Lupin was misplaced. 3. Both have been professors. 4. Both are spies. Both would have been double (or more) agents. One spy is presumed to have betrayed the Order, but is in fact loyal. One is presumed to be loyal, but in fact betrays the Order. 5. Both must make choices. One chooses to often sit on the fence, and has already once betrayed Dumbledore and Harry (in POA) and will ultimately betray the Order, so that he can keep the goodwill of others. The other is willing to become a complete pariah, losing the good will of all, in order to do what is right (this is assuming DDM!Snape). 6. Both have been considered "Dark." Lupin is considered "dark" because he is a werewolf, a dark creature. Snape is considered dark because of his longstanding interest in the Dark Arts. There's lots more parallels and juxtapositions between the two, making a story which uses the two characters as lessons for Harry particularly well balanced. The reason I think Lupin will be a traitor is because it's just such a perfect set-up. Last, but not least, it would shock almost all readers. An excellent twist that practically no one would have seen coming. wynnleaf From xellina at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 12:52:39 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:52:39 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00706090552u35334dfcic7f34dabac3d8376@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170043 2007/6/8, dungrollin : > P22 (UK). > ************************* > "You could just leave me here," Harry put in hopefully (He'd be able > to watch what he wanted on television for a change and maybe even > have a go on Dudley's computer). > Aunt Petunia looked as though she'd just swallowed a lemon. > "And come back and find the house in ruins?" she snarled. > ************************* > > If DD gave Petunia a thorough explanation of what happened (or what > he suspected) happened at GH in the letter he left with Harry (or the > hypothetical one delivered by the tawny owl the morning PS begins), > Petunia may be under the impression that it was Harry who blew up the > house at GH. She certainly knows the house blew up. > > I can't find anything else at the beginning of PS which could be read > differently, so I'll stop there. > Cassy: I really like your analysis, and just want to add, that there could be another reason behind Petunia's words about the house. She might know that it was Voldemort who destroy Potters house and might think it unsafe to leave Harry all along, so someone (that is DEs) can come after him. Although she is not particularly fond of Harry, she hardly wants him dead, does she? And although it's obvious, that being a Muggle she wouldn't be able to stop a DE, there must be some parental instinct for an adult to protect a child. However, I might as well be giving Petunia too much credit. By the way, isn't it against the law to live an underage child at home on his/her own in Britain? As for Vernon not wanting to live Harry along in a new car, I think he would be more concerned about petty vandalism on Harry's part than about magic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 12:54:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:54:40 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170044 wynnleaf: > In spite of some posters assumptions that there will be no further > traitors, each and every book has culminated with the revelation of > Harry having trusted, to one degree or another, a character who seems > to betray Harry or others. Quirrell, Tom Riddle of the diary, Ginny > (unwillingly), Scabbers (the supposedly faithful pet) revealed as past > traitor and betrayed Ron's trust, fake!Moody, Kreacher who Harry > trusts to tell him the truth of where Sirius is, even Umbridge who > Harry would at least not have suspected of going against the MOM > regulations and setting dementors on him, and Snape who appears to > betray Dumbledore's trust. The odds are very high that JKR will have > at least one more betrayal against the good guys in DH, and since it's > the culminating book, it seems likely that the last betrayal will be > the culminating betrayal -- bigger than all the rest. Alla: As always I am responding to couple of points only. Not if HBP and DH were really planned as two parts of one book, as JKR noticed, then it is quite possible that the **traitor**, the real one is already revealed and the book 7 will deal with repercussions of what happened on the Tower, IMO. wynnleaf: > And then there's the really lovely parallels and juxtapositions that > would occur if Lupin was a traitor and Snape was found to be loyal. Alla: Lovely parallels indeed, I agree. Are they parallels that JKR planned though or what reader deduced? Did JKR plan to to make them so, or that happened inadvertendly. What if JKR does not plan to exonerate Snape? Or maybe partially but not to set these parallels with Lupin? Would ESE!Lupin still stand up on its own? Or is it just a way to exonerate Snape? What literary purpose ESE!Lupin serves if we **assume**, just for one second, that Snape is if not evil, but at least grey and did that horrible thing on the Tower? And then I come with wierd picture of the guy who to me is metaphor for disability to come up as evil. That is since I do not think that JKR will make Snape come out smelling as a rose at the end. If we think JKR is sending any messages, which I am not quite sure about, then message of Lupin coming up as Evil, will be in my mind against everything what books stand for in my opinion. But I can be wrong of course and as I told Pippin many times, if I am wrong, I **will** cheerfully bow to her greatness on list, but if she is wrong, I am buying popcorn to see hobbit transformation JMO, Alla From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 13:31:46 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:31:46 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170045 Dana: Of course as I said it is getting harder day by day but it still doesn't mean that LV can offer what Lupin is missing. TKJ: I feel like this helps the point I was trying to make. It is getting harder day by day for him and only worse now that DD is gone. SO yes, he could still keep trying to fight this battle, but it has and still is taking a toll on him. Which, I think, makes him susceptible to "suggestion" from LV. LV is good at getting to people when they are vulnerable. Be it green behind the ears, or just angry(Snape, I think he was just an angry person and mad at sooooo many people. LV gave him a way to exact revenge on them to make them pay, an outlet for his anger) I'm not saying I want it to happen, but a person can only take but so much before they break. I fear Lupin is not too far from that point. The question is which way will he go? We have already seen him act questionably in PoA. withholding information that could of helped from DD for admittedly self-serving purposes. TKJ :-) From random832 at fastmail.us Sat Jun 9 15:11:07 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:11:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26A5F37B-BC44-43F0-92D2-79F19EDFBDD7@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 170046 > wynnleaf: > This comment concerns me because among the few people that espouse the > ESE!Lupin, or at least Traitor!Lupin theories, I don't know *anyone* > who believes Lupin's being a werewolf is what makes him suspicious. Snape. I know you meant real people rather than characters, but... that's part of the "meat" behind this argument against ESE!Lupin: If Lupin is ESE, Snape is right for being an anti-werewolf bigot, and that's not a message that JKR would be putting in the books. > So this leaves the stranger > with the dragon's egg a complete mystery. Or we have SmarterThanHeSounds!Hagrid, meaning that these details were fabricated by Hagrid (or by Dumbledore for Hagrid to tell) for Harry's benefit, that he knew it was Quirrel all along, as did Dumbledore, etc. I seem to recall that this was a fairly popular theory in the wake of GOF and OOTP, fitting together with Manipulative!Dumbledore. > wynnleaf: > And then there's the problem of when Lupin > transformed at a time when the moon was already up and simply came out > from a cloud. My problem with this is that there is _no_ mechanism in canon by which this could happen and be in any way under Lupin's control. If werewolves could control their own transformation, that would change _everything_. If the moon generally has to be visible to trigger it, why not just have him sleep peacefully in a room with no windows during his time at Hogwarts? This almost _has_ to be a simple plot hole, because there's no mechanism by which it can be suspicious that we don't already know about. And she's sloppy enough with full moons anyway that it's believable. --Random832 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 9 15:17:29 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:17:29 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170047 Carol: > Based on the dragon's eye (the one we can see), its apparent > docility, and its general appearance, I think it's an Antipodean > Opal-Eye. *(snip)* > Granted, the Opaleye's native territory is rather far from England, > but Charlie seems to deal with all sorts and species of dragons on the > dragon reservation in Romania, including a Chinese fireball. According > to FB, "wizards of all nations study a variety of dragon species" > there (14). If Charlie can get a dragon from China for the TWT, why > not New Zealand as transportation for the Chosen One? Ceridwen: FB also mentions that occasionally, dragons will interbreed. The opal eye was a big clue, but to me, the scales are not clear enough in color, due to the effects of the setting sun, it has horns which aren't specifically mentioned for this breed, and beardlike tufts around its head, so it's possible this may be one of those mixed-breed dragons. If an Opal-Eye was on the Romanian reserve, this could be the product of at least one generation of cross-mating. An Opal-Eye does lead to speculation. Could they be in New Zeland or Australia? Was there an Opal-Eye in Romania? Could this be an Animagus? Can it converse with Harry through Parseltongue? The Opal- Eye prefers valleys to mountains, and this picture shows the dragon carrying the trio through a valley. Could the Opal-Eye have some inherent affinity for valleys: secret knowledge, or at least an eye for something being wrong our out of place, that would help with the Horcrux hunt? The Opal-Eye is also one of the smaller dragons, and docile compared to other breeds. I couldn't see Charlie, or anyone else, giving three novices a more dangerous breed. And, are the wings supposed to be unevenly fringed like that? Or had the dragon been in a fight lately? Ceridwen. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jun 9 15:18:37 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:18:37 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170048 > > > > Aussie: > > > I would also like to see a flying armada with Norbert > > > carrying Hagrid into battle. (Well, I can dream, can't I) > > > > > Becca: > HA! A small part of me will die if this does not happen now. ;) > Aussie: Looking at the Delux book cover, I am wondering if my hopes were prophetic ... in a way. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 15:22:00 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:22:00 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: <936970.91907.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170049 > Goddlefrood, quoting an interview: > ES: `Dumbledore is unrivaled in his knowledge of magic > - Where did he learn it all?' > > JKR: `I see him primarily as someone who would be > self-taught. However, he in his time had access to > superb teachers at Hogwarts, so he was educated in the > same way that everyone else is educated. Dumbledore's > family would be a profitable line of inquiry, more > profitable than sweet wrappers.' [20] > > 'I don't need a cloak to become invisible', said > Dumbledore gently. [21] > Goddlefrood, on Dumbledore's family: > If Dumbledore did have a plan, however vague, to rid > the wizarding world of Lord Voldemort then the only > other person likely to be in the know about that, > other than his late self, would be Aberforth and this > is the reason Aberforth will be important in book 7. zgirnius: I am sure Aberforth knows something, here we are agreed. However, to me it seems that in the interview you cite above, the comment about investigating Dumbledore's family is connected to the observation about his education/accomplishments. A revelation that Hermione is a descendant, or Hagrid is, would hardly shed light on that. The speculation I like is that there is something interesting about Albus's *ancestry*. I think if we learn something surprising about his family, it will be that he is a descendant of Godric Gryffindor. He certainly has strong associations with Gryffindor: he was in that House, its Head, his phoenix is of that House's colors, and he possesses the Sword of Gryffindor. > Goddlefrood, quoting an interview: > > ES: `I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people > but he seems trusting almost to the point of > recklessness sometimes.' > > [Laughter] `Yes, I would agree. I would agree.' > > ES: `How can someone so ?` > > JKR: `Intelligent ?` > > ES: `be so blind with regard to certain things?' > Goddlefrood on Dumbledore's mistakes: > Dumbledore admits he makes mistakes. Other than > perhaps the obvious ones what else could there be? The > obvious ones are his failure to fully inform Harry > about what he was facing until it was almost too late, > his trust of Severus perhaps if that turns out to be > misplaced (just mentioning it), his not insisting on > being the Secret Keeper for the Potters, if he > genuinely did not know otherwise his assuredness of > Sirius's guilt and several more that I'll leave in my > head for the time being. zgirnius: Right. Not telling Harry was an emotional mistake, in that Dumbledore allowed his feelings for Harry to override his judgment. I don't see the SK business as something we can definitely call *his* mistake. We know he offered to serve, and he was turned down. He might have been quite emphatic in his offer, for all we know, but in the end offering is all he could do. I do not believe he cast the spell, since I do not believe he knew the true identity of the Secret Keeper. (Lily, with the swishy wand that was good for Charms work, strikes me as the likely caster). If his services were turned down, what was he supposed to do, Imperio the Potters? Similarly his belief in the guilt of Sirius I find likely not to be emotional in nature. It seems to have been based on the facts as they appeared. He was the Secret Keeper, and the Potters were betrayed. Sirius then killed a number of people including Peter Pettigrew. QED. I actually can't think of an instance of Dumbledore trusting recklessly, I presume the interviewer takes the ESE! position on Snape and finds evidence of this tendency in HBP. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jun 9 15:32:44 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:32:44 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Carol: > > Based on the dragon's eye (the one we can see), its apparent > > docility, and its general appearance, I think it's an Antipodean > > Opal-Eye. > *(snip)* > > Ceridwen: > The Opal-Eye is also one of the smaller dragons, and docile > compared to other breeds. I couldn't see Charlie, or > anyone else, giving three novices a more dangerous breed. > > And, are the wings supposed to be unevenly fringed like that? Or > had the dragon been in a fight lately? > > AUSSIE: The main evidence for an Opal-Eye and not Norbert is the eye colour. But, as Sirius wanted to say to Harry, the eyes of a dragon are it's weak spot. Krum or Fleur used a "conjunctivitus spell" during their first task. The colour may come from the same spell. If the wings are damaged, it stands to reason that the eyes would have been cursed as well. That would mean the Dragon was even more dependant on its rider to guide it from the battle. Fly, Norbert, Fly. Aussie (Norbetsmummy) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jun 9 16:08:24 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 12:08:24 EDT Subject: Hermione and the Boggart/ Sibling theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170051 >mjm1089 >snip> I am re-listening to POA on books on tape (easiest way for me to have time to "reread") and just got to the part about Lupin's first DADA class with the boggart. This may have already been discussed, but a quick google search did not come up with anything from this site. I was directed to sites of how this supports the sibling theory of Harry and Hermione. >twodring.ange >snip< >Also with the Harry, Hermione are siblings theory, I think it's possible that they are soulmates, the yin,yang theory which may be what is the catalyst needed for some sort of ritual... Be interesting to see how it all resolves itself. Nikkalmati I don't think Harry and Hermione will turn out to be twins or siblings, because that result would destroy the Mudbloods are as good as any other wizard theme. It would support the pureblood supremacy theory by making Hermione a half-blood, not Muggleborn, and explain her power as deriving from James and Lily. I do believe canon supports the idea that most people have wizards in their background somewhere, but I don't think it will turn out Hermione has wizards as close relatives (that goes for Lily too). Nikkalmati ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 9 17:19:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:19:55 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170052 You know it's weird. Years ago right after book 3 came out but before I read any Harry Potter book because I thought the must just be for kids, I read an interview of Rowling where she said Giants were the only ones that could domesticate Dragons and they liked to fly on them, but she wouldn't get around to that till the last book so she would say no more about it. At least I think I read it, for years I've been trying to find where I read that but had no luck, I had just about decided that I must have had a hallucination or something but now that I see the artwork for the deluxe edition I think maybe I'm not crazy after all. Eggplant From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Jun 9 17:40:41 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:40:41 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique and the SK switch (Was: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170053 > > > Dung: > > > Well actually, having a dead SK is perfect, because then nobody > else can ever be told the secret again. The weakness of fidelius lies in the SK, while the SK stood firm, the Potters were safe, if the SK had died without revealing the secret, their hiding place > would have been completely safe. > > > > Jen: Okay, that makes sense and also means it would be dumb of LV to actually kill the SK then. Not that he wouldn't anyway. ;) > > Carol responds: > > I don't think that swearing to die rather than telling the Secret is > part of the Fidelius Charm, as Dung suggests. It's not an Unbreakable Vow (which strikes me as very Dark magic); it's just placing a secret inside a trusted person. Certainly, Peter didn't die from revealing the Secret. He just violated the Fidelity placed in > him. Dung: That's not what I meant. I meant that if the SK had died rather than broken his word (as Sirius would have, and Peter didn't), instead of the Potters being at *more* risk, they would have been at *less* risk, because there would now be no chance of the SK telling inappropriate people the secret (when a secret-keeper dies, the status of the secret remains the same - JKR's website). I certainly didn't mean that swearing to die rather than reveal the secret was a part of the charm. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jun 9 18:18:54 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:18:54 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique and the SK switch/DD's correspondence with Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170054 > Carol responds: > I don't think that will happen, simply because JKR generally > deviates from Harry's pov when he's absent or too young to have a > pov. She does occasionally slip outside it to show him asleep...[] > but generally, her pov character is Harry, and I see no reason for > her to switch to Petunia or Snape in DH. Jen: I see, she deviates when there's a reason the story is outside Harry's awareness. One thing JKR's made sure of since Voldemort returned to his crude fetal form is that the reader gets information about Voldemort's plan at some point early on. Without Dumbledore anticipating Voldemort's moves or Snape delivering information to the Order, the plan likely won't be presented to Harry as it was in OOTP. I'd personally like to see Voldemort with his DEs or Voldemort and Snape in a chapter using a third-person dramatic narrator! You mentioned it being unlikely for a Riddle House chapter and that *is* hard to imagine since JKR would need an outsider listening in providing the pov. Although I wonder if Draco could serve that function for a chapter as one who appeared to be on the fence when we last saw him? Also bearing in mind the limited omniscient narrator gets to limit what information is presented. ;) It's possible we won't get any information about a plan, but it sure does seem like a perfect opportunity to show Voldemort gloating over the death of his long-time rival Dumbledore and to hear his diabolical (in his own mind) plan for disposing of Harry. Because then we get to hear Harry tell Voldemort how Dumbledore had a hand in defeating him even from the grave, by passing his knowledge of Riddle/Voldemort to Harry. Take that, LV!! I'm taking liberties now, moving up a point you made later on since it fits in with this discussion: Carol: > It's possible, however, that we'll have another "Spinner's End"- > style chapter involving Snape and Draco; I'd like that because I > want to know what's happening with them, but it won't help *Harry.* > Another possibility is a conversation between Harry and Draco that > sheds a bit of light on Snape, but the problem is, Draco is also a > wanted fugitive and will be in danger of capture if he shows his > face in the WW. Jen: I could see this being a vehicle to learn Voldemort's proposed actions though, right? I'd prefer Voldemort himself and the gloating so the fall is ever so sweet when Voldemort learns he didn't defeat Dumbledore by killing him, but Snape and Draco would serve the additional function of giving information about Draco. I wouldn't expect Snape to give anything away about himself in such a scene (not that you are implying that). I'm pretty sure there will be something between Draco and Harry re: the tower since Harry was the only witness on the other side to Draco being unable to kill Dumbledore. And for Harry's purposes, Draco may have learned something more about the tower from being back in the DE camp. Carol: > What I think will happen is Petunia showing Harry the letters from > Dumbledore (and maybe some old Muggle photographs that she's kept > hidden from Vernon?). I expect that she'll tell him what she knows > about the WW and Lily (and "that awful boy," and maybe even > apologize for being so afraid that he'd blow up the house that she > tried to suppress his magic. (Or whatever--a first-person narrative > from Petunia resembling the one from Barty Crouch Jr. minus > Veritaserum.) Jen: I agree with how the information will be presented and want to add that hopefully Petunia will have all this memorabilia hidden under the creaky stair, an oddity in her otherwise perfect home. As for an apology, I'm starting my re-read and still burn when the Durlseys drop Harry at King's Cross for the first time and he turns to see them all laughing at him as they drive away, thinking he'll never find 9 3/4. Boo. If Petunia has an apology in her, it's definitely come from all the changes in her own life since Harry entered the WW and from Dumbledore's scolding of her in HBP. Prior to those events she doesn't exhibit any signs of remorse that I can see. Dung before: > Well actually, having a dead SK is perfect, because then nobody else > can ever be told the secret again. The weakness of fidelius lies in > the SK, while the SK stood firm, the Potters were safe, if the SK > had died without revealing the secret, their hiding place would > have been completely safe. > Carol responds: > I don't think that swearing to die rather than telling the Secret is > part of the Fidelius Charm, as Dung suggests. It's not an > Unbreakable Vow (which strikes me as very Dark magic); it's just > placing a secret inside a trusted person. Certainly, Peter didn't > die from revealing the Secret. He just violated the Fidelity placed > in him. Jen: I don't think that's what Dung is saying. I understood her to mean that if the Secret Keeper dies then the secret dies with the person and since the people alive can't tell, it's a pretty good deal for those in hiding. Carol: > I'm getting off-track here since we're supposed to be discussing > what Petunia knew, but I'm trying to sort out my own confusion. I > do think that Dumbledore, who informs people of what he thinks they > need to know, would have told Petunia that the Potters were in > serious danger and that he feared that they had told the secret of > their hiding place to a trusted friend who was actually Voldemort's > spy, and he may have given the name of that friend as Sirius Black > (see Petunia's terrified reaction in PoA when Vernon > says, "Lunatic could be coming up the street right now!" Poa Am. > ed. 17). Jen: I can't imagine why Dumbledore would reveal a suspected spy and that type information to Petunia even though it's highly likely he told her the Potters were in danger from Voldemort. For one thing, any information he tells Petunia could put her in danger since Voldemort is known to use family and friends in order to get to a person. Secondly, why would Dumbledore suspect Sirius in particular when Lupin was the one suspected by everyone else? The only possible reason I can think of from the text would be that Snape attempted to persuade Dumbledore of that fact since Snape believed James died, 'too arrogant to believe [he] might be mistaken in Black.' Why was James too arrogant to see the 'truth' unless someone had attempted to convince him otherwise and he refused to believe it? I do think it possible Petunia knew of Sirius Black from overhearing Lily and James if James was 'that awful boy' or that Sirius was the 'awful boy' in question, called that because he was revealed as a killer to Petunia in POA and Harry did nothing to keep the Dursleys from thinking Sirius was a 'dangerous murderer' in GOF in order to use his godfather's name as leverage. Carol: > (Presumably he promised her some sort of protection if she took in > her orphaned nephew, which she did "grudgingly, furiously, > unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took [him]." And she knows > about *Harry's* blood protection, which DD says is mentioned in the > letter tucked into Harry's blanke, so maybe DD states there that it > will extend to her family, too, of she takes him in, OoP Am. ed. > 836.) Jen: I feel sure there was protection offered since Dumbledore thought Voldemort's supporters, 'almost as terrible as he,' would be looking for Harry. Although it's such a circular situation to me! Taking Harry in means more danger for the Dursleys and the *need* for protection in the first place, so why not refuse Harry? The only things I can suggest are 1) Dumbledore suspected Petunia and family were already known to LV and his DEs and were in danger regardless of taking in Harry or not or 2) there's *some* reason Petunia did it for Lily. > Carol responds: > My impression is that the christening or baptism or whatever > ceremony made Sirius Black Harry's godfather took place somewhat > earlier than the Fidelius Charm, when they first realized that they > were in danger. Jen: Right, that's my impression of the timeline. > Carol: > Or she could have feared that Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, might > die, too. James gives DD the Invisibility Cloak, which rather suggests that he expects to die and expects Harry to live. Jen: I suggested that in my first post and others thought that the Potters didn't expect Harry to live if they themselves died. The Invisibility cloak is more canon for the possibility that the Potters did think Harry might outlive them and also suggests the Potters were aware 'marked as his equal' implied Harry wouldn't necessarily die according to the prophecy. Carol: > Maybe DD did tell them about the Prophecy when he suggested the > Fidelius Charm, and maybe Lily mentioned her sister as an option if > anything happened to them and their intended SK. That seems to me > more likely than DD just taking matters into his own hands. Jen: I tend more toward Lily being involved in the request to contact Petunia than Dumbledore taking it upon himself, yes. Carol: > Better to take him out of the WW altogether if anything happened. >(She might even have thought, as James would not have, that Harry > would be safer with her sister than with the recklessly courageous, > Voldemort-hating Sirius Black. Just a thought!) Jen: Yes, my initial wondering was whether Lily thought the Muggle world would be a safer place. I have pondered how Lily felt about Sirius as Harry's godfather. Brave yes, utterly loyal to James especially, but the recklessness? That might give a mom pause! I decided that in their particular situation, the main critera would be someone willing to die to ensure Harry lived and both agreed Sirius met that criteria. Although the fact that Dumbledore did have a correspondence with Petunia and Harry's future seems at least one possibility, I'd say Dumbledore and maybe Lily wondered whether Sirius would be able to fulfill his duties for whatever reason. (That's speculation on top of speculation but I'm going to put it out there anyway. ) Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 18:23:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:23:13 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: <936970.91907.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170055 Goddlefrood wrote: > One more that I have seen little discussion of is from Barty Crouch Jnr, while in his guise as Mad-Eye. His views of Snape, I believe are expressed in this: > 'Course Dumbledore trusts you,' growled Moody. 'He's a trusting man, isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there are spots that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what I mean?' [24] > Was it simply his bitterness that a fellow Death Eater had escaped imprisonment in Azkaban, or is there something more to it? Carol responds: Interesting question and not one we can get a definitive answer to considering the state of Barty Jr.'s soul, but he's clearly attacking Snape on some level, and he's doing it on a dual level, as himself, hating Snape for "walking free," and as "Moody," who as of Karkaroff's trial, still distrusted Snape (and has perhaps told Barty that under the influence of the Imperius curse). IMO, he wants Snape to think that DD doubts Snape's loyalty and has authorized him, Moody, to raid Snape's office (a lie, of course, since DD trusts Snape completely), and he's also, I think, trying to raise Harry's suspicions that Snape might have put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. "Moody" says under the influence of Veritaserum that he "frightened off every person [he] thought might try to hurt [Harry] or prevent [him] from winning the tournament," GoF Am. ed. 676), and I'm guessing that he has Snape as well as Karkaroff in mind here. (Of course, Snape had no intention of interfering with Harry's winning or hurting him--setting aside a detention for prowling the halls--but Barty couldn't know that). Snape doesn't frighten easily, but he did back off from "Moody," DD's supposed old friend who knew his background, which he no doubt didn't want exposed in front of the invisible Harry at that point, allowing Barty to get away with his disguise (and "borrow" the Marauder's Map after Snape leaves). I'm not sure, but I think that Snape hesitates to use Legilimency on "Moody" in part because of that unnerving magical eye (he'd have to concentrate on the other one while being, essentially, X-rayed with the magical one) and in part because of who he thinks "Moody" is. So he's thrown off in his suspicions, but not in his dislike, for the DADA instructor who also has DD's trust. (Now there's a big mistake on DD's part.) As for "spots that don't come off," I'm not sure what Barty meant, exactly. Once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater? Was he implying that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore had better be a pretense or he'd be killed by Voldemort? That it's one thing for Dumbledore to trust Snape (as Voldemort wants) and another thing for that trust to be merited? Snape, of course, would not understand this meaning because he would be reading the words as coming from the Auror Moody, who would implying a doubt of Snape's loyalty to *DD* (and on one level, Barty is definitely doing that to insure that Snape does nothing to interfere with Harry's winning the tournament or with Barty's own actions). But I think that DE!Barty (as opposed to Fake!Moody manipulating Snape and Harry and fooling DD) may actually have doubted Snape's loyalty to *LV*, the master for whom he had gone to prison and endured all those years of the Imperius Curse and was now arranging Harry's kidnapping and ultimate murder. And I think he used that eagle owl to express those doubts, which would partially explain "one who I believe has left me forever" in the graveyard. Just my interpretation of that cunning and evil manipulator, Barty Jr., whom I admire as a villain while hating him as a character. Goddlefrood: > Note they *must * meet each other, as the very first coup leader in this glorious land I live in said, there is no other way. Not to say he'll AK LV though, he patently won't. Whatever happens to neutralise LV I expect to be to do with love and probably involve a gong sound. This bit on the gong has come up in interview and it is implied that more is to come, my interpretation being as you see above: > > JKR: `The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out - I thought that people would - is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that [there are two more books to come]. If you want to wonder about anything, I would advise you to concentrate on those two questions. That might take you a little bit > further.' [12] > > The first question, if any are wondering, is why LV survived. That has been answered in HBP so is no longer of much importance to book 7 except insofar as the Horcruxes must be destroyed, IMO. Dumbledore did not kill LV because he knew about the prophecy and by > reasonable extrapolation wanted Harry to neutralise LV, or proximate to that. Or maybe it just goes to his being the epitome of goodness, for which see far > above. Carol: And also, of course, he knew about the Horcruxes, and that LV couldn't be killed. Vaporizing him would just delay matters, and Harry was reaching an age when he could actually confront and defeat an embodied Voldemort. (I also think that an AK is one of those spells that DD is "too noble" to use, but that's beside the point. He knew that Harry, the Chosen One, had to destroy the Horcruxes and then defeat Voldemort--which, I agree will involve Love, not an AK or other Dark spell.) However, I'm not so sure that there's any such thing as a spell that causes a gong sound. My reading is that the nonlethal spell that DD used, the one that caused LV to make the remark about DD not intending to kill him, struck the shield that LV had conjured, and the impact with the metal caused the gong sound, which the spell itself would not normally do. (Which is not to say that the spell itself would not cause a fate worse than death, but, then, DD knows he's not the Chosen One who can defeat Voldemort, so he would have known that he couldn't defeat LV as he defeated Grindelwald.) All this is just to say that I don't think there's any "gong spell," and if a particular spell could defeat LV without killing him once the Horcruxes were destroyed (and no longer anchored LV's soul to the earth), surely DD would have told Harry. Instead, he's giving him psychological weapons, understanding of Voldemort and how his mind works. > Goddlefrood: > Additionally it is not set in stone that LV must die. There should be something to be gleaned from: 'Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness -' [38]. Is this just a completely throwaway line? I think not, I think it strongly foreshadows that LV will not die in a conventional sense and move on to the wizarding equivalent of Hades, but be reduced to a point where he will no longer be a threat. I do not think he will be redeemed though, whatever else may happen to him. Carol: OTOH, "living" in the form of vapor, or even existing essentially forever with one seventh of a soul could be considered a fate worse than death, as LV would learn, probably, after a thousand years or so, at which point, he might even destroy his own Horcruxes so he could die. It won't happen that way, of course, but one thing DD is saying, IMO, is that death is the natural extension of life, "the next great adventure," and not something to be feared. Clearly, LV's is not a "well-organized mind." And I agree that he won't be redeemed. (To the extent that we can speak in absolutes here. Let's say that the chance of his being redeemed is about .0000000001%. IMO.) Goddlefrood: > If Dumbledore did have a plan, however vague, to rid the wizarding world of Lord Voldemort then the only other person likely to be in the know about that, other than his late self, would be Aberforth and this is the reason Aberforth will be important in book 7. Carol: Um, I tend to think that Snape is in on the plan, too. If he doesn't know about the Horcruxes, having saved DD from one, I'll be very surprised. And Hagrid may know more than we suspect. Carol: > Aberforth is my favourite, and indeed the favourite of many, for being the member of the Order we have not yet properly met. He can step in to fill the role of expositor for his brother Albus. Aberforth may well be the one to teach Harry further about love magic and also be the one to explain about a certain Mr. Multiplicity. We already know he is Albus's brother, and also we can safely presume that Albus used him as a spy in the Hog's Head, a rather useful source of gossip on Death Eaters and Fletchers and Withershins, no doubt. 'Dumbledore ... had a number of useful spies.' [40]. Remus Lupin is spying on the werewolves . Snape, of course, Mrs. Figg. Carol: I agree with most of this paragraph. There's a Mundungus/Aberforth connection (Mundungus being kicked out of the Hog's Head twenty years before strikes me as being a cover story), and Aberforth is certainly the spy (Albus tells LV at the failed DADA interview that he's friendly with the local bartenders, meaning in this case, the bartender at the Hog's Head) who informed Albus the names of LV's traveling companions and that they called themselves Death Eaters. I agree that Aberforth is the Order member we haven't properly met (Harry saw him at the funeral but didn't make the connection between the Hog's Head barkeeper and Aberforth Dumbledore, whom I'm betting *can* read--DD was just joking in implying that he wasn't sure his brother could read, IMO--even Crabbe and Goyle can read or they couldn't pass their Hogwarts classes, by however slim a margin, as can Stan Shunpike, who reads the Daily Prophet). I agree that he'll be a source of information on Snape and on Albus's background (Heir of Gryffindor and owner of the now exploded cottage at Godric's Hollow, I'm betting, with Aberforth as his successor). There's more, a lot more, to the eccentric Aberforth than meets the eye. I don't expect, though, that he'll be much help with Love magic. I think Harry has to discover that power for, and within, himself. Regarding other "useful spies" (besides Snape, Aberforth, Mrs. Figg, Mundungus, and current spies such as Lupin who may not have been spies during VW1), i think Dedalus Diggle, whose name keeps coming up, may be one, as may Tom, the barkeeper at the Leaky Cauldron, and Mr. Ollivander and Florean Fortescue. Mad-Eye wouldn't be a spy, exactly, but he would certainly have kept DD informed about what was going on with the Aurors. Perhaps Madam Bones was an informant (not informer) regarding the Ministry. I'd go on, but it's just a list of names, so not much point. If they're important, we'll find out about it. If not... (I do wonder about Rosmerta, though. Was she also one of DD's "useful spies," temporarily and perhaps unwittingly subverted by Draco and his DE assistant(s)?) Goddlefrood: >There are no Dumbledores, Figgses, Hagrids or Grangers on the Black Family Tapestry, if that's of any import. Carol: Or Snapes or Princes or Gaunts or Peverells. However, we only see a small snippet of a tree that goes back a thousand years or so. Essentially, what we see is Phineas Nigellus's descendants. But he's far from the first in a long line of purebloods. And if Ron is right that all of the purebloods are connected by blood or marriage, the Gaunts and Peverells, at least, must be on there somewhere. The Princes and Dumbledores may be as well, though with DD's Muggle sympathies and interests (ten-pin bowling, chamber music, lemon sherbets, Muggle newspapers) I suspect that he's a half-blood, whose mother(?) had an interest in British legend and wizarding history. (Can there be a connection between Godric Gryffindor and Merlin, who lived backwards?) Carol, who thinks she deserves an Order of Merlin seventh class for making it through this entire post, footnotes and all From catlady1949 at comcast.net Sat Jun 9 17:16:12 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 13:16:12 -0400 Subject: Petunia and Lilly--sisters? Message-ID: <004401c7aab9$e19b1fe0$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 170056 My first post. I didn't look in the archives so don't know if someone has mentioned this, but if Petunia is older, she may either be a product of a previous marriage of one of the parents. This would make Lily and Petunia sisters only through the one parent. Now the interesting thing to learn for me would be if Magical gifts are inherited from the mother or father's side. If Petunia were only Mr. Evan's daughter from a previous marriage, then Lily inherits her magic from her mother, and this is why Petunia has no abilities. And how does magic being a virus fit into this? Just thinking out loud. Can a muggle couple produce a magical child if they have never been magical? Also, how does Hermione fit here since neither of her parents are magical, where does she get her power from? I hope that some of this is revealed in DH. catlady1949 at comcast.net add me to your MSN: Catlady1949 at Comcast.net From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 19:02:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:02:42 -0000 Subject: Regulus - dead or alive. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170057 Okay, I know we argued about the quote " he is dead so is pretty quiet these days" many many times, but I was searching for another quote and realised that I may have misinterpreted another known quote from JKR interview. Consider this part from her interview with Melissa and Emerson : MA: R.A.B. JKR: Ohhh, good. [All laugh.] JKR: No, I'm glad! Yes? MA: Can we figure out who he is, from what we know so far? [Note: JKR has adopted slightly evil look here] JKR: Do you have a theory? MA: We've come up with Regulus Black. JKR: Have you now? MA: Uh-oh. [Laughter.] JKR: Well, I think that would be, um, a fine guess. MA: And perhaps, being Sirius's brother, he had another mirror ? JKR: [drums fingers on soda can] MA: Does he have the other mirror, or Sirius's mirror ? JKR: I have no comment at all on that mirror. That mirror is not on the table. [Laughter from all; Jo's is maniacal.] MA: Let the record note that she has drummed her fingers on her Coke can in a very Mr. Burns-like way. [Laughter.] http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 2.htm Alla: Now, when I read this interview and it was rather long time since I reread it completely, the impression I got was that RAB was indeed Regulus and that the mirror would be important and why it is, she cannot say. Now, when I am looking at it again, isn't it possible to interpret it that Regulus indeed had the mirror and maybe still has it? Alla. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 19:50:39 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:50:39 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170058 > zgirnius: > Similarly his belief in the guilt of Sirius I find likely > not to be emotional in nature. It seems to have been based > on the facts as they appeared. He was the Secret Keeper, > and the Potters were betrayed. Sirius then killed a number > of people including Peter Pettigrew. QED. Goddlefrood: Is that Quite Easily Done? ;-). It's really not so simple, IMO. Dumbledore hardly knew Morphin Gaunt and yet he took the trouble of finding out information from him that proved his innocence of the crime he was sent to Azkaban for. Sirius had been a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Dumbledore was head of the Order. I personally find it difficult to reconcile that Albus took the matter of the exploding street with Peter in it at face value. Particularly if, as I've argued before, Sirius had no formal trial. Dumbledore is someone, in my reading, who wants to know what is going on. If he made no inquiries about the events that led to Sirius's imprisonment then that could be said to be equally as mistaken as my suggestion in the previous. Not quite so simple then, I believe you may agree. Goddlefrood, congratulating zgirnius for having waded through the ramblings of the thread starter :-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 9 20:39:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:39:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape Message-ID: <380-2200766920391246@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170059 Ken: You try to make it sound totally implausible but Neville was a late bloomer and someone, opinion seems divided between Filch and Figgy, is going to be a much, much later bloomer in DH according to the author. Petunia could have gotten into her teen years without having a magical moment. Magpie: I'm not so much "trying to make it sound impossible" (while you try to show it's possible) in terms of whether or not it could happen as pointing out that it takes an awful lot of explaining for not much of a payoff that I can see. Filch and Figg are Squibs and so start out with a different relationship to magic than Muggles do. Muggles have no reason to ever show magic unless they are not Muggles. Petunia has never done magic and "will never be able to." She is not able to do magic. Neville was a late bloomer in terms of getting more confident as he got older, but his magic was there like everyone's else's the day he started Hogwarts. Ken: Petunia didn't have to be frightened by a pub, she may already have been frightened by Lily's magic. What frightened her about the pub was not the pub but what being able to see the pub implied. The pub is just one scenario that would allow her to realize she was a witch without actively doing magic. Getting an invitation from Hogwarts without ever having performed magic would be another. I honestly don't see how you can seriously suggest that *Petunia* is incapable of suppressing her magical gift. If *anyone* in this series could do this it would be Petunia. After all, Vernon and Petunia seemed to be confident that they would be able to suppress Harry's talent for some reason. Magpie: Actually, I think Vernon seems confident and Petunia doesn't. When Harry shows signs of magic Petunia seems resigned to it. Like when the sweater starts to shrink she just gives up and uncharacteristically leaves him alone. I know Petunia's a repressive person, and I couldn't say that she *couldn't* manage to suppress her own magic even at age 10 from the first if anyone could. But I'm not convinced anyone could at this point, especially to the point that she somehow doesn't get a Hogwarts letter. > Magpie: > And also the fact > that canon says that Petunia, as a Dursley, has not a drop of > magical blood must be just colorful language (even though in this > series "magical blood" is a very real thing) because Lily and > Petunia have the same blood. Except they get their blood from their > parents, who are Muggles. So the parents must have magical blood > too. Making the line "The Dursleys were what Wizards called Muggles > (not a drop of magical blood in their veins)" really colorful. > Ken: Well Petunia is an Evans not a Dursley but yeah, I think the drop of blood comment could just be a rhetorical exaggeration in this case. Petunia's blood is quite powerful magically according to canon, it is the source of Harry's protection at her home. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that a Muggle's blood could be so powerful? It is almost like a clue that is so obvious that we all miss it. I mean even if there is nothing more to it at all and Petunia is a Muggle in exactly the way you define Muggle, then Lily's sacrifice has put the lie to the claim that Petunia has not a drop of magical blood in her. Lily's sacrifice has made Petunia's blood quite powerfully magical until Harry turns 17. Magpie: I don't see how it has put a lie to anything, because it's explained as being the family connection that makes for an ingredient in a magic spell of someone else's. "Magical blood" means blood of a person who can do magic. A family bond can exist in non-magical people as well. Peppermint is not magical in itself, but it can be used in a magical Potion made by a person who can do magic. > Magpie: > I mean, I know that the split between Wizards and Muggles is not as > clear as some Wizards would like because of Muggle-borns and Squibs. > But it's so far seemed clearer than someone being able to be both at > the same time. You say we just decide what we're going to call > Merope, but it still seems clear to me that Merope, even at her > death, has a abilities a Muggle can not have. Had she recovered, she > would have recovered her abilities like Tonks did, presumably. Just > as Petunia, if she's repressing her magic, is just as much a witch > as Hermione is when Hermione's not doing magic. Ken: I didn't say, or didn't mean to say, that you could be both at the same time. I did say that one person could be both at different stages in their life and that is very different. I'm not sure what abilities Merope had at her death that a Muggle wouldn't have, do you have an example? Magpie: She would presumably be able to receive magical treatment like Harry can, and see Diagon Alley. I think she could probably floo. Also, she would have her own abilities that she was currently unable to use. Just as Tonks is still a metamorphagus when she loses her powers. When she's no longer depressed, she can access them again. Ken: Well before her death Merope barely had magical power in that lovely scene with her father and brother in the Gaunt hovel. She was a barely functioning witch at that time. Magpie: She was a witch at that time. She blew up a pot, as I recall. A Muggle can't do that. Neville could and often does because his lack of confidence keeps him from getting a handle on his powers. Merope clearly shows magical abilities in doing that, whether she's functioning well as a witch or not. It had already bloomed when we met her. Ken: Evidently she bloomed a bit when on her own but I don't see any reason to be confident that she would have recovered her power if she had lived past Tom's birth. Magpie: Whether or not she did, she would still have been a witch who, because she was depressed, was unable to do magic. Like Harry at times when he can't make a spell work. Merope bloomed in terms of being able to use her powers better, but she already had them. Ken: I consider Merope's loss of power as final and she became Muggle at that point. I view it as being similar to the choice Arwen made when she married Aragorn. She became human and mortal. Tonks' case is far different. One of her powers was weakened by her furry problem. Otherwise she was still such a powerfully effective witch that she remained on active duty with the Order. Magpie: I think it's fitting you would compare her to Arwen, because Arwen is a character in someone else's mythos, one that deals with people "becoming mortal." In Rowling's world I don't think such a thing has ever been suggested. Wizards and Witches can have trouble doing all sorts of magic but they aren't Muggles and Muggles aren't Wizards. If somebody does magic ever they were a wizard. A Muggle can never and could never do magic. Tonks doesn't become a mortal or renounce being a witch when she stops being able to change herself.If pressed I think both of them might even been able to access them again for the right reason. A Muggle can't do that. Ken: Yes, of course, on both counts. And if she isn't going to use my splendid idea, I hope she does come up with something equally splendid. I would not expect Petunia to do magic even if this notion turned out to be true. I would just be wonderfully ironic if Petunia had been a nascent witch who refused the calling. I wouldn't expect it to be significant to the plot in any way. I'd expect it to come out in a scene where Petunia reveals something else she knows that might be significant. Magpie: Wonderfully ironic maybe, but is it anything significant in the story? I mean, what difference would it make? As I said, it's like a less significant version of Neville's "could have been" the Prophecy boy, which really means nothing to him. Only in this case, unlike with Neville, it seems something that's being led up to as something important--and it changes what a Muggle is (to include those who have or had magical ability). Neville being the other possible Prophecy boy was just presented as an interesting aside. Ken: Now wouldn't it be worth whatever damage you feel it would do to Rowling's veracity for the chance to "see" the expression on Uncle Vernon's face when Petunia drops *that* shoe? But then I'd be just as happy if it turned out the Petunia had merely been Snape's Muggle girlfriend for a while .... Magpie: I wouldn't really be bothered if she wasn't completely honest because I need to believe in her good character.:-) I feel like I just accept that she's not saying something that so obviously is untrue because she's said she doesn't do that and I can't recall her ever doing that. (She's not only using the word "Muggle" in a new way, but saying Petunia will never has and never will be able to do magic as well.) But it also comes down to my reaction to the second bit, where I'm to care about Vernon's face when she drops that shoe. Because I don't see why that would be a big moment at all. Why would any of them care so very much? And why would we as readers care if Vernon learned that Petunia has never and will never be able to do magic, but in an alternate universe maybe she could have? It doesn't answer anything left open in the text that I can see--that is, it could, but only with further explanation (Petunia's having repressed abilities doesn't explain any of her reactions to specific things any more than her being a Muggle who doesn't like wizards does.) We've never gotten much insight into how Vernon feels about Petunia, so it doesn't seem like a big revelation for the story. - From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 9 21:25:40 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:25:40 -0000 Subject: Regulus - dead or alive. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Okay, I know we argued about the quote " he is dead so is pretty > quiet these days" many many times, but I was searching for another > quote > > and realised that I may have misinterpreted another known quote from > JKR interview. > > Consider this part from her interview with Melissa and Emerson : > > MA: R.A.B. > JKR: Ohhh, good. > [All laugh.] > JKR: No, I'm glad! Yes? > MA: Can we figure out who he is, from what we know so far? > [Note: JKR has adopted slightly evil look here] > JKR: Do you have a theory? > MA: We've come up with Regulus Black. > JKR: Have you now? > MA: Uh-oh. > [Laughter.] > JKR: Well, I think that would be, um, a fine guess. > MA: And perhaps, being Sirius's brother, he had another mirror ? > JKR: [drums fingers on soda can] > MA: Does he have the other mirror, or Sirius's mirror ? > JKR: I have no comment at all on that mirror. That mirror is not on > the table. [Laughter from all; Jo's is maniacal.] > MA: Let the record note that she has drummed her fingers on her Coke > can in a very Mr. Burns-like way. > [Laughter.] > > http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- > 2.htm > > > Alla: > > Now, when I read this interview and it was rather long time since I > reread it completely, the impression I got was that RAB was indeed > Regulus and that the mirror would be important and why it is, she > cannot say. > Now, when I am looking at it again, isn't it possible to interpret > it that Regulus indeed had the mirror and maybe still has it? Dana: I myself do not think the mirror is in any way related to Regulus as it seemed to have been something that was specifically used by James and Sirius. I even think but that remains to be seen is that it was not a marauder thing but truly just used by Sirius and James and so there not being more then two mirrors, so not four. If Harry had one then Sirius had the other. Of course we do not know if Sirius left his behind or that he had it on him. He probably left it behind and Harry will use it to communicate with Ron and Hermione. Of course I rather see it used differently but there might not be any more to it then that. Just it being put to use by the trio. Also I think Regulus is truly dead as the tapestry had registered the time of his dead as Harry noted. Sirius, DD and Lupin (HBP) all confirmed this and it seems to write itself and tracks the Black family members by magic. Well at least those not blasted off. Regulus died before Sirius went to Azkaban, about a year before actually as it is mentioned he died some 15 years before, at the time Harry noticed it and Harry was 15 in OotP, so it is not something Sirius picked up later. I do not think Regulus will make his appearance in DH, well not physically I mean. I also very much doubt that DE can fake their own death for LV. This is what fake Moody said about Karkaroff after he fled. GoF pg 586 UKed Paperback chapter: "Veritaserum" `Karkaroff?' said Moody with an odd laugh. `Karkaroff fled tonight, when he felt the Dark Mark burn upon his arm. He betrayed too many faithful supporters of the Dark Lord to wish to meet them . . . but I doubt he will get far. The Dark Lord has ways of tracking his enemies.' End quote canon It gives me the impression that as long as you breath LV will know it and you can just hide but eventually they *will* find you (so it is not a GPS tracking device). Wormtail and Barty were both faked deaths in the time LV was no more then vapor and could not summon his DEs and both were revealed to be alive before he regained himself a body, so it seems that the three DEs he mentions of being dead are truly dead, if we assume for a moment of course that one of three was indeed Regulus. It could explain why Draco did not take DD's offer if he indeed was already marked and why he said he couldn't, that nothing could help him now. Of course what Barty says could be an indication to something else but I could imagine LV using his extra ordinary knowledge of magic and put it to the task, to make sure no DE escaped his punishment that there is no way to pull yourself out of his service and that only dead can release you if you want out. So if that is indeed the case then Regulus seemed to be truly dead but JKR herself already implied he was, just as the tapestry implies he is truly dead. JMHO Dana From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 21:24:18 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:24:18 -0000 Subject: Chocolate Frog Cards In-Reply-To: <006f01c7a96a$d3a74210$670fa8c0@userb26c5552b3> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170061 Anne wrote: "I am new to this group so I don't know if this question has been raised before, but I have been wondering for a long time about the chocolate frog cards. Dumbledore either says (or is quoted as saying) that he doesn't mind what *they* do to him so long as they don't take him off the chocolate frog cards. At face value it seems like a throwaway remark, but as we all know, JKR often makes a throwaway remark in one book that is a vital plot point in another book. JKR has confirmed that DD is dead (oh, poop), but he's taken his place in his portrait and is still on the CFC...is that important or significant? Is there more to a CFC than meets the eye? Just wondering." Jo writes: Personally, I believe this is meant to show the lighter side of Dumbledore. He means that he isn't offended by anything else they do to him as long as he is left on the cards and I imagine him having a twinkle in his eye when he says this. I also think this shows he believes that it is more important that children know who he is and that they get to know him and it is not so important that the adult wizarding world hold him in esteem. He knows his talents and wants to help children (hence his belief that headmaster is more important than being Minister for Magic). I hope I'm making sense with this! Jo. From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Sat Jun 9 21:33:57 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:33:57 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Lilly--sisters? In-Reply-To: <004401c7aab9$e19b1fe0$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170062 Look at the subject "Petunia's Eyes" from that link there has been a lot of disucssion on this lately. Personally, I don't think they're sisters. I think Lily is adopted (maybe a cousin who was adopted). From kamilaa at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 21:57:30 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:57:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: References: <936970.91907.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170063 I'm not sure, but I think that Snape hesitates to use Legilimency on "Moody" in part because of that unnerving magical eye (he'd have to concentrate on the other one while being, essentially, X-rayed with the magical one) and in part because of who he thinks "Moody" is. *snip* I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but I think you're right; it must have been fairly disconcerting for Snape if he ever tried to use Legilimency on fake!Moody - direct eye-to-eye contact with that swerving, swirling magical eye could not have been fun. In any sense of the word. As for "spots that don't come off," I'm not sure what Barty meant, exactly. Once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater? I always read that in a very direct fashion, especially given the line where Snape clutched at his left forearm: I think Barty was referring to the Dark Mark all Death Eaters carry, and pointing out to Snape that he may have been Dumbledore's man, lo, these many years, but he is still walking around with Voldemart's mark on his flesh, and that that mark is a spot (on his character? his soul? or just simply his flesh) that doesn't come off. Kamil From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 22:07:19 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:07:19 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170064 > Goddlefrood: > Dumbledore hardly knew Morphin Gaunt and yet he took the > trouble of finding out information from him that proved > his innocence of the crime he was sent to Azkaban for. zgirnius: The cases are not at all similar, in my view. Dumbledore suspected Voldemort was the true guilty party from the start, and he investigated the matter as part of his investigation of Horcruxes/Riddle's backstory. When the investigation turned up the fact that the wrong man was in jail for a serious crime, he naturally took steps to remedy that. As I believe Dumbledore would have for Sirius, did he have any information or other suspects to suggest Sirius was innocent. > Goddlefrood: > Sirius had been a member of the Order of the Phoenix. > Dumbledore was head of the Order. I personally find it > difficult to reconcile that Albus took the matter of the > exploding street with Peter in it at face value. Particularly > if, as I've argued before, Sirius had no formal trial. zgirnius: I do not believe the matter of the exploding street was the clincher. It was Sirius's own clever little plan that did him in. Dumbledore knew there was a traitor in the Order of the Phoenix, but not who it was. And then he learned Sirius, their Secret Keeper, betrayed the Potters. He met the description of the spy Dumbledore had, in terms of being close enough to the Potters to have passed the information that had been passed. Sirius then killed 12 Muggles and his friend, shocking I am sure, but rather less so in light of his very recent betrayal of his best friend and his apparent prior (what did Sirius say, a year?) involvement with Voldemort. I don't doubt Dumbledore would prefer the rule of law and proper procedures and all, but I also think he had little doubt as to the issue of such a proceeding, had one been held. It is also certain he disagreed with the sentence, in that he did not believe the Ministry should employ Dementors as prison guards. > Goddlefrood: > Dumbledore is someone, in my reading, who wants to know > what is going on. zgirnius: And he believed he did. This was a mistake in the sense that he did not, in fact, know what was going on, but I don't think it was either emotionally based, or glaring. > Goddlefrood, congratulating zgirnius for having waded through > the ramblings of the thread starter :-) zgirnius: He did tend to go on a bit. ;-) But a good read nonetheless. From djmitt at pa.net Sat Jun 9 22:11:22 2007 From: djmitt at pa.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:11:22 -0000 Subject: Dobby and Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170065 Earlier I stated that the DEs know about the horcruxes and someone informed me that was against the canon. DD said that the DEs didn't know about the horcruxes in HBP..Well I say DD was wrong. Now give me a chance to prove myself..OK In the HBP, DD states two things that are revelant to my proof 1. That he didn't know that the diary was a horcrux until the end of COS 2. That Lucius Malfoy didn't know that he had a horcrux because. He was so careless with it and wanted to embarrass Mr Weasley with a dark object Lets go back to COS. The main theme on this book is "things aren't always as they seem" In the bedroom scene with Dobby, Dobby warns Harry of a "plot" against him specifically, but couldn't tell him who is plotting against him. We learn later that Dobby is the house elf of the Malfoy's and he cannot rat on his master. Harry asked if LV is involved. Dobby thinks then shakes his head but tries to tell Harry with his eyes that he is "warm". Harry guesses LV's brother. No says Dobby. IMO Dobby was trying to tell Harry about TOM RIDDLE. Therefore, Dobby knows about the horcrux and the Malfoy's. Dobby warns Harry about dark magic,that DD DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT!! Now let's look at Lucius Malfoy's actions on Diagonally Alley in COS. First we see him in Bogins and Burkes trying to sell his dark magic items at his home. Why not the disry also with these other dark objects? Also there seems to be some secret dialogue between Mr. Burke and Lucius Malfoy..Maybe the diary was in the shop and Lucius Malfoy was picking it up. Next we see him in Flourish and Blotts planting the diary in Ginny Weasley's books. He also PROTECTS THE DIARY during the scuffle with Mr. Weasley DD was wrong..Lucius Mafoy knew exactly what he was doing, knew he had a horcrux,and was protective of it rather than careless. A horcrux also kills when it becomes "alive" again sucking the life force from it's victim. What better victim than an innocent,protected, lively, first year student for a horcrux. Ginny Weasley the only girl in a family of all boys the apple in everyone's eyes. Her death would be a terrible blow to the Weasley family. No Lucius knew exactly what he was doing Donna From leahstill at hotmail.com Sat Jun 9 22:46:15 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:46:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's letters to Petunia (Re: Petunia's Eyes) In-Reply-To: <463f9ec00706090552u35334dfcic7f34dabac3d8376@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cassy Ferris" wrote: > >> Cassy: > > I really like your analysis, and just want to add, that there could be > another reason behind Petunia's words about the house. She might know > that it was Voldemort who destroy Potters house and might think it > unsafe to leave Harry all along, so someone (that is DEs) can come > after him. Although she is not particularly fond of Harry, she hardly > wants him dead, does she? And although it's obvious, that being a > Muggle she wouldn't be able to stop a DE, there must be some parental > instinct for an adult to protect a child. However, I might as well be > giving Petunia too much credit. By the way, isn't it against the law > to live an underage child at home on his/her own in Britain? This may be possible depending on what DD has told her. But this post is really to answer your question about the law and under-age children in England/Wales ( I don't know about Scotland, Ireland the law is often slightly different there). There is no specific law that says that you must not leave a child alone under a certain age, but it is an offence to 'neglect or abandon' a child under the age of 16. The law does not define neglect or abandon, but looks at the particular treatment, the age of the child, the child's level of maturity, the situation where it was left etc. Leaving a self- reliant 11 alone while you popped down to the local shops would almost certainly not be prosecuted- leaving the same 11 year old alone for a day might, but something would have had to have gone wrong. So Petunia might fear being proesecuted if she left Harry alone for the zoo trip and something did happen, but she might be equally worried about the neighbours' reactions. Often prosecution might not result, unless the child had actually been badly injured, but the family might be referred to social services for help with parenting. It is a situation by situation thing. Parents tend to be a lot more wary these days, and we are talking 20 years ago for Harry's upbringing. When I was eleven, rather more years ago than that, I would probably not have been left at home all day but was certainly free to be out all day on my own. Leah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 9 23:20:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:20:03 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170067 Dana wrote: LV is not promising the werewolves more rights as wizards or that he will change WW legislation so werewolves will be able to get paid work and thus improve Lupin's current situation. He only promises that they will be able to get their revenge on the WW by inflicting all the fear they can possibly inflict and fulfill their blood thirst on whoever they like. Carol: I agree so far. And, BTW, I'm not an ESE!Lupin supporter, but I see him as rather weaker than you do. Dana: Lupin wants to be liked not be feared more and he specifically dicates he is not liked by the werewolves either because he bares the signs of living among the WW. He is not freely accepted in their mids either just like Hagrid is not accepted among the Giants, Dobby is not accepted among his kind and Firenze is shunted from his for associating himself with humans. Carol: Interesting comparison. However, Hagrid is not a true giant, only a half-giant. Grawp might fit your analogy a bit better. (He was too "small" and was bullied by the giants. Now he's almost certainly an outcast, having been somewhat civilized by Hagrid.) > Dana: > > You are forgetting that Sirius was not the only one that became an illegal animagus on Lupin's behalf and that Sirius was not the only one that roamed the castle, the grounds and Hogmead with a fully fletched werewolf. Lupin did not keep this information from DD to protect Sirius but to protect James and Peter, two friends who he believed to be dead. Loyalty to a friend does not dissolve into thin air the moment that person dies. It is even worse because that person is no longer there to defend his own actions. What is Lupin to do, smear his dead friends' names and just forget what James and Peter had done for him when they were young? That is why he is denying to himself that Sirius might be using his animagus form to get into the castle, not to protect Sirius from being caught but to protect the secret that Lupin once shared with his best friends. A secret that at the time made Lupin's life worth living and gave him the best time of his life he ever had. A secret that betrayed DD's safety precautions he set out so that Lupin could have a chance to be part of WW society. That made it possible for Lupin to have such great friends in the first place. Carol responds: Lupin himself says nothing about "betraying his friends." He says that he didn't want to admit that he had betrayed Dumbledore's trust. Also, I don't see how admitting that his former friend Sirius Black, whom he believes to have betrayed James and Lily to their deaths, killed twelve Muggles, and murdered Peter Pettigrew, is an Animagus and knows secret passages into the castle would be betraying his friends, especially since Black is believed to be out to kill his own godson, James's son, Harry. As for the secret that made his life worth living and gave him the best time he ever had, he knew himself that he was endangering the people of Hogsmeade. And how would admitting that his friends had become animagi out of friendship for him be betraying them? If loyalty doesn't dissolve and friendship doesn't fade, why did Sirius and Remus suspect each other of being the spy? Why did Peter betray them all, especially James, for whose death (and his wife's death) he's as responsible as Voldemort and for Sirius's imprisonment he's also largely responsible? Lupin, AFAWK, believes that Sirius betrayed the Potters and is out to kill Harry, and even if he secretly can't quite believe it, he still owes it to Harry and to James to tell Dumbledore what he knows. He certainly has no difficulty turning against Peter, even offering to kill him, when he discovers that his "dead" friend was actually the traitor, nor does Sirius, who has wanted to kill Peter for twelve years. Anyway, I think you're assuming motives for Lupin here that aren't in canon. He endangered people as a teenager, he endangers HRH by rusing out (quite understandably) without his potion (I blame the DADA curse, actually), and he would have endangered Harry all year long by withholding information about Sirius Black had Black really been the murderer that Lupin himself, based on what canon evidence we have, thought he was (along with evryone else). I'm not arguing that Lupin (I actually typed "Pippin"--sorry, Pippin!) is ESE, but I don't see how we can deny weakness that he admits to himself. > Dana: He > probably watched the map very closely on other nights for any sign of Sirius making another attempt to enter the castle and by taking the map away from Harry he prevented Harry from wandering outside the castle grounds. > Carol: And yet he was loyal to Sirius and didn't want to betray him? He placed loyalty to a "murderin' traitor" over Harry's life, the memory of his friendship with Sirius over loyalty to the murdered James's son? If that's loyalty, perhaps it's not the virtue I thought it was. also, taking the map away did not prevent Harry from wandering the castle grounds, as we see when HRH go to Hagrid's on the night of Buckbeak's scheduled execution--or from entering Hogsmeade, which he could still do using his Invisibiility Cloak and the humpbacked witch passage. (All Lupin does, actually, is confiscate the map from *Snape.* He doesn't turn it in to Dumbledore, which he would do if he really had Harry's welfare in mind. Again, I'm not saying that he's ESE, but he's not at his moral best in PoA. As I said, I believe that the DADA curse is playing on his weaknesses, especially his fear of DD's disapproval, and causing him to do what's easy rather than what's right. And how convenient for Voldemort that Lupin just happened to be looking at the map just as Peter Pettigrew (well, poor Ron, with Pettigrew in his pocket) was dragged into the tunnel by Sirius Black. And all on a full-moon night when Lupin hadn't taken his potion. But, IMO, that doesn't excuse Lupin from responsibility for his actions, including the neglect of his duty to tell DD all he knew about Sirius Black, and his excuse that he didn't want to lose Dumbledore's trust is as pathetically weak as watered-down tea; DD would have trusted him *more* if he'd told the truth. As it is, DD's only course of action would have been to ask for Lupin's resignation if he didn't offer it himself. And *not* because parents would be writing to DD demanding his resignation but because he, himself, had failed to act responsibly and had endangered his own students. ("In a way, Snape was right about me all along.") Dana: > To answer Betsy, Lupin did not betray James by keeping the information from DD because it could possibly have put Harry in danger because Lupin was keeping an eye on Harry personally in an attempt to make up for his reluctance to give their childhood secrets away. Carol: I suppose you could use his watching HRH on the night of Buckbeak's execution as an example, even though that action had unforeseen consequences, but he could hardly have kept an eye on Harry before he had access to the Marauder's Map, nor do I see any evidence that he did so. He certainly didn't keep Sirius Black from entering the castle twice, terrorizing the students by slashing the Fat Lady's painting and Ron's bedcurtains. and it's surely DD, not Lupin, who finally orders Flitwick to teach the front doors to recognize a photo of Black. Telling DD what he knew about Black, would have protected Harry (if Harry really were the intended victim) and been loyal to James's memory, but he was concerned instead about DD's faith in him. Dana: > Why would he want to stop it [the full-moon excursions] at any time? It was the best time he ever had. Carol: For the sake of the residents of Hogsmeade whose lives they were recklessly endangering? Dana: > he is afraid that DD will start to see him as a werewolf because he no longer trusts Lupin's human part (and might even have been the reason for his temperary leaps as DD indeed sends Lupin to spy on the werewolves). Carol: I don't understnad what you're saying here. What "temporary leaps"? (What's a "temporary leap"?) And where is the evidence that Lupin fears that DD would start to see him as a werewolf? Dumbledore, who made special provisions so that a werewolf boy could go to school, who allowed Lupin into the Order of the Phoenix, who gave him a job at Hogwarts, see Lupin as a werewolf? Why would he think that and where is the evidence that any such thought entered his head? Dana: [This snippet is out of sequence, sorry]: Werewolves live in seclusion not because they were pushed out of society but because most of them were pushed into seclusion be Greyback rain as he can have control over them this way instead of having them develop their own conscience and a sense of self as humans. > {Back to normal sequence:] The werewolves live under the suppression of Greyback who himself seems to live the way he wants too but he is not looking out for the werewolves well being as they still have to take care of themselves. Carol: Again, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that Greyback *reigns* over (rules) the werewolves? I think we see that some of them follow his lead, but I see no evidence that he's the Alpha werewolf, so to speak. Can you clarify and maybe cite some canon so that I can follow your argument here? (I'm not arguing with you here; I'm just not sure what you're saying.) I thought that you said somewhere in this message that Umbridge's anti-werewolf legislation was specifically passed because of a werewolf being hired at Hogwarts, but I can't find the passage, so maybe it was in another post (or I imagined it??). At any rate, according to Sirius Black, Umbridge's legislation was passed two years before he speaks to Harry from the common room fireplace in OoP (Am. ed. 302), at which point it's only about a week into the term. So unless Umbridge already knew that Lupin was a werewolf two years before that, just at the point when Lupin was starting to teach at Hogwarts, I don't see how the werewolf legislation could have had anything to do with him. It certainly didn't result from Snape's telling Fudge (in essence) that he'd conjured stretchers to save three students from a werewolf (much less letting slip to his students that [ex-]Professor Lupin as a werewolf), which occurs at the end of Lupin's year of teaching, about sixteen months before the conversation between Sirius Black and HRH in OoP. (Please forgive me for being unable to locate the comment that I'm responding to and for misunderstanding or misattributing it if that's what happened.) Carol, who agrees with you that Lupin is a weak (not evil) human being who (IMO) still doesn't understand that there are more important things than being liked, and one of them is placing the safety of your students above the embarrassment that would result from revealing a youthful indiscretion From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 9 23:18:37 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 19:18:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regulus - dead or alive/Dobby and Horcruxes Message-ID: <380-22007669231837296@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170068 Dana: It could explain why Draco did not take DD's offer if he indeed was already marked and why he said he couldn't, that nothing could help him now. Magpie: Actually, Draco didn't take his offer primarily because the DEs came in, which took it off the table. Draco says he hasn't got any options *before* Dumbledore explains about protecting him. Draco thinks his options are only that he kills DD or he and his family die themselves. DD says there is another option--let the Order hide him and his family. Draco changes his line of thought after that. He acknowledges that he is the one with the wand, that Dumbledore is "at [his] mercy," that he got farther than anyone thought he would, and that's when he starts to lower his wand and so, presumably, take the offer. But he can't because the DEs come in. Draco may not have been marked, of course, we don't know that for sure. But he never said he doubted Dumbledore could protect them. Though I agree Regulus is actually dead. I just think it's important to Harry especially that Draco didn't turn down the offer, and that it doesn't prove that nobody can protect a DE. Donna: Now let's look at Lucius Malfoy's actions on Diagonally Alley in COS. First we see him in Bogins and Burkes trying to sell his dark magic items at his home. Why not the disry also with these other dark objects? Magpie: Err...because he's planning to use it to make Arthur Weasley's daughter open the Chamber of Secrets. Donna: Also there seems to be some secret dialogue between Mr. Burke and Lucius Malfoy..Maybe the diary was in the shop and Lucius Malfoy was picking it up. Magpie: Doesn't it just say that they haggled over the price? Donna: Next we see him in Flourish and Blotts planting the diary in Ginny Weasley's books. He also PROTECTS THE DIARY during the scuffle with Mr. Weasley DD was wrong..Lucius Mafoy knew exactly what he was doing, knew he had a horcrux,and was protective of it rather than careless. Magpie: But he knows it's an important artefact without knowing it's a Horcrux. His goal is to get Ginny to bring it to school and write in it and open the Chamber--and he doesn't want it to be seen or thrown away before then. His "carelessness" refers to the fact that he used the diary to do this to Ginny, which thus got it destroyed. It wasn't really careless at all, of course. It was a careful plan--just a bad one! - From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 01:22:33 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:22:33 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Dirty Little Secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170069 Talisman wrote: > [T]he evidence to date fairly shrieks that Auntie was > a Death Eater. > Will she, in a desperate attempt to re-ingratiate herself, turn on > Harry when Voldemort comes knocking? (Especially if she's learned > that Dumbledore is defunct?) Annemehr: Oh, she's learned of his demise, all right. As Professor Flitwick said in HBP ch. 29 [630 US]: "Our students should pay tribute, it is fitting. We can arrange transport home afterward." McGonagall wanted to send the students home at once, and even though Harry successfully argued for their being able to attend the funeral, they still were sent home *early.* And that just wouldn't happen without parents and guardians being notified. In fact, it's my opinion that the whole point of writing in the rescheduled Hogwarts Express was to get Petunia notified of DD's death, and to reexamine her priorities. Voldemort's back, DD's gone - such a reversal of fortunes! It's *bound* to cause her to do something...unfortunate. Though, far be it from me to think DD expected to live forever. I'm sure she'll receive one LAST communication from that quarter, in one form or another - even if it's in the form of a visit from a member of the Order of the Phoenix. You know, just to make sure that Harry is in fact allowed one more return to Privet Drive - just in time for the party to start. The masked ball, that is. > Talisman, saying, let's have her go out after a *last vile move* that > sets up the delightfully thorough smack down. > Amen, sister. Annemehr From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 10 02:03:10 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:03:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Dirty Little Secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170070 > > No, Petunia doesn't wear a physical Dark Mark. > > Still, her perpetual scouring is the external symptom of an inner > mark. Her inept efforts to erase an interior filth that soap can't > touch: the guilty residue of her transgressions. > > And so we see the perfectly charming noose of Petunia's plot arc, > drawing to a close. > > Some remaining questions of interest are: > > What exactly did Petunia do for Voldemort? Julie: I've been thinking lately too about Petunia possibly being complicit in James and Lily's deaths. Obviously she did know about Lord Voldemort, the Dementors, and Azkaban. But it's hard for me to see Petunia having desire to conspire with Voldemort. She probably pees her pants at the mere thought of him! I'm thinking that she may have betrayed her sister to someone else. I also think she probably didn't recognize the full consequences of her actions, i.e., she didn't know she was consigning Lily and James to death. Some have suggested Petunia might have been involved with Snape, though I can't really see the two of them together. Snape apparently liked or at least respected Lily, so it's hard to see what he'd like or respect about someone as different from and as hostile to Lily as Petunia. Though I do think Snape was the "awful boy" Petunia mentioned, the one she overheard telling Lily about Dementors. She may have recognized from this conversation that Lily was straying into dangerous territory, if the conversation had some element of warning in it, but I don't think Petunia was passing information to Snape. IMO, that would have been Peter. So what if Peter and Petunia were in cahoots? Peter knew what he was doing of course, preparing to turn James and Lily and their infant son over to Voldemort to be slaughtered, but I doubt Petunia knew of the Prophecy, or of Peter's eventual intention. Whatever information she could pass on, she may have assumed it would at most lead to James and Lily facing Azkaban or fighting off Dementors. The threat of that alone might have satisfied her vengeful feelings toward her sister, especially if she passed on that information with little forethought (similar to Sirius setting up Snape without thinking too deeply about the potential consequences, focused only on his desire for revenge). If Petunia only realized later how far it was all going, beyond just a bit of petty revenge to cold-blooded murder, it would be too late for her to stop it. But in the aftermath, Dumbledore could have something on her, something indicating her complicity in James and Lily's deaths. Maybe Petunia didn't *intend* for anyone to die, but that's what happened. Thus she feels compelled to take in Harry, even if it's unwillingly, bitterly, etc, etc. And Dumbledore feels assurance that she will not turn Harry out at any time (as he reminds her again in OotP). Talisman: > > Did she play a role in Godric's Hollow? Julie: I admit I did have a thought about Voldemort sparing Lily for *Petunia*--"Kill that horrid husband and vile spawn of theirs, but don't kill my sister." I don't think it really works with Petunia's attitude toward Lily in the books though. Talisman: > > Will she, in a desperate attempt to re-ingratiate herself, turn on > Harry when Voldemort comes knocking? (Especially if she's learned > that Dumbledore is defunct?) Julie: Petunia comes off to me as more terrified of the WW, and especially so of Voldemort, than anything else. And I don't doubt for a minute that she'd give up Harry to protect herself and her family. But I still don't see her ever having been in Voldemort's circle, thus she wouldn't be trying to reingratiate herself to him IMO. She hates and fears the WW, and just wants ALL wizards, good or bad, to stay far, far away from her and her family. BTW, I do agree about Petunia's perpetual scouring. She might not have intended to get James and Lily killed, but unwitting complicity carries the same stain of guilt, and no amount of scouring on her part will erase that guilt. (This is true for Snape also--and wouldn't it be sort of ironic if *both* Petunia and Snape have helped protect Harry's life all this time--one at home and one at school-- because of they both were unintentionally complicit in his parent's deaths! BTW, Snape gets the one-up on Petunia here, IMO, because he *tried* to undo his action by telling Dumbledore about the danger to the Potters. I suspect Petunia simply stuck her head in the sand!) > Talisman, saying, let's have her go out after a *last vile move* that > sets up the delightfully thorough smack down. Julie: It's certainly possible, though I'm still holding out for the Dursleys to be put into "protective custody" at Grimmauld Place, which IMO would be a pretty good smack down! Julie From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Jun 10 02:18:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:18:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia and Lilly--sisters? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466B5F69.8080102@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170071 karen wrote: > Look at the subject "Petunia's Eyes" from that link there has been a > lot of disucssion on this lately. Personally, I don't think they're > sisters. I think Lily is adopted (maybe a cousin who was adopted). Bart: I mentioned it before, but I'm going to mention it before, because it's a longshot, and I'm not even sure of the implications if it's true, but it fits canon. Harry's memory of his parents' deaths includes a blinding green light. Harry has been told many, many times that he has Lily's eyes. What if he had not escaped from the AK spell with just a scar? What if he WAS blinded? What if those ARE Lily's eyes???? In other words, what if JKR was speaking literally, rather than using figures of speech? Bart From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Sun Jun 10 02:25:26 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:25:26 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170072 I have been interested quite some time with the case to be made for Lily and Petunia not being sisters, the main support for this being that in book 5 JKR draws attention to their eyes being very different, but now I have remembered something else that might support my prediction. I'm re-reading book 2 right now and in chapter 9 the students are in history of magic and Professor Binns is telling them about the founding of Hogwarts. "A rift began to grow between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin wished to be more selective (in itallics) about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families." Now the significance of this statement is that Harry was considered for Slytherin in book one while wearing the sorting hat. If he was considered then he must be full blooded. We already knew he was considered at school to be from a all-magic family but what is an all- magic family? If Harry's grandparents were muggles, as we suspect they are, then wouldn't he not be from an all-magic family? To be considered for Slytherin he must have been full blooded which means that either Petunia's parents are not Lily's parents (Lily parents would be a witch and a wizard) or Petunia and Lily's parents are not muggles. What do you think about those possibilities? From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jun 10 02:36:56 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 19:36:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170073 Karen wrote: Now the significance of this statement is that Harry was considered for Slytherin in book one while wearing the sorting hat. If he was considered then he must be full blooded. We already knew he was considered at school to be from a all-magic family but what is an all- magic family? If Harry's grandparents were muggles, as we suspect they are, then wouldn't he not be from an all-magic family? To be considered for Slytherin he must have been full blooded which means that either Petunia's parents are not Lily's parents (Lily parents would be a witch and a wizard) or Petunia and Lily's parents are not muggles. What do you think about those possibilities? Sherry now: Actually, we do not know whether or not the hat truly considered Slytherin for Harry. The Hat did not mention it, till *Harry* said, "not Slytherin" then the Hat talked to him about it, as if it was tempting him. It's a common misconception that the Hat wanted to put Harry there and Harry talked him out of it. JKR said the Hat is never wrong. As for pure bloods in Slytherin, both Tom Riddle and Snape are half bloods and they were both in Slytherin. I'm pretty sure there's somewhere that JKR has said occasionally a less than pure blood wizard gets into Slytherin. If it turned out that Lily and Petunia were not sisters, then it would completely negate the blood protection for Harry, the reason Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys in the first place. If there was no blood protection because they were not blood kin, I could not believe Dumbledore did not know this, and therefore his actions in placing Harry there would be unforgivable. Sherry From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Sun Jun 10 03:04:16 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:04:16 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170074 Sherry: If there was no blood > protection because they were not blood kin, I could not believe Dumbledore > did not know this, and therefore his actions in placing Harry there would be > unforgivable. > Karen: there's always the possiblity that Lily was a cousin who Petunia's parents took in much like the Dursley's took in Harry... idk but there is something up with Petunia- that's all any of us know. From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Sun Jun 10 03:15:06 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:15:06 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Karen wrote: > Now the significance of this statement is that Harry was considered for > Slytherin in book one while wearing the sorting hat. If he was considered > then he must be full blooded. We already knew he was considered at school > to be from a all-magic family but what is an all- magic family? If Harry's > grandparents were muggles, as we suspect they are, then wouldn't he not be > from an all-magic family? To be considered for Slytherin he must have been > full blooded which means that either Petunia's parents are not Lily's > parents (Lily parents would be a witch and a wizard) or Petunia and Lily's > parents are not muggles. What do you think about those possibilities? Sherry: If it turned out that Lily and Petunia were not sisters, then it would > completely negate the blood protection for Harry, the reason Dumbledore > placed Harry with the Dursleys in the first place. If there was no blood > protection because they were not blood kin, I could not believe Dumbledore > did not know this, and therefore his actions in placing Harry there would be > unforgivable. Karen: What if one or both of Harry's mom's parents were squibs? They would certainly be proud to have a witch in the family if that were the case. They would feel badly that they could not do magic themselves and would be very proud of a daughter who could and possibly giving more attention to her than to another daughter who could not do magic. What support, if any, does JKR give us for this theory? > From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 10 03:42:51 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:42:51 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170076 > karen wrote: > > Now the significance of this statement is that Harry was considered > for Slytherin in book one while wearing the sorting hat. If he was > considered then he must be full blooded. We already knew he was > considered at school to be from a all-magic family but what is an all- > magic family? If Harry's grandparents were muggles, as we suspect > they are, then wouldn't he not be from an all-magic family? To be > considered for Slytherin he must have been full blooded which means > that either Petunia's parents are not Lily's parents (Lily parents > would be a witch and a wizard) or Petunia and Lily's parents are not > muggles. What do you think about those possibilities? > colebiancardi: You might be forgetting that Snape is half-blood (one parent a muggle, the other a witch) and yet he was in Slytherin. Tom Riddle was also a half-blood (father a muggle, mother a witch). Harry's grandparents on his mother's side were muggles, but James, his father, was a pure-blood, if I remember correctly. So, paternal side - full-blown wizarding family. Maternal side - as far as we know from JKR's writings, just the ordinary muggle family. After all, Petunia stated that their family was proud to have a witch in the family - so it seems to me that was real NEWS to the Evans' family. colebiancardi From abha_j at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 04:16:39 2007 From: abha_j at yahoo.com (Abha Jain) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:16:39 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170077 > colebiancardi > Maternal side - as far as we know from JKR's writings, just the > ordinary muggle family. After all, Petunia stated that their family > was proud to have a witch in the family - so it seems to me that was > real NEWS to the Evans' family. This makes me infer the exact opposite. If a purely muggle family gets the news that they have a witch in the family, they might be confused or even scared. Or, like Petunia, think that Lily is a freak. But a squib family - now we have folks who would love to have a witch in the family. Even though Petunia, probably trying too hard to conform to the muggle way of living - instead of wizards', where squibs were only ridiculed - hated Lily for again showing magic, when Petunia would fain be out of this magic business for good. I know JKR once mentioned that Petunia is definitely not going to show magic, and is not a squib. But I wonder, what do they call kids whose parents are squibs. I mean - non-magic kids of wizards are squibs. But non-magic kids of squibs - muggles again?? - Abha From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 10 05:23:02 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:23:02 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170078 > > colebiancardi wrote: > > Maternal side - as far as we know from JKR's writings, just the > > ordinary muggle family. After all, Petunia stated that their family > was proud to have a witch in the family - so it seems to me that was > real NEWS to the Evans' family. > > Abha wrote: > This makes me infer the exact opposite. If a purely muggle family gets the news that they have a witch in the family, they might be confused or even scared. colebiancardi: I don't know if JKR ever wrote or told us how Hermoine's parents felt about the news, but since Hermoine didn't make a deal out of it, I think they took it well. If I lived in the HP world as a muggle and had a child that was a wizard, I would be thrilled, not scared or confused. Perhaps it all depends if you like to read fantasy novels or not :) I take the family ties at face level from the writings of JKR. There has been no indication that the Evans weren't anything but muggles, not squibs. Slughorn remarks on Lily's muggle-born status and so does Hagrid as well. I think that if Lily's parents (one or the other) were squibs, neither Slughorn or Hagrid would have stated that. colebiancardi From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 07:08:36 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:08:36 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Dirty Little Secret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > Talisman wrote: > > > Will she, in a desperate attempt to re-ingratiate herself, turn on > > Harry when Voldemort comes knocking? (Especially if she's learned > > that Dumbledore is defunct?) > Anne: > Oh, she's learned of his demise, all right. >snip< > In fact, it's my opinion that the whole point of writing in the > rescheduled Hogwarts Express was to get Petunia notified of DD's > death, and to reexamine her priorities. Voldemort's back, DD's >gone - such a reversal of fortunes! Anne, dear, you are SO all over this early release/parental notification issue. It's not the first time you've pointed it out to me, and I'm glad you're here to point it out again. >It's *bound* to cause her to do something...unfortunate. Oh, yes it's *bound* to. ::rubs hands gleefully:: And we get to sit back and watch. Talisman, feeling very Dumbledore-esque, at the moment, as the dominoes line up so nicely From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 11:11:53 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:11:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170080 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I don't think that the Pensieve "has all [DD's] thoughts hidden away." > For one thing, "all his thoughts" wouldn't fit in the Pensieve! He > only takes out specific memories to examine them, often in relation to > each other, and though we don't see him do it, he presumably puts them > back into his head when he's through with them, just as Snape does in > the Occlumency lessons. The Pensieve is not already full of DD's > thoughts when Snape places his own three memories in it. Otherwise, > he'd be in danger of putting DD's memories into his head instead of > his own. Sridhar: I am not sure that one can "accidentally" put another's memories into his head, or even if you could, what the effects would be. > I would not be surprised if Harry inherits the Pensieve and various > bottled, labeled memories in DH, but not a Pensieve full of every > memory DD ever had. And those memories, especially the ones relating > to snape and/or godric's Hollow, could be very important to the plot > of DH. Sridhar: I agree and although I meant the same, I did not put it that way. My bad. If Harry gets a huge collection of memories from various people along with the pensieve, I would think it the greatest weapon Harry has, apart from the people who would help him. Sridhar, who is a "Snape is on the good side" believer and copies "Carol's style of writing". From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 10 13:44:07 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:44:07 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170081 Carol: > Interesting comparison. However, Hagrid is not a true giant, only a > half-giant. Grawp might fit your analogy a bit better. (He was too > "small" and was bullied by the giants. Now he's almost certainly an > outcast, having been somewhat civilized by Hagrid.) Dana: I think the comparison fits Hagrid better then Grawp because Hagrid is part human while Grawp is not. Lupin is not just a werewolf but human too. Hagrid has sympathy for the giants because he is part giant himself. Lupin is a werewolf once a month and only during the full moon nights, it is not like he is werewolf all the time. Madam Maxim doesn't want to be associated with the giants and even denies she has a partly giant background. Harry sees Hagrid as a larger then normal human, while Draco sees him only for his giant part not worthy of being considered a human. Which happens to Lupin as well. Of course there is a difference as the giants are giants while the werewolves are just, like Lupin, part human but do not live as humans but consider them werewolves only. Nevertheless in the war Hagrid's fight will have some dualism to it just like it would Lupin because fighting the giants as enemies is fighting a part of himself. Carol responds: > Lupin himself says nothing about "betraying his friends." He says > that he didn't want to admit that he had betrayed Dumbledore's > trust. Also, I don't see how admitting that his former friend > Sirius Black, whom he believes to have betrayed James and Lily to > their deaths, killed twelve Muggles, and murdered Peter Pettigrew, > is an Animagus and knows secret passages into the castle would be . > betraying his friends, especially since Black is believed to be out > to kill his own godson, James's son, Harry. Dana: That is not entirely true because he also states this. PoA Pg 260/ 261 UKed Paperback chapter: "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" `I sometimes felt guilty about *betraying Dumbledore's trust*, of course he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other Headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea I was *breaking the rules* he had set down for my own and others' safety. *He never knew* I had led three fellow students into becoming *Animagi illegally*. But I always forget my guilty feelings every time we sat down to plan our next month's adventure. And I haven't changed `All this year, I have been battling with myself, wondering whether I should tell Dumbeldore that Sirius was an Animagus. But I didn't do it. Why? Because I was too cowardly. It would have meant admitting that I'd betrayed his trust while I was at school, *admitting that I'd led others along with me* End quote canon. He then goes on about how much DD's trusts means to him and why but his keeping the secret of Sirius being an animagus was not just about him betraying DD's trust but also about his friends becoming animagi illegally for him and he did not led them to becoming animagi, that was their own decision. It would actually be the other way around that they led Lupin in betraying DD's trust by breaking the rules. Lupin did not stop it then because him having the adventures WITH his friends made him forget his guilty feelings because apart from his transformations, he was happier than I had ever been in his life (pg 259). They did not only make the transformations bearable, but the best time of his life (pg 259). It was the only time Lupin had in his life that his werewolf side was something to enjoy instead of being feared (by himself). These things can not be separated and neither can him not wanting to lose DD's trust because DD's trust in Lupin was about DD giving him a chance as a human while he had been shunted all his adult life because of *what* he is (pg 261). That is why he denied Sirius being an animagus having anything to do with Sirius entering the castle and that he used Dark Arts he learned from LV to get inside instead. The conflict Lupin was dealing with was two folded; one him admitting that his werewolf part had been something enjoyable when he was young and that his friends were the once making it enjoyable because they had become animagi illegally and broke the school rules with him and the other part was for betraying DD's trust for giving him a chance to a normal live despite him being a werewolf. He did not want to betray that memory because it is the only part of having to deal with being a werewolf that ever felt good to him and it was his friends that made this possible. Besides this part of his past, his werewolf part has caused him nothing but misery. The dualism of these feelings made him make an illogical decision of blocking the possibility of Sirius using his animagus form to do evil deeds. His friends becoming animagi illegally and the reasons for the betrayal of DD when Lupin was young are not separable without it Lupin could not have betrayed the rules and safety measurements DD set out for him. Admitting it to DD WOULD be betraying that what his friends did for him as much as admitting he broke the rules himself. I have no doubt that if it had only concerned him and no one else that he would have had no problem telling DD but it wasn't. Carol: > As for the secret that made his life worth living and gave him the > best time he ever had, he knew himself that he was endangering the > people of Hogsmeade. And how would admitting that his friends had > become animagi out of friendship for him be betraying them? Dana: Because it was them who made these adventures possible and who kept Lupin from actually harming others. Lupin would never have been able to roam Hogsmeade without them. He would never even have left the shack if they had not become animagi for him. What the marauders did was not just Lupin the werewolf doing these things but what they as a unit did. James and Sirius were as much responsible for leading Lupin to these dangerous situations as they were convinced that their animagus forms could keep a werewolf in check. You can't put all the blame onto Lupin's shoulders because he was the one posing the risk. It was a united decision that they could get away with it because James and Sirius could balance that risk. If Lupin would have been able to give them the slip then James and Sirius would have been as much to blame for it. Their arrogance of being able to control werewolf Lupin was as much part of the decision as it was Lupin's. All of them were thoughtless and all of them had an equal amount of responsibility in what they did. Lupin pulls all the responsibility of what happened in their school days upon himself and it makes it even harder for him to betray his friends. Should he have known better? Probably but as Sirius states to Harry, the risk is what would have made it fun for James. Carol: > If loyalty doesn't dissolve and friendship doesn't fade, why did > Sirius and Remus suspect each other of being the spy? Why did Peter > betray them all, especially James, for whose death (and his wife's > death) he's as responsible as Voldemort and for Sirius's > imprisonment he's also largely responsible? Dana: The reasons for Sirius believing Remus was the spy is unknown but it is somewhat hinted in canon that Lupin only came to the conclusion after the Potters dead and not before. There are a few hints in canon that suggest this, one is after Harry asks Lupin if he knew Sirius. Pg 180 chapter: "The Patronus" `Yes, I knew him,' he said shortly. `Or I thought I did. ' Pg 252 chapter: "Cat, Rat and Dog" `But then ' Lupin muttered, staring at Black so intently it seemed he was trying to read his mind, ` why hasn't he shown himself before now? Unless ?` Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the rest could see, ` ? unless he was the one unless you switched without telling me?' pg 253 You're wrong,' said Lupin. `I haven't been Sirius' friend for twelve years, but I am now . Pg 257 `There were witnesses who saw Pettigrew die,' he [Harry] said. `A whole street full of them ' `Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter,' said Lupin nodding. `I believed it myself ? until I saw the map tonight. Pg 267/ 268 `Harry,' said Lupin hurriedly,' don't you see? All this time we've thought Sirius betrayed your parents, and Peter tracked him down ? but it was the other way around, don't you see? Peter betrayed your mother and father ? Sirius tracked Peter down ?` Pg 153 So Black was the Potters' Secret- Keeper?' whispered Madam Rosmerta. `Naturally,' said Professor McGonagall. `James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather then tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret Keeper himself.' `He suspected Black?' gasped Madam Rosmerta. `He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You ? Know ? Who informed on their movements,' said Professor McGonagall darkly. `Indeed, he had suspected for some time that someone on *our side* had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to You ? Know ? Who.' End quotes from canon. DD suspected someone within the Order close to the Potters to have turned traitor not that he suspected Sirius. The worry could easily have come from the traitor knowing that Sirius would be the SK and LV going after him and DD not being sure if anyone besides himself would be able to withstand LV's torture and why James stated that Sirius would rather die then to tell them where they were. The Potters agreeing to the switch seemed to be part of the same fear. If Sirius wasn't the SK then no matter how much he was going to be tortured he could not reveal the secret and if he died then LV would have believed the secret died with him. That was the bluff because they all believed that the spy would tell LV about who the SK was. Not telling anyone of them using the Fidelius Charm was not an option anyway to prevent the spy from making his own conclusion as to suddenly not knowing where the Potters where and Sirius being the Potters closest friend would then still make him the preferred choice for knowing where they possibly could be hiding with or without the Fidelius charm in place. Only after the location of the Potters was revealed, was it concluded that the SK also must have been the spy, especially because the SK lived to tell the tale. I do not think that Lupin was an exception in thinking Sirius was the spy before the evidence mounted against him. He knew Sirius' connection to James and why he states to Harry that he thought he knew him. Lupin's remark to Sirius about Sirius not telling him about the switch also seems to hint that Lupin did not suspect Sirius before but that Sirius being the SK is what made Lupin believe it was Sirius who betrayed the Potters and that he therefore was the spy as well. Lupin also believed that Sirius killed Peter because Peter tracked Sirius down because of Sirius being the only one who could have betrayed the Potters because he was thought to be the SK. Lupin did not know Peter knew more then he did. Maybe I'm making the wrong conclusions but it seems to me that DD did not tell anyone he suspected the traitor to be one of James's closest friends and why Sirius and James made Lupin the one to be the most likely to be the spy. We only see that they indeed suspected someone extremely close to them would be the spy and what made them decide to keep Lupin out of it. To give LV information on the Potters movements would only need the spy to have information about that but that does not specifically indicates that only Sirius, Lupin or Peter were the once that had this information about the Potters whereabouts before the Fidelius Charm was put in place and this is also not suggested by McGonagall when she states that DD suspected someone on their side to have turned traitor. It seems very unlikely that no other Order Member had interactions with the Potters then just these 3 people and DD himself. Otherwise DD could have just confronted all three of them about it and legilimens the truth out of them. Placing themselves under the Fidelius charm would protect them from anyone knowing their location through the SK but would still put the SK in harms way. The hints are very flimsy but I do not believe that James told Lupin that one of the marauders was the spy and why Lupin still believed 12 years after the fact that he would have been told if they had changed the plan. Lupin seemed to have not known that James and Sirius believed him to be the spy and I do not think he discussed anything of the sort with James either about anyone else. He specifically tells the story in how everybody believed it to be Sirius, not that his suspicions were confirmed after the faithful night at GH that it had been Sirius all along. Peter's own loyalty to the marauders is never suggested in canon just that his friends believed him to be loyal. Lupin does state (see above) what made his friends so important to him as does Sirius. It is actually never suggested in canon that Peter considered them true friends and not just hero-worshiping them because it made him look cool to be around them and do fun things with them. We actually see he is merely a hanger on, drooling all over James. It is like fans when the one they idolizes falls out of fashion they move on to the next best thing. Carol: > Lupin, AFAWK, believes that Sirius betrayed the Potters and is out > to kill Harry, and even if he secretly can't quite believe it, he > still owes it to Harry and to James to tell Dumbledore what he > knows. He certainly has no difficulty turning against Peter, even > offering to kill him, when he discovers that his "dead" friend was > actually the traitor, nor does Sirius, who has wanted to kill Peter > for twelve years. From the impression I got, Sirius actually felt that he deserved the life he got and only later became bitter about not being able to be proven innocent when he realized the chance he had to be with Harry, got lost when Peter got away. And not so much because he no longer blamed himself but because he could not built up a normal relationship with Harry and be there for him as his Godfather as much as he wanted. When Sirius went after Peter the first time it was also only after he was denied to take care of Harry and felt he had lost everything. It was only after he met Harry that some hope relived of being part of his life. He considered his life already lost and probably thought that it did not matter anymore anyway and one thing he at least could do is make the man responsible for the Potters deads, pay with his life for the lives he had taken. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 10 14:16:15 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:16:15 -0000 Subject: Regulus - dead or alive/Dobby and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <380-22007669231837296@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170082 > Magpie: > Actually, Draco didn't take his offer primarily because the DEs > came in,which took it off the table. Draco says he hasn't got any > options *before* Dumbledore explains about protecting him. Draco > thinks his options are only that he kills DD or he and his family > die themselves. Dana now: DD offers to help Draco before he specifically states what he could do for Draco but Draco states in responds that nobody can help him. Pg 552 UKed Paperback chapter "the lightning - struck tower" ` no harm has been done, you have hurt nobody, though you are very lucky your unintentional victims survived I can help you, Draco.' `No, you can't,' said Malfoy, his wand hand shaking very badly indeed. `Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice.' End quote from canon Draco specifically states that nobody can help him because LV will kill him if he does not perform his task as ordered. He does not state that nobody can help him because LV threatened to kill his parents. Only then does DD try to persuade Draco with what he might be able to do for Draco but Draco still declines. Draco by that time is already struggling with his own inability to kill DD. Draco believing that nobody not even DD can help him, makes him chose to keep trying to convince himself, he will be able to do it but eventually when the other DEs show up he truly realizes he can't. I'm not suggesting it therefore is true that no DE can escape LV's punishment by faking his own dead but that I just can imagine LV putting such an magical enchantment upon the Mark and that he lets his DEs know that you can run but you can never hide and if Draco indeed has the mark on his arm then he would have told him this too. It would not just be because of DD's potential offer to help as Draco could have made a run for it himself in an attempt to get away. So again I'm not stating anything as fact as Barty isn't specific enough in the claim he makes concerning Karkaroff's fleeing and LV having a way to track his enemies but it would just be a very fitting thing LV would do and not just use it as a summoning device alone. JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 10 15:10:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:10:42 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <26A5F37B-BC44-43F0-92D2-79F19EDFBDD7@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170083 Jordan: I know you meant real people rather than characters, but... > that's part of the "meat" behind this argument against ESE!Lupin: If > Lupin is ESE, Snape is right for being an anti-werewolf bigot, and > that's not a message that JKR would be putting in the books. Pippin: But Snape's anti-werewolf bigotry alienated Harry and convinced him to aid Lupin, so if it turns out that Lupin was guilty, Snape's bigotry will be exposed as counterproductive. I am confident that we will find that both Snape and Sirius had better reasons to suspect Lupin than anti-werewolf bigotry. Jordan: > My problem with this is that there is _no_ mechanism in canon by > which this could happen and be in any way under Lupin's control. Pippin: We already have canon that Fenrir positions himself near his victims. To do that he has to know when he is going to transform. The prank also does not work unless there is assurance that Lupin is going to be transformed when Snape finds him. Having the transformation occur at a calculable time is not the same as being able to transform at will, of course. Alla: Not if HBP and DH were really planned as two parts of one book, as JKR noticed, then it is quite possible that the **traitor**, the real one is already revealed and the book 7 will deal with repercussions of what happened on the Tower, IMO. Pippin: Any society that relies on bonds of mutual trust and obligation is going to resonate with anxiety about traitors. JKR has been building it up ever since Hagrid first told Harry about Voldemort. It doesn't make sense for her to have that anxiety diminish before the climax of the last book. Alla: Would ESE!Lupin still stand up on its own? Or is it just a way to exonerate Snape? What literary purpose ESE!Lupin serves if we **assume**, just for one second, that Snape is if not evil, but at least grey and did that horrible thing on the Tower? Pippin: The literary purpose of having Snape's evil unproven, is, as JKR said, to continue the story for another book. But as for standing without the events on the Tower, I remind you that the theory has been around in one form or another since post 39362, long before the publication of OOP, much less HBP. It was predicted that Snape would betray Dumbledore, and it was also predicted that this betrayal would prove false and the real betrayer would be someone else. Other candidates have been mentioned, but there isn't nearly the canon evidence for them as there is for Lupin. Alla: And then I come with wierd picture of the guy who to me is metaphor for disability to come up as evil. Pippin: JKR said he was a metaphor of people's *attitudes* towards disability. Is there any argument that some of those attitudes are destructive? And yet there's this resistance, this refusal, to believe that someone good could actually be destroyed. "Good" werewolves, *Gryffindor* werewolves, would be just be too pure and sweet-natured to be drawn into revenge against society. Codswallop, in my opinion. Look at what Harry, he of the pure soul, was capable of after a bare ten months of Umbridge's regime. His mind played a terrifying trick on him -- it forgot every single reason he'd ever had to distrust or doubt Snape, or to think that Snape would want to harm Sirius, and filled him with the expectation that Snape would help him *save* Sirius. (*I* think he was right, but can you imagine PoA Harry believing any such thing?) He followed Hermione, with no idea what she was up to, aiding her in a plan which, if it had worked, could have made Harry an accessory to murder. All of this would go along way in helping us understand how Lupin could turn for help to someone he'd thought he couldn't possibly trust, or get involved in murder. That would give literary purpose to OOP, which is otherwise hugely digressive. Maybe Book Seven will be about Harry learning to be OFH, which is the only way we could understand Snape being OFH. But I don't see it. It wouldn't be much of a bildungsroman, because Harry's always known how to be independent. Each book in turn is about Harry learning what it means to be part of a *group*: a wizard, a Gryffindor, a Potter, a Hogwarts champion, a human, Dumbledore's man. HBP and DH are two parts in that both are about becoming Dumbledore's man, because, IMO, Harry won't really be Dumbledore's man though and through until he accepts that Snape is Dumbledore's man as well. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 10 16:06:34 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:06:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regulus - dead or alive/Dobby and Horcruxes Message-ID: <380-22007601016634859@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170084 > Magpie: > Actually, Draco didn't take his offer primarily because the DEs > came in,which took it off the table. Draco says he hasn't got any > options *before* Dumbledore explains about protecting him. Draco > thinks his options are only that he kills DD or he and his family > die themselves. Dana now: DD offers to help Draco before he specifically states what he could do for Draco but Draco states in responds that nobody can help him. Pg 552 UKed Paperback chapter "the lightning - struck tower" ` no harm has been done, you have hurt nobody, though you are very lucky your unintentional victims survived I can help you, Draco.' `No, you can't,' said Malfoy, his wand hand shaking very badly indeed. `Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice.' End quote from canon Draco specifically states that nobody can help him because LV will kill him if he does not perform his task as ordered. He does not state that nobody can help him because LV threatened to kill his parents. Magpie: I re-read the section before I posted. Draco is moving in the scene from someone who feels hopeless and trapped to a person who sees a possibility of something else. It doesn't happen all at once, but it is hapepning. Draco thinks he only has two options: kill Dumbledore or he will be killed (he has already said that LV will kill his whole family in the line before the one you quoted). This is what he's been living with for a while. Dumbledore has not yet explained about protecting him and his parents. He's just said he can "help" him and at this point that seems impossible to Draco. However, after Dumbledore talks about hiding him and his family so that Voldemort can't get him, he gets to the point where he starts to lower his wand. Now he does see it as an actual option. Dana: Only then does DD try to persuade Draco with what he might be able to do for Draco but Draco still declines. Draco by that time is already struggling with his own inability to kill DD. Draco believing that nobody not even DD can help him, makes him chose to keep trying to convince himself, he will be able to do it but eventually when the other DEs show up he truly realizes he can't. Magpie: I don't know what you mean "he still declines." He doesn't decline: 'I did not dare speak to you of the mission with which I knew you had been entrusted, in case he used Legilimency against you,' continued Dumbledore. 'But now at last we can speak plainly to each other ... no harm has been done, you have hurt nobody, though you are very lucky that your unintentional victims survived ... I can help you, Draco.' 'No, you can't,' said Malfoy, his wand hand shaking very badly indeed. 'Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice.' Magpie: Draco is not seeing the possibility of help. He has to kill or be killed. Then: 'Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban ... when the time comes we can protect him too ... come over to the right side, Draco ... you are not a killer ...' Malfoy stared at Dumbledore. Magpie: He's staring at Dumbledore--now it's taking shape as a real possibility. He's no longer saying it's impossible. HBP: 'But I got this far, didn't I?' he said slowly. They thought I'd die in the attempt, but I'm here ... and you're in my power ... I'm the one with the wand ... you're at my mercy ...' Magpie: And here Draco's changing his thought process. He's no longer stuck in thinking he's only got two options. Now he's actually considering the possibility of being helped, but going over the stuff he supposedly *wanted* with all this--if he takes Dumbledore's help he's rejecting the glory and making a choice about what he's going to be. He's looking at his own position with regards to Dumbledore--not one of submission, but the one of the guy with the wand. According to his own understanding and what he's been taught, he's in a position of power here--Dumbledore's at his mercy. A DE doesn't make this kind of bargain. But Dumbledore corrects him: 'No, Draco,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now.' Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wand hand still trembling. Harry thought he saw it drop by a fraction - Magpie And however much he understood what Dumbledore meant about mercy, he begins to lower his wand. This is what Harry remembers later, that he would not have killed Dumbledore. He doesn't get a chance to go through with accepting since the DEs come in, but he begins to lower his wand. If he's lowering his wand, he's not declining the offer. Then the DEs come in and whatever chance he had to do that was lost. Dana: I'm not suggesting it therefore is true that no DE can escape LV's punishment by faking his own dead but that I just can imagine LV putting such an magical enchantment upon the Mark and that he lets his DEs know that you can run but you can never hide and if Draco indeed has the mark on his arm then he would have told him this too. It would not just be because of DD's potential offer to help as Draco could have made a run for it himself in an attempt to get away. Magpie: That's certainly possible. Snape seems to "feel" things about his mark at different times when Voldemort is alive. It gets darker when LV comes back. We don't know that Draco actually is marked. But I don't see in this scene that Draco seems to be referring to any specific enchantment put on him. He has good reason to fear that Voldemort will get him whether or not he knows the means. When LV says if you don't do what he says he'll kill you and your family, I would think you'd have good reason to think he could do it without knowing the details. This is a guy whose mere name makes Draco flinch and we know nothing really happens when you say his name. But we can't use Draco's refusing Dumbledore's offer as proof of this theory, because as far as I can see Draco doesn't refuse it. He's lowering his wand when the DEs enter. Nor does he say anything about it to DD when DD is making plans to protect him. - From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 10 16:44:39 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:44:39 -0000 Subject: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170085 > Karen: there's always the possiblity that Lily was > a cousin who Petunia's parents took in much like the > Dursley's took in Harry... idk but there is something > up with Petunia- that's all any of us know. houyhnhnm: Lily was adopted by her Muggle Aunt and Uncle Evans and her brother Perseus was adopted by Eileen and Tobias Snape. All right, Harry? Snape's your uncle. Wouldn't that be fun? I don't hold out much hope, though. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jun 10 17:00:24 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Jun 2007 17:00:24 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/10/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1181494824.10.30501.m39@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170086 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday June 10, 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 tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 17:14:43 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:14:43 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170087 This just came to me and I don't remember if it was stated in any of the books but since DD had heard the prophecy and knew it could have been one of the two families were the Longbottom's hidden too? Did they have a secret keeper? Was this mentioned anywhere? It just seems odd to me that all this protection was put into place for the Potters but nothing at all for Neville and his family. If that was the case why just the Potters then? What information did they have that lead them to only protect them and not the Longbottoms as well. Plus, the entire Order doesn't know about the prophecy so how would DD have explained the need to hide these two specific families? Or the need to only hide the Potters? If anyone has any answers please share. THX TKJ :-) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jun 10 16:35:15 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:35:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and the Boggart (POA) References: Message-ID: <00c601c7ab7d$531d2870$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170088 > > > Any other ideas as to why Lupin didn't let Hermione tackle the > > boggart? > mjm1089 > > > > Dondee: > > As I recall... Ron's spider!boggart lost it's leggs and went rolling > towards Lavender, Lav Lav went scampering out of the way and spider! > boggart came to a rest at Harry's feet. Before the boggart could > transform into Harry's worst fear Lupin distracted it and then set > Nevil on it to finish it off. Lupin tells Harry later that the > reason he distracted the boggart was because he thought it was going > to turn into Voldie and scare all the kids. I take this to mean that > if spider!boggart had rolled elsewhere, or if Lav Lav had faced it, > the lesson would have continued untill it was Harry's turn (imagine > how much worse Harry would have felt if all his other classmates had > had a go except for him). Hermione was not excluded or protected in > this, she just wasn't the closest to the boggart. Shelley: This is what I was going to say too- there were probably several kids for whom their turn didn't come, because of how the events turned out, and Hermione was just one of them. If I were Lupin, I would have called Harry over, or put him last in line, so that the other students got a turn before he let Neville finish it off. Sure, he would have felt put out, but the way things happened, he did anyway. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 19:30:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:30:52 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <26A5F37B-BC44-43F0-92D2-79F19EDFBDD7@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170089 Jordan Abel wrote: > If > Lupin is ESE, Snape is right for being an anti-werewolf bigot, and > that's not a message that JKR would be putting in the books. Carol responds: Although I'm not an ESE!Lupin advocate, I'd have to disagree. The HP books are all about the importance of your choices, and it's Lupin's choices, right or wrong, that matter. It won't reinforce anti-werewolf prejudice if Lupin turns out to be a traitor, or at least, to make some grave mistake, because doing so will have nothing to do with his being a werewolf. Snape's "anti-werewp;f prejudice" is perfectly understandable. Not many people who had been tricked into confronting a fully grown werewolf at sixteen would be able to refrain from prejudice against such a monster, especially if they thought he was privy to the (perceived) murder attempt in the first place and now saw the same werewolf running out without his potion to aid the murderer yet again, endangering three students in the process. (As long as the werewolf remains in human form, Snape can safely listen in until he hears what he thinks is enough to prove himself right.) Nor is Snape (who has just caught a man he believes to be a murderer's accomplice in the act of helping him, only to be told that his suspicions stem solely from a schoolboy grudge--Snape is never at his best under such circumstances) alone in regarding Lupin as primarily a werewolf. Even his fellow Marauders seem to regard him chiefly as a werewolf (and not at all as a Prefect) in Snape's Worst Memory, and it seems that their suspicion that he was the spy whose information was helping Voldemort kill off Order members was based primarily on his being a werewolf as well. In fact, Lupin himself seems to regard himself primarily as a werewolf, both in wanting to maintain that secret as long as possible in PoA and throughout HBP in his references to "my equals" and his unsuitability as a husband for Tonks. IMO, whether he's the traitor or not, JKR is showing that Lupin's weaknesses stem from his own personality, as do his strengths, and he is above all a flawed person, not a monster. (We have the monster werewolf in Fenrir Greyback, a foil to Lupin in many respects.) I do think it's suspicious that after having lukewarmly defended "Severus" in HBP, he turns suddenly and violently against him. Instead of saying "It's all my fault" and "Dumbledore trusted him" like the other characters, he doesn't blame himself at at all and brings up every reason he can think of to make it look like Snape planned to murder Dumbledore all along. He even suggests that snape would have murdered Hermione and Luna if they had objected to taking Flitwick to the hospital wing, which, IMO, is just absurd. Snape has no idea how things will fall out on the tower, and even if he's ESE! (which, IMO, is extremely improbable), he's not going to kill two students for no reason. After all, he can cow people with a look *and* he's a Legilimens. At most, he'd have Stunned them so as not to burn his bridges. (OFH!Snape, assuming that he didn't have to kill DD, could have argued afterward that they were in his way and he had no choice.) Anyway, Lupin's shock at DD's death followed by his coolly controlled attacks on Snape are interesting in contrast with, say, Slughorn's "I thought I knew him" and Hagrid's silent weeping, not blaming anyone after having defended Snape as long as it was still possible to do so. At any rate, JKR is certainly not going to support anti-werewolf legislation that turns people like Lupin into social outcasts, nor will she make werewolves (with the possible exception of Fenrir Greyback) look like monsters rather than people. But it has nothing to do, IMO, with Snape's view of Lupin, which is entirely personal. He knew the firsthand the danger Lupin represented as a werewolf, and he thought he knew that both he and Sirius Black were capable of murder. (as indeed they were: they would have murdered Pettigrew if not for Harry's intervention.) He wants his students to know the danger within the walls of the school, the not-so-tame werewolf who will be extremely dangerous if he doesn't drink Snape's carefully prepared potion. Carol, who suspects that most witches and wizards, except those as enlightened as Dumbledore, would be anti-werewolf "bigots," too, if they'd been in Teen!Snape's shoes From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 19:36:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:36:46 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170090 > Jordan: > I know you meant real people rather than characters, but... > > that's part of the "meat" behind this argument against ESE! Lupin: If > > Lupin is ESE, Snape is right for being an anti-werewolf bigot, and > > that's not a message that JKR would be putting in the books. > > Pippin: > But Snape's anti-werewolf bigotry alienated Harry and convinced > him to aid Lupin, so if it turns out that Lupin was guilty, Snape's > bigotry will be exposed as counterproductive. Alla: That's one interpretation - another is that Snape bigotry will be encouraged by the author. I mean, the bigot, who does not know how werewolf mind works turns out to be right - such werewolf is evil. Yeah, as a reader I am able to figure out for myself that regardless of whether Lupin is evil or not, Snape's bigotry is disgusting, I still do not want to think that JKR will even implicitly encourage that. Her right as a writer obviously, but my right as a reader to dislike it as well. Pippin: > I am confident that we will find that both Snape and Sirius had > better reasons to suspect Lupin than anti-werewolf bigotry. Alla: I am pretty sure we may find out the reasons, I am also pretty sure that Snape reasons will not be seen as good in any way shape or form. My speculation is that Lupin was doing some sort of secret work for the Order and dissappeared often and that is why Sirius suspected him, but we shall see who is correct soon enough > Alla: > > Not if HBP and DH were really planned as two parts of one book, as > JKR noticed, then it is quite possible that the **traitor**, the > real one is already revealed and the book 7 will deal with > repercussions of what happened on the Tower, IMO. > > Pippin: > Any society that relies on bonds of mutual trust and obligation > is going to resonate with anxiety about traitors. JKR has been building > it up ever since Hagrid first told Harry about Voldemort. It doesn't > make sense for her to have that anxiety diminish before the > climax of the last book. Alla: I do not get your point. Wynnleaf as I understand her argued that traitor is likely to appear in book 7 because traitor apppeared in e every book so far. I responded that per JKR herself two last books are basically two halves of one, so it makes sense to me that there would be only one traitor in those two books and we already seen him. It does not make sense for JKR to not show another traitor in book 7 why? Trio is going to be very very busy on Horcrus quest and dealing with repercussions of what Snape did and many many things. You think traitor is necessary feature of book 7? I think they will do just fine without one, hehehe. OR if traitor will show up, which I am betting against, but hey, JKR surprised me enough times, I think it will be someone from younger generations. > Alla: > Would ESE!Lupin still stand up on its own? Or is it just a way to > exonerate Snape? What literary purpose ESE!Lupin serves if we > **assume**, just for one second, that Snape is if not evil, but at > least grey and did that horrible thing on the Tower? > > Pippin: > The literary purpose of having Snape's evil unproven, is, as JKR > said, to continue the story for another book. But as for standing > without the events on the Tower, I remind you that the theory > has been around in one form or another since post 39362, > long before the publication of OOP, much less HBP. > > It was predicted that Snape would betray Dumbledore, > and it was also predicted that this betrayal would prove > false and the real betrayer would be someone else. Other > candidates have been mentioned, but there isn't nearly the > canon evidence for them as there is for Lupin. Alla: Um, yeah, I know that ESE!Lupin was around for a long time. And my question was and is what other literary purpose does it have besides Snape's exoneration. I was not clear, I guess, because I also put in Tower events besides general question of Snape exoneration. Oh, and Snape's not really betraying Dumbledore is not a proven prediction yet, no? I made that prediction too, as far back as 2004 and have post to prove it, but my prediction was based on Harry listening to hearsay evidence of Snape betraying DD and then learning that it was incorrect. I certainly did not think that Harry will personally witness greasy git murdering Dumbledore, so I do not think my prediction will be true. I of course only speak for myself, I am sure other people who made same prediction can or do think differently about it. JMO, Alla From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 10 19:48:55 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:48:55 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170091 Jordan: > > I know you meant real people rather than characters, but... > > > that's part of the "meat" behind this argument against ESE! > Lupin: If > > > Lupin is ESE, Snape is right for being an anti-werewolf bigot, > and > > > that's not a message that JKR would be putting in the books. > > > > Pippin: > > But Snape's anti-werewolf bigotry alienated Harry and convinced > > him to aid Lupin, so if it turns out that Lupin was guilty, Snape's > > bigotry will be exposed as counterproductive. > > > Alla: > > That's one interpretation - another is that Snape bigotry will be > encouraged by the author. I mean, the bigot, who does not know how > werewolf mind works turns out to be right - such werewolf is evil. > > Yeah, as a reader I am able to figure out for myself that regardless > of whether Lupin is evil or not, Snape's bigotry is disgusting, I > still do not want to think that JKR will even implicitly encourage > that. Her right as a writer obviously, but my right as a reader to > dislike it as well. > colebiancardi: Did I miss something? Did I not read the HP books enough? LOL. No, really - when did Snape become a bigot against "werewolves"? Quite frankly, I don't know what Snape thinks about werewolves in general - I do know how he feels about one particular werewolf, Lupin, and IMHO, his hatred for Lupin has nothing to do with Lupin's werewolfishness (is that a word? If not, I just made one up!!), but due to the highschool hatred for the Marauders, which was fully recipicated. I believe that all of Snape's actions, which for the most part is snide talk (note, I SAY MOST) and it is just the same old wounds that Snape keeps picking at instead of trying to heal. If someone could point out the "bigot" and "racist" Snape in the books, I would appreciate it. colebiancardi (Snape is a lot of things, but now a bigot??) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 19:59:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:59:40 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170092 > colebiancardi: > > Did I miss something? Did I not read the HP books enough? LOL. No, > really - when did Snape become a bigot against "werewolves"? Quite > frankly, I don't know what Snape thinks about werewolves in general - > I do know how he feels about one particular werewolf, Lupin, and IMHO, > his hatred for Lupin has nothing to do with Lupin's werewolfishness > (is that a word? If not, I just made one up!!), but due to the > highschool hatred for the Marauders, which was fully recipicated. > > I believe that all of Snape's actions, which for the most part is > snide talk (note, I SAY MOST) and it is just the same old wounds that > Snape keeps picking at instead of trying to heal. > > If someone could point out the "bigot" and "racist" Snape in the > books, I would appreciate it. > > colebiancardi > (Snape is a lot of things, but now a bigot??) > Alla: Heeee, no dear, I do not think you missed anything. We just interpret same canon differently. I think that his I do not know how werewolf mind works means that he is bigoted against all werewolves, not just Lupin. Now, believe me, if it turns out that that is what he started thinking after prank, I will understand, I will still not like it but understand. I mean it is still for me no excuse, but at least I can understand. But since I speculate that Snape thought of werewolves as dark creatures not worth compassion before prank, I am afraid I do not even understand. And yes, I know that many people of WW are bigots, still does not make me feel that is understandable. As an aside, I love, love Ron's evolution - from get away from me werewolf to him IMO clearly being able to like Lupin as human being with disease in OOP and HBP. So, yep our dear Snape is a bigot as well in my opinion. I of course think of mudblood in Pensieve scene and password to Slytherin dorms in CoS, which I do not buy for a second was created by somebody else but Snape IMO. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jun 10 20:13:26 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:13:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170093 > colebiancardi: > > Did I miss something? Did I not read the HP books enough? LOL. No, > really - when did Snape become a bigot against "werewolves"? Quite > frankly, I don't know what Snape thinks about werewolves in general - > I do know how he feels about one particular werewolf, Lupin, and IMHO, > his hatred for Lupin has nothing to do with Lupin's werewolfishness > (is that a word? If not, I just made one up!!), but due to the > highschool hatred for the Marauders, which was fully recipicated. > > I believe that all of Snape's actions, which for the most part is > snide talk (note, I SAY MOST) and it is just the same old wounds that > Snape keeps picking at instead of trying to heal. > > If someone could point out the "bigot" and "racist" Snape in the > books, I would appreciate it. > > colebiancardi > (Snape is a lot of things, but now a bigot??) > Alla: Heeee, no dear, I do not think you missed anything. We just interpret same canon differently. I think that his I do not know how werewolf mind works means that he is bigoted against all werewolves, not just Lupin. Now, believe me, if it turns out that that is what he started thinking after prank, I will understand, I will still not like it but understand. Sherry: I would not understand it. If Lupin represents disability and illness in the WW JKR has created, then Snape being bigoted against all werewolves because of one would be like someone hating all blind people because one cheated, stole or tried to murder. I think Snape is prejudiced against werewolves in general--the way he refers to and speaks to Lupin--and against Lupin in particular. Neither do I think the message that Snape's bigotry was counter productive is very productive in itself, considering that's a pretty subtle message in a kid's book. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 20:18:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:18:30 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170094 > Sherry: > > I would not understand it. If Lupin represents disability and illness in > the WW JKR has created, then Snape being bigoted against all werewolves > because of one would be like someone hating all blind people because one > cheated, stole or tried to murder. I think Snape is prejudiced against > werewolves in general--the way he refers to and speaks to Lupin-- and against > Lupin in particular. Neither do I think the message that Snape's bigotry > was counter productive is very productive in itself, considering that's a > pretty subtle message in a kid's book. Alla: Oh, **of course** in that sense I would not understand it either. What I meant is that I would understand Snape hating Lupin and only Lupin if it turns out that Lupin was in on the prank and Snape totally innocent. I most certainly would not understand Snape hating all werewolves based on that. And another thing, which I did not put in my previous post as to why I interpret Snape remark as prejudice against all werewolves. He does not say I do not understand how Lupin's mind works, neither does he say - I do not understand how this werewolf's mind works. He just says "werewolf's mind". To me it seems that he refers to all werewolfes. And word of agreement about Snape bigotry being counterproductive. Harry is the kid who has enough sense to disregard Snape's bigotry and do the opposite, what about Snape's Slytherins? JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 20:44:30 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:44:30 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170095 > colebiancardi: > > Did I miss something? Did I not read the HP books enough? LOL. zgirnius: One can never read them enough! lol > colebiancardi: > If someone could point out the "bigot" and "racist" Snape in the > books, I would appreciate it. zgirnius: In the Shack scene, Snape repeatedly refers to Lupin as "the werewolf" instead of using his name, and states at one point, "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," as though the thought processes of werewolves as a class differ from those of other humans. He also calls Lily Evans a Mudblood in the infamous Pensieve scene of OotP, and is formerly, and still formally, (IMO) a member of a terrorist organization the members of which espouse pureblood supremacist beliefs. Given the personal animus and emotional state of Snape towards Lupin in the first instance (the basis for which is eloquently explained by Carol elsewhere in this thread), and the generally rotten circumstances in which Snape found himself in the second, I would hesitate to draw the conclusion from these facts that Snape is a bigot. Many do not so hesitate. I don't believe he is, or was. For me the clincher is his own private schoolday nickname of "Half-Blood Prince". To me, it seems to be a darkly humorous/ironic appellation chosen by a Half-Blood who knows quite well there are those who consider him less as a result of that unalterable fact of his birth (whether those are some of his schoolmates, some Pureblood Princes, or both). I do not think it would have been chosen by a bloodist, since he could have chosen to keep his half-blood status out of then name entirely. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jun 10 21:06:10 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:06:10 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170096 > > Sherry: > > I would not understand it. If Lupin represents disability and illness in > the WW JKR has created, then Snape being bigoted against all werewolves > because of one would be like someone hating all blind people because one > cheated, stole or tried to murder. I think Snape is prejudiced against > werewolves in general--the way he refers to and speaks to Lupin--and against > Lupin in particular. Neither do I think the message that Snape's bigotry > was counter productive is very productive in itself, considering that's a > pretty subtle message in a kid's book. > wynnleaf Here's JKR's quote: "His being a werewolf is really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability." The fact that JKR said that Lupin is a "metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability," does not mean that whenever any character dislikes Lupin, it simply *must* be because he's a werewolf, and that Lupin can't possibly turn out to do anything *really* wrong, because -- well, I'm not sure what the reasoning actually is. Because people with illnesses and disablities in literature are bound to be good and anything wrong they do has to be excused because of their disability? I doubt it that's the message of JKR. JKR has *already* shown that Lupin would make choices -- as a human, not a werewolf -- to let his friends bully and torment another person when it was his clear responsibility as a prefect to attempt to stop it. He does this (self confessed) because of not wanting to lose friends. Further, he keeps secrets which could endanger an entire school of children, once again (self confessed) in order to keep the headmaster's goodwill. Why would being a werewolf create some sort of mitigating circumstance? *Many* people suffer, for one reason or another, from bigotry that creates a difficulty in having friends. That doesn't excuse actions such as Lupin's. JKR making Lupin a werewolf doesn't somehow mean he can't possibly be found to betray anyone. It's like saying "handicapped people can't be used in literature except as good guys, because otherwise it's playing to a stereotype." But in fact, JKR already breaks that non-rule, by having Fenrir be completely evil. I think the greater stereotyping for a writer would be to assume some sort of rule or code that because Lupin is a sympathetic werewolf, he *can't* do anything too wrong. As regards Snape's dislike of Lupin, yes, Snape plays the werewolf "card" to insult Lupin. But my impression has always been that he does that, not because of a general bigotry against werewolves (who he never insults in a general way), but because he hates Lupin in particular -- for his very human weaknesses -- and will use anything, however unfairly, to insult him. In fact, I see this quite commonly among adolescents, of which I will agree Snape's character sometimes mimics. Adolescents often use bigoted comments to insult people that they dislike, not because they specifically dislike the person for their status, but because they are simply using *anything* at hand to be insulting. Sure, there are also people who are truly bigoted and use bigoted remarks *because* they are bigoted. But every use of a bigoted comment is not because the speaker actually dislikes the other person for that reason. To me, it's a little similar to Snape's mudblood comment. There isn't any other instance in canon to really support Snape being a pureblood elitist -- his Half Blood Prince name implies the opposite. It seems far more likely to me that he used the term just because it was an available weapon at hand to use, not because he really had any problem with Lily being muggleborn. There is more however, to the Snape and Lupin enmity. We have to remember that Snape was actually in danger of dying at werewolf!Lupin's jaws -- if he weren't in danger of dying, there'd be no life debt to James. Snape very, very naturally sees Lupin as deadly, because Lupin *was* deadly in a personal way for Snape. And we have to also remember that Lupin's case is not like a case of racial bigotry. Lupin really *is* deadly at certain times of the month. And it's not just like a person with an infection, who could, given just the wrong circumstances, infect someone else. Until wolfsbane was made, Lupin could easily kill someone quickly and surely, and we learn that he was given to the very behavior (running around wild at the full moon) that could have made that possibility easily come true. Later, it becomes *Snape's* responsibility to make the potion that keeps Lupin safe. Snape, who was almost killed by Lupin. Snape, who Lupin tacitly allowed to be bullied for years, and probably at least verbally insulted himself (note Map insults). Snape, who Lupin calls "Severus" to his face, even though anyone should probably realize that Snape wouldn't like that suggestion of "friendship." Snape, who Lupin allowed to be ridiculed in his classroom (Snape, at least would have seen it that way). And Snape has to make the potion to ease Lupin's monthly transformation and make it "safe" for Lupin to become Snape's colleague at the school. Further, Snape never trusts Lupin. And the thing is, Snape was right. Even though his assumptions were in many ways wrong, and even though it turned out that Sirius was not the traitor, Snape was *right* to distrust Lupin, who was keeping secret vital information and, for all Lupin knew, was endangering the students solely for his own benefit. With all of that, Snape has plenty of quite understandable reasons to distrust and even despise Lupin. Why blame it on bigotry, when there are so many other greater reasons? I find it much more reasonable to blame the bigoted comments on Snape's more understandable dislike of Lupin, then to blame the comments on some sort of baseless bigotry. zgirnius: In the Shack scene, Snape repeatedly refers to Lupin as "the werewolf" instead of using his name, and states at one point, "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," as though the thought processes of werewolves as a class differ from those of other humans. wynnleaf There is the possibility, by the way, that Snape means this quite literally. He's used to using legilimency to determine lies, truth, and other intent. It's possible that he really *can't* fathom Lupin's mind and blames it on his being a werewolf. I tend to think there are enough instances of Lupin appearing to use legilimency and occlumency to guess that he does have these abilities, and that Snape may run up against a mental wall when trying to "fathom" Lupin. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jun 10 21:08:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:08:42 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170097 colebiancardi: > Did I miss something? Did I not read the HP books enough? LOL. > No, really - when did Snape become a bigot against "werewolves"? > Quite frankly, I don't know what Snape thinks about werewolves in > general - I do know how he feels about one particular werewolf, > Lupin, and IMHO, his hatred for Lupin has nothing to do with > Lupin's werewolfishness (is that a word? If not, I just made one > up!!), but due to the highschool hatred for the Marauders, which > was fully recipicated. > Alla: > Heeee, no dear, I do not think you missed anything. We just > interpret same canon differently. I think that his I do not know > how werewolf mind works means that he is bigoted against all > werewolves, not just Lupin. > But since I speculate that Snape thought of werewolves as dark > creatures not worth compassion before prank, I am afraid I do not > even understand. > I of course think of mudblood in Pensieve scene and password to > Slytherin dorms in CoS, which I do not buy for a second was created > by somebody else but Snape IMO. Jen: He could be a bigot; that could end up being part of the reason he became a DE and you lined up canon for it. I could also see the comment as Snape using words as a weapon to wound Lupin in this particulary instance. Snape seems to like reminding people where they're weak or where he thinks they're weak. Maybe it feeds his own sense of being more powerful than he was as a boy, weak once too if his words during Occlumency speak about his own life. In this scene, Lupin has just told a story that Snape overheard about how horrible werewolf transformations were for him and how he became a 'monster' once a month. I think mainly Snape is sticking a verbal knife into Lupin. Not exactly a compassionate guy but not sure if a bigot, either. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 10 21:32:35 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:32:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <380-220076010213235312@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170099 zgirnius: In the Shack scene, Snape repeatedly refers to Lupin as "the werewolf" instead of using his name, and states at one point, "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," as though the thought processes of werewolves as a class differ from those of other humans. He also calls Lily Evans a Mudblood in the infamous Pensieve scene of OotP, and is formerly, and still formally, (IMO) a member of a terrorist organization the members of which espouse pureblood supremacist beliefs. Given the personal animus and emotional state of Snape towards Lupin in the first instance (the basis for which is eloquently explained by Carol elsewhere in this thread), and the generally rotten circumstances in which Snape found himself in the second, I would hesitate to draw the conclusion from these facts that Snape is a bigot. Many do not so hesitate. I don't believe he is, or was. For me the clincher is his own private schoolday nickname of "Half-Blood Prince". Magpie: I find this question kind of fascinating, actually. The thing is, bigotry (along with love potions, just to reference an unrelated conversation I was having with somebody recently) is approached in a hundred different ways in the series. Yes, it's what the DEs stand for, but it's also there on lots of different levels with all characters, both good, bad and neutral. In Snape's case, he was a DE, and I don't think that being a Half-blood and so not being what was claimed to be "the best" by them means that he couldn't be a bigot. Sometimes people have even gone so far as to claim that Snape must really have been miserable in Slytherin and must really hate Slytherin to this day because he's a Half-blood, which almost suggests that not being Pureblood is a sheild against bigotry . I actually find it interesting that it's always assumed that his calling himself a Half-Blood means he's identifying himself as having Muggle blood when he could just as easily be identifying himself as having Wizard blood. He has no chance of passing for a Pureblood since he's not one, but by identifying as a Half-Blood and owning that he could be stating his desire to rise above his Muggle side. Purebloods may consider themselves better blood-wise, but that doesn't mean they can't have good relationships with Half-bloods, as we see with Snape and the Malfoys. His calling Lily a Mudblood, too, can have a lot of different meanings, but he is calling her a racial epithet, just as he's choosing to call Lupin a "werewolf" in the scene where he's angry at him. In the first scene he seems to me to be publically claiming to have blood supremicity beliefs, and in the second he's using Lupin's status against him to rub it in, perhaps for complicated reasons connected to the Prank, which also centered on Lupin's status. Yet at the same time I'd say it was obvious that Snape hates Lupin for being a Marauder more than a werewolf, and can imagine him having better relationships with other werewolves. Heck, I don't think he much rubs him that Lupin is a werewolf post-PoA. Similarly, he may have chosen to call Lily a Mudblood despite knowing it was a bad thing to do, one that was maybe unfair. He, like most in canon, are not above sometimes using bigotry against others. Now, a lot of the time the thing is that since this is fantasy different races sometimes *are* different in ways human races aren't. I have a hard time really making sense of the Hagrid/Grawp relationship as racist or not. I mean, Hagrid identifies as a Wizard and does not seem to identify as a giant in the least--I mean, he goes to them with the attitude that Wizards have that their society is not the way it should be. (The whole Hagrid's Tale chapter seems like a weird riff on a colonial text about dealing with savages.) As shown by the way he naturally thinks his brother should be removed from this society. Grawp himself is weird because he doesn't act like the giants we hear about who have their own society. Grawp is almost like a lower form of being who can be tied up and when "tamed" is still like an animal capable of exhibiting broader emotions but not just talking to people as a giant should be able to do. He seems to go beyond just needing a translator. So what I'd say is that being a bigot is not something you just are or you aren't. It's very hard for characters to get through the series with no moments where they've been prejudiced or made judgments based on creatures who were different. Snape could have embraced the Pureblood beliefs of the DEs because they fulfilled something in him without it being about his really "believing" it intellectually. The belief doesn't always have to come first--he could have become more open to it because it was emotionally satisfying in some way at the time. We've never seen him exhibit any particular prejudice against Muggle-borns during the story when we've seen him--though as I've said before, that in itself doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem with Slughorn. Sometimes instances of people being called names based on what they are is seen as just normal human interaction and not bigotry at all. I think that really bigotry in the series is often a default state for most people and something that has to be consistently looked out for and fought. It's that you're never just a bigot or not a bigot, it's that there's always going to be all these different groups and bigotry is always going to be there if you want to use it. Snape could be someone who would not support the Werewolf legislation at all and still call Lupin a werewolf in the shack. Harry can free Dobby and yet call on Kreacher when he owns him. It's always a series of choices for how you're going to deal with other people, and sometimes bigotry is really just easier. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 21:39:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:39:39 -0000 Subject: Narrative technique and the SK switch/DD's correspondence with Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170100 Jen wrote: > I see, she deviates when there's a reason the story is outside Harry's awareness. One thing JKR's made sure of since Voldemort returned to his crude fetal form is that the reader gets information about Voldemort's plan at some point early on. Carol responds: Right. The dream in GoF mechanism was one means of doing that (otherwise, it's hard to see how we could get Frank Bryce's pov, which is actually odd, anyway, since Harry isn't really inside Frank's mind--he sees the old man die). In the case of "The Other Minister," there's no Harry connection at all. It's a device to let us know what's going on in the Muggle world from a Muggle pov. (I also like getting to see Fudge and Srimgeour from a pov other than Harry's, but that's just me.) Jen wrote: > You mentioned it being unlikely for a Riddle House chapter and that *is* hard to imagine since JKR would need an outsider listening in providing the pov. Carol: right. That's why she used Frank Bryce. But actually, I was thinking of the first part of that chapter, which is an almost-omniscient narrator actually commenting on the action, not the distant dramatic narrator of "Spinner's End" reporting a conversation from the outside, but not like the usual third-person-limited narrator, either, because there's no pov character, only the narrator filling in the background with greater than usual authoritativeness, almost as if we're hearing the author's own voice rather than a persona--or, at least, a wholly different narrative voice than in the resto of the books, for this flashback to fifty years before the main action of the story. It really jumped out to me as I read it. (From what I've read, even some teenage readers felt that they'd picked up the wrong book, wondering what happened to Harry. They noticed that the chapter was different, though they didn't understand the technical aspects involved (or JKR's reasons for bringing in the riddle House at that time and in that way). But what I meant by not expecting another "Riddle House" chapter is that I don't expect another flashback with no pov character. I can see Harry entering a bottled memory via the Pensieve, in which case it would be presented from his pov, and I can envision (but don't expect) another "Spinner's End"-style chapter presenting a present-day scene from a dramatic pov (the characters seen from the outside with no pov character), but a flashback to, say, Godric's Hollow with no pov character seems unlikely. How would Harry find out about it? (How, for that matter, will he find out what happened at Spinner's End? Surely, it wasn't *just* for the reader's benefit. Harry, as protagonist, is going to have to find out the truth about the Unbreakable Vow, at least. Jen: > Although I wonder if Draco could serve that function for a chapter as one who appeared to be on the fence when we last saw him? Also bearing in mind the limited omniscient narrator gets to limit what information is presented. ;) Carol responds: You know, I think that JKR once considered having Draco as an occasional alternate pov, maybe so we could see Slytherin as he sees it, and changed her mind. One chapter in SS/PS begins with something like "Malfoy couldn't believe his eyes when Harry showed up in class the next day" (quoted from memory, but it's right after Harry catches the Remembrall and is made Seeker for Gryffindor). Also, there's that unfortunately discarded chapter depicting a conversation between Draco Malfoy and Theodore Nott, in which Draco is almost certainly the pov character since we know him so much better than we know the minor character Theo Nott and since Draco at that point is Harry's "archenemy." So I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of a chapter from Draco's pov, but I'd be on the watch for the unreliable narrator if we get such a chapter since it will certainly involve Snape, whose motives Draco can't possibly fully understand. Or we could get a conversation between Draco and Harry in which Draco's interpretation of events (and Snape) is, again, not wholy reliable, but I don't see how that's possible considering Draco's status as fugitive from "justice" (and Voldemort?). I can't see him showing up on the Weasleys' doorstep begging to be hidden, and he can't possibly show up at 12 GP because the Fidelius Charm is still in effect. > Jen: I agree with how the information will be presented and want to add that hopefully Petunia will have all this memorabilia hidden under the creaky stair, an oddity in her otherwise perfect home. Carol: Brilliant! That creaky stair has been mentioned so often (as has the floorboard under Harry's bed where he hides things) that I should have put two and two together. I'll bet you're right. any other Chekhov's guns while we're at it? Jen: > > Secondly, why would Dumbledore suspect Sirius in particular when Lupin was the one suspected by everyone else? Carol: Because sirius is the one that James insisted should be the Secret Keeper. An if he's the spy/traitor as well as the SK, the Potters are in big trouble (as turns out to be the case when Pettigrew, unknown to DD, is the traitor/spy/Secret Keeper. Certainly, DD didn't want *Hagrid* (whom he admittedly didn't inform specifically about Sirius being the SK) to turn Harry over to him and made sure that he brought Harry to the Dursleys instead. So I think that his suspicions centered on Sirius from the moment that the Potters chose him rather than DD himself as SK--and stayed there until he found out the truth during PoA. Also, I think that Peter was spreading distrust among the Marauders to cause Remus and Sirius to distrust each other while insinuating himself into James's good graces (suggested by the Order photo where he's sitting between James and Lily). I don't think that "everyone else" suspected Remus, only Sirius and James (and maybe Lily). Alternatively, and now I'm speculating wildly, Petunia could have known Sirius ("that awful boy"?) as James's best friend (who turned up his nose at Lily's Muggle sister, which would be sufficient reason for thinking him "awful"). She may even have attended Lily's wedding (unknown to Vernon?) and have been aware that he was James's best man. Or DD could have mentioned in the letter tucked inside Harry's blanket that Harry must be kept from his godfather, Sirius Black, at all costs. It just seems to me that Petunia, unlike Vernon, has some idea who sirius Black is--that he's a wizard and that he's specifically a danger to Harry (or so DD thinks). And since DD's "last" is the letter in the blankets and not a more recent communication, the reference to Sirius Black must be in either that letter or one just before it warning Petunia of the danger to Lily and her family. Jen: The only possible reason I can think of from the text would be that Snape attempted to persuade Dumbledore of that fact since Snape believed James died, 'too arrogant to believe [he] might be mistaken in Black.' Why was James too arrogant to see the 'truth' unless someone had attempted to convince him otherwise and he refused to believe it? Carol: Yes, that's what I think, too. I think Snape suspected Black, and DD, possibly remembering the so-called Prank and James's insistence on having Black as SK, shared his suspicions. I agree that Snape's remark about James's "arrogance" in not believing he could be mistaken about Black reflects his rejection of Snape's belief (most likely conveyed through Dumbledore) to black was the traitor and the accompanying refusal to allow DD as the SK. > Jen: > I do think it possible Petunia knew of Sirius Black from overhearing Lily and James if James was 'that awful boy' or that Sirius was the 'awful boy' in question, called that because he was revealed as a killer to Petunia in POA and Harry did nothing to keep the Dursleys from thinking Sirius was a 'dangerous murderer' in GOF in order to use his godfather's name as leverage. Carol: Or Petunia already knew of Black because of that conversation and already thought he was "awful" because he treated her contemptuously as a mere Muggle. (I know we have no evidence of that, but I think he would strike her as arrogant at the least.) So she'd be as ready as Snape, almost, to think badly of him when she heard that he'd betrayed them. The jump from the conversation alone to seeing him on TV as an escaped murderer and fearing he'd be coming to Privet Drive seems too great (to me) unless she also knew that he supposedly betrayed the Potters to their deaths. (She wouldn't need to know about the Fidelius Charm per se. In fact, that would certainly be more than she needed to know.) > Jen: I feel sure there was protection offered since Dumbledore thought Voldemort's supporters, 'almost as terrible as he,' would be looking for Harry. Although it's such a circular situation to me! Taking Harry in means more danger for the Dursleys and the *need* for protection in the first place, so why not refuse Harry? The only things I can suggest are 1) Dumbledore suspected Petunia and family were already known to LV and his DEs and were in danger regardless of taking in Harry or not or 2) there's *some* reason Petunia did it for Lily. Carol: I generally agree, except that I don't think even Petunia, much as she hated the position she was placed in by taking in Harry, could refuse to take in her baby nephew (or niece, if that were the case) if there was no alternative, if by refusing, she'd become an accessory to the murder of an innocent and helpless child. It's rather like Snape hating eleven-year-old Harry but not wanting him dead and doing everything he could to protect him while still resenting him deeply. Petunia certainly isn't a very good person, but she isn't evil, IMO. And we see her human side very clearly when she meets Harry's eyes after the Dementor incident in OoP, and for the first time in their relationship, they understand each other. That's an important moment, IMO, and I think it will bear fruit in HBP, especially if Harry and his friends save Petunia from grave danger in DH. Jen: > I suggested that in my first post and others thought that the Potters didn't expect Harry to live if they themselves died. The Invisibility cloak is more canon for the possibility that the Potters did think Harry might outlive them and also suggests the Potters were aware 'marked as his equal' implied Harry wouldn't necessarily die according to the prophecy. Carol: Sorry about that. It's hard to remember who said what. I agree that the Potters did somehow expect Harry to live or there would have been no point in giving DD the Invisibility Cloak to hold for Harry, and how they could know or suspect that unless they knew about the Prophecy, at least its general implications if not the specifics, I can't guess. James wouldn't need it if he was under the Fidelius Charm (and stayed in the house), but there's no point in giving it to DD (who doesn't need it) unless he's trusting DD with a valuable possession that Harry as "the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord" will someday need. I wonder if the Potters also gave DD the key to their Gringotts vault (and authorization to get gold from it for Harry) at that time, too. Otherwise, how did DD rather than Sirius end up with the key? It seems they expected DD to survive regardless of what happened to them and their intended SK. > Jen: Yes, my initial wondering was whether Lily thought the Muggle world would be a safer place. Carol: Certainly, it couldn't have been any *less* safe than the WW, and it would be easier to hide Harry there than in the smaller WW, with someone as conspicuous as DD or Sirius Black. She may even have felt (just guessing now!) that it would be best for Harry to grow up as she had, completely unaware of the WW until he got his Hogwarts letter. It may have seemed like a safer, happier world than the Voldie-wracked WW. Just a thought, but she seems to have had a happy childhood and what could be safer, she'd think, than an ordinary neighborhood like the one she grew up in? (Assuming that their home was anything like the Dursleys' home on Privet Drive.) At any rate, if DD is acting on Lily's wishes, he seems a lot less presumptuous than he does as the wise old man who decides what's best for everybody. (Not that I ever objected to his decision, but I know a lot of posters do.) Jen: > I have pondered how Lily felt about Sirius as Harry's godfather. Brave yes, utterly loyal to James especially, but the recklessness? That might give a mom pause! I decided that in their particular situation, the main critera would be someone willing to die to ensure Harry lived and both agreed Sirius met that criteria. Although the fact that Dumbledore did have a correspondence with Petunia and Harry's future seems at least one possibility, I'd say Dumbledore and maybe Lily wondered whether Sirius would be able to fulfill his duties for whatever reason. (That's speculation on top of speculation but I'm going to put it out there anyway. ) Carol: I think that Lily had no objection to making Sirius Harry's godfather, but that's not the same as guardian. I can't see her thinking that Sirius would be a safe guardian, whatever James thought, especially after the decision to make him Secret Keeper. My guess is that Lily informed DD of Petunia as a back-up guardian just in case. I've been criticized for this view before, but I just can't see the recklessly courageous Sirius suddenly developing a domestic side and raising Harry unaided when he'd rather be out fighting the bad guys. Is he supposed to fly to Africa on his motorcycle, taking Harry with him, and stay out of the Voldie War? I think Lily would have much preferred leaving Lily in the safer, quieter Muggle world with her sister and her husband and their baby son close to Harry's own age, even if he wouldn't be loved quite as much as Dudley, to the dangers of leaving him with the loyal and courageous but hot-tempered and reckless Sirius Black, who was likely to put himself and therefore Harry, in danger. So Lily, I think, must have consulted with DD, giving him info on Petunia as a back-up plan. Maybe she rather than James gave DD the key to their vault. Carol, just guessing now because we know so very little about Lily From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 10 21:50:10 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:50:10 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170101 > > Sherry: > > > > I would not understand it. If Lupin represents disability and > illness in > > the WW JKR has created, then Snape being bigoted against all > werewolves > > because of one would be like someone hating all blind people > because one > > cheated, stole or tried to murder. > Alla: > > > And another thing, which I did not put in my previous post as to why > I interpret Snape remark as prejudice against all werewolves. > > He does not say I do not understand how Lupin's mind works, neither > does he say - I do not understand how this werewolf's mind works. > > He just says "werewolf's mind". To me it seems that he refers to all > werewolfes. > colebiancardi: Question: if the only way "new" werewolves are created is by a werewolf biting a human, isn't that justification for not liking werewolves in general? Per ancient lore, that is the only way werewolves can procreate new werewolves. And even Lupin recognizes that he is a danger to humans when he is in his werewolf state, because he cannot control himself - at all. When he is a werewolf, he will attack anyone, including loved ones, as seen in PoA. Perhaps it isn't bigotry, but a deep concern for not creating new werewolves, because according to lore, werewolves also kill humans, not just bite them. As far as Snape's comment of "he does not understand how a werewolf's mind works" - Isn't Lupin a werewolf? That is what Lupin is - a werewolf. He isn't fully human anymore. His mind & body & soul is taken over on a monthly basis by his other, darker side. And yes, I view werewolves as darker creatures, due to how to they must procreate to continue a new line of werewolves. If that is bigotry, then the Trio is guilty of it too - look at how they justify Hagrid's love of dangerous creatures to him being half-Giant. Ron even states that Hagrid is "mental" for mourning Aragog, who did tell the other spiders if was ok to eat Harry & Ron(or at least, didn't stop them). I know what JKR has compared Lupin's werewolfishness to a disease, but I also look to the lore behind werewolves as well, which JKR has drawn from. Lupin seems to be the exception to the lore (he doesn't relish biting or killing humans and doesn't want to), but again, I view him as the exception, not the rule. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 21:55:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:55:54 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170102 > colebiancardi: > As far as Snape's comment of "he does not understand how a werewolf's > mind works" - Isn't Lupin a werewolf? That is what Lupin is - a > werewolf. He isn't fully human anymore. His mind & body & soul is > taken over on a monthly basis by his other, darker side. And yes, I > view werewolves as darker creatures, due to how to they must procreate > to continue a new line of werewolves. Alla: I think it is time for us to agree to disagree then, because we are very very far apart. I do not view Lupin as not fully human , I view him as human who is sick monthly - metaphorically of course, so I cannot view them as creatures, I am afraid, only as human beings, who choose to deal with their sickness differently or as best as they can. We see Fenrir who IMO chose to become a monster and Lupin who IMO did not. Colebiancardi: > If that is bigotry, then the Trio is guilty of it too - look at how > they justify Hagrid's love of dangerous creatures to him being > half-Giant. Ron even states that Hagrid is "mental" for mourning > Aragog, who did tell the other spiders if was ok to eat Harry & Ron (or > at least, didn't stop them). Alla: Yep, Trio is guilty of it too. And I brought up Ron's earlier remark to Lupin as bigoted through and through as well. I do not think it makes Snape behaviour any better, personally. Colebiancardi: > I know what JKR has compared Lupin's werewolfishness to a disease, but > I also look to the lore behind werewolves as well, which JKR has drawn > from. Lupin seems to be the exception to the lore (he doesn't relish > biting or killing humans and doesn't want to), but again, I view him > as the exception, not the rule. Alla: No, I do not think that. I think if WW gives werewolves a chance to battle their disease with wolfsbane and I don't know, being able to earn a living, many of them will choose to do so. IMO of course. Alla. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 10 22:14:59 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:14:59 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170103 > > Colebiancardi: > > I know what JKR has compared Lupin's werewolfishness to a disease, > but > > I also look to the lore behind werewolves as well, which JKR has > drawn > > from. Lupin seems to be the exception to the lore (he doesn't > relish > > biting or killing humans and doesn't want to), but again, I view > him > > as the exception, not the rule. > > Alla: > > No, I do not think that. I think if WW gives werewolves a chance to > battle their disease with wolfsbane and I don't know, being able to > earn a living, many of them will choose to do so. > > IMO of course. colebiancardi: Depends on when they got bitten, how old they were and if those wolfies were not allowed into Hogwarts under the care of DD. I am not sure if Lupin is the exception(bitten as a young child) but if he is not, then surely the parents - if wizards - would have tried to procure wolfsbane? Lupin doesn't state that Snape is the "only" wizard to make wolfsbane, just that there aren't too many wizards that do make it. I agree the WW in general doesn't advance the cause of werewolves and there is a lot of fear towards them, but unless wolfsbane is a new potion, I cannot believe that no one else out there, besides Lupin, would have not tried to get their hands on it. JKR hasn't introduced that many "good" wolfies in this saga - we only have Lupin and even he doesn't say that much good about his fellow members of his furry club. Afterall, he does state that the majority of them are on Voldemort's side and the leader of the pack, Fenrir, wants to bite and contaminate as many people as possible. Even with the wolfsbane, if a werewolf forgets to take it, he/she is a massive danger to the wizarding community. I don't know how one could regulate the taking of such a potion - even under a controlled enviroment like Hogwarts - Lupin forgot about taking his potion due to other "pressing" issues at hand. Wolfsbane doesn't reduce the wolfishness over time, it just reduces the aggressiveness for that month. So, to many in the wizarding world, this is a major concern, for themselves and their children. Don't get me wrong, I like Lupin and am glad to see a sterotype broken about werewolves (unless pippen's ESE!Lupin is truly true ;) ) but the centuries of lore and how werewolves conduct themselves are major strikes against Lupin and werewolves in general. I think that Lupin knows he is a danger and that his friends, who love & care for him, do not really realize what a true danger he is. colebiancardi From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Jun 10 22:17:25 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:17:25 -0400 Subject: Lily's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170104 "Sherry: If it turned out that Lily and Petunia were not sisters, then it would completely negate the blood protection for Harry, the reason Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys in the first place. If there was no blood protection because they were not blood kin, I could not believe Dumbledore did not know this, and therefore his actions in placing Harry there would be unforgivable." Bruce Alan Wilson: What if Lily & Petunia were only HALF-sisters? Note, Petunia says that 'my mother and father were glad to have a witch in the family.' Not 'OUR mother and father.' If one of Lily's parents were a wizard/witch or even a squib, even if the other --the one she shared with Petunia--were totally muggle, the blood protection would still hold. "colebiancardi: I don't know if JKR ever wrote or told us how Hermoine's parents felt about the news, but since Hermoine didn't make a deal out of it, I think they took it well. If I lived in the HP world as a muggle and had a child that was a wizard, I would be thrilled, not scared or confused. Perhaps it all depends if you like to read fantasy novels or not :)" Consider that mageborn children have 'breakouts'. Remember how Harry shrunk the ugly sweater, grew a bad haircut out overnight, teleported to the top of the school, etc.? I would think that parents who had been enduring such happenings the last eleven years or so would be delighted to find that there is a logical explanation for what has been going on. Remember the potioner named 'Granger' whom Slughorn asks if Hermione is descended from? What if he had had a Squib son who was Hermione's great-grandfather? Mightn't some tradition have been passed down in the family about magic? When Hermione's dad found that he'd sired a witch, he may well have said, "So that's what grandpa's stories were about!" Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 22:48:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:48:59 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170105 Carol earlier: > > Lupin himself says nothing about "betraying his friends." He says that he didn't want to admit that he had betrayed *Dumbledore's* trust. Also, I don't see how admitting that his former friend Sirius Black, whom he believes to have betrayed James and Lily to their deaths, killed twelve Muggles, and murdered Peter Pettigrew, is an Animagus and knows secret passages into the castle would be betraying his friends, especially since Black is believed to be out to kill his own godson, James's son, Harry. > > Dana: > That is not entirely true because he also states this. > > `I sometimes felt guilty about *betraying Dumbledore's trust*, > > `All this year, I have been battling with myself, wondering whether I should tell Dumbeldore that Sirius was an Animagus. But I didn't do it. Why? Because I was too cowardly. It would have meant admitting that I'd betrayed his trust while I was at school, *admitting that I'd led others along with me* Carol responds: Um, I guess you misunderstood me. That's what I just said. To quote myself above, "He says that he didn't want to admit that he had betrayed *Dumbledore's* trust." What he didn't say, AFAIK, is that he would betraying his *friends" by telling DD. He's protecting himself, not them, as far as I can see. So your quotes reinforced my point rather than countering it. What I'm looking for, and don't see in your response, is how admitting to DD that Black (whom he thinks murdered Harry, betrayed James, and is out to kill James's son) would be betraying Peter or James. (And why would he care if it betrays Sirius, if Sirius is a murderer?) I agree that he admits to betraying DD's trust, but I already said that and it's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking where he say that he thought he would be betraying his friends. > > Carol: > > As for the secret that made his life worth living and gave him the best time he ever had, he knew himself that he was endangering the people of Hogsmeade. And how would admitting that his friends had become Animagi out of friendship for him be betraying them? > > Dana: > Because it was them who made these adventures possible and who kept Lupin from actually harming others. Lupin would never have been able to roam Hogsmeade without them. He would never even have left the shack if they had not become animagi for him. What the marauders did was not just Lupin the werewolf doing these things but what they as a unit did. James and Sirius were as much responsible for leading Lupin to these dangerous situations as they were convinced that their animagus forms could keep a werewolf in check. You can't put all the blame onto Lupin's shoulders because he was the one posing the risk. Carol: Okay, so all he needs to do is make it sound like it's *his* fault (he "led" them into becoming Animagi and they did it all for him out of the goodness of their hearts). That's not betraying them, it's being grateful to them. Besides, two of them are dead, so he thinks, and can hardly get in trouble for being illegal Animagi, and the other is out to kill Harry, so he thinks. so, really, doesn't he owe it to James and the supposedly loyal, dead Peter--not to mention to James's son, Harry--to reveal that Sirius is an Animagus who can find his way into the castle? Carol earlier: > > Lupin, AFAWK, believes that Sirius betrayed the Potters and is out to kill Harry, and even if he secretly can't quite believe it, he still owes it to Harry and to James to tell Dumbledore what he knows. He certainly has no difficulty turning against Peter, even offering to kill him, when he discovers that his "dead" friend was actually the traitor, nor does Sirius, who has wanted to kill Peter for twelve years. > Dana: > handling his illness in an appropriate manner) Carol: As I said, I'm not an ESE!Lupin supporter so we're on the same side here. I just think you're giving Lupin too much credit for his motives for not revealing to DD that Black was an Animagus who knew how to get into the castle. And you don't seem to have answered the point in the paragraph you quoted above. To repeat, IMO, Lupin owes it to James and Harry to tell DD what he knows about Sirius Black, the man who is supposedly trying to kill Harry. That's the point I don't see you answering. far from betraying James, he'd be showing loyalty to James by protecting his son. I'm only talking (in this post) about Lupin's actions and motivations in PoA, not about why he and Black suspected each other. I just can't see telling Dumbledore how Black, who's supposedly trying to kill Harry, is getting into the castle could possibly be regarded as a betrayal of Peter and James, the two friends who are supposedly dead because of Sirius Black. Carol, hoping that her point is clear now From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 10 23:22:11 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:22:11 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170106 colebiancardi: > Perhaps it isn't bigotry, but a deep concern for not > creating new werewolves, because according to lore, > werewolves also kill humans, not just bite them. > [...] > I know what JKR has compared Lupin's werewolfishness > to a disease, but I also look to the lore behind > werewolves as well, which JKR has drawn from. Lupin > seems to be the exception to the lore (he doesn't > relish biting or killing humans and doesn't want to), > but again, I view him as the exception, not the rule. houyhnhnm: This is exactly what makes me uncomfortable with the idea that Lupin represents people with disabilities or chronic diseases. Parents in the real world who do not want their children attending school with another child who is, say, HIV positive *would* be acting out of pure predjudice because there is no rational basis for their fear. But a werewolf is a different matter. Werewolves really are dangerous. To the argument that Rowling can't have Lupin be a traitor because it would send a bad message about people with disabilities, I would say it seems to me that she has already done that. There may be anti-werewolf *bigotry* in the WW, but Rowling has not shown it to be groundless. On the contrary. Lupin, in human form, may not relish the thought of biting or killing humans (though the fear of doing so is not enough to make him cautious), but without Wolfsbane, Lupin transformed is, in his own words, "a fully fledged monster." Being HIV positive or having a seizure disorder (to name just a couple of conditions that do excite prejudice in the real world) do not put other people at risk. Being a werewolf puts other people at risk. If Lupin is supposed to represent people in the real world, I'd say he is a little closer to the guy with multiple drug resistant TB who insisted on flying half way round the world without a mask, than he is to an AIDS patient or someone with a physical disability. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 10 23:26:52 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:26:52 EDT Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170107 Alla wrote: I of course think of mudblood in Pensieve scene and password to Slytherin dorms in CoS, which I do not buy for a second was created by somebody else but Snape IMO. Julie: That's a very interesting point, Alla! I've never actually thought about who, if anyone, creates or changes the passwords for each House. I don't recall any definitive canon about it either, though the Head of House is as good a guess as any. Another possibility is a long-standing list of passwords for each House that are routinely shuffled (in which case "Mudblood" might have been created years, decades, even centuries earlier). In any case, I'm not sure it matters. Until we read DH I don't think we're really going to know how much of what Snape has said and done throughout the books comes from his heart and his true beliefs, and how much is manufactures to protect his cover as Voldemort's spy. (Though I do believe everything about Snape's feelings toward the Marauders and his enmity toward the boy he almost always sees as "James Potter's son" is genuine. I just doubt most everything else!) Which means I don't necessarily believe Snape is a bigot. If we'd been given even one instance where he denigrates werewolves in general, or "mudbloods" in general, then the case would be closed. But since he used/uses each of those insults to express enmity toward a specific person (Lily for seeing his humiliation, Lupin for being complicit in the many crimes of the Marauders), that leaves Snape's bigotry status unclear (as I think Magpie said, many humans have been known to use bigotry, especially adolescents, for strictly personal attacks while not necessarily feeling any bigotry toward a population in general). I'm a DDM!Snape supporter who still agrees that Snape remains in many ways an arrested adolescent, BTW ;-) So was Sirius, for different reasons. Peter is just an arrested asshole, I suppose. As for Lupin, well, I'm less and less sure what Lupin is. A while ago I scoffed internally and summarily dismissed Pippin's various ESE!Lupin arguments (sorry, Pippin). But the conspicuous lack of information on why Lupin was suspected as a traitor by James and Sirius, and where Lupin was during the 12 years before POA (a mere word or two about either would have been sufficient to explain but for some reason the characters--and JKR--remain mum), along with Lupin's odd reaction to Dumbledore's death...it's all starting to get to me! All I can say now is...Lupin, WHO are you??? Julie, who now has the theme to CSI inexplicably running through her head ;-) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 23:35:57 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:35:57 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <380-220076010213235312@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170108 > Magpie: > So what I'd say is that being a bigot is not something you just are or you > aren't. It's very hard for characters to get through the series with no > moments where they've been prejudiced or made judgments based on creatures > who were different. Snape could have embraced the Pureblood beliefs of the > DEs because they fulfilled something in him without it being about his > really "believing" it intellectually. The belief doesn't always have to > come first--he could have become more open to it because it was emotionally > satisfying in some way at the time. We've never seen him exhibit any > particular prejudice against Muggle-borns during the story when we've seen > him--though as I've said before, that in itself doesn't seem to be an > insurmountable problem with Slughorn. Sometimes instances of people being > called names based on what they are is seen as just normal human > interaction and not bigotry at all. I think that really bigotry in the > series is often a default state for most people and something that has to > be consistently looked out for and fought. > > It's that you're never just a bigot or not a bigot, it's that there's > always going to be all these different groups and bigotry is always going > to be there if you want to use it. Snape could be someone who would not > support the Werewolf legislation at all and still call Lupin a werewolf in > the shack. Harry can free Dobby and yet call on Kreacher when he owns him. > It's always a series of choices for how you're going to deal with other > people, and sometimes bigotry is really just easier. > Montavilla47: This reminds me of something I heard in a Value Clarification class when I was nine or ten years old. We were listening to a tape of a professor (he sounded Southern, as I recall), talking about bigotry and racism. He was upfront about acknowledging his own racism while still viewing racism as a problem in general. At one point, he said something like this: "Yes, I'm a racist. The question isn't whether or not you're a racist. The question is 'What are you going to do about it?'" That really stuck with me. Because there are times in my life when I do judge people by their appearance, or their voices, or other stereotypical things. But I try to stop and examine why I do that--and to realize that it's not that I'm a bad person, but simply that most people will tend to base judgments on what they already know, and that a lot of those assumptions are simply wrong. When you think about it, there's a wonderful irony in SWM, as James protests that he would never call Lily a Mudblood, but he'd cheerfully bully an oddball, greasy-looking kid "just because he exists." Montavilla47 From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Jun 10 23:34:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:34:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily's Parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466C8A8F.80007@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170109 houyhnhnm102 wrote: > Lily was adopted by her Muggle Aunt and Uncle Evans and > her brother Perseus was adopted by Eileen and Tobias > Snape. All right, Harry? Snape's your uncle. Wouldn't > that be fun? I don't hold out much hope, though. As long as we're stretching relationships, let me give you an even worse one: Dursley is a Riddle on his mother's side. Which eplains HIS hatred of wizardry... Bart From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 00:24:20 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:24:20 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170110 Tandra: > This just came to me and I don't remember if it was stated in any of > the books but since DD had heard the prophecy and knew it could have > been one of the two families were the Longbottom's hidden too? Did > they have a secret keeper? Was this mentioned anywhere? Ceridwen: I don't have an answer, but I've thought about this, too. I would think that both couples and their children were hidden in some way. The Potters only chose a Secret Keeper a week before they died, when Harry was fifteen months old. They were in hiding in some other way (or with a different SK) before then. The Longbottoms may have been in hiding, too, or they may have had to forego hiding due to their jobs. Both Frank and Alice were Aurors. We do know that James had money from his parents, which may have made fifteen months of hiding feasable, but we don't know about the Longbottoms' finances. Ironically, the Longbottoms were attacked some time after LV disappeared, thus putting both Prophecy couples out of commission and both possible Prophecy boys into the care of relatives. Ceridwen. From Vexingconfection at aol.com Sun Jun 10 23:18:03 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:18:03 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > This just came to me and I don't remember if it was stated in any of > the books but since DD had heard the prophecy and knew it could have > been one of the two families were the Longbottom's hidden too? Did > they have a secret keeper? Was this mentioned anywhere? > It just seems odd to me that all this protection was put into place > for the Potters but nothing at all for Neville and his family. If that > was the case why just the Potters then? What information did they have > that lead them to only protect them and not the Longbottoms as well. > Plus, the entire Order doesn't know about the prophecy so how would DD > have explained the need to hide these two specific families? Or the > need to only hide the Potters? > If anyone has any answers please share. THX > TKJ :-) VexingConfection: I believe it was in OOP when Harry met with Professor Trelawney in a hallway and she let it slip that both Snape and she were applying for positions at Hogwarts. She had met with Dumbledore in her room at an Inn-don't remember if it was the Leaky Cauldron or not. She said Snape had listened at the door. Later Dumbledore explained to HP that it was then she had the prophecy. He employed her to keep her safe-he even said something to the effect she didn't know just how much peril she was in. Snape didn't have anything against the Longbottoms the way he did both of the Potters. Whether it was to be a true prophecy or not I don't think matters-Snape would have taken it back to LV because he hated the Potters and he wanted to win points with LV (if you believe Snape is bad). Here's my question- 1-what was Snape really doing there that day? Did he go to get a job, spy for LV, both or another reason? 2-Dumbledore told Harry that he knew Snape had told LV of the prophecy- was that the reason that Dumbledore had trusted him or did Dumble merely keep him close for observation also? 3-Snape was never trusted with the DADA class-what was the reasoning for that? 4-Could Snape have been finally given the DADA class to prove to LV that he had won Dumbledore's trust and Snape was actually working for Dumbledore all along? I read a really good fanfic to this effect- if it's not true- I wish it was. *Also an interesting side note is that although it may be that Longbottom is actually the one in the profecy- Harry is the one who has defeated LV time and time again. I don't think that could have happened so often if he were not the "chosen one." From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 11 01:16:24 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:16:24 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170112 > colebiancardi: > > Perhaps it isn't bigotry, but a deep concern for not > > creating new werewolves, because according to lore, > > werewolves also kill humans, not just bite them. > > [...] > > I know what JKR has compared Lupin's werewolfishness > > to a disease, but I also look to the lore behind > > werewolves as well, which JKR has drawn from. > houyhnhnm: > This is exactly what makes me uncomfortable with the > idea that Lupin represents people with disabilities or > chronic diseases. Parents in the real world who do not > want their children attending school with another child > who is, say, HIV positive *would* be acting out of pure > predjudice because there is no rational basis for their > fear. But a werewolf is a different matter. Werewolves > really are dangerous. To the argument that Rowling can't > have Lupin be a traitor because it would send a bad message > about people with disabilities, I would say it seems to me > that she has already done that. There may be anti-werewolf > *bigotry* in the WW, but Rowling has not shown it to be > groundless. On the contrary. Jen: Why paint Dumbledore as being a progressive for letting Lupin attend Hogwarts if that's all there is to the matter? Lupin needn't bother living among the werewolves and tring to influence them if there's no good that can come of them as a group. As Snape implies, there does exist a possibility for werewolves integrating into the WW: "He was quite convinced you were harmless, you know, Lupin...a *tame* werewolf -" ('Servant of Lord Voldemort) Snape doesn't sound like he believes in the concept but the idea apparently exists in Potterverse. I'm not sure how JKR means to present werewolves, what the comparison is in the real world (I see no comparison myself), but she does seem to be saying their danger is not the whole of their being, that if the possibility exists to bring people who have been bitten into the fold of mainstream society to live and work, there's hope for them. Jen From toonmili at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 01:53:28 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:53:28 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170113 I can't say that Snape is a bigot or a racist. Well I think in the case of his treatment towards werewolves it has to do with his past experiences. Let's look at the werewolves Snape knows. Lupin: He thinks that Lupin was part of the plan. Greyback: Likes to bite little children even when he is not transformed. Supporters of Greyback: Which is just as bad as being greyback himself. So history tells him werewolves want to hurt you, eat children and bite at will. SO really he doesn't know how a werewolf thinks. I'm not saying it's right but I think we clearly see where it comes from. I don't think JK would be causing harm if Lupin turns out to be evil. Lupin's flaw is not that he was a werewolf. His flaw is that he is weak. That's why Snape told Tonks that her patronus looks weak. Lupin is not a strong person. Snape has played on that. In POA he told everyone that he was a werewolf because he knew that Lupin would run away. I'd like to point out that he left before he knew people's reaction. He guessed what the reaction would have been and left. Harry even thought that he looks anxious to leave. Why? I think it would have made more sense to face the music and point out that even though he is a werewolf he is still able to hold a job. Instead he went away for a while. Which solved nothing. I don't think Lupin is working for Voldemort but I think we shouldn't expect too much from him. He might not be around after the war is over. As for calling Lily a mudblood. Well Snape said it to James. He looked at James when he said it. It's similar to when Malfoy called Hermione a mudblood, she didn't get it and didn't react to it but Ron, Fred and George all got really worked up about it. I think his intention was to hurt James by calling someone he knew he fancied a mudblood. James is pureblood and he knows exactly what the word means. Lily is muggle born and he must have thought that she wouldn't understand the insult as much. But like Hermione after a while she must begin to notice how much of an insult it is. Besides this is the same man who had HALF BLOOD PRINCE on his book. When he called Lily a mudblood it was in year five. That potions book was from NEWT class, meaning year six and seven, who knows if he would have grown a bit and therefore was willing to accept that he is halfblood. Although canon does not say we can assume that Snape's father was the abusive man. If he is a muggle then it would explain why he has or wants to have a negative perception of muggles and therefore muggle born. All this may have changed through his interation with Lily (if it happened). As far as canon goes I have never seen adult Snape call anyone a mudblood. In fact we have only seen Snape call someone a mudblood once and this was in a memory that he wanted to hide from Harry. We can't take anything we see in the memory as face value. It's like what Sirius said: We were all idiots at fifteen. So Snape was idiot too. He made a mistake, I don't see him repeating it as an adult. toonmili From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jun 11 03:00:16 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:00:16 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170114 Dana wrote in : << If Snape truly was defected and believed in the wrongs of LV's ways because of the killings of innocent people then his friends should be punished for their involvement in these killings but Snape never rats on his friends. >> What is the canon that Snape never ratted on his friends? It is canon that Rosier and Wilkes were both killed by Aurors, and that Rosier was killed while resisting arreast; I think Wilkes also was resisting arrest. Maybe the Aurors knew where to lurk to catch them committing a crime because Sevvie had told his friends' crime plan to Dumbledore. Making Sevvie parallel to Peter as someone who left the side to which he had pledged allegiance and gave the other side information that led to the death of his friends. Of course it is only parallel if saving the lives of innocent victims is less important than not ratting out your friends and/or betraying your loyalty. Kreachur and Dobby have the same kind of parallel -- House Elves who act to the harm of their owners because there is some other wizard they like better. Canon even calls our attention to this parallel; when Harry was worried that Kreachur's absence is dangerous, he told Sirius that Kreachur could leave the house without permision because Dobby had been able to leave the house without permission. Again I ask, why isn't he named Kreachy? On another tentacle, if Snape was loyal to LV and went to spy on DD for LV, LV wouldn't mind sacrificing a couple of low ranking Death Eaters to prove Snape's bona fides to DD. Loyalty to LV creating murderous betrayal of friends -- LV seems to like that. Sherry wrote in : << Ok, anyone else have any favorite Harry moments? >> "They stuff people's heads down the toilet the first day at Stonewall," he told Harry. "Want to come upstairs and practice?" "No, thanks," said Harry. "The poor toilet's never had anything as horrible as your head down it -- it might be sick." This shows that Harry has not had the spirit beaten out of him by Dursley oppression. Amanda predicted in : << (2) Hermione discovers the tarot and thus they realize they are looking for, among other things, Rowena Ravenclaw's wand. >> *If* the Founders' souvenirs are based on the Tarot (and I admit that sword, cup, and locket fit pretty well to sword, cup, and coin), then I object that Rowling gave the water symbol (cup) to the Founder of the earth house (Hufflepuff) and the earth symbol (the locket) to the Founder of the water house (Slytherin). Tarot fans have an ongoing disagreement whether Swords or Rods is Air or Fire, but who could disagreement that Gryffindor is the fire house and Ravenclaw is the air house? I'd love for brainy Ravenclaw's souvenir to be a pen or a book or a scroll. << (13) Snape will remain Snape and operate on his own terms to the end. Whatever he does to save Harry or the cause, whenever he does it, he will do it in his particularly nasty and cruel manner, without one shred of softening at all. We will be denied any dewy-eyed scene of forgiveness. >> I like to think that Harry will get into a deadly trap because of his own recklessness and jumping to conclusions, and realise he is doomed -- when Snape comes to save him, in some way that involves leaving Snape behind to die. Harry of course objects, and Snape, with sarcasm that I can't even dream of matching, says that he is only rescuing Harry because Harry is the only one who can defeat Voldemort, but being willing to save Harry's life does not mean that he is willing to spend one more moment than necessary suffering Harry's obnoxious presence, so -- "Out, Potter!" << Snape cannot forgive himself for his past and for what he did to Dumbledore, and true Slytherin that he is, nobody else's forgiveness matters. >> I think that will be to readers' imaginations. Pippin wrote in : << Whoa! In what way is being asked a few questions by a school teacher the same as being attacked by a vicious dog? >> Being asked a few questions isn't the same, but cracks about "Our new -- celebrity" and "fame clearly isn't everything" is. A Legilimens should be able to see that Harry isn't puffed up by his fame, and couldn't he knock Harry off any potential DE pedestal by exposing his ignorance without adding snide comments? Well, no, but only because Snape can't do much of anything without adding snide comments. I preferred your previous theory that Snape knows that Harry *should* hate him for his role in killing James and Lily, and therefore makes sure that Harry does hate him. Carol noted in that: << no matter what Severus's motives for entering the tunnel, he could not have done so if Sirius hadn't told him how to stop the Whomping Willow >> Well ... if he kept watching the Whomping Willow just before the Full Moon, he'd see Pomfrey stopping the willow, and eventually figure out what she was doing well enough to do it himself ... I can't understand why (except for the sake of the plot) Dumbledore put that end of the tunnel outdoors where everyone could see it. It would have been much more private if he'd put it in a private room, maybe in a dungeon, accessed from a secret passage leading from Madam Pomfrey's office, so Remus could go to hospital wing and no one would see Pomfrey leading him elsewhere. Aussie Hagrid wrote in : << What if Merope had TWINS !!! Tom and Eileen. (snip) Not saying it is true ... just What if it is true? How would that change the way Voldemort seemed to forgive and trust Snape? How would that connect their abilities of mind reading? >> Well, it certainly wouldn't make Voldie like Snape any better. Voldie's level of family feeling is shown by him murdering his grandparents, who never did anything against him, along with his hated father. It might make Voldie hate Snape and decide to kill him. Maybe because Snape represented a further mixing of Slytherin 'blood' with Muggle 'blood'. Maybe because of hatred toward his unknown twin sister, maybe due to blaming her for their mother's death in childbirth, maybe due to jealousy that she was adopted into a family instead of loyally staying with him. mjm1089 wrote in : << At the end of the book she does take on the boggart for the exam and says that it was McGonagle saying she had failed everything. But can boggarts talk? >> Some listie suggested that Hermione was lying about what she saw the boggart do, because really she saw it as dead Harry. << Any other ideas as to why Lupin didn't let Hermione tackle the boggart? >> Some listie suggested that he didn't want Harry to feel isolated by being the only one who didn't get to tackle the boggart. I'm more inclined to think that he wanted to give only Neville more points than anyone else, so since Hermione earned her points by answering the question, he prevented her from earning still more by combatting the boggart. Talisman wrote in : << Yet, she also tells us that Muggle-borns can be Death Eaters * in rare circumstances* >> I *assume* that that statement was a reference to Peter Pettigrew. (Since canon says that James and Sirius were purebloods and Herself told a questioner that Remus is a half-blood, making Peter Muggle-born maximises Maraurder racial diversity, as well as creating another uncomfortable reason for everyone underestimating Peter.) If so, the *exceedingly* rare circumstance was that Peter happened to be Secret Keeper for the people whom LV was trying urgently to find and kill. Peter claimed, and I kind of believe, that LV or powerful agents of LV approached him, demanding information about the Potters and the Order, and he gave the information to save his life. Which would provide a reason for Petunia to have done some service for LV: he or his agents gave her a little demonstration of their power to torture and kill with impunity, and licked their chops at the opportunity of practising on Petunia and her family. And a reason for LV to have sent agents to Petunia: she's James & Lily's only sibling and thus might have information about them or a way to make them vulnerable. Which would qualify her to be convicted of helping Voldemort, but hardly qualifies her to be a Death Easter, despite the dramatic effect of proclaiming 'Petunia is a Death Eater'. I mean, like, selling an illegal explosive to an IRA operative is a crime, but doesn't make the seller an IRA member or operative. Anyway, if the Muggle-born Death Eater isn't Peter, who is it and what was the special circumstance? If it was Lucius Malfoy, the special circumstance was that he had all the British WW believing that his bloodlines were purer than anyone's. If JKR did that, it would be a kindness to wizarding general public, helping them to grasp that the aristocratic Lucius Malfoy is a convicted traitor. And it would be a kindness to Draco, helping him accept the idea that refusing to kill people is an ideological position, not just wimpiness, by knocking a great blow to his current ideology of pureblood supremacy by revealing that he himself is a lowly Halfblood. Talisman wrote in : << fascinated by those long dragon fingers. >> I thought you said he was a Hebridean Black! (Giving him another thing in common with his enemy Sirius, also a Black.) Dana wrote in : << Werewolves live in seclusion not because they were pushed out of society but because most of them were pushed into seclusion be Greyback >> Where's the canon? I know no evidence supporting your theory versus mine -- that for hundreds of years, almost all wizarding parents of bitten children have been so horrified and disgusted by their child's condition, and so afraid of being socially stigmatized because of it, that they immediately abandoned their infected child in a forest somewhere, where it survived only by being taken in by the local werewolf gang and taught how to live in the woods. Muggle parents don't know about -- don't believe in -- lycanthropy so they're both less likely to throw out their child and more likely to accidentally be killed by their child during his/her transformation. Phyllis Stevens wrote in : << Now the interesting thing to learn for me would be if Magical gifts are inherited from the mother or father's side. >> I'm under the impression that they're inherited from either side. Dean Thomas inherited magic from his unknown father and Severus Snape inherited magic from his mother Eileen. (The second example needs no citation; the first is from Herself's website: ) << Can a muggle couple produce a magical child if they have never been magical? >> Herself seems to think it happens often. I think she somewhere used the example of a blond child turning up in a family that's had brown hair for generations, but that's not a very good example, because the blond hair is a (group of) recessive gene(s) and usually comes from (distant) ancestors who were blond, while Herself wants to say they *never* had any ancestors that were magic. On the other hand, there are some well-known genetic diseases floating around that being homozygous for kills the person before birth or at least before puberty, so I suppose it's safe to say that they had no ancestors who had the pure form of the disease, only ancestors who were carriers. Sometimes the heterozygous form has an effect, like sickle-cell disease. So I suppose that being heterozygous for the magic gene could have an effect that might cause magic folk who fall in love or lust with muggles to fall only for the heterozygous muggles. And then part of the non-genetic inheritance could be that the presence of magic gives the eggs and sperm carrying the magic allele a big helping hand... At least it explains why Squibs are so rare: even Squibs have the homozygous gene for magic, but have some kind of 'birth defect' that broke their magic. IIRC some listie posted a suggestion about the magic needing to be activated by a virus. My old theory was that a person's magic is the magic of a wizard/witch who happened to die shortly before they were born and flew into the closest most appropriate baby it could find: geographical closeness, youth, genetic content, and the nearby presence of other magical people being the criteria of appropriateness. So if wizarding folk didn't have a baby boom during the years when Voldemort and DEs were killing so many people, their campaign to stamp out Muggle-borns dramatically increased the number of Muggle-borns. And if the wizarding folk had a baby boom afterwards, while fewer people were dying, there would be an untoward high number of Squibs. I think one a year would be considered an untoward high number, and this might possibly be as many as half the children born. They'd go into a total panic about it being a left-over curse from LV. << catlady1949 >> My name! Did you steal it? I admit, if you got it in 1949, you had it first. THE REST IS TO GODDLEFROOD Goddlefrood wrote in : << Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, International Confed. of Wizards (snip) Of the other listed titles Sorceror may be one Lord Voldemort covets, >> I think Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorceror is a promotion from Order of Merlin, First Class, Sorceror, which is a promotion from Order of Merlin, FIrst Class. << One dictionary definition says - "Mugwump, Noun, Usage N. American: A neutral or uncommitted person". >> Yes, but it's wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary says "1. A person who acts independently or remains neutral, especially in politics. 2. often Mugwump A Republican who bolted the party in 1884, refusing to support presidential candidate James G. Blaine." Despite the joke in 1884 that a Mugwump has his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other, he is far enough from being neutral that he will quarrel with *his own party*. And far enough from being independent that they formed their own party, the Indian Lodge of Great Chief Mugwump. Kind of like the Blue Dog Democrat Caucus. Anyway, my beloved AmHer left out definition 3, the one closest to the etymology, which is "ETYMOLOGY:Massachusett mugguomp, mummugguomp, war leader". Definition 3: a big shot. << JKR: "Dumbledore is an old English word meaning bumblebee. >> says: << "Dumbledore" is a pretty obscure word, rarely heard even in Britain and virtually unknown in the U.S. "Dumbledore," it seems, serves as the name of two entirely different (and quite dissimilar) insects. One is the bumblebee (which the English call a "humblebee"), the slow-moving, helpful denizen of flower gardens. The other sort of "dumbledore" is a nasty critter called the "cockchafer," a large, ugly and voracious beetle which eats trees. "Chafer" is another name in England for a beetle, and "cock" in this case is an allusion to the size and aggressiveness of a rooster. Boy, do I not want to meet this bug. Fortunately, "dumbledore" is almost always used to mean a bumblebee. The "bumble" in "bumblebee," the "humble" in "humblebee," and the "dumble" in "dumbledore" are all echoic in origin, meaning that the words themselves are supposed to imitate the sound of a loud hum. ("Bumble" meaning "to flub" or "blunder" is an entirely different word.) The "dore" in "dumbledore" comes from the Old English "dora," which meant an insect that flies and makes a loud humming sound. >> That was too good to snip, but my point is how taken I was with the word 'cockchafer' when I encountered it during long-ago Potterfan research. It turns out there are *two* cockchafers, one the aggressive June Bug described above and the other a hard-working dung beetle. << Several moons ago I posted something called "A Bizarre Theory on a Grand Scale" [26]. The basic premise in that theory was that Dumbledore had manipulated the situation in the wizarding world to get rid of Lord Voldemort through the Prophecy. >> Have you studied MAGIC DISHWASHER? << `Professor Dumbledore is Harry's real grandfather/close relative of some description. If Dumbledore had been Harry's grandfather, why on earth would he have been sent to live with the Dursleys?' >> Because DD's plan to use the Prophecy Boy as a weapon depended either on him growing up completely ignorant of the wizarding world, or growing up in unpleasantness, or both. I would like for him to be Lily's great-great-grandfather, altho' one 'great' is also possible. Lily was born in 1960 according to the Lexicon or 1957 according to me. I also was born in 1957, my late mother was born in 1927, IIRC my late grandmother was born in 1897, and the pattern suggests that my great-grandmother was born in 1867. Dumbledore, born 1840, was around 26-27 when Lily's great-grandparent was born, and around 56-57 when Lily's grandparent was born. I like to think that Dumbledore was married three times, the first two times to Muggles who went and died of old age. The third time to a witch who was a DADA specialist -- DADA professor while he was Transfiguration professor? The position wasn't cursed before he became Headmaster, right? Maybe Grindelwald was a local Dark Lord of coincidental timing, and he killed "Mrs Dumbledore" (Professor Merrythought?) when she tried to rescue one of her students who had been captured by Grindelwald and therefore Albus took Grindelwald because of revenge rather than because of public hygiene. << At every turn Dumbledore is aware that all bad things in the wizarding world as it currently exists in canon flow from LV. >> Umbridge doesn't flow from LV. Rita Skeeter doesn't flow from LV. Gilderoy Lockhart doesn't flow from LV. << as the very first coup leader in this glorious land I live in said, there is no other way. >> It doesn't seem to interfere with YOUR freedom of expression on the Internet. << What I do think about Mrs. Figg is that her maiden name was Perkins >> Just because of the cabbage smell? That seems very skimpy evidence. Maybe *she* is Albus's granddaughter or great-granddaughter. How much track do I think he keeps of his possibly numerous descendents? More track of the wizarding ones (a reason for Malfoy to blame him for half-bloods!) than of the Muggle ones? From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 11 03:02:40 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:02:40 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170115 Jen: > Why paint Dumbledore as being a progressive for letting > Lupin attend Hogwarts if that's all there is to the matter? > [...] > I'm not sure how JKR means to present werewolves, what > the comparison is in the real world (I see no comparison > myself), but she does seem to be saying their danger is > not the whole of their being, that if the possibility > exists to bring people who have been bitten into the fold of > mainstream society to live and work, there's hope for them. houyhnhnm: What Rowling said is that Lupin is a "damaged person, literally and metaphorically. [....] His being a werewolf is really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability." I have a problem with Lupin as a metaphor for people in the real world fighting discrimination because of illness or disability. If that is what she really meant to say, then I believe her thinking is confused, because what people with illness or disability are fighting is something that is wholly within the minds of their persecutors. It is nothing in themselves. With werewolves it is what they really are that causes other wizards to fear them. That doesn't mean that it isn't laudable on Dumbledore's part to want to give werewolves a place in Wizard society. It *is* progressive. Just as he gave Snape a second chance, just as he arranged for Hagrid to stay on at Hogwarts to be trained as a gamekeeper (I suspect Dumbledore believed Hagrid was innocent; still he couldn't prove it. Hagrid was not exonerated.) That is a different thing from hiring someone whose only offense is in the eyes of their beholders. I think a better comparison for werewolves would be to those who have committed anti-social acts but are okay as long as they take their medication. It is certainly more laudable to give a convicted sex offender, for instance, a chance at becoming a worthwhile member of society than to run him out of the neighborhood, but the fear of the neighbors in that case is not a baseless prejudice. It is not like running someone out of your neighborhood because they have AIDS. I think Rowling's comment likening Lupin to a person with a chronic ilness or disability was not well thought out. I wish she hadn't said it. From amis917 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 03:10:19 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:10:19 -0000 Subject: Passwords (was: Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot??) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170116 > Alla wrote: > > I of course think of mudblood in Pensieve scene and password to > Slytherin dorms in CoS, which I do not buy for a second was created > by somebody else but Snape IMO. > > Julie: > That's a very interesting point, Alla! I've never actually thought about > who, if anyone, creates or changes the passwords for each House. > I don't recall any definitive canon about it either, though the Head of > House is as good a guess as any. Another possibility is a long- standing > list of passwords for each House that are routinely shuffled (in which > case "Mudblood" might have been created years, decades, even centuries > earlier). > Amis917: I responded to this post becuase I thought that the prefects created the passwords. When started searching however, I think there's more evidence that the portriat does it. I thought the prefects did it because in OOtP, Harry returns to the dorm and doesn't know the password. Neville comes and knows it because it's the name of his new plant. I always took this to mean that Hermonie made the password that because she knows Neville has a tendency to forget them. It made me smile to think that anyway. So, I'll hold onto this idea and belive that Hermonie suggested it. However, in PoA - Neville can't remember all of the passwords that Sir Cadogan is coming up with. He asks him for a list, which is then stolen. This is how Sirius gets into the dorm. In HBP, Harry and Ron return from the Christmas holiday to discover that the password has been changed. Hermonie comes and tells them it's abstinence. Hermonie goes on to explain that the Fat Lady and her friend Viiolet drank the wine from another picture. (Ch 17 - US hb, p351) Also, later in HBP Harry returns with Slughorn's memory. The Fat Lady, annoyed that Harry has woken her up, pretends the password has changed. She says that it's the headmaster's fault because he's the one who has tightened security. (CH 23 - US hb, p492) Anyway, in Cos - I think the password is "pure-blood" and not "mud- blood". I always thought it had been changed becuase of the importance the Slytherin house puts on blood purity. In the wake of the attacks, they were just reminding everyone in their house how great it is. We know, however, that not all members of the house are pure-bloods. It is possible, I suppose, that each house has something different set up. Gryffindor uses the portriat to create the passwords. One would think that the passwords might have to be approved, but maybe not. I don't have CoS handy, so I can't check on what exactly happens when Harry and Ron enter the Slytherin common room. Amis917 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 04:03:09 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:03:09 -0000 Subject: Passwords (was: Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot??) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170117 > Amis917: > It is possible, I suppose, that each house has something different > set up. Gryffindor uses the portriat to create the passwords. One > would think that the passwords might have to be approved, but maybe > not. I don't have CoS handy, so I can't check on what exactly > happens when Harry and Ron enter the Slytherin common room. zgirnius: I always thought the Fat Lady made up the passwords. (Though I like the idea Hermione suggested one for Neville - but she could have suggested it to the Fat Lady). Slytherin does not have a portrait at their entrance, though, so they would have to have something else set up. Their entrance is in the dungeon, and looks just like the wall of the corridor until the password is spoken. > CoS, "Polyjuice Potion": > Malfoy paused by a stretch of bare, damp stone wall. "What's the new password again?" he said to Harry. "Oh yeah - pure-blood!" said Malfoy, not listening, and a stone door concealed in the wall slid open. zgirnius: Pure blood, of course, is a canon selection criterion for membership in the house. From caleksandrova at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 04:53:04 2007 From: caleksandrova at gmail.com (Karina Aleksandrova) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:53:04 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170118 TKJ wrote: > > This just came to me and I don't remember if it was stated in any of > the books but since DD had heard the prophecy and knew it could have > been one of the two families were the Longbottom's hidden too? Did > they have a secret keeper? Was this mentioned anywhere? > > It just seems odd to me that all this protection was put into place > for the Potters but nothing at all for Neville and his family. If > that was the case why just the Potters then? What information did > they have that lead them to only protect them and not the > Longbottoms as well. Karina: The Longbottoms must not have had a secret keeper, or at least like the Potters -- not a reliable one, because the Death-Eaters did find them after the Voldemort's downfall and torture them for the information about the Potters. I would imagine that they had the information from Snape, who knew which family Lord Voldemort selected, as that was (in Dumbledore's opinion) the reason why he returned: "But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onward, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were the people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father [...] You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had intepreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned -" (HBP, Ch. 25) TKJ: > > Plus, the entire Order doesn't know about the prophecy so how would > DD have explained the need to hide these two specific families? Or > the need to only hide the Potters? Karina: I think Dumbledore could merely explain that Snape knew of Voldemort's plans as a former DE and now spy for "the right side". No doubt the Order of the Phoenix would not find it strange that Voldemort decided to hunt down one of the families in the Order who have already "thrice defied him", that he'd want them finished. VexingConfection: > Here's my question- > 1-what was Snape really doing there that day? Did he go to get a > job, spy for LV, both or another reason? > 2-Dumbledore told Harry that he knew Snape had told LV of the > prophecy- was that the reason that Dumbledore had trusted him or did > Dumble merely keep him close for observation also? > 3-Snape was never trusted with the DADA class-what was the reasoning > for that? > 4-Could Snape have been finally given the DADA class to prove to LV > that he had won Dumbledore's trust and Snape was actually working > for Dumbledore all along? I read a really good fanfic to this > effect- if it's not true- I wish it was. Karina: 1) Yes, probably both. Dumbledore indicates that Snape was still in Voldemort's employ, when he heard the prophecy, and naturally he reported what he heard that day. It was also Voldemort's wish that Snape apply for a position at Hogwarts, to spy on Dumbledore, so it's possible he was there for that reason too. There may also be other reasons that we don't yet know. 2) No to both questions. I do think that Dumbledore didn't reveal the full reason why he trusted Snape's remorse (and we will find out about it, most likely). And at the same time I emphatically believe that Dumbledore didn't have a single doubt in Snape return. He vouched for him on several occasions before the Ministry of Magic, before the members of the Order and Harry. He wouldn't let anyone speak against him. 3) Well, that was the implied reason throughout 5 books, but now we know more, and the obvious (to me) reason why Dumbledore didn't let Snape teach DADA is because he knew the position has been cursed by Lord Voldemort. He didn't want to lose Snape like the many many teachers of the DADA that change every year. He perhaps felt that Snape would be useful still as a spy and as a skillful potioneer, when Voldemort returns (and Dumbledore knew that sooner or later it would happen). 4) No, this premise doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore suddenly after so many years begins to trust Snape, why give him the position that is cursed, so that he'd lose his trusted ally within a year? Karina From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 06:46:02 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:46:02 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170119 > > Sherry: > > > > I think Snape is prejudiced against werewolves in general--the > > way he refers to and speaks to Lupin--and against Lupin in > > particular. Mike: It's funny, how Hagrid can call Filch a "sneakin' Squib" and that is called a prejudicial remark, yet when Snape makes his numerous snide werewolf comments and calls Lily Evans a "filthy Mudblood", they are put down to situational animosity. What, praytell, was Snape's animosity against the girl who seemed to be trying to stop the bullying? I agree with Sherry, Snape has outed himself as a bigot, or at the very least, has freely used bigotted speech. We get one look at things in the Marauder's school days, in SWM, after which James and Sirius are branded as bullies, as in, they must have done that before. But Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" has to be an aberration?! IMO this is a blatant double standard. If James and Sirius must have been picking on Snape for years, why shouldn't we also believe that Snape has used that highly offensive term before? > wynnleaf > > JKR has *already* shown that Lupin would make choices -- as a human, > not a werewolf -- to let his friends bully and torment another > person when it was his clear responsibility as a prefect to attempt > to stop it. He does this (self confessed) because of not wanting > to lose friends. Further, he keeps secrets which could endanger an > entire school of children, once again (self confessed) in order to > keep the headmaster's goodwill. Why would being a werewolf create > some sort of mitigating circumstance? Mike: Lupin was weak, that is an accepted fact, imo. That is his *excuse* for the way he acts. Keep in mind that he has had to deal with the *very real* debilitating condition for a long time without the aid of a Wolfsbane potion. Also, by all indications, he has had to deal with being shunned from chilhood because of his condition. As I say, it is an *excuse* not a valid reason. But I might say that this qualifies as a "mitigating circumstance". But read on, let's compare to Snape. > wynnleaf > As regards Snape's dislike of Lupin, yes, Snape plays the werewolf > "card" to insult Lupin. But my impression has always been that he > does that, not because of a general bigotry against werewolves (who > he never insults in a general way), but because he hates Lupin in > particular -- for his very human weaknesses -- and will use > anything, however unfairly, to insult him. Mike: As you say further down and Carol brought up in another post, Snape has a real fear of werewolves, founded or unfounded, and a hatred for what almost happened at the jaws of this particular werewolf. So is it bigotry, or can it more accurately be called rational, in Snape's mind, distrust of anything werewolf? I would say that Snape is freely using a bigotted term out of a perceived rational hatred for a member of the oppressed group. Like you said, wynnleaf, much like an adolescent would do. > wynnleaf > To me, it's a little similar to Snape's mudblood comment. There > isn't any other instance in canon to really support Snape > being a pureblood elitist -- his Half Blood Prince name implies > the opposite. It seems far more likely to me that he used the > term just because it was an available weapon at hand to use, not > because he really had any problem with Lily being muggleborn. Mike: Here I disagree. We *have* only one instance in canon from Snape's school days. As I said above, if it was good enough to brand James and Sirius, why isn't it good enough to brand Severus? Draco doesn't call Hermione a Mudblood every time he's in close proximity to her, yet we are all convinced of his pure-blood superiority beliefs. But we have a one-for-one correlation with Severus and Lily and the use of "Mudblood". Until I'm informed differently, I'm calling Snape a bigot on this account. There is a lot of water under the bridge since that utterance, yet Snape has no problem using another bigotted term in PoA. Now, where's the canon that proves he's not a bigot? > wynnleaf > > Further, Snape never trusts Lupin. And the thing is, Snape was > right. Mike: No, Snape was wrong about Lupin. Snape thought and *stated* in the Shack that Lupin was helping Sirius get into the grounds. Not turning state's witness against Sirius is not the same as "helping". Plus both of them, and Dumbledore, knew that Sirius knew about the Shack's secret passage onto the grounds. When you add in that Sirius was *not* the traitor, was *not* trying to kill Harry, then I don't see how Snape can be considered to be *right* about anything other than the given that Lupin was weak. > wynnleaf > Even though his assumptions were in many ways wrong, and > even though it turned out that Sirius was not the traitor, Snape > was *right* to distrust Lupin, who was keeping secret vital > information and, for all Lupin knew, was endangering the > students solely for his own benefit. Mike: Which brings up another point regarding Lupin and Snape. Why shouldn't Lupin be just as suspicious of Snape as Snape is of Lupin? They all knew that Snape was "fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school." That he ran around with a "gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." And that even though Snape was never accused of being a DE (Sirius is wrong here), that Snape was "clever and cunning enough to keep himself out of trouble." Ergo, Lupin should have suspected that Snape had been and could still be a Death Eater. Lupin had convinced himself that Sirius was getting into the castle because he was using Dark Arts, something Snape was famous for. That Sirius had turned traitor and become a DE, something that Lupin and his running mates suspected Snape had done (and in this case, their suspicions were well founded - Snape had become a DE). Why shouldn't all the evidence point to Snape as Sirius' accomplice, from Lupin's perspective? Lupin should have revealed Sirius was an animagus. That's one secret that Lupin is definitely at fault for not coming forward. But how many people died from Lupin keeping this secret? None. Close calls in their youth, but still none. Snape has a secret from his younger days that others may be interested in also. Snape overheard a certain prospective divination teacher make a prophesy and reported that news to his boss. How many people died from this *secret*? By my count, two. So who has the moral high ground at the time of PoA, Snape or Lupin? Lupin made mistakes, Snape made mistakes. Which ones mistakes were more costly? > wynnleaf > He's[Snape] used to using legilimency to determine lies, truth, and > other intent. It's possible that he really *can't* fathom Lupin's > mind and blames it on his being a werewolf. I tend to think there > are enough instances of Lupin appearing to use legilimency and > occlumency to guess that he does have these abilities, and that > Snape may run up against a mental wall when trying to "fathom" > Lupin. Mike: I think Lupin uses a rudimentary or passable form of Legilmency, on several occasions. But I don't remember any time that he's credited with using Occlumency. I realize these two are closely related disciplines, but it seems that Occlumency is the more difficult to master. I just don't get the feeling that Lupin is that good at Legilemency and probably very poor if at all able with Occlumency. Besides, Snape has shown an aptitude for detecting when someone is trying to use Occlumency against him. JMHO. Mike From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 07:33:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:33:53 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170120 houyhnhnm: > Lupin, in human form, may not relish the thought of > biting or killing humans (though the fear of doing so > is not enough to make him cautious), but without > Wolfsbane, Lupin transformed is, in his own words, > "a fully fledged monster." > > Being HIV positive or having a seizure disorder (to > name just a couple of conditions that do excite prejudice > in the real world) do not put other people at risk. > Being a werewolf puts other people at risk. > > If Lupin is supposed to represent people in the real > world, I'd say he is a little closer to the guy with > multiple drug resistant TB who insisted on flying half > way round the world without a mask, than he is to an > AIDS patient or someone with a physical disability. Dana: Interesting because Lupin only puts people at risk once a month and only at night time, yet he is treated like he is a danger all the time. People with HIV are a risk to other people if they do not take precautions, like having safe sex, being careful with blood products ect. In Afrika women infect their children but with medication this could be prevented. People with HIV however do not posse a risk to people in normal life just as Lupin doesn't either. In my country currently there is a scandal about 4 people who at parties injected people with HIV infected blood without their consent, does this mean that suddenly all HIV positive people are going to do this? That we are therefore having to ban these people from their job, deny all of them a normal life because they might be possing a risk at some time in their life's because that is what you seem to be saying. > wynnleaf: > Here's JKR's quote: > "His being a werewolf is really a metaphor for people's reactions > to illness and disability." > > The fact that JKR said that Lupin is a "metaphor for people's > reactions to illness and disability," does not mean that whenever > any character dislikes Lupin, it simply *must* be because he's a > werewolf, and that Lupin can't possibly turn out to do anything > *really* wrong, because -- well, I'm not sure what the reasoning > actually is. Because people with illnesses and disablities in > literature are bound to be good and anything wrong they do has to > be excused because of their disability? I doubt it that's the > message of JKR. Dana: But the problem is that people actually do judge his mistakes harder because he is a werewolf. It is constantly said that he put the trio in danger because it was a full moon night and he forgot his potion and therefore he was wrong because he should remember under all circumstance including emergencies that he is a werewolf first and not just a human. Let's say you are HIV infected and you are the only person around that could prevent someone from bleeding to death? Should you do nothing because there is a chance that you could infect that person? Or is it even reasonable that a person under these circumstances first takes the time to have a rational debate with himself about what is the morally right thing to do, instead of reacting instinctively to the impulses he receives in that moment? Should the victim in hind-sight drag the person to court for endangering his life by saving him because he was HIV infected? That is what people say Lupin should have done while they are forgetting that Lupin actually never was a threat to anyone because Sirius was there and Sirius, like he did during their school days, can keep a werewolf in check. Lupin did not think about taking his potion, he forgot the time but there was still a safety precaution present and although not consciously thinking about this probably Lupin did know Sirius was there before he went to the shack. Does this mean he should not think about what could have happened if Sirius had not been there to get him away? Yes, he should and he takes responsibility for it like he should but it is in hind-sight. Lupin did not forget to take his potion or the time because he is ESE and wanted to provide Peter with an escape route, he forgot it because he is a human that got overwhelmed by the information thrown at him in these few minutes he saw Peter on the map and then Sirius dragging Ron into the willow. He forgot about the pressing time and it being a full moon night because of the unfolding events in the shack and him trying hard to mend the bridge between Harry and Sirius shared past. These mistakes were human mistakes and had nothing to do with him being a werewolf, yet his mistakes are judged because he is a werewolf. Snape on the other hand is giving a total pardon for his actions in the shack because he might think Harry was in danger, while him going to the shack had nothing to do with Harry. Lupin, if he transformed in the shack, actually would not posse a threat to anyone needing of saving (in Snape's mind). Mhhh should he not under all circumstances remember that he should go to DD and let DD handle Lupin and Sirius? Especially because he can't deal with the situation without the prejudice has for these men, because what he feels they did to him? Even Snape who mocks Lupin about not taking his potion, mocking him for never believing there is such a thing as a tame werewolf, wants to drag Snape out of the shack the only place where Lupin would not posse a direct threat to anyone. It was not Snape's problem but he made it his the moment he decided to interfere and gag and bond Lupin. Lupin's mistakes are judge differently because he is a werewolf and why JKR puts this in PoA to precisely evoke people to think about it. Should Lupin because he made these mistakes never be allowed to work with kids? Should not be allowed to have a job? Should not be allowed to have a normal life? Should not be allowed to be considered a human first? JKR is not going to make Lupin ESE for the simple fact that Remus as a human does not have it in him to want to hurt other humans and him being a werewolf does effect his view of life and why he puts himself down constantly but he will not be going out to help utterly destroy the WW society because he is to human to ever want this to happen. toonmili: > Greyback: Likes to bite little children even when he is not > transformed. > > Supporters of Greyback: Which is just as bad as being greyback > himself. > > So history tells him werewolves want to hurt you, eat children and > bite at will. SO really he doesn't know how a werewolf thinks. Dana: Greyback is not an evil werewolf. He is an evil human who uses the fear for his werewolf part to inflict more fear. His werewolf part can't plot anything, has no evil thoughts or feelings. It just is running on instinct, nothing more nothing less. It is Greyback the human, who has made the decision to live the way he does not Greyback the werewolf. And the proof in that is that he needs to place himself within striking range when he is still in human form because if he is not close enough as a werewolf he would forget what he is doing there and miss the change to strike his chosen victim. Greyback the human is using his werewolf infectiousness to punish people and thus install fear in people to force them to do as he tells them. Even Draco is using Greyback to install fear. Snape was totally out of line to state that he can't phantom the way a werewolf's works while he is dealing with Lupin the human. Snape would be singing a much lower tune if he actually had been dealing with werewolf Lupin. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 08:35:59 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:35:59 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170121 Catlady: > What is the canon that Snape never ratted on his friends? It is > canon that Rosier and Wilkes were both killed by Aurors, and that > Rosier was killed while resisting arreast; I think Wilkes also was > resisting arrest. Maybe the Aurors knew where to lurk to catch > them committing a crime because Sevvie had told his friends' crime > plan to Dumbledore. Making Sevvie parallel to Peter as someone who > left the side to which he had pledged allegiance and gave the > other side information that led to the death of his friends. Of > course it is only parallel if saving the lives of innocent victims > is less important than not ratting out > your friends and/or betraying your loyalty. Dana: Canon never suggests that he did, it would be an assumption to say that he did. For Peter on the other hand, just like Karkaroff, it has been suggested in canon that he gave LV, or the MoM (Karkaroff), information. For Snape it never had been suggested anything other then him spying on LV and DD. Well until he himself suddenly claimed to have given LV information on the Order, Emmeline Vance and information that helped to dispose of Black (which does not have to imply he gave information on Sirius but something that helped Sirius get out of hiding). No one on either side makes this claim about Snape and as we see Snape certainly did not tell anyone what he knew about Lucius and even treats his son as his most favourite. Sirius for instance knew about Rosier and Wilkes being DEs without ever talking to Snape about it so it does not suggest that this information came from Snape and it therefore can be just as well be due to their were involved with DE activity, which they were not all as conspicuous about as Snape. Catlady: > On another tentacle, if Snape was loyal to LV and went to spy on DD > for LV, LV wouldn't mind sacrificing a couple of low ranking Death > Eaters to prove Snape's bona fides to DD. Loyalty to LV creating > murderous betrayal of friends -- LV seems to like that. Dana: That is again just an assumption that LV would allow his DEs to sell out other DEs for his cause. We actually never see him do that. Besides DD would not need to be persuaded in such away, it is only the MoM and mainly Barty Crouch who worked like that. JMHO Dana From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 09:53:13 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:53:13 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170122 houyhnhnm: > > What Rowling said is that Lupin is a "damaged person, > literally and metaphorically. [....] His being a werewolf > is really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness > and disability." > > I have a problem with Lupin as a metaphor for people > in the real world fighting discrimination because of > illness or disability. If that is what she really meant > to say, then I believe her thinking is confused, because > what people with illness or disability are fighting is > something that is wholly within the minds of their > persecutors. It is nothing in themselves. With > werewolves it is what they really are that causes > other wizards to fear them. Dung: Did she ever clarify *whose* reaction she was referring to? Society's reactions to people with illnesses and disabilities, or on an individual level, how disabled people react to their own illness or disability? Lupin cultivates an image of meekness, harmlessness, of being slow to anger, of being a responsible adult (unlike Sirius), of being at peace with his past (feeling sorry for the werewolf who bit him, so unlike Snape), of being a good teacher and a good example. This very gentle, passive image that he tries to project (which is contradicted by him forgetting his potion, flying out to the shack, hiding information from DD etc etc) is almost certainly a psychological reaction to the terror he feels about becoming a fully- fledged monster once a month. "If I make myself as unthreatening as possible in everyday life, if I dress shabbily, I don't anger people, if I don't have a go at my friends even when I think they're wrong, if I can even be polite and calm with *Snape* of all people, then surely I'm doing my bit to show that werewolves can be trusted to be a functioning part of society." Um no, sorry. It's no good *pretending* to be a responsible member of society, you have to walk the walk too. As 71-hour Ahmed says in "Jingo", by Terry Pratchett: "Be generous, Sir Samuel. *Truly* treat all men equally. Allow Klatchians the right to be scheming bastards, hmm?" Dungrollin. From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 10:38:15 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:38:15 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karina Aleksandrova" wrote: > VexingConfection: > > 4-Could Snape have been finally given the DADA class to prove to LV > > that he had won Dumbledore's trust and Snape was actually working > > for Dumbledore all along? I read a really good fanfic to this > > effect- if it's not true- I wish it was. > > Karina: > 4) No, this premise doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore suddenly > after so many years begins to trust Snape, why give him the position > that is cursed, so that he'd lose his trusted ally within a year? Charles: My theory on this, and it works for DDM! or ESE! Snape, is that DD needed Slughorn at the school. DD was all set to send Snape to LV full time, and have him make reports by patronus. As the DDA curse does not necessarily kill, they decide that the most natural way to accomplish this is by making Snape the DDA teacher until such time as he can make his way to be with LV full time. The UV, and later consequences would be after such decision was made, IMO, so I really think that it was a way to get Snape out of Hogwarts and into LV's presence more. Like I say, it can work for ESE!Snape too, I can hear the scene with LV now-"My Lord, I have achieved the Defense Post." "Excellent, Severus. We now have someone who can ________" (Insert whatever the DA job was good for to the DE's.) Charles, who is impatiently waiting to read JKR's DH, as it will finally lay a lot of questions to rest. From catlady1949 at comcast.net Mon Jun 11 09:09:37 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:09:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! References: Message-ID: <005501c7ac08$3cee3b30$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 170124 Magpie wrote concerning Snape: We've never seen him exhibit any particular prejudice against Muggle-borns during the story when we've seen him--though as I've said before, that in itself doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem with Slughorn. -- What about the fact that he almost always ignores Hermione each time she raises her hand in class. I realize that she is one who knows most of the answers through her studying prior to class, but to simply ignore her and grudgingly calling on her seems to me to be a muggle resentment as well as perhaps a prejudice against the group. Wasn't Lily also very intelligent? Maybe she reminds him of Lily, so again he has a personal reason to not like Hermione, therefore, it looks as if he is prejudice against all muggle-borns. So again we are back to is he prejudice against all werewolves or just the personal dislike of Lupin. Still waiting to find out about all this! catlady1949 at comcast.net add me to your MSN: Catlady1949 at Comcast.net From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 11:06:36 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:06:36 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > What is the canon that Snape never ratted on his friends? It is >canon that Rosier and Wilkes were both killed by Aurors, and that >Rosier was killed while resisting arreast; I think Wilkes also was >resisting arrest. Maybe the Aurors knew where to lurk to catch them > committing a crime because Sevvie had told his friends' crime plan >to Dumbledore. > Making Sevvie parallel to Peter as someone who left the side to >which > he had pledged allegiance and gave the other side information that >led > to the death of his friends. Of course it is only parallel if >saving > the lives of innocent victims is less important than not ratting >out > your friends and/or betraying your loyalty. Sridhar says: I may be biased, but I would think that once you have changed sides, friends on the other side are enemies, as the two sides are waging a war. Then it doesn't matter whether you are on the good side or on the bad side, since in both cases your erstwhile friends are going to die. Of course, you may have to weigh in the factor that being on the good side actually saves a lot of people from being killed in the long run. > << At every turn Dumbledore is aware that all bad things in the > wizarding world as it currently exists in canon flow from LV. >> > > Umbridge doesn't flow from LV. Rita Skeeter doesn't flow from LV. > Gilderoy Lockhart doesn't flow from LV. Umbridge happened only to hogwarts. Rita Skeeter happened to Harry. Gilderoy Lockhart was not "bad". The post specifically mentions the WW, which means everyone is in danger. Sridhar From phil at pcsgames.net Mon Jun 11 11:55:15 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:55:15 -0400 Subject: riding dragons References: Message-ID: <012501c7ac1f$657db7d0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 170126 The only mention about riding dragons I've found is from POA: he dreamed that Malfoy and the rest of the Slytherin team arrived for the Quidditch match riding dragons. Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 11 14:04:27 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:04:27 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170127 > > > Sherry: > > > > > > I think Snape is prejudiced against werewolves in general--the > > > way he refers to and speaks to Lupin--and against Lupin in > > > particular. > > Mike: > It's funny, how Hagrid can call Filch a "sneakin' Squib" and that is > called a prejudicial remark, yet when Snape makes his numerous snide > werewolf comments and calls Lily Evans a "filthy Mudblood", they are > put down to situational animosity. What, praytell, was Snape's > animosity against the girl who seemed to be trying to stop the > bullying? Magpie: I agree--it's prejudice in all three cases. That's why I think it's unhelpful to look at bigotry as something one is or one isn't, as if if someone is not a bigot then it's just situational animosity and if they are it's bigotry. Whether or not Snape supports werewolf legislation or not, and no matter what he believed about pureblood superiority intellectually, he chose in two cases to use bigotry against people because he could. (Though as to what Snape's animosity was towards Lily, obviously it was for humiliating him by coming to his rescue.) If Snape has outed himself as a bigot, which I think he has by using those words, so did Hagrid. Every character is different and using the word "squib" or "werewolf" doesn't automatically make the person a Death Eater who supports all kinds of bigotry to the most extreme levels, but it is all bigotry. When Snape and Hagrid choose to use those words to put the other person down, they're taking advantage of the greater bigotry that exists, which they can because they aren't in the minority groups in these cases. > Mike: > Here I disagree. We *have* only one instance in canon from Snape's > school days. As I said above, if it was good enough to brand James > and Sirius, why isn't it good enough to brand Severus? Draco doesn't > call Hermione a Mudblood every time he's in close proximity to her, > yet we are all convinced of his pure-blood superiority beliefs. > > But we have a one-for-one correlation with Severus and Lily and the > use of "Mudblood". Until I'm informed differently, I'm calling Snape > a bigot on this account. There is a lot of water under the bridge > since that utterance, yet Snape has no problem using another bigotted > term in PoA. Now, where's the canon that proves he's not a bigot? Magpie: I would add further evidence that Snape was a Death Eater, a group that's pretty open about its own bigoted beliefs. This, too, I've certainly heard as being about something other than bigotry, but I don't see that it matters. I was very surprised when Snape's use of the word Mudblood was considered just an aberration by many readers-- as far as I remember, don't we have three student characters who ever use the term? Snape, Draco and Tom Riddle. I can't even remember any adults using the word--oh wait, Kreacher and Mrs. Black. It seems unlikely the word could ever be dismissed in canon as not being serious. Mike: That > Sirius had turned traitor and become a DE, something that Lupin and > his running mates suspected Snape had done (and in this case, their > suspicions were well founded - Snape had become a DE). Why shouldn't > all the evidence point to Snape as Sirius' accomplice, from Lupin's > perspective? Magpie: Ooh--good point. I suppose one could say that while Lupin could believe Sirius would join Voldemort, he couldn't ever believe he would be anything but hostile to Snape...? Dana: That is what people say Lupin should have done while they are forgetting that Lupin actually never was a threat to anyone because Sirius was there and Sirius, like he did during their school days, can keep a werewolf in check. Lupin did not think about taking his potion, he forgot the time but there was still a safety precaution present and although not consciously thinking about this probably Lupin did know Sirius was there before he went to the shack. Does this mean he should not think about what could have happened if Sirius had not been there to get him away? Yes, he should and he takes responsibility for it like he should but it is in hind-sight. Magpie: I think this is stretching a bit. Saying "does this mean he should not think about what could have happened" in hindsight is like already assuming he was thinking about it beforehand, which he wasn't. The mistake he made certainly were all about his being human, of course. Just as Snape's actions all come from Snape's own issues. He's hardly acting with any more of a cool head than Lupin. All these older men are making mistakes, just as they did back the first time everything went wrong. Catlady: What about the fact that he almost always ignores Hermione each time she raises her hand in class. I realize that she is one who knows most of the answers through her studying prior to class, but to simply ignore her and grudgingly calling on her seems to me to be a muggle resentment as well as perhaps a prejudice against the group. Magpie: I actually don't see any sign of Muggleborn prejudice in the least in the way Snape treats Hermione, so I don't think of it as any kind of sign. His treatment of her completely suits her personality (in Snape's terms, of course). She's "a know it all." He snipes at her for helping Neville. But I see no sign that her parentage has anything to do with it. He seems to go after Harry, Neville and Hermione all in different ways because of things he doesn't like about them as individuals. Ironically, Slughorn has beliefs in Pureblood superiority, and praises Hermione a lot. She's one of those funny situations, an exception. I think Snape has done things that do point to blood prejudice-- using the word Mudblood and being a Death Eater. I just don't honestly see any sign of it in his treatment of Hermione. If it's secretly informing his actions and complaining about her blood status off page, I just haven't seen evidence of it yet. I'm not saying that it couldn't ever be true because we do have a past history of virulent anti-Muggle-born prejudice is Snape's past. I just think trying to read it into his behavior towards Hermione is difficult--a bit like reading it into Molly's behavior towards Hermione, which could also be done. -m From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Jun 11 14:22:34 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:22:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181571754.22356.1194535771@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170128 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:06:36 -0000, "sridharj_ap" said: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince > Winston)" wrote: > > << At every turn Dumbledore is aware that all bad things in the > > wizarding world as it currently exists in canon flow from LV. >> > > > > Umbridge doesn't flow from LV. Rita Skeeter doesn't flow from LV. > > Gilderoy Lockhart doesn't flow from LV. > > Umbridge happened only to hogwarts. Rita Skeeter happened to Harry. > Gilderoy Lockhart was not "bad". The post specifically mentions the > WW, which means everyone is in danger. The post says "all bad things in the wizarding world" - not "all bad things that endanger the wizarding world as a whole". I would disagree that "Umbridge doesn't flow from LV" - the corruption in the ministry (of which Umbridge is most visible example) is strongly intertwined with LV's existence, though the "flow" goes in both directions, with ministry corruption acting in some ways to make LV stronger. As for the others... Lockhart is perhaps not quite as bad as LV, but you can't seriously be claiming his behavior is acceptable. What happened to him in COS was intended for Ron and Harry. And do you think Harry (or Hermione, who she targeted more in GoF) was Rita's only victim? -- Random832 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 14:38:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:38:53 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170129 > Catlady: > > What is the canon that Snape never ratted on his friends? > Dana: > Canon never suggests that he did, it would be an assumption to say > that he did. > Dana: > For Snape it never had been suggested anything other then him spying > on LV and DD. zgirnius: The distinction you are making, as I see it, is that Snape spied on Dumbledore and Voldemort, but not any of their followers? I find this not credible. I believe Dumbledore would be interested in the activities of other Death Eaters, and Snape would report on them. Even if Snape only reported on Voldemort, this could still constitute ratting on friends, because a report on Voldemort might consist of "The Dark Lord ordered Evan Rosier to kill Person X in Place Y at time Z," which would be more than enough to ensure the arrest of Rosier, even though it is a report on Voldemort. However, the bigger problem I have with this whole idea - what information about *Voldemort* has Snape given Dumbledore? See the problem? There is none in canon. Dumbledore even manages not to say directly that Snape told him how Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy (though personally I don't see how Snape could tell his 'tale of remorse' without mentioning this fact). All we know is that Dumbledore is satisfied that Snape was a spy for the good guys. We have no examples of the intelligence he brought on which to hang an elaborate distinction like idea that Snape only reported on Voldemort, and never on other Death Eaters. We could conclude from this that Snape never did bring any information about anything to the good guys, but that makes Dumbledore a complete fool. Or, we could conclude that he must have brought more than one piece of potentially useful information, and we simply are not being told about it. This is what I believe. It does not prove Snape is a good guy (the information he brought could have been Voldemort-approved, sacrificed for the long-term purpose of establishing Snape's credentials with Dumbledore). Or it could have been genuine useful information and Snape was willing to risk Voldemort's anger for his nfarious (anbd to me, most mysterious) OFH! purposes. But there has to have been information. The idea that some of that information led to the spate of arrests and deaths among the Death Eaters known to Karkaroff is a guess, but if it did not, that means there must have been *other* information, about which we have no canon clues. Sticking with what we know seems more reasonable to me. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 11 15:07:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:07:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] replies to many, many, many posts Message-ID: <5003750.1181574447028.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170130 Catlady: >Amanda predicted in ><< (2) Hermione discovers the tarot and thus they realize they are >looking for, among other things, Rowena Ravenclaw's wand. >> > >*If* the Founders' souvenirs are based on the Tarot (and I admit that >sword, cup, and locket fit pretty well to sword, cup, and coin), then >I object that Rowling gave the water symbol (cup) to the Founder of >the earth house (Hufflepuff) and the earth symbol (the locket) to the >Founder of the water house (Slytherin). > >Tarot fans have an ongoing disagreement whether Swords or Rods is Air >or Fire, but who could disagreement that Gryffindor is the fire house >and Ravenclaw is the air house? I'd love for brainy Ravenclaw's >souvenir to be a pen or a book or a scroll. Bart: While the concept of elemental properties of entities, such as the so-called "4 elements" (as opposed to elemental composition, such as the chemical elements), existed in the distant past, Tarot is a relatively recent innovation, requiring paper and printing (probably not earlier than the 15th century). In other words, while the houses may have been based on the 4 elements, they were almost certainly not based on Tarot. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 14:29:25 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:29:25 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170131 > houyhnhnm: > > This is exactly what makes me uncomfortable with the > idea that Lupin represents people with disabilities or > chronic diseases. Parents in the real world who do not > want their children attending school with another child > who is, say, HIV positive *would* be acting out of pure > predjudice because there is no rational basis for their > fear. But a werewolf is a different matter. Werewolves > really are dangerous. To the argument that Rowling can't > have Lupin be a traitor because it would send a bad message > about people with disabilities, I would say it seems to me > that she has already done that. There may be anti-werewolf > *bigotry* in the WW, but Rowling has not shown it to be > groundless. On the contrary. I agree. So, what is the message, if werewolves symbolize people with disabilities? That these people *are* a potential danger, they might hurt your children, they might not belong in society? If that is the analogy, it seems like it's already created a somewhat bigoted view of disabilities. If JKR wanted to do this, it'd seem more appropriate to use some transformation that doesn't pose an immediate threat to others. > Lupin, in human form, may not relish the thought of > biting or killing humans (though the fear of doing so > is not enough to make him cautious), but without > Wolfsbane, Lupin transformed is, in his own words, > "a fully fledged monster." > > Being HIV positive or having a seizure disorder (to > name just a couple of conditions that do excite prejudice > in the real world) do not put other people at risk. > Being a werewolf puts other people at risk. > > If Lupin is supposed to represent people in the real > world, I'd say he is a little closer to the guy with > multiple drug resistant TB who insisted on flying half > way round the world without a mask, than he is to an > AIDS patient or someone with a physical disability. > Great analogy. Especially because Lupin is represented as someone who doesn't take reasonable measures to control the "side effects" - running around Hogsmeade, not taking his medicine, etc. The way things are set up, IMO the WW discrimination against werewolves could be seen as reasonable, even correct. Having a monster running around schools or towns is not something most people would support. So, if JKR's intending to show the wrongness of "prejudice & discrimination" with Lupin, she's actually potentially doing the opposite. IMO this is just one of many places where the symbolic resonance fails because of a shallow approach to the topic. I just wanted to add a couple questions on ESE!Lupin. Lupin was my favorite character halfway through POA, but he quickly began to creep me out. He is extremely manipulative & prone to spinning the facts in order to create a favorable impression. And there's two things that Lupin has said that I've never understood; maybe someone else can explain this? First, he usually refers to Voldemort by name - and he's the only person who does this in the WW, besides DD & Harry. And he does it casually, w/o anxiety - while most other people have to force themselves to even form the word. How did Lupin get on such familiar terms? It's an anomoly that I've never seen explained in the text. Maybe he's just that brave, but that doesn't seem in line w/Lupin's personality. I almost get the impression that he *knows* Voldemort in some capacity. Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black was killed days after leaving the Death Eaters. How does he know this? Even Sirius, his brother, only has some vague idea that Regulas tried to leave at some point & was killed by somebody. Lupin knows exactly when Regulas left, and exactly when he was killed. I don't know how Lupin could know when Regulas left the Death Eaters - unless he was in contact w/the Death Eaters as well. These things always made me wonder about him, though there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation. "lizzyben04" From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 15:38:55 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:38:55 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170132 lizzyben04: > I just wanted to add a couple questions on ESE!Lupin. Lupin was my > favorite character halfway through POA, but he quickly began to > creep me out. He is extremely manipulative & prone to spinning the > facts in order to create a favorable impression. And there's two > things that Lupin has said that I've never understood; maybe someone > else can explain this? First, he usually refers to Voldemort by > name - and he's the only person who does this in the WW, besides DD > & Harry. And he does it casually, w/o anxiety - while most other > people have to force themselves to even form the word. How did Lupin > get on such familiar terms? It's an anomoly that I've never seen > explained in the text. Maybe he's just that brave, but that doesn't > seem in line w/Lupin's personality. I almost get the impression that > he *knows* Voldemort in some capacity. Dana: Sirius does that too. I do not see why this would make Lupin suspisious. The DEs refer to LV as the Dark Lord and so does Snape but not Lupin. lizzyben04: > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black was killed days after > leaving the Death Eaters. How does he know this? Even Sirius, his > brother, only has some vague idea that Regulas tried to leave at > some point & was killed by somebody. Lupin knows exactly when > Regulas left, and exactly when he was killed. I don't know how Lupin > could know when Regulas left the Death Eaters - unless he was in > contact w/the Death Eaters as well. These things always made me > wonder about him, though there might be a perfectly reasonable > explanation. Dana: Lupin never says anything about Regulus in OotP. He states in HBP that as far as he can remember Sirius's brother did not last long with the DEs. That is all that he states. Regulus died a year before the Potters did so there would have been numerous ways to find out he died. Dana From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 16:00:30 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:00:30 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170133 > > houyhnhnm: > > > > This is exactly what makes me uncomfortable with the > > idea that Lupin represents people with disabilities or > > chronic diseases. Parents in the real world who do not > > want their children attending school with another child > > who is, say, HIV positive *would* be acting out of pure > > predjudice because there is no rational basis for their > > fear. But a werewolf is a different matter. Werewolves > > really are dangerous. To the argument that Rowling can't > > have Lupin be a traitor because it would send a bad message > > about people with disabilities, I would say it seems to me > > that she has already done that. There may be anti-werewolf > > *bigotry* in the WW, but Rowling has not shown it to be > > groundless. On the contrary. > > > Lupin, in human form, may not relish the thought of > > biting or killing humans (though the fear of doing so > > is not enough to make him cautious), but without > > Wolfsbane, Lupin transformed is, in his own words, > > "a fully fledged monster." > > > > Being HIV positive or having a seizure disorder (to > > name just a couple of conditions that do excite prejudice > > in the real world) do not put other people at risk. > > Being a werewolf puts other people at risk. > > > > If Lupin is supposed to represent people in the real > > world, I'd say he is a little closer to the guy with > > multiple drug resistant TB who insisted on flying half > > way round the world without a mask, than he is to an > > AIDS patient or someone with a physical disability. > > > > "lizzyben04" > Great analogy. Especially because Lupin is represented as someone > who doesn't take reasonable measures to control the "side effects" - > running around Hogsmeade, not taking his medicine, etc. The way > things are set up, IMO the WW discrimination against werewolves > could be seen as reasonable, even correct. Having a monster running > around schools or towns is not something most people would support. > So, if JKR's intending to show the wrongness of "prejudice & > discrimination" with Lupin, she's actually potentially doing the > opposite. IMO this is just one of many places where the symbolic > resonance fails because of a shallow approach to the topic. wynnleaf I realize that the word "bigot" has different connotations for different people. Technically, a bigot falls more in with disagreement of *opinions* rather than disagreement with a state of being. A bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." Which brings us to prejudice and wondering if Snape is showing "prejudice." Once again, I realize that people have different views on exactly what constitutes prejudice. However, just to check out the definitions, prejudice is 1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. 1b. A preconceived preference or idea. 2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. There's more, but those seemed most applicable. Given that Snape *has* got plenty of experience with Lupin in particular, as well as direct experience with the deadly aspect of Lupin in werewolf form, I would by no means call Snape's opinions of Lupin "preconceived," made "without knowledge," or "irrational." One might not *agree* with Snape's opinions of Lupin or werewolf! Lupin, but I don't think they actually meet the definition of prejudice, nor the true meaning of bigoted. lizzyben04" > I just wanted to add a couple questions on ESE!Lupin. Lupin was my > favorite character halfway through POA, but he quickly began to > creep me out. He is extremely manipulative & prone to spinning the > facts in order to create a favorable impression. And there's two > things that Lupin has said that I've never understood; maybe someone > else can explain this? First, he usually refers to Voldemort by > name - and he's the only person who does this in the WW, besides DD > & Harry. And he does it casually, w/o anxiety - while most other > people have to force themselves to even form the word. How did Lupin > get on such familiar terms? It's an anomoly that I've never seen > explained in the text. Maybe he's just that brave, but that doesn't > seem in line w/Lupin's personality. I almost get the impression that > he *knows* Voldemort in some capacity. wynnleaf This is a fascinating observation and one which I've considered a few times as well. Readers assume that Lupin calls Voldemort by his name because, like Dumbledore, he doesn't want to give in to fear of Voldemort. But it's interesting that Lupin does this. However, he is not the only one besides Harry and Dumbledore. Sirius also calls Voldemort by his name on several occasions. I think it likely James did as well. My guess is that a number of people in the Order did this, probably modeling Dumbledore. > lizzyben04" > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black was killed days after > leaving the Death Eaters. How does he know this? Even Sirius, his > brother, only has some vague idea that Regulas tried to leave at > some point & was killed by somebody. Lupin knows exactly when > Regulas left, and exactly when he was killed. I don't know how Lupin > could know when Regulas left the Death Eaters - unless he was in > contact w/the Death Eaters as well. These things always made me > wonder about him, though there might be a perfectly reasonable > explanation. wynnleaf Another interesting thought. I don't think Sirius' comments show us whether or not Sirius knew when Regulus died. He comments that Regulus wanted to back out and was killed, probably on Voldemort's orders. But Sirius didn't say anything that would indicate that he didn't know when the death took place. And there was a death date on the tapestry, although we don't know if that was just the year, or included the actual date. However, Lupin's comment shows us something else. Lupin knew not only when Regulus *died* -- which Sirius may have also known -- but also when Regulus was discovered to have turned from Voldemort. Otherwise, how could he possibly know that Regulus only survived a few days? A few days from *what*? Well, one assumes a few days from Voldemort discovering that Regulus had turned. But how would Lupin know exactly when Regulus turned, or when Voldemort found out? I doubt Lupin was in *Regulus'* confidence. Hm... Or was he? And how did Voldemort know Regulus turned? Very interesting questions. Could just be another Lupin-plot-hole, of which there are getting to be so many that in itself is suspicious. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 11 16:33:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:33:11 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170134 > Dana: > > Interesting because Lupin only puts people at risk once a month and > only at night time, yet he is treated like he is a danger all the > time. Pippin: Actually, we don't have canon that he transforms only at night. Several of his absences take place during the daytime. But the greater problem is that there are werewolves like Fenrir who *are* a danger all the time, not because they're werewolves but because they've declared war on the WW and allied themselves with Voldemort. It's wrong for Snape to assume that Lupin is one of those werewolves, but it would be equally wrong to assume that he couldn't be. > Dana: > But the problem is that people actually do judge his mistakes harder > because he is a werewolf. It is constantly said that he put the trio > in danger because it was a full moon night and he forgot his potion > and therefore he was wrong because he should remember under all > circumstance including emergencies that he is a werewolf first and > not just a human. Pippin: I've also heard it claimed that the transformation was already affecting him and he couldn't be expected to reason clearly, so it isn't just anti-Lupin listies who think shock is not an adequate explanation for his behavior. Whatever his state when he saw Peter on the map, he was apparently calm and in control of himself and quite self-possessed as he related his past history and even when Peter was finally forced back to human form. To say he was a nervous wreck inside while being apparently so calm would give truth to Snape's words -- Lupin's behavior really can't be fathomed in any ordinary way. Dana: > That is what people say Lupin should have done while they are > forgetting that Lupin actually never was a threat to anyone because > Sirius was there and Sirius, like he did during their school days, > can keep a werewolf in check. Pippin: Sirius's power to keep a werewolf in check is not absolute. There were close calls, many of them, even with Prongs to help. Certainly Snape had no reason to believe that Sirius would keep Lupin in check, or even to believe Sirius's claim that he was an animagus. Dana: > Snape on the other hand is giving a total pardon for his actions in > the shack because he might think Harry was in danger, while him > going to the shack had nothing to do with Harry. Pippin: It had to do with Harry the moment Snape found the cloak outside the willow. Snape had to know that Harry would not have willingly left it behind. Up to that time, Snape had no evidence that Lupin was doing anything wrong, but conversely Snape had just as much right to prowl the grounds at night as Lupin did. OTOH, the cloak was also proof that Harry was out of bounds and breaking rules again -- not something Dumbledore might want brought to his attention in front of Macnair and Fudge. If Harry had reached the Shrieking Shack then he had left Hogwarts and was outside Dumbledore's jurisdiction, and the spells of protection on its walls. Dumbledore wouldn't want that known either. I have not heard anyone give Snape total pardon for his anti-werewolf prejudice. We're simply saying that JKR is perfectly capable of holding Snape responsible for his words while giving Snape honest reasons to suspect Lupin. Consider Trelawney. She *is* a more powerful seer than Firenze and she has a right to claim it, whether she really believes it or not. However that hardly justifies her anti-centaur language. Is that too subtle for children to understand? There may be some who analyze the books incompletely, so that they grasp that Snape and Trelawney are both just in their claims and prejudiced in pursuing them, but don't get the irony that their prejudice is self-defeating. But I think it would just make people upset with the books rather than persuaded that prejudice must be okay. I had an experience like that with a book called The Paul Street Boys. I loved it as an adventure story as a child. As a young teen I was disgusted with what I thought was the author's pro war stance. Then I read it again as an older teenager and discovered that the characters' bravery and patriotism, though brought out by war, were set ironically against its futility --something I'd wholly missed earlier. I had a good laugh at myself, I can tell you. Dana: > JKR is not going to make Lupin ESE for the simple fact that Remus as > a human does not have it in him to want to hurt other humans Pippin: I doubt that JKR would make Remus such an Uncle Tom. Which of us doesn't have it in us to hurt other humans? There'd be no need for moral education if we didn't have that power. But I think JKR has it in her to show just how demeaning and debilitating such an expectation would be. If Remus is made to feel that he's a monster for having such normal feelings as anger and hate, then it's only among the other monsters that he would ever feel worthy of acceptance. Reason enough to cut them too much slack. I don't think Lupin wants to utterly destroy the WW, any more than Hermione wants the centaurs to utterly overthrow the WW. But she didn't mind using them as a stick to beat Umbridge, did she? And by the time she realized she couldn't control them, matters were out of her hands. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 11 16:52:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:52:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <11715288.1181580740573.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170135 From: Phyllis Stevens >What about the fact that he almost always ignores Hermione >each time she raises her hand in class. I realize that she >is one who knows most of the answers through her studying >prior to class, but to simply ignore her and grudgingly >calling on her seems to me to be a muggle resentment as >well as perhaps a prejudice against the group. Bart: That's standard operating procedure for American teachers, at least. The theory, at least, is that if you have one person in the class who knows all the answers, the rest of the class gets lazy. The basic message is, "Does anybody know the answer? Yes, Hermione, I know you know the answer, but you ALWAYS know the answer, and that will be considered in your grade, but I want to give the other students a chance." Generally, the wiser of the intelligent kids (a little RPG terminology) learn to just give a token wave of their hand, the standard I saw being putting it up and down, immediately, with the elbow remaining on the desk, which translates to, "Yes, I know you're not going to pick me, but I DO know the answer, as usual." And balance is maintained. But, every now and then, you get a Horshack impersonator (who was, in turn, a Joe E. Ross impersonator), raising one hand, keeping it aloft with the other, yelling, "Ooh! Ooh! Ooh!". Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 17:06:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:06:05 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!!/ some house elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170136 > Dana: > > Interesting because Lupin only puts people at risk once a month and > only at night time, yet he is treated like he is a danger all the > time. > > People with HIV are a risk to other people if they do not take > precautions, like having safe sex, being careful with blood products > ect. In Afrika women infect their children but with medication this > could be prevented. People with HIV however do not posse a risk to > people in normal life just as Lupin doesn't either. > > In my country currently there is a scandal about 4 people who at > parties injected people with HIV infected blood without their > consent, does this mean that suddenly all HIV positive people are > going to do this? That we are therefore having to ban these people > from their job, deny all of them a normal life because they might be > possing a risk at some time in their life's because that is what you > seem to be saying. Alla: Well said indeed Dana IMO. I was about to say the same thing - that I see Lupin's analogy with situation of HIV positive person as very very close. Not exact of course, since werewolves do not exist as we all know, but I see plenty of similarities that you listed. Now, I actually have more to say than just agreeing with you, heheeh. I think JKR does it on purpose, often making fictional prejudice as sort of harder to condone. Here we have the case of werewolf Lupin and other werewolves, who let's assume just for a second if they could want to work and not eat children, and it is far from clear that werewolves eat people, canon is at least giving two versions on it,and not suffer during transformation, etc. Just as people with HIV they can give their illness to other people, if they are not careful. Just as people with HIV they truly have no control whatsoever over the fact that they got their illness, unless somebody wants to become a werewolf, which I really really doubt. But here is the fictional twist - werewolf without wolfsbane indeed has no control over biting somebody, while RL HIV positive person unless chooses so, will not of course give their illness to anybody else. Does that make any difference that in both cases humans have illnesses one real and deadly and another fictional and deadly? Not to me, definitely not. The fact that werewolf has no control at all over his illness without the potion does not change to me the fact that this person did not ask to become ill. Do they have to be careful? Sure they have to, just as HIV positive persons should be IMO. Does it mean that not giving them jobs or jobs to HIV positive people is justified? I can never see how. And here we have house elves, over which we all argued many times as well. I see clear analogies with human slavery, JKR said that it is just like slavery, etc. But she throws in the twist of elves maybe liking to serve humans, who are kind to me. Well, maybe they do, we IMO do not know that, but to me right now analogy with slavery stands well, despite the possibility that given a choice elves may have chosen to serve anyways. JMO, Alla. From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 17:33:13 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:33:13 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: <1181571754.22356.1194535771@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, random832 at ... wrote: > The post says "all bad things in the wizarding world" - not "all >bad > things that endanger the wizarding world as a whole". I would disagree > that "Umbridge doesn't flow from LV" - the corruption in the ministry > (of which Umbridge is most visible example) is strongly intertwined with > LV's existence, though the "flow" goes in both directions, with ministry > corruption acting in some ways to make LV stronger. > As for the others... Lockhart is perhaps not quite as bad as LV, but you > can't seriously be claiming his behavior is acceptable. What happened to > him in COS was intended for Ron and Harry. And do you think Harry (or > Hermione, who she targeted more in GoF) was Rita's only victim? Sridhar says: I agree with you to the extent that even without LV, there will be some bad things that happen - where does it not happen, but I think Goddlefrod's intent was about the crux of the series and not about other problems. Of course, only he can clarify that. My point is while all the 3 mentioned may not be acceptable, they don't pose the kind of threat to the WW as LV. They neither have the power or the followers to endanger the whole WW. Regards Sridhar From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 18:24:46 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:24:46 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" wrote: > My theory on this, and it works for DDM! or ESE! Snape, is that DD > needed Slughorn at the school. DD was all set to send Snape to LV full > time, and have him make reports by patronus. I would go with the DDM!Snape, in that Snape was required to get closer to LV, especially since Snape had already offerred to protect Draco and to do that, he had to know what LV had planned using Draco. The DADA teacher post may have been cursed by LV, with the proviso that it would not work when somebody with the Dark Mark was in the post!! That was just a fancy theory, as I do not have any canon whch say that curses or spells have a "proviso" built-in. Sridhar From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 18:30:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:30:32 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170139 Mike: > It's funny, how Hagrid can call Filch a "sneakin' Squib" and that is > called a prejudicial remark, yet when Snape makes his numerous snide > werewolf comments and calls Lily Evans a "filthy Mudblood", they are > put down to situational animosity. What, praytell, was Snape's > animosity against the girl who seemed to be trying to stop the > bullying? > > I agree with Sherry, Snape has outed himself as a bigot, or at the > very least, has freely used bigotted speech. We get one look at > things in the Marauder's school days, in SWM, after which James and > Sirius are branded as bullies, as in, they must have done that > before. But Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" has to be an > aberration?! IMO this is a blatant double standard. If James and > Sirius must have been picking on Snape for years, why shouldn't we > also believe that Snape has used that highly offensive term before? > Carol responds: But Hagrid *does* place a great deal of importance on blood, both in terms of relationships and in terms of how it makes people what they are, in his view. "Whatever yeh say, blood's important," he says to Harry at the time that Grawp is beating him up. And he talks about "all Malfoys" as being bad because of their "bad blood." I'm not sure that he's generally prejudiced against Squibs, but he's certainly using it as a generalized insult against Filch, for whom, no doubt, he has some sort of personal antipathy, and, unlike Teen!Severus calling Lily a Mudblood--at which she blinks in surprise--he is not under duress, humiliatingly being rescued by a Gryffindor girl who has just been flirting with his tormentor. If you've never used language that you're not proud of when you're angry and humiliated, then you're a better person than I am. Hagrid, as a "good guy," does a number of questionable things, but because he's the Trio's friend and the person who introduced Harry to the WW, we're not supposed to criticize him? Also, while calling someone a Mudblood is comparable to calling them a "sneakin's Squib" (or "a filthy Half-blood," as I think Phineas Nigellus calls Mundungus Fletcher), calling someone a werewolf when that werewolf has endangered your life, is endangering his own students, and has (Snape thinks) helping a murderer get near Harry to kill him, and then that werewolf has the nerve to think that Snape's suspicions of him are based, not on his own sneaky conduct and the two knife attacks by Sirius Black's on Gryffindor property but on "a schoolboy grudge," it is certainly understandable that Snape would say that he doesn't understand how a werewolf's mind works and that he'll "drag the werewolf," who certainly needs to be in very strong bonds if he's going to transform into a vicious monster at any moment. In any case, prejudice against werewolves is not only extremely widespread, almost universal, among witches and wizards, at least those who grew up in the WW and know what a werewolf can do, it's understandable, just as understandable as the "prejudice" against giants, who turn out to be exactly like Ron said they'd be, murdering even their own kind. Anyway, it may not be right to speak of Remus Lupin to his face as "the werewolf," but considering that Snape has faced him in the form of a murderous monster and thinks he's an accessory to a "murderin' traitor," it seems just silly to call him a "werewolf bigot." As for the pureblood superiority ethic, there's no evidence that he believes it (calling Lily a "Mudblood," which he does once, is IMO no worse than the personal, and to me revolting, insult "Snivellus," which Sirius Black uses repeatedly, even as an adult. (It's not an insult to a group and therefore it's okay? I think not. It's as mean-spirited and snide and cruel as anything in the books.) And as others have said, "Half-Blood Prince" suggests a kind of reverse pride, a way of telling himself that he's just as good as the "Pureblood Princes" (if he's *the* Half-blood Prince, he has to be the only one. It would be like Tonks calling herself "the Half-Blood Black" if she were concerned about her family being shunned by the Blacks because her mother married a Muggle-born). At any rate, Snape is only one of many wizards who shows some form of prejudice, some of it understandable, but he's criticized because he's Snape and a Slytherin, and Hagrid is excused because he's Hagrid and a Gryffindor. And MWPP are praised because they thought it was "cool" to run with a werewolf and learned to become Animagi to do it, but they, too, treat "Moony" as a werewolf. Everything from this nickname to their response to the DADA exam and their idea of fun (not counting attacking fellow students who are studying the exam questions, Hermione-style) relates to that. They certainly didn't hesitate to assume that he was the spy later, and why would they think that (Peter's presumed whisperings and insinuations aside) if he weren't a werewolf? > Mike: > As you say further down and Carol brought up in another post, Snape has a real fear of werewolves, founded or unfounded, and a hatred for what almost happened at the jaws of this particular werewolf. So is it bigotry, or can it more accurately be called rational, in Snape's mind, distrust of anything werewolf? I would say that Snape is freely using a bigotted term out of a perceived rational hatred for a member of the oppressed group. Like you said, wynnleaf, much like an adolescent would do. > Carol responds: Bear in mind Snape's mental state. He thinks he's just saved the kids' lives, and he's being taunted about a "schoolboy grudge" (a murder plot, in his view) distorting his view of the facts. That was not a smart move on Lupin's part if he wanted Snape to be reasonable. I think all of them, even Lupin, are reduced to adolescent level in this situation. But I still don't think that "werewolf" is a bigoted term. It's a fact. Lupin, as both he and Hermione state, *is* a werewolf. Moreover, he's about to transform, has not taken his potion, and is a danger to everyone present. Under ordinary circumstances, before and after this incident, Snape does not go around addressing Lupin as "werewolf," nor, IIRC, does he mention it again after he learns the truth of the situation (when he learns that Pettigrew has restored Voldemort to a body and soon afterwards Black transforms in front of him in GoF, at which point has no choice but to fully believe that Pettigrew, not Sirius Black, was the traitor and Pettigrew really is not only alive but a rat Animagus.) Yes, he "lets slip" to his students that Lupin is a werewolf, but by that time Lupin has no choice but to resign, having endangered three students by rushing out without taking his potion, knowing that they're on the grounds. (And Fudge already knows that Snape has conjured stretchers for the students to get them safely off the grounds where a werewolf is at large. Is he supposed to lie to Fudge about their very real danger because to state, under those circumstances that Lupin is a werewolf is "prejudice"? I think not. wynnleaf: > > To me, it's a little similar to Snape's mudblood comment. There isn't any other instance in canon to really support Snape being a pureblood elitist -- his Half Blood Prince name implies the opposite. It seems far more likely to me that he used the term just because it was an available weapon at hand to use, not because he really had any problem with Lily being muggleborn. > > Mike: > Here I disagree. We *have* only one instance in canon from Snape's school days. Draco doesn't call Hermione a Mudblood every time he's in close proximity to her, yet we are all convinced of his pure-blood superiority beliefs. Carol: You disagree that he's only used the term once, and not as an adult in canon? Um, I don't know what to say. there's no other instance. And there are plenty of instances of Draco calling Hermione a Mudblood, from that first insult that provokes Ron's back-firing slug spell to "Pyou're next, Mudbloods!" (the remarks that cause ron and Harry to suspect Draco of being Slytherin's Heir) to "Mudbloods and traitors will be first" (after Cedric Diggory) at the end of GoF to "the Mudblood Granger" on the tower in HBP. I haven't checked, but I suspect that Draco uses the term at least once per book, and "blood traitor" for Ron almost as frequently. *Of course,* we're all convinced of Draco's pureblood superiority beliefs. Almost the very first thing he says is that he doesn't think "the other kind" (wizards and witches with Muggle parents) should be allowed at Hogwarts. Or how about, "If you want to know what that smell is, Mother, a Mudblood just walked in" (HBP, the scene in Madam Malkin's, quoted from memory). Draco has been raised by parents who believe in their own pureblood superiority, a mother from the same family as Walburga Black who considers the Blacks "nature's aristocracy" and screams about "Mudbloods and blood traitors and filth" contaminating her house, to believe in his own pureblood superiority. The surprise is that Sirius and Andromeda rejected the same propaganda (and Andromeda actually married a Muggleborn). Never once does Snape use either term as an adult, and his Half-blood status would cause him to *know* that he's as smart and skilled at magic as any pureblood, including the two who attack him unawares in the Pensieve memory. He's going to think that purebloods like Sirius Black and James Potter are better than he is? I doubt it very much. And if he grew up with "pureblood Prince" relatives who held views similar to those of the Blacks, they'd have looked down their hooked noses at the little Half-Blood. I doubt very much that Snape's views on blood at all resemble Draco's--though he certainly shares the view of almost all witches and wizards that they should be kept separate and secret from Muggles. (Aside: Wouldn't it violate the Statute of Secrecy to marry a Muggle and tell your Muggle wife or husband that you're a witch or wizard? And yet, they're going to find out anyway and have the right to know. What a potential source of marital discord!) > Mike: > But we have a one-for-one correlation with Severus and Lily and the use of "Mudblood". Until I'm informed differently, I'm calling Snape a bigot on this account. There is a lot of water under the bridge since that utterance, yet Snape has no problem using another bigotted term in PoA. Now, where's the canon that proves he's not a bigot? Carol: Where's the canon that shows he is? "Prejudice" against werewolves, which are undeniably dangerous when they transform, is not the same as unfounded prejudice based on the presence or absence of magic in the "blood" of someone's parents or grandparents. To be blunt, a werewolf's blood *is* contaminated through no fault of his own; a "Mudblood's" isn't "dirty"; it's just the same as any other wizards, or Muggleborns couldn't pass on their magic to their children. (I'm ignoring genes and chromosomes here and taking the old-fahioned view that inherited traits are passed through the blood.) It's like saying: Mr. X is prejudiced against convicte child molestors released into society, so he must be prejudiced against blacks or Mexican immigrants as well. It does not compute. Nor does one slip into a common insult mean you're prejudiced. If you a teenager being humiliated by a school bully and a girl with a crush on the bully tried to rescue you and in your anger, you said, "I don't need help from that b---ch," perhaps regretting your words later, would that make you prejudiced against girls in general? He's angry, he's using a word that will sting, and he's not even speaking to Lily (whose surprise shows that he's not in the habit of using the wor; she would not have tried to help him is he were); it's directed to James. In contrast, the Malfoys, Blaize Zabini, even the substitute Seeker (Harper?) in HBP use terms like "Mudblood" freely. Snape uses it once, under duress. Even Slughorn, who doesn't use that term, is surprised to find a Muggleborn who's good at Potions (first Lily and then Hermione, whom he subsequently forgets about because he's busy favoring the "brilliant" Harry). The only reason that Snape gives for disliking Hermione is that she's "an insufferable know-it-all"--and though he shouldn't say that, he's right. I'd find her very annoying if I were her teacher. (Let someone else answer the question!) > Mike: > Which brings up another point regarding Lupin and Snape. Why > shouldn't Lupin be just as suspicious of Snape as Snape is of Lupin? > They all knew that Snape was "fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was > famous for it at school." That he ran around with a "gang of > Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." And that > even though Snape was never accused of being a DE (Sirius is wrong > here), that Snape was "clever and cunning enough to keep himself out > of trouble." Ergo, Lupin should have suspected > that Snape had been and could still be a Death Eater. Carol responds: Why in the world would Lupin be suspicious of Snape? It makes sense for Snape to suspect Lupin of trying to help Sirius Black, but *Snape* isn't going to do it. He knows that Snape suspects *him* and he *is* suppressing information, but Snape is doing his best to keep Harry in Hogwarts and away from Sirius Black. An interest in the Dark Arts (really DADA and some invented hexes and charms, from what we've seen--Lupin can't know about Sectumsempra unless we count the little cut that no one notices, which I don't--is hardly reason for suspicion, and Lupin doesn't know that Snape was a DE. He does, however, think that *Sirius Black* became a DE. and he knows that snape is not about to help Black. Can you give me the smallest shred of evidence that Lupin suspects Snape of having been a DE before OoP, when it seems that the entire Order knows he's spying on the DEs? Black doesn't know it until Snape shows his Dark Mark to Fudge in GoF, and he's been in Azkaban with Death Eaters. Rita Skeeter doesn't know it or she'd list him as one of DD's dangerous hiring choices. As far as Lupin knows, Snape is a childhood enemy who knows he's a werewolf but is keeping his mouth shut and making him perfectly brewed Wolfsbane Potion on DD's orders and who suspects him (wrongly) of helping Sirius Black get into the castle (and of providing Harry the means to get into Hogsmeade). "In a way, Snape has been right about me all along" is his confession that he's withheld information from Dumbledore. Nothing anywhere to suggest that Lupin thinks Snape is doing anything worse than drawing the wrong conclusions based on a "schoolboy grudge." Mike: > Snape has a secret from his younger days that others may be interested in also. Snape overheard a certain prospective divination teacher make a prophesy and reported that news to his boss. How many > people died from this *secret*? By my count, two. So who has the > moral high ground at the time of PoA, Snape or Lupin? Lupin made > mistakes, Snape made mistakes. Which ones mistakes were more costly? Carol: Which ones *could* have been more costly if Lupin had attacked a Hogsmeade resident or HRH in werewolf form or Sirius Black had really been out to murder Harry? DDM!Snape's mistake (and I concede that it was a *very* serious mistake, as was joining the DEs in the first place), which he tried to rectify by going to DD, would not have led to the loss of any lives if it hadn't been for Peter Pettigrew (and Sirius Black's mistake in making Pettigrew the Secret Keeper). And Snape's and Black's combined mistake, combined with Pettigrew's treachery, ironically led to the creation of the Chosen One who can defeat Voldemort and to thirteen years of peace for the WW. somehow, I don't count running around in werewolf form with a bunch of Animagus friends endangering the townspeople and then not telling DD what he knows about the supposed murderer Black because he doesn't want to reveal this youthful indiscretion the moral high ground. Lupin, like Draco in HBP, is very lucky that no one died because of him. And Snape, assuming DDM!Snape, tried to prevent the Potters' deaths and is still trying to protect Harry. Setting aside the tower because we still don't know what's up with that, I give Snape the moral high ground. He rightly sees Lupin as weak. > > Mike: > I think Lupin uses a rudimentary or passable form of Legilmency, on several occasions. But I don't remember any time that he's credited with using Occlumency. I realize these two are closely related disciplines, but it seems that Occlumency is the more difficult to master. I just don't get the feeling that Lupin is that good at Legilemency and probably very poor if at all able with Occlumency. Besides, Snape has shown an aptitude for detecting when someone is trying to use Occlumency against him. JMHO. Carol: Isn't there a reference somewhere to "an odd, closed expression" on Lupin's face, which might suggest Occlumency of some sort? But he's certainly not the "superb Occlumens" that Snape is or he'd have offered to teach Harry Occlumency himself, and I don't remember any other hints that Lupin is an Occlumens, so I agree with your basic position here. But we do have hints that Lupin has some skill at Legilimency (seeming to read Sirius Black's mind in the Shrieking Shack, for example), and I would not be surprised if he received a mental message from Snape about Neville's prospective Boggart being a Death Eater in PoA. If so, poor Snape. Wrong again, with unpleasant consequences for himself. But the message could have served its purpose in getting Lupin to think about *Harry's* prospective Boggart and how to deal with it. Or rather, not deal with it at all until Harry brought up the subject in private. Carol, who thinks that Snape has enough faults without making him any more of a bigot than the general wizarding population From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 18:54:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:54:06 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170140 Carol: If you've never used language that > you're not proud of when you're angry and humiliated, then you're a > better person than I am. Alla: Hmmmm, I had the language comparable to how I see *mudblood* translated in RL being used against me a plenty of times and could care less if the people who did this would bring up as defense that they were angry or humiliated, really. Carol: Hagrid, as a "good guy," does a number of > questionable things, but because he's the Trio's friend and the person > who introduced Harry to the WW, we're not supposed to criticize him? Alla: Eh, I think Mike's point was that if one thinks that Hagrid is a bigot, it is sort of a double standard to say that Snape is not and I agree with it. I totally think that Hagrid made a bigoted remark by the way. I despise Filch after OOP, but he has a name, and it is not **Squib**. Carol: > In any case, prejudice against werewolves is not only extremely > widespread, almost universal, among witches and wizards, at least > those who grew up in the WW and know what a werewolf can do, it's > understandable, just as understandable as the "prejudice" against > giants, who turn out to be exactly like Ron said they'd be, murdering > even their own kind. Alla: Yes, it is widespread, but understandable based on what some giants and some werewolves do? Not to me. Not all giants are murdering their own kind. Some of them do. Carol: > At any rate, Snape is only one of many wizards who shows some form of > prejudice, some of it understandable, but he's criticized because he's > Snape and a Slytherin, and Hagrid is excused because he's Hagrid and a > Gryffindor. Alla: Um, okay, Snape is one of many, so how does it make his behaviour any better? Or and who excuses Hagrid? I most certainly do not in case of his remark against Filch. Carol: And MWPP are praised because they thought it was "cool" to > run with a werewolf and learned to become Animagi to do it, but they, > too, treat "Moony" as a werewolf. Everything from this nickname to > their response to the DADA exam and their idea of fun (not counting > attacking fellow students who are studying the exam questions, > Hermione-style) relates to that. They certainly didn't hesitate to > assume that he was the spy later, and why would they think that > (Peter's presumed whisperings and insinuations aside) if he weren't a > werewolf? Alla: That is your opinion Carol, mine is that they treat him as friend, whose life they want to make easier and more bearable. They sure think it is fun and it is a reckless fun of course, but treat him as werewolf primarily? But I see no evidence that they treat him first and foremost as werewolf. His nickname is Moony? Well, they called themselves by the name of the animals as well. Does that mean that they treated Sirius as dog and Peter as rat? And why would they think he is a spy? One speculation is that Remus dissappeared way too often and they wondered where he is - he was not even at christening as we know, I am not sure if it was by Potters choice. JMO, Alla From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 18:56:40 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:56:40 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170141 wynnleaf: > Given that Snape *has* got plenty of experience with Lupin in > particular, as well as direct experience with the deadly aspect of > Lupin in werewolf form, I would by no means call Snape's opinions of > Lupin "preconceived," made "without knowledge," or "irrational." > One might not *agree* with Snape's opinions of Lupin or werewolf! > Lupin, but I don't think they actually meet the definition of > prejudice, nor the true meaning of bigoted. Dana: Tell me is glimpsing Lupin at the end of the tunnel really plenty of experience for Snape to understand how deadly a werewwolf can be? Because to me it is a little overrated as he never had a deadly struggle for his life as a result. Lupin never came within striking range of Snape. To me Snape is just brooding on the "what if" and not on what he actually experienced. He is not calling Lupin a werewolf out of his own experience and out of his own fear but because he still believes Lupin was part of the trick Sirius played on him. If he truly was scared then he would not have mocked Lupin about his problem all year long and he certainly would not have run after him to the shack. His so-called experience has nothing to do with the prejudice Snape has for Lupin. He just considers him less then human because he truly hates his guts. Let me ask you this if Snape was not a true bigot then why did he never reveal that he was not a pure blood? Because as we see Bella calls Harry a filty Half-Blood but she never mentions this to Snape when she is in Spinner's End and I'm sure she would have if she had known this. Seems Snape denies his own background because he doesn't want to be judged by it but he throws what ever he can at others and appearently the mere idea of the what if has nothing to do with it as Lily tried to help him and still gets her bloodstatus thrown at her. I do not need help from a girl is seemingly not enough, it has to be the biggest insult he could think of. Tell me if Snape did not truly think of her as a filthy mudblood then how come it was the first thing that came into his mind. If you do not think about people in such away then it would never enter you mind not even in a situation like that. Serverus Snape was walking the same route as many of the other Slytherin's meaning that half-bloods, half-breeds and all that were not pure are worthless and why he kept his own bloodstatus hidden from the rest of them coincidently so does LV. JMHO Dana From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 19:12:34 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:12:34 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170142 Sridhar says: Giving a new life to this long thread that talks about so many interesting things. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > 'Course Dumbledore trusts you,' growled Moody. 'He's a trusting man, > isn't he? Believes in second chances. But me - I say there are spots > that don't come off, Snape. Spots that never come off, d'you know what > I mean?' [24] > > Carol responds: > Interesting question and not one we can get a definitive answer to > considering the state of Barty Jr.'s soul, but he's clearly attacking > Snape on some level, and he's doing it on a dual level, as himself, > hating Snape for "walking free," and as "Moody," who as of Karkaroff's > trial, still distrusted Snape (and has perhaps told Barty that under > the influence of the Imperius curse). IMO, he wants Snape to think > that DD doubts Snape's loyalty and has authorized him, Moody, to raid > Snape's office (a lie, of course, since DD trusts Snape completely), > and he's also, I think, trying to raise Harry's suspicions that Snape > might have put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. The spots may refer to the Dark mark as someone mentioned, but it could also refer to the stigma one gets when is branded as a DE, especially a "reformed" DE. LV doesn't trust him fully, while the WW still has deep misgivings about him. it could also refer to being a "Half-blood" Snape, I think, knows DD trusts him completely, but as Moody is supposed to be extremely paranoid, he might feel Moody is simply behaving in his usual way. I am not sure about Moody's intentions, though. > I'm not sure, but I think that Snape hesitates to use Legilimency on > "Moody" in part because of that unnerving magical eye (he'd have to > concentrate on the other one while being, essentially, X-rayed with > the magical one) and in part because of who he thinks "Moody" is. So > he's thrown off in his suspicions, but not in his dislike, for the > DADA instructor who also has DD's trust. (Now there's a big mistake on > DD's part.) Moody was a great Auror and he could easily know when someone was practicing Legimancy on him, which could easily make the paranoid Moody go berserk. I am also surprised that so many great wizards and witches who knew the real Moody (DD, McGonagall, Snape, Hagrid) could not detect the impostor. Something should have given him away, some character streak... > And I think he used that eagle > owl to express those doubts, which would partially explain "one who I > believe has left me forever" in the graveyard. A remark that has me counfounded. Like the assassin Carlos the Jackal, LV could be doing the illogical or he may be logical. LV knows that Harry would repeat this conversation if he ever escaped, so he added this sentence. All would firmly believe that Snape is on DD's side, which would not be the case. But this has a couple of flaws: 1. LV never believed that Harry could escape him, puny as he was!!! 2. I don't remember correctly, but some DE says that the "Dark Lord" always knows where his DE's are. LV knows about Snape has left him (Karkaroff being the coward and Barty Jr being the one at Hogwarts, although Goddlefrod's theory about Snape and Karkaroff's descriptions are interpreted wrongly is interesting!!!) > Carol: > And also, of course, he knew about the Horcruxes, and that LV couldn't > be killed. Vaporizing him would just delay matters, and Harry was > reaching an age when he could actually confront and defeat an embodied > Voldemort. (I also think that an AK is one of those spells that DD is > "too noble" to use, but that's beside the point. He knew that Harry, > the Chosen One, had to destroy the Horcruxes and then defeat > Voldemort--which, I agree will involve Love, not an AK or other Dark > spell.) >(Which is not to say that the spell itself would not > cause a fate worse than death, but, then, DD knows he's not the Chosen > One who can defeat Voldemort, so he would have known that he couldn't > defeat LV as he defeated Grindelwald.) I know Harry is the chosen one, but I am real wondering why DD cannot defeat LV. This points to the fact that there must be something magical linking LV and Harry, giving credence to the Harry is a Horcrux (or LV is a Harry horcrux!!!)theory. > > > Carol: > OTOH, "living" in the form of vapor, or even existing essentially > forever with one seventh of a soul could be considered a fate worse > than death, as LV would learn, probably, after a thousand years or so, > at which point, he might even destroy his own Horcruxes so he could > die. It won't happen that way, of course, but one thing DD is saying, > IMO, is that death is the natural extension of life, "the next great > adventure," and not something to be feared. I think DD considers everlasting life a curse, which LV doesn't understand. If you had everlasting, but potentially dangerous life, you could never have everlasting peace. Also, without someone to love, being truly alone in the soul (without a soulmate) could be something LV realises after thousands of years. > Carol, who thinks she deserves an Order of Merlin seventh class for > making it through this entire post, footnotes and all Sridhar, who believes that Carol and a few others are actually JKR herself under different names, come down to thoroughly confuse and educate us (at the same time!!!). No one else can know canon so well. No one. From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Jun 11 19:13:07 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:13:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706111213t28d26ef8md6a3bbf15433959c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170143 sridharj_ap wrote: > The DADA teacher post may have been cursed by LV, with the proviso > that it would not work when somebody with the Dark Mark was in the > post!! That was just a fancy theory, as I do not have any canon whch > say that curses or spells have a "proviso" built-in. montims: I wonder if he had marked his followers with the Dark Mark at the time he set the curse? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 11 19:17:32 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:17:32 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!!/ some house elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170144 > Alla: > > Well said indeed Dana IMO. I was about to say the same thing - that I > see Lupin's analogy with situation of HIV positive person as very > very close. > > Not exact of course, since werewolves do not exist as we all know, > but I see plenty of similarities that you listed. > > Now, I actually have more to say than just agreeing with you, heheeh. > > I think JKR does it on purpose, often making fictional prejudice as > sort of harder to condone. Magpie: I think this is one where there are several ways where it's kind of like a real world thing, without being the thing. Werewolfism, without wolfsbane, leads to a condition where the person has a drive to infect (or kill) others. This is not true of HIV. This doesn't make the werewolf infected person any less than human, but there's going to be a compromise between their right to lead a life that's normal in other respects and other peoples' safety. Of course something like what happened in PoA would probably lead lots of parents to say okay, they just can't take that risk with their kids, having them *live* with a werewolf at school. It may be more of an issue of safety precautions than the person themselves, even if the parent considers himself liberal. When Lupin was in school, for instance, there appeared to be a person in charge of the precautions--Pomfrey. Lupin wasn't just left up to his own devices to go to the Willow. As a professor he had no one really looking over his shoulder, however much Snape would have liked to. Perhaps parents would be okay if there were clear precautions taken *about the disease* (not the person with the disease) with which they were comfortable. Though the reality is there probably would be people who would never be comfortable because they just couldn't live with their child that close to the disease by living with someone who had it. The nature of the disease being slightly different than HIV in this case in the the people don't have to be irrationally afraid of things like sharing a water glass when that would not be contagious, but a situation somewhat like the one that happened in PoA. It's ironic, after all, that for all the werewolf laws are completely unfair and prejudicial, we have an example of one werewolf who was given the opportunity and both times did the wrong thing. Lupin was being perfectly human when he did this--it wasn't because "werewolves can't be trusted" but more that a boy and a man in these situations might slip up--with infection or death always being a threat. That's what's a little neat, actually, because we can't just say that someone worried that having a werewolf at the school *could* expose their kids to a werewolf is being irrational, since both times Lupin was a regular at the school--yup, we did wind up with a werewolf running around the grounds. Maybe only the once as a teacher in special circumstances, and maybe with a few Animagi the first time, but still, the threat's real. Perhaps the answer would be more werewolves at the school who are openly cared for--the secrecy with Lupin was part of the danger, after all. That might lead to other problems, with the werewolves being ostracized, though. In an ideal world, though, Lupin would be able to teach, with proper precautions taken and not held against him, and everyone knowing that he was a werewolf and having compassion for him. He's never had this. Alla: > Does that make any difference that in both cases humans have > illnesses one real and deadly and another fictional and deadly? > > Not to me, definitely not. The fact that werewolf has no control at > all over his illness without the potion does not change to me the > fact that this person did not ask to become ill. > Do they have to be careful? Sure they have to, just as HIV positive > persons should be IMO. > > Does it mean that not giving them jobs or jobs to HIV positive people > is justified? I can never see how. Magpie: Right--both people are people like anyone else, with a disease. I think JKR also likened it to mental illness too which might make a person unstable without medication. With werewolves there's a compromise between the safety of others and the humanity and lives of the werewolves. Making laws so that they can't participate in society as members like anyone else, which is exactly what they are most of the time, is inhumane. But it's not inhumane to treat the *illness* as something deadly to be avoided. People are going to worry about precautions. I actually tend to think that JKR starts with the myths, actually, and then lets them play out the way they seem to work in her world. So that the basis of everything is in the myths rather than in our real world issues. We can see plenty of echoes and parallels to things in our world, but I don't think there's really one way to look at it so that it's a direct analogy. Some people, for instance, feel like Lupin's presented as a homosexual, especially in the movie, which gets into the same problem--the idea that a homosexual is a deranged predator is an irrational fear, werewolves are deranged predators during the full moon without wolfsbane. Similarly the analogy of HIV+ would be offensive if it were supposed to be direct for the same reason. Dana: Let me ask you this if Snape was not a true bigot then why did he never reveal that he was not a pure blood? Because as we see Bella calls Harry a filty Half-Blood but she never mentions this to Snape when she is in Spinner's End and I'm sure she would have if she had known this. Magpie: Snape doesn't need to reveal he is or is not a Half-Blood. (He calls himself the Half-Blood Prince right out loud at the end of that book.) There's no indication to me that he's trying to pass as a Pureblood. The Purebloods are a small, interconnected group. They know who each other is. I think they all know Snape's not one of them. Bella could just have other things to say to Snape at this point. He's a fellow DE, however superior she might feel to his blood. Dana: Serverus Snape was walking the same route as many of the other Slytherin's meaning that half-bloods, half-breeds and all that were not pure are worthless and why he kept his own bloodstatus hidden from the rest of them coincidently so does LV. Magpie: Just trying to untangle the whole blood idea, but Half-breeds are different than Half-bloods. Half-bloods don't really seem to be that much of an issue. Purebloods are superior, of course, but Snape is a Half-blood who's an old friend of Lucius' and Draco's favorite teacher. They might consider their blood superior, but he's not a "Mudblood." A Half-breed is something that's partially non-human-- Hagrid, Lupin (though not via his parentage). Iirc, Sirius' mother yells about blood traitors and Half-breeds, not Half-bloods. It's not strictly logical, but this sort of thing doesn't have to be. Snape could still insult Lily by calling her a Mudblood when he himself was a Half-Blood. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 19:25:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:25:06 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170145 Dana wrote: > Canon never suggests that he did, it would be an assumption to say that he did. For Peter on the other hand, just like Karkaroff, it has been suggested in canon that he gave LV, or the MoM (Karkaroff), information. > > For Snape it never had been suggested anything other then him spying on LV and DD. > > No one on either side makes this claim about Snape and as we see Snape certainly did not tell anyone what he knew about Lucius and even treats his son as his most favourite. > Carol responds: While I agree with you that thinking that Snape provided the names of the DEs who were arrested or killed is an assumption, that information had to come from somewhere. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are not going to provide it to Barty Crouch and the MoM, and we're told that snape turned spy for "our side at great personal risk." Where would the risk come from if he weren't providing valuable information, and what would be more valuable than the names of the Death Eaters? (He would not be doing it, like Karkaroff, to save his own skin and get out of Azkaban; he would be doing it to atone for his mistake of informing LV of the Prophecy, and he would be reporting to DD directly rather than to the MoM.) Clearly, Snape did risk his life, did provide valuable information, did persuade Barty Crouch that he had generally reformed and was no more a DE than Dumbledore was. And clearly, the information that Wilkes, Rosier, and all those others (including Karkaroff) were DEs had to come from somewhere--from a reliable source--from a fellow Death Eater, the only person who would know the names of some (not all) of his fellow DEs and some (not all) of the crimes they had committed (as Karkaroff lists some, not all, of his fellow DE's crimes--interestingly, none of Snape's except being a Death Eater in and of itself). Was there another spy for "our side" reporting directly to the MoM rather than to Dumbledore? If so, who was he? The only other DEs we've seen so far are either self-serving, like Karkaroff, offering information (most of which the MoM already has) to get himself out of Azkaban, or loyal, like the Lestranges and Barty Jr. I see no indication of any DE besides snape and Regulus black who actually went over to the other side. And Regulus doesn't seem to have been a spy. He was concentrating on stealing the Horcrux and substituting a fake one. Other than Regulus, who seems to be a long shot, I can't think of anyone besides Snape who could have provided the information that sent Mulciber, Dolohov, et al. to Azkaban and cost wilkes and Rosier their lives. (Mad-Eye doesn't seem to know where the information came from; he just knew they were DEs and went after them.) Admittedly, it was Aberforth, when Snape was just a child, who provided Dumbledore with the term "Death Eaters" and the names of the first four DEs, and he and some of the other "useful spies" could have provided similar information along the way. But only someone who was actually a DE could know the names of the people who were arrested following or just before the Potters's deaths. Someone (Peter Pettigrew, to all appearances) was providing LV with information on Order members that led to their deaths. But someone else (Snape seems to be by far the best candidate) was providing the information (via Dumbledore, if it was Snape) that led to the arrest, and in three cases ((the three who died in LV's service) to the deaths of Death Eaters. The difference is that Peter Pettigrew was betraying his innocent friends to their deaths out of fear and Snape was betraying his criminal friends to well-deserved sentences in Azkaban (or to death if they chose to fight the Aurors). Some of the DEs, of course, pled the Imperius Curse, and there was nothing Snape could do except to pretend that he had done the same thing and was just staying out of Azkaban because he'd tricked Dumbledore into believing that he felt remorse. Dana: > > Sirius for instance knew about Rosier and Wilkes being DEs without ever talking to Snape about it so it does not suggest that this information came from Snape and it therefore can be just as well be due to their were involved with DE activity, which they were not all > as conspicuous about as Snape. Carol: Sirius Black knew that the people he listed became Death Eaters because he read about Wilkes and Rosier and some of the others in the Daily Prophet before his own arrest and saw Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers (he only mentions Rodolphus as among the "slytherin gang") brought into Azkaban. His knowledge of them has nothing to do with who informed the MoM (or Dumbledore) that they were DEs in the first place. It certainly was not Hogwarts gossip ("Oh, did you know that Evan Rosier joined the DEs yesterday?"). It makes no sense to say that Sirius Black knew that they were Death Eaters because of their DE activity. That's like saying that Lupin knew James was an Animagus because of James's "Animagus activity" except that Black never saw the DEs performing any crimes. He knew that they were DEs either because he read their names in the paper or saw them in Azkaban. (Compare Fudge telling Harry that he's only naming people who were publicly identified as having been acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years before. How would Harry know those names, according to Fudge? He read them. But they did not become public information until after the hearings that cleared them.) Carol, for the first time starting to understand what the "great personal risk" involved and wondering how Snape felt in betraying his Slytherin friends From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 19:44:22 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:44:22 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170146 zgirnius: > The distinction you are making, as I see it, is that Snape spied on > Dumbledore and Voldemort, but not any of their followers? I find > this not credible. I believe Dumbledore would be interested in the > activities of other Death Eaters, and Snape would report on them. > Even if Snape only reported on Voldemort, this could still > constitute ratting on friends, because a report on Voldemort might > consist of "The Dark Lord ordered Evan Rosier to kill Person X in > Place Y at time Z," which would be more than enough to ensure the > arrest of Rosier, even though it is a report on Voldemort. Dana: That is not what I stated I stated that is is never suggested in canon that Snape did anything other then spy on DD and later spy on LV. We see that he is literarly only spying on DD (listening at keyholes and such) but it is never claimed by anyone that he gave valuable information that led to the capture of DEs in the first war. It is only Snape himself that claims that his information on the Order has led to the capture and murder of Emmeline Vance ect. No, DE is accussing him of any betrayal against any of them. We actually see the contrary because both Lucius and Avery could claim they were under the imperious curse and they both walked free. Bella and her lot also walked free initially untill they were caught for torturing the Longbottoms. It is just assuming that Snape gave any of this information to DD. I have even see people claim that it was Snape that told DD that there was a spy in the Order while it is never suggested that DD knew this information as fact but just that he suspected there being one because it seemed LV had information on the Potters movements. I make my claim on the bases on what I do see in canon and that is that Snape knew Lucius, Avery and Bella and never sold them over to the side of good because he saw the errors of his ways. And they possed a potential threat to the safety of people. Lucius even possed a threat on two occassions without LV being there. One with the diary in CoS and the second with his muggle torture in GoF. But Snape's defection seemed to only have been partially as he still kept his ties with Lucius all those years, even making his son Snape's favourite students. That is canon and the rest is just assumption that Snape must have done more to proof that he was now truly on the side of good. zgirnius: > However, the bigger problem I have with this whole idea - what > information about *Voldemort* has Snape given Dumbledore? See the > problem? There is none in canon. Dumbledore even manages not to say > directly that Snape told him how Voldemort had interpreted the > prophecy (though personally I don't see how Snape could tell > his 'tale of remorse' without mentioning this fact). All we know is > that Dumbledore is satisfied that Snape was a spy for the good > guys. We have no examples of the intelligence he brought on which > to hang an elaborate distinction like idea that Snape only reported > on Voldemort, and never on other Death Eaters. Dana: Precisely of course you did not mention this to help me proof my point but it is exactly the problem I have with Snape being DDM. DD in his after the fact speech could have used this to make Harry see what Snape has done for the Order but he actually never does but he does mention what information Snape got directly from Harry himself. The only thing DD ever mentions is that Snape was truly remorseful about how LV interpreted the prophecy, information DD himself already knew because he heard the prophecy himself and knew it would involve only those people who had a son at the end of July. James and Lily going into hiding actually did not have to had anything to do with information DD got from Snape because DD already knew Snape brought the prophecy to LV and he knew LV already good enough to foresee that he would probably act on it and therefore DD himself might have warned the Potters out of precaution and DE activity turning up every where the Potters turned would already have been suggestion enough that LV was going to act upon it. It was only suggested by Fudge that one of DD's useful spies had warned him that LV was going to target the Potters and it was implied that DD suggested the Fidelius Charm as a result of that warning and we see that it was only in place just one week when LV killed them. I'm not suggesting that Snape went to DD just one week before the Potters died because as we see it was at least during the summer before terms started as Snape was working as a teacher for 14 years in OotP but everything else of what Snape did for the Order is speculation and just assumption that it must have been more because it seems so unlikely that there wouldn't be any more. Unfortunately canon does not provide anything more. There is only 2 suggestions in canon that Snape spied on DD a very long time. 1) Him bringing the prophecy which was actually made before Harry was born 2) Snape's own claim in HBP that he could give LV 16 years worth of information on DD. That is it and the latter suggests that Snape waited at least 9 months before he got remorseful about bringing the prophecy to LV and thus only after it became know which people the prophecy could have included, which of course still supports the notion of the lifedebt. JHMO Dana From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 19:58:22 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:58:22 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170147 > > Mike: > > I agree with Sherry, Snape has outed himself as a bigot, or at the > very least, has freely used bigotted speech. We get one look at > things in the Marauder's school days, in SWM, after which James and > Sirius are branded as bullies, as in, they must have done that > before. But Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" has to be an > aberration?! IMO this is a blatant double standard. If James and > Sirius must have been picking on Snape for years, why shouldn't we > also believe that Snape has used that highly offensive term before? wynnleaf First, we're given a lot more about Sirius and James than the one Worst Memory scene. Sirius and Lupin comment on the ongoing hexing of Snape. We have the evidence of McGonagall's comments. We have the evidence of the detention files and James and Sirius frequently attacking other students. And then we have Snape admittedly biased comments about them ganging up 4-1. So the idea that the Worst Memory scene is the only evidence we've got that James and Sirius were bullies simply isn't the fact. Also, we've got Sirius' comment that Peter was the sort to gravitate toward the "biggest bully on the playground." Sirius is referring to Voldemort, but are we supposed to assume Peter had only recently acquired that trait? And then there's JKR naming one of Dudley's gang members "Piers" which means "Peter" and describing him as rat-faced, which if the reader pays attention, it's like drawing a big red arrow from Dudley's gang to the Marauders. No, I think it's just about as clear as JKR could make it that James and Sirius were bullies. Back to bigotry and Snape. A bigot, technically (yes, I know people use the term more broadly), is a person who is unfairly judging based on people's *opinions.* I assume that what everyone is actually saying is that Snape is prejudiced. But here again, we have to ask is Snape *truly* prejudiced against werewolves? In order to be "prejudiced" against werewolves, Snape would need to hold *preconceived,* *irrational* judgements about werewolves, and based his opinions about Lupin based on those. But Snape -- while he may use unpleasant comments to insult Lupin -- is not basing his opinions on *preconceptions* or *irrational judgements.* No. Snape is basing his suspicions of Lupin on his own experience of Lupin. We don't know whether Snape also has a broader range of adverse opinions about werewolves in general, but even if he did, it would most likely be based on his actual experiences with Lupin. One could possibly argue that as irrational. I'm not saying that Snape is necessarily *right* in his adverse judgements about Lupin, but they are *not* prejudicial. Just because one may disagree with a person's adverse opinion of someone, doesn't mean that person is "prejudiced" toward the person. Prejudice is based on preconceived or irrational, or unknowledgeable opinions. Snape's opinions aren't preconceived, irrational, or unknowledgeable. > >> Mike: > Lupin was weak, that is an accepted fact, imo. That is his *excuse* > for the way he acts. Keep in mind that he has had to deal with the > *very real* debilitating condition for a long time without the aid of > a Wolfsbane potion. Also, by all indications, he has had to deal with > being shunned from chilhood because of his condition. As I say, it is > an *excuse* not a valid reason. > wynnleaf I, instead, would say that Lupin's condition, and factors related to growing up with that condition, any prejudices against Lupin, etc., offer a possible *reason* for his actions, but absolutely are not an *excuse* for his actions (the reasons do not "excuse" him, iow). > > wynnleaf > > As regards Snape's dislike of Lupin, yes, Snape plays the werewolf > > "card" to insult Lupin. But my impression has always been that he > > does that, not because of a general bigotry against werewolves (who > > he never insults in a general way), but because he hates Lupin in > > particular -- for his very human weaknesses -- and will use > > anything, however unfairly, to insult him. > > Mike: > As you say further down and Carol brought up in another post, Snape > has a real fear of werewolves, founded or unfounded, and a hatred for > what almost happened at the jaws of this particular werewolf. So is > it bigotry, or can it more accurately be called rational, in Snape's > mind, distrust of anything werewolf? I would say that Snape is freely > using a bigotted term out of a perceived rational hatred for a member > of the oppressed group. Like you said, wynnleaf, much like an > adolescent would do. wynnleaf What term is bigoted? "Werewolf?" The term itself isn't bigoted. Lupin uses it himself. That is, in fact, what he is. He says so himself. The problem, is that Snape calls him "werewolf," in such a way as to take away from his humanity, imo. Rather than call him by his name, as Snape usually does, he calls him werewolf. He might as well call him "creature," or "monster." Snape's use of the word in the Shrieking Shack is quite different from his use of the mudblood term in the Worst Memory scene. In the Shrieking Shack, Snape was well aware of the impending transformation. He'd seen and been in danger from werewolf!Lupin in the past. It is not surprising or necessarily even directly intended solely to insult, that Snape would be calling Lupin directly "werewolf," when in fact Lupin was fast coming upon his transformation. > > > wynnleaf > > To me, it's a little similar to Snape's mudblood comment. There > > isn't any other instance in canon to really support Snape > > being a pureblood elitist -- his Half Blood Prince name implies > > the opposite. It seems far more likely to me that he used the > > term just because it was an available weapon at hand to use, not > > because he really had any problem with Lily being muggleborn. > > Mike: > Here I disagree. We *have* only one instance in canon from Snape's > school days. As I said above, if it was good enough to brand James > and Sirius, why isn't it good enough to brand Severus? wynnleaf Well, as I point out above, there's lots of evidence that James and Sirius were bullies. As far as I can tell, there's only one word of evidence that Snape was biased against muggleborns (biased against people *because* they are muggleborn, that is). Mike Draco doesn't > call Hermione a Mudblood every time he's in close proximity to her, > yet we are all convinced of his pure-blood superiority beliefs. wynnleaf I won't go back over all the instances Carol mentioned, but they are so numerous, I'm sure you recall them. Draco uses the word lots of times, not to mention makes numerous disparaging remarks about muggleborns. Mike > But we have a one-for-one correlation with Severus and Lily and the > use of "Mudblood". Until I'm informed differently, I'm calling Snape > a bigot on this account. There is a lot of water under the bridge > since that utterance, yet Snape has no problem using another bigotted > term in PoA. Now, where's the canon that proves he's not a bigot? wynnleaf Hm.... Snape at age 15 uses the word "mudblood" in a moment of great stress, toward a girl who is "saving" him and flirting with his attacker all at the same time. Then 17 or so years later, Snape calls a werewolf a "werewolf," in circumstances where that werewolf is about to transform into a deadly beast. And from that we know he's prejudiced? Meaning he forms opinions based on preconceptions, irrational notions, and lack of knowledge? No, in my opinion, that's not particularly convincing. > > > wynnleaf > > > > > Further, Snape never trusts Lupin. And the thing is, Snape was > > right. > > Mike: > No, Snape was wrong about Lupin. Snape thought and *stated* in the > Shack that Lupin was helping Sirius get into the grounds. Not turning > state's witness against Sirius is not the same as "helping". wynnleaf I think you would find that legally that might be incorrect. But even if legally Lupin could get off, he was ethically "helping" Sirius by keeping the secrets of a supposed mass murderer a secret. Lupin held back information and even had relevent information in his hand (the map) and surpressed that information. Was Lupin obstructing justice? Ethically he was, if not legally (I suppose it depends on the particular legal standards.). In any case, Lupin was "helping" Sirius by not telling the secrets of a supposed murderer, which could have aided in catching the supposed murderer and keeping the children safe. Mike Plus > both of them, and Dumbledore, knew that Sirius knew about the Shack's > secret passage onto the grounds. wynnleaf That's not the secret passage most in question. Dumbledore *didn't* appear to know about the secret passage into Hogwarts castle itself. All the time the staff were patrolling the castle, there is no indication that anyone knew about the passageway to Honeydukes, which Sirius could have used to get into the castle. And in the Marauder's time, there was another passageway (Fred and George said it was impassable later). Lupin knew that Sirius had direct access *inside* the castle by way of the secret passageways. Dumbledore didn't have any idea (as far as we know), that Sirius knew those passageways. In fact, we have no evidence that Filch or anyone else knew those passages other than the Marauders, Fred and George, and later the Trio. Prior to Lupin getting his hands on the map, there's no way *he* could have personally been gaurding those passages, but he didn't tell Dumbledore anything about those passages *needing* to be patrolled. Mike When you add in that Sirius was > *not* the traitor, was *not* trying to kill Harry, then I don't see > how Snape can be considered to be *right* about anything other than > the given that Lupin was weak. wynnleaf In a broader sense, Snape was right. He thought Lupin would help Sirius get into the castle. He was wrong about that. But he was right that Lupin would help Sirius, even without knowing Sirius was innocent. Lupin wouldn't give up info that would endanger Sirius. Of course, the reason Lupin wouldn't give that information (according to him), wasn't really to protect Sirius, but to protect himself. But it all amounted to the same thing in the end. Lupin was willing to put the entire school at risk from a crazed, mass murdering Death Eater. He wasn't just weak. He was very, very untrustworthy. > Mike: > Which brings up another point regarding Lupin and Snape. wynnleaf I won't address this as others addressed it quite well. >Mike > Lupin should have revealed Sirius was an animagus. That's one secret > that Lupin is definitely at fault for not coming forward. wynnleaf He was also at fault for not telling Dumbledore that Sirius knew secret passageways that led directly into the castle (no, not the Shrieking Shack one which only led to the grounds). He was also at fault for concealing the map instead of turning it over to Dumbledore who could have had the map watched 24/7. Mike But how > many people died from Lupin keeping this secret? None. Close calls in > their youth, but still none. wynnleaf I really don't see how this has to do with *anything.* When a teenager recently rode through our town shooting off a rifle, he got prosecuted. Sure, he'd have been in worse trouble if someone had actually been killed, but he wasn't let off with a "no harm done," excuse. The kid had no idea no one would get hurt, after all. Similarly, Lupin had no idea that his keeping of Sirius' secrets wouldn't get kids killed. As far as Lupin knew (prior to discovering Sirius' innocence), Ron almost *did* get knifed. But did Lupin have an attack of guilt and come forward with his evidence? No. Mike > Snape has a secret from his younger days that others may be > interested in also. Snape overheard a certain prospective divination > teacher make a prophesy and reported that news to his boss. How many > people died from this *secret*? By my count, two. wynnleaf However, completely unlike Lupin, when Snape realized that his actions were endangering innocent people he decided to do something about it and confess his secrets. And when Snape confessed his secrets to Dumbledore, it was at the likely risk that Dumbledore would just take the warnings about the Potters and send Snape on to Azkaban. All Lupin really risked was a fear that Dumbledore would think less highly of him for what he and the Marauders did running around every month in their youth. Yet even with a far lower risk in making a confession to Dumbledore, Lupin refused to confess. Lupin went ahead, continuing to risk the lives of others -- while Snape risked going to Azkaban to confess and help save the lives of others. Mike So who has the > moral high ground at the time of PoA, Snape or Lupin? Lupin made > mistakes, Snape made mistakes. wynnleaf Snape, because he risked everything to correct his mistakes. Lupin wouldn't tell Dumbledore, even while feeling quite guilty, because he wouldn't risk losing Dumbledore's goodwill. Sure Lupin later ran out to the Shack, supposedly risking something to go after Sirius (not sure what he was risking since he was due to transform). Still, let's assume Lupin forgot completely about the transformation and ran out to confront a supposed murderer. So he did finally risk something to correct his mistakes -- sort of. The problem is that in going out to Sirius, he put others at risk again, by not taking his coming transformation into account. Mike Which ones mistakes were more costly? wynnleaf Neither Lupin nor Snape knew, at the time of their mistakes, what the final cost would be. Lupin *knew* that not telling Dumbledore needed information was endangering innocent school children. He did nothing for 9 months. Snape knew that his actions had endangered two families and he went to Dumbledore. In the end, Snape's actions -- even though he confessed to Dumbledore -- brought about the deaths of the Potters, but ultimately also led to 13-14 years of peace with Voldemort gone. So many more lives were saved. That wasn't to his credit, but it was the result. In the end, Lupin's actions brought about the escape of Peter, who went to Voldemort and helped him rise again, leading to the deaths of many more people. Sirius was initially saved from being captured again and kissed, but Voldemort's return (due to Peter escaping), led right back to Sirius dying. So I'm not sure that Lupin ultimately accomplished anything positive, and Peter got to help Voldemort rise again, leading to many deaths. Looks to me like Snape has the highground in some sort of cosmic balance. wynnleaf > > > wynnleaf > > He's[Snape] used to using legilimency to determine lies, truth, and > > other intent. It's possible that he really *can't* fathom Lupin's > > mind and blames it on his being a werewolf. I tend to think there > > are enough instances of Lupin appearing to use legilimency and > > occlumency to guess that he does have these abilities, and that > > Snape may run up against a mental wall when trying to "fathom" > > Lupin. > > Mike: > I think Lupin uses a rudimentary or passable form of Legilmency, on > several occasions. But I don't remember any time that he's credited > with using Occlumency. I realize these two are closely related > disciplines, but it seems that Occlumency is the more difficult to > master. I just don't get the feeling that Lupin is that good at > Legilemency and probably very poor if at all able with Occlumency. > Besides, Snape has shown an aptitude for detecting when someone is > trying to use Occlumency against him. JMHO. > > Mike > From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 20:00:50 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:00:50 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: <5003750.1181574447028.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170148 Bart: > While the concept of elemental properties of entities, such as the so- called "4 elements" (as opposed to elemental composition, such as the chemical elements), existed in the distant past, Tarot is a relatively recent innovation, requiring paper and printing (probably not earlier than the 15th century). In other words, while the houses may have been based on the 4 elements, they were almost certainly not based on Tarot. Dana: That is not correct tarot (the rules of tarot not the card reading) was already used by the ancient Egyptians and has its origin in alchemy and the Emerald tables of Thot which are later contributed to Hermes. So eventhough tarot was not known in the concept as we know it now, its concepts originate from acient believes. So JKR using this ancient concept is not only extremly likely to built her founder elements from she even uses the same elements that are used in tarot today. Fire - wands, air - swords, water - cups, earth - pentecals. JKR just has fun with it by jugging them around but the idea is still very similar. She even uses the name of one tarot card to name one of the chaptera in her book. The lightning-struck tower which is actually so much fun because the card predicts precisly what the reader will do when he receives such a card in a tartot reading - being in totaly denial ;o) http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/tower.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 11 20:29:27 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:29:27 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: replies to many, many, many posts Message-ID: <2192415.1181593767485.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170149 Bart: >> While the concept of elemental properties of entities, such as the so- >called "4 elements" (as opposed to elemental composition, such as the >chemical elements), existed in the distant past, Tarot is a relatively >recent innovation, requiring paper and printing (probably not earlier >than the 15th century). In other words, while the houses may have been >based on the 4 elements, they were almost certainly not based on Tarot. Dana: >That is not correct tarot (the rules of tarot not the card reading) was >already used by the ancient Egyptians and has its origin in alchemy and >the Emerald tables of Thot which are later contributed to Hermes. So >eventhough tarot was not known in the concept as we know it now, its >concepts originate from acient believes. Bart: Which has nothing to do with Tarot, nor do the links you gave contradict what I wrote, at all. Dana: >So JKR using this ancient concept is not only extremly likely to built >her founder elements from she even uses the same elements that are used >in tarot today. Fire - wands, air - swords, water - cups, earth - >pentecals. JKR just has fun with it by jugging them around but the idea >is still very similar. She even uses the name of one tarot card to name >one of the chaptera in her book. The lightning-struck tower which is >actually so much fun because the card predicts precisly what the reader >will do when he receives such a card in a tartot reading - being in >totaly denial ;o) > >http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/tower.shtml >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism Bart: If she is basing it on the idea of the "ancient Tarot" (originated by 18th and 19th century authors, who based it on, "we made it up"), well, the books ARE fictional. Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 11 20:32:43 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:32:43 -0000 Subject: replies to many, many, many posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170150 > Carol responds: > While I agree with you that thinking that Snape provided the names of the DEs who were arrested or killed is an assumption, that information had to come from somewhere. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are not going to provide it to Barty Crouch and the MoM, and we're told that snape turned spy for "our side at great personal risk." Where would the risk come from if he weren't providing valuable information, and what would be more valuable than the names of the Death Eaters? (He would not be doing it, like Karkaroff, to save his own skin and get out of Azkaban; he would be doing it to atone for his mistake of informing LV of the Prophecy, and he would be reporting to DD directly rather than to the MoM.) Dana: Him telling DD about the Potters would also be risking his life because LV was obsessed with killing Harry because LV believed he was the one that could lead to him being vanquished. If it has come to LV's ear that someone within his own circle was trying to prevent him getting to Harry then the life of that DE was soon to be history. You are now also assuming that the lead on Rosier and Wilkes was provided by the Order while there is no such thing suggested in canon. Sirius does not imply that information from the Order lead to these men's arrest and neither does Barty in the pensieve scene. You want to make the MoM and the auror's into incompetent people that could not find a fly on their own if it landed on their face and that only Severus Snape could have provided that information otherwise the MoM would never have been able to find one single DE on their own. Many DEs did not work as conspicuously as Snape did and many were very proud of their activity. Karkaroff testified after LV's down fall when many of the DEs had stopped their activity to evade being sent to Azkaban and thus them no longer implicating themselves or by being caught red-handedly. Crouch just wanted to send more DEs to Azkaban but as we see he could not get everyone convicted like for instance Ludo, Lucius and Avery. It is just an assumption that the MoM could not have gotten their leads on Rosier and Wilkes on their own or that every lead they had had to come from somewhere and therefore the only probably assumption would be Severus Snape. It hasn't been suggested in canon that the information came from DD through one of his spies and never has it been implicated by the other side that Snape sold out his DE friends like Karkaroff did. It is giving Snape a little more credit then canon implies and as I stated above Snape giving DD information on the Potters and LV's plans with them is enough to consider it at great personal risk and as we see Snape considers him spying on LV after his rise back to power a great personal risk as well and we do not see it envolved selling out anyone personally either. JMHO Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 21:30:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:30:02 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170151 > Dana: > Tell me is glimpsing Lupin at the end of the tunnel really plenty of > experience for Snape to understand how deadly a werewwolf can be? > Because to me it is a little overrated as he never had a deadly > struggle for his life as a result. Lupin never came within striking > range of Snape. To me Snape is just brooding on the "what if" and not > on what he actually experienced. He is not calling Lupin a werewolf > out of his own experience and out of his own fear but because he > still believes Lupin was part of the trick Sirius played on him. zgirnius: It is in my opinion debatable, but there is definitely evidence favoring the idea that James Potter saved Snape's life in that incident, and that Snape had a consequent life debt to James. None of this could have happened if Snape's life were not threatened in that incident. We have also Lupin's statement, which is sort of self-contradictory, so one must choose which parts to believe: > PoA: > your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life... Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. zgirnius: Either Snape (and therefore Potter) only barely glimpsed Lupin at the end of the tunnel and skedaddled (which you seem to propose), or James acted 'at great risk to his life', in which case, since Snape was further into the tunnel, we must conclude Snape's life was at least equally at risk. I tend to the interpretation that both Snape and Potter were in real, tangible danger, because I can't really see, psychologically, why James's rescue would rankle so if Snape had not needed him. Surely at the point at which Snape saw the werewolf, he could just turn around and walk back out, if Lupin were indeed far away and no threat? > Dana: > If he truly was scared then he would not have mocked Lupin about his > problem all year long and he certainly would not have run after him > to the shack. zgirnius: Why not? First, he did not mock Lupin about the problem that I can recall prior to the Shack scene. In my opinion, his evident desire to see Lupin drink his potion in the scene Harry sees could be attributed to fear/worry about Lupin transforming without the potion. Seeing him take it would certainly be reassuring. As to the second claim - it is surely not the only potentially frightening thing Snape has done. We see the same pallor that is described at his appearance in the Shack scene again in GoF, before he returns to Voldemort. > Dana: > Let me ask you this if Snape was not a true bigot then why did he > never reveal that he was not a pure blood? Because as we see Bella > calls Harry a filty Half-Blood but she never mentions this to Snape > when she is in Spinner's End and I'm sure she would have if she had > known this. zgirnius: It is my opinion Snape's blood status is known to his Death Eater friends from his schooldays. For one thing, someone like Bella must know Snape is not a pureblood name. There aren't many of those old families. *If* Snape managed to hide anything, and I see no evidence one way or the other, I would guess that would be that his father was a Muggle. The evidence I see that Bella knows is what she says to Cissy as they approach Spinner's End: "We must be the first of our kind ever to set foot-". In other words, there is some classification ('our kind') Bella has in mind, to which she and Cissy belong, and Snape, who lives there and so, obviously, has set foot there before, does not. Snape is Death Eater like Bella, he is a wizard like Bella, so what do you propose she means? I thought it obvious she meant purebloods by 'our kind', meaning she knows Snape is not one. > Dana: > Tell me if Snape did not truly > think of her as a filthy mudblood then how come it was the first > thing that came into his mind. If you do not think about people in > such away then it would never enter you mind not even in a situation > like that. zgirnius: Snape lived among people who used terms like that all the time for at least part of his schooldays, among his Slytherin housemates. I don't see why it would not occur to him as an insult to use. Also, it is by no means obvious that this was the first thing Snape thought of: > OotP: > 'Leave him ALONE!' > James and Sirius looked round. James's free hand immediately jumped to his hair. > It was one of the girls from the lake edge. She had thick, dark red hair that fell to her shoulders, and startlingly green almond-shaped eyes - Harry's eyes. > Harry's mother. > 'All right, Evans?' said James, and the tone of his voice was suddenly pleasant, deeper, more mature. > 'Leave him alone,' Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. 'What's he done to you?' > 'Well,' said James, appearing to deliberate the point, 'it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean ' > Many of the surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and nor did Lily. > 'You think you're funny,' she said coldly. 'But you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone.' > 'I will if you go out with me, Evans,' said James quickly. 'Go on go out with me and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.' > Behind him, the Impediment Jinx was wearing off. Snape was beginning to inch towards his fallen wand, spitting out soapsuds as he crawled. > 'I wouldn't go out with you if it was a choice between you and the giant squid,' said Lily. > 'Bad luck, Prongs,' said Sirius briskly, and turned back to Snape. 'OI!' > But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants. > Many people in the small crowd cheered; Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter. > Lily, whose furious expression had twitched for an instant as though she was going to smile, said, 'Let him down!' > 'Certainly,' said James and he jerked his wand upwards; Snape fell into a crumpled heap on the ground. Disentangling himself from his robes he got quickly to his feet, wand up, but Sirius said, 'Petrificus Totalus!' and Snape keeled over again, rigid as a board. > 'LEAVE HIM ALONE!' Lily shouted. She had her own wand out now. James and Sirius eyed it warily. 'Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you,' said James earnestly. > Take the curse off him, then!' > James sighed deeply, then turned to Snape and muttered the counter- curse. > There you go,' he said, as Snape struggled to his feet. 'You're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus -' > 'I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!' zgirnius: The point of this extremely long excerpt? Its length. All this happens between the moment Lily shows up, and Snape insults her. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Mon Jun 11 21:51:56 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:51:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466DC3FC.8010305@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170152 I think what people are forgetting is that being a werewolf is not like having herpes or some muggle disease. Snape has every right to feel that Lupin is a danger to people and should not be teaching children. Lupin could miss one of his potions to control his condition and bite any number of kids before stopped. What school in the muggle world would allow someone that dangerous around kids? Say a person with a severe mental illness who is dependent on medication to control it and could snap just by missing their meds and become a danger to everyone? Lupin might be a great teacher, but it was highly irresponsible of Dumbledore to have him at the school, regardless of the existing dangerous creatures in or around the school. We should not be wondering if Snape is a bigot, which in this case is not justified, we should wonder if Dumbledore was senile to allow Lupin to teach. Being a werewolf is NOT like having a muggle illness, its like having a ticking timb bomb which only the taking of a potion can keep it from going off.. WHO was making that potion?? Snape. WHO forgot to take it and Snape had to go looking for him to remind him? Lupin. Seems pretty irresponsible of Lupin to forget to take the only potion that keeps him from mauling or killing the students in his care. A side note: Most of the wizard work has prejudices. Giants, centaurs, werewolves, animaguses, spiders, muggles, etc. Ron in fact shows more of them openly then anyone.. Why are people singling out Snape in a world of people who would drop a child out a window to see if its a squib or who enslave elves or not give goblins the same rights as human wizards? Jazmyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 22:01:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:01:13 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <466DC3FC.8010305@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: > Lupin might be a great teacher, but it was highly irresponsible of > Dumbledore to have him at the school, regardless of the existing > dangerous creatures in or around the school. We should not be wondering > if Snape is a bigot, which in this case is not justified, we should > wonder if Dumbledore was senile to allow Lupin to teach. Alla: Oh. Okay. I think I will continue wondering about Snape being a bigot though and will applaud Dumbledore for allowing Lupin to teach. People with HIV can also transmit this disease to others it if they are not careful and yes, as I said upthread, I know that this is not an exact analogy, seems pretty close to me though. IMO of course. Aside to Magpie - sure, I know this analogy is not the only one, I can see analogy with people with mental illnesses as well, but not analogy with gays for some reason. I mean medium that must not be named made it, but I find it not working for me. Jazmyn: > A side note: Most of the wizard work has prejudices. Giants, centaurs, > werewolves, animaguses, spiders, muggles, etc. Ron in fact shows more > of them openly then anyone.. Why are people singling out Snape in a > world of people who would drop a child out a window to see if its a > squib or who enslave elves or not give goblins the same rights as human > wizards? Alla: Erm... because this thread is about Snape bigotry or whether it exists? Nevertheless Ron's bigoted remarks and Hagrid bigoted remarks were acknowledged upthread as well. There are plenty of bigots in WW, Snape is one of them in my opinion. Does not mean that I stop criticising him because there many others. And he is also one of the worst in my view. But there is also Dumbledore in this world and Hermione and Ron who learns from his mistakes IMO, so I see hope for it. JMO, Alla From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 22:17:14 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:17:14 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170154 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170137 > Sridhar: > ... even without LV, there will be some bad things that happen > - where does it not happen, but I think Goddlefrood's intent > was about the crux of the series and not about other problems. > Of course, only he can clarify that. Goddlefrood: The point I was making was that all of the current problems in the wizarding world flow from LV. That to me suggested both directly and indirectly. This is in terms of wehat Harry has to begin to resolve, first \by neutralising LV and thereafter by beginning to clean up the rottenness in the WW in general. That this would include a resolution for the Death Eaters and the initiation of reforms to the MoM is something I have argued previously. It should also involve a restoration of the rift dating back centuries between Slytherin and the other house. On the matter of the Ministry of Magic and its corruptness I would add that we should keep in mind the fact, that we can easily extract from what we know of the first rise of Voldemort, that something akin to a state of emergency was in effect. That led to Barty Crouch Senior authorising the use of Unforgiveable Curses and improsonment without trial. This would not have been the case had there been no direct threat from LV, as there now is once more. On that level Random and Shridhar have begun to grasp the seriousness of the problems caused by LV. The other 2 people mentioned earlier by Catlady, beinbg Lockhart and Rita also have some of their behaviour attributable to LV, IMO. This may sound a little odd, but think just for a moment, Rita was a reporter during the first rise of Voldemort, pace the Pensieve scenes in GoF. That the Prophet had become somewhat of a propaganda organ for the MoM back at that time, and even perhaps earlier is not something that can be lightly disregarded. In that sense, she too has grown up in her tainted profession under LV's reign. Who would like to bet that the Prophet did not run smear campaigns against certain people during LV's first rise? Thus, on that level, LV is indirectly to blame for Rita's writing style. Gilderoy Lockhart could not really be directly or indirectly attributed to LV so I would cheerfully concede one. Hope that clarifies a little. Goddlefrood, not about to write a further magnum opus, at least not yet ... From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 11 22:25:24 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:25:24 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170155 Dung: > Did she ever clarify *whose* reaction she was referring > to? Society's reactions to people with illnesses and > disabilities, or on an individual level, how disabled > people react to their own illness or disability? houyhnhnm: It did occur to me that she might have meant the latter. That is not the way the quotation has been used in argument, however. If Lupin is an example of how someone may be warped by having an incurable illness, it makes a lot more sense. Then Lupin becomes a kind of parallel to Snape. In the case of both characters the wrongs they committed are acknowledged, but the reader is also encouraged to feel compassion for them because of the circumstances that drove them to commit those wrongs. I can live with that. I'm not dreading July 21 quite so much now. I've already shelled out my $21.98, but the money is nothing compared to the emotional investment in a story that could turn out to have what, for me, would be a shallow and emotionally unsatisfying ending. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 22:32:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:32:49 -0000 Subject: The Wise Old Fool, his Kith and his Kin (Quite Long, Even for Me) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170156 > Goddlefrood the contradictionalist: > The other 2 people mentioned earlier by Catlady, being > Lockhart and Rita also have some of their behaviour > attributable to LV, IMO. > Gilderoy Lockhart could not really be directly or indirectly > attributed to LV so I would cheerfully concede one. > Hope that clarifies a little. Goddlefrood the clarifier: No, it hardly helped at all. There is a clear contradiction here, you really must make up your mind and not continue to be a Mugwump. Ehat you were saying was that Gilderoy Lockhart's behaviour, which you probably do not consider evil, is not attributable to LV. That may avoid the confusion that comes about from certain neurons being out of place :-p From alig1528 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 22:40:43 2007 From: alig1528 at yahoo.com (alig1528) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:40:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170157 Hi, I was just recently looking through all of the books to try to create some sort of timeline of important events and I wound up finding enough information to calculate Voldemort's age for the seventh book... In CoS, after Harry and Ron take the Polyjuice Potion, Malfoy tells them that the Chamber of Secrets was opened 50 years ago. ("And Father won't tell me anything about the last time the Chamber was opened either. Of course, it was fifty years ago, so it was before his time..." p. 223) Later, when Harry talks to Tom Riddle (Voldemort) through the diary, he finds out that Riddle was in his 5th year (15 years old) the last time the Chamber of Secrets was opened. ("In my fifth year, the Chamber was opened and the monster attacked several students..." p. 241) Therefore, in Harry's 2nd year, Voldemort was 65 years old (15 + 50). Harry is now entering his 7th year, so 5 years have passed, making Voldemort's current age approximately 70 years old. I thought that this was interesting because he is supposed to have 7 horcruxes, it is the 7th book, and Harry was born in the 7th month of the year. I also found many dates with "31" in them. For example, Harry was born on the 31st of July, Harry's parents died on the 31st of October, and Voldemort was born on the 31st of December. However, I do not know what significance this has to the plot. --Ali From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Mon Jun 11 23:00:56 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:00:56 -0000 Subject: What side is Filch on? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170158 I'm re-reading 1-6 so I may have forgotten some things that have happened past book 2 however I found something interesting in book 2 today. I do hope that I'm not repeating a previous discussion... Ron: "I know that name... T.M. Riddle got an award for special services to the school fifty years ago." "How on eart d'you know that?" said Harry in amazement. "Because Filch made me polish his shield about fifty times in detention," said Ron resentfully. "That was the one I burped slugs all over. If you'd wiped slime off a name for an hour, you'd remember it, too." Now we know Filch is very particular about keeping the school clean but could it be a clue that he wanted this shield so clean. Ron says nothing about scrubbing the others for so long. Is Filch who we think he is? From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Mon Jun 11 23:05:43 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:05:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170159 Ali: > Therefore, in Harry's 2nd year, Voldemort was 65 years old (15 + 50). > Harry is now entering his 7th year, so 5 years have passed, making > Voldemort's current age approximately 70 years old. I thought that > this was interesting because he is supposed to have 7 horcruxes, it is > the 7th book, and Harry was born in the 7th month of the year. > Karen: Forgive me, I can't remember who, but someone stated in another conversation that they thought Harry's scar might be a horcrux. Well, let me tell you what I found today in CoS. "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thuderstruck. "It certainly seems so." (DD) > From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 11 23:14:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:14:37 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170160 lizzyben04: > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black > was killed days after leaving the Death Eaters. > How does he know this? houyhnhnm: I did double take on that, too. It is possible that Regulus approached the Order when he decided to defect and we just haven't been told about it. If not, then it must be a slip, either by Lupin who was spying on the Order for Voldemort or by "Lupin" who was spying on the Order for Voldemort. The link to "Mourning For Her Own True Love", swythyv's LiveJournal essay is worth posting again, 'cause it's a hoot. http://tinyurl.com/2jsqw7 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jun 11 23:31:29 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:31:29 -0000 Subject: What side is Filch on? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170161 > Karen: > Is Filch who we think he is? Goddlefrood: If he's LV's agent, what's he going to do? Snarl people into submission, perhaps? From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Mon Jun 11 23:40:58 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:40:58 -0000 Subject: What side is Filch on? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170162 Karen: > > > Is Filch who we think he is? > > Goddlefrood: > > If he's LV's agent, what's he going to do? Snarl people into > submission, perhaps? Karen: funny but he does work at Hogwarts and has access to a lot of information. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 00:05:50 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:05:50 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170163 > lizzyben04: > > > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black > > was killed days after leaving the Death Eaters. > > How does he know this? > > houyhnhnm: > > I did double take on that, too. It is possible > that Regulus approached the Order when he decided > to defect and we just haven't been told about it. > > If not, then it must be a slip, either by Lupin who > was spying on the Order for Voldemort or by "Lupin" > who was spying on the Order for Voldemort. wynnleaf, I'll repeat something I said about this recently. Sirius may have known the date of Regulus' death. We have no hard evidence that he did not know the date, although Sirius' comments about it in OOTP are pretty vague, as though he didn't know the details. But the tapestry has death dates for Regulus, so although those might only include the year, it does seem possible that Sirius knew the date. But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know that only "a few days," went by between... between what? Between Regulus turning from Voldemort and his death? Or between Voldemort hearing about it and Regulus' death? Either way, how could Lupin know? We have no indication that Regulus went to the Order or Dumbledore when he turned. However, even if he did -- like Snape -- I don't see how Lupin would have heard of the exact dates. After all, the Marauders were never told anything about the details of Snape turning to Dumbledore. Prior to GOF, they didn't even know that Snape had ever been a DE, much less become a spy. So there doesn't seem much likelihood that Lupin would have learned of how Regulus turned from Voldemort through Dumbledore. Further, I don't see any indication that Regulus turned away from Voldemort and went to Sirius. Sirius seems far to vague about it, as though he doesn't know the details, which he *would* know if Regulus had come to him. So how does Lupin know that it was only a few days between Regulus turning, or Voldemort hearing about it, and Regulus getting killed? wynnleaf, who realizes this could be yet another in the long line of Lupin related plot holes, which in itself is starting to seem suspicious. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 00:13:41 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:13:41 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" wrote: > > lizzyben04: > First, he usually refers to Voldemort by > > name - and he's the only person who does this in the WW, besides DD > > & Harry. And he does it casually, w/o anxiety - while most other > > people have to force themselves to even form the word. How did Lupin > > get on such familiar terms? It's an anomoly that I've never seen > > explained in the text. Maybe he's just that brave, but that doesn't > > seem in line w/Lupin's personality. I almost get the impression that > > he *knows* Voldemort in some capacity. > > Dana: > Sirius does that too. I do not see why this would make Lupin > suspisious. The DEs refer to LV as the Dark Lord and so does Snape > but not Lupin. lizzyben: It could be that he's just emulating Dumbledore, I admit. Still, there's something odd in how Lupin refers to both Voldemort & the Dementors - a certain casualness, almost like he's too familiar with both. But that's just a hunch, so I admit there's no proof of that. > lizzyben04: > > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black was killed days after > > leaving the Death Eaters. How does he know this? Even Sirius, his > > brother, only has some vague idea that Regulas tried to leave at > > some point & was killed by somebody. Lupin knows exactly when > > Regulas left, and exactly when he was killed. I don't know how Lupin > > could know when Regulas left the Death Eaters - unless he was in > > contact w/the Death Eaters as well. These things always made me > > wonder about him, though there might be a perfectly reasonable > > explanation. > > Dana: > > Lupin never says anything about Regulus in OotP. He states in HBP > that as far as he can remember Sirius's brother did not last long > with the DEs. That is all that he states. Regulus died a year before > the Potters did so there would have been numerous ways to find out he > died. lizzyben: OK, I found the quote in canon - it is from HBP, page 106: ""And they've found Igor Karkaroff's body in a shack up north. The Dark Mark had been set over it - well, frankly, I'm surprised he stayed alive for even a year after deserting the Death Eaters; Sirius's brother, Regulus, only managed a few days as far as I can remember." So, Lupin knows that Regulus left the DE, and he also knows that Regulus only lived a few days thereafter. My question is, how does he know this? How would he know when Regulus left the DE unless he was in direct contact w/either Regulus or the Death Eaters? Sirius himself only seems to have a vague idea, but Lupin knows the specifics. Why? Based on how Lupin says this, it doesn't sound like he learned about this from a tapestry or something. He says "as far as I can remember", which means that he's recalling something he experienced in the past. Lupin implies that he first knew that Regulus had left, and then learned about Regulus's death a few days later. And this is one of the ONLY places that we hear Lupin referring to his past. He's remembering something that happened in 1979, during those missing, unexplained 12 years. So where was he that he would learn this information? On it's own, it's not that suspicious, but combined w/Lupin's evasiveness about his past, and the lack of any other information about his adult life, it's certainly suggestive. Wherever Lupin was in 1979, he was in a position to know exactly when Regulus left the Death Eaters. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 00:29:17 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:29:17 -0000 Subject: Availing Little / Mrs. Norris & Other Cats (Was Re: What side is Filch on?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170165 > Karen: > > > Is Filch who we think he is? > > Goddlefrood: > > If he's LV's agent, what's he going to do? Snarl people into > > submission, perhaps? > Karen: > funny but he does work at Hogwarts and has access to a lot of > information. Goddlefrood: He is who we think he is, IMO. He may have access to certain records at Hogwarts, but as they probably mostly pertain to detentions overe the years and confiscated contraband, not forgetting the QuickSpell course book, there's unlikely to be all that much value in Filch being other than the miserable, bitter and jealous squib he is. Mrs. Norris is a different matter altogether, is she a cat who has more to her than meets the eye, as JKR once noted in an interview that the cats in the series do? I tend to be less funny when at work, as I now am, and was not entirely joking when I queried the initial question. Goddlefrood From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 12 00:48:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:48:33 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170166 Dana: > People with HIV are a risk to other people if they > do not take precautions, like having safe sex, being > careful with blood products ect. In Afrika women infect > their children but with medication this could be > prevented. People with HIV however do not posse a > risk to people in normal life just as Lupin doesn't either. > In my country currently there is a scandal about 4 > people who at parties injected people with HIV infected > blood without their consent, does this mean that > suddenly all HIV positive people are going to do this? houyhnhnm: Actually only about 35% of HIV positive mothers transmit the virus to their children, *without* intervention. ALL werewolf bites are infectious. A small number of HIV positive individuals may engage in predatory behavior. ALL werewolves are predators when they transform, by definition. So I don't think the analogy is valid at all. Dana: > That we are therefore having to ban these people from > their job, deny all of them a normal life because they > might be possing a risk at some time in their life's > because that is what you seem to be saying. houyhnhnm: You know very well that's not what I'm saying. Please do not put your words in my mouth (regardless of your immunological status). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 01:21:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:21:22 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170168 > Charles: > My theory on this, and it works for DDM! or ESE! Snape, is that DD > needed Slughorn at the school. DD was all set to send Snape to LV full time, and have him make reports by patronus. As the DDA curse does not necessarily kill, they decide that the most natural way to accomplish this is by making Snape the DDA teacher until such time as he can make his way to be with LV full time. The UV, and later consequences would be after such decision was made, IMO, so I really think that it was a way to get Snape out of Hogwarts and into LV's presence more. > > Charles, who is impatiently waiting to read JKR's DH, as it will > finally lay a lot of questions to rest. Carol responds: My theory is similar but not identical. For one thing, it assumes DDM!Snape. First, I think that Snape's supposedly wanting the DADA position is a cover story. Neither he nor DD wanted Snape to have it until conditions were right because they knew hew wouldn't be returning to the school once conditions were right. IMO, Snape and Dumbledore are a team. As long as Dumbledore is at Hogwarts, he wants Snape to be there working with him, and there's no point in Snape's being there if Dumbledore isn't because he's supposed to be spying on Dumbledore for LV. From the time young Snape is hired, he uses his skills as Potions master not only in the classroom but whenever DD needs a potion made, and he's Dumbledore's right-hand man watching over the kids as well, particularly after Harry comes. Once Voldemort returns, which they anticipate from at least SS/PS onward and particularly from GoF onward, things start to change. Snape has to return to LV as a spy. They know that at some point, he'll have to go into Voldemort's camp permanently. But Dumbledore waits as long as possible, even allowing Umbridge to teach DADA rather than giving Snape the cursed post too soon. Let him teach Potions and Occlumency and they'll stall Voldemort with the Prophecy orb. But in HBP, the time has finally come. The WW and Hogwarts are in crisis. Voldemort is back and no longer focusing on the Prophecy orb. Dumbledore has suffered a potentially dangerous injury. Snape can't save his hand; he can only save his life, or at least, slow the progress of the curse. Draco Malfoy, who wants revenge for his father's arrest, has become a Death Eater and has been assigned to kill Dumbledore. In the unlikely event that he succeeds, or the likelier one that Dumbledore dies from the curse, there will be no reason for Snape to remain at Hogwarts. He'll have to return to LV and try to subvert him from there. Meanwhile, Dumbledore really needs Snape'd DADA expertise to prepare the students for Voldemort's return; no other teacher has his specific experience with the Dark Arts and his acquaintance with Dark wizards and their ways. And those skills will come in handy, too, if students (particularly Draco) succeed in smuggling Dark artifacts into the school. Dumbledore also needs a memory from Horace Slughorn, to whom he wants to extend his protection. Conveniently, Slughorn is Snape's former Potions teacher and Head of House and can take over for him in both positions, Potions starting with Harry's sixth year and HoH starting as soon as the DADA curse inevitably sends Snape from Hogwarts. All that's needed is for Slughorn to accept the Potions position and Snape can become the DADA teacher, but he seems already to be acting in that capacity when Dumbledore goes to him, not Madam Pomfrey, to heal or at least slow the ring Horcrux curse. In the past, Dumbledore has relied on Snape's Potions expertise. This year, for the first time, his DADA expertise takes precedence. They know that the DADA curse will strike. They almost certainly guess that it will relate to Draco (and to the Unbreakable Vow once it becomes part of the picture). But Dumbledore can't afford to place another incompetent in the crucial DADA position this year. It has to be Snape. I don't know the extent of their plan. Certainly, they didn't anticipate the events on the tower. But that Dumbledore wanted and needed Severus Snape as DADA teacher in this year of crisis I don't doubt for one moment. Carol, who thinks there's seldom a simple explanation for anything in the HP books and that things usually happen as the often unforeseen consequence of various people's choices and the confluence of seemingly unrelated situations From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 12 01:26:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:26:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170169 wynnleaf, I'll repeat something I said about this recently. Sirius may have known the date of Regulus' death. We have no hard evidence that he did not know the date, although Sirius' comments about it in OOTP are pretty vague, as though he didn't know the details. But the tapestry has death dates for Regulus, so although those might only include the year, it does seem possible that Sirius knew the date. But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know that only "a few days," went by between... between what? Between Regulus turning from Voldemort and his death? Or between Voldemort hearing about it and Regulus' death? Either way, how could Lupin know? Further, I don't see any indication that Regulus turned away from Voldemort and went to Sirius. Sirius seems far to vague about it, as though he doesn't know the details, which he *would* know if Regulus had come to him. So how does Lupin know that it was only a few days between Regulus turning, or Voldemort hearing about it, and Regulus getting killed? Magpie: I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius could both have heard of Regulus' death, but how on earth did anyone know that he'd turned? Did he make a scene in front of LV? They wouldn't have heard this sort of thing from other DEs. He leaves the note saying he knows he'll be dead but afterwards LV will find out he took his Horcrux. And the tone of the note immediately makes Regulus seem a lot more important a person than Sirius made him out to be. Did he find the Horcrux first and then, when he knew he had it, make some sort of public gesture that showed that he was leaving the DEs? So what exactly did anybody on the other side know? Sirius is vague, yet he still has some idea that Regulus got cold feet and tried to get out. I wonder if Regulus, who knew he was going to die, took some steps to make this story known to the right people? It may have been important to him that he be known to have not died a DE. Or perhaps he *did* send some sort of communication to Sirius that Sirius misunderstood because it in itself was vague so that Sirius could only assume that things had gone the way he imagined. If he did get a communication he might have known when it happened. Like, if he got a note after the fact that indicated Regulus had learned LV was wrong, but he received the note after Regulus was dead. I know some people feel like Sirius doesn't care about his brother, but I could easily believe his calling him an idiot was covering up bitterness for his sake as well as his own. Regulus was suckered in by his parents' ideology, and I love the idea that Sirius naturally made Regulus' death part of that same story. I mean, he must have considered it a good thing that Regulus *tried* to leave the DEs--that alone showed he'd done something right. It may be a plot hole, that JKR just figured that Sirius somehow knew the story because it was known, but it does seem to be moving from a vague story to a specific story, one that may depend on our side knowing at least some hard facts that they haven't yet shared with Harry. - From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 01:27:28 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:27:28 -0000 Subject: Were the Longbottom's in Hiding too? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karina Aleksandrova" wrote: > The Longbottoms must not have had a secret keeper, or at least like > the Potters -- not a reliable one, because the Death-Eaters did find > them after the Voldemort's downfall and torture them for the > information about the Potters. zanooda: You know, it's possible that any protection that the Longbottoms may have had was lifted after LV's defeat. DD says that the attack at the Longbottoms came "just when everyone thought they were safe", so they could think the defenses were not necessary anymore. I think the Longbottoms were attacked not immediately after LV's downfall, but quite some time after. Remember, Sirius says that Crouch Jr. "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban" (GoF, p.527 US hardback)? This means that at least some time passed since LV's "death", if Bella and Co. had the time to be investigated and to claim Imperius curse, apparently. Maybe there is more proof, but I can't think of anything right now. Anyway, we can't say how the Longbottoms were protected while LV was still alive, because the protection could be lifted after his disappearance :-). From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Jun 12 01:08:06 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:08:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Availing Little / Mrs. Norris & Other Cats (Was Re: What side is Filch on?) References: Message-ID: <002201c7ac8e$22e8e3d0$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170171 > > Karen: > > > > > Is Filch who we think he is? > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > If he's LV's agent, what's he going to do? Snarl people into > > > submission, perhaps? > > > Karen: > > > funny but he does work at Hogwarts and has access to a lot of > > information. > > Goddlefrood: > > He is who we think he is, IMO. He may have access to certain > records at Hogwarts, but as they probably mostly pertain to > detentions overe the years and confiscated contraband, not > forgetting the QuickSpell course book, there's unlikely to > be all that much value in Filch being other than the miserable, > bitter and jealous squib he is. > > Mrs. Norris is a different matter altogether, is she a cat > who has more to her than meets the eye, as JKR once noted > in an interview that the cats in the series do? > > I tend to be less funny when at work, as I now am, and was not > entirely joking when I queried the initial question. > > Goddlefrood Shelley: Filch is a person like Bertha Jorkins- she would be useful to torture to see what she knows, and that's about it. Filch would know all the secret passageways and probably some of the protections put on the castle. His knowledge is only specific and relevant to Hogwarts, should someone want to invade it. Other than that, he's not of much use to anyone. I have thought for a long time that Mrs. Norris must be a Kneasle, much like Hermione's Crookshanks. I also would be willing to bet that she was breed by Arabella Figg- Harry's odd neighbor when he's at the Dursleys. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Jun 12 01:16:25 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:16:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What side is Filch on? References: Message-ID: <002c01c7ac8f$4bd77260$f4639905@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170172 From: "karen" > I'm re-reading 1-6 so I may have forgotten some things that have > happened past book 2 however I found something interesting in book 2 > today. I do hope that I'm not repeating a previous discussion... > > Ron: "I know that name... T.M. Riddle got an award for special services > to the school fifty years ago." > > "How on eart d'you know that?" said Harry in amazement. > > "Because Filch made me polish his shield about fifty times in > detention," said Ron resentfully. "That was the one I burped slugs all > over. If you'd wiped slime off a name for an hour, you'd remember it, > too." > > Now we know Filch is very particular about keeping the school clean but > could it be a clue that he wanted this shield so clean. Ron says > nothing about scrubbing the others for so long. Is Filch who we think > he is? Shelley: First, Ron was on detention, so of course the aim is to get everything spotless because it's a punishment. Second, Ron kept burping slugs on it, meaning he kept getting it dirty. See #1 for why he would be made to clean it again after each slug. Frankly, it didn't matter which trophy it was that he belched a slug on, he was going to have to redo it. Third, there are plenty of other cannon instances where Filch is particular about the castle. I remember one time that the students were avoiding him because he had a cold, and was cranky, and was giving out detentions for muddy footprints on the floor when they came in from the rain. Filch is nothing more than a cranky old Squibb who is happy that he has a home with Dumbledore in the Castle rather than being an outcast somewhere else. Shelley From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 12 01:58:58 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:58:58 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!! In-Reply-To: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170173 > wynnleaf, > I'll repeat something I said about this recently. Sirius may have > known the date of Regulus' death. We have no hard evidence that he > did not know the date, although Sirius' comments about it in OOTP are > pretty vague, as though he didn't know the details. But the tapestry > has death dates for Regulus, so although those might only include the > year, it does seem possible that Sirius knew the date. > > But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know that only "a > few days," went by between... between what? Between Regulus turning > from Voldemort and his death? Or between Voldemort hearing about it > and Regulus' death? Either way, how could Lupin know? > > colebiancardi: Well, in OotP, it does seems that Lupin did spend some time visting with Sirius at number 12 - afterall, when Harry went to ask about the Pensive scene, it was Lupin who initially responded at Sirius' home. It could be that the two of them spent a lot of time together during that year. They did have a lot of catching up to do and Lupin, being the sort of sensitive soul that he is, would have realized how lonely Sirius was, as he was forbidden to leave the house. I could see that Sirius talked about a lot of things, including Regulus. that is my take on it - I know it sounds very simple, but I can imagine the two of them, over butterbeer, talking away. colebiancardi From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 01:59:33 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:59:33 -0000 Subject: Availing Little / Mrs. Norris & Other Cats (Was Re: What side is Filch on?) In-Reply-To: <002201c7ac8e$22e8e3d0$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170174 > Shelley: > Filch would know all the secret passageways and probably some > of the protections put on the castle. Goddlefrood: As would a certain Peter Pettigrew, who iirc would know all the passges, whereas Argus was unaware of the one from the one-eyed witch to Honeydukes, so blessed at one time by Uncle Horace, in his days as an assistant there ;-) > Shelley: > I have thought for a long time that Mrs. Norris must be a > Kneasle, much like Hermione's Crookshanks. I also would be > willing to bet that she was breed by Arabella Figg- Harry's > odd neighbor when he's at the Dursleys. Goddlefrood: Would that be a cross between a Kneazel and a weasel? Intriguing, I'll certainly keep a beady eye on her as she would on me given half a chance. There's more to come on the cats, that's for certain. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 12 02:05:39 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:05:39 EDT Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!!/ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170175 > Dana: > > Interesting because Lupin only puts people at risk once a month and > only at night time, yet he is treated like he is a danger all the > time. > > People with HIV are a risk to other people if they do not take > precautions, like having safe sex, being careful with blood products > ect. In Afrika women infect their children but with medication this > could be prevented. People with HIV however do not posse a risk to > people in normal life just as Lupin doesn't either. > > In my country currently there is a scandal about 4 people who at > parties injected people with HIV infected blood without their > consent, does this mean that suddenly all HIV positive people are > going to do this? That we are therefore having to ban these people > from their job, deny all of them a normal life because they might be > possing a risk at some time in their life's because that is what you > seem to be saying. Julie: There is a very big difference between HIV postive people and werewolves. HIV positive people have CONTROL over their actions. The people you mention above infecting others at a party did so with intent and out of sheer malice. Werewolves don't have intent nor malice *once* they transform, because they can no longer control themselves at all. Anyone and everyone who crosses their paths is in serious and immediate danger of infection or death. I know werewolves while still in human form can choose to prepare themselves for their transformation by locking themselves away or having someone else do it (as Lupin was confined to the Shrieking Shack until the other Marauders started helping him escape). But that isn't foolproof, and it's certainly far less reliable than the typical HIV positive person's self-control and deterimination *not* to infect others. (Of course if Wolfsbane should become widely accessible and distributed, it might be a different story--just as it would be if HIV cocktails were to become widely accessible-read cheap-and distributed.) Unfortunately Lupin is a horrible example to the WW, because he exemplifies *exactly* why people fear werewolves. As a teenager he not atypically took great risks with the welfare of others to gain his "freedom." And as a supposedly responsible adult he transforms into a werewolf on school grounds in the presence of schoolchildren. No matter HOW you excuse it--he was preoccupied with an emergency situation, he forgot what time of month it was (!!), etc--or how much sympathy you may have for him, after that serious error in judgment no parent is going to want him in the vicinity of their children (at least not within several days either way of the full moon). Ultimately, is it fair to deny werewolves jobs? I don't think so, but it's not analogous with denying HIV positive people jobs. Because the werewolf can't control his behavior at a certain time of the month, putting precautions in place would be just. One good thing about werewolves is that everyone *knows* just when they will transform (so I presume, even though we as readers haven't been given the most precise information). So it would be relatively easy to put those precautions in place, whether it was setting aside those days as days off from work for werewolves, or providing a shelter for the transformation period, or whatever. That's all if the WW is willing to go to the trouble of course, rather than just shoving the problem aside and pretending werewolves don't exist (see again the AIDS epidemic in Africa). Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 02:51:25 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:51:25 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed (Was: Using available resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170176 JW: Many of us have been anticipating the return of widdle Norby. There is symmetry in the series, with certain similarities between pairs of books (2 and 6, 3 and 5) with book 4 as a fulcrum. Anticipated symmetries between books 1 and 7 will include backstory and answers in response to book 1 issues and the return of at least one character. Welcome back, Norbert! > > > It looks like Paul is absolutely correct about Harry using > dragons in DH. At the very least in the new art we can see > that the trio use a dragon for transportation. > > > I'm wondering if that is Norbert they are riding > - if not, it's almost certainly one of Charlie's dragons. I hope it's Norbert. > > Kamil > From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 12 03:02:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:02:59 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170177 > > wynnleaf, > But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know that only "a > few days," went by between... between what? Between Regulus turning > from Voldemort and his death? Or between Voldemort hearing about it > and Regulus' death? Either way, how could Lupin know? > Magpie: > I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius could both have heard of > Regulus' death, but how on earth did anyone know that he'd turned? Did he > make a scene in front of LV? They wouldn't have heard this sort of thing > from other DEs. > > He leaves the note saying he knows he'll be dead but afterwards LV will > find out he took his Horcrux. And the tone of the note immediately makes > Regulus seem a lot more important a person than Sirius made him out to be. > Did he find the Horcrux first and then, when he knew he had it, make some > sort of public gesture that showed that he was leaving the DEs? Pippin: Perhaps Reg sent an owl, "to be opened in the event of my death" dated only a few days before his body was discovered. It could have gone to his parents, or the Daily Prophet, or even Kreacher. It's odd that Lupin should take more interest in the details than Sirius -- but it could be a hint that survival time for DE's who betray Lord Voldemort is a matter of personal interest to him . Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 03:00:22 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:00:22 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? (Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170178 > lizzyben04: > > > Second, in OOTP, Lupin says that Regulas Black > > was killed days after leaving the Death Eaters. > > How does he know this? > houyhnhnm: > I did double take on that, too. It is possible > that Regulus approached the Order when he decided > to defect and we just haven't been told about it. > > If not, then it must be a slip, either by Lupin who > was spying on the Order for Voldemort or by "Lupin" > who was spying on the Order for Voldemort. lizzyben: It's possible he approached the Order, but then Sirius should know more than he does. Sirius sounded very distant when discussing Regulus, as if he hadn't had any contact with him since leaving Hogwarts. And we know Dumbledore doesn't share information easily. Lupin had to have learned this from another source. > The link to "Mourning For Her Own True Love", swythyv's > LiveJournal essay is worth posting again, 'cause it's a hoot. > http://tinyurl.com/2jsqw7 lizzyben: Oh, that essay is great! It does lay out all the suspicious things that "Lupin" does over the course of HBP. I guess the Regulus slip could support the theory that "Lupin" is an impersonator - Lupin wouldn't know when Regulus left the death eaters, but Pettigrew certainly would. But I've started to think that it's almost worthless to try to analyze what happens in HBP, since 80% of it is probably fake anyway. They've got a vat of Polyjuice Potion & a metamorphmagus - anybody could be anybody. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 12 04:58:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:58:16 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? ) In-Reply-To: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170179 wynnleaf > But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know that only "a > few days," went by between... between what? Between Regulus turning > from Voldemort and his death? Or between Voldemort hearing about it > and Regulus' death? Either way, how could Lupin know? > Further, I don't see any indication that Regulus turned away from > Voldemort and went to Sirius. Sirius seems far to vague about it, as > though he doesn't know the details, which he *would* know if Regulus > had come to him. > Magpie: > I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius could both have > heard of Regulus' death, but how on earth did anyone know that he'd > turned? Did he make a scene in front of LV? They wouldn't have > heard this sort of thing from other DEs. Jen: If Lupin was among the werewolves in the first war and they were Voldemort supporters, it's possible he found out about Regulus and passed that information to Sirius rather than the story going the other way. In fact, Lupin knowing that information might have been a reason for Sirius to suspect him of being the traitor, especially if Lupin couldn't say why he knew it. Because Lupin IS a spy; that's his job for the Order in HBP. I see the possibility that he was one of Dumbledore's 'useful spies' in the first war and his long absences on mysterious missions (as he's doing in OOTP) probably fueled the fire of speculation about him amongst the Marauders. Lupin and Dumbledore wouldn't want to clear up that misconception because 1) the real traitor might make a misstep thinking he is safe from suspicion and 2) if Lupin was spying on more than werewolves, actually trying to get information on DEs, then being suspicious was a *good* thing. Because before Dumbledore had a double-agent like Snape to actually infiltrate the other side, spies were Dumbledore's only source of information. And Lupin would be *perfect* imo, since he was on the fringes of society and probably couldn't get a job after Hogwarts. He's this amiable, down-on-his-luck guy who could sit in a pub and get people to talk to him! Magpie: > I know some people feel like Sirius doesn't care about his brother, > but I could easily believe his calling him an idiot was covering up > bitterness for his sake as well as his own. Regulus was suckered in > by his parents' ideology, and I love the idea that Sirius naturally > made Regulus' death part of that same story. I mean, he must have > considered it a good thing that Regulus *tried* to leave the DEs- > that alone showed he'd done something right. Jen: I got the impression Sirius cared for Regulus from the way he talked about him and it's hard to pinpoint why. Maybe it was how he 'jabbed' his finger at the tapestry like the death still made him mad and got testy with Harry when Harry expressed surprise about Regulus joining the DEs. Then Sirius explained the situation by putting blame on the Black family for Regulus joining up rather than blaming Regulus. Am I saying the same thing you are Magpie? I wasn't sure exactly what you meant about Regulus' death being part of the same story. Jen From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 05:58:47 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:58:47 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170180 > Carol responds: > > But Hagrid *does* place a great deal of importance on blood, both in > terms of relationships and in terms of how it makes people what they > are, in his view. "Whatever yeh say, blood's important," he says to > Harry at the time that Grawp is beating him up. And he talks about > "all Malfoys" as being bad because of their "bad blood." Mike: OK, but what does this have to do with Hagrid's bigotted remark? It was aimed at a Squib, someone born to two people with wizarding blood. It's Filch's lack of magical prowess that Hagrid is calling out, not Filch's ancestry. > Carol > I'm not sure that he's generally prejudiced against Squibs, > but he's certainly using it as a generalized insult against Filch, > for whom, no doubt, he has some sort of personal antipathy, and, > unlike Teen!Severus calling Lily a Mudblood--at which she blinks > in surprise--he is not under duress, humiliatingly being rescued > by a Gryffindor girl who has just been flirting with his tormentor. Mike: So Snape is not only bigotted towards Muggleborns, but is insulted because a *girl* is trying to help him. Hmm, not improving his position methinks. ;) As to being in humiliating positions; I wonder what you think of Snape's "I see no difference" remark? You suppose that might be a little cold-hearted dig at Hermione's large front teeth? No need to answer. :D Now, I'd like to ask what you think of "And what difference does that make?" Sounds awfully similar, doesn't it. That's the remark that got under Hagrid's skin and caused his "Squib" outburst. To say Hagrid was not under some duress is an unfair analysis imo. > Carol: > Also, while calling someone a Mudblood is comparable to calling > them a "sneakin's Squib" (or "a filthy Half-blood," as I think > Phineas Nigellus calls Mundungus Fletcher), Mike: And let's compare invectives. Filch and Figgy both call themselves "Squib". No doubt Hagrid's use is meant as an attack on Filch's status, just as Filch has led with an attack on Hagrid's status. But, I have yet to see any Muggleborn's refer to themselves as "Mudblood". In fact, it seems to be one of the worse terms available in the WW to use against another person. It is also been used by only the most ardent and obviously bigotted people. Magpie put it best: as far as I remember, don't we have three student characters who ever use the term? Snape, Draco and Tom Riddle. I can't even remember any adults using the word--oh wait, Kreacher and Mrs. Black. It seems unlikely the word could ever be dismissed in canon as not being serious. Quite the company Snape is keeping here. And, as Magpie also pointed out, Snape has signed on with pure-blood superiority group - the DEs. Might Snape have re-evaluated his bigotted beliefs, like he probably re-evaluated his affiliation with Voldemort? Possibly, but he sure appears to be a bigot in his school days. > Carol cont: > calling someone a werewolf when that werewolf has endangered your > life, PoA p. 357: "Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel." Mike: Sounds like Snape barely found out that Lupin was a werewolf. Had he gotten farther, "he *would* have met a fully grown werewolf", *but* *he* *didn't*. Sounds like what Dana has pointed out, Snape is more indignant for what *might* have been, than actually coming close to mortal danger. He's pissed at the *prank* and for James being the one to save him from his own stupidity in taking Sirius up on his information, and probably his goading. > Carol cont: > and then that werewolf has the nerve to think that Snape's > suspicions of him are based, not on his own sneaky conduct Mike: Sneaky conduct? What sneaky conduct has Snape witnessed? > Carol: > Anyway, it may not be right to speak of Remus Lupin to his face as > "the werewolf," but considering that Snape has faced him in the form > of a murderous monster and thinks he's an accessory to a "murderin' > traitor," it seems just silly to call him a "werewolf bigot." Mike: A lot seems to hinge on Snape fearing for his life, based on a glimpse of a werewolf at the end of a tunnel. I hardly classify this as "facing" a werewolf. And his *wrong* opinion, based on his prejudicial view of the evidence, that Lupin was helping Sirius get into the castle does not exonerate him from speaking derogatorally of the "werewolf". > Carol: > As for the pureblood superiority ethic, there's no evidence > that he believes it (calling Lily a "Mudblood," which he does once, > is IMO no worse than the personal, and to me revolting, insult > "Snivellus," which Sirius Black uses repeatedly, even as an adult. > (It's not an insult to a group and therefore it's okay? I think > not. It's as mean-spirited and snide and cruel as anything in > the books.) Mike: Huh? Mudblood is no worse than making fun with someone's name? Using the WW equivalent of the "N" word is no worse than someone calling me "crud"? And, as said above, Snape's use of the term is in very rare and bigotted company in canon. We only see Snape "once" as a student - so he's one-for-one in his vile language batting average. And Snape joined a terrorist organization that spouted pure-blood elitism. > Carol: > But I still don't think that "werewolf" is a bigoted term. > It's a fact. Lupin, as both he and Hermione state, *is* a werewolf. Mike: Filch is a Squib. That's a fact. Was Hagrid using a bigotted term when Hagrid called him such? I seem to remember you arguing that it was a bigotted term, even if Hagrid is not truly bigotted. > Carol: > > Where's the canon that shows he is? Mike: I've presented the evidence that Snape was a bigot, even if he has changed his ways, since. You gave me a litany of Draco's uses of the term, thanks, but I didn't need convincing that Draco or Mrs. Black or Tom Riddle were bigots. Now add Severus Snape as the only other humans in canon to call another human a "Mudblood" and you have the complete list. > Carol responds: > Why in the world would Lupin be suspicious of Snape? Mike: Because Snape was famous for his interest in the Dark Arts. Because Snape hung around with people that became DEs. Because Snape could have joined the DEs and still have been cunning enough to evade prosecution. (Oh, wait, he did join the DEs and did avoid a stint in Azkaban). Do you think Sirius was alone in this evaluation of Snape's character and capabilities? I don't. > Carol: > It makes sense for Snape to suspect Lupin of trying to help > Sirius Black, but *Snape* isn't going to do it. Mike: Why? Wasn't Sirius suppose to have switched sides? Wasn't Sirius supposed to have at least been a Voldemort supporter if not a DE? So why should Snape suspect that Lupin had also switched sides? Snape should suspect that Lupin was also a Voldemort supporter and Dumbledore hired him anyway? Or should Snape be the only former DE that Dumbledore could trust? Face it, Snape *suspects* Lupin because Lupin was friends with those two boys that tormented him, while they were in school. Snape suspects Lupin because of that "schoolboy grudge" and makes all his evidence fit his theory. And Snape lobbied against Lupin before the school term even started. What evidence did he have for his pre-term conviction besides that *Prank*? > Carol: > [Lupin] knows that Snape suspects *him* and he *is* > suppressing information, but Snape is doing his best to keep Harry > in Hogwarts and away from Sirius Black. > and Lupin doesn't know that Snape was a DE. He does, however, > think that *Sirius Black* became a DE. and he knows that Snape > is not about to help Black. Can you give me the smallest shred > of evidence that Lupin suspects Snape of having been a DE before > OoP, Mike: I also think Snape is suppressing information. I find it very hard to believe that Snape wouldn't know that Black was never a Death Eater. As many have pointed out, the enmity between the two was unsurpassed in their generation. The idea that Black could have snuck into the Death Eaters and Snape not know about it...? And I also find it highly dubious that Lupin would believe that Black had turned DE and Snape had not. What in their past would hint that that is the likely way things would fall out? From everything we know of their early years, which isn't much, it seems that an ordinary observer would guess that Snape would be far more likely to have become a DE. (And they would be right). So why would Lupin, a friend of Sirius Black and an antagonist of Severus Snape, pick Black as the one more likely to become a DE? > Carol: > Which ones *could* have been more costly if Lupin had attacked a > Hogsmeade resident or HRH in werewolf form or Sirius Black had > really been out to murder Harry? Mike: Could've and would've but didn't and wasn't. Conjecture versus hard fact. Lupin made a mistake and came close. Sirius Black was thought to be after Harry but wasn't. Severus Snape made a *choice* to join the Death Eaters and purposely brought word of the prophesy to Voldemort. No amount of regret over those choices will bring Lily and James back to life. And while Sirius Black screwed up by convincing the Potters to switch to Pettigrew, he did not do it out of malice towards the Potters. Severus Snape cannot say the same thing with regards to his choice to join the DEs. That choice was a rejection of decency, a self- alignment with evil. > Carol: > And Snape, assuming DDM!Snape, tried to prevent the Potters' > deaths and is still trying to protect Harry. Setting aside the > tower because we still don't know what's up with that, I give > Snape the moral high ground. He rightly sees Lupin as weak. Mike: I notice we always have to add caveats to Snape's credentials. Two in two sentences above. And where in canon can you show that Snape did anything to prevent the Potter's death? We must *assume* that Snape was the one to tell Dumbledore of Voldemort's interpretation, leaving aside the notion that Dumbledore would know how Voldemort would interpret it. Dumbledore knew what the prophesy said and Dumbledore can count the months. There also seems to be an assumption that Snape tried to convince the Potters not to use either Black or Pettigrew, whichever. I can't think of what else Snape *might* have done, but I don't see any actual canon the backs up any of these assumptions. Can anyone point me to some? And Lupin being weak does not come close to Snape being a DE, when sizing up the two for which gets the moral high ground ************************************* > wynnleaf > > > Back to bigotry and Snape. > > A bigot, technically (yes, I know people use the term more > broadly), is a person who is unfairly judging based on people's > *opinions.* Mike: IMO a bigot is someone who denegrates others based on race, color, creed, sex, etc. In the WW we have to add blood staus and non-human sentient beings such as giants, centuars, goblins, merpeople, elves, etc. I include werewolves in that mix as part humans. > wynnleaf > I assume that what everyone is actually saying is that Snape is > prejudiced. Mike: No, I don't call it prejudice. It's bigotry. > wynnleaf > I, instead, would say that Lupin's condition, and factors related > to growing up with that condition, any prejudices against Lupin, > etc., offer a possible *reason* for his actions, but absolutely are > not an *excuse* for his actions (the reasons do not "excuse" him, > iow). Mike: We have a different understanding of the word "excuse". I use it when I think someone is trying to give a reasonable explanation, but falls short. An excuse to me is a false rationalization. That's how I use the term. > wynnleaf > What term is bigoted? "Werewolf?" The term itself isn't bigoted. > Lupin uses it himself. That is, in fact, what he is. He says so > himself. The problem, is that Snape calls him "werewolf," in such > a way as to take away from his humanity, imo. Rather than call him > by his name, as Snape usually does, he calls him werewolf. Mike: Right. Snape uses the term just as Hagrid uses the term "Squib". You can use almost any term that defines one, in a derogatory fashion, making that term a bigotted utterance. > wynnleaf > Well, as I point out above, there's lots of evidence that James and > Sirius were bullies. As far as I can tell, there's only one word > of evidence that Snape was biased against muggleborns (biased > against people *because* they are muggleborn, that is). Mike: And as I pointed out above, in my response to Carol, there are other indications that Snape was bigotted, at least in his early years. And, as I also pointed out, Snape was one-for-one in our view of his school days. In baseball, that's called batting a thousand. > wynnleaf > Hm.... Snape at age 15 uses the word "mudblood" in a moment of > great stress, toward a girl who is "saving" him and flirting with > his attacker all at the same time. Then 17 or so years later, > Snape calls a werewolf a "werewolf," in circumstances where that > werewolf is about to transform into a deadly beast. And from that > we know he's prejudiced? Mike: Well, how many other times do we see Snape in his school days? Oh yeah, that was it. And who else have we seen use the term "Mudblood" and what do we think of their character on the bigotry scale? They are all called bigots, iirc. And what do we think of those that have joined up with the Death Eaters? Rampant bigots, many of which joined up for that very reason. > wynnleaf > No, in my opinion, that's not particularly convincing. Mike: How about now? ;) > wynnleaf > That's not the secret passage most in question. Dumbledore > *didn't* appear to know about the secret passage into Hogwarts > castle itself. All the time the staff were patrolling the > castle, there is no indication that anyone knew about the > passageway to Honeydukes, which Sirius could have used to get into > the castle. Mike: As I've postulated before, I find it highly unlikely that MWPP were the only kids in a thousand years to discover that passageway. And clearly it is a known fact that the castle has secret passageways. Besides, though we are not told, which is more likely - Sirius slipped past the Dementors onto the grounds as a dog, or Sirius as a man snuck into Honeydukes with the Dementors patrolling the streets at night and his picture plastered everywhere during the day? > wynnleaf > In fact, we have no evidence that Filch or anyone else > knew those passages other than the Marauders, Fred and George, and > later the Trio. Mike: Filch knew four of the seven, according to Fred and George's *reckoning*. F & G didn't know who knew about the blocked one and didn't care because it was blocked. Unbeknownst to Fred and George, a lot of people knew about the Willow's. So, how sure are we that F & G's "reckoning" was correct regarding the one beneath that "old crone"? And Ron pointed out that Honeydukes had not been broken into. And after all this ratonalizing if Sirius snuck onto the grounds as a dog, he didn't need and couldn't use those secret passageways. > wynnleaf > In a broader sense, Snape was right. Mike: If you broaden out the meaning of "right", then yes, Snape was right. But he wasn't right about what *he* thought he was right about. And I've always agreed that Snape's likely overall opinion of Lupin's character was right on. > wynnleaf > > He was also at fault for concealing the map instead of turning > it over to Dumbledore who could have had the map watched 24/7. Mike: I think Lupin rightly thought of the map as *his*. Besides, it's the same argument as telling about the secret passageways. And as ingenious as the Marauders may have been, if Dumbledore had wanted a map that showed where everybody was in the castle and grounds, does anyone doubt that he could have made one himself? And how do we know that Dumbledore doesn't have something just like the Marauder's Map? "I've watched you more closely than you can have imagined" sound familiar? How did DD know Harry went after the stone before Ron and Hermione could say it? How did DD know where the CoS was and that Harry was in there? Maybe DD had a *Headmaster's Map*. In fact, after what we witnessed in the Cave in HBP, I really don't have any good reason for why Dumbledore should remain ignorant of any secret passageways. But in GoF, Dumbledore takes a certain pride in not knowing all his castle's secrets. Might not that be a little irresponsible on his part in light of things in PoA? But it's still Lupin's fault for not telling about the passageway?! Why not put the blame on the man who hired Lupin? > wynnleaf > However, completely unlike Lupin, when Snape realized that his > actions were endangering innocent people he decided to do something > about it and confess his secrets. And when Snape confessed his > secrets to Dumbledore, it was at the likely risk that Dumbledore > would just take the warnings about the Potters and send Snape on to > Azkaban. Mike: As I questioned above, where's the canon that it was Snape's warning, and why do we think Dumbledore needed any insight on LV's plans? > wynnleaf > Neither Lupin nor Snape knew, at the time of their mistakes, what > the final cost would be. Lupin *knew* that not telling Dumbledore > needed information was endangering innocent school children. He > did nothing for 9 months. Snape knew that his actions had > endangered two families and he went to Dumbledore. Mike: You presume, as Harry did and Dumbledore "believed", that Snape "returned" because of the prophesy. I'm not convinced that is the whole reason or necessarily the main reason. And regrets aside, Snape was still a proximate cause of the Potter's death. Lupin has nothing approaching that *mistake* to atone for. > wynnleaf: > In the end, Snape's actions -- even though he confessed to > Dumbledore -- brought about the deaths of the Potters, but > ultimately also led to 13-14 years of peace with Voldemort gone. > So many more lives were saved. That wasn't to his credit, but it > was the result. Mike: A brief calm between two wars, was Firenze's interpretation. But this is happenstance not of Snape's doing nor his ability to cause. The only foreseeable outcome was the Potter's death. > wynnleaf: > In the end, Lupin's actions brought about the escape of Peter, who > went to Voldemort and helped him rise again, leading to the deaths > of many more people. Mike: And if Harry hadn't stopped them, Lupin and Sirius would have killed Peter before all of it. And if Snape hadn't shown up, maybe the festivities would have ended earlier, and they would have made it back to the castle before Lupin transformed. This could go on forever. The point is that Snape *chose* to inform Voldemort, Lupin did not *choose* to cause Peter's escape. > wynnleaf: > Looks to me like Snape has the highground in some sort of cosmic > balance. Mike: At this point, I cannot disagree. A charmed life for an uncharming guy. From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 13:32:43 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:32:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> References: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706120632j313d77eeof9a6ce2d25bb85fc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170181 wynnleaf, I don't see any indication that Regulus turned away from Voldemort and went to Sirius. Sirius seems far to vague about it, as though he doesn't know the details, which he *would* know if Regulus had come to him. So how does Lupin know that it was only a few days between Regulus turning, or Voldemort hearing about it, and Regulus getting killed? Magpie: I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius could both have heard of Regulus' death, but how on earth did anyone know that he'd turned? Did he make a scene in front of LV? They wouldn't have heard this sort of thing from other DEs. Debbie: I think his renunciation must have become public in some way. Sirius says that from what he learned later, Regulus backed out after learning what he was expected to do. Obviously part of what they were expected to do was to take out the members of the Order. As I envision the timeline, Regulus' mangled and tortured body was found within a day or two of a bloody ambush of Order members. And don't discount the possibility that after he turned spy for the Order, Snape himself filled in a bit of the timeline for Dumbledore. (If Voldy had ordered Regulus killed as a turncoat, he must have informed the DEs.) It would be reasonable for Dumbledore to pass on the information to Regulus' brother, if not to Order members in general as insight into the psychology of their opponents. In that case, Lupin wouldn't have needed to get his information from Sirius at all. Magpie: I know some people feel like Sirius doesn't care about his brother, but I could easily believe his calling him an idiot was covering up bitterness for his sake as well as his own. Regulus was suckered in by his parents' ideology, and I love the idea that Sirius naturally made Regulus' death part of that same story. I mean, he must have considered it a good thing that Regulus *tried* to leave the DEs--that alone showed he'd done something right. Debbie: I think the feeling is mutual. Based on the facts that: 1. The task Voldemort assigned to Draco in HBP was to kill his own headmaster, someone he had an existing relationship with; 2. Sirius states that lots of pureblood families supported the DEs until they realized what they were willing to do to achieve power, which suggests that the killings did not start in earnest until fairly late in the game; 3. The DEs were decimating the Order (though I wonder if this didn't begin in earnest until Pettigrew turned traitor, which seems to have happened about the time of Regulus death); 4. As you point out, Regulus was misled into joining up by his acceptance of his parents' pureblood ideology; I believe that Voldemort assigned Regulus the task of killing his own brother, and this is what Regulus refused to do. In other words, the brotherly feelings were mutual. However, Sirius doesn't have this information. Sirius seems to have filled in the blanks in his facts with various surmises consistent with his opinion of his family and, perhaps, information he received indirectly from other family members such as Uncle Alphard (who was probably in contact with some of the family even if he'd been blasted off the tapestry). Thus, the notion that Regulus panicked is almost certainly an embellishment added to the story by Sirius, who does not know and will never learn the truth. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 12 14:37:12 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:37:12 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170182 > > Mike: > As to being in humiliating positions; I wonder what you think of > Snape's "I see no difference" remark? You suppose that might be a > little cold-hearted dig at Hermione's large front teeth? No need to > answer. :D Pippin: What do Hermione's front teeth have to do with Snape's attitude towards Muggleborns? Or are you planning to assert that the Marauders insulted Snape's appearance because he was a half-blood? > Mike: > And let's compare invectives. Filch and Figgy both call > themselves "Squib". No doubt Hagrid's use is meant as an attack on > Filch's status, just as Filch has led with an attack on Hagrid's > status. But, I have yet to see any Muggleborn's refer to themselves > as "Mudblood". In fact, it seems to be one of the worse terms > available in the WW to use against another person. It is also been > used by only the most ardent and obviously bigotted people. Pippin: Circular argument, there. You haven't proved that Snape was ardent and obviously bigoted at the time when he insulted Lily Evans. I think we have canon that he wasn't. Harry would have noticed if Snape had written, "Die, mudbloods, die" in his potions book, no? Even the fact that he later joined the Death Eaters does not tell us whether he was sympathetic to all their aims. > PoA p. 357: "Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel." > > Mike: Sounds like Snape barely found out that Lupin was a werewolf. > > Had he gotten farther, "he *would* have met a fully grown werewolf", > *but* *he* *didn't*. Sounds like what Dana has pointed out, Snape is > more indignant for what *might* have been, than actually coming close > to mortal danger. He's pissed at the *prank* and for James being the > one to save him from his own stupidity in taking Sirius up on his > information, and probably his goading. Pippin: Really? How would you feel if you saw an angry grizzly at the end of a tunnel you'd been tricked into entering? Safe? Like your life wasn't really in danger? Like the person who tricked you just wanted to give you a good scare? The tunnel is *twisty* --Crookshanks' tail bobs in and out of view as he leads Harry and Hermione along, they don't see Sirius and Ron ahead of them, and there's a a twist just before the tunnel reaches the opening at the Shrieking Shack end. From that description you'd have to be pretty close to the werewolf to see it. > Mike: Sneaky conduct? What sneaky conduct has Snape witnessed? Pippin: Snape heard Lupin confess to sneaky conduct, ie not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus, and convincing himself that Sirius had found some other way to enter the castle. Since Snape did not hear the part where Sirius explained that it was Crookshanks who had helped him into the castle, this would sound like more of a confession than it actually was. It's always sounded odd to me that Lupin claims responsibility for leading his friends to become animagi when he excuses himself for so much else, but I just realized, it's not only his silence as a teacher he has to account for. Lupin's also got to explain why he was silent during the *first* manhunt for Sirius -- the 24 to 48 hour period when he thought that Sirius was the secret keeper and that the secret had been betrayed. But of course if he considered himself party to Sirius becoming an animagus then he'd be incriminating himself, not just his former friend. > Mike: And his *wrong* opinion, based on his prejudicial view of the evidence, that Lupin was helping Sirius get into the castle does not exonerate him from speaking derogatorally of the "werewolf". Pippin: Nor does it exonerate Amos Diggory for calling Winky "Elf" -- and we know it's meant to be depicted as degrading because Hermione calls him on it. But he is a sympathetic character and likely to remain so. I can't think of anyone in canon *less* likely to become a Voldemort supporter. > Mike: > Filch is a Squib. That's a fact. Was Hagrid using a bigotted term > when Hagrid called him such? I seem to remember you arguing that it > was a bigotted term, even if Hagrid is not truly bigotted. Pippin: The word isn't derogatory, the usage is. In both cases the speaker is being rudely impersonal and rudely reminding another of their lower social status. But taking advantage of someone's lower social status to insult an individual is not the same as advocating that status, or advocating that it should be even lower. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 12 14:52:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:52:48 -0000 Subject: Compromising Positions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170183 Elkins long ago speculated that the Marauders fell out with one another because of their criminal past: they all knew that they were capable of lawbreaking and endangering innocent lives, and so distrust eventually drove them apart, enabling Voldemort to turn at least one of them to evil ends. I think the Trio might come under the same pressure as a result of their dealings with Rita Skeeter. Like three of the Marauders, she is an illegal animagus. The Trio blackmailed her, extorting something of value, namely her account of Harry's story, in exchange for keeping her secret. But Draco Malfoy also knows Rita's secret, and that means the DE's have had access to it also. It's possible that the Trio themselves could be blackmailed. But I'm more interested in what would happen if they thought Rita was being blackmailed or used by the Death Eaters. Would they feel bound by their commitment to keep her secret, or by fear of exposing themselves, not to tell anyone about her abilities? I don't suppose they'd want to keep her secret, whatever the cost, if they had proof she was a DE, but what if they just suspected her? This could be the way we find out what happened to the Marauders in that mysterious time between leaving Hogwarts and GH. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 15:04:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:04:11 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170184 > > Mike: > > > As to being in humiliating positions; I wonder what you think of > > Snape's "I see no difference" remark? You suppose that might be a > > little cold-hearted dig at Hermione's large front teeth? No need to > > answer. :D > > Pippin: > What do Hermione's front teeth have to do with Snape's attitude > towards Muggleborns? Or are you planning to assert that the > Marauders insulted Snape's appearance because he was a half-blood? Alla: I understood Mike comparing Snape's remark towards Hermione with Filch's remark towards Hagrid to show if if one is arguing Snape being under duress when he insulted Lily, then Hagrid was also under duress from Filch's remark, but maybe I was wrong. > > Mike: > > And let's compare invectives. Filch and Figgy both call > > themselves "Squib". No doubt Hagrid's use is meant as an attack on > > Filch's status, just as Filch has led with an attack on Hagrid's > > status. But, I have yet to see any Muggleborn's refer to themselves > > as "Mudblood". In fact, it seems to be one of the worse terms > > available in the WW to use against another person. It is also been > > used by only the most ardent and obviously bigotted people. > > Pippin: > Circular argument, there. You haven't proved that Snape was > ardent and obviously bigoted at the time when he insulted Lily > Evans. I think we have canon that he wasn't. Harry would have > noticed if Snape had written, "Die, mudbloods, die" in his > potions book, no? Even the fact that he later joined the Death > Eaters does not tell us whether he was sympathetic to all their aims. Alla: Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe is a bigot, really I need nothing more. As Dana said - if Snape would not feel that way IMO this insult would not have come to his mind, duress or not. And LOL - if him joining DE does not prove that he was sympathetic to their goals, then really I do not know what will it take to prove it. Any other DE we had seen, who joined, but was **not** sharing their goals? Yeah, Regulus got out, but I do not remember any support that he originally was not sympathetic to "pureblood supremacy" ideals. > > Mike: > > Filch is a Squib. That's a fact. Was Hagrid using a bigotted term > > when Hagrid called him such? I seem to remember you arguing that it > > was a bigotted term, even if Hagrid is not truly bigotted. > > Pippin: > The word isn't derogatory, the usage is. In both cases the > speaker is being rudely impersonal and rudely reminding > another of their lower social status. But taking advantage of > someone's lower social status to insult an individual is not the > same as advocating that status, or advocating that it should > be even lower. Alla: So, wait if somebody called me "dirty zhidovka", that means such person is taking advantage of my lower social status, but unless such person screams loudly " kill zhidov and save Russia", such person is not a bigot? Or are you talking about different degrees of bigotry as if one is better than another? Snape joined the organisation who wants to torture and kill Muggleborns. I think it follows very nicely that him calling Lily a Muddblood, which twelve year old Ron knows is the wors insult ever means that he had shared those beliefs. IMO, Alla. From hexicon at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 16:09:13 2007 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Kristen) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:09:13 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0706120632j313d77eeof9a6ce2d25bb85fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170185 Debbie: I believe that Voldemort assigned Regulus the task of killing his own brother, and this is what Regulus refused to do. Hexicon: Faced with this assignment, perhaps Regulus went to Lupin for help getting out the the DEs . . . and Lupin alerted Voldemort/DEs of Regulus' defection. From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 16:09:35 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:09:35 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170186 Hi, I am wondering if JKR is trying at some level to show that: the reasons behind the choices we make are responsible for our character and the choices themselves are responsible for what we face. Take the Marauders. It is very difficult for me to understand how Sirius, James and Lupin did not understand Peter a bit even after years of being with him. Similary, don't Sirius and Lupin know each other well? I guess the Marauders became friends based on their respect for ability and not because they "liked" them. Draco and other make friends (if they have anybody to be called "true" friends) based on purity of blood. Harry, on the other hand, refuses Malfoy's offer of friendship, instinctively and makes friends with Ron, Hermione and Hagrid. Is this one of the lessons in the books or is it just me reading something into nothing? Sridhar From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 16:11:09 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:11:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706120911u44f6f19cm1776aa5cd1490ba4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170187 > mz_annethrope: > > This morning our household was discussing how HRH could ride a > dragon given the difficulty of using magic against one. We were > thinking that Aberforth could be an animagus, since Snape--another > dragon animagus possibility--would be as likely to consent to be a > beast of burdern as would an ordinary centaur. > > Then an easy solution occured to me. What if dragons understand > Parseltongue? Slytherin's serpent understood Parseltongue. Dragons > are sometimes classified as serpents. Perhaps all reptiles > understand snake speech. ("Dragon" supposedly from Greek "derkomai" > middle voice for "to stare fixedly" and according to my hated Greek > professor refers to serpents, a certain law giver, and by extension > any reptile). Harry might be able to "tame" this beast simply by > speaking to it in its own language. Kemper now: I recently went the same route of possible animagi with a friend: Aberforth, Snape, Hagrid. Aberforth: He performed inappropriate charms on a goat (a fine word for independent sheep... yes I know there exist great differences twix the two) Snape: Bat imagery, Dracula, Dracul, Dragon Hagrid: He's not petite... yes I know if a man can animagi into a rat, he can animagi into a whale. Anyway... Then I went to Harry Dr. Doolittling the dragon. Another word for 'dragon' is 'wyrm'. I looked that up 'worm', which a variant of 'wyrm', and from Old English it means 'serpent, dragon'. So, as much as I'd love to see the Snape-and-Harry soul-patch, I think Occam's razor is shaving a Parselmouth goatee. Kemper From windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 16:57:45 2007 From: windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com (danielle dassero) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:57:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170188 >From: "sridharj_ap" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:09:35 -0000 > >Hi, > >I am wondering if JKR is trying at some level to show that: the >reasons behind the choices we make are responsible for our character >and the choices themselves are responsible for what we face. > >Take the Marauders. It is very difficult for me to understand how >Sirius, James and Lupin did not understand Peter a bit even after >years of being with him. Similary, don't Sirius and Lupin know each >other well? > >I guess the Marauders became friends based on their respect for >ability and not because they "liked" them. Draco and other make >friends (if they have anybody to be called "true" friends) based on >purity of blood. > >Harry, on the other hand, refuses Malfoy's offer of friendship, >instinctively and makes friends with Ron, Hermione and Hagrid. > >Is this one of the lessons in the books or is it just me reading >something into nothing? > >Sridhar > Danielle here: Sridhar, you have brought up some interesting thoughts. I also believe that choices in friendships could be based on abilities or similar interests. The Marauders are interesting to look at because in the end, 2 people who had a strong friendship couldn't trust each other. And the one that was the spy was the weakest one. I believe it was more that their friendship started because of the proximity to each other, they were dorm mates. Everyone has always said in the books the PP had no talent and probably no one would have taken notice of him, if he didn't hang out with the other Marauders (which is why it was so easy for Voldie to target him). As far as Draco's crabbe and goyle, I almost think they were thrusted upon him to be his lackeys from birth no doubt. Among the rich things like that can happen. You know people from the circles your parents hang out in and when at school (boarding or at regular school) you are expected to hang out with them. Usually whomeever has the most money, smarts or best looks gets to be the leader. I imagine like Harry and Ron, James and Sirius met on teh train, maybe they might have met before school briefly, but bonded on the train ride. I can see Lupin becoming friends and PP as a last thought to the group, PP was the tagalong, he was always hanging around so much, that he just bonded to the group as an afterthought. If PP had hung around and then developed his own way and left the group for his own new set of friends, I doubt the marauders would have even missed him. _________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 16:53:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:06 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death In-Reply-To: <380-22007621212651250@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170189 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > wynnleaf, > ... Sirius may have > known the date of Regulus' death. We have no hard > evidence that he did not know the date, although > Sirius' comments about it in OOTP are pretty vague, > .... But the tapestry has death dates for Regulus, ... > > But that doesn't explain how Lupin could possibly know > that only "a few days," went by between... between > what? ... Either way, how could Lupin know? > > > > ... > Magpie: > I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius > could both have heard of Regulus' death, but how on > earth did anyone know that he'd turned? ... > > He leaves the note saying he knows he'll be dead but > afterwards LV will find out he took his Horcrux. ... > ... > > So what exactly did anybody on the other side know? bboyminn: First and foremost, I'm not buying any 'Lupin is a spy and a traitor' theories; I'm just not. Next while some very good observations have been made in this thread, people seem to be overlooking one major factor; perhaps not overlooking it but not sufficiently regarding it. That factor is time. Regulus did not die last week or last month, he died more than 15 years ago, and 15 years is a lot of time for the truth to come out. Also, note that Lupin was in Dumbledore's inner circle, if information like this was available, I think Dumbledore would be likely to tell Lupin. Now certainly Dumbledore is very closed lipped, but this event, Regulus's death, was a done deal. It was over and there was no need to hide information. Since Regulus was dead and his death served as a very nice cautionary tale to anyone considering joining Voldemort, plus it involved family members of some of the Order, I think an explanation was due. Also, once Voldemort was vanquished, it seemed that some DE's/supporters/sympathizers/Imperioused were more than willing to spill their guts to keep from being prosecuted, or to receive more favorable treatment. Not to mention the various spies that both Dumbledore and the Ministry had; Snape in particular. So, information would become available. There would be interrogations, trials, investigations would continue, etc.... Word would spread, and in 15 years a lot of details could have become generally known that were not known while the war was in progress. We have no indication nor likelihood that Lupin or Sirius knew everything immediately. What they are both saying now represents information accumulated over the course of over 15 years, many conversations, and much investigation. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 12 17:22:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:22:19 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities/Re: Regulus' death(was: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170190 sridharj_ap: > I guess the Marauders became friends based on their respect for > ability and not because they "liked" them. Draco and other make > friends (if they have anybody to be called "true" friends) based on > purity of blood. > > Harry, on the other hand, refuses Malfoy's offer of friendship, > instinctively and makes friends with Ron, Hermione and Hagrid. > > Is this one of the lessons in the books or is it just me reading > something into nothing? Magpie: I don't know whether they're all that different. Harry's friends with all Gryffindors, the Marauders were friends with Gryffindors, the Slytherins are friends with Slytherins. I don't think JKR is saying that the Marauders weren't true friends--on the contrary. They certainly made a mistake with Peter, but I still think they're friends. Jen: I got the impression Sirius cared for Regulus from the way he talked about him and it's hard to pinpoint why. Maybe it was how he 'jabbed' his finger at the tapestry like the death still made him mad and got testy with Harry when Harry expressed surprise about Regulus joining the DEs. Then Sirius explained the situation by putting blame on the Black family for Regulus joining up rather than blaming Regulus. Am I saying the same thing you are Magpie? I wasn't sure exactly what you meant about Regulus' death being part of the same story. Magpie: Sorry-that is what I meant. I really do think both Sirius and Regulus cared for each other. It seems like Sirius is probably more comfortable with anger at his family than anything else, and with Sirius especially I think his calling him an idiot is covering up real regret and sorrow over his wasted life. And I agree with the other poster that the feeling was mutual for Regulus. Ultimately the two of them did, I think, wind up joined back up together without knowing it. I would love to see Sirius' reaction to learning about RAB. Sirius does, I think, put Regulus into his own narrative of his family by blaming them for giving him his bad ideas. What I like is that this not only indicates maybe a desire to shield Regulus, but also an underestimation of him. He may not have appreciated Regulus' ability to figure out where he went wrong and his ability to take action when he did. bboyminn: First and foremost, I'm not buying any 'Lupin is a spy and a traitor' theories; I'm just not. Next while some very good observations have been made in this thread, people seem to be overlooking one major factor; perhaps not overlooking it but not sufficiently regarding it. That factor is time. Regulus did not die last week or last month, he died more than 15 years ago, and 15 years is a lot of time for the truth to come out. Also, note that Lupin was in Dumbledore's inner circle, if information like this was available, I think Dumbledore would be likely to tell Lupin. Magpie: Luckily, I'm not selling any Traitor!Lupin theories. But it's still an interesting question. Lupin may be in Dumbledore's inner circle, but Regulus wasn't, presumably. Obviously 15 years later it's generally known what happened, but my question is how did they get this information, and what information did they actually get? Because it seems as if they're wrong, after all. None of them knew that Regulus was out stealing Horcruxes or how he really died. They all seem to have been filling in the blanks. I'd like to know what blanks. We know why Dumbledore is aware of Snape's change of heart and Draco's indecision--he doesn't seem to have been present or aware of Regulus.' bboymin: We have no indication nor likelihood that Lupin or Sirius knew everything immediately. What they are both saying now represents information accumulated over the course of over 15 years, many conversations, and much investigation. Magpie: I'm not sure it does, though. My feeling in listening to both of them talk was that it seemed like they were talking about stuff they knew, not stuff that Dumbledore happened to bring up years later. Regulus is more important to Sirius and Lupin (as a friend of Sirius') than he would have been to Dumbledore, imo. He was a classmate of theirs. I still think it may come into play exactly how they--meaning the Order side--got their information about Regulus, since his true death seems to have been kept secret for so long. This, for me, is not about seeing anything suspicious in Lupin, but in finding out the true story of RAB. -m From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 17:51:19 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:51:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706121051s1c9aab9ud1f33c3c114f62c0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170191 Sridhar wrote: > > > I guess the Marauders became friends based on their respect for > ability and not because they "liked" them. Draco and other make > friends (if they have anybody to be called "true" friends) based on > purity of blood. > > Harry, on the other hand, refuses Malfoy's offer of friendship, > instinctively and makes friends with Ron, Hermione and Hagrid. montims: and yet, and yet - Draco DID offer friendship to Harry, even knowing who he was. It would be interesting to see the parallel universe version of Potterverse, where Harry accepted the friendship, and learned about the WW in Draco's coterie... LV would still have returned, of course... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gingysgirl at verizon.net Tue Jun 12 16:23:19 2007 From: gingysgirl at verizon.net (ejom723) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:23:19 -0000 Subject: Some observations and possibilities (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170192 First, forgive me if I write something that has been posted already, because I've not had access to the computer for some time due to other commitments. Notice the date of release for the movie of Order of the Phoenix: July 12, 2007 (UK release). If we just take into account the day and not the month or year (and yes I know for numerology sake this isn't the real way you determine things, but I'm making an observation here), that if you take the number 12 and add the digits 1 and 2 you get 3 of course: Harry, Ron, & Hermione. The same goes for the release date of Deathly Hallows of the 21st. This is no coincidence. Also, I bet two bucks to a doughnut that one of the horcruxes is in the trophy room at Hogwarts. Tom had plenty of opportunity when he was applying for a job with Dumbledore. It's not like Dumbledore's office is located right by the front door. Tom Riddle would have had to gone through parts of the castle to get to his office. Not to mention the trophy room is mentioned repeatedly though every single book. I also will go one step further and say that since he couldn't get his hands on Gryffindor's sword (as Dumbledore said was his last relic), Tom put his horcrux into his special award for services to the school as a lasting memory to his only home (like Harry): Hogwarts. Like a former Lit professor told me once, if you want to know what's going to happen in the future, look at the past. Lately, I have been reading 1, 5, & 6 all at the same time. They're in different locations and it's not hard for me to go back and forth plus it helps, because things pop out at me like never before. It was mentioned that (I believe that it was the editor of the book) sobbed when he read the book. Now me being a die hard fan of the books would only sob for a handful of characters. I thought about this and came to the conclusion that it's very likely that Hagrid will be killed in book 7. Think about it: he was Harry's first friend in the wizarding world. He has always supported Harry even when no one else did. He even sobbed when he had to leave Harry with the Dursleys. Hagrid has had a deep emotional attachment to Harry and I imagine Harry has this same attachment to Hagrid, even more so than to Dumbledore. In fact he is the last of the father figures he has, as he is not that close to Lupin or Mr. Weasley. I would also sob if Mrs. Weasley or one of the twins were killed. As to the prophecy, I think Dumbledore is wrong. I don't think it is Harry that will kill Voldemort. I think Tom Riddle will be the end of Voldemort. Granted I know they are one and the same, but only one exists at one time, yet they can't live without the other (the prophecy). Tom Riddle created the horcruxes to retain immortality which turned him inhuman and into Lord Voldemort. Once the horcruxes are destroyed, I think he will morph back into Tom, which will probably tick him off more than anything. I don't think Harry will have to kill him. I think Voldemort will ultimately bring about his own demise. In book six Dumbledore mentioned something about when LV tried to possess Harry at the MoM it put LV in mortal agony, because he had never been in contact with such a pure soul, one capable of being loved and giving love. This is Harry's weapon. Regardless of the fact that LV can touch him now (book 4), it causes them both great agony. I also believe even though he will come of age, this will continue in both LV and Harry. After all LV and Harry have shared blood. Which makes me wonder why there has been so many references to blood throughout the books and especially in Goblet of Fire (several bites, Harry's blood as a sacrifice, etc.). There has to be more to it. Maybe I'm just rambling, but I just wanted to throw out these ideas and see what everyone had to say. Jules From felicialso at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 17:45:31 2007 From: felicialso at yahoo.com (Felicia Soechting) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voldemort's Age Message-ID: <603156.34735.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170193 So Hagrid was at school the same time as Tom RIddle. He would be 70 years old too?????? Felicia From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Jun 12 18:29:45 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:29:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181672985.20406.1194797185@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170194 > Alla: > > Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe is a > bigot, really I need nothing more. Do you not even see the problem with saying "It must be such a bigoted term because only the people we know are horrible bigots say it" - as you said two posts ago, and ALSO saying "I know snape's such a horrible bigot because he uses this term"? -- Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 18:34:35 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:34:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706121134v63eb3062m4ef751b44f77fee8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170195 > mz_annethrope: > > This morning our household was discussing how HRH could ride a > dragon given the difficulty of using magic against one. We were > thinking that Aberforth could be an animagus, since Snape--another > dragon animagus possibility--would be as likely to consent to be a > beast of burdern as would an ordinary centaur. > > Then an easy solution occured to me. What if dragons understand > Parseltongue? Slytherin's serpent understood Parseltongue. Dragons > are sometimes classified as serpents. Perhaps all reptiles > understand snake speech. ("Dragon" supposedly from Greek "derkomai" > middle voice for "to stare fixedly" and according to my hated Greek > professor refers to serpents, a certain law giver, and by extension > any reptile). Harry might be able to "tame" this beast simply by > speaking to it in its own language. montims: Interesting idea, but wouldn't he have heard them speak already? Either when they were fighting their handlers in GoF, or when he was trying to get the dragon's egg... Also Norbert... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 18:49:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:49:22 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <1181672985.20406.1194797185@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170196 > > Alla: > > > > Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe is a > > bigot, really I need nothing more. Random832: > Do you not even see the problem with saying "It must be such a bigoted > term because only the people we know are horrible bigots say it" - as > you said two posts ago, and ALSO saying "I know snape's such a horrible > bigot because he uses this term"? Alla: Um, not quite. We also know that this word is bad, just bad in itself in my opinion. We have support from different sources - to name just two would be Ron and Dumbledore that *mudblood* is a horrible insult. On the Tower, when DD seems to be concerned with the matters of life and death, he still takes time to remind Draco not to use this word in front of him. Now if you put this addition to your chain, then it will be correct summary of my position. It would be something like that. 1. The word *mudblood* is a horrible term to call anybody because several characters tell us so **and** explain why they think so. 2. Only people who are horrible bigots use it. 3. Because Snape uses it - he is a horrible bigot. I mean, sure it is circular when you only put 2 and 3 together, but not when you add one in my opinion. Alla. From random832 at fastmail.us Tue Jun 12 18:36:52 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:36:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! - oops, i need to read more closely In-Reply-To: <1181672985.20406.1194797185@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1181672985.20406.1194797185@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1181673412.21751.1194798667@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170197 me (oops): > Do you not even see the problem with saying "It must be such a bigoted > term because only the people we know are horrible bigots say it" - as > you said two posts ago, sorry, it wasn't you, i got confused. But your response wasn't helpful in terms of the circular logic being pointed out. -- Random832 From toonmili at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 18:53:22 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:53:22 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <1181672985.20406.1194797185@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170198 Toonmili: The problem is that in the memory Snape is only 15 years old. And what do we know about teenagers: They don't think for themselves. Peer pressure and all... But I have never heard the adult Snape use that word. I have never seen the adult Snape show preference to purebloods. He hates Neville and he is pure blood. Besides how many of you had well developed social and politcal ideas of your own when you were fifteen. You can take him calling Lily a mudblood like an accent. If you are an American and you move to England when you are young. What will happen? There is a great chance you will pick up the accent. But once you go back to America, slowly the accent you picked up will start to melt away. This is like being in Slytherin. He picked up some of their qualities when he was in that house. They were his only friends so he was maybe talking like them because of it. But once he got out, either by a friendship with people with different opinions or something like that, he changed the way he spoke. Hence the reason why we have never seen adult Snape use the term. Being around Dumbledore would have some effect. Besides we know Snape is not a bigot because he told Bellatrix that he thought Harry might have been a new Dark Lord who he could pledge his loyalty to. It is well known that Harry is halfblood (JK said all grandparents have to be wizards to be considered pureblood) and he is even the son of the said person he thought blood was so dirty before. The point is Snape does not take blood seriously. What we heard was just a teenager trying to fit in and trying take focus off the fact that everyone had seen his nasty underpants. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 19:42:27 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:42:27 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170199 > > > Alla: > > > > > > Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe is > a > > > bigot, really I need nothing more. > > Random832: > > Do you not even see the problem with saying "It must be such a bigoted > > term because only the people we know are horrible bigots say it" - as > > you said two posts ago, and ALSO saying "I know snape's such a > horrible > > bigot because he uses this term"? > > > Alla: > > Um, not quite. We also know that this word is bad, just bad in itself > in my opinion. > > > We have support from different sources - to name just two would be Ron > and Dumbledore that *mudblood* is a horrible insult. > > On the Tower, when DD seems to be concerned with the matters of life > and death, he still takes time to remind Draco not to use this word in > front of him. > > > Now if you put this addition to your chain, then it will be correct > summary of my position. > > It would be something like that. > > 1. The word *mudblood* is a horrible term to call anybody because > several characters tell us so **and** explain why they think so. > > 2. Only people who are horrible bigots use it. > > 3. Because Snape uses it - he is a horrible bigot. > wynnleaf The problem with this line of reasoning is #2. How do you know that "only people who are horrible bigots use it?" In the series, Draco, Riddle, Kreacher, Mrs. Black, and Gaunt use the term. We know that they are *all* highly biased against muggleborns. We know this, not because they use the word "mudblood," but because they espouse, on numerous occasions, thoroughgoing opinions that muggleborns ought to die, be put out of the wizarding world, or are at least far beneath them, etc. When we first learn about the word, we are at the same time learning that Draco and Riddle despised muggleborns. Draco uses the word repeatedly in COS in order to accent his beliefs. This encourages us (and the new-to-the-wizarding-world characters, Harry and Hermione) to assume that use of the word at any time means that a person holds the same beliefs as Draco or Riddle. But there is no real proof of that. We know that Kreacher and Mrs. Black despise muggleborns, because they say so on all sorts of occasions. We know that Gaunt despises muggleborns because he makes that quite clear in his comments. Basically, your line of reasoning is saying that because these 5 characters despise muggleborns *and* use the "mudblood" word in order to accentuate their opinions, therefore *anyone* who uses the word at any time must, of necessity, despise muggleborns as well. That's an argument that affirms the consequent and is therefore fallacious. Here's why. You're saying: Those who are bigoted against muggleborns use the bad word "mudblood." Snape uses the term "mudblood" on one occasion. Therefore, Snape is bigoted against muggleborns. A similar argument might be: "All people whose surname begins with Mac are of Scottish ancestry. Dougal is of Scottish ancestry. Therefore his surname begins with Mac." Or to put it in the blandest of terms: All those who are A are or do B. X is or does B, therefore X is A. *Or* you may also be saying that the word "mudblood" is so incredibly bad, that it is in fact *impossible* to use the word without having a huge bias against, or despising muggleborns. There is no proof of this in canon. Because we see 5 characters using that word who we otherwise know to despise muggleborns, does not therefore mean that *any* other character who uses that word, regardless of the circumstances, is therefore *bound* to have the same beliefs as the other 5 characters. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 19:58:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:58:18 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170200 wynnleaf: > *Or* you may also be saying that the word "mudblood" is so > incredibly bad, that it is in fact *impossible* to use the word > without having a huge bias against, or despising muggleborns. There > is no proof of this in canon. Because we see 5 characters using > that word who we otherwise know to despise muggleborns, does not > therefore mean that *any* other character who uses that word, > regardless of the circumstances, is therefore *bound* to have the > same beliefs as the other 5 characters. Alla: It is simple, really. I think that canon is clear on how horrible the word mudblood is. So, to me everybody who uses it believes of what this word stands for. I do not know how else explain my position, truly. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 20:02:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:02:18 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170201 Carol earlier: > > > > But Hagrid *does* place a great deal of importance on blood, both in terms of relationships and in terms of how it makes people what they are, in his view. "Whatever yeh say, blood's important," he says to Harry at the time that Grawp is beating him up. And he talks about > > "all Malfoys" as being bad because of their "bad blood." > > Mike: > OK, but what does this have to do with Hagrid's bigotted remark? It > was aimed at a Squib, someone born to two people with wizarding > blood. It's Filch's lack of magical prowess that Hagrid is calling > out, not Filch's ancestry. Carol responds: My point is that Hagrid shares the Slytherin's views on the importance of "blood" but in a sort of reverse-discrimination way. He thinks *their* blood is tainted in just the same way that they think Hermiones' is. Their blood makes them evil, he thinks. You can't trust a Malfoy because of their bad blood. But he's a good guy and the Malfoys are bad guys, so this view is okay? I really don't think so. Prejudice is prejudice, whether it's based on the absence of magic or on your ancestry. (In a way, prejudice against Squibs is based on their ancestry, too; they have magical parents and should have been magic.) And "Squib," an insult aimed at Filch's nonmagical status, is an insult based on what and who he is as a member of a powerless group. It's comparable to Hagrid's insulting Vernon Dursley for being a Muggle. Granted, "Squib" isn't a distortion of a legitimate term as "Mudblood" is of "Muggleborn," but it doesn't need to be. It's an insult in and of itself. Squibs are written on the Black family tapestry and never spoken of even in respectable families like the Weasleys. I see no difference between insulting someone for being a Squib, which he can't help, than for being a Half-Blood or Muggleborn or "Half-breed" like Hagrid himself. If you insult a person for being Jewish, does it matter whether you say "You stinkin' Jew," "you money-loving Jew," or "you [substitute racial epithet of your choice]? It's all prejudice against Jews, and if there were a term comparable to "Mudblood" for Squibs, I wouldn't put it past Hagrid (who, after all, gives *Dudley* a pig's tail and would have actually turned him into a pig to punish Dudley's father) to have used it. Anyway, IMO, it's not the word that matters. It's the underlying sentiment. Hagrid thinks that Filch is inferior because he's a Squib; the Malfoys think that Muggleborns are inferior because of their "blood." The use of the term "Mudblood" merely emphasizes their contempt; it's a convenient way of expressing the underlying prejudice in a single word. I'm also saying that prejudice of various sorts is widespread in the WW, some of it justified (IMO, Giants are just as dangerous to be, some more than others, but nevertheless, it would be absurd to admit giants to Hogwarts). It's not just the purebloods and Slytherins who are prejudiced against Squibs and Muggles, as Hagrid illustrates. McGonagall also seems prejudiced against Muggles; Umbridge's prejudice against the Centaurs as "Half-Breeds" is echoed by their prejudice against humans as having intelligence and divination skills inferior to their own. I see no difference between "filthy Half-blood" (used as an insult by Bellatrix Lestrange and Phineas Nigellus) and "filthy Mudblood" except that an epithet happens to exist for one and not the other. Both express exactly the same attitude; the insulted person is inferior. > > > > Carol > > I'm not sure that he's generally prejudiced against Squibs, > > but he's certainly using it as a generalized insult against Filch, > > for whom, no doubt, he has some sort of personal antipathy, and, > > unlike Teen!Severus calling Lily a Mudblood--at which she blinks > > in surprise--he is not under duress, humiliatingly being rescued > > by a Gryffindor girl who has just been flirting with his tormentor. > > Mike: > So Snape is not only bigotted towards Muggleborns, but is insulted because a *girl* is trying to help him. Hmm, not improving his position methinks. ;) Carol: But what teenage boy would't feel exactly that same way? The teenage boys of my acquaintance think that girls are weak, and any boy who demonstrates weakness or cowardice resembles a girl in their view. Call me sexist, but I don't know any boy who wouldn't be insulted to be rescued by a girl because boys are supposed to be strong and brave and girls are (they think) just silly and weak. (I can think of a variety of terms, ranging from "effeminate" and "sissy" to derogatory terms relating to female body parts, used to describe a boy or man who resembles a woman, or the male view of women and girls, in any way. A boy has to be "manly," and that means he has to stand up for himself, not be protected by a girl like some mama's boy.) I've never been a boy, so I could be wrong, but I'd say that most boys would be humiliated to be rescued by a girl (especially one who's flirting with their tormentor). I'm not saying that it's right to think that way; I'm just saying that it fits the pattern I've seen over and over again in real life. > Mike: > As to being in humiliating positions; I wonder what you think of Snape's "I see no difference" remark? You suppose that might be a little cold-hearted dig at Hermione's large front teeth? No need to answer. :D Carol: You know, or should know, that I consider that remark to be cruel and unjustified. But it has nothing to do with prejudice against Muggleborns. Had it happened to young Severus rather than Hermione, he'd have fired off a retaliatory hex at the person who hit him rather than hiding his teeth rather than given the teacher who insulted him a cold stare before heading off to the hospital wing rather than bursting into tears. But of course those words weren't nice; they were wholly uncalled for. No one here, even the most adamant Snape defender, is arguing that Snape is nice. But that has nothing to do with whether he's prejudiced. > MikeA: > Now, I'd like to ask what you think of "And what difference does that make?" Sounds awfully similar, doesn't it. That's the remark that got under Hagrid's skin and caused his "Squib" outburst. To say Hagrid was not under some duress is an unfair analysis imo. > Carol: Huh? He's not being hung upside down with his own spells, publicly humiliated in front of the entire fifth-year class after having been attacked off-guard two against one while he was minding his own business. And he's not sixteen years old. Hagrid should know better. Maybe Severus should, too, but James's words, "You're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus" are the last straw. Sevvie's masculinity has been insulted along with everything else. (IMO, "Snivellus" is crueler by far than "Mudblood," which isn't even personal.) Mike: > Magpie put it best: as far as I remember, don't we have three student characters who ever use the term? Snape, Draco and Tom Riddle. I can't even remember any adults using the word--oh wait, Kreacher and Mrs. Black. It seems unlikely the word could ever be dismissed in canon as not being serious. > > Quite the company Snape is keeping here. Carol" Are you forgetting that Snape is sixteen in this scene? If we saw the adult Snape using the word, it would be different. But we don't. Carol earlier: > > calling someone a werewolf when that werewolf has endangered your > > life, > Mike: > PoA p. 357: "Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel." > > Mike: Sounds like Snape barely found out that Lupin was a werewolf. > > Had he gotten farther, "he *would* have met a fully grown werewolf", *but* *he* *didn't*. Carol: In which case, James didn't save his life. We have a problem with contradictory canon here. Did Severus merely glimpse the werewolf, in which case he could easily have run out of the shack on his own, or did he need James to save him, resulting in lifelong resentment? We can't have both. Either Lupin is, er, mistaken, or James didn't save Severus's life, and Severus has no reason to resent being saved by his worst enemy (and DD's explanation for Snape's year-long protection of Harry in SS/PS, already only a partial explanation, IMO, loses any validity whatever). Also note that Remus was quite literally not in his right mind at the time of the so-called Prank, so his memory of the incident is not reliable. In fact, he probably can't remember it at all. Snape and Dumbledore believe that James saved Severus's life. Are they wrong, or is Lupin wrong? You can't have it both ways. > Carol earlier: > > and then that werewolf has the nerve to think that Snape's > > suspicions of him are based, not on his own sneaky conduct > > Mike: Sneaky conduct? What sneaky conduct has Snape witnessed? Carol: Not turning in the Marauder's Map in to Dumbledore, for one. And concealing information from DD. Snape may not *know* that Lupin is doing so, but he suspects it. For example, he's right that Lupin knows how Black is getting into the school and is concealing that information from Dumbledore. And he suspects that the Hump-backed witch is a secret passageway that Lupin knows about but has concealed from DD. Lupin also lies to Snape about not being a manufacturer of the Marauder's Map that has just insulted Snape ("It's a Zonko's product"--yeah, right, Lupin) and note that when Lupin says "I'll take theis *back,* shall I?" Snape doesn't protest. He knows full well that the parchment is no Zonko's product that merely insults anyone who reads it. He knows that it belongs to Lupin and his fellow manufacturers and he guesses rightly that it shows how to get into Hogsmeade without being seen by the Dementors. Lupin's failure to hand it in to Dumbledore (it's lying right on his desk when Snape brings the potion on the night of the Shrieking Shack incident) is also suspicious. > Carol earlier: > > As for the pureblood superiority ethic, there's no evidence > > that he believes it (calling Lily a "Mudblood," which he does once, > > is IMO no worse than the personal, and to me revolting, insult > > "Snivellus," which Sirius Black uses repeatedly, even as an adult. > > (It's not an insult to a group and therefore it's okay? I think > > not. It's as mean-spirited and snide and cruel as anything in > > the books.) > > Mike: > Huh? Mudblood is no worse than making fun with someone's name? Using > the WW equivalent of the "N" word is no worse than someone calling > me "crud"? Carol responds: First, I don't think that "Mudblood" is anywhere near the equivalent of the "N" word. It's just taking the idea that Muggleborns are inferior one step further with the (illogical) assumption that the absence of magical blood is somehow dirty. But the reaction to the word in the books is IMO as much of an overreaction as the reaction to "Voldemort." "Snivellus," OTOH, is a personal insult devised to injure the feelings of a particular person. It's not like calling a person "crud." It's a personal insult, distorting Severus's name to sound like something foul and contemptible, and Sirius, at least, seems to sneer when he says it. I suppose it's a personal reaction, but that name makes my blood boil in a way that "Mudblood" doesn't. (Also, I don't see Muggleborns and purebloods as "races." It's more like having or not having a gene for musical ability. It's surprising that so many Muggleborns exist since they must be the result of a mutation and the prejudice against them stems from the days when Muggles hunted witches. It's not racial at all; it's a mutual misunderstanding rooted in the idea that *Muggles* are inferior, "Other," and the enemy from whom wizards and witches must hide.) > > And, as said above, Snape's use of the term is in very rare and > bigotted company in canon. We only see Snape "once" as a student - so he's one-for-one in his vile language batting average. And Snape > joined a terrorist organization that spouted pure-blood elitism. Carol: Right. We see him once as a student. But Lily's reaction shows that Student!Severus is not in the habit of using that particular term (though he does call himself the Half-Blood Prince, indicating that he's conscious of his own supposed inferiority and, IMO, denying it). But we see Adult!Snape over and over, and he never once uses the term, or refers, as Slughorn does, to Muggleborns. As for joining the DEs, do you really think that his reasons for doing so had anything to do with their ostensible pureblood agenda? *Regulus* would join it for that reason, but Snape's reasons, based on what we've seen, probably had more to do with a desire for recognition (which he would have received from his former Slytherin gang, who must have recognized him as a prodigy), revenge against his tormentors, and/or a chance to learn more about the Dark Arts. At any rate, while we don't yet know his motive(s) for joining, some combination of the factors I've listed (along with pressure or encouragement from the likes of Lucius Malfoy) seems to me more likely than the pureblood agenda being supported by a half-blood. Note that even Draco, who overtly supports the Pureblood superiority ethic and spouts the term "Mudblood" with or without provocation in practically every book, only joins the DEs when his father is arrested and he wants revenge (at which point he's wearing his heart on his sleeve and is very easy for Voldemort to manipulate). > > Carol: > > But I still don't think that "werewolf" is a bigoted term. > > It's a fact. Lupin, as both he and Hermione state, *is* a werewolf. > > Mike: > Filch is a Squib. That's a fact. Was Hagrid using a bigotted term > when Hagrid called him such? I seem to remember you arguing that it > was a bigotted term, even if Hagrid is not truly bigotted. Carol: The difference is that a werewolf is dangerous and a Squib is not. Lupin's being a werewolf is extremely important at the moment because he's about to transform and endanger everyone present (Snape doesn't know that Black is an Animagus who can partially control Lupin, though even he is injured after Lupin transforms without Prongs there to back him up). Filch's Squib status is wholly irrelevant and is simply used as an insult (rather like Trelawney's calling Firenze "the nag" only Hagrid is insulting him to his face). Snape really does need to "drag the werewolf" to the castle so he won't endanger anybody. Had he done so, Peter Pettigrew would not have escaped. (Lupin would no doubt have lost his job, but his innocence with regard to Black would have been established by DD's cover story and the Time-turner subplot would still have rescued black and Buckbeak.) > > > > Carol: > > > > Where's the canon that shows he is? > > Mike: > I've presented the evidence that Snape was a bigot, even if he has changed his ways, since. You gave me a litany of Draco's uses of the term, thanks, but I didn't need convincing that Draco or Mrs. Black or Tom Riddle were bigots. Now add Severus Snape as the only other humans in canon to call another human a "Mudblood" and you have the > complete list. Carol: As a boy of sixteen, under duress. We don't see him use it as an adult. The contrast with Draco and his family is very marked, IMO. (If Lucius Malfoy, who levitates Muggles for entertainment and sneers at Hermione as "a girl of no wizarding family" doesn't use the term at home, I'll be very surprised. And Draco uses it in speaking to his mother, who seems to share his views.) But we never see Snape doing that. He is, after all, a Half-blood, and it's unlikely that he really views purebloods as superior to himself. > > Carol: > > It makes sense for Snape to suspect Lupin of trying to help > > Sirius Black, but *Snape* isn't going to do it. > > Mike: > Why? Wasn't Sirius suppose to have switched sides? Wasn't Sirius supposed to have at least been a Voldemort supporter if not a DE? So why should Snape suspect that Lupin had also switched sides? Snape should suspect that Lupin was also a Voldemort supporter and Dumbledore hired him anyway? Or should Snape be the only former DE that Dumbledore could trust? > > Face it, Snape *suspects* Lupin because Lupin was friends with those two boys that tormented him, while they were in school. Snape suspects Lupin because of that "schoolboy grudge" and makes all his evidence fit his theory. And Snape lobbied against Lupin before the school term even started. What evidence did he have for his pre-term> conviction besides that *Prank*? Carol: I'm not following your argument. I asked why Lupin should suspect Snape, whom he doesn't know to have been a DE. A supposed interest in the Dark Arts as a kid and his association with a Slytherin gang isn't enough to make even Sirius Black (in GoF) think that Snape had been a DE. And Lupin knows that Black can get into the castle in ways that Snape doesn't know about. There's no reason for Lupin to suspect Snape, whom he knows to hate Sirius Black, of helping him get into the castle, and no indication whatever that he holds any such suspicions. He does know that Snape is suspicious of *him.* But Snape, who thought that Lupin was part of the conspiracy to kill him and who sees that someone is letting Black into the castle has every reason to suspect that it's Black's former friend Lupin and none at all to suspect Crookshanks as Black's accomplice. BTW, I agree that snape makes the evidence of his theory, but he has reason to do so. And he's far from the only one who does the same thing. So do Fudge and Hagrid and McGonagall regarding Sirius Black. And look at Lupin's own theory: Black must have learned Dark Magic from Voldemort. He couldn't possibly be using those secret passages and his Animagus form to be getting inside the castle and slashing up portraits and bedcurtains. Lupin as a schoolboy Prefect sat by and let his friends torment Snape as a schoolboy. And now he's standing by and doing nothing to prevent Black from entering the school. Snape is absolutely right in that regard, at least. > Mike: > I also think Snape is suppressing information. I find it very hard to believe that Snape wouldn't know that Black was never a Death Eater. As many have pointed out, the enmity between the two was unsurpassed in their generation. The idea that Black could have snuck into the Death Eaters and Snape not know about it...? Carol: that may or may not be a plot hole. But Voldemort would have every reason to keep the identity of his spy secret, and we know that he walks by some of the DEs without addressing him. I believe Karkaroff, who gives all the names he can think of other than people like Malfoy who have already been cleared, that the DEs didn't all know each other. And it would be particularly important to conceal the identity of his Order member spy. So Snape not only didn't know that the spy was Pettigrew, he had every reason, especially after Black's arrest for murdering Pettigrew and the Muggles "proved" him right, to think that Black, a member of a Dark Wizard family with a strong tradition of pureblood supremacy, a boy who had attempted murder (in Snape's view) as a teenager had become a Death Eater. (Besides, as you point out, he *wants* to believe the worst of Black. The apparent facts match perfectly with his view of Sirius Black, who tried to murder him as sixteen.) Mike: > And I also find it highly dubious that Lupin would believe that Black had turned DE and Snape had not. What in their past would hint that that is the likely way things would fall out? From everything we know of their early years, which isn't much, it seems that an ordinary observer would guess that Snape would be far more likely to have become a DE. (And they would be right). So why would Lupin, a friend of Sirius Black and an antagonist of Severus Snape, pick Black as the one more likely to become a DE? Carol: Doubtful or not, it's what canon suggests. Maybe Lupin is lying to himself about Sirius Black (and he surely is doing so, with that bit about LV teaching him Dark Arts to get into Hogwarts and escape from Azkaban). But like Snape and Dumbledore and everyone else, he has "proof" that Black turned DE--he was (supposedly) the Potters' Secret Keeper, and he "murdered" Peter Pettigrew. What else is Lupin, who already thought, as he confesses, that Sirius was the spy (just as Black thought that Lupin was the spy). What else is he supposed to think when no one tells him that the SK plan was changed? (What I don't understand is why they would tell him about it in the first place when the Potters, Black, and supposedly Pettigrew all thought that he was the spy, but, oh, well. Logic isn't JKR's strong suit.) As for Snape's having become a DE, even Sirius black doubts it, if only because everyone suspected of being a DE has already been either arrested, killed, or let off on an Imperius charge, except for Snape, whose role as spy the Wizengamot apparently thought worth protecting since not even Rita Skeeter knows that he was ever a DE. Anyway, as of PoA, it's Black, not Snape, who's out there trying to kill somebody in Gryffindor, slashing paintings and bedcurtains with twelve-inch knives. Neither the Fat Lady nor Ron is screaming, "snape tried to kill me!" Both of them name black as the wielder of the knife. ("Sirius has not behaved like an innocent man.") And Black *is* out to murder somebody. It just happens to be Pettigrew, not Harry. > Mike: > Could've and would've but didn't and wasn't. Conjecture versus hard > fact. Lupin made a mistake and came close. Sirius Black was thought > to be after Harry but wasn't. Severus Snape made a *choice* to join > the Death Eaters and purposely brought word of the prophesy to > Voldemort. No amount of regret over those choices will bring Lily and > James back to life. Carol: Lupin's choice to rush out without his potion not only endangered HRH but led to Peter Pettigrew's escape. Have we seen a single hint of remorse about that? No, he only talks about how the parents won't want someone like him teaching their kids; no indication that he's at fault in any way. > Mike: > And where in canon can you show that Snape did anything to prevent the Potter's death? We must *assume* that Snape was the one to tell Dumbledore of Voldemort's interpretation, leaving aside the notion that Dumbledore would know how Voldemort would interpret it. Dumbledore knew what the prophesy said and Dumbledore can count the months. There also seems to be an assumption that Snape tried to convince the Potters not to use either Black or Pettigrew, whichever. I can't think of what else Snape *might* have done, but I don't see any actual canon the backs up any of these assumptions. Can anyone point me to some? Carol: What we have at the moment is Dumbledore's statement of Snape's remorse when he found out how LV interpreted the Prophecy, which obviously comes before the Potters' deaths and leads to his spying "at great personal risk"; Fudge's statement that "one of {DD's] useful spies (who could it be but Snape?) warned DD that the Potters were in danger, which led to DD's suggestion of the Fidelius Charm; Snape's own statement that James Potter was too "arrogant" to believe that Black would betray him, which indicates that he tried to warn the Potters in some way (probably through Dumbledore) that Black was the spy and ties in with his obvious belief in PoA that Black (as opposed to the "dead" Pettigrew) was both the spy and the traitor. We also have Dumbledore's "complete" trust in Snape, which is inexplicable unless Snape really is the one who revealed the Potters' danger to Dumbledore. I certainly am not suggesting that Snape personally tried to convince James Potter to do anything, certainly not to use Lupin rather than Pettigrew (whom Snape had no reason to suspect) or Black (whom I think he did suspect) as Secret Keeper. But I do think that he went to Dumbledore telling him that the Potters were in danger and asking him to provide them some protection. DD then suggested the Fidelius Charm to the Potters but was refused the opportunity to be their Secret Keeper in favor of Sirius Black, a decision which Snape (who may have found out about it from DD or from the Daily Prophet after black's arrest) regarded as "arrogant" and foolish in the extreme. (I think he liked the idea that Potter's trust in Black was partially responsible for his own death--it assuaged his own guilt as blaming Snape for Black's death assuaged Harry's; it must have been a bitter disappointment to find out that the traitor/murderer was only the contemptible Pettigrew.) At any rate, of course it's all conjecture. It's a way of fitting the pieces of canon that we do have together (without having Snape at Godric's Hollow or anything else noncanonical). Otherwise, we need some other reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape; some other reason for Snape's remark about James Potter's arrogance in trusting Sirius Black; some other "useful spy" reporting that the Potters' danger had intensified to the point that they needed a Fidelius Charm or some other seemingly foolproof protection. No doubt you can find some other way to fit the pieces together involving manipulative Dumbledore, but, for me, they fit together best if Snape really did try to protect the Potters (and resents James for dying, leaving him with an unpaid life debt, as one but by no means all of his reasons for protecting Harry). Carol, typing while holding a conversation and not at all sure this post is coherent From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 20:06:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:06:44 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170202 > wynnleaf: > > > > *Or* you may also be saying that the word "mudblood" is so > > incredibly bad, that it is in fact *impossible* to use the word > > without having a huge bias against, or despising muggleborns. > There > > is no proof of this in canon. Because we see 5 characters using > > that word who we otherwise know to despise muggleborns, does not > > therefore mean that *any* other character who uses that word, > > regardless of the circumstances, is therefore *bound* to have the > > same beliefs as the other 5 characters. > > > Alla: > > It is simple, really. I think that canon is clear on how horrible the > word mudblood is. So, to me everybody who uses it believes of what > this word stands for. I do not know how else explain my position, > truly. Alla: I guess we disagree that the word in itself can be the personification of person's beliefs. I think "mudblood" stands as metaphor of person's beliefs, not just a word. It is of course my opinion. Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 12 20:12:29 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:12:29 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen" wrote: > > Ali: > > Therefore, in Harry's 2nd year, Voldemort was 65 years old (15 + 50). > > Harry is now entering his 7th year, so 5 years have passed, making > > Voldemort's current age approximately 70 years old. I thought that > > this was interesting because he is supposed to have 7 horcruxes, it > is > > the 7th book, and Harry was born in the 7th month of the year. > > > Karen: Forgive me, I can't remember who, but someone stated in another > conversation that they thought Harry's scar might be a horcrux. Well, > let me tell you what I found today in CoS. > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thuderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." (DD) Geoff: This has been mentioned previously, especially after the existence of Horcruxes was first revealed in HBP. The relevant quote, more fully, is: '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin - 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?" Harry said thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so."' (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) Two points arise from this. First, let us remember that Dumbledore was not speaking about physical transfers but mental or intellectual transfers (for want of a better description). I assume that Harry picked this up on that level. I doubt whether this mind would have moved to consider a physical transfer at that moment. Second, Dumbledore believes that Voldemort did not intend to effect this transfer. We have discussed in the past how Horcruxes might be made at some length and a number of members have reached the conclusion that Horcruxes just don't happen - or happen accidentally. They have to be set up and planned for which is a view to which I subscribe. I wonder what interpretation you are putting on events; you haven't expanded on your remark above.... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 12 20:25:49 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:25:49 -0000 Subject: Some observations and possibilities (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ejom723" wrote: Jules: > First, forgive me if I write something that has been posted already, > because I've not had access to the computer for some time due to > other commitments. > > Notice the date of release for the movie of Order of the Phoenix: > July 12, 2007 (UK release). If we just take into account the day and not the month or year (and yes I know for numerology sake this isn't the real way you determine things, but I'm making an observation here), that if you take the number 12 and add the digits 1 and 2 you get 3 of course: Harry, Ron, & Hermione. The same goes for the release date of Deathly Hallows of the 21st. This is no coincidence. Geoff: I hate to torpedo your theory but the UK release date for the Order of the Phoenix is 13/07/07. I am hoping to see it on that date although I am away on holiday in the far South-west of England. I therefore quite agree with you that the two pieces of information above are no coincidence. :-) From srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 20:02:26 2007 From: srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com (S.R.) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:02:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: <603156.34735.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170205 > Felicia > So Hagrid was at school the same time as Tom RIddle. He would be > 70 years old too?????? S. R.: That's right. According to Harry Potter Lexicon, Hagrid was born December 6, 1928 and Tom Riddle was born December 31, 1928. That is, of course, if HP Lexicon was right about the way they figured his date of birth. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html is the website address that links directly to Voldie's profile. From mercuryblue144 at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 20:38:22 2007 From: mercuryblue144 at gmail.com (Beth Hartung) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:38:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: References: <603156.34735.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1be73e550706121338y713aa11dmab3c42f17225d70f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170206 Coming out of lurkhood: wasn't Hagrid expelled in his third year due to fallout from Myrtle's death in Tom's fifth year? So wouldn't Tom be two years older than Hagrid? *goes to check Lexicon's numbers* MercuryBlue, back into lurkhood On 6/12/07, S.R. wrote: > > > Felicia > > > So Hagrid was at school the same time as Tom RIddle. He would be > > 70 years old too?????? > > S. R.: > > That's right. According to Harry Potter Lexicon, Hagrid was born > December 6, 1928 and Tom Riddle was born December 31, 1928. That > is, of course, if HP Lexicon was right about the way they figured > his date of birth. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html > is the website address that links directly to Voldie's profile. > -- "The truth shall set you free." --Aletha Freeman to Sirius Black, Where We Belong [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 12 20:44:42 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:44:42 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170207 > Toonmili: You can take him calling Lily a mudblood like an accent. If you are an American and you move to England when you are young. What will happen? There is a great chance you will pick up the accent. But once you go back to America, slowly the accent you picked up will start to melt away. Magpie: You can't take it like an accent at all. An accent is no indication of ideas or feelings. You don't "pick up" something like this the way you do an accent, you have to choose to repeat it. What Snape would be picking up was being comfortable with referring to other people in this dehumanizing way--and Snape was old enough to understand what he was saying. That's a lot more serious than getting used to calling an elevator a lift or starting to drop "dude" into your sentences. Sure different people are going to have different relationships to the words. For instance, if in later life Draco Malfoy changed, his Pureblood rhetoric would probably be more habitual than it would for someone like Snape because he did grow up having it shape his world view. He would probably have more chance of it being more automatic-- it might be more of a fundamental change on his part. But no one seems to doubt that Draco's use of those words have meaning, that they stand for a certain attitude, whichever way he relates to it. He may have learned it from his parents, but it's not just like an accent, which has no ethical implications. If he changed, he would be expected to make the effort to stop using the language. As Dumbledore says, the word matters. (Which Draco himself knows--his own use of the term doesn't just "slip out." He uses it to get the reaction he wants, and to make the point that he wants. The first time he refers to Hermione it's by her name; his father then calls her "a girl of no magical family" to insult *him* and the next time he sees her he chooses to call her a Mudblood. It's not accident.) If Snape no longer has those beliefs then he has changed--even if it's just a case of him no longer choosing to use the words for the effects he wants. It didn't just melt on and melt away, no more than Snape just fell in and out of the Death Eaters. He chose to go in and chose to get out. There may be teenagers who experimented with this kind of rhetoric once or twice and really didn't have an issue with it, but Snape doesn't seem to be one of them, as he became a DE. Toomli: > This is like being in Slytherin. He picked up some of their qualities when he was in that house. They were his only friends so he was maybe talking like them because of it. But once he got out, either by a friendship with people with different opinions or something like that, he changed the way he spoke. Hence the reason why we have never seen adult Snape use the term. Being around Dumbledore would have some effect. Magpie: But a person's opinions mean something about who he is. If Snape started using those words because he heard them in Slytherin he would still need to want to use them himself--his use of the term in the scene in the Pensieve is a choice. He understands what it means. Similarly, I think the effect of being around Dumbledore and changing because of it would indicate that Snape saw a different type of person that he wanted to be. He'd changed his view of the words and whether or not he wanted to use them. Otherwise one might as well say that if Snape spends a few weeks with the DEs in the next book he might start saying Mudblood again (and not just to appear to be a DE undercover) and it doesn't say anything about his beliefs when of course it does. If Snape made a mistake as a teenager, in his mind, and did start behaving like Pureblood supremists or agreeing with them, I think he made a conscious desire to change that. Toomli: > > Besides we know Snape is not a bigot because he told Bellatrix that he thought Harry might have been a new Dark Lord who he could pledge his loyalty to. It is well known that Harry is halfblood (JK said all grandparents have to be wizards to be considered pureblood) and he is even the son of the said person he thought blood was so dirty before. The point is Snape does not take blood seriously. Magpie: Whatever Snape believes now, believing Harry might have been a new Dark Lord is not an indication he isn't a bigot. Apparently the DE children all grew up being told the same thing. Snape himself says that the DEs believed this about Harry, and they all knew who he was too. Toomli: > What we heard was just a teenager trying to fit in and trying take focus off the fact that everyone had seen his nasty underpants. Magpie: By calling a girl in his class a Mudblood. That has implications in itself. And where is Snape trying to "fit in" in that scene? It seems to me he's saying something he knows is socially unacceptable, knowing that it will shock. Snape is using the word exactly the way Draco does. He's using it as the insult it is, not just mistakenly thinking Mudblood is a synonym for Muggle-born or Girl I Don't Like. He's declaring himself as fitting into a different group than the one that's surrounding him. As I said, I know that different people can say things for different reasons, but I don't understand the explaining away of clear bigoted rhetoric as anything but bigoted rhetoric. Whatever the reason, the person is doing it. I've heard similar things, actually, for Blaise Zabini. He himself casually introduces the word "blood traitor" into a conversation and yet I've more often heard this interpreted as a sign that Blaise *doesn't* hold bigotted beliefs than I've heard it interpreted as any proof that he does (maybe the people who think he is being bigoted just think it's self-evident). Blaise, too, is said to be trying to fit in, or is driven by the mere presence of Malfoy to use the word to protect himself, or worried about his status due to some obscure part of his heritage or any number of things. I think when an author chooses to have a character use bigoted language, it's a character choice to say something about the character. Whatever Snape's real philosophical position on Muggleborns is, in that scene he chose to say something bigoted. And in Snape's case, lest we forget, he later also decided he was okay with joining the DEs, Voldemort's elite. That, too, has often been explained as being about things other than primarily his dedication to Pureblood rhetoric, and that's quite possibly true. But even if joining the DEs doesn't mean that belief in Pureblood superiority is your *primary* motive, you still have to be okay with it. Snape as an adult has never used the term Mudblood and he's no longer a DE (err...unless he is), but this stuff is part of his past. His choice to use use the word in that scene to me seemed like an indicator of the wrong path he was starting on. It wasn't a one time thing for Snape or an adolescent phase--he became a DE. That's part of his story. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 21:01:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:01:55 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170208 Alla: > > I understood Mike comparing Snape's remark towards Hermione with > Filch's remark towards Hagrid to show if if one is arguing Snape > being under duress when he insulted Lily, then Hagrid was also under > duress from Filch's remark, but maybe I was wrong. > Carol: I think you may be mixing up two separate points here. The remark about Hermione's teeth (which even DDM!Snapers like me concede was uncalled for) has nothing to do with Hagrid's insulting Filch. I *think* Mike brought it up to show Snape's prejudice against Hermione, but as Pippin points out, it has nothing to do with prejudice against her as a Muggleborn, any more than the Marauders' taunts about Severus's greasy hair and large nose had anything to do with his being a Half-Blood. Alla: > > Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe is a bigot, really I need nothing more. Carol: I'm afraid that this is one of those questions on which debate is useless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. To me, the remark proves nothing except that a teenage boy was under duress and used the worst word he could think of at the time. As I keep saying, Lily's blink of surprise, and her (possibly ill-advised) attempt to defend him in the first place, shows that he was not in the habit of using such language. That must have been the first instance she was aware of. Possibly it was the last (if the Snape/Lily shippers are right). I see nothing indicating a pureblood ideology that would lead him to join the Death Eaters, particularly since he was a Half-blood himself. He had, as I pointed out elsewhere, several other possible motivations that strike me as more plausible. If as an adult he went around talking about Muggleborns even in the way Slughorn does, I might suspect blood ideology of being one of his motivations for joining the DEs, but as it stands, I don't see it. I do conced, though, that the views of his fellow DEs concerning pureblood supremacy didn't deter him from joining. He must have been used to them, having been in Slytherin House for seven years, especially if passwords like "pureblood" (as opposed to "Mimbulus Mimbletonia" and "Caput Draconis") were required to get into the Slytherin common room in his day. (BTW, I don't think the Head of House chooses the passwords. The Fat Lady and Sir Cadogan choose their own. Sinc thee's no Slytherin portrait, I'm guessing that the Slytherin password is magically determined by some mechanism put in place by Salazar Slytherin. Just my opinion, but I can't see the Half-Blood Prince making "pureblood" the password. It sounds more like something that the aura or essence of Salazar Slytherin would do. If he can put some of his "brains" into a Sorting Hat, he can put them into a concealed door as well.) Alla: > And LOL - if him joining DE does not prove that he was sympathetic to their goals, then really I do not know what will it take to prove it. Carol: I'm not sure what you mean, but I expect we'll find out that his joining the DEs had something to do with the so-called Prank. Again, while the DE pureblood supremacy ethic obviously didn't deter him from joining, I can't see it being a motivation for any Half-Blood. He must have had other, more personal, reasons. > Alla: > Any other DE we had seen, who joined, but was **not** sharing their goals? Yeah, Regulus got out, but I do not remember any support that he originally was not sympathetic to "pureblood supremacy" ideals. Carol: In Regulus's case, the purebollod supremacy ethic was probably the primary reason for becoming a DE. It's why his brother thinks their parents would have considered him "a right little hero" for joining up. But what we've seen of Snape's backstory makes it likely that his reasons were complex, like the man himself. As for another DE who didn't join because of pureblood ideology, what about Peter Pettigrew? I suspect that he's the rare Muggle-born DE that JKR alluded to in an interview. Carol, realizing that we're probably never going to agree on this point but presenting her reasons for disagreeing in hopes that they will at least be understood if not accepted > From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 12 21:21:48 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:21:48 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170209 Alla wrote: > > 1. The word *mudblood* is a horrible term to call anybody because > several characters tell us so **and** explain why they think so. > > 2. Only people who are horrible bigots use it. > > 3. Because Snape uses it - he is a horrible bigot. > > > I mean, sure it is circular when you only put 2 and 3 together, but not > when you add one in my opinion. > Julie: Or it could go like this: 1. The word "mudblood" is a horrible term to call anyone because several characters tell us so and explain why it is so. 2. People who say it are practicing bigotry *at that place and time*. 3. Because Snape uses it - he is practicing bigotry at that place and at that time. I know this reasoning is a matter of individual interpretation but this one works better for me because people do change. Especially when they mature from children and teenagers who act and speak from impulse--especially in emotional situations-- to adults who filter their thoughts before opening their mouths. (I think someone else noted we all feel bigotry at one time or another, and when angry we all have the urge to attack at the lowest level.) I do think as presented in canon *so far* we have a definite difference between Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" and use of the same word by Draco, Kreacher and Mrs. Black. The latter three use the word routinely and in the present time within the books. They are definitely bigots. Snape however used the term over 20 years in the past, in a single incident. It was a bigoted remark, and whether Snape felt strong bigotry towards all "Mudbloods" or was parroting what he'd been taught because it was the easiest and cruelest way to strike back, I don't know. But I do agree it makes him a bigot at the time. Of course he also acted as a bigot by joining the DEs, again whether he did so because he actually wanted to rid the WW of "Mudbloods" or because he was motivated by vengeance, a thirst for power or recognition, or whatever. Bigotry isn't only about how one feels in one's heart, it's also about how one acts regardless of deepest feelings. That difference again? Snape's bigotry is in the past. In the present, we have *as yet* no canon evidence that he remains a bigot. He left the DEs and Voldemort (even though he remains a spy), which eliminates one proof of bigotry. He does insult Hermione, but that means nothing at all, since he routinely insults purebloods Neville and Ron, as well as halfblood Harry. He's an equal-opportunity insulter, blood purity is no issue at all. That's another proof gone. Which doesn't mean Snape *isn't* currently a bigot, but it DOES mean we cannot say with any clear canon or certainty that he *is* a bigot. So while Draco, Kreacher and Mrs. Black are bigoted, Snape was bigoted. Whether Snape remains so is the interesting and very much unanswered question (except in our own minds, depending on which Snape we individually support!). Julie From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Jun 12 20:45:17 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:45:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466F05DD.2040302@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170210 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > , Jazmyn Concolor > wrote: > > > Lupin might be a great teacher, but it was highly irresponsible of > > Dumbledore to have him at the school, regardless of the existing > > dangerous creatures in or around the school. We should not be > wondering > > if Snape is a bigot, which in this case is not justified, we should > > wonder if Dumbledore was senile to allow Lupin to teach. > > > Alla: > > Oh. Okay. I think I will continue wondering about Snape being a bigot > though and will applaud Dumbledore for allowing Lupin to teach. > > People with HIV can also transmit this disease to others it if they > are not careful and yes, as I said upthread, I know that this is not > an exact analogy, seems pretty close to me though. IMO of course. > (big snip) People with HIV do not turn into man-eating wolves every full moon who maul and attack people. Comparing HIV to lycanthropy is like comparing a glass of water (controlled by a glass) to a dam collapsing (uncontrolled water with the dam (potion) removed). A crazed wolf moving at supernatural speed through a school full of children can hardly be considered safe under any circumstances. One slip-up and the wolvesbane potion taken too late and how many kids would die or end up as werewolves??? Lupin was just REALLY lucky noone got hurt, either back when he was a Marauder or later with Harry and co. It may sound harsh of me, but anyone with a disease that dangerous should be removed from society to their own collony. Would you allow a man with rabies to teach children? Or Ebola virus? If you found out your teacher had a dangerous disease, that could be spread too easily, what would you do? There are just some things too dangerous to expose people to and sometimes the needs of the few must be set aside for the needs of the many. Jazmyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 21:41:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:41:27 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170211 > Julie: > > I do think as presented in canon *so far* we have a definite > difference between Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" and > use of the same word by Draco, Kreacher and Mrs. Black. > The latter three use the word routinely and in the present > time within the books. They are definitely bigots. Snape > however used the term over 20 years in the past, in a > single incident. It was a bigoted remark, and whether Snape > felt strong bigotry towards all "Mudbloods" or was parroting > what he'd been taught because it was the easiest and cruelest > way to strike back, I don't know. But I do agree it makes him > a bigot at the time. > So while Draco, Kreacher and Mrs. Black are bigoted, Snape > was bigoted. Whether Snape remains so is the interesting > and very much unanswered question (except in our own minds, > depending on which Snape we individually support!). Alla: Oh, I have to say I do not have much disagreement with your post at all, Julie :) I mean except the fact that we support different Snapes obviously, LOLOL. I absolutely agree that we do not know whether Snape is a bigot towards Muggleborns **now**, at this moment in the series and if Snape is DD!M, it is totally possible that he is not. It is what Magpie said basically. Magpie: > As I said, I know that different people can say things for different > reasons, but I don't understand the explaining away of clear bigoted > rhetoric as anything but bigoted rhetoric. Alla: The explaining away of what young Snape did is what makes me scratch my head. I mean as if it makes it better somehow that he said it when he was sixteen. Draco is also sixteen after all and he is saying this since much younger age. So, Julie if you agree that Snape **was** bigot in the past and saying that we don't know whether he is right now, that I understand and see how you arrive to this. I consider him to be bigot right now based on werewolf remark , and the password in Slytherin dorm, but of course it is possible that he did not set up the password and that he does not think bigotedly of Muggleborns **anymore**, but to me it is a fact that he did think so when he was in school. And of course I think he is a bigot towards Muggleborns still since in my interpretation he is not DD!M, but that is as you said depends on which Snape we support. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 21:48:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:48:42 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <466F05DD.2040302@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170212 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: >> People with HIV do not turn into man-eating wolves every full moon who > maul and attack people. Alla: Yes, man eating wolves do not exist in reality as we know, people with HIV though can spread their disease if they are not careful. Analogy is not exact obviously, all depends on whether you see the analogy lies primarily. Jasmyn: Comparing HIV to lycanthropy is like comparing > a glass of water (controlled by a glass) to a dam collapsing > (uncontrolled water with the dam (potion) removed). A crazed wolf > moving at supernatural speed through a school full of children can > hardly be considered safe under any circumstances. Alla: Except that is not a crazed wolf, that is a human who turns into crazed wolf *without potion** once a month. Jasmyn: It may sound > harsh of me, but anyone with a disease that dangerous should be removed > from society to their own collony. Alla: I do not feel I have anything to discuss then and it is time to agree to disagree. Alla, dissappears till tomorrow. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 22:33:58 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:33:58 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "S.R." wrote: > > > Felicia > > > So Hagrid was at school the same time as Tom RIddle. He would be > > 70 years old too?????? > > S. R.: > > That's right. According to Harry Potter Lexicon, Hagrid was born > December 6, 1928 and Tom Riddle was born December 31, 1928. That > is, of course, if HP Lexicon was right about the way they figured > his date of birth. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html > is the website address that links directly to Voldie's profile. > I don't think that can be right. IIRC, Hagrid was expelled when he was 13 years old. That would have been because he was suspected of raising the monster that killed Moaning Myrtle. But, at the time that the Chamber of Secrets was opened (by Tom Riddle), Tom was a either fifteen or sixteen. So, he would have been at least two years older than Hagrid. Montavilla47 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 22:36:06 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:36:06 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170214 > Magpie: > > If Snape no longer has those beliefs then he has changed--even if > it's just a case of him no longer choosing to use the words for the > effects he wants. It didn't just melt on and melt away, no more than > Snape just fell in and out of the Death Eaters. He chose to go in > and chose to get out. There may be teenagers who experimented with > this kind of rhetoric once or twice and really didn't have an issue > with it, but Snape doesn't seem to be one of them, as he became a DE. wynnleaf I wasn't really sure what I wanted to use as a quote from you Magpie, so I just chose this one. I generally agree with your posts, but I don't agree on this post. Yes, a person of 15 or 16 should be quite aware that "mudblood" is a very offensive word and is often used by those with a pureblood ethic. But adolescents, and even adults, very, very often call people things which they don't actually think that they are, simply in order to hurt them. The more they want to hurt, the worse word or insult they may use. I have teenagers in and out of my house and occasionally when one gets quite upset, he/she will call a good friend and even a sibling something quite offensive. However I am quite confident that they don't actually believe the things they are saying. They don't use those words or insults because they *believe* them, but because they want to cause a verbal injury. I can't even begin to think of the number of times as a teenager I might have called an intelligent person "stupid," never at all thinking that they were stupid in the slightest. And that's just a mild printable example. I once -- and only once -- called a person of another race a very offensive name. I had *nothing* against that person's race at all. It was a person close to me, and I wanted to hurt their feelings and I knew that would get the job done faster than anything I could think of. I was an adolescent using a meanspirited comment to hurt, not because I had any disdain for that person's race. And, by the way, the victim of my verbal nastiness knew exactly what I was doing and told me off to the point that I will always remember it. But it had nothing to do with my thinking racist thoughts, any more than my calling someone "stupid" has to do with my thinking they're beneath me intellectually. Magpie > As I said, I know that different people can say things for different > reasons, but I don't understand the explaining away of clear bigoted > rhetoric as anything but bigoted rhetoric. Whatever the reason, the > person is doing it. wynnleaf Yes, the *rhetoric* can be characterized as such, but one can not therefore say that the speaker is necessarily bigoted in order to use it -- no more than a person who calls someone "stupid" is an intellectual elitist, or a person who uses a French curse is necessarily French. wynnleaf From twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jun 12 21:45:32 2007 From: twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk (twodrink.ange) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:45:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the Boggart/ Sibling theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170215 > Nikkalmati > > I don't think Harry and Hermione will turn out to be twins or siblings, > because that result would destroy the Mudbloods are as good as any other wizard > theme. It would support the pureblood supremacy theory by making Hermione a > half-blood, not Muggleborn, and explain her power as deriving from James and > Lily. I do believe canon supports the idea that most people have wizards in > their background somewhere, but I don't think it will turn out Hermione has > wizards as close relatives (that goes for Lily too). > > > I think its something more spiritual between the two. There is a connection there which is why a lot of people have pondered the sibling theory. I don't think they are blood related simply because of the blood supremacy themes in the book. The reasons you have given make more sense in the overall big picture which is why i didn't think that is the route J.K would take. There is a lot of emphasis on death and the spiritual world in the books re the Veil. Harry and Hermione represent platonic love which will be needed in the final book. With alchemy, a theory that seems to make sense, there is an emphasis on twin flame. People don't have to be blood related to have an intense connection. Together their strenghts combined make them a formidable patnership. They are each others equal which could be used in some way. They represent the masculine, feminine psyche. Opposites. Pagan religion is very much about equality between the two. Hermione is more aware perhaps of the bond at the moment which is why she has risked so much. There are hints in the book about Ancient runes and patnership. It could all be to do with the soul's journey and how some souls are destined to travel through life with each other. J K originally had the two of them with the initials but changed Hermione's surname. If they are not blood related then this could have been a clue to the soul mate theory. Roll on July, the theories are great but the not knowing is getting a little frustrating! :) twodrink.ange From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jun 12 23:14:23 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:14:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466F28CF.2010108@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170216 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Yes, man eating wolves do not exist in reality as we know, Bart: Then what am I going to do with my recipe for wolf fricassee? Bart "Squib is a four letter word." - JKR From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 23:34:29 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:34:29 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170217 > Alla: > > > > I understood Mike comparing Snape's remark towards Hermione with > > Filch's remark towards Hagrid to show if if one is arguing Snape > > being under duress when he insulted Lily, then Hagrid was also > > under duress from Filch's remark, but maybe I was wrong. > > > Carol: > > I think you may be mixing up two separate points here. The remark > about Hermione's teeth (which even DDM!Snapers like me concede was > uncalled for) has nothing to do with Hagrid's insulting Filch. I > *think* Mike brought it up to show Snape's prejudice against > Hermione, Mike: No, Alla got it right! Carol, you had said that Hagrid wasn't under duress when he called Filch a Squib. I was pointing out the almost word for word insults Hermione and Hagrid endured. It is immaterial who made the comment, it was the reaction the insultee had to being insulted. Hermione ran away crying, clearly she was upset. Hagrid was just as clearly upset. Meaning Hagrid was provoked just like Snape was provoked. Not that being provoked should be a valid reason for either of them to use bigoted terms. > > Alla: > > > > Um, Snape's usage of the word proves to me that he was and maybe > > is a bigot, really I need nothing more. Mike: If it isn't obvious by now, I'll just add that I agree with Alla regarding that greasy gits bigotry. And I'll also concur with everything Magpie said on this thread regarding use of bigoted terms. I don't see any reason to add any more, you've said it perfectly eloquently for me, ladies. :D From srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 12 21:37:10 2007 From: srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com (S.R.) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:37:10 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: <1be73e550706121338y713aa11dmab3c42f17225d70f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170218 MercuryBlue wrote... > Coming out of lurkhood: wasn't Hagrid expelled in his third year due > to fallout from Myrtle's death in Tom's fifth year? So wouldn't Tom > be two years older than Hagrid? > > *goes to check Lexicon's numbers* SR: You're right. I mistyped Tom Riddle's birth year. It's 1926, not 1928. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 12 23:52:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:52:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <380-220076212235222218@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170219 > Magpie: > > If Snape no longer has those beliefs then he has changed--even if > it's just a case of him no longer choosing to use the words for the > effects he wants. It didn't just melt on and melt away, no more than > Snape just fell in and out of the Death Eaters. He chose to go in > and chose to get out. There may be teenagers who experimented with > this kind of rhetoric once or twice and really didn't have an issue > with it, but Snape doesn't seem to be one of them, as he became a DE. wynnleaf I wasn't really sure what I wanted to use as a quote from you Magpie, so I just chose this one. I generally agree with your posts, but I don't agree on this post. Yes, a person of 15 or 16 should be quite aware that "mudblood" is a very offensive word and is often used by those with a pureblood ethic. But adolescents, and even adults, very, very often call people things which they don't actually think that they are, simply in order to hurt them. The more they want to hurt, the worse word or insult they may use. I have teenagers in and out of my house and occasionally when one gets quite upset, he/she will call a good friend and even a sibling something quite offensive. However I am quite confident that they don't actually believe the things they are saying. They don't use those words or insults because they *believe* them, but because they want to cause a verbal injury. Magpie: Oh, I know people can say things just to hurt others. I really have two things, though, that I think about it. First is that even if they are only using it to get a rise out of someone, they're still choosing to do that through racism. I can't imagine a person called a racial epithet by a kid who's just trying to be offensive wouldn't, I assume, feel like they were experiencing racism. Saying the person's only a bigot if *they* feel they are because they really believe it takes even more power away from the minority group--it doesn't matter what the dominant group does to you, they still define whether it's racist or not. The dominant person is able to use racist language to hurt the person because racism exists. That's why I think it's kind of a red herring to search for whether the character is "really" a bigot or not. Yes, there are some people for whom racism informs their view of the world all the time, and others who might just see an opportunity to say something horrible. But both people are taking advantage of the same situation. Everyone faces lots of choices every day where we might choose to say or do something bigoted. A teenager could use the word Mudblood in an extreme situation once and feel badly about it, for instance. It's not always about revealing the person as a dyed-in-the-wool bigot. But I don't think it's possible to completely separate the two from each other. Racism is what makes using a racial epithet because it's hurtful possible. It's not always about saying that you think the other person is inherently inferior. It can also just be about saying: "I have this power that you don't." The person using the remark might be able to say "but I didn't mean it," but the other person can't. Racism is bigger than whether an individual person means it or not. In Snape's case, I think we also have to remember he was a DE. I don't yet see any evidence that he was a DE because he was *primarily* motivated by Pureblood superiority beliefs. But I certainly took his use of the word as a marker on his dark journey into the DEs. Snape meant it enough that he was willing to be part of Voldemort's elite DEs. Maybe he was just declaring that he was one of them. Maybe he never stopped being motivated by just wanting to do whatever would most hurt others, so he never really meant it beyond that, and if that's true it would be good to understand that about his character for accuracy, but he's okay with working for the destruction of Muggle-borns to further his own causes. Would a Muggleborn dead at Voldemort's hands looking at Snape the DE think the distinction was significant? wynnleaf: I can't even begin to think of the number of times as a teenager I might have called an intelligent person "stupid," never at all thinking that they were stupid in the slightest. And that's just a mild printable example. I once -- and only once -- called a person of another race a very offensive name. I had *nothing* against that person's race at all. It was a person close to me, and I wanted to hurt their feelings and I knew that would get the job done faster than anything I could think of. I was an adolescent using a meanspirited comment to hurt, not because I had any disdain for that person's race.And, by the way, the victim of my verbal nastiness knew exactly what I was doing and told me off to the point that I will always remember it. But it had nothing to do with my thinking racist thoughts, any more than my calling someone "stupid" has to do with my thinking they're beneath me intellectually. Magpie: Yes, but the reason you knew that word would be hurtful was because it was racist--it used racism that exists against him/her. That's what Snape is quite possibly doing to Lily. He is choosing in that moment to use that insult rather than another one. More importantly for Snape, he wound up joining the DEs. Maybe he never "really" had any disdain for the Muggle-borns, but the group gave him what he wanted and he was okay with that. At that point the fact that you do or don't really have disdain for the groups doesn't really seem to matter much. I mean, what are "racist thoughts?" There's honestly thinking the other person is inferior because of their race, obviously. But I think there's also just the thing that children learn very young, which is that there is a power imbalance that one group has over the other. In using an epithet you are using that against the other person. Snape was putting one group down to build himself up by being a DE. Magpie > As I said, I know that different people can say things for different > reasons, but I don't understand the explaining away of clear bigoted > rhetoric as anything but bigoted rhetoric. Whatever the reason, the > person is doing it. wynnleaf Yes, the *rhetoric* can be characterized as such, but one can not therefore say that the speaker is necessarily bigoted in order to use it -- no more than a person who calls someone "stupid" is an intellectual elitist, or a person who uses a French curse is necessarily French. Magpie: It is possible that a teenager or child could be experimenting with the power the word has because of the racism that exists in society. In Snape's case, though, does become a DE. He's on his way to an organization that puts these beliefs into some serious action, and even if that's not the big draw of it for Snape, he has to be okay with it. Using the rhetoric could be a start to that. Perhaps more importantly, Snape's fictional, and being characterized efficiently. Not that I don't think JKR could write a story where someone used the word Mudblood in a different context, like to show them being ashamed of it later or whatever. But given Snape's history and the fact that we don't get anything else, it seems like we're just seeing him start to get comfortable with the DE stuff. It does seem like a strong choice, after all.We have one scene of Snape as a teen and he uses the word Mudblood. How he truly related to the word doesn't really seem to change things in that context. If our choices show who we truly are, Snape chose to be that in the one scene we have for him as a teen. Perhaps later he changed and became a different person, but whatever was on the inside back then, he chose to be a bigot for a while there. - From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 02:30:41 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- Message-ID: <832836.50345.qm@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170220 Snip of mz_annethrope comments:: > > This morning our household was discussing how HRH could ride a > dragon given the difficulty of using magic against one. We were > thinking that Aberforth could be an animagus, since Snape--another > dragon animagus possibility- -would be as likely to consent to be a > beast of burdern as would an ordinary centaur. > > Then an easy solution occured to me. What if dragons understand > Parseltongue? Slytherin's serpent understood Parseltongue. Dragons > are sometimes classified as serpents. Perhaps all reptiles > understand snake speech. ("Dragon" supposedly from Greek "derkomai" > middle voice for "to stare fixedly" and according to my hated Greek > professor refers to serpents, a certain law giver, and by extension > any reptile). Harry might be able to "tame" this beast simply by > speaking to it in its own language. Here's another idea. Maybe the Dragon is Draco's animagus. After all why else would JKR name Draco, Draco? Draco is latin for Dragon. Then again the Dragon could be anyone or just a Dragon. It is probably not norbert since the drawn Dragon doesn't match his description. I don't think Dragon's understand Parseltongue. The Bassilisk did, but the Bassilisk is a snake. Dragon's aren't snakes, well except for Draco. Also Dragons so far in the JKR universe are not intelligent. DA Jones --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 13 02:37:28 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:37:28 -0000 Subject: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: <832836.50345.qm@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170221 . > > DA Jones wrote: > Here's another idea. Maybe the Dragon is Draco's animagus. After all why else would JKR name Draco, Draco? Draco is latin for Dragon. > > > colebiancardi: very interesting idea. I actually was thinking the other day, when looking at that cover, if it was Snape's animagus - I think it was the wings that made me think of that. Snape & his black robe, fluttering around - I know he was described a "bat", but what if it really was more like a dragon, swooping down & around. If Snape had an animagus and this was it, what a way to help Harry without Harry knowing who he really was. Draco is another great idea as well :) colebiancardi From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Jun 13 06:10:57 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:10:57 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <466F05DD.2040302@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170222 Jazmyn: > People with HIV do not turn into man-eating wolves every full moon > who maul and attack people. Comparing HIV to lycanthropy is like > comparing a glass of water (controlled by a glass) to a dam > collapsing (uncontrolled water with the dam (potion) removed). A > crazed wolf moving at supernatural speed through a school full of > children can hardly be considered safe under any circumstances. > One slip-up and the wolvesbane potion taken too late and how many > kids would die or end up as werewolves??? Lupin was just REALLY > lucky noone got hurt, either back when he was a Marauder or later > with Harry and co. It may sound harsh of me, but anyone > with a disease that dangerous should be removed from society to > their own collony. > > Would you allow a man with rabies to teach children? Or Ebola > virus? If you found out your teacher had a dangerous disease, that > could be spread too easily, what would you do? There are just some > things too dangerous to expose people to and sometimes the needs of > the few must be set aside for the needs of the many. Dana: First of all you should really think again about what you are stating about people with dangerous diseases should be removed from society to their own colony. That is what people thought about gay people when the AIDS virus was rapidly claiming the lives of young man. They were shunted out and them being gay what was thought to be the cause and it was believed for some reason that G*d punish these people their lifestyle until it became a proven fact that this disease was not discriminatory at all. People did not want to work with them or even be near them. Acceptance may have grown but the comparison is certainly not to a glass of water to a dam collapsing. Many people did not know they were infected until it was too late to take the right precautions. People receiving blood transfusions were starting to die because at the time there were no tests to exclude infected blood. Stating that people with HIV CAN control their disease better then Lupin can his, is a false presumption for the simple fact that no one can control life at all times under any circumstance. Should they therefore be shunted out? Because they might at one time in their life's posse a risk to another human being? I think not because driving a car to work everyday is posing as much higher risk of dying then a person with HIV ever could. If you yourself are driving a car then you can posse a risk to another human being with that car if you in a moment of thoughtlessness hit someone else and either causing them a life long disability or death. That is why car manufactures are increasing the safety of cars but bikers and pedestrians are still at high risk regardless and the safety precautions are not able to prevent a serious outcome all the time. The diseases you mentioned are not comparable because Ebola is an airborne disease that does not use a human as carrier and the second is not infectious from one human to the next. Both diseases destroy the human they infect to such an extent that humans can't function normally (and the former kills the human it infects within a few days) We as a society should adjust so people with diseases can lead a normal life, not they should be removed. That is the easy way out. It is just ignoring these people and punishing them for things that are out of their control. It is like, let's put them in a colony and pretend they did not exist. Try to imagine it being your mother, father, brother, sister or maybe yourself and then tell me if it is still the preferred way to handle these problems. It is so easy to say that the needs of many are more important in a world were individualism is growing day by day. People are not just shunted out of society because they have a disease but also for having controversial ideas and life-styles. Today people are still dying faster by the hand of an non-diseases person because of wars raging in their country then disease is able to spread from human to human. Comparing HIV to lycanthropy, although as has been pointed out is not a perfect match, is not a wrongly chosen analogy as it is not the disease that is used as a comparison but the way these societies respond to these diseases that make the analogy a fitting one. Both are life threatening and life changing diseases. Werewolves are only a danger to society once a month and only at night and they are all at the same time and not like they posse a risk at any other time during the month. Lupin risked exposing himself to others when he was young BECAUSE he believed in the safety precautions that his friends provided and the near misses proved to a young kid that indeed the safety precautions were sufficient. In retrospect it was a dumb thing to do but fortunately nothing seriously came of it. We use airplanes because we believe the safety precautions taken are sufficient to travel by these means but they never are fail proof at all times and neither are the safety precautions that a werewolf can take. Should we ban airplanes because they might fail us at one point in time and kill people if they do? They too can be used by people with evil intent to kill other people just like Greyback is using his werewolf part to cause fear. Brooding on the what if's is what people do but it is totally unfair as a driver of a car that had a near miss because he was doing other things then driving his car does not stop driving either because of that near miss. No, he promises himself to do better next time and does so until the scare is pushed to the background again and then makes the same mistakes again. Most people do things without thinking and all goes well most of the time but sometimes it doesn't and it has serious consequences. Lupin's slip up in PoA was not because of his human weakness and not because he was too arrogant in thinking he could get away with it or not even because he is a werewolf, they were human mistakes, mistakes we make every day and even our own mistakes can lead to harm to others even if we are not carriers of problems like Lupin has. It was a response to an urgent and extremely confusing circumstance and he took responsibility for that slip up and Sirius prevented that slip up to cause any permanent consequences. The what if's are irrelevant because you cannot change the outcome and the outcome therefore is the only thing that stands. The safety precautions DD put in place (the potion) were sufficient under normal circumstances but you can't prevent all things all the time any time, not even Lupin and he never bit or killed another human being in his life, actually not even you could. DD put safety precautions on the stone and still it was not sufficient enough to keep Harry out because of Hagrid slipped up. Should Hagrid therefore be shunted from society because he has trouble keeping his mouth shut? Parents encounter unforeseen dangers on a day to day basis too, for instance when their child pulls boiling water over themselves because the parents was distracted by the phone. Dangers in life are never always controllable unless you want to suggest that we all lock ourselves up in our house (which should then be empty and not shared with others) and never interact with others. Harry puts his friends in danger for believing in a false vision, should we pick him up and put him in a colony too? Especially because he is a danger to be around as a certain Dark Wizard tries to kill him all his life and is not afraid to use the people close to Harry as leverage? Most kids in one way or the other encounter stupid and dangerous things at one point in their lives. To still hold Lupin accountable for his actions when he was young while they actually never led to anything that is suggested that could have happened is saying that kids can never be forgiven for the mistakes they make and should still be condemned for it even if they wised up as adults. JMHO Dana, who thinks, people should think about what they say before they make such extremely hurtful remarks. Let's hope these people never find themselves in the same predicament because it will probably change their views in seconds if it can be applied to themselves. From renee_spahr at hotmail.com Wed Jun 13 05:47:39 2007 From: renee_spahr at hotmail.com (Renee') Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:47:39 -0000 Subject: Maturing Wizards (Was: Re:Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170223 I got the impression that wizards age differently than muggles. Once a wizard reaches maturity the aging process slows down (due to magic use perhaps) resulting in a longer life expectancy? Renee From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Jun 13 11:30:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:30:47 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170224 zgirnius: > It is in my opinion debatable, but there is definitely evidence > favoring the idea that James Potter saved Snape's life in that > incident, and that Snape had a consequent life debt to James. None > of this could have happened if Snape's life were not threatened in > that incident. Dana: No, it isn't debatable because the definite outcome is not debatable. Snape did not die and he did not survive a werewolf attack to truly have *experience* with the danger a werewolf could posse. It just could have died that is it but it was prevented by James. All the danger was taken away when James intervened and therefore James saved Snape from ever having to encounter a werewolf. Snape only glimpsed werewolf Lupin and did not experience a fight with werewolf Lupin and did not have a struggle for his life with werewolf Lupin and survived it. It is the difference between being in a plane that crashed and surviving and missing a flight and then the airplane you should have been on crashed. The former *experienced* the crash but survived and but could have died and the later, could have died if he had made it to the plane in time but did not *experience* the crash in itself. Snape's still holding a grudge because he could have died, is brooding on the "what if" but it never happened. So Snape is not looking at the end result but the imagined intention of all the marauders. They wanted to kill him, in his mind and therefore he hates them and wants to take his revenge. He is not looking equally at James risking his life to prevent Snape from walking into Lupin, no he is still of the opinion that James only did it because he got cold feet. His reference to Lupin as the werewolf and using it in a very degrading way is not because he is scared out of experience of having to have faced a werewolf but because he still is of the opinion that Lupin was in on the prank. Snape never faced the werewolf and therefore does not know what it would be like. His actions also do not indicate that he is using these terms because he is scared of werewolves as he would have thought twice about running after him into the same tunnel that could have led to his death almost 20 years ago. What he does with his referral to Lupin in such away is placing Lupin underneath him making him unworthy of being referred to as a human because he was one time tricked into doing something that *could* have gotten him killed. The danger Snape was in, after James intervened, is largely overrated because Lupin never came within striking range and he just glimpsed him at the end of the tunnel. It is not the struggle for his life that still hunts Snape but being tricked by the marauders what still hunts him and he believes that only the worst punishment is fitting for them. zgirnius: > Surely at the point at which Snape saw the werewolf, he could just > turn around and walk back out, if Lupin were indeed far away and no > threat? Dana: Yes, he indeed could have just walked back before he ever got the change to encounter Lupin and safed his own life but James safed him because Snape did not have the intention of walking back. James could never have pulled Snape out in human form if Lupin had been within striking range. The threat as Lupin states in PoA was only if Snape had made it as far to the Shack and only then would he have faced a fully fletched werewolf. James and Snape probably had an argument that made Lupin come into the tunnel and why Snape was able to glimps him at the end of it. But I never stated that if James had not intervened that Snape *could* not have died as a result but his grudge (and responds) is overrated because he did not die and the threat was taken away because James intervened. I was responding to the claim that Snape's own *experience* of dealing with a werewolf was enough to grant his bigotry against werewolves. Snape never dealt with the werewolf because either he would have been one himself or he would have been dead. It is still the "what if" and the "what could" that is pulled in by many, many people as an excuse for Snape to talk in such a degrading fashion towards Lupin on the mere basis of his own believe that Lupin must have been in on the prank. And it certainly wasn't the stress of the situation that directed Snape's actions because he had been opposing Lupin's hiring as a teacher before term started and he does mock Lupin taking his potion in front of a student by saying he should drink it right away and that he has a cauldron full if he needs any more. He even degrades James's saving his butt to nothing more then an act of someone that chickened out in front of his own son. While everybody should take the possiblity that he could have died seriously and make the marauders into dangerous people with only murder on their mind even 20 years after the fact and while it was also a marauder that prevented any harm coming to him. It is not about Snape being scared of anything but about the marauders being able to pull the wool over Snape's eyes and him being so stupid to fall for anything anyone of them stated. No more as he will not listen to anything they have to say now and everything that comes to them they deserve and DD too for believing that there is such a thing as a tame werewolf. Old Snivellus will proof them all wrong now, he is now the one with the power. As Sirius said the joke is on you again as Snape underestimated the three people still holding wands. zgirnius: > Why not? First, he did not mock Lupin about the problem that I can > recall prior to the Shack scene. In my opinion, his evident desire > to see Lupin drink his potion in the scene Harry sees could be > attributed to fear/worry about Lupin transforming without the > potion. Seeing him take it would certainly be reassuring. Dana: Interesting because he loses that fear/ worry immediately when he sees his chance to catch Lupin red handed in helping his old friend Black and he even forgets that it is possible for Lupin to transform that night when he suggests he will drag the werewolf. zgirnius: > As to the second claim - it is surely not the only potentially > frightening thing Snape has done. We see the same pallor that is > described at his appearance in the Shack scene again in GoF, before > he returns to Voldemort. Dana: Yes, and LV is far more freighting then Lupin ever was to Snape and yet he still refers to him as the Dark Lord like all the other DEs and tells Harry not to use Voldemort's name because he was not worthy enough like DD to refer to LV is such a way. It is eerie similar to the way Bella stated to Harry to not speak the Dark Lords name with that filthy half-blood mouth of his. We do not see the same pallor in his description of Snape in the shack as in the GoF. Snape's face his full of suppressed triumph (pg 263 POA UKed). Snape's eyes were glittering but in GoF it is mentioned that his eyes glittered strangely and that he looked slightly pale (pg 619 GoF Uked). Snape eyes browse are described as gleaming frantically in PoA and when he faces Sirius it is hard to say which face showed more hatred. His demeanor in PoA is nothing like that in GoF were Snape truly must have had some anxiety about if LV was going to buy his story and not kill him on the spot for living in DD's pocket and leaving him forever. Snape had no anxiety what so ever but his blood was boiling again for hearing Lupin telling the trio about the trick pulled on him. zgirnius: > Snape lived among people who used terms like that all the time for > at least part of his schooldays, among his Slytherin housemates. I > don't see why it would not occur to him as an insult to use. Dana: Precisely Snape uses the insult because it implies that that mudbloods are inferior while he himself is a half-blood with one muggle parent and if it was then known that he was a half-blood either James, Sirius or even Lily herself would have made a notion of his own background but they don't because they do not know. James specifically states that he would never use the word even though he is a pure-blood himself making the contrast that blood-status does not mean anything to him (well obviously or else he would not have a crush on Lily) Snape uses an insult that only hurts the people it's referring to and did Lily do anything that granted such an insult. And also it must be him hanging out with the Slytherin's that made him become a DE or no that was dictated to him being bullied right. Snape is the one using that word and it doesn't matter were he got it from he still would know the impact of the use of such a word even at age 16 (as he was born in January so he was 16 during his OWL's). Just as Sirius knows that it is an insult to refer to Snape's large nose and his greasy hair and James knows that it is an insult to just bully Snape because he exists. Snape specifically uses this insult to refer to Lily and he does not merely state I do not need help from a mudblood but a "filthy" mudblood like her while stating that he doesn't need help from a girl would have been enough. It is very much implying to me that Snape did not go around telling everyone that wanted to hear that he has a muggle father himself and him joining up with the DEs that are against anything that fouls the blood would certainly not have welcomed him into their midst, is an indication that he either believed in this himself or that it was enough to disgrade for his own gain. Bella referring to the neighborhood as not up to their standards but then not throwing in Snape's blood-status to make her sister see he cannot be trusted is more proof that she did not know then that she did. JMHO Dana From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 11:59:36 2007 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:59:36 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities/Re: Regulus' death(was: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > I don't know whether they're all that different. Harry's friends > with all Gryffindors, the Marauders were friends with Gryffindors, > the Slytherins are friends with Slytherins. I don't think JKR is > saying that the Marauders weren't true friends--on the contrary. > They certainly made a mistake with Peter, but I still think they're > friends. Umm, while group loyalty is a strong bond of friendship as we see in the school history, I am not sure why the marauders made the group among themselves. It could easily have been another group. However, I am most concerned about the marauders not knowing each other completely. I mean, why would Lupin feel that Sirius was the traitor even though Sirius became an illegal animagus to help Lupin face his curse easily? The other way also holds true. I think that the marauders were held together only by James, to whom Sirius and Lupin had true loyalty. I may be wrong, though From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 13 14:03:42 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:03:42 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170226 > Dana: > We do not see the same pallor in his description of Snape in the > shack as in the GoF. Snape's face his full of suppressed triumph (pg > 263 POA UKed). Snape's eyes were glittering but in GoF it is > mentioned that his eyes glittered strangely and that he looked > slightly pale (pg 619 GoF Uked). Snape eyes browse are described as > gleaming frantically in PoA and when he faces Sirius it is hard to > say which face showed more hatred. His demeanor in PoA is nothing > like that in GoF colebiancardi: of course it isn't the same. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact the PoA!Snape was on a roll to get Sirius & Lupin. GoF!Snape is a totally different person. He now is back in the saddle with his mission as a spy for Dumbledore at the end. > > Dana: > Snape uses an insult that only hurts the people it's referring to and > did Lily do anything that granted such an insult. colebiancardi: And that to me, means he isn't a bigot. I've called people names (not lately, LOL) out of anger and to hurt their feelings. However, it doesn't mean I am a bigot and quite frankly, when I was a teen, some of the name calling I did, I am ashamed of. But I grew up; learned to argue without name-calling. Hating an individual IS NOT the same as being a bigot or racist. I see nothing in Adult!Snape that tells me he is a bigot. Nothing. Any "werewolf" terms he used for Lupin was out of hatred for one person - Lupin. I have never read him spout out pure-blood nonsense as an adult - and he does grade fairly, regardless if muggle-born or not. He picks on both pure-bloods(Neville & Ron) with the same intensity as half-bloods or muggle-borns (Harry & Hermione). colebiancardi From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 13 14:27:36 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:27:36 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170227 > zgirnius: > > It is in my opinion debatable, but there is definitely evidence > > favoring the idea that James Potter saved Snape's life in that > > incident, and that Snape had a consequent life debt to James. None > > of this could have happened if Snape's life were not threatened in > > that incident. > > > Dana: > No, it isn't debatable because the definite outcome is not debatable. > Snape did not die and he did not survive a werewolf attack to truly > have *experience* with the danger a werewolf could posse. It just > could have died that is it but it was prevented by James. All the > danger was taken away when James intervened and therefore James saved > Snape from ever having to encounter a werewolf. Snape only glimpsed > werewolf Lupin and did not experience a fight with werewolf Lupin and > did not have a struggle for his life with werewolf Lupin and survived > it. > > It is the difference between being in a plane that crashed and > surviving and missing a flight and then the airplane you should have > been on crashed. The former *experienced* the crash but survived and > but could have died and the later, could have died if he had made it > to the plane in time but did not *experience* the crash in itself. colebiancardi: hmmm, I must have cut out too much, as I did respond to a lot in this thread. Trying to recreate: I am not sure why the issue of James' saving Snape's life is even under debate. Dumbledore states that James SAVED Snape's life. Lupin acknowledges it, Sirius acknowledges(begrudgingly, of course) and even Snape acknowledges it, although he does think that James was in on the prank in the beginning and then got cold feet. If James didn't save Snape's life, there would be no life-debt. However we do have a life debt that Snape owes. Everyone in canon acknowledges that Snape was in danger. I will go with that one. Your analogy of the plane crash is not applicable to this scenario, IMHO. Haven't you heard of people getting traumatized by events that were second hand to them? Case in point, 9/11. At any rate, the danger that Snape was in is not second hand. If James hadn't shown up, there would have been only two outcomes for Teen!Snape: a) killed by Lupin b) bitten by Lupin and turned into a werewolf himself > > > zgirnius: > > > Surely at the point at which Snape saw the werewolf, he could just > > turn around and walk back out, if Lupin were indeed far away and no > > threat? > > Dana: > Yes, he indeed could have just walked back before he ever got the > change to encounter Lupin and safed his own life but James safed him > because Snape did not have the intention of walking back. James could > never have pulled Snape out in human form if Lupin had been within > striking range. The threat as Lupin states in PoA was only if Snape > had made it as far to the Shack and only then would he have faced a > fully fletched werewolf. James and Snape probably had an argument > that made Lupin come into the tunnel and why Snape was able to glimps > him at the end of it. colebiancardi: Canon doesn't state that that James & Snape were arguing & then CuriousWereWolfie!Lupin came out to see what is what. Canon states that it was all in a hurry, that James & Snape were rushing out of the tunnel, with a snarling werewolf near enough that it caused a life-debt to be triggered. I don't think Snape could have seen WereWolf!Lupin, said to himself "oh, my, lookie here" and then turned around and walked out in sedate manner. By downgrading the danger Snape was in, James' heroic acts are demeaned. James is no longer a hero for saving Snape. If that is the case, there would be no life-debt. > Dana: > Interesting because he loses that fear/ worry immediately when he > sees his chance to catch Lupin red handed in helping his old friend > Black and he even forgets that it is possible for Lupin to transform > that night when he suggests he will drag the werewolf. > colebiancardi: well, there is over 20 years now between Teen!Snape & Adult!Snape. As HBP showed us, Adult!Snape has grown up to become a very powerful wizard. Also, Teen!Snape had NO idea what was waiting for him at the end of the tunnel. Snape as a teen had nothing at all to prepare him for the revelation of WereWolf!Lupin. Adult!Snape does and I am sure he has come prepared to handle both Lupin and Sirius. colebiancardi From deathmarkdave at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 13:39:06 2007 From: deathmarkdave at yahoo.com (Timothy R. O'Donnell) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:39:06 -0000 Subject: My Book 7 Predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170228 My Book 7 Predictions. First of all, I haven't read Deathly Hallows yet, so any knowledge that I have has simply been from channeling J.K. Rowling. As far as I know that isn't illegal. But I may get into some hot legal water for too accurately predicting Book 7 prior to its release. So let me warn you in advance, the following contains Big Spoilers with a capital BS! Also, I apologize that this post is long, but people have written books about this stuff, and it isn't THAT long. Will Hogwarts reopen? Of course it will! Institutions of this kind don't die tragically like people. As long as there are people interested in keeping them alive, they continue to go on like roaches after an atomic detonation. Heck, the founders have all moved on already, surely some of them passed away and have become portraits inside Dumbledore's office. So of course the school is going to reopen, the Board of Ed just has to elect a new headmaster, in this case, a headmistress. Minerva Mc. is the obvious choice for the job. I just hope her blood pressure meds will be enough. BTW, she hires Fabulous Butterpants (a new character) to be the DADA teacher. Who ends up with whom? Can we all finally accept that Ron and Hermione are meant for each other, and leave them out of all other potential relationships? I mean how many hints do you need? Book 7 they declare their love for each other. Harry and Ginny fans? Harry's got work to do defending the world from the evil that is Voldemort. He doesn't have time for a relationship, nor does he want to endanger Ginny. But in this day and age are women supposed to sit around and knit sweaters while their hero faces the fight of their lives? Last I checked, this is the twenty first century we're talking about, so no way! Ginny comes to Harry's aid at the crucial moment, brutally and caveman-like wielding a big stick and saves Harry's life in the final battle. Then she drags him home by his hair. However, the most surprise relationship turns out to be Molly Weasley and Tom Riddle, you got it Lord Voldey himself. She's always had a huge crush on him, but Tom's just been a little too preoccupied with evil sorcery, prophecies, and llamas to take much notice. When he disappeared from her life years ago, she settled for Arthur Weasley and together they raised a slew of kids. So many she's lost count. But now that Tom's back, she's been scrapbooking all the articles in the Daily Prophet that mention his name and she's become president of the Death Eater's Fan Club. Of course, Arthur's not going to stand for that. They fight horribly, and she sends him packing, freeing her to pursue her true love, Tom. It turns out, she's just what Tom needs, someone to love. Who else? I simply can't address all the couples, so I'll just list them and let you work it out for yourselves. Draco and Cho, Dolores and Bane the Centaur, Hagrid and Madame Maxime (she returns with the giants for the final battle), Rita Skeeter and Neville, Luna and Lupin, Peter and Crookshanks, Leonard Nemoy and William Shatner, Sirius and Tonks, Viktor Krum and Lavender Brown, Ren and Stimpy, Snape and Madame Pomfrey (He's injured in the final battle, she nurses him back to health), and finally Belletrix and Arthur Cheesley (Hey, he's got a good job and he's single now, right?). Who will live, who will die? "Don't expect Dumbledore to pull a Gandalf?" Sorry but Jo is really blowing smoke when she said that "Dumbledore is dead, truly, as in the no longer breathing kind of way. I'm not lying." Really good news here for Dumbledore fans is that he's faked his own death, ala Elvis Presley. After all, was there a body lying on the floor? No. What happened was, he got tired of trying to run a school with all the drama going on. So, he's retired to Orlando, Florida and has worked up a killer tan. He couldn't just retire in the normal, here's a gold watch, kind of way. Do you think Harry would leave him alone? Not for a minute! And on a more sirius note, Sirius isn't dead either. Once again, do the body check. Nope, no corpse on the floor. Sirius returns in book 7, and his true name is revealed, Reginald Aloysius Black, or R.A.B. for short. He goes by the name Sirius because no one would take him serious by his real name. Sirius was of course afraid to use his name, real or assumed, on the note in the cave, so he used his initials instead. Sirius turns over Slytherin's locket in Chapter 1, when he returns. So now that the dead are living, who's going to bite the big one? That's the question everyone wants to know. First of all Harry, some say JK would be mad to kill off the cash cow, but don't be silly. How much money does she need? She would never sacrifice artistic integrity for money at this point in her illustrious career. (Now, I have been known to be sarcastic on occasion. And so, sometimes the written word just doesn't convey when you are being honest and forthright. Let me assure you that I mean this and I am not being sarcastic.) But is Harry the Sherlock Holmes type? Sacrificing his life to take Moriarty/Voldemort down? Hardly! First of all, what makes you think Harry would ever be so unselfish? He is definitely not there yet, and would have to do an awful lot of growing up before he gets there. (More than fictionally swallowable.) Hey, don't get me wrong, I love the guy, he's just not tragic hero material. So as stated above, Ginny rescues him, and he lives. Now if I can be serious for a moment in respect for those who are among Jo's immortally challenged, that is, you know, buying a pine condo, becoming toast, basting the formaldehyde turkey, going into the fertilizer business, donating the liver pat?, buying the farm,--dead. Unfortunately, Ron is the tragic death of Book 7. Ron must die because he's Harry's best friend. How else will Harry ever learn that he isn't invincible? This is the tragedy that makes good writing. Hermione and he discover true love only to have death intercede. (BTW, he's run over by the Ford Anglia in the final battle.) Is Snape good or evil? Well both of course, I mean aren't we all a mixture? But when it comes down to taking sides in the final battle, Snape will be among the good ones. Dumbledore doesn't trust evil people and is too smart to be fooled by Snape. Where are the Horcruxes? Harry will be attempting to find and destroy Voldemort's remaining two Horcruxes. Now if you were an evil wizard, where might you stash a piece of your soul? Well, it's not quite that simple and easy. However, once you understand the answer, it makes perfect sense. The tasks of finding Godric Gryffindor's and Rowena Ravenclaw's artifacts turn out to be not so difficult. They are found in the third chapter of Book 7. Riddle used Godric's left slipper and Rowena's pet raven's squeek toy. But not so fast! When Riddle long ago asked Slughorn his opinion, he mentioned six horcruxes, but in doing so, he hid the fact that he really intended to use eight! So even though the six horcruxes are all located and destroyed in Chapter 1, there are still two unknown to anyone! How diabolical of him not to leave any clues whatsoever! It's as though he wasn't trying to make it traceable for his enemies! So what are the final two Horcruxes? Why, one is Dobby the Elf, who turns himself in. While he used to serve the Maldoy Family, he was turned into a living horcrux. This makes perfect sense as elves are difficult to kill as they can apperate at will, and their life span is off the charts! These little buggers live for thousands of years, so they make excellent storage receptacles for bits of your standard evil wizard's soul. Dobby is instantly killed by the Order of the Phoenix. (JK Rowling apologizes in advance to Dobby fans everywhere.) Finally, young Tom Riddle put another portion of his soul into his family's old automobile, a Ford Anglia! Yes, the same indestructible Ford Anglia that Harry and Ron took to school and crashed into the Whumping Willow! Unfortunately, the car is invulnerable. (I particularly can't wait for this part in the seventh film when the car is driving through the Forbidden Forest while being bombarded by lightning bolts and fireballs, and everything else in the Order's arsenal, but remains unscathed.) However, when all hope seems lost, when it seems Voldemort has won, his eyes meet the eyes of Molly Cheesley and they fall deeply in love. Voldemort turns over a new leaf and works the remainder of his life to make up for his misunderstood life and a few misdeeds. Finally, there's more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and we'll find out what's unique about her in Book 7. We already know she's not a squib. JKR has said, "There is a character who does manage, in desperate circumstances, to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare." Well, when Dudley tracks mud onto her living room floor, the pent up aggression explodes. She uses one of the "unforgettable curses" on her own son, the Keeanu Reeves curse! He instantly is wracked with pains, rolling on the floor, as though forced to actually watch a Keeanu Reeves performance. Of course, he will have nightmares the rest of his life. Thanks for reading, and please be kind enough to warn others you share this with, that these are Big Spoilers. P.S. JKR has changed the last word. Once expected to be "scar," it is now, "sandwich." Thanks, tim From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 13:52:42 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:52:42 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170229 Magpie: > > I would take that a step further--Lupin and Sirius could both have heard of > > Regulus' death, but how on earth did anyone know that he'd turned? Did he > > make a scene in front of LV? They wouldn't have heard this sort of thing > > from other DEs. > > > > He leaves the note saying he knows he'll be dead but afterwards LV will > > find out he took his Horcrux. And the tone of the note immediately makes > > Regulus seem a lot more important a person than Sirius made him out to be. > > Did he find the Horcrux first and then, when he knew he had it, make some > > sort of public gesture that showed that he was leaving the DEs? > > Pippin: > Perhaps Reg sent an owl, "to be opened in the event of my death" dated > only a few days before his body was discovered. It could have gone to > his parents, or the Daily Prophet, or even Kreacher. It's odd that > Lupin should take more interest in the details than Sirius -- but it > could be a hint that survival time for DE's who betray Lord Voldemort > is a matter of personal interest to him . > > Pippin > lizzyben04: The problem I have with that theory is that neither Sirius nor Lupin seem to have any idea what Regulus was up to. If Regulus is RAB, his escape from the Death Eaters was much more well-planned than either knew. He needed a partner to help replace the potion & capture the locket, a potions brewer to come up w/the new potion, and an informer to tell him how to retrieve the locket. There's no indication that he got any of this help from members of the Order. DD would not have made that futile journey for the horcrux if he had known. RAB's helpers were all from outside the Order, perhaps other Death Eaters (Snape?) Instead, Sirius & Lupin's info shows a basic *lack* of knowledge about what Regulus's plan actually was. It sounds like second-hand or third-hand gossip, not actual direct contact with Regulus. If they did receive direct communication, you would expect Sirius to know the most - instead he knows almost nothing at all, & just repeats some vague reports. Lupin knows more, but he only knows the date that Regulus renounced the Death Eaters, and died. This seems more like information he would recieve from other DE, rather than Regulus himself. It actually doesn't seem like Sirius had any contact with his brother at all since graduating Hogwarts, maybe even since he was first sorted into Slytherin, and that's a little sad. At first, I assumed Regulus was killed while Sirius was in Azkaban, which would explain his lack of knowledge or interest in the event. But no, Regulus died in 1979, at the age of eighteen. Sirius would've been 21 at the time, and still free & happy. Didn't he care? Didn't he want to know more about what happened? I get the impression that when Sirius cut himself off the Blacks, he *really* cut himself off, to the point that he never even spoke to his brother again. (This this seems to parallel rebel Sirius with suck-up Percy Weasley!) Maybe he avoided information about Regulus's death in order to avoid his own feelings of guilt. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 15:58:05 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:58:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170230 > > Karen: > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thuderstruck. > > "It certainly seems so." (DD) > > Geoff: > This has been mentioned previously, especially after the existence of > Horcruxes was first revealed in HBP. > > The relevant quote, more fully, is: > '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because > Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar > Slytherin - 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?" Harry said thunderstruck. > > "It certainly seems so."' > (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) > > Two points arise from this. > > First, let us remember that Dumbledore was not speaking about > physical transfers but mental or intellectual transfers (for want of > a better description). > > Second, Dumbledore believes that Voldemort did not intend to > effect this transfer. We have discussed in the past how Horcruxes > might be made at some length and a number of members have > reached the conclusion that Horcruxes just don't happen - or > happen accidentally. They have to be set up and planned for > which is a view to which I subscribe. JW: DD surmised that LV did plan on creating the 6th horcrux for the deaths of the Potters. If DD was correct, than LV was well-prepared - the appropriate potions were brewed and incantations spoken. The stage was set. LV's soul was splintered once again, but unique circumstances left it with no place to go. As a result, I am a little more friendly to the possibility of Horcrux!Harry than Geoff appears to be. After sifting through dozens of posts on this topic, I consider the concept to be plausible but not convincing; hence, possible but unlikely. I would be surprised but not thunderstruck if it came to pass. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 16:05:05 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:05:05 -0000 Subject: Some observations and possibilities (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170231 > Jules: > > Notice the date of release for the movie of Order of the Phoenix: > > July 12, 2007 (UK release). If we just take into account the day and not the month or > year (and yes I know for numerology sake this isn't the real way you determine things, but > I'm making an observation here), that if you take the number 12 and add the digits 1 and > 2 you get 3 of course: Harry, Ron, & Hermione. The same goes for the release date of > Deathly Hallows of the 21st. This is no coincidence. > > Geoff: > I hate to torpedo your theory but the UK release date for the Order of the > Phoenix is 13/07/07. JW: You might want to check those dates. I believe WB has moved the U.S. release date to 7/11. If this is correct, I do not understand why the U.K. date would be a day or two later. Jules, in my most humble of opinions, I believe your numerological coincidence is nothing more than that. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 13 16:23:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:23:22 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities/Snape-a werewolf bigot? Say it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170232 > > Magpie: > > I don't know whether they're all that different. Harry's friends > > with all Gryffindors, the Marauders were friends with Gryffindors, > > the Slytherins are friends with Slytherins. I don't think JKR is > > saying that the Marauders weren't true friends--on the contrary. > > They certainly made a mistake with Peter, but I still think > they're > > friends. sridharj_ap: > > Umm, while group loyalty is a strong bond of friendship as we see in > the school history, I am not sure why the marauders made the group > among themselves. It could easily have been another group. > > However, I am most concerned about the marauders not knowing each > other completely. I mean, why would Lupin feel that Sirius was the > traitor even though Sirius became an illegal animagus to help Lupin > face his curse easily? The other way also holds true. > > I think that the marauders were held together only by James, to whom > Sirius and Lupin had true loyalty. I may be wrong, though Magpie: I don't quite understand what you mean about how it could have been another group--couldn't we say that about all friendships? They may have just had fun together, which they discovered upon being put in a dorm together. The Marauders do seem to know each other to me. Their suspecting each other could have been due to things they did know about each other and the paranoia of the times--Ron suspects Harry of putting his own name in the Goblet in GoF and Harry doesn't understand why he can believe this, but I think they still know each other. Harry himself thinks that friends sometimes aren't as close as they get older. Their friendship wasn't forged under the kind of circumstances the Trio's was. Sirius and James seemed to have been the closest two of the group, but I don't think we can say that James was the focus for Lupin. We've only ever heard Lupin talk about James as an adult when James has been dead for years, so what he says is naturally going to be tinged with nostalgia and sentimentality about the dead. But Lupin seems to have a handle on Sirius as an adult, and Sirius actually does have Peter's number as an adult as well. Once he knew he was a traitor he was able to fit that into his personality--being a traitor didn't have to mean the person had actually decided Voldemort was right. It was just a case of folding to pressure or getting themselves into something. Lupin had shown a weakness of will as a kid, Sirius' anger and recklessness may have been thought to have been used to trick him into Voldemort's clutches, or perhaps it was thought he was being pressured via his family or something. The main reason Peter was thought to be safe seemed to be that nobody thought Voldemort would be interested in him, not that he was a great guy. As someone else said, their own personalities may have lent them to wonder about each other in those times. They had a history of bullying, being reckless, lying and secrets. Sirius had also pulled the Prank, and while I don't think we know this sewed mistrust, it could have come up in their thinking as well. Dana: Lupin risked exposing himself to others when he was young BECAUSE he believed in the safety precautions that his friends provided and the near misses proved to a young kid that indeed the safety precautions were sufficient. In retrospect it was a dumb thing to do but fortunately nothing seriously came of it.We use airplanes because we believe the safety precautions taken are sufficient to travel by these means but they never are fail proof at all times and neither are the safety precautions that a werewolf can take. Magpie: I think it's a little much to say they were "sufficient." Lupin says they had some close calls, and luck played a part. MWPP's idea of what was sufficient was clearly different than what the school thought was sufficient. The real precautions patently didn't work--those precautions being that Lupin was supposed to be locked away from people *while he was dangerous* in the Shrieking Shack. Those precautions were dismantled by his friends with his blessing--and at least once one of them intentually attempted to bring someone into close contact with transformed!Lupin which had an even better chance of serious consequences if James hadn't acted. I don't think this means all werewolves should be locked up, of course, any more than people with TB and Typhoid should have been locked up because that guy on the plane and Typhoid Mary as individuals were not responsible enough for some peoples' liking. But one can easily imagine the parent of a child at the school looking at Lupin's decisions about his precautions and not feeling like their child is safe. They might think the kid is perfectly safe around Lupin himself, but still feel uncomfortable having them that close to his disease which, as you correctly said, does not discriminate. An important thing to remember, too, about the situation as it is, is that nobody is agreeing to the safety precautions like they do on a plane. Lupin's condition is a secret--nobody's agreed to these precautions for their kids. Of course it's only secret because of unfair discrimination to begin with, so he's between a rock and a hard place, but still all these things are keeping it from being the ideal situation. Dana: It was a response to an urgent and extremely confusing circumstance and he took responsibility for that slip up and Sirius prevented that slip up to cause any permanent consequences. The what if's are irrelevant because you cannot change the outcome and the outcome therefore is the only thing that stands. The safety precautions DD put in place (the potion) were sufficient under normal circumstances but you can't prevent all things all the time any time, not even Lupin and he never bit or killed another human being in his life, actually not even you could. Magpie: You seem to be wanting it both ways here, though. The "what ifs" are irrelevent when it's "what if Lupin had attacked someone when he was running around loose as a werewolf?" but important when it's "what if he hadn't seen Peter on the map and had not run out without taking his Potion?" The "what ifs" are the whole point of the precautions--and unfortunately in a situation where people would probably demand very tight security, Lupin's record is relatively bad. It turned out the whole precautionary system failed because there was a surprising incident. Dana: DD put safety precautions on the stone and still it was not sufficient enough to keep Harry out because of Hagrid slipped up. Should Hagrid therefore be shunted from society because he has trouble keeping his mouth shut? Magpie: Bad analogy. Like it or not, with Lupin we're talking about an actual danger to others which is embodied (at times) in Lupin himself. It's not about punishing Lupin (which is what it would be with Hagrid--the proper precaution in that case is just to not rely on Hagrid to keep important information if it's important it not get out) but keeping other people safe. In trying to strike a balance between Lupin's right to live a full life and other peoples' rights to not be in danger from a werewolf, compromises are going to need to be made--so far they haven't found the right one. There were far more security measures around the stone than there ever were around Lupin, and the thing that broke through them was an even remoter possibility. Dana: Most kids in one way or the other encounter stupid and dangerous things at one point in their lives. To still hold Lupin accountable for his actions when he was young while they actually never led to anything that is suggested that could have happened is saying that kids can never be forgiven for the mistakes they make and should still be condemned for it even if they wised up as adults. Magpie: Of course, the neat thing about Lupin and many in his generation is: How much did he wise up? He understood the danger enough to be guilty and worry about it when he was a kid, but covered his doubts to be with his friends. When he returns he's kind of doing the same thing. He's no longer running around as a werewolf so shouldn't be blamed for doing so, but stressing how much it "never led to anything" makes me feel *less* confident about Lupin and not more. I agree with you that Lupin deserves to be part of society. I think his disease should be able to be dealt with openly as a disease that is not his fault and that the secrecy has contributed to the very danger people are trying to avoid. More education about the real risks (as opposed to imagined ones) from werewolves would be a good thing. But I think part of being honest about it means accepting the real risks and taking protecting others seriously, not brushing off consistent slip-ups and breaches in security as if they don't matter because in the past they were lucky. Dana: Precisely Snape uses the insult because it implies that that mudbloods are inferior while he himself is a half-blood with one muggle parent and if it was then known that he was a half-blood either James, Sirius or even Lily herself would have made a notion of his own background but they don't because they do not know. James specifically states that he would never use the word even though he is a pure-blood himself making the contrast that blood-status does not mean anything to him (well obviously or else he would not have a crush on Lily) Magpie: But come on, Sirius doesn't know who the Pure-bloods are? Of course he does. I think James, Sirius and Lily all know perfectly well that Snape is a Half-blood. Or at least that he isn't a Pure-blood like James and Sirius. The reason they don't bring it up to him as you yourself said is because *they* aren't making blood an issue. For any of them to respond with, "Yeah, well you're only a Half-blood!" would be validating Snape's insult in the first place, and fighting the argument on his terms. Most people would know not to do that. As well, the idea that Half-bloods are insulted the same way Muggle- borns is not canon. Fans assume that logically this is how it works, but we've never seen it. (Also, just as an aside, one can certainly have a crush on a member of a group one finds inferior. There are many male readers, young and old, who think Draco's behavior indicates he's got a crush on Hermione.) Regardless, we have not seen any indication that Snape is "passing" for a Pure-blood and many indications that his blood status was known at least as well as Seamus Finnegan's is. Especially since we know that the Pure-bloods themselves are highly aware of this sort of thing. None of them ever suggest Snape is one of them on those terms. When asked about Snape's blood status pre-HBP Rowling even replied: "Snape's ancestry is hinted at. He was a Death Eater, so clearly he is no Muggle born, because Muggle borns are not allowed to be Death Eaters, except in rare circumstances. You have some information about his ancestry there." So knowing he's a DE means that he's not Muggle-born, not that he'd be expected to be Pure- blood. I see no indication of any story where Snape's passing for Pure or being outed as a Half-Blood and many indications that he simply has his own place based on who he is. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 13 16:24:35 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:24:35 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170233 > > colebiancardi: > > And that to me, means he isn't a bigot. I've called people names (not > lately, LOL) out of anger and to hurt their feelings. However, it > doesn't mean I am a bigot and quite frankly, when I was a teen, some > of the name calling I did, I am ashamed of. But I grew up; learned to > argue without name-calling. Hating an individual IS NOT the same as > being a bigot or racist. > > I see nothing in Adult!Snape that tells me he is a bigot. Nothing. > Any "werewolf" terms he used for Lupin was out of hatred for one > person - Lupin. I have never read him spout out pure-blood nonsense > as an adult - and he does grade fairly, regardless if muggle-born or > not. He picks on both pure-bloods(Neville & Ron) with the same > intensity as half-bloods or muggle-borns (Harry & Hermione). wynnleaf For all involved in this discussion ;), I think this is part of what concerns me. I don't think anyone disputes that the phrase "filthy mudblood" is a bigoted kind of remark. As Magpie put it, the "rhetoric" is bigoted. Similarly, there are ways of calling someone "werewolf" where the style of rhetoric of the phrasing is bigoted in style. But when you call someone *a* bigot, the implication is not simply that the rhetoric of one particular comment was bigoted, but that they are in fact *characterized* as a person by bigotry. To me, that's a huge leap, most especially with Snape's "mudblood" comment. To take a teenager making a nasty remark in a moment of high stress and call that remark bigoted rhetoric is one thing. To then characterize the whole character by that one remark is quite another. Draco and the others who use the "mudblood" term, show a lot of other signs and express a lot of opinions by which one can indeed characterize them as "bigoted" toward muggleborns, however Snape does not. The only other thing one can point to is his having joined the Death Eaters. Dumbledore, in HBP, gives Harry several different reasons for why people followed Voldemort in the early days: "They were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish, gravitating towards a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty. In other words, they were the forerunners of the Death Eaters, and indeed some of them became the first Death Eaters after leaving Hogwarts." Notice that nowhere in this list of reasons does Dumbledore say "purebloods seeking to get rid of muggleborns." Yes, that is indeed part of what Voldemort does, but from Dumbledore's comments, it's rather clear that that's not necessarily why people joined up. As regards Snape, and why he joined, it's really hard to say, because we simply haven't been given the slightest indication of why he joined. I agree with Magpie that *anyone* who joined Voldemort, regardless of the reason, had to at least tacitly accept the anti-muggleborn agenda, even if that person didn't actively desire to support it. But we don't even know how long Snape was a Death Eater prior to turning to Dumbledore. We only *know* he was a DE from the time of hearing the partial prophecy and taking it to LV, to the point of realizing the Potters were targeted and going to Dumbledore. Since the Potters knew they were going into hiding *before* Harry's christening, it's possible that Snape was only a true follower of Voldemort for a few months. Even in the period between joining and going to Dumbledore, we don't know how long he *wanted* to get out and just hadn't built up the courage or didn't quite know how to leave or who to go to. So Snape could just as easily have joined Voldemort for reasons having little to nothing to do with muggleborn prejudices (although, granted at least tacitly accepting Voldemorts agenda there), and then relatively quickly seen the light and decided to get out of it. Since JKR has been very careful to *not* reveal Snape's motivations in joining Voldemort, and has made theories of muggleborn prejudice problematic with her revelation that Snape's father was a muggle, I don't think we can just assume that Snape joined Voldemort with a bigoted agenda, and certainly not that he is a bigot during the times of the books. Another thing that concerns me is the tendency to lump all bigotry together. I get the impression that some posters assume that if Snape is bigoted in any one area, he's just bigoted in general, toward anything and everything that one could possibly be bigoted toward. As regards Snape's attitude toward werewolves, I question Snape's calling Lupin "werewolf," as being a bigoted, or even prejudiced remark. "Werewolf" is not a bad word. It is what Lupin calls himself. I do agree that when Snape uses it, it's calling Lupin by what he is, as opposed to *who* he is. But that is often done in many contexts. If, for instance, one of the good guys ran across a death eater doing something awful and called out "stop, you Death Eater!" would anyone consider it bigoted to call the person "death eater" as opposed to their name? Certainly not. Why? Well, they *are* a death eater. Well, Lupin is a werewolf. But the use of the "death eater" term would be derogatory in nature at the time, right? So it's bigoted right? No, because death eaters really *are* bad. But the problem here is that Snape really does consider werewolves dangerous, deadly, and Lupin in particularly so. And in fact, werewolves in the series are for the most part dangerous, deadly, etc. when at that particular time of the month -- that particular time of the month when Snape, in the Shrieking Shack, calls Lupin "werewolf." As I've said before, prejudice is preconceived opinions, not based on fact or real experience. Snape is not prejudiced toward Lupin. He dislikes and distrusts him based on actual knowledge. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 13 16:36:52 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:36:52 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170234 > lizzyben04: > The problem I have with that theory is that neither Sirius nor Lupin > seem to have any idea what Regulus was up to. > > It actually doesn't seem like Sirius had any contact with his > brother at all since graduating Hogwarts, maybe even since he was > first sorted into Slytherin, and that's a little sad. At first, I > assumed Regulus was killed while Sirius was in Azkaban, which would > explain his lack of knowledge or interest in the event. But no, > Regulus died in 1979, at the age of eighteen. Sirius would've been > 21 at the time, and still free & happy. Didn't he care? Didn't he > want to know more about what happened? I get the impression that > when Sirius cut himself off the Blacks, he *really* cut himself off, > to the point that he never even spoke to his brother again. (This > this seems to parallel rebel Sirius with suck-up Percy Weasley!) > Maybe he avoided information about Regulus's death in order to avoid > his own feelings > of guilt. > wynnleaf My impression was that Sirius' knowledge was rather vague about what happened to Regulus. So where did Lupin get his "few days" knowledge if not from Sirius? And if Lupin had that knowledge, why didn't Sirius appear to have it? Some speculate that the info came from Dumbledore. But Dumbledore did *not* share information about Snape's turning from Voldemort to the Order back at that time, so I can't see it likely that he'd share information about Regulus turning either -- assuming Dumbledore knew anything. Further, if Dumbledore *did* know more info and shared it, wouldn't he have been more likely to share it with Sirius than with Lupin? Yet Lupin seemed to have the greater knowledge. And this is a piece of literature, after all. This comment by Lupin could a small plot hole, without any real explanation for how Lupin knew when Regulus turned and therefore knew it was only "a few days" before he was killed. On the other hand, if there *is* an explanation, then JKR obviously knows exactly what that explanation is and it has some importance. And if it has some importance, it's not something trivial -- although it could have more to do with Regulus' possible activities surrounding the horcruxes than anything bad about Lupin. The problem with the "plot hole" option is that there are just too many plot holes surrounding Lupin's actions and comments for me to think all of those plot holes are just JKR slipping up more often with Lupin than other major characters. wynnleaf From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 16:40:36 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:40:36 -0000 Subject: My Book 7 Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170235 Tim: > Thanks for reading, and please be kind enough to warn others you share > this with, that these are Big Spoilers. > P.S. JKR has changed the last word. Once expected to be "scar," it > is now, "sandwich." > Thanks, > tim JW: While every other one of your BSs is plausible, perhaps even convincing, I must disagree with your interpretation of the last word. It is NOT "sandwich." Instead, it is "sand witch." This is obviously a reference to DD's award-winning entry in Orlando's annual beach sculpture competition. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 16:48:27 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:48:27 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170236 > colebiancardi: > I see nothing in Adult!Snape that tells me he is a bigot. Nothing. > I have never read him spout out pure-blood nonsense > as an adult - and he does grade fairly, regardless if muggle-born or > not. He picks on both pure-bloods(Neville & Ron) with the same > intensity as half-bloods or muggle-borns (Harry & Hermione). JW: I agree. Snape is not a bigot. He despises EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, bloodline, or species of origin. He is an equal-opportunity miscreant. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 17:03:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:03:35 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170237 Alla: > > > > > > I understood Mike comparing Snape's remark towards Hermione with Filch's remark towards Hagrid to show if if one is arguing Snape being under duress when he insulted Lily, then Hagrid was also under duress from Filch's remark, but maybe I was wrong. > > > Carol earlier: > > > > I think you may be mixing up two separate points here. The remark about Hermione's teeth (which even DDM!Snapers like me concede was uncalled for) has nothing to do with Hagrid's insulting Filch. I *think* Mike brought it up to show Snape's prejudice against Hermione, > > Mike: > No, Alla got it right! Carol, you had said that Hagrid wasn't under duress when he called Filch a Squib. I was pointing out the almost word for word insults Hermione and Hagrid endured. It is immaterial who made the comment, it was the reaction the insultee had to being insulted. Hermione ran away crying, clearly she was upset. Hagrid was just as clearly upset. Meaning Hagrid was provoked just like Snape was provoked. Not that being provoked should be a valid reason for either of them to use bigoted terms. > > > Carol: In which case you're comparing the reaction of a person insulted by a remark about her appearance, Hermione, to that of a person supposedly distressed enough to call another person a "sneakin' Squib." Sorry, Mike, dear, but your logic escapes me. What word-for-word insults are you talking about ("I see no difference" in Hermione's case, but what did Filch say to cause sixty=something Hagrid distress comparable to Teen!Snape's after having his underwear exposed and being made to look helpless in front of the entire fifth-year class? Also, running away in tears and using a slur on someone's lack of magical ability don't seem comparable to me. Carol, who thinks that Mike's two "t's" in "bigot[t]ed" pale beside her "purebollod" typo From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 17:06:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:06:14 -0000 Subject: Maturing Wizards (Was: Re:Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170238 --- "Renee'" wrote: > > I got the impression that wizards age differently > than muggles. Once a wizard reaches maturity the > aging process slows down (due to magic use perhaps) > resulting in a longer life expectancy? > > Renee > bboyminn: But that is the question, is it the aging process that slows down, or is it simply that as people age they maintain strength and vitality but age at a normal rate. There are after all people in their 70's and even 80's that run marathons, are they physically younger than their years or have the just maintained themselves better. After many hours of discussion here and in other groups this it the formula we came up with to compare Chronological Age (Ca) to the equivalent Functional Age (Fa). Fa = ((Ca - 18) / 2) + 18 This is on the assumption that during the first 18 years muggles and wizard age the same. So McGonagall is about 70 in chronological years, this give us Fa = ((70 - 18) / 2) + 18 Fa = (52 / 2) +18 Fa = (26) + 18 Fa = 44 So, McGonagall at age 70 is functionally about age 44. Dumbledore at age 150 is functionally about age 84. Lucius Malfoy at (about) age 40 is funtionally about age 29. This would put the maximum theoretical lifespan of a wizard at about 225 years (Fa = 121). Now the question is, is McGonagall LIKE a 44 year old, or is she (independent of chronological age) physically 44 years old. Has she actually aged at a much slower rate, or has she simply maintained health and vitality longer? Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 13 17:16:35 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:16:35 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <7200060.1181754995648.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170239 From: jmwcfo >I agree. Snape is not a bigot. > >He despises EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, bloodline, or species >of origin. He is an equal-opportunity miscreant. Bart: Please, be fair to Snape. He only despises those whom he considers to be singificantly inferior to himself. Which includes just about everyone, with the probable exceptions of Voldy, Dumbledore, Minny the Cat, Flitty, Sprout, Poppy, and POSSIBLY the Golden Ass (I wonder if Apelius had any influence on the naming of Malfoy, Sr.). Come to think of it, I don't recall him ever having a nasty thing to say about Hagrid. This may fit in with Hagrid being smarter than he appears to be. And he DID know Snape as a youngster. And (I'll have to double-check HBP for this one), I seem to remember that Hagrid was more shocked than anybody else about Snape killing Dumbledore. This is NOT a "ship", but I do suspect that there is somewhat more to the Snape/Hagrid relationship than we have been told, certainly more than, "DD trusts Snape, and Hagrid trusts DD". Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 13 17:21:16 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:21:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maturing Wizards (Was: Re:Voldemort's Age) Message-ID: <8291432.1181755276818.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170240 From: Steve >But that is the question, is it the aging process that >slows down, or is it simply that as people age they >maintain strength and vitality but age at a normal rate. >There are after all people in their 70's and even 80's >that run marathons, are they physically younger than >their years or have the just maintained themselves >better. Or, when most disease and injuries are cured instantly, and appearance can be changed, wizard bodies endure much less physical stress than muggle bodies. For example, what is the life expectency of squibs? How about muggle borns? If the latter live as long as most wizards, and the former live as long as most muggles, then there is a case to be made about slower breakdown rather than elongated life-span. Bart From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Jun 13 17:59:33 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:59:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46703085.10900@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170241 jmwcfo wrote: > > > > colebiancardi: > > I see nothing in Adult!Snape that tells me he is a bigot. Nothing. > > I have never read him spout out pure-blood nonsense > > as an adult - and he does grade fairly, regardless if muggle-born or > > not. He picks on both pure-bloods(Neville & Ron) with the same > > intensity as half-bloods or muggle-borns (Harry & Hermione). > > JW: > I agree. Snape is not a bigot. > > He despises EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, bloodline, or species > of origin. He is an equal-opportunity miscreant. True. One who hates everyone equaly is not a bigot, just a grouch. I can relate cause I dispise most people, regardless of race, creed, bloodline, or species of origin. People have to prove to me they are worth liking. So... I'm a grouch? Wanna make something of it? ;) Jazmyn From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Jun 13 17:50:48 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:50:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46702E78.7070806@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170242 Dana wrote: > > > Jazmyn: > > People with HIV do not turn into man-eating wolves every full moon > > who maul and attack people. Comparing HIV to lycanthropy is like > > comparing a glass of water (controlled by a glass) to a dam > > collapsing (uncontrolled water with the dam (potion) removed). A > > crazed wolf moving at supernatural speed through a school full of > > children can hardly be considered safe under any circumstances. > > One slip-up and the wolvesbane potion taken too late and how many > > kids would die or end up as werewolves??? Lupin was just REALLY > > lucky noone got hurt, either back when he was a Marauder or later > > with Harry and co. It may sound harsh of me, but anyone > > with a disease that dangerous should be removed from society to > > their own collony. > > > > Would you allow a man with rabies to teach children? Or Ebola > > virus? If you found out your teacher had a dangerous disease, that > > could be spread too easily, what would you do? There are just some > > things too dangerous to expose people to and sometimes the needs of > > the few must be set aside for the needs of the many. > > Dana: > First of all you should really think again about what you are stating > about people with dangerous diseases should be removed from society > to their own colony. That is what people thought about gay people > when the AIDS virus was rapidly claiming the lives of young man. They > were shunted out and them being gay what was thought to be the cause > and it was believed for some reason that G*d punish these people > their lifestyle until it became a proven fact that this disease was > not discriminatory at all. People did not want to work with them or > even be near them. (snip) I was referring to being a werewolf on that one, not AIDS! AIDS can be 'controlled' to a much higher degree and is not easily spread. With lycanthropy, you miss ONE wolvesbane potion and you are so dangerous to society that people have to shoot you with a silver bullet just to put you down. I'm sorry.. if you had a gun and saw a rabid dog charging through a school, biting people, you would kill it if you could. Werewolves should NOT be living and working among normal people.. period.. they are simply TOO dangerous. They try to kill anyone unable to escape them, not to mention those who survive an attack end up as werewolves themselves. I never said to put people with AIDS in a colony, do not put words in my mouth to justify your position that people who turn into wolves and are driven to attack people in that condition can 'live normal lives'. They can't as shown by what happened when Lupin missed just ONE potion. Are you suggesting that psychotic mass murderers who might miss their medication one day would be safe as teachers? Jazmyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 18:11:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:11:00 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <46702E78.7070806@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170243 Jasmyn: > I was referring to being a werewolf on that one, not AIDS! AIDS can be > 'controlled' to a much higher degree and is not easily spread. With > lycanthropy, you miss ONE wolvesbane potion and you are so dangerous to > society that people have to shoot you with a silver bullet just to put > you down. Alla: Oh, people *have to*? I guess it is strange that Lupin is still alive and managed to survive till potion was discovered. Somebody just must have put silver bullet through him? Hmmmm, it just so happened I believe Snape may have wanted to. Stupid Dumbledore, who tried to help sick boy, very stupid. Somehow I think we will see in book 7 that he was not that stupid though. Jasmyn: > Werewolves should NOT be living and working among normal people.. > period.. they are simply TOO dangerous. They try to kill anyone unable > to escape them, not to mention those who survive an attack end up as > werewolves themselves. Alla: Yes, Dolores Umbridge thinks so too. Werewolves should not be working, period. I think that may have played some role in driving so many werewolves to support Voldemort. I think that is a stupid and ignorant policy to implement on behalf dear Dolores and Ministry. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 13 18:30:37 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:30:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! Message-ID: <17106004.1181759437718.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170244 From: Jazmyn Concolor >Werewolves should NOT be living and working among normal people.. >period.. they are simply TOO dangerous. They try to kill anyone unable >to escape them, not to mention those who survive an attack end up as >werewolves themselves. Bart: Or, we can take the Otis the Drunk solution. For those who are not familiar, in the 1960's American comedy, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, Otis was the town drunk. Being drunk in public was a crime, so Otis, whenever he got drunk, would show up at the local jail, step into the cell, and lock himself in for the night. It is well-known when werewolves will be changing into werewolves. So, all local werewolves are required to check into the local jail at, say, 2 hours before sunset on the nights of their change (or whatever amount of time would be reasonable to allow the local law enforcement to hunt down the stragglers). Of course, seeing that there doesn't seem to be any punishment in the WW in between fines and risking a fate worse than death as Azkaban, I doubt that the idiots that comprise most of the WW government would think of such a thing. Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Jun 13 18:51:36 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:51:36 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: <46702E78.7070806@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170245 (snip) > > I was referring to being a werewolf on that one, not AIDS! AIDS > can be 'controlled' to a much higher degree and is not easily > spread. With lycanthropy, you miss ONE wolvesbane potion and you > are so dangerous to society that people have to shoot you with a > silver bullet just to put you down. I'm sorry.. if you had a gun > and saw a rabid dog charging through a school, biting people, you > would kill it if you could. Dana: Interesting because Wolfsbane is just a resent invention and Werewolves have been around probably as long as WW society and if you are correct then everybody should either be dead or a werewolf. Besides who says that Lupin could have gotten into the school in these nights events? For one the door are closed and a werewolf is rated as a dark creature so it would just be an assumption that he would be able to get passed the doors. (unlike Sirius who is just a dog animagus) and secondly you apply an irrelevant assumption that Lupin would actually have the blood turts for more then one victim a night and that is not what is implied by the story told of Greyback that he has to place himself near his victim to be able to strike that victim and not that he run's around in one single night biting as many as he possibly could. Also you say that Aids can be controlled, tell that to the people still getting infected. Werewolves have only one night a month to infect others. People keep repeating that werewolves kill there victim but they only do that on rare occassions when a werewolf gets carried away. According to Lupin himself Werewolves *sometimes* kill to eat, it is not like they have humans for dinner every chance they get. It would actually not specifically smart for a breed to kill every victim they come across or else they would soon be extinct very rapidly. You with your gun would posse a bigger risk of missing the dog and shooting an innocent by stander then the amount of people that raged dog could bite in one go. It only has one mouth but it is indeed human nature to kill everything they are scared off. Jazmyn: > Werewolves should NOT be living and working among normal people.. > period.. they are simply TOO dangerous. They try to kill anyone > unable to escape them, not to mention those who survive an attack > end up as werewolves themselves. Dana: It is probably not a good idea to have a human with a furry problem like Lupin working late night shifts but otherwise during the day he can never posse a risk to anyone because he only transforms during full moon nights and that is only once a month. Jazmyn: > I never said to put people with AIDS in a colony, do not put words > in my mouth to justify your position that people who turn into > wolves and are driven to attack people in that condition can 'live > normal lives'. They can't as shown by what happened when Lupin > missed just ONE potion. Dana: I did not put words in your mouth, you did that yourself by stating that people with dangerous diseases should be put into a colony. And aids is still classified as a life threatinging disease and Lupin is not driven to attack people when it is not a full moon either so should he therefore be put away because he is a danger to the community once a month. Lupin seemed to have controlled his disease pretty well as he never has bitten or killed anyone. And yet on the basis of your imagination of what could have happened you want to suggest that people like him should be put in colonies. It is your own fear speaking here and not any logic. Because people in life are never safe not even when all people are put away in camps. There are still people that will posse a risk to your life without ever having endured an illness. The chance of running into a werewolf is actually pretty low unless you count Greyback but he like the people in my country injecting people with HIV is doing that on purpose. What happened with Lupin missing one potion is Sirius getting him away from the people Lupin could posse a danger too. That is the fact of the story too. Jazmyn: > Are you suggesting that psychotic mass murderers who might miss > their medication one day would be safe as teachers? Dana: Lupin is not a murderer so comparing him to pshychotic mass murderers who can only be classified as such if they actually mass murdered sounds stupid to me. But if you want to know people with schizofrenia can live pretty normal lives because of their medication too. The only problem with this analogy is that Lupin has a normally functioning human mind when it is not a full moon night and he is not a werewolf. JMHO Dana From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 13 19:54:45 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:54:45 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Art Revealed Ws: Using available resources- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170246 >> DA Jones wrote: >> Here's another idea. Maybe the Dragon is Draco's animagus. After all > why else would JKR name Draco, Draco? Draco is latin for Dragon. jadon: I would *love* to see Draco's face on being asked to transform so he could carry HRH around looking for horcruxes. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Jun 13 20:13:48 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:13:48 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities/Snape-a werewolf bigot? Say it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170247 Magpie: > I think it's a little much to say they were "sufficient." Lupin > says they had some close calls, and luck played a part. MWPP's idea > of what was sufficient was clearly different than what the school > thought was sufficient. Dana: I meant that it proved to him as *a kid* that these precautions were sufficient and why they all laughed about it afterwards because they got away with it. Adult Lupin does no longer feel or think about it in the same way. Magpie: > An important thing to remember, too, about the situation as it is, > is that nobody is agreeing to the safety precautions like they do > on a plane. Lupin's condition is a secret--nobody's agreed to these > precautions for their kids. Of course it's only secret because of > unfair discrimination to begin with, so he's between a rock and a > hard place, but still all these things are keeping it from being > the ideal situation. Dana: You do not either for planes you assume that the company flying you to your destination has taken the right precautions. You are not agreeing on failed or clumsy maintenance or design failures, incompetent personnel ect. Just like you assume that the school you are sending your kids is safe for these kids. Lupin even if he ran through the school would never be able to get into the different dorms as he can't say the passwords and therefore he would only be a risk to students breaking the rules and are out of bed after hours. To say he could have brought the entire student body into danger if he ran through the castle is not totally correct either and the teachers knew he was a werewolf so they could increase security on students not being out of bounds during full moon nights. To put the safety of the students only Lupin's responsibility is going a little to far in my opinion. Magpie: > You seem to be wanting it both ways here, though. The "what ifs" > are irrelevent when it's "what if Lupin had attacked someone when > he was running around loose as a werewolf?" but important when > it's "what if he hadn't seen Peter on the map and had not run out > without taking his Potion?" The "what ifs" are the whole point of > the precautions--and unfortunately in a situation where people > would probably demand very tight security, Lupin's record is > relatively bad. It turned out the whole precautionary system failed > because there was a surprising incident. Dana: The "what if" are irrelevant to how events actually played out. You cannot go back (without a time-turner that is) and chance things so that they did happen according to the "what if". The precautions are just that, precautions to something that could happen in an unset future. That is not what I was revering too. Everything that is said about what could have happen did not happen but what did happen is that Sirius was there and prevented Lupin from causing any harm. If we truly look at the "what if's" and make assumptions accordingly then one should also make assumptions on the ability of Lupin getting into the castle. The doors are closed at night and therefore who says they would have led him in? A werewolf is rated as a dark creature so Sirius getting passed the door can't be used as an indication that if he could then so could Lupin. The same goes for him not telling DD, Sirius is an animagus. Who says that it would have led to Sirius capture? It is speculation that Lupin telling DD would have taken a way the risk Harry was in. Sirius being an animagus had nothing to do with him not getting passed the Fat Lady and it had nothing to do with him eventually getting into the Gryffindor tower as he had the passwords and thus DD having the knowledge of Sirius being an animagus might not actually have prevented these events either. It certainly did not have to mean that what happened that night would not have happened either. It would again be a "what if" or even a "might have". You can speculate on the "what if's" until you turn purple in the face but the outcome of events as they stands never chance. You can only speculate on intentions/ motives people had for their actions, you can speculate on the details of how events unfolded and they can still vary as more information through the books become known (well until the final installment is in place that is) but nothing more then that. And if you want to judge Lupin by the mistakes he makes then to me it should be placed in the right context and not pull, every single thing that could have happened, into it. Lupin takes responsibility for his mistakes by resigning because the idea of what could have happened hunts him and it should but to make statements like he could have killed half the student body if he had roamed the castle is just having a figurative imagination for doom scenario's without actually taking into account that he might not have been able to get into caslte in the first place and the risk he possed to the people he was with was taken away by Sirius that is the facts. That doesn't mean that Lupin should not take responsibility but to convict him on things that did not happen goes way to far to me too. But lets not forget that it was not his judgment that made him a teacher at Hogwarts that responsibility lies with DD, it were not safety precautions Lupin put in place but DD and so it is not Lupin that should have thought about everything that might happen in future events but DD. Also to state that Lupin's record is bad because Sirius revealed the secret of how to get passed the willow is putting responsibilities into Lupin's shoes for what another boy did. It is like stating it is Sirius fault that the Potters are dead because he suggested switching to Peter while first of all the Potters agreed themselves to the switch and it is not Sirius fault that Peter betrayed them. The marauders all knew these safety precautions were put in place for a reason and Peter being the smallest could have found out how to get passed the willow without Lupin ever telling them. They all broke the rules and they all were ignorant to the risks. All of them could equally have paused and thought what they were doing was to dangerous but none of them did. You can't say that it was only Lupin that caused the risk but also his friends that made it possible for Lupin even getting out of the safety precautions put in place for him. If he actually had been able to get out on his own then DD's safety precautions failed regardless of the marauders being there and Lupin could not have been held accountable if he had gotten out on his own while in his werewolf form. So it were James, Sirius and Peter that exposed a werewolf to the outside world something Lupin only could have been opposed to in his human form and he had no human thoughts when he is a werewolf and therefore can't make human decisions. And yes they were arrogant they all were for thinking they could get away with it and fortunately they indeed did and nothing seriously happened not even in the Snape incident as James prevented that from unfolding too. Magpie: > Bad analogy. Like it or not, with Lupin we're talking about an > actual danger to others which is embodied (at times) in Lupin > himself. It's not about punishing Lupin (which is what it would be > with Hagrid--the proper precaution in that case is just to not rely > on Hagrid to keep important information if it's important it not > get out) but keeping other people safe. In trying to strike a > balance between Lupin's right to live a full life and other > peoples' rights to not be in danger from a werewolf, compromises > are going to need to be made--so far they haven't found the right > one. There were far more security measures around the stone than > there ever were around Lupin, and the thing that broke through them > was an even remoter possibility. First of all it was not Lupin's call to keep him being a werewolf a secret. He did not apply for the job and then was hired on the promise that he would do anything to be safe but DD asking him to take the job. Lupin trusts DD's judgement that he could safely teach but neither DD or Lupin could have foreseen what happened on that night. Maybe it is a bad analogy and I should have used a different one. DD was also the one that placed the stone within Hogwarts which would certainly attracted the person going after it. DD took safety precautions to keep the one who was after the stone away from it but how much were the students safe from not being used as leverage to trade for the stone? He then even uses a person's dog that can't keep a secrets on how to get passed that dog. Both cases involve only the trio (well in PoA also Snape) that were in immediate danger for werewolf Lupin and the intruder. And under normal circumstances in both cases these kids would not have been put in danger at all because if nothing had happened that made Lupin rush out then he certainly would not have forgotten his potion. Besides the potion is not even at issue here. It is actually Lupin forgetting the time and coming out of the tunnel with the rest of them. Because if he had remembered that then he could have chosen to stay behind with or without the potion. No one was used as leverage in PS so it never happened and therefore it is not an issue and neither is Lupin putting anyone in danger because Sirius was there and if Sirius hadn't been there then Lupin would not have been out that night not even if he had seen Peter on the map because he would have dealt with that in less time and thus having time enough to take his potion and be safe. The issue, not even that night, was never if Lupin could safely teach at Hogwarts because he could. These events occurred not during the school day time but at night time and under very rare circumstances that no one could have ever foreseen, especially not Lupin himself. Magpie: > Of course, the neat thing about Lupin and many in his generation > is: How much did he wise up? He understood the danger enough to be > guilty and worry about it when he was a kid, but covered his doubts > to be with his friends. When he returns he's kind of doing the same > thing. He's no longer running around as a werewolf so shouldn't be > blamed for doing so, but stressing how much it "never led to > anything" makes me feel *less* confident about Lupin and not more. Dana: He is not doing the same thing because what happened during his schooldays and that specific night in PoA are totally different. Lupin did not state he did not think about what could have happened and that the thoughts are still hunting him and he takes responsibility for what happened the night in PoA as he should. I'm only referring to people brooding on the "what if's" and that he therefore is not entitled to a normal life. No one is always able to prevent dangerous situations. DD tries to take safety precautions for Harry and most of them fail miserably and it doesn't matter if DD posses a threat himself or if the threat comes from an outside source, a threat is still a threat. To make Lupin more responsible for things that did not happen then he already takes upon himself, is to me unfairly judging the character or even any person that has to deal with problems that have a possible negative affect on other people. The mistakes Lupin made that night were not werewolf Lupin making these mistakes but human Lupin and were not part of his human weakness. We all make mistakes that can directly posse a threat to another human being as I stated with the car example or indirectly by for instance clearing a plane that should not get into the air and you assume to be safe because it is cleared if nothing happens these people do not even take the responsibility of what could have happened like Lupin does and only when something bad does happen comes it to light. A friend of mine was shot and barely survived the ordeal because her boyfriend got mad when she wanted to break up with him. No one could have foreseen a reaction like that but it nevertheless happened. This year in an elementary school an adolescent entered the school and killed a young boy. In America a student kills 34 people with a gun. To state that people that have a dangerous problem that only posse a risk one time a month and compare that to the amount of people Lupin actually posed a risk too into his adult life then to me it is totally overrated to make assumption on what could have happened. How often do we state when we are involved in a car accident and no one got hurt. Oh it doesn't matter the car is racked but as long as you are not hurt is doesn't matter and we do this even if it was our fault in the first place but with Lupin it is suddenly different because we have to pull in every single doom scenario we can think off. No it is not, nothing happened it was very unfortunate that he forgot his potion and very unfortunate that he forgot the time but the only bad thing coming from it is that Sirius could no longer proof that he was innocent. It is what it is and Lupin doesn't take it lightly and that should be the end of it. JMHO Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 20:30:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:30:55 -0000 Subject: Maturing Wizards (Was: Re:Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170248 > bboyminn: > After many hours of discussion here and in other groups > this it the formula we came up with to compare > Chronological Age (Ca) to the equivalent Functional > Age (Fa). > > Fa = ((Ca - 18) / 2) + 18 > So, McGonagall at age 70 is functionally about age 44. zgirnius: I think your formula is too aggressive. In OotP people express concerns over Minerva's heart in connection with being hit by Stunners, 'at her age'. 44 is not an age at which I expect a (Muggle) female whose weight is in the 'normal' range and who has no known family history, to have reason for concern regarding a weak heart. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 13 21:20:43 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:20:43 -0000 Subject: Some observations and possibilities (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > > > Jules: > > > Notice the date of release for the movie of Order of the Phoenix: > > > July 12, 2007 (UK release). If we just take into account the day > and not the month or > > year (and yes I know for numerology sake this isn't the real way > you determine things, but > > I'm making an observation here), that if you take the number 12 and > add the digits 1 and > > 2 you get 3 of course: Harry, Ron, & Hermione. The same goes for > the release date of > > Deathly Hallows of the 21st. This is no coincidence. > > > > Geoff: > > I hate to torpedo your theory but the UK release date for the Order > of the > > Phoenix is 13/07/07. > > JW: > You might want to check those dates. I believe WB has moved the U.S. > release date to 7/11. If this is correct, I do not understand why > the U.K. date would be a day or two later. > > Jules, in my most humble of opinions, I believe your numerological > coincidence is nothing more than that. Geoff: Maybe, but, if so, that date will have been CHANGED and after the completion of the DH manuscript. And how far can JKR influence Warner Bros. in setting the date to fit a hypothetical numerology requirement? From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 13 21:21:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:21:49 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170250 > Alla: > > > And LOL - if him joining DE does not prove that he was sympathetic to > their goals, then really I do not know what will it take to prove it. > Pippin: So then, Bigot!Snape is *not* OFH? Actually, I don't see how he can be, since the dictionary says a bigot is one who is "strongly partial to one's own group, race, religion or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". But we are told that Barty Jr joined to spite his father, Peter joined because he was frightened or because Voldemort was winning, depending on which version of his story you believe. Fenrir joined because he wants to bite people. None of these people expressed any interest in the pureblood agenda. > Alla: > > So, wait if somebody called me "dirty zhidovka", that means such > person is taking advantage of my lower social status, but unless such > person screams loudly " kill zhidov and save Russia", such person is > not a bigot? Pippin: The "save Russia" part is important if you want to use the word 'bigot', yeah. Bigotry is not a synonym for intolerance, see above. Alla: Or are you talking about different degrees of bigotry as > if one is better than another? Pippin: The difference of degree is inherent in the definition, since someone who is not strongly partial is not a bigot. If you would like to say that Snape is intolerant, I don't think anyone would argue with that. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 13 21:17:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:17:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > > > > > Karen: > > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thuderstruck. > > > "It certainly seems so." (DD) > > > > Geoff: > > This has been mentioned previously, especially after the existence > of > > Horcruxes was first revealed in HBP. > > > > The relevant quote, more fully, is: > > '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore > calmly, "because > > Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar > > Slytherin - 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?" Harry said thunderstruck. > > > > "It certainly seems so."' > > (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) > > > > Two points arise from this. > > > > First, let us remember that Dumbledore was not speaking about > > physical transfers but mental or intellectual transfers (for want > of > > a better description). > > > > Second, Dumbledore believes that Voldemort did not intend to > > effect this transfer. We have discussed in the past how Horcruxes > > might be made at some length and a number of members have > > reached the conclusion that Horcruxes just don't happen - or > > happen accidentally. They have to be set up and planned for > > which is a view to which I subscribe. > > > JW: > DD surmised that LV did plan on creating the 6th horcrux for the > deaths of the Potters. If DD was correct, than LV was well-prepared - > the appropriate potions were brewed and incantations spoken. The > stage was set. LV's soul was splintered once again, but unique > circumstances left it with no place to go. > > As a result, I am a little more friendly to the possibility of > Horcrux!Harry than Geoff appears to be. After sifting through dozens > of posts on this topic, I consider the concept to be plausible but > not convincing; hence, possible but unlikely. I would be surprised > but not thunderstruck if it came to pass. Geoff: I have indeed posted on the subject of Harry on noty being a Horcrux several times including posts 157828, 155109, 150494, 140343 and 139937 - not a complete list. I would pose the following two thoughts after reading your comments above: First, Voldemort may have brewed the potions although I doubt the incantations; my feeling is that incantations operate as soon as they are spoken, they can't be "post-dated". When the Avada Kedavra backfired and Voldemort was disembodied, he had no opportunity to get to the potions or speak the words of the spells. Second, if someone commits murder and splits his or her soul, there is nothing in canon which says that the soul fragment has to leave the body. It can remain there, separated from the rest of the soul. A Horcrux is a specific container or encasing for the soul fragment, created by the wizard. If he does not perform the magic to reate one, then there "ain't one guv". From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 13 21:20:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:20:12 -0000 Subject: Choices of life - Abilities or other qualities/Snape-a werewolf bigot? Say it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170252 > Dana: > You do not either for planes you assume that the company flying you > to your destination has taken the right precautions. You are not > agreeing on failed or clumsy maintenance or design failures, > incompetent personnel ect. Just like you assume that the school you > are sending your kids is safe for these kids. Lupin even if he ran > through the school would never be able to get into the different > dorms as he can't say the passwords and therefore he would only be a > risk to students breaking the rules and are out of bed after hours. > To say he could have brought the entire student body into danger if > he ran through the castle is not totally correct either and the > teachers knew he was a werewolf so they could increase security on > students not being out of bounds during full moon nights. To put the > safety of the students only Lupin's responsibility is going a little > to far in my opinion. Magpie: ::sigh:: I think this is getting silly just to get around what I was saying. When you fly you know you are flying and have a basic idea of some things that can go wrong. If someone has been clumsy you'd probably be able to sue the airline because they have been irresponsible. Keeping you safe to a degree that it can be done is part of their job. In this case having a werewolf in the school is not something anyone thinks is a possibility, and learning that the headmaster had snuck one in would, realistically, probably make parents angry. Not that this is the first time Dumbledore has done this, but the fact that he's doing other things has no bearing on this situation. And I did not say that the safety of the students was *only* Lupin's responsibility. Lupin, like it or not, has been stuck with a disease which is a great responsibility. If he had bitten someone while making the choice to break the rules he had agreed to for his own protection and the protection of others, I doubt Lupin would have been held soley responsible. The school and Dumbledore would have been held responsible as well, and it would probably be used as proof that werewolves can't be trusted by those who didn't want werewolves there. The precautions that Dumbledore put into place where by a werewolf student could attend school like anyone else because on full moon nights he would simply go to the Shrieking Shack and therefore be isolated when he was dangerous, was not enough, because of the choices of several kids at the school, including Lupin himself. He was a kid, as you say, but in that case that meant he couldn't be trusted to do the right thing. Another werewolf student would also be a kid. It's good that they didn't get caught and nobody got hurt, but that doesn't change that Lupin's actions were irresponsible whether or not the worst happened. As a teacher it's not his sole responsibility either, but I'm sure he of all people knows the lion's share falls to him. Precautions were in place for him then as well. Unfortunately something came up and that was enough to set a wolf onto the grounds. > Dana: > The "what if" are irrelevant to how events actually played out. You > cannot go back (without a time-turner that is) and chance things so > that they did happen according to the "what if". The precautions are > just that, precautions to something that could happen in an unset > future. That is not what I was revering too. Everything that is said > about what could have happen did not happen but what did happen is > that Sirius was there and prevented Lupin from causing any harm. > > If we truly look at the "what if's" and make assumptions accordingly > then one should also make assumptions on the ability of Lupin getting > into the castle. The doors are closed at night and therefore who says > they would have led him in? A werewolf is rated as a dark creature so > Sirius getting passed the door can't be used as an indication that if > he could then so could Lupin. Magpie: I don't know whether they're completely irrelevent in this case since the point of precautions is to avoid the things that could happen in this situation. Regardless, in this situation I don't think there's any reason to worry about him getting *into* the castle on that particular night, no. But I think clearly what everyone wanted and what everyone agreed was an acceptable situation was that Lupin was a teacher at the school and yet never a loose un- wolfsbaned werewolf. That's unfortunately what didn't work out. Nobody wants to get to the point where anybody needs protecting from the werewolf-minded werewolf. Dana: > > The same goes for him not telling DD, Sirius is an animagus. Who says > that it would have led to Sirius capture? It is speculation that > Lupin telling DD would have taken a way the risk Harry was in. Sirius > being an animagus had nothing to do with him not getting passed the > Fat Lady and it had nothing to do with him eventually getting into > the Gryffindor tower as he had the passwords and thus DD having the > knowledge of Sirius being an animagus might not actually have > prevented these events either. Magpie: Doesn't matter that I can see. It was the right thing to do in that situation, obviously, for a person whose goal was to help catch Sirius. Lupin himself knows this--he hid the information so as to preserve his own reputation. (Now, as it happens I *do* find myself thinking he also was protecting the time in his life when he was happy, but either way he's acting against the Dumbledore team here, which I love, but I don't think any of them care to hear excuses about how maybe Sirius wouldn't have been caught even if he did share the information he was sitting on.) The point isn't what happened as a result of Lupin's not being forthcoming--those were good things, after all, since Sirius was really innocent. The point is that Lupin put his own personal agenda above the one before him of the time of protecting Harry by making catching Sirius his priority. Dana:> > You can speculate on the "what if's" until you turn purple in the > face but the outcome of events as they stands never chance. You can > only speculate on intentions/ motives people had for their actions, > you can speculate on the details of how events unfolded and they can > still vary as more information through the books become known (well > until the final installment is in place that is) but nothing more > then that. Magpie: I think that's what everyone is doing. Lupin's intentions are known. Though those intentions aren't necessarily a practical part of somebody trying to create a safe environment for a school that includes werewolf students or teachers. Dana: And if you want to judge Lupin by the mistakes he makes > then to me it should be placed in the right context and not pull, > every single thing that could have happened, into it. > Lupin takes responsibility for his mistakes by resigning because the > idea of what could have happened hunts him and it should but to make > statements like he could have killed half the student body if he had > roamed the castle is just having a figurative imagination for doom > scenario's without actually taking into account that he might not > have been able to get into caslte in the first place and the risk he > possed to the people he was with was taken away by Sirius that is the > facts. Magpie: Sure--I don't think we need to have Lupin killing half the castle. The characters in canon deal with the more realistic situation they're actually facing. Dana: > Also to state that Lupin's record is bad because Sirius revealed the > secret of how to get passed the willow is putting responsibilities > into Lupin's shoes for what another boy did. It is like stating it is > Sirius fault that the Potters are dead because he suggested switching > to Peter while first of all the Potters agreed themselves to the > switch and it is not Sirius fault that Peter betrayed them. Magpie: I was not putting responsibility for that with Lupin. We're talking about the situation when Lupin was a student and whether the precautions made it safe for everyone else. When I mentioned Sirius' prank I was not blaming it on Lupin, but pointing out that the situation wound up leading to a potentially dangerous situation. Lupin's record is bad not because Sirius pulled the Prank but because Lupin consistently chose to go out himself, not following the precautions put in place for him. And then later he forgets to take his Potion. Those are things he does that lead to a non- wolfsbaned werewolf loose. They're not terrible mistakes in themselves, but the stakes are high. Someone looking at the record isn't going to be looking for an excuse for every time he was an unwolfsbaned werewolf. Dana:> > The marauders all knew these safety precautions were put in place for > a reason and Peter being the smallest could have found out how to get > passed the willow without Lupin ever telling them. They all broke the > rules and they all were ignorant to the risks. All of them could > equally have paused and thought what they were doing was to dangerous > but none of them did. Magpie: This is why I keep getting confused about whether "what ifs" count or not. I don't think it matters who told them how to do it. They all broke the rules and ignored the risks. That's the point. I'm not blaming their actions on Lupin. I'm holding Lupin responsible only for his own actions. Dana: If > he actually had been able to get out on his own then DD's safety > precautions failed regardless of the marauders being there and Lupin > could not have been held accountable if he had gotten out on his own > while in his werewolf form. So it were James, Sirius and Peter that > exposed a werewolf to the outside world something Lupin only could > have been opposed to in his human form and he had no human thoughts > when he is a werewolf and therefore can't make human decisions. Magpie: I don't get this defense except that it obviously is a defense. Lupin couldn't get out on his own. He was put in there to be locked in. James, Sirius and Peter let him out. Lupin could only have opposed this in his human form--he DID NOT oppose it in his human form. He assented to it. It's only his human form's decisions he's being held accountable for. Dana: > First of all it was not Lupin's call to keep him being a werewolf a > secret. He did not apply for the job and then was hired on the > promise that he would do anything to be safe but DD asking him to > take the job. Lupin trusts DD's judgement that he could safely teach > but neither DD or Lupin could have foreseen what happened on that > night. Magpie: Who said it was Lupin's call to keep it secret? I said that because of the situation in society Dumbledore basically has to keep it a secret to give Lupin a job. If Dumbledore and Lupin could be open about it things would be safer all around. I specifically did *not* blame Lupin for that. The fact that they couldn't have foreseen what happened that night doesn't make a difference in terms of judging the safety of the situation. What they wanted was a situation that was safe for everyone. Lupin could teach at the school and never be a werewolf in a savage form running free. Unfortunately, all it took was something surprising to happen for that to happen. That's not much. A teacher being distracted at Hogwarts is not unforseeable. Dana: > Both cases involve only the trio (well in PoA also Snape) that were > in immediate danger for werewolf Lupin and the intruder. And under > normal circumstances in both cases these kids would not have been put > in danger at all because if nothing had happened that made Lupin rush > out then he certainly would not have forgotten his potion. Besides > the potion is not even at issue here. It is actually Lupin forgetting > the time and coming out of the tunnel with the rest of them. Magpie: Yeah, that's the point. If you're trying to set up a situation where Lupin can teach at the school, you have to make it safe. That's what Dumbledore, Lupin and Snape all tried to do. If a night not being completely normal led to Lupin with his werewolf mind loose on the grounds, that experiment was a failure and they need to do more. More precautions, more of a safety net--something. Lupin putting people in danger *was* an issue. It's the central issue. They were lucky that Sirius was there, but they still failed in their objective which was: no transformed!Lupin with wolf minds free anywhere on the Hogwarts grounds just because he got distracted at in the wrong five minutes. Now, if it were me, knowing Lupin, I might certainly give him another chance, sure, because I know the score. But I wouldn't blame a parent of a student for saying no, no way. Dana: > The issue, not even that night, was never if Lupin could safely teach > at Hogwarts because he could. These events occurred not during the > school day time but at night time and under very rare circumstances > that no one could have ever foreseen, especially not Lupin himself. Magpie: Except the circumstances weren't quite that rare. Sure seeing his dead friend on the map was rare. But not the larger issue: Lupin forgot to take his Potion one night and left his office and then got hit by moonlight. That type of thing happens to people all the time at Hogwarts. > Dana: > He is not doing the same thing because what happened during his > schooldays and that specific night in PoA are totally different. > Lupin did not state he did not think about what could have happened > and that the thoughts are still hunting him and he takes > responsibility for what happened the night in PoA as he should. I'm > only referring to people brooding on the "what if's" and that he > therefore is not entitled to a normal life. Magpie: Yes, I said it was different. Being haunted by something and thinking about it doesn't necessarily indicate that much of a change for Lupin as a character since that seemed to be consistent for him as a teen. I have agreed that he should have a normal life, but some of what you consider brooding over "what ifs" seem to me to be looking at the situation practically. Dana:> > No one is always able to prevent dangerous situations. DD tries to > take safety precautions for Harry and most of them fail miserably and > it doesn't matter if DD posses a threat himself or if the threat > comes from an outside source, a threat is still a threat. Magpie: So there's no need for anybody to take any responsibility for safety at all because there will always be a threat? I think Lupin takes a more responsible attitude himself--and knows that no parent at Hogwart would stand for it. Dana: To make > Lupin more responsible for things that did not happen then he already > takes upon himself, is to me unfairly judging the character or even > any person that has to deal with problems that have a possible > negative affect on other people. The mistakes Lupin made that night > were not werewolf Lupin making these mistakes but human Lupin and > were not part of his human weakness. Magpie: Yes, human Lupin made mistakes and is being judged on the mistakes he did make themselves not on the negative they did or didn't have on other people. He is held responsible for the negative effects they *could have had* on other people when those effects are easily forseeable from his actions. That's normal. Magpie: > To state that people that have a dangerous problem that only posse a > risk one time a month and compare that to the amount of people Lupin > actually posed a risk too into his adult life then to me it is > totally overrated to make assumption on what could have happened. How > often do we state when we are involved in a car accident and no one > got hurt. Oh it doesn't matter the car is racked but as long as you > are not hurt is doesn't matter and we do this even if it was our > fault in the first place but with Lupin it is suddenly different > because we have to pull in every single doom scenario we can think > off. No it is not, nothing happened it was very unfortunate that he > forgot his potion and very unfortunate that he forgot the time but > the only bad thing coming from it is that Sirius could no longer > proof that he was innocent. Magpie: I'm not pulling in doom scenarios so that's not relevent. I think you're going too far to the other extreme and not dealing with the very practical danger at all but just brushing off these things as unfortunate and saying well, no harm done. Lupin himself doesn't do this at all. I'm honestly not sure I'm responding to this post correctly, because you don't seem to be responding to me, but sort of responding to someone else through me when you talk about doom scenarios and imagining the worst. I have already agreed with you that Lupin should be able to have a life, and that it's worth making it possible for him to be a teacher. But it seems to me that you are going to the other extreme. The other person in the thread might not be willing to give Lupin a fair chance and might support the oppression of werewolves, but I can't imagine anybody being comfortable with this attitude as a response to the situation. I think they'd want to know how to keep this stuff from going wrong, not just explanations of what did go wrong. -m From LadyBhuidhe at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 16:46:44 2007 From: LadyBhuidhe at gmail.com (Sarah O G) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:46:44 -0500 Subject: JKRowling site Wombat 3 Message-ID: <50af2a6e0706130946h2fe1d2bk4e32bc8696d63816@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170253 Have all of you seen, the door of requirement has been made ready to enter on the jkrowling.com webite? I just took the test and failed miserably, I'm sure, I need to go read read the books to my munchkins and brush up. S **Note: Questions from the WOMBAT test as they pertain to canon can be discussed on main but talking about the taking the test, how to get to the test, etc. would need to go to our sister group Off Topic Chatter, which is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ Thank you, The List Elves** From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 23:34:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:34:04 -0000 Subject: Maturing Wizards (Was: Re:Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170254 --- "Zara" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > After many hours of discussion here and in other > > groups this it the formula we came up with to > > compare Chronological Age (Ca) to the equivalent > > Functional Age (Fa). > > > > Fa = ((Ca - 18) / 2) + 18 > > > > > So, McGonagall at age 70 is functionally about age > > 44. > > zgirnius: > I think your formula is too aggressive. In OotP people > express concerns over Minerva's heart in connection > with being hit by Stunners, 'at her age'. 44 is not an > age at which I expect a (Muggle) female whose weight > is in the 'normal' range and who has no known family > history, to have reason for concern regarding a weak > heart. > bboyminn: First, I concede the 'at her age' part, but I don't specifically recall anything having to do with her (McGonagall's) heart. Regardless of Functional Age, Minerva is still chronologically 70. This brings us to the heart of the discussion. Is McGonagall 44 or is she /like/ age 44. Does the aging process slow making her actually in every way the equivalent of age 44, or does she simply have the vitality and vigor of someone in their 40's? I think McGonagall is a bad example because she is not at an extreme enough age to see the contrast. Dumbledore on the other hand at age +150 is a better example. Even when he is weak, he has substantial strength. He has vim and vigor eons ahead of anyone over age 100. Harry is surprised at how strongly Dumbledore swims up to the entrance to the cave. He is certainly functioning at a much younger age than his years imply, but how young? Further, given that Dumbledore, based on appearances, is not the oldest person in the books, how long does that imply wizards live? Certainly, over 200 is just as possible as over 100 is in our world. On the assumption that a normal person can theoretically live 125 years; that is, that is the maximum possible lifespan for a muggle in a perfect world, I conclude that the theoretical max lifespan for a wizard is in the range of 225 to a possible but unlikely 250. Now, we need to create a formula that reflects that likelihood. Originally I simply said multiply or divide by two to get the answer. But someone pointed out that the first 18 years seem to be neutral. Wizard and muggle kids seem to develop at the same and normal rate. They suggested subtracting 18 then dividing by two, then adding the 18 back in. This does produce a close equivalent to how someone is functioning. What age group does Dumbledore function like? My calculations indicate that Dumbledore functions like a healthy active 84 year old. Keep in mind the amount of exercise Dumbledore gets. He is constantly walking up and down 7 flights of very long stairs. Plus walking up and down the long sloping grounds of Hogwarts. Plus living and associating with a very young group of people. That is enough to keep anyone fit and active. Maybe some conversion factor needs to be added to the equation. Maybe instead of dividing by 2, we need to divide by 1.8 (225/125=1.8). Maybe some non-linear function needs to be added. But not being well versed in calculus, this is the best I can do. Fa = ((Ca - 18) / 1.8) + 18 Fa = ((70 - 18) / 1.8) + 18 Fa = 47 Just a thought. Steve/bboyblue From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 00:31:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:31:16 -0000 Subject: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170255 > > Mike in a previous incarnation: > > Carol, you had said that Hagrid wasn't under > > duress when he called Filch a Squib. > > > Meaning Hagrid was provoked just like Snape was provoked. > > Not that being provoked should be a valid reason for > > either of them to use bigoted terms. > > > > > Carol: > In which case you're comparing the reaction of a person insulted by > a remark about her appearance, Hermione, to that of a person > supposedly distressed enough to call another person a "sneakin' > Squib." Sorry, Mike, dear, but your logic escapes me. Mike: ::blush:: She called me "dear". Hermione is a teenage girl that has *slightly* large front teeth. She may possibly, *that's possibly*, be subconscious about that little feature of her appearance. Then, after her *slightly* large front teeth grow down to beyond her collar a teacher, in front of her peers, says "I see no difference". Well you were a teenage girl not so long ago Carol , wouldn't she be just absolutely mortified? > Carol: > What word-for-word insults are you talking about ("I see no > difference" in Hermione's case), Mike: OK, Carol, you can let go of my leg, cause now I know you're pulling it. You know canon as well or better than anybody. Besides, I wrote the quote in my previous post with the 2 "t"s. Touche, "dear"! > Carol: > but what did Filch say to cause sixty-something Hagrid distress > comparable to Teen!Snape's after having his underwear exposed > and being made to look helpless in front of the entire > fifth-year class? Mike: Such a lovely scene, let's pause and relish this visual. :D Couldn't have happened to a nicer, more deserving guy. > Carol: > Also, running away in tears and using a slur on someone's lack > of magical ability don't seem comparable to me. Mike: Aww, Carol, you're ruinin' it for me. :( OK, on the off chance that you really want an answer to this, I'll get back to business. I likened Hagrid's provocation to what you called Snape feeling provoked in the Shack by Lupin bringing up the "schoolboy grudge". Because I feel Hagrid's use of the word "Squib" in his situation was comparable to the way Snape used "werewolf" in his situation. > Carol, who thinks that Mike's two "t's" in "bigot[t]ed" pale beside > her "purebollod" typo Mike, thinking Snape should be thankful that he wasn't wearing his pink underwear that day From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 06:39:46 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:39:46 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170256 --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- , "jmwcfo" wrote: > > > > > >>> Karen: > >>> "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry > >>> said, thuderstruck. "It certainly seems so." (DD) > >> > >> Geoff: > >> This has been mentioned previously, especially > >> after the existence of Horcruxes was first > >> revealed in HBP. > >> > >> ... > >> > >> Two points arise from this. > >> > >> First, let us remember that Dumbledore was not > >> speaking about physical transfers but mental or > >> intellectual transfers .... > >> > >> Second, Dumbledore believes that Voldemort did not > >> intend to effect this transfer. ... > > > > > > JW: > > DD surmised that LV did plan on creating the 6th > > horcrux for the deaths of the Potters. ... LV was > > well-prepared - the appropriate potions were brewed > > and incantations spoken. ... > > Geoff: > I have indeed posted on the subject ... > > I would pose the following two thoughts ...: > > First, Voldemort may have brewed the potions although > I doubt the incantations; my feeling is that > incantations operate as soon as they are spoken, they > can't be "post-dated". ... > > Second, if someone c... splits his ... soul, there is > nothing in canon which says that the soul fragment has > to leave the body. > > ... A Horcrux is a specific container ...for the soul > fragment, created by the wizard. If he does not perform > the magic to create one, then there "ain't one guv". > bboyminn: I have to agree with Geoff. Let us look at the first Horcrux. In the summer of his 15 year, Tom Riddle kill his father and grandparents. However, during the next school year of Tom's 16th year, he is asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and is wearing this father's ring. We do know the ring was eventually a Horcrux. So, it seems that creating a Horcrux is not a spontaneous and immediate act. Tom doesn't create the First Horcrux until many months after the deaths he likely based it on. Plus, Slughorn doesn't mention anything about a potion; but that is a minor side point. I understand that it was mentioned because we are lacking so many details of Horcrux creation so we fill with speculation. So, I'm not buying the idea that Voldemort made all these advanced preparations to create his last Horcrux, because advanced preparations don't seem to be necessary. I further agree that even though the soul might be damaged by killing someone, the soul still normally remains together in one place; its original body. Because of this, in time, I suspect the soul can heal itself to some extent. But, if you remove the soul bit from the original body and place it in a new object, all hope of repair, redemption, and salvation is lost. Now, because the rebounding AK is such a rare and unusual event, there could have been some special circumstances that allowed a stray bit of Voldemort's soul to seek the nearest warm body. That warm body being Harry, but that is a huge unfounded speculation. A Horcrux might have been created, but Voldemort, by no means, did the creating. If it happened, it was just a random fluke of magic. But, the problem with this theory is that the fount of all knowledge about the connection between Harry and Voldemort, as well as our source of knowledge about Horcruxes, an additional fount of magical knowledge, and our authority on the general Harry/ Voldemort dynamic is all Dumbledore, and Dumbledore, while he seems to understand the connection, gives no indication that he thinks the bit of Voldemort in Harry is a piece of Voldemort's soul. Dumbledore has had too many perfect opportunities to make this speculation and he has not. I think it is a bit of Voldemort's magic, which Dumbledore makes very clear is separate from his soul, that is in Harry. Still it won't be much longer before we know for sure. So, an accidental Horcrux-ish thingy is a slim possibility, but a truly and intentionally created Horcrux!Harry seems extremely unlikely. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 08:15:56 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:15:56 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170257 > > Geoff: > > ... A Horcrux is a specific container ...for the soul > > fragment, created by the wizard. If he does not perform > > the magic to create one, then there "ain't one guv". > bboyminn: > I have to agree with Geoff. Let us look at the first > Horcrux. In the summer of his 15 year, Tom Riddle > kill his father and grandparents. However, during > the next school year of Tom's 16th year, he is > asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and is wearing this > father's ring. We do know the ring was eventually a > Horcrux. > ... the fount of all knowledge about the connection > between Harry and Voldemort, as well as our source of > knowledge about Horcruxes, an additional fount of > magical knowledge, and our authority on the general > Harry/Voldemort dynamic is all Dumbledore, and > Dumbledore, while he seems to understand the connection, > gives no indication that he thinks the bit of Voldemort > in Harry is a piece of Voldemort's soul. Goddlefrood: I agree that Harry is certainly not an intentionally created Horcrux. Having said that I would not commend the view that he or his scar may be one accidentally either, at this point, that is. You'll see why shortly. Should I be proven incorrect in a few weeks and it is written that Harry or his scar were a Horcrux either intentionally or otherwise then I will not be eating my hat, but would feel like tracking down the Sorting Hat and eating it. As an idea a Horcrux is not an entirely new concept. There are legends from several cultures, notably Eastern European and Indian of usually magicians having an exterior soul. The difference is that in the HP world it is possible to have multiple soul rents, whereas in these legends the soul remains whole. One such legend is that concerning Koschei the Deathless. His soul was encased inside an egg inside a box in a cave guarded by a dragon or something along those lines, which is where the idea must surely have come from. Or possibly the Indian one and the parrot, whose names escapes me (both the wizard and the parrot, sadly). It is quite apparent that a Horcrux needn't be made at the same time as the act of evil inspiring it. See the quote above from Steve as to why. There is no indication of exactly what is involved, but as I've said before a Horcrux is simply the vessel in which the soul portion is kept safe. Whatever spell is involved should involve a sealing of the sould piece inside the thing to contain it, whether animate or inanimate. This is supported from canon only if it is accepted that the heavy locket that would not open was a Horcrux. The soul portion would then be resident inside the locket. I am also led to believe that Harry is not a Horcrux because the act of placing the Horcrux in an object demonstrably takes place at a different time from the act that leads to its creation. Also Dumbledore would not have spared Harry the fact that he was a Horcrux if he (Dumbledore) suspected that Harry was one. At Godric's Hollow the spell cast by LV was an AK, not a spell to place a soul portion in a vessel for its containment. When, towards the end of his days, Dumbledore frankly told Harry all he knew about LV's Horcruxes there was not even a minor hint that Dumbledore had any other Horcrux other than the Cup, the Locket, Nagini and something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's in mind. At that point in the story in HBP Dumbeldore was beyond hiding information from Harry relative to Horcruxes and if he suspected Harry or his scar could be a Horcrux he would certainly, IMO, have mentioned this and not only made a vague allusion to it by showing that a living being could be a Horcrux. At least that's my story. Despite Dumbledore admitting flaws, if he suspected for a moment that Harry's scar was a horcrux he would either have told Harry or made some effort to neutralise the Horcrux in Harry, were it still there. >From what little can be gathered of the split soul pieces (thinking particularly of the diary revenant) they appear to have some independent power. Harry's scar has never seemingly acted independently, nor btw has he in the sense of not being in control of himself unless possessed. You can throw as much canon at me as you like, even on dreams, this view is currently not for turning. One problem I do see with the whole Horcrux business is that LV does not seem to be someone who would stop at only six created Horcruxes, notwithstanding his belief in the power of the number 7. I put forward as a speculation that he made more, and this may be found to be one of Dumbledore's mistakes. That more than the two so far accounted for in canon (the ring and the diary) have been destroyed is a further matter I have thought on. If Harry or his scar were ever a Horcrux I also think that he or it no longer could be one because in POA when the multitudinous Dementors are swarming around he, Sirius and Hermione it is quite likely that the Dementor who kissed Harry successfully removed the piece of LV's soul in Harry or his scar. It's also possible that a further Horcrux has been destroyed, even if it is not thought likely that the above little thought has merit. That would be a surprise to this reader, as it would also no doubt be to Harry, who has the mantra of the locket, the cup, Nagini and something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's rattling around in his (Horcrux free) mind. Goddlefrood, who would like a resolution of Nagini's Horcrux, if she indeed is one, to lead to her being free to live in Burma, Brazil or any other B country of your choice. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 14:21:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:21:21 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170258 Soooo, I was fascinated by some of WOMBAT questions and their relation to canon, if they are true and would love to discuss it here. I am copying those few questions from what Chancie so graciously typed up on OTC list. Thank you so much for doing it. just in case some SPOILER space SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Okay, questions 3 and 4 ask us to figure out which ones of those decisions by Ministry of Magic had the best and worst effect on everyday wisarding life. Here they are: 3. Chose the ministry of magic decision that, in your estimation, had the MOST DAMAGING effect on present day wizarding life. a) the creation of the international statute of Wizarding secrecy in 1692. b) The defeat of the Appeal Against House- Elf Slavery in 1973 c) The drive into hiding of the surviving giants in the early 1980's d) the 1865 decision to leave full control of Gringotts in the Goblin hands e)the Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to carry wands ________________ 4. Chose the ministry of magic decision that, in your estimation, had the BEST effect on present day warding life. a) the Creation of the international statute of Wizarding secrecy in 1692. b) The defeat of the Appeal Against House- Elf Slavery in 1973 c) The drive into hiding of the surviving giants in the early 1980's d) the 1865 decision to leave full control of Gringotts in the Goblin hands e)The Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to carry wands Alla: First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on everyday WW life, I was thinking - maybe it is one of those questions that will lose me points no matter what I answer, but then I figured, oh well, let's pretend that sometimes Ministry does something good. I answered (d) as something that had the best effect on WW life. I mean, it could be statute of secrecy, but I figured that decision to leave money in goblins control, in other words leave something so significant for WW existance in control of non-human race, may have done a lot towards making goblins if not super friendly, but at least not hostile towards human wizards these days and no more rebellions or something. Another thing, when I was looking at those questions, I was fascinated to see that there was an appeal against House elf slavery so recently and it was defeated. I thought that was the worst decision and marked it as such. I also think that this is another support towards JKR intent to portray House elves situation as pretty comparable to slavery. Thoughts? Alla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 14 14:38:15 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:38:15 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170259 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > When, towards the end of his days, Dumbledore frankly told > Harry all he knew about LV's Horcruxes there was not even a > minor hint that Dumbledore had any other Horcrux other than > the Cup, the Locket, Nagini and something of Gryffindor's or > Ravenclaw's in mind. Pippin: Harry himself is something of Gryffindor's, because he was chosen by Gryffindor's brain for Gryffindor's House, and is a true Gryffindor, not by blood but by choice. Goddlefrood: > At that point in the story in HBP Dumbeldore was beyond > hiding information from Harry relative to Horcruxes and > if he suspected Harry or his scar could be a Horcrux he > would certainly, IMO, have mentioned this and not only > made a vague allusion to it by showing that a living being > could be a Horcrux. At least that's my story. > > Despite Dumbledore admitting flaws, if he suspected for a > moment that Harry's scar was a horcrux he would either have > told Harry or made some effort to neutralise the Horcrux > in Harry, were it still there. Pippin: Unless he thought it could be useful. He said as much in PS/SS. "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in useful. I have one myself above my left knee which is a perfect map of the London Underground." Now it might seem that Harry's scar has outlived its usefulness, since Voldemort knows he can use occlumency to keep it from giving him away. But I think Dumbledore's little joke might be a clue to another way in which Harry's scar might be useful if it is indeed a horcrux. It could be a map to where Voldemort is hiding. Snape says that Bella is familiar with the magic that hides the Order's headquarters. We are reminded in The Other Minister that both sides have similar magical capabilities. Isn't it likely that Voldemort is secret keeper for the Death Eaters just as Dumbledore was secret keeper for the Order? And where is the Secret Keeper's secret hidden? Why, in the *soul* of the Secret Keeper. What if on the night he gave Harry that scar, Voldemort transferred not only his powers but his secrets to Harry? Harry would not know this yet, because Just as Harry had to concentrate on the secret of Grimmauld Place in order to make it become visible, he might have to concentrate on the secret of Voldemort's headquarters in order to become aware of it. It would be a little like finding the Room of Requirement. Of course Dumbledore would not want him to know just yet, because if Voldemort became aware that his hq was compromised through the horcruxes he would hide it in another fashion, and Harry's task would become far harder. Was Dumbledore still keeping things back? I believe so. There are two kinds of information he indicates he may continue to reserve: things which do not directly concern Harry, and things about which he is not entirely certain. Dumbledore is always cagey when speaking about Harry's scar and about the connection. He says things like, "I believe" and "Unless I'm mistaken" and we ought to know what that means by now -- it's a big red flag that he's keeping something important to himself. Goddlefrood: > One problem I do see with the whole Horcrux business is that > LV does not seem to be someone who would stop at only six > created Horcruxes, notwithstanding his belief in the power > of the number 7. Pippin: Voldemort, unaware that Harry or the scar is one of his horcruxes, might well have weakened himself by creating another. This would be another reason for Dumbledore to keep the Harry/scar horcrux as secret as possible, because once Voldemort realized he'd forfeited the power of seven he might well settle for making as many horcruxes as he could. Goddlefrood: > > If Harry or his scar were ever a Horcrux I also think that > he or it no longer could be one because in POA when the > multitudinous Dementors are swarming around he, Sirius and > Hermione it is quite likely that the Dementor who kissed > Harry successfully removed the piece of LV's soul in Harry > or his scar. Pippin: I take it you're speculating that the dementors in PoA did have time to suck out Harry's soul but took Voldemort's soul fragment instead? I think JKR would have had to put more emphasis on it -- show us some change that took place in Harry on account of this. As the dementors are blind, they wouldn't be able to see Harry's scar, so even if they sensed Voldemort's soul fragment hanging about Harry, they wouldn't know it wasn't in the usual place. One thing I have wondered about -- aside from Harry, the dementors seem especially attracted to the souls of the wicked, and this seems odd if what they feed on is happiness. Of course the last we saw of Barty Jr, he was insanely happy. Still, why was the dementor so swift to consume his soul? Maybe to a dementor a human soul is like a yummy kernel surrounded by an edible but less tasty shell of happy memories? With a wicked person there are fewer happy memories and they can get at the soul more easily. Just speculating, of course. Pippin From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 14:45:07 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:45:07 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > just in case some SPOILER space > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL > EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE > RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR > > > Alla: > > First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that > even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on > everyday WW life, I was thinking - maybe it is one of those questions > that will lose me points no matter what I answer, but then I figured, > oh well, let's pretend that sometimes Ministry does something good. > > I answered (d) as something that had the best effect on WW life. I > mean, it could be statute of secrecy, but I figured that decision to > leave money in goblins control, in other words leave something so > significant for WW existance in control of non-human race, may have > done a lot towards making goblins if not super friendly, but at least > not hostile towards human wizards these days and no more rebellions > or something. > > > Another thing, when I was looking at those questions, I was > fascinated to see that there was an appeal against House elf slavery > so recently and it was defeated. I thought that was the worst > decision and marked it as such. I also think that this is another > support towards JKR intent to portray House elves situation as pretty > comparable to slavery. > Charles: I actually considered selecting the house elf thing as the worst effect that the ministry has had. But when I thought about it more, I realized that even with the protection from muggles asking for spells for all their problems, that the Statute of Secrecy has actually had the effect of alienating wizards from muggles to a dangerous point. It allows the pureblood supremacy myth to continue virtually unchecked. It allows the vast majority of wizards to remain almost completely ignorant of the muggle world, which places squibs in a terrible position. It makes the transition from school to home for muggleborn students at Hogwarts much more difficult as their years progress and they grow to be more wizard than muggle, thus splitting their family. As far as the BEST decision, I would agree with you about Gringott's, for the same reason. Charles, who thinks that the barriers between the wizard and muggle worlds are going to come down by the end of DH. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 14:50:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:50:03 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ MORE questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170261 Alla previously; > Soooo, I was fascinated by some of WOMBAT questions and their > relation to canon, if they are true and would love to discuss it here. > > I am copying those few questions from what Chancie so graciously > typed up on OTC list. Thank you so much for doing it. > Alla: And another question, where I found some answers to be especially fascinating, if this is true. 5. Which of the following popular historical theories have now been proven to be TRUE? Choose the correct THREE a) The oldest building in diagon Alley is gringotts bank; the other shops grew up around it. b) Towards the end of his life Salazar Slytherin reconsiled with the other founders of Hogwarts School, and retuned to the castle to Die. c) The muggle 'war of the roses; began as a dispute between wizarding neighbors over a fanged geranium d) The second wife of Henry VIII, and Boleyn was accused by muggles of being a witch but was actually a squib. e) A secret task force of wizards and muggles hellped allies to victory in the second world war. f) The forbidden forest begain life as a wood planted and tended by a centaur herd. g) The great fire of London in 1666 was not, as muggles believe started by a blaze in a bakery in Pudding Lane, but by a young Welsh Green Dragon kept in the basement of a house next door. h) The sorting Hat of Hogwarts was stolen and substitute by a group of delinquent students in 1325. The were abouts of the real had remain unknown. i) upon his death in battle in 1762, goblin rebel Vargot was discovered to be a renegade house elf j) the location and name of Hogwarts were chosen by Rowena Ravenclaw who dreamed that a warty hog was leading her to the cliff by the lake. Alla: Okay, okay, I proceeded with this one thinking that whatever is true would be somehow related to what is about to happen in book 7. I mean, wouldn't it be just like JKR to slip in this totally "insignificant" information here? Like Salasar Slytherin reconciled with others and returned to castle to die. **Really?** Does it mean that reconciliation of the houses will occur and symbolic death / abandonment of what he stood for, but return to friendship or something? I also think that Rowena chose Hogwarts will be true as well and third one, not sure. GAH. Need this book now. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jun 14 15:00:45 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:00:45 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Soooo, I was fascinated by some of WOMBAT questions and their > relation to canon, if they are true and would love to discuss it here. > > I am copying those few questions from what Chancie so graciously > typed up on OTC list. Thank you so much for doing it. > > > just in case some SPOILER space > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL > EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE > RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR > > > Okay, questions 3 and 4 ask us to figure out which ones of those > decisions by Ministry of Magic had the best and worst effect on > everyday wisarding life. > > Here they are: > > 3. Chose the ministry of magic decision that, in your estimation, > had > the MOST DAMAGING effect on present day wizarding life. > a) the creation of the international statute of Wizarding secrecy in > 1692. > b) The defeat of the Appeal Against House- Elf Slavery in 1973 > c) The drive into hiding of the surviving giants in the early 1980's > d) the 1865 decision to leave full control of Gringotts in the Goblin > hands > e)the Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to > carry wands > ________________ > > 4. Chose the ministry of magic decision that, in your estimation, > had > the BEST effect on present day warding life. > a) the Creation of the international statute of Wizarding secrecy in > 1692. > b) The defeat of the Appeal Against House- Elf Slavery in 1973 > c) The drive into hiding of the surviving giants in the early 1980's > d) the 1865 decision to leave full control of Gringotts in the Goblin > hands > e)The Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to > carry wands > > > Alla: > > First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that > even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on > everyday WW life, I was thinking - maybe it is one of those questions > that will lose me points no matter what I answer, but then I figured, > oh well, let's pretend that sometimes Ministry does something good. > > I answered (d) as something that had the best effect on WW life. I > mean, it could be statute of secrecy, but I figured that decision to > leave money in goblins control, in other words leave something so > significant for WW existance in control of non-human race, may have > done a lot towards making goblins if not super friendly, but at least > not hostile towards human wizards these days and no more rebellions > or something. > > > Another thing, when I was looking at those questions, I was > fascinated to see that there was an appeal against House elf slavery > so recently and it was defeated. I thought that was the worst > decision and marked it as such. I also think that this is another > support towards JKR intent to portray House elves situation as pretty > comparable to slavery. > > > Thoughts? > > Alla. > Hickengruendler: Most damaging: I was torn between c and e, but I ultimately went for the one with the wands. Out of all the possibilities, this one most of all seemed to put the creatures down as secondary beings compared to the wizards, and I suppose most of the non-humans aren't happy about this. I suspect it will further complicate the Trio's quest in HBP, and *if* the creatures are helpful, than probably only because of Dumbledore, not because of the ministry. I chose the one with the Statute of Secrecy as the best one, but it could have been the Goblin one as well. Should maybe have chosen this, because it gives the Goblins some worth. Otherwise, they might still rebel all of the time. By the way, do you think the rumour about Slytherin returning to Hogwarts is true? I guess not, sicne I suppose the Sorting Hat would have known and told us, but it would have been nice, particularly sinc ehous eunity probably is a theme in book 7. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jun 14 15:09:42 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:42 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ MORE questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170263 > Alla: > > And another question, where I found some answers to be especially > fascinating, if this is true. > > > 5. Which of the following popular historical theories have now been > proven to be TRUE? > Choose the correct THREE > a) The oldest building in diagon Alley is gringotts bank; the other > shops grew up around it. > b) Towards the end of his life Salazar Slytherin reconsiled with the > other founders of Hogwarts School, and retuned to the castle to > Die. > c) The muggle 'war of the roses; began as a dispute between > wizarding neighbors over a fanged geranium > d) The second wife of Henry VIII, and Boleyn was accused by muggles > of being a witch but was actually a squib. > e) A secret task force of wizards and muggles hellped allies to > victory in the second world war. > f) The forbidden forest begain life as a wood planted and tended by > a centaur herd. > g) The great fire of London in 1666 was not, as muggles believe > started by a blaze in a bakery in Pudding Lane, but by a young > Welsh Green Dragon kept in the basement of a house next door. > h) The sorting Hat of Hogwarts was stolen and substitute by a group > of delinquent students in 1325. The were abouts of the real had > remain unknown. > i) upon his death in battle in 1762, goblin rebel Vargot was > discovered to be a renegade house elf > j) the location and name of Hogwarts were chosen by Rowena > Ravenclaw who dreamed that a warty hog was leading her to the > cliff by the lake. > > > Alla: > > Okay, okay, I proceeded with this one thinking that whatever is true > would be somehow related to what is about to happen in book 7. > > I mean, wouldn't it be just like JKR to slip in this > totally "insignificant" information here? > > Like Salasar Slytherin reconciled with others and returned to castle > to die. **Really?** > > Does it mean that reconciliation of the houses will occur and > symbolic death / abandonment of what he stood for, but return to > friendship or something? > > I also think that Rowena chose Hogwarts will be true as well and > third one, not sure. > > GAH. Need this book now. > Hickengruendler: Ah, our posts crossed. As I see, you wondered about the Slytherin one as well. Even though I do believe that house unity is a theme in book 7, I still tend to think this rumour is wrong, because I suppose the Sorting Hat would have told us in OotP, that Slytherin returned. Similarly, I believe that the Sorting Hat really is the Sorting Hat and not a fake one, because Harry was able to pull the Sword of Gryffindor out of it. Nonetheless, I do started to wonder after HBP (or better, after the interview with Emerson and Melissa, where Emerson guessed, that when the SOrting Hat speaks, it really came from the founders and JKR made a suspicious noise [suspcious according to the transcript] about this), that maybe the Founders, including Slytherin, are somehow entrapped in the Hat. Maybe due to a spell gone wrong or something, and they only get free, when the Houses reunite? Therefore maybe the one about Slytherin dieing at Hogwarts is true after all *g*. But I didn't put it as an answer. Neither did I chose the one with Rowena Ravenclaw and the Hog, even though I considered it as possible. Ravenclaw does have some of the most eccentric characters in his house after all, so maybe Rowena was a bit of a loon as well. From jem_griffiths at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 12:17:49 2007 From: jem_griffiths at yahoo.com (jem_griffiths) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:17:49 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170264 I don't think that JKR would set up Lupin's relationship with Tonks just to have him change sides. jem_griffiths From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 14 15:49:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:49:20 -0000 Subject: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170265 jem griffiths: > I don't think that JKR would set up Lupin's relationship with Tonks just to have him change sides. Pippin: It's a dangerous relationship, IMO, not because Lupin is a werewolf but because it's so one-sided. Lupin didn't lose his powers. We don't see him looking for shoulders to cry on. He seems to agree to resume the relationship to please others, not himself. IOW, Tonks seems by far the needier of the two, and far more invested in the relationship than Lupin is. I don't think JKR believes that's healthy, and I think she's setting up the relationship to show us that it's not. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 16:02:54 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:02:54 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ MORE questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla previously; > > Soooo, I was fascinated by some of WOMBAT questions and their > > relation to canon, if they are true and would love to discuss it > here. > > > > I am copying those few questions from what Chancie so graciously > > typed up on OTC list. Thank you so much for doing it. > > > > Alla: > S P O I L E R S P A C E Not that I'm going to recopy the questions here. I ended up choosing as the worst decision the enactment of the Statue of Secrecy and as the best decision the Gringotts Banking. Although, I believe JKR has nixed the idea of the Wizarding World integrating with the Muggle World, I do think that the secrecy has damaged the Wizarding World in many ways. One of those ways is the breaking apart of families when a wizard is born into a Muggle family. A second is that the interbreeding between a limited number of pureblood wizards is genetically dangerous. A third is that lack of contact with the Muggle world imposes difficulty for Squibs, as they try to create a life without magic. Fourth, while it may have been true that Muggles were asking that the Wizards do things for him, we've made a lot of progress since in terms of technology and science. By segregating themselves from the Muggle world, Wizards are denying themselves the benefit of that innovation--as well as the benefits of Muggle art, music, and literature. As for the banking issue. Well, not to be unkind, but Wizards don't seem to be very good in math skills. I'm sure that they can add and subtract, but how many Wizards are going to understand an amortization chart? I might reconsider my answer if they were to add some basic math (as opposed to Arithmancy) classes to the Hogwarts curriculum. Montavilla47 From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 14 16:10:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:10:31 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170267 just in case some SPOILER space SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR > > Alla: > > First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that > even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on > everyday WW life, Pippin: Honestly, it cracks me up every time someone suggests that JKR is some kind of anarchist. If it wasn't for government assistance, there wouldn't be any Harry Potter books. She's said it was the only thing that made it possible for her to raise her daughter and write. She's *not* against the nanny state or everything it does, IMO, she just thinks it does a miserable job in some respects. Much like Dumbledore's attitude towards the Dursleys, if you think about it. Anyway, the conceit is that the WOMBAT is a ministry sponsored test, so it wouldn't be anti-Ministry, would it? The only thing that's always puzzled me is which Ministry officials I ought to imagine are grading it, because Cornelius Fudge or Crouch Sr would like some answers that Shacklebolt or Arthur would detest. But then I realized that the testing authority is one Griselda Marchbanks, whom we know is a fervent Dumbledore supporter, so the answer's been there all along. On that grounds, I choose the Statute of Secrecy as the best thing, since Dumbledore seems so upset when he finds that Ron and Harry have violated it in CoS. The wand use ban gets my vote for the worst since it affects the most individuals. While House Elf slavery is bad, I doubt it would have been possible if Elves had wands and could defend themselves. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 16:14:24 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:14:24 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ MORE questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170268 > Charles: > > I actually considered selecting the house elf thing as the worst > effect that the ministry has had. But when I thought about it more, I > realized that even with the protection from muggles asking for spells > for all their problems, that the Statute of Secrecy has actually had > the effect of alienating wizards from muggles to a dangerous point. It > allows the pureblood supremacy myth to continue virtually unchecked. > It allows the vast majority of wizards to remain almost completely > ignorant of the muggle world, which places squibs in a terrible > position. It makes the transition from school to home for muggleborn > students at Hogwarts much more difficult as their years progress and > they grow to be more wizard than muggle, thus splitting their family. > Charles, who thinks that the barriers between the wizard and muggle > worlds are going to come down by the end of DH. > Alla: Ah. You see I agree with all of your reasons about Statute of Secrecy, BUT I am pretty sure ( not 100% but pretty sure) that I read somewhere that JKR stated that two worlds will remain separated at the end of the book. That is why I am not so sure that JKR sees it as worst decision Hickengruendler: > By the way, do you think the rumour about Slytherin returning to > Hogwarts is true? I guess not, since I suppose the Sorting Hat would > have known and told us, but it would have been nice, particularly > since house unity probably is a theme in book 7. > Alla: Heee, I do, I do, I do actually. Most of those seem to be rather silly occurrences which tell us nothing useful about book 7 (although you never know with JKR of course, what is useful and what not). Just think about it - he returned to *die*, not to continue teaching. Makes total sense to me that others accepted back somebody, who was their friend at some point, but rather symbolic that he died IMO. > Hickengruendler: > > Ah, our posts crossed. As I see, you wondered about the Slytherin one > as well. Even though I do believe that house unity is a theme in book > 7, I still tend to think this rumor is wrong, because I suppose the > Sorting Hat would have told us in OotP, that Slytherin returned. > Similarly, I believe that the Sorting Hat really is the Sorting Hat > and not a fake one, because Harry was able to pull the Sword of > Gryffindor out of it. > Alla: Right, snipping your idea about founders being trapped. I do think Hat is authentic, lol, it would be too, I don't know fake, if it is not. But I do not think Hat would have necessarily told us, you know? Say Slytherin returned day or few days before he was dead. Hat may simply not know, because JKR wanted so for plot purposes surprise, no? Montavilla47: > Although, I believe JKR has nixed the idea of the Wizarding World > integrating with the Muggle World, I do think that the secrecy has damaged > the Wizarding World in many ways. Alla: Right, see above for that very reason I am not sure JKR sees it that way, although I agree with Charles and you. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 14 16:27:23 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:27:23 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170269 > Alla: > > First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that > even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on > everyday WW life, I was thinking - maybe it is one of those questions > that will lose me points no matter what I answer, but then I figured, > oh well, let's pretend that sometimes Ministry does something good. > > I answered (d) as something that had the best effect on WW life. I > mean, it could be statute of secrecy, but I figured that decision to > leave money in goblins control, in other words leave something so > significant for WW existance in control of non-human race, may have > done a lot towards making goblins if not super friendly, but at least > not hostile towards human wizards these days and no more rebellions > or something. > > > Another thing, when I was looking at those questions, I was > fascinated to see that there was an appeal against House elf slavery > so recently and it was defeated. I thought that was the worst > decision and marked it as such. I also think that this is another > support towards JKR intent to portray House elves situation as pretty > comparable to slavery. Magpie: I went back and forth on that one a lot. I wanted to choose the House Elf answer for "worst," but the question was asking about what made their daily life easier, and having House Elves does seem to presumably make their lives easier. The damage to the society doesn't seem really apparent that way. I originally put Statue of Secrecy for "best" but then I actually changed it to "worst" because it seems to be what keeps them in a constant state of emergency, and I went for chasing away the giants for best, because presumably they knocked things over.:-) I considered the Gringotts question a lot because I thought that might have been the thing that stopped the Goblin rebellions, but I just couldn't quite consider that something that made their daily life better. I went to a great paper on Phoenix Rising about the Goblin Monopoly, and it's essentially an uneasy stalemate with the threat of financial collapse on one side and the threat of genocide on the other. So anyway, those are the ones I went with. I hope it wasn't a trick question, because sometimes the one that makes your daily life easier is the one that makes things harder in the long run. Hickengruendler: By the way, do you think the rumour about Slytherin returning to Hogwarts is true? I guess not, sicne I suppose the Sorting Hat would have known and told us, but it would have been nice, particularly sinc ehous eunity probably is a theme in book 7. Magpie: I had thought that one had to be false because of the theme--and the Sorting Hat seems to specifically say that he's been gone all this time. He's gone literally and symbolically, imo. Btw, I found some of the Minister for Magic questions interesting-- I'm assuming some of them were stuff we couldn't know (the biggest crisis each one had to deal with). I had the first one be the one who made the older Ministers walk out because she was a woman, and had the Squib riots during the 60s because that seemed to fit that time period. I had Spout-Hole as the one who was almost assassinated, iirc. Also on the Dark Magic ones I said "sunlight" for werewolves and a bezoar for the Draught of Living Death, but I think I may have been wrong on that last one. (I was going to say "No Cure" for werewolves, but sunlight seems equally true.) -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 17:26:33 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:26:33 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170270 > Hickengruendler: > By the way, do you think the rumour about Slytherin returning to > Hogwarts is true? > Magpie: > I had thought that one had to be false because of the theme--and the > Sorting Hat seems to specifically say that he's been gone all this > time. He's gone literally and symbolically, imo. zgirnius: I also think he might have told his old friends about the small matter of a hidden chamber and great honking SNAKE in it, if there had been a reconciliation. magpie: > I had the first one be the one > who made the older Ministers walk out because she was a woman, zgirnius: If I recall correctly, she was the first female Minister (and a former Wizard of the Month, which is where I think I came across this fact). So I was pretty sure this had to be right. > magpie: > the Squib riots during the 60s because that seemed to fit that > time period. zgirnius: Me too. I also guessed that the day of celebration after Voldemort seemed to die led to the removal of the Minister at that time, so chose the widespread violations of the Statute of Secrecy one for Fudge's predecessor (whose name I cannot bring up at the moment). magpie: > Also on the Dark Magic ones I said "sunlight" > for werewolves and a bezoar for the Draught of Living Death, but I > think I may have been wrong on that last one. (I was going to > say "No Cure" for werewolves, but sunlight seems equally true.) zgirnius: I found the wording confusing. "Aconite" (aka wolfsbane) was an option; as this is the major ingredient of the Wolfsbane Potion, I went with it for werewolves. It certainly solves a lot of the associated problems (when used, hee hee). From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jun 14 19:19:15 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:19:15 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170271 Steve/bboyminn: > Now, because the rebounding AK is such a rare and > unusual event, there could have been some special > circumstances that allowed a stray bit of Voldemort's > soul to seek the nearest warm body. That warm body > being Harry, but that is a huge unfounded speculation. > > A Horcrux might have been created, but Voldemort, by > no means, did the creating. If it happened, it was > just a random fluke of magic. Jen: I believe this will be the explanation rather than anything connected to a real or accidental Horcrux. I wouldn't say it's completely speculative however since there's canon in place which would explain such an event. I'm not suggesting anything you don't know Steve, but the outline for what might have occurred is clear in the story, at least as clear as the idea of powers and/or Voldemort's magic being inside Harry to explain their connection. Here it is: A) There's a mechanism in place for a soul piece to be completely torn off from a whole soul if someone commits murder. B) Two murders were committed at GH and therefore two soul pieces were torn off. C) A completely unexpected and unique event occurred when the AK rebounded and Harry was both 'marked' with a scar and acquired some of Voldemort's powers, an event explained by Dumbledore as Voldemort 'putting a bit of himself' into Harry. D) The two share more than powers as the story progresses, including being able to think each other's thoughts and feel each other's feelings. E) 'Neither can live while the other survives,' can have several interpretations including a metaphorical one. My thought is 'living' constitutes what makes up a life, i.e., thoughts, feelings, actions and for wizards, magical powers. So Harry and LV are sharing more than powers as the story progresses, they are sharing elements of what it means to be alive. A living soul piece would be a reason for this while a transmission of powers appears to be an incomplete explanation for what they share. Steve/bboy: > But, the problem with this theory is that the fount > of all knowledge about the connection between Harry > and Voldemort, as well as our source of knowledge > about Horcruxes, an additional fount of magical > knowledge, and our authority on the general Harry/ > Voldemort dynamic is all Dumbledore, and Dumbledore, > while he seems to understand the connection, gives > no indication that he thinks the bit of Voldemort in > Harry is a piece of Voldemort's soul. Jen: This is the hardest obstacle to overcome in my opinion and yet JKR has again provided possibilities which are part of Dumbledore's character to explain why he didn't pursue a soul piece with Harry: Perhaps Dumbledore envisioned the first conversation about Horcruxes as the time to introduce the topic and not bring up events at GH, especially - as Pippin noted - if he wasn't certain. Perhaps he expected to have another opportunity to broach the topic with Harry and died first. Perhaps this was one of the occasions in book 6 JKR was referring to when she said, "immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes..." in reference to Dumbledore, meaning he couldn't bear the thought of Harry having a piece of LV in him and what that would mean. An obstacle, yes, but not an insurmountable one in my opinion. Jen From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 19:39:38 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:39:38 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170272 > >>Jasmyn: > > I was referring to being a werewolf on that one, not AIDS! AIDS > > can be 'controlled' to a much higher degree and is not easily > > spread. With lycanthropy, you miss ONE wolvesbane potion and you > > are so dangerous to society that people have to shoot you with a > > silver bullet just to put you down. > >>Alla: > Oh, people *have to*? > Betsy Hp: As per popular werewolf mythology, yeah. What makes werewolves so very, very dangerous is that they're so very, very hard to stop. You pretty much have to kill them. And with a very specific sort of weapon. Of course, that's just the common mythology and JKR can have her werewolves follow whatever rules she wants. (That she has them look so similar to actual wolves is an example of her deviating from more common tropes, I believe.) But that's what makes Lupin's lycanthropy so hard to wrestle with, IMO. She could have done whatever she wanted but JKR *kept* the mindlessly driven to infect or kill the nearest available human part of being a werewolf. Which makes it impossible, IMO, to compare being a werewolf with having AIDs or having a disability. Unless you want to suggest that folks who have AIDs or with disabilites routinely ravage the countryside trying to make other people be just like them. Or, you know, dead. Which means the closest we can get with real life comparisons, IMO, is to turn to what the werewolf myth is generally linked to: destructive sexual predators. (Wolves are commonly linked to sexual lust in fairy tales and folklore.) Lupin never really gave off a strong "sexual predator" vibe to me (though I did laugh at the "have some chocolate little boy" jokes, I'll admit ), but Fenrir, hunter of small children, very much did. And after being introduced to this werewolf, *within* JKR's created world, who *did* specifically hunt down children, who did create "packs" to help him get more children to raise to act and think like him, it's very hard for me to seperate JKR's werewolves from pedophiles. And in that sense Lupin becomes both victim and aggressor. Lupin is the way he is (a werewolf) because he was attacked as a young boy. But, once a month, he becomes the very monster who once victimized him, as much a danger to those around him as Fenrir. When the full moon is out and there's no medication to be had, Lupin and Fenrir are *exactly* alike. That's the horror. It's the reason werewolf stories tend to end tragically, with the werewolf begging to be killed. Honestly, IMO, it can lead to the same sort of discussions I've had with friends about pedophiles. Is there seriously no possibility of rehabilitation for *any* pedophile? Should they all be marked out and seperated or is there a line between "definitely dangerous, will hunt a child down" and "perfectly harmless while on his meds and absolutely trustworthy about taking them"? And if there is such a line, how do we find it? And is the danger in missing that line worth the risk for the sake of the milder sort? IOWs, should Lupin and Fenrir be treated in the same manner since, under the moonlight they're the exact same beast? Because JKR made Lupin a monster. Not someone with a disturbing condition that public hysteria has *painted* a monster. Once a month Lupin is an actual "I will seriously eat you" monster. He's not a disobedient bunny rabbit, he's a full out werewolf. And yeah, if he lived in my neighborhood I'm not sure I'd sign a petition to drive him out. But I would note where he lived, I'd be pretty darn paranoid about me and mine being inside on full moon nights, and I'd stock up on silver bullets. Because the risk *is* massive. Very much *not* like having a neighbor with AIDs or in a wheelchair. For Lupin's sake, especially if he's not a traitor or evil, I hope JKR gives her world a definitive cure, making the whole discussion moot. Betsy Hp (most of my werewolf information comes from movies, just as a caveat in case I got something completely wrong ) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 20:04:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:04:23 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ werewolves and RL equivalent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170273 > > Alla: > > > > First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that > > even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on > > everyday WW life, > > Pippin: > Honestly, it cracks me up every time someone suggests that JKR is > some kind of anarchist. If it wasn't for government assistance, > there wouldn't be any Harry Potter books. She's said it was the > only thing that made it possible for her to raise her daughter > and write. > > She's *not* against the nanny state or everything it does, IMO, > she just thinks it does a miserable job in some respects. Alla: Um, Okay. By the way I do not think that JKR is some kind of anarchist exactly, LOL. Our disagreement is the question of degrees. You seem to think she thinks state power in the books does miserable job in some aspects, I think - in many aspects. I *to some extent* think that she subscribes to idea that unjust authority can be gotten rid of by people, but I do not think that she thinks that no authority at all is good. IMO of course. > zgirnius: > I also think he might have told his old friends about the small > matter of a hidden chamber and great honking SNAKE in it, if there > had been a reconciliation. > Alla: With this I reluctantly agree. Yes, it is hard to imagine for me that even if Salasar came back very ill, he would not have told them about Snakey. > > >>Alla: > > Oh, people *have to*? > > > > Betsy Hp: > As per popular werewolf mythology, yeah. What makes werewolves so > very, very dangerous is that they're so very, very hard to stop. You > pretty much have to kill them. And with a very specific sort of > weapon. Alla: Or give them the potion. Betsy Hp: > But that's what makes Lupin's lycanthropy so hard to wrestle with, > IMO. She could have done whatever she wanted but JKR *kept* the > mindlessly driven to infect or kill the nearest available human part > of being a werewolf. Alla: Except with the potion. Betsy Hp: Lupin never really gave off a > strong "sexual predator" vibe to me (though I did laugh at the "have > some chocolate little boy" jokes, I'll admit ), but Fenrir, hunter > of small children, very much did. And after being introduced to this > werewolf, *within* JKR's created world, who *did* specifically hunt > down children, who did create "packs" to help him get more children > to raise to act and think like him, it's very hard for me to seperate > JKR's werewolves from pedophiles. Alla: That's *one* werewolf, one. The one who positions himself closer to his victim when he is fully in control of his mental state. So, no, still IMO sounds more like evil human that takes advantage of his illness to me than a monster. Betsy Hp: > And in that sense Lupin becomes both victim and aggressor. Lupin is > the way he is (a werewolf) because he was attacked as a young boy. > But, once a month, he becomes the very monster who once victimized > him, as much a danger to those around him as Fenrir. When the full > moon is out and there's no medication to be had, Lupin and Fenrir are > *exactly* alike. That's the horror. It's the reason werewolf > stories tend to end tragically, with the werewolf begging to be > killed. Alla: But there is a medication, if not cure yet in JKR's world, that's IMO a huge difference from folklore already. Betsy Hp: > Because JKR made Lupin a monster. Not someone with a disturbing > condition that public hysteria has *painted* a monster. Once a month > Lupin is an actual "I will seriously eat you" monster. He's not a > disobedient bunny rabbit, he's a full out werewolf. Alla: Well, sure, without medication and **once a month* and not always seriously eat you, but he is dangerous, once a month and without medication. I would withold word monster for now. Betsy Hp: > And yeah, if he lived in my neighborhood I'm not sure I'd sign a > petition to drive him out. But I would note where he lived, I'd be > pretty darn paranoid about me and mine being inside on full moon > nights, and I'd stock up on silver bullets. Because the risk *is* > massive. Very much *not* like having a neighbor with AIDs or in a > wheelchair. Alla: What massive risk if medication is taken? Yeah, I know Lupin did not take it that night, but what massive risk if medication is taken? See I just now realized something. We had been having all those discussions on prejudice and tolerance in the books for the longest time and it just seems to me that we just have fundamentaly different ideas of what it means for JKR to show prejudice and tolerance, etc. To me it is a fight against evil to take a stand against ideology of pureblood supremacists, started by Salasar Slytherin, NOT prejudice against them. To me showing that sick people ( yes, I believe werewolves can be compared to RW illnesses closely enough, NOT exactly of course - I explained before how they can be compared IMO, so won't repeat here) with chronic and once a month dangerous diseases can live normal lives *with precautions and medications* IS indeed author taking a stand against prejudice. Oh, and of course I am talking about werewolves in general, not just Lupin situation. IMO, Alla From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 14 19:31:32 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:31:32 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170274 >From WOMBAT: > 3. Chose the ministry of magic decision that, in your estimation, > had > the MOST DAMAGING effect on present day wizarding life. > b) The defeat of the Appeal Against House- Elf Slavery in 1973 > e)the Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to > carry wands The problem with these two is who do we include in 'wizarding'? As Magpie says, house-elves make wizards' lives easier - but it could also be argued that it increases the social divide between old and new families, which is a bad thing for wizarding life in general; and are house-elves really needed in this age of modern magical household spells and teetering piles of Lockhart books? IMO e) is as damaging to human wizards as to other magical beings, leading to alienation (i.e. not sharing knowledge), and to depriving intelligent beings of a tool for furthering knowledge/advancing inter- species magic, which could turn out to be very powerful. dracojadon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 20:48:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:48:29 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170275 Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > > Now, because the rebounding AK is such a rare and unusual event, there could have been some special circumstances that allowed a stray bit of Voldemort's soul to seek the nearest warm body. That warm body being Harry, but that is a huge unfounded speculation. > > > > A Horcrux might have been created, but Voldemort, by no means, did the creating. If it happened, it was just a random fluke of magic. > Jen replied: I believe this will be the explanation rather than anything connected to a real or accidental Horcrux. I wouldn't say it's completely speculative however since there's canon in place which would explain such an event. I'm not suggesting anything you don't know Steve, but the outline for what might have occurred is clear in the story, at least as clear as the idea of powers and/or Voldemort's magic being inside Harry to explain their connection. Here it is: > > A) There's a mechanism in place for a soul piece to be completely > torn off from a whole soul if someone commits murder. > Carol replies: A mechanism exists to tear the soul through murder, but, according to Slughorn, a spell is required to encase the soul bit in an object (or living creature, if DD is right about Nagini). At least we agree that he didn't (and, IMO, wouldn't) deliberately make Harry a Horcrux rather than killing or trying to kill him. Jen: > B) Two murders were committed at GH and therefore two soul pieces were torn off. Carol: I'm not sure that James's death counts as a murder in terms of soul-splitting. If Voldemort was planning to use the soul bit from Harry's murder to create a Horcrux (and he had no spare soul bits hanging around from murders he'd committed that weren't used to create Horcruxes), I think he would have mader sure that James's death was "self-defense" or a battle rather than straight-out murder like Lily's, and he told Lily to "stand aside" because he wanted his last Horcrux to be made from Harry's murder. It seems to me that he chose to kill her finally because he had (in his view) no choice and because killing Harry, the "one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord," was more important than using that particular soul bit to create his last Horcrux. Yes, Lily's murder would have freshly split his soul. But there's no indication from DD (or JKR) that Voldemort has lost any parts of his soul other than those he deliberately transferred to Horcruxes, yet he apparently killed people before GH whose deaths weren't used for Horcruxes. The question is whether the soul bits created by murders other than those used to make Horcruxes (including James's if it counts as a soul-splitting murder), as well as the fragment created from Lily's murder, would have just floated away from the main soul seeking a host to possess rather than staying with the main soul because no Horcrux spell had been performed. I think that if any soulbits were released when Voldie vaporized, they would have shared the fate of soul bits in destroyed Horcruxes, floating off behind the Veil. One thing's for sure: we know that Harry, unlike Ginny, is not possessed (and her possession when she was killing the roosters and releasing the Basilisk is different from what happened when Horcrux!Tom actually started to steal her life force to make it his). Nothing similar has happened to Harry, which to me indicates that he isn't a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. (If his scar is a Horcrux, despite the absence of a Horcrux-creating spell, he must have some protection to prevent the soul bit from corrupting or possessing him. You'd think that Voldie sharing his blood would undo that protection if it existed, but it hasn't done so. IOW, he hasn't suffered a fate similar to Ginny's possession and near-death.) Anyway, I see no evidence that a soul bit, which has to be encased in a Horcrux in order to anchor Voldie's soul to earth, would seek out a host to possess (if it did, destroying a Horcrux would not destroy the soul bit; the soul bit would simply possess the destroyer of its "case" as the nearest human to possess); no evidence that such a thing has happened to Harry either at GH or when he destroyed the diary; no hope for him if it happens when he destroys the locket and other Horcruxes; no evidence that a soul bit can transfer powers (Ginny spoke Parseltongue because she was being possessed, not because Diary!Tom's powers were transferred to her). > Jen: > C) A completely unexpected and unique event occurred when the AK rebounded and Harry was both 'marked' with a scar and acquired some of Voldemort's powers, an event explained by Dumbledore as Voldemort 'putting a bit of himself' into Harry. Carol: Actually, Dumbledore says, "You 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." It's Harry who says, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" and DD replies, "It certainly seems so" (CoS Am. ed.). In this context, "a bit of himself" means "some of his powers" rather than "a bit of his soul." I don't think knowing about deliberately created Horcruxes, or the fact that the diary was a Horcrux, need affect our reading of this passage. I agree with Steve that Dumbledore would certainly have told Harry if he even remotely suspected that Harry's scar could be an accidental Horcrux. > > D) The two share more than powers as the story progresses, including being able to think each other's thoughts and feel each other's feelings. Carol: Why would the sharing of powers increase because Harry or his scar is an accidental Horcrux? It would have been one all along. Two things happen to affect the strength of the scar connection. First, Voldemort himself is becoming stronger, gaining first a rudimentary body and then his resurrected former body (don't ask me how that could happen; it's magic!). Second, he shares some of Harry's blood thanks to Wormtails' restorative potion. (Of course, the mind link is currently blocked by Occlumency, but otherwise, it would probably be even stronger now than it was in OoP.) The scar itself forms the link; I think that somehow, perhaps through a drop of voldemort's magical blood, some of Voldemort's *powers* got into the cut that was created on Harry's forehead by the AK exploding outward (an AK doesn't make a mark when it enters its victim). One of those powers is obviously Parseltongue. The other powers we've seen that are peculiar to Voldemort or stronger in him than in most wizards include Legilimency (perhaps manifested in Harry solely through the mind link; he doesn't seem to have any skill as a Legilimens in the way that Snape does); possession (which Harry could use--I know you don't like the idea because you consider it a Dark power) to possess Voldemort and fill him so full of Love that he can't stand the pain); and the ability to communicate with animals (which Harry doesn't seem to share though I certainly expect some sort of conversation with Voldemort's dear Nagini before Harry kills her, which I think he'll have to do to destroy the Nagini Horcrux and free that soul bit). If Harry acquired other powers, like the ability to make his enemies suffer pain simply by willing it, we've seen no evidence of it, and much as he wishes to Crucio Bella and Snape, I don't think he's enough of a sadist ever to use such a power even if he had it. Anyway, possession is the only power of Voldemort's other than Parseltongue that I can imagine Harry finding a use for, and that only as a last resort, a desperation measure. (The U.S. cover leads me to think that something else will happen, though--Harry summoning Fawkes, maybe.) > Jen: > E) 'Neither can live while the other survives,' can have several interpretations including a metaphorical one. My thought is 'living' constitutes what makes up a life, i.e., thoughts, feelings, actions and for wizards, magical powers. So Harry and LV are sharing more than powers as the story progresses, they are sharing elements of what it means to be alive. A living soul piece would be a reason for this while a transmission of powers appears to be an incomplete explanation for what they share. > Carol: But "neither can live while the other survives" implies that neither is living *now.* Certainly, that's true for Voldemort, who is, as DD says somewhere, not truly alive, having lost 6/7 of his soul (pretending that JKR's arithmetic is mathematically sound and that the first murder would somehow create a fragment that was 1/7 of the whole, as if a soul were a tangible object divisible into parts in the first place). As for Harry, metaphorically, he, too, is surviving rather than living because so much of his life is devoted to the contest with Voldemort (and, erm, Quidditch). He barely has time for a relationship with Ginny and seems to me rather emotionally stunted (not even being aware of the names of his own classmates and having no close friends outside a very small circle. I think that's changing--he's certainly more aware of Luna and Neville as people worthy of compassion and understanding, but his emotional needs always seem to supersede those of Ron or Hermione; I don't see him making much effort to understand their needs and a lot of effort on their part, despite occasional slip-ups like the GoF incident, to understand his.) Anyway, my idea is that the quest to defeat Voldemort is the last stage in Harry's journey to completeness (emotional development, compassion, maturity, etc.) and the victory over Voldemort will enable him to really "live" rather than surviving, passing time and acquiring the skills and knowledge to destroy Voldemort. He'll finally be able to live and love like an ordinary young wizard. He'll finally be "Just Harry," which is all he's wanted all along. (Maybe he'll even lose his scar.) Voldemort, in contrast, has permanently forfeited his chance to "live" rather than "survive" by making his first Horcrux and losing part of his soul in his evil and unnatural quest for earthly immortality. There can be no life and no redemption) for him, only death or some other form of utter and permanent destruction. Steve/bboy: > > But, the problem with this theory is that the fount of all knowledge about the connection between Harry and Voldemort, as well as our source of knowledge about Horcruxes, an additional fount of magical knowledge, and our authority on the general Harry/Voldemort dynamic is all Dumbledore, and Dumbledore, while he seems to understand the connection, gives no indication that he thinks the bit of Voldemort in Harry is a piece of Voldemort's soul. > Jen: > This is the hardest obstacle to overcome in my opinion and yet JKR has again provided possibilities which are part of Dumbledore's character to explain why he didn't pursue a soul piece with Harry: Perhaps Dumbledore envisioned the first conversation about Horcruxes as the time to introduce the topic and not bring up events at GH, especially - as Pippin noted - if he wasn't certain. Perhaps he expected to have another opportunity to broach the topic with Harry and died first. Perhaps this was one of the occasions in book 6 JKR was referring to when she said, "immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes..." in reference to Dumbledore, meaning he couldn't bear the thought of Harry having a piece of LV in him and what that would mean. An obstacle, yes, but not an insurmountable one in my opinion. > Carol" Perhaps. ;-) But my feeling is that Dumbledore told Harry everything that he knew or guessed about Voldemort and the Horcruxes before embarking with him on what he knew would be a very dangerous journey, particularly to himself. I don't think he would have gone after the Horcrux in the cave without first telling Harry everything Harry needed to know. And though he didn't tell Harry everything concerning Snape, Harry knows that. (He forgets it in the hospital wing, but I certainly hoe he remembers that DD never actually told him why he trusts Snape.) He does, however, tell Harry everything that he knows or guesses about Voldemort, including, IMO, everything he knows or guesses about the Horcruxes. Not to tell Harry that his scar might be a Horcrux, or at least contain a soul bit without being a true Horcrux since no encasing spell was performed, would be unconscionable, IMO. Carol, whose hopes for DH include Harry's not being a Horcrux in any way, shape, or form > From gsereikas at cfl.rr.com Thu Jun 14 18:56:04 2007 From: gsereikas at cfl.rr.com (momto2gr8tkids) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:56:04 -0000 Subject: What side is Filch on? In-Reply-To: <002c01c7ac8f$4bd77260$f4639905@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170276 Karen > Now we know Filch is very particular about keeping the school clean > but could it be a clue that he wanted this shield so clean. Ron says > nothing about scrubbing the others for so long. Is Filch who we > think he is? > Shelley: > Filch is nothing more than a cranky old Squibb who is happy that he > has a home with Dumbledore in the Castle rather than being an outcast > somewhere else. momto2gr8tkids: I've never really thought about Filch. But as are so may of you, I too am re-reading all the books. And you know, it does seem that he could be Voldy's "most trusted servant at Hogwarts." He would know all the ins and outs and secrets as well. In OOTP he is quite thrilled with DD's replacement and is happy to assist her. Not to mention he is excited for real changes to be made and him being allowed to hang students by their ankles and the like. From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 23:24:36 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:24:36 -0000 Subject: What side is Filch on? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "momto2gr8tkids" wrote: > I've never really thought about Filch. But as are so may of you, I too am re-reading all the books. And you know, it does seem that he could be Voldy's "most trusted servant at Hogwarts." He would know all the ins and outs and secrets as well. In OOTP he is quite thrilled with DD's replacement and is happy to assist her. Not to mention he is excited for real changes to be made and him being allowed to hang students by their ankles and the like. > Charles: I've thought about Filch. When you think about his name, it comes out to mean watchful thief, so there may indeed be more to him- squib or not. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 23:58:49 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:58:49 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170278 > >>Betsy Hp: > > As per popular werewolf mythology, yeah. What makes werewolves > > so very, very dangerous is that they're so very, very hard to > > stop. You pretty much have to kill them. And with a very > > specific sort of weapon. > >>Alla: > Or give them the potion. Betsy Hp: Well, no, not according to general mythology. There is no potion there (and that's what I was talking about above). I think in the general mythology there is no cure or preventative. The werewolf is pretty much doomed. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But that's what makes Lupin's lycanthropy so hard to wrestle > > with, IMO. She could have done whatever she wanted but JKR > > *kept* the mindlessly driven to infect or kill the nearest > > available human part of being a werewolf. > >>Alla: > Except with the potion. Betsy Hp: True. But JKR made the potion awfully finicky. It's hard to make (and possibly expensive? I might be slipping into fanon there) and you have to take it consecutively for a certain amount of time (though I'm not sure the time's been specified). And I believe the potion loses potency if not treated just so. And if you miss one dose you're back to being a mindless, hunger driven, incredibly dangerous monster. So, while she could have, JKR chose to not make it easy for Lupin. The monster is still there and not very easily caged. As Lupin demonstrates by failing to keep himself caged while at Hogwarts, both as a student and a professor. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Lupin never really gave off a strong "sexual predator" vibe to me > > (though I did laugh at the "have some chocolate little boy" > > jokes, I'll admit ), but Fenrir, hunter of small children, > > very much did. And after being introduced to this werewolf, > > *within* JKR's created world, who *did* specifically hunt down > > children, who did create "packs" to help him get more children > > to raise to act and think like him, it's very hard for me to > > seperate JKR's werewolves from pedophiles. > > > >>Alla: > That's *one* werewolf, one. The one who positions himself closer to > his victim when he is fully in control of his mental state. So, no, > still IMO sounds more like evil human that takes advantage of his > illness to me than a monster. Betsy Hp: Right, Fenrir has no qualms about his particular tastes. He's the pedophile that revels in it, brags about it, teaches his views to others. Whereas Lupin is the guy who's disgusted with himself when he wakes up out of his "mindless lust" phase. Like I said, JKR does introduce a sliding scale. Lupin isn't into biting when the monster isn't in control. Plus there's the sympathy factor in the fact that Lupin himself was a victim of Fenrir's monsterous side. But they're both equally monsterous when the moon is full. Once they've turned it doesn't matter if it's Fenrir or Lupin coming through your door. Either one is out for your blood. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > When the full moon is out and there's no medication to be had, > > Lupin and Fenrir are *exactly* alike. That's the horror. It's > > the reason werewolf stories tend to end tragically, with the > > werewolf begging to be killed. > > > >>Alla: > But there is a medication, if not cure yet in JKR's world, that's > IMO a huge difference from folklore already. Betsy Hp: It is, I agree. And I suspect it's a sort of modernizing of the myth. Because today we can medicate the type of imbalances in someone's brain chemistry that leads to violent outbreaks that I think the werewolf myth probably sprang from. At least, we can a little bit. (I think this is all fairly new medical stuff -- speaking as an absolute lay person here.) At the very least there's chemical castration. But, just like Lupin's potion, it's dependent on the person actually *taking* the stuff. But if the werewolf doesn't want to take his potion (Fenrir) or something comes up and the werewolf forgets to take it (Lupin) you've still got that monster on the loose. IOWs the potion (and the medication) cage the beast, but the beast is still there. And it's a beast that attacks outwardly. It seeks out victims, it doesn't victimize its host. Which is not common with RL illness, I think. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Because JKR made Lupin a monster. Not someone with a disturbing > > condition that public hysteria has *painted* a monster. Once a > > month Lupin is an actual "I will seriously eat you" monster. > > He's not a disobedient bunny rabbit, he's a full out werewolf. > > >>Alla: > Well, sure, without medication and **once a month* and not always > seriously eat you, but he is dangerous, once a month and without > medication. I would withold word monster for now. Betsy Hp: Why? I mean, I think this is getting nit-picky (I fully acknowledge that ) but how is a werewolf, when it *is* a mindless, non- medicated werewolf, not a monster? > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Because the risk *is* massive. Very much *not* like having a > > neighbor with AIDs or in a wheelchair. > >>Alla: > What massive risk if medication is taken? Yeah, I know Lupin did > not take it that night, but what massive risk if medication is > taken? Betsy Hp: The massive risk that the medication *isn't* taken. That the guy has an argument with his girlfriend or finds out his mom is dying and he forgets. Or the risk that the pharmacy screwed up and gave him skele- grow instead. Or the risk that pharmacutical factory had a momentary blip that caused important ingredient X to not be included in this particular batch. The risk that the cage isn't strong enough. The risk that the beast, the mindless, hunger driven beast, is out. > >>Alla: > See I just now realized something. We had been having all those > discussions on prejudice and tolerance in the books for the longest > time and it just seems to me that we just have fundamentaly > different ideas of what it means for JKR to show prejudice and > tolerance, etc. Betsy Hp: I tend to agree. Which is weird, I admit. > >>Alla: > To me it is a fight against evil to take a stand against ideology > of pureblood supremacists, started by Salasar Slytherin, NOT > prejudice against them. Betsy Hp: I think we fundamentally agree here. I'm not for the pureblood ideology. I think I can see where it's coming from, what started it, etc., but that doesn't mean I agree with it or think it doesn't need to be shot down. (And I do tend to cut Salazar a break, but that's because the history strikes me as a tad too pat. I don't know that canon will end up backing me, but he's too convenient a scapegoat for me to accept too easily.) Oh, and I also don't think that just because a character's standing *against* the Deatheaters that they're practically perfect in every way. (Only Ms. Poppins gets away with that. ) > >>Alla: > To me showing that sick people ( yes, I believe werewolves can be > compared to RW illnesses closely enough, NOT exactly of course - I > explained before how they can be compared IMO, so won't repeat > here) with chronic and once a month dangerous diseases can live > normal lives *with precautions and medications* IS indeed author > taking a stand against prejudice. > Betsy Hp: The reason I disagree with the above is that fearing werewolves is *not* prejudice. Not in JKR's world. A werewolf can and will eat you or infect you. That is how it is. If you're lucky, said werewolf will be medicated, if not you (*you* not the werewolf) are screwed. And that just doesn't jive with any RL illnesses I know of. So fearing a werewolf is actually *practical* in a way that it isn't with your neighbor in a wheelchair or with AIDs. It's not prejudice to say werewolves are monsters. They are, as per JKR's canon. She didn't have to do it that way. JKR could easily have had Lupin turn into a wolf that mimics his own personality. *Then* I'd buy the idea that those parents expressing shock and horror that this sweet and mild-mannered werewolf being loose on school grounds were being prejudiced. Instead, JKR shows that their fears are correct. A non-medicated werewolf (which Lupin was) can kill; their children *were* at risk. It's JKR's world, she could have written it differently. That she didn't is interesting to me, and makes it impossible for me to buy the "werewolf" = "Real Life illness of your choice". Betsy Hp (*finally* took the WOMBAT test -- yay me!) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 00:12:02 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:12:02 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170279 > Pippin: > > Snape says that Bella is familiar with the magic that hides > the Order's headquarters. We are reminded in The Other > Minister that both sides have similar magical capabilities. > Isn't it likely that Voldemort is secret keeper for the Death > Eaters just as Dumbledore was secret keeper for the Order? > > And where is the Secret Keeper's secret hidden? > Why, in the *soul* of the Secret Keeper. What > if on the night he gave Harry that scar, Voldemort > transferred not only his powers but his secrets to Harry? > Neri: I think this is a brilliant idea, but I see some difficulties with it. What is the secret that Voldemort had hidden in his own soul? The location of the DEs HQ? Why would that be such an important secret? Wouldn't it be more logical to hide the secret of the locations of the Horcruxes themselves? Yet it seems that this secret isn't protected by a Fidelius, or Dumbledore would be unable to find the ring and RAB would be unable to find the locket. If some secret is hidden in Voldemort's soul, then it must be the most important secret of all. What would be even more important than the location of the Horcruxes? Neri From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 00:42:33 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:42:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170280 BestyHP: > It's not prejudice to say werewolves are monsters. They are, as per > JKR's canon. She didn't have to do it that way. JKR could easily > have had Lupin turn into a wolf that mimics his own personality. > *Then* I'd buy the idea that those parents expressing shock and > horror that this sweet and mild-mannered werewolf being loose on > school grounds were being prejudiced. Instead, JKR shows that their > fears are correct. A non-medicated werewolf (which Lupin was) can > kill; their children *were* at risk. > > It's JKR's world, she could have written it differently. That she > didn't is interesting to me, and makes it impossible for me to buy > the "werewolf" = "Real Life illness of your choice". > > Betsy Hp (*finally* took the WOMBAT test -- yay me!) > lizzyben: Yes, I agree, in the Wizarding World, it's *rational* to be afraid of werewolves. They are dangerous, & do kill people. It might even be rational to discriminate against them. That's why I don't understand JKR's statement that werewolves are a metaphor for a disability. Wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that people w/disabilities *should* be discriminated against? Is she saying that people w/a disease *are* a threat to the community? Because I don't believe that, and I bet JKR doesn't believe that, but that seems to be the underlying message of the metaphor as she's created it. So what, exactly, was JKR doing there? It's a paradox. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 01:38:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:38:55 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170281 > > >>Alla: > > Or give them the potion. > > Betsy Hp: > Well, no, not according to general mythology. There is no potion > there (and that's what I was talking about above). I think in the > general mythology there is no cure or preventative. The werewolf is > pretty much doomed. Alla: I know. I am not talking about general mythology, only about JKR werewolves and it seems to me that the presence of potion is a major difference from general mythology, which of course there are similarities as well. > > >>Alla: > > Except with the potion. > > Betsy Hp: > True. But JKR made the potion awfully finicky. It's hard to make > (and possibly expensive? I might be slipping into fanon there) and > you have to take it consecutively for a certain amount of time > (though I'm not sure the time's been specified). And I believe the > potion loses potency if not treated just so. And if you miss one > dose you're back to being a mindless, hunger driven, incredibly > dangerous monster. Alla: Yes, tricky, not sure about expensive, but hard to make indeed. That all goes to what I mentioned before - I certainly believe JKR made it hard for her werewolves to get by, especially those who want to be society members. The difference is I believe that JKR IS putting the burden on society eventually, not on werewolves. In a sense that of course they have to want to get medication and be careful on full moon, but society will have to help them. Hopefully. > Betsy Hp: > Right, Fenrir has no qualms about his particular tastes. He's the > pedophile that revels in it, brags about it, teaches his views to > others. Whereas Lupin is the guy who's disgusted with himself when > he wakes up out of his "mindless lust" phase. Like I said, JKR does > introduce a sliding scale. Lupin isn't into biting when the monster > isn't in control. Plus there's the sympathy factor in the fact that > Lupin himself was a victim of Fenrir's monsterous side. > > But they're both equally monsterous when the moon is full. Once > they've turned it doesn't matter if it's Fenrir or Lupin coming > through your door. Either one is out for your blood. Alla: Well, firstly, I do not think it is shown at all that Lupin has **any** lust towards children as werewolf. Just dangerous, sure, desire to eat children, I don't think so IMO. And I think same goes with general comparison - the thing is, I don't think Lupin **will** walk through your door in the first place. He fails to take a potion, but he controls himself all year before that. > Betsy Hp: > It is, I agree. And I suspect it's a sort of modernizing of the > myth. But, just like Lupin's potion, it's dependent > on the person actually *taking* the stuff. Alla: Sure, of course. Betsy Hp: > But if the werewolf doesn't want to take his potion (Fenrir) or > something comes up and the werewolf forgets to take it (Lupin) you've > still got that monster on the loose. IOWs the potion (and the > medication) cage the beast, but the beast is still there. And it's a > beast that attacks outwardly. It seeks out victims, it doesn't > victimize its host. Which is not common with RL illness, I think. Alla: I think it is hinted by Lupin's grey hair and shubby appearance that it victimises his host as well, if not to the same degree and examples were given of people with RL who do seek out their victims. It is not common of course, it is maybe what one person of the many thousands who will do in RL, but I see very little difference between that and what Fenrir does. Let me say it again, of course there is a difference between werewolves and folks with RL illnesses like AIDS in a sense that werewolf on full moon is dangerous unless medicated, it is a major, major difference. But I very strongly believe and of course only book 7 will show which one of us is right that JKR means for this difference to **make no difference** so to speak. To make no difference in a sense of how society **has to** treat both folks with RL diseases and fictional disease of werewolvism, that makes you want to bite or eat the people once a month. I think the only factor will be if the person wants to get better and fit in the society or be a monster and if werewolf wants to work and live as everybody else, WW will start giving them help. IMO of course. > > >>Alla: > > Well, sure, without medication and **once a month* and not always > > seriously eat you, but he is dangerous, once a month and without > > medication. I would withold word monster for now. > > Betsy Hp: > Why? I mean, I think this is getting nit-picky (I fully acknowledge > that ) but how is a werewolf, when it *is* a mindless, non- > medicated werewolf, not a monster? Alla: Yeah, it does, but that is because even when werewolf non medicated, I see hints of something in JKR world, like with Lupin, Sirius manages to restrain him even when he is not medicated. Does Lupin react on animal level as he reminiscents about school? Maybe. But maybe not, maybe some part of him as human recognises a friend and reacts to him even if not to anybody else and those possibilities stop me from calling Lupin a monster, I guess. I think it maybe another difference in Potterverse which we are not fully aware of yet. > Betsy Hp: > The massive risk that the medication *isn't* taken. The risk that the cage isn't strong enough. The risk that the beast, > the mindless, hunger driven beast, is out. Alla: Yeah, there is that, but I am all for werewolf taking the medication all the time. > > >>Alla: > > To me it is a fight against evil to take a stand against ideology > > of pureblood supremacists, started by Salasar Slytherin, NOT > > prejudice against them. > > Betsy Hp: > I think we fundamentally agree here. I'm not for the pureblood > ideology. I think I can see where it's coming from, what started it, > etc., but that doesn't mean I agree with it or think it doesn't need > to be shot down. (And I do tend to cut Salazar a break, but that's > because the history strikes me as a tad too pat. I don't know that > canon will end up backing me, but he's too convenient a scapegoat for > me to accept too easily.) Alla: Hmmmm, I would like to make a bet that the guy whom JKR called the founder of *pureblood supremacy*, was just that and Voldemort did not corrupt the Slytherin House but was the product of this ideology h > Betsy Hp: > The reason I disagree with the above is that fearing werewolves is > *not* prejudice. Not in JKR's world. A werewolf can and will eat > you or infect you. That is how it is. If you're lucky, said > werewolf will be medicated, if not you (*you* not the werewolf) are > screwed. Alla: Yes, if werewolves were dangerous **every day**, I would agree with you. Since they are only dangerous once a month, without medication, oh wait, also without friends turning into animagi, I would still say it is prejudice to be afraid of **all werewolves all the time**. If you are telling me that it is rational to stay away from werewolf running around without medication on full moon, sure, makes sense. The question is of course does JKR think that this is what matters? Or what matters is how society treats werewolves in general? Monstrocity Umbridge advocates not giving them any jobs and that is what happening, they cannot provide for themselves, no? Not just during full moon, every day of the year. Nope, makes no sense to me, sorry. Betsy Hp: > It's not prejudice to say werewolves are monsters. They are, as per > JKR's canon. She didn't have to do it that way. JKR could easily > have had Lupin turn into a wolf that mimics his own personality. > *Then* I'd buy the idea that those parents expressing shock and > horror that this sweet and mild-mannered werewolf being loose on > school grounds were being prejudiced. Instead, JKR shows that their > fears are correct. A non-medicated werewolf (which Lupin was) can > kill; their children *were* at risk. Alla: Um, they are dangerous once a month only. Once a month. And why would JKR make Lupin turn into sweet wolf? That is what makes it harder for people around him, does it not? He IS just as sick as any other werewolf and he can eat or kill you when on full moon. Except he really, really really does not **want to** eat or kill you when there is not a full moon ( That is of course unless you subcribe to Evil Lupin, which I do not). Oh, and despite him really really not wanting to eat or kill you, he forgot to take his medication. Yep, he did. Here WW, try to show compassion and tolerance to person like that, here is the challenge to you. > lizzyben: > > Yes, I agree, in the Wizarding World, it's *rational* to be afraid of > werewolves. They are dangerous, & do kill people. It might even be > rational to discriminate against them. That's why I don't understand > JKR's statement that werewolves are a metaphor for a disability. > Wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that people w/disabilities > *should* be discriminated against? Is she saying that people w/a > disease *are* a threat to the community? Because I don't believe that, > and I bet JKR doesn't believe that, but that seems to be the > underlying message of the metaphor as she's created it. So what, > exactly, was JKR doing there? It's a paradox. > Alla: I have a suspicion that JKR disagrees with the first part of your premise that it is rational to discriminate against werewolves, that is why I see no paradox. Yes, she calls it the metaphor for people reactions towards illness and disability. I also want to venture a really wild guess here - I do not think that werewolves will be cured, although Gonorus charm gives me some hope, why make it easy on WW, BUT if they will be, I think it would something really obvious to show total ignorance WW treated them for ages instead of finding that cure earlier. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 15 02:20:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:20:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170282 lizzyben: > Yes, I agree, in the Wizarding World, it's *rational* > to be afraid of werewolves. They are dangerous, & do > kill people. It might even be rational to discriminate > against them. That's why I don't understand JKR's > statement that werewolves are a metaphor for a > disability. Wouldn't this lead to the conclusion > that people w/disabilities *should* be discriminated > against? Is she saying that people w/a disease *are* > a threat to the community? Because I don't believe that, > and I bet JKR doesn't believe that, but that seems to > be the underlying message of the metaphor as she's > created it. So what, exactly, was JKR doing there? > It's a paradox. houyhnhnm: As Dung pointed out, Rowling's statement can be taken two ways. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that by "His being a werewolf is really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability," she meant people's reactions to *their own* illness and disability. I can certainly think of real life examples in my own acquaintance, people who were over-protected as children because of diabetes or epilepsy and who grew up compensating by becoming excessive risk takers, in a couple of cases with tragic results. Lupin is compensating for the terrible beast that erupts out of him every month and over which he has no control. He does it by completely denying his *normal* *human* agression. He can't get angry. He can't stand up for anything. Of course, this misguided attempt does not in any way lessen the severity of his transformations. All it does is make him a less authentic human being. Agression takes a dishonest, passive form with Lupin. In this way, too, he is like Snape. Both men have learned to fear something which is a natural part of being human, agression in the case of Lupin, anger on the part of Snape, and both have chosen maladaptive ways of dealing it. Both have shut down their emotions and shut themselves off from human relationships. If you look at Rowling's words this way (and I am more and more inclined to do so), then the paradox disappears. It is fandom, not Rowling, that has made Lupin a poster boy for political correctness. She's bigger than than that. (Or so I think on Tuesdays and Thursdays.) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jun 15 02:48:08 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:48:08 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170283 > > > Betsy Hp: > > The massive risk that the medication *isn't* taken. The > risk that the cage isn't strong enough. The risk that the beast, > > the mindless, hunger driven beast, is out. > > > Alla: > > Yeah, there is that, but I am all for werewolf taking the medication > all the time. > Julie: So how do you know the werewolf is taking his medication all the time? Do you have him wear some sort of monitor that verifies he's ingested his meds as he should? If he refuses to take his meds, do you tie him down and force them down his throat? I really think the closest thing to a werewolf in real life would be those with psychotic diseases who can be perfectly normal members of society as long as they remain on their meds, but who can lose all self-control off their meds (as does a werewolf). Again, there is NO exact analogy to a werewolf in RL, since no condition or disease manifests itself by the waxing and waning of the moon (no PMS cracks please!), or on any sort of clockwork schedule. I'm just pointing out the closest analogy, given the similar change from being in control of your own actions to losing all self-control. That's why I agree with Betsy's position. If you happen to be Joe-Werewolf's neighbor, how can you know for sure that he is responsible enough to take his medication regularly, or that something won't happen to interfere with his meds schedule? There is simply NO guarantee, unless of course there IS a guarantee enforced by society, which would mean some sort of monitoring of werewolves. Which then tramples many people's concept of individual freedoms. (Still, it is something that actually happens with psychotics who don't take their medication and who can end up in a mental facility on forced meds if they injure themselves or others during a psychotic episode.) I agree with others who think Jo's analogy between werewolves and the disabled is a very sketchy one. The analogy doesn't fit at all with the actual *effects* of werewolfism versus physical diseases and disabilities (on either the victim or those in the victim's presence). And it fits very imperfectly when it comes to the general public's attitudes and how those relate to the true danger presented by the infected (disabled doesn't even fit at all). Julie From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 02:51:13 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:51:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706141951k1f7369d3pf6c0008be691b19d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170284 Carol: Yes, Lily's murder would have freshly split his soul. But there's no indication from DD (or JKR) that Voldemort has lost any parts of his soul other than those he deliberately transferred to Horcruxes, yet he apparently killed people before GH whose deaths weren't used for Horcruxes. The question is whether the soul bits created by murders other than those used to make Horcruxes (including James's if it counts as a soul-splitting murder), as well as the fragment created from Lily's murder, would have just floated away from the main soul seeking a host to possess rather than staying with the main soul because no Horcrux spell had been performed. I think that if any soulbits were released when Voldie vaporized, they would have shared the fate of soul bits in destroyed Horcruxes, floating off behind the Veil. Debbie: This seems half-right to me, with the difference being that I expect that any soul-bit that is released from the body without being encased in a horcrux (I can hardly stop from writing whorecrux) automatically seeks The Next Great Adventure. However, I'm not sure that destroying a horcrux doesn't damage the soul bit to the point that it cannot escape beyond the veil. (This question, which I cannot answer for certain, metaphorically touches on the question of Voldemort's redeemability, but I see the destruction of a horcrux as bringing the evil one ( i.e., Voldemort) one step closer to his final fate, rather than releasing a piece of soul that can rejoin the soul's remaining core.) One thing's for sure: we know that Harry, unlike Ginny, is not possessed (and her possession when she was killing the roosters and releasing the Basilisk is different from what happened when Horcrux!Tom actually started to steal her life force to make it his). Nothing similar has happened to Harry, which to me indicates that he isn't a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. (If his scar is a Horcrux, despite the absence of a Horcrux-creating spell, he must have some protection to prevent the soul bit from corrupting or possessing him. You'd think that Voldie sharing his blood would undo that protection if it existed, but it hasn't done so. IOW, he hasn't suffered a fate similar to Ginny's possession and near-death.) Debbie: In my mind, encasing a horcrux with one's body is very different from being possessed, and therefore, the fact (established clearly in OOP) that Harry has not been possessed (except for that brief moment at the MoM) has no bearing on the Harrycrux theory. It's an entirely different thing, as the horcrux acts as a coffin. I tend to see any Harrycrux as embedded in the scar and/or in his forehead. Because all pieces of the same soul have an affinity for one another and share certain qualities, Harry feels Voldemort's visceral emotions and sometimes can perceive specific events. However, all the evidence is that Harry's own soul remains distinct, and dominates his understanding. In other words, Harry can feel the presence of whatever Voldy transferred to him, but it doesn't overpower or control him. Voldemort can only do that in the usual way, as he does (briefly) at the MoM. Carol: Actually, Dumbledore says, "You 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." It's Harry who says, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" and DD replies, "It certainly seems so" (CoS Am. ed.). In this context, "a bit of himself" means "some of his powers" rather than "a bit of his soul." Debbie: This is just a matter of interpretation. You think Dumbledore's statement is intended to exclude the transfer of a soul; I think he was deliberately ambiguous because he had no knowledge, only conjectures. Carol: I don't think knowing about deliberately created Horcruxes, or the fact that the diary was a Horcrux, need affect our reading of this passage. I agree with Steve that Dumbledore would certainly have told Harry if he even remotely suspected that Harry's scar could be an accidental Horcrux. Debbie: I believe we've aired our disagreement on this point before, but taking into consideration Dumbledore's past history of withholding information from Harry, his willingness to let people -- especially Harry -- figure things out for himself, and the uncertainty about whether a horcrux can be created accidentally (which I'm certain is unprecedented), I think he'd be very wary of sharing a theory with Harry which implies that the only solution is for Harry to sacrifice himself. Carol: Why would the sharing of powers increase because Harry or his scar is an accidental Horcrux? It would have been one all along. Two things happen to affect the strength of the scar connection. First, Voldemort himself is becoming stronger, gaining first a rudimentary body and then his resurrected former body (don't ask me how that could happen; it's magic!). Debbie: I propose that, just as Sirius' feelings were less acute in animal form (enabling him to escape from Azkaban), Voldemort's feelings were less discernible to Harry until Voldemort was restored to an adult human body. Even for that short time between Voldemort's rebirth and his employment of Occlumency, Harry only shared Voldemort's emotions when they were particularly powerful. Harry's capacity to share Voldemort's feelings did not change, but Voldemort's feelings became more powerful. And more importantly, Voldemort's feelings don't rob Harry of the ability to think independently, indicating that Harry's own soul is intact. Harry is most vulnerable to Voldemort's emotions when he is tired or sleeping, i.e., when his mind is most open to outside influence. There are circumstances that make him feel the presence of the horcrux more, but it is encased within the scar, or his head, or whatever, and is not merged with Harry. I have an unposted dissertation on Harrycrux theories in my drafts folder. Maybe I should do something about it before it becomes obsolete. ;-) Debbie who has all the W.O.M.B.A.T. answers (she thinks) but is having computer problems and hasn't taken the test [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 03:07:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:07:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents Message-ID: <380-2200765153741328@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170285 Betsy Hp: > It's not prejudice to say werewolves are monsters. They are, as per > JKR's canon. She didn't have to do it that way. JKR could easily > have had Lupin turn into a wolf that mimics his own personality. > *Then* I'd buy the idea that those parents expressing shock and > horror that this sweet and mild-mannered werewolf being loose on > school grounds were being prejudiced. Instead, JKR shows that their > fears are correct. A non-medicated werewolf (which Lupin was) can > kill; their children *were* at risk. Alla: Um, they are dangerous once a month only. Once a month. And why would JKR make Lupin turn into sweet wolf? That is what makes it harder for people around him, does it not? He IS just as sick as any other werewolf and he can eat or kill you when on full moon. Except he really, really really does not **want to** eat or kill you when there is not a full moon ( That is of course unless you subcribe to Evil Lupin, which I do not). Oh, and despite him really really not wanting to eat or kill you, he forgot to take his medication. Yep, he did. Here WW, try to show compassion and tolerance to person like that, here is the challenge to you. Magpie: I think we're all getting mixed up because the word "werewolf" is sometimes used to mean Lupin and sometimes used to mean the monster--the very not!Lupin monster that Lupin turns into under the full moon without medication. There's nothing prejudicial about being afraid of that creature. You'd be insane not to be (unless you were a transformed animal yourself at the time). I think Lupin would be the first person to encourage you to be afraid of it, because he doesn't want to kill anybody in that state, and he can't control himself in it. Yeah, it's great that Sirius was there, but I don't even think he would have been happy with just that precaution. Being afraid of it wouldn't be like snubbing Lupin. If you ran away from his transformed savage self it's not like Lupin would say, "Hey, what was up last night? Why'd you run the other way when you saw me on the street?" The transformed wolf isn't "him." Being prejudiced against Lupin the person is wrong. He suffers from the disease as well. Both Lupin and Fenrir turn into something deadly once a month. Fenrir, the human, uses this deadly thing to evil ends. Lupin makes the opposite choice and tries to protect everyone from controlling the deadly thing--through wolfsbane or locking himself up. Most of the time Lupin and Fenrir are humans, with all the potential for good and evil of which humans are capable. Disliking Fenrir, of course, makes sense because he's dangerous as a human too. But both he and Lupin are perfectly human most of the time. It's just their presence means you could potentially be in the presence of this deadly thing once a month. They have a certain connection to a dark creature. One cool thing that I like about these two--and I mean this really in a literary sense so I hope nobody takes this as something it isn't--but Fenrir is totally Lupin's shadow, meaning he's everything Lupin defines himself against and denies in himself, and therefore pops out for being repressed. Lupin is all about being pleasant and distancing himself from the monster he becomes. (And when I say monster I mean the transformed un-medicated werewolf, obviously, which is a monster by definition, not Lupin the whole person--also, just a note to Betsy, but werewolves did classically turn into wolves, not furry people. That's Hollywood--I think they also invented the silver bullet idea, and certainly that poem). Fenrir is of course the exact opposite. As a human he tries to be more like a wolf, not less. Instead of taking steps to protect people he takes steps to hurt them--specifically to hurt people who piss him off, exactly what Remus "I neither like nor dislike Snape" Lupin would try not to do. (While he might have killed Peter as a man, I don't think he'd ever have wanted to intentionally kill him as a werewolf--that would be crossing a line to Fenrir-land Lupin would not want to cross.) Lupin is an exceptionally good teacher whose personality is particularly sensitive and good for children. Fenrir's an eater of children. Total opposites--and yet, still a Shadow, because darn it if the werewolf (meaning the monster, the un-wolfsbaned transformed werewolf) that's most often run around Hogwarts hasn't been Fenrir when the sun is shining but Lupin. And not 100% because it's an accident, imo. I know some people disagree, but I've always thought it was a consistent part of Lupin's character--as a kid, of course, he did choose to join his friends outside, so that wasn't a mistake. But in PoA there's that great battle with Snape where Lupin's all "I'll drink the Potion later." That's the one time we see him with the Potion and faced with Snape's pushing he's intentionally blase about it and refusing to drink it when he's told. houyhnhnm: Lupin is compensating for the terrible beast that erupts out of him every month and over which he has no control. He does it by completely denying his *normal* *human* agression. He can't get angry. He can't stand up for anything. Of course, this misguided attempt does not in any way lessen the severity of his transformations. All it does is make him a less authentic human being. Agression takes a dishonest, passive form with Lupin. Magpie: It's one of the things I like about Lupin.:-) -m (agreeing that there just isn't any direct analogy that isn't insulting to either people with chronic illnesses or Lupin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 03:12:43 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:12:43 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170286 > Geoff: > my feeling is that incantations operate as soon as they are > spoken, they can't be "post-dated". ... Mike: How about Hermione's hex on the DA roster? Does it mark someone with "SNEAK" as soon as she performs the incantation or does it require an intervening action on someone elses part to activate? Please note also that the hex is placed on the parchment, but the action, when it comes, is against those that signed the parchment. That is, the transgressor is *designated* as the receiver of the action. In a likewise fashion, a murderer could place the spell on himself, the place from where the soul piece will be taken, and *designate* the receiving object, the thing that will become a Horcrux. The spell then waits for the intervening action, the tearing of the soul. I'm not saying this is *THE* method for making a Horcrux, just that this method is consistent within canon as a viable method. Quite frankly, I doubt that JKR intends to explain the mechanism of Horcrux creation in DH, so this will all remain speculation, never to be answered definitively. ---From message 170256 and following threadwise--- > Steve/bboyminn: > Let us look at the first > Horcrux. In the summer of his 15 year, Tom Riddle > kill his father and grandparents. However, during > the next school year of Tom's 16th year, he is > asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and is wearing this > father's ring. We do know the ring was eventually a > Horcrux. > > Tom doesn't create the First Horcrux until many > months after the deaths he likely based it on. > Mike: First a little housecleaning. Tom was born Dec 31, so he is 16 from the second half of his 5th year through the summer and including the first half of his 6th year at Hogwarts. As to the second part, it is not conclusive as to when Tom created his first Horcrux. And it seems likely to me that Tom already created the Diary by the time he goes to Little Hangleton in the summer. Since we don't know *when* Tom found out how to create a Horcrux, he could have made the Diary one with his father's death. Let's look at that conversation Tom has with Uncle Horace. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that Tom had already created a Horcrux before this tete-a-tete. How would a Tom Riddle approach a Professor Slughorn to gather Sluggy's opinion on multiple Horcruxes. Would he start the conversation with this question? Seeing Sluggy's yelping reaction to this question and his becoming deeply troubled (HBP p.498, US), I think it would be foolish for Tom to go straight for the jugular. But if Tom slowly draws Sluggy deeper and deeper towards that forbidden territory, Sluggy is far less likely to cut off or back out of the conversation. That's more like the smooth operator that Harry observes. He *acts* suitably informed at each stage of Sluggy's information reveal, never changing his approach to receiving any new information. My point is, this conversation works for a Tom Riddle that has already made his first Horcrux as well as one that is Horcruxless at this point in time. And we should also remember that this multiple Horcrux opinion was labelled by Dumbledore as something that Tom "particularly wanted from Horace". An aside: I think the info about how a Horcruxed wizard survives a killing is probably info that Tom was glad to get and he eventually incorporated it into his "plan", but was not on the list of info he was going after. > Goddlefrood: > I agree that Harry is certainly not an intentionally created > Horcrux. Having said that I would not commend the view that > he or his scar may be one accidentally either, at this point, > that is. Mike: I've come over to your side on this question, but probably not the way you may think. ;)) I got my revelation from the lady that follows: > Jen: I believe this will be the explanation rather than anything > connected to a real or accidental Horcrux. I wouldn't say it's > completely speculative however since there's canon in place which > would explain such an event. > > Here it is: > > A) There's a mechanism in place for a soul piece to be completely > torn off from a whole soul if someone commits murder. > > B) Two murders were committed at GH and therefore two soul pieces > were torn off. > > C) A completely unexpected and unique event occurred when the AK > rebounded and Harry was both 'marked' with a scar and acquired some > of Voldemort's powers, an event explained by Dumbledore as > Voldemort 'putting a bit of himself' into Harry. Mike: Thanks to you, Jen, I've changed my position. I'm going with the simplest explanation is the best. Harry is not a Horcrux, but he is a repository of a piece of Voldy's soul. < I will be addressing points of Carol's, also found on this thread. Don't need to reference them, I know em by heart by now ;) > If you take Carol's approach, LV's soul only got ripped once by Lily's death. This seems the most likely reading, imo. But when the AK rebounded, LV's body disintegrates. This is critical, because there is no longer a repository for either Voldemort's main soul piece nor the newly torn piece. Nothing keeping the torn piece together with the main, to give it a chance to possibly reattach to the main, as Steve suggests and I agree with. Without a body both pieces are free to roam, *but* they cannot go "beyond the veil", they are both anchored to this plane by the other Horcruxes. This is where the uniquness of events at GH come into play. The unblockable curse was not only blocked but rebounded onto the caster. The curse that leaves no mark, somehow leaves a cut on Harry's forehead. And one more unexplanable, never-happened-before thing occurs, the torn off soul piece lodges itself in Harry. Harry isn't a Horcrux, the piece wasn't bound by spell to do what it did, but nevertheless, that's what happened. A second possibility occurs to me. This soul piece went into Harry with the intention of *possessing* him. But Harry had "powers the Dark Lord knows not". The soul piece was captured by a stronger soul, Harry's soul, and Harry's soul now controls it. This would mean if and when Harry figures this out, and figures out how to consciously control this, he can do some real damage with it. But Harry is still not a Horcrux. So this soul piece is not one of Voldy's anchors. And it will not help him once the rest of the pieces are freed from their Horcruxes. BTW, the more I think about it the more it occurs that Harry's scar is somewhat of a Red Herring in the whole scheme of things. At the most, I think Harry's forehead was the only place in the total *aura of protection* surrounding Harry that was breached. Hence he got the cut and the soul piece used this breach to enter Harry. But now it's a big *so what?* It really has nothing any more to do with the soul piece. > Steve/bboy: > > But, the problem with this theory is .... > > Dumbledore .... gives > > no indication that he thinks the bit of Voldemort in > > Harry is a piece of Voldemort's soul. > > Jen: This is the hardest obstacle to overcome in my opinion and > yet JKR has again provided possibilities which are part of > Dumbledore's character to explain why he didn't pursue a soul > piece with Harry: Mike: Couple of things here. If Harry isn't a Horcrux but instead may be able to *use* Voldy's soul piece to his advantage, Dumbledore had no fear for Harry's well being. Conversely, Dumbledore would not want Harry concentrating his efforts on how to eject that soul piece. Especially if there is no harm in it being there, and if Dumbledore wanted Harry to concentrate on eliminating the other Horcruxes. Though Dumbledore is a wise man, he may not have knowledge of how to exploit this never-happened-before condition. And Dumbledore doesn't have the time to try and figure it out and train Harry up. So Dumbledore decides its better to let sleeping dogs lie while still dropping the "Nagini" hint to Harry so he might eventually come to realize what has happened to him. So my question is, how can Harry use this soul piece? Pippin had one idea. Anybody else? Mike From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 03:45:55 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:45:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0706142045h588ab9eftdb10a4614f840d37@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170287 Pippin: He seems to agree to resume the relationship to please others, not himself. Lynda: That's certainly one way to look at it, that Lupin only renews the relationship with Tonks to please others, but all of his arguments were typical of him, and do not necessarily mean that he is uninterested in her, just that he's so used to deprecating himself that he treated it like he does everything else. "Oh, I'm too old, I'm too dangerous. Its not that I don't care about you, its that I'm not good enough and never will be..." Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 03:49:41 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:49:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0706142049wb94b6fdq8a3bf24435457f8f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170288 Lynda: And to add to my last post, Lupin's behavior doesn't seem to me like someone who isn't interested in Tonks, just not used to accepting happiness for himself. His behavior at Dumbledore's funeral was not that of someone who was miserable. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jun 15 03:50:03 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:50:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <726DA88F-8D45-48B6-93EC-7A60B246883E@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 170289 On Jun 13, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Mike wrote: > Hermione is a teenage girl that has *slightly* large front teeth. She > may possibly, *that's possibly*, be subconscious about that little > feature of her appearance. Then, after her *slightly* large front > teeth grow down to beyond her collar a teacher, in front of her > peers, says "I see no difference". Let's remember the context: she was expecting Draco to be punished for nothing Harry had not done. She was not targeted by this curse, she was collateral damage when the spells ricocheted. Why should Draco be punished? Why shouldn't Harry. _I see no difference_ between their actions, at least with the context that was available to Snape, lacking clear knowledge of who provoked whom. There's always another possible meaning. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 15 04:03:02 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:03:02 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170290 Betsy Hp: > But that's what makes Lupin's lycanthropy so hard to wrestle with, > IMO. She could have done whatever she wanted but JKR *kept* the > mindlessly driven to infect or kill the nearest available human > part of being a werewolf. Which makes it impossible, IMO, to > compare being a werewolf with having AIDs or having a disability. > Unless you want to suggest that folks who have AIDs or with > disabilites routinely ravage the countryside trying to make other > people be just like them. Or, you know, dead. Dana: To be honest with you I do think JKR meant to draw a direct parallel with Lupin's disease and diseases and disabilities in RL but not in relation to people ravaging the country side but how devistating these diseases can really be on human life. Her mother had MS and I'm sure she would have called that disease the monster that is disabling her mother eventually killing her. Lupin's disease is projected outward but I don't think that you can deny that AIDS as a disease is a monster that is silently killing the people it infects. When it was first discovered it did rage through society and it killed people randomly and rapidly. It is still raging through the continent of Afrika killing devistating numbers of people. It is not the people infected with the disease but the disease that they are infected with that provides the analogy. It is not Lupin that is the monster but the disease that turns him into a monster unlike Greyback who is already a monster as a human and becomes worse so when it is a full moon. People infecting other people with for instance HIV on purpose did not become monsters because of their disease but because of them already being utterly monsterous for wanting the power over other people's faith. So in this case when Lupin transforms into a werewolf he is actually no longer Lupin but his disease which is driven by the instinct of that creature inside. I do not think a parallel to sexual preditor can be made for the simple fact that these people are always on the prowl no matter what time of the day it is. Greyback might have this motivation but it is certainly not part of him being a werewolf as he has to make a human decision to place himself within striking range of his chosen victim. JMHO Dana From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Jun 15 04:37:26 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:37:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170291 Pippin wrote: The wand use ban gets my vote for the worst since it affects the most individuals. While House Elf slavery is bad, I doubt it would have been possible if Elves had wands and could defend themselves. Sandy responds: I did not vote for the ban of wand use, although I have no argument with anyone who did. However, I do have to disagree with your last statement. Elf slavery does not appear to have anything to do with the ban of wands as Elves have very powerful magic of their own that they are perfectly capable of performing without a wand, including defending themselves. Dobby wreaked havoc all through COS without so much as one flick of a wand; including this. Page 338, Scholastic: Lucius Malfoy stood frozen, staring at the elf. Then he lunged at Harry. "You've lost me my servant, boy!" But Dobby shouted; "You shall not harm Harry Potter!" There was a loud bang, and Mr. Malfoy was thrown backward. He crashed down the stairs, three at a time, landing in a crumpled heap on the landing below. He got up, his face livid, and pulled out his wand, but Dobby raised a long, threatening finger. "You shall go now," he said fiercely, pointing down at Mr. Malfoy. "You shall not touch Harry Potter. You shall go now." Lucius Malfoy had no choice. With a last, incensed stare at the pair of them, he swung his cloak around him and hurried out of sight. Dobby attacked Lucius, knocked him off his feet and down the steps, and sent him packing, and he did it all using only his finger, no wand needed. He did a hover charm on the pudding without a wand, sealed the entrance to Platform 9 3/4 without a wand and turned a bludger into a rogue without a wand, and that rogue bludger did a lot of damage. This, to me, is what makes the House Elf enslavement so puzzling. They have such powerful magic of their own that they don't need a wand to perform, yet they remain enslaved. I have to chalk it off to them *wanting* to be enslaved, as has been proven throughout the books. Dobby seems to be the only one who actually wanted to be freed, in big part due to the Masters he served. Winky was devastated when she was freed, and the Hogwarts elves ostracize Dobby because he is free. I understand all of that. What I don't understand is why Dobby didn't just walk away. What force is it that keeps the elves who want to be free enslaved? Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Jun 15 04:49:22 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:49:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170292 Magpie: Also on the Dark Magic ones I said "sunlight" for werewolves and a bezoar for the Draught of Living Death, but I think I may have been wrong on that last one. (I was going to say "No Cure" for werewolves, but sunlight seems equally true.) Sandy: I thought the Dark Magic ones were the easiest. The only one I had difficulty answering was The Draught of Living Death, which I also answered with Bezoar. I put no cure for werewolves because there is none. I put sunlight for Devil's Snare. I struggled with that one for a few minutes because Hermione created fire to banish it, but she actually said it didn't like sunlight. Since she couldn't conjure sunlight she conjured fire instead, which had the same effect. I used fire for the Inferi. With the exception of Draught of Living Death I am confident I got them all right. It is the only thing I feel confident about. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 05:00:05 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:00:05 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170293 > Dana: > > So in this case when Lupin transforms into a werewolf he is actually > no longer Lupin but his disease which is driven by the instinct of > that creature inside. I do not think a parallel to sexual preditor > can be made for the simple fact that these people are always on the > prowl no matter what time of the day it is. Greyback might have this > motivation but it is certainly not part of him being a werewolf as he > has to make a human decision to place himself within striking range > of his chosen victim. wynnleaf How is it that the "sexual predator" parallel *can't* be used because they are "always on the prowl," whereas Lupin is only driven to kill others monthly, but you *can* parallel being a werewolf to real life diseases even though those who are afflicted are *never* "on the prowl?" Seems to me a bit arbitrary. houyhnhnm: As Dung pointed out, Rowling's statement can be taken two ways. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that by "His being a werewolf is really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability," she meant people's reactions to *their own* illness and disability. I can certainly think of real life examples in my own acquaintance, people who were over-protected as children because of diabetes or epilepsy and who grew up compensating by becoming excessive risk takers, in a couple of cases with tragic results. wynnleaf The assumption that JKR meant, in her comment, that Lupin's being a werewolf is to be a commentary on how non-sufferers *treat* people with diseases is really just that -- an assumption. She could just as easily have meant it to show how sufferers react to their own disease. But even if JKR meant for this to parallel real life prejudices against those with chronic diseases, it simply isn't a good parallel. Can't recall who said it, but it's perfectly true that JKR could, if she had desired, made the parallel much more apt if she'd written Lupin's werewolf form to be as "mild mannered" as his human form appears. But she didn't. Lupin, with only one slip up without the potion, becomes a killer. That simply doesn't happen with *any* real life disease I can think of. Oh, and as regards the availability of wolfsbane potion -- Lupin makes it clear that it's a difficult potion to brew and he's very fortunate to have someone who can brew it close about. Anytime you have a product in which the demand far outstrips the availability, it's going to be expensive. If most werewolves were attempting to get wolfsbane -- and they may well be wanting it -- and yet the potion must be brewed by only particular potions brewers with the skill, takes some time and effort to brew, and is necessary to take for about 1/4 of every month (about 1 week for each full moon) then I think we can be fairly confident that wolfsbane potion is expensive to buy. If you don't have a friend or acquaintance that can make it, probably many couldn't afford it, especially if -- being a werewolf -- one found it difficult to hold down a job where the employers both accepted you as a werewolf, and were able to deal with you being off work for several days each month. wynnleaf From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 15 05:26:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:26:00 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170294 > wynnleaf > How is it that the "sexual predator" parallel *can't* be used > because they are "always on the prowl," whereas Lupin is only > driven to kill others monthly, but you *can* parallel being a > werewolf to real life diseases even though those who are afflicted > are *never* "on the prowl?" > > Seems to me a bit arbitrary. Dana: A sexual predator feeds on the power (and not the sex) he has over its victims and is not by definition a victim of a disease like Lupin is. A sexual predator is created by circumstances and uncontrolled fantasies and is not classified as being caused by a disease they have no control over. There are mental diseases that can control the human brain but sexual predators are mostly sociopaths and not victim of a human mental disease. We call these people sick people but that is because their behavior makes us sick and not because their behavior is caused by an illness. Seeing their victims suffer is what feeds the hunger for more as it makes them feel even more powerfull and that indeed classifies Greyback but certainly not all werewolves. A werewolf has no human thoughts, it is driven by its instincts of the creature the disease transforms the human into. Lupin is not a person that feeds on having power and neither is his werewolf part. Virusses do not feed on people because they want power over that person but it is the way they survive and multiply and thus are able to exist. That seems like what a werewolf does, doesn't it. It doesn't act like a human it acts like a virus. As I said when Lupin transforms he is no longer human, he is no longer Lupin but a sexual predator is always that person living within his own fantasy. JMHO Dana From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 06:01:15 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:01:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Mudbloods. Was: Snape - werewolf bigot?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > I see nothing indicating a pureblood ideology that would lead him to > join the Death Eaters, particularly since he was a Half-blood > himself. Leslie41: This is an interesting question, and one that complicates Snape considerably. I think the difficulty with your reasoning here about Snape is that you are thinking far too rationally. It makes perfect sense, of course, that if one is a Jew, for example, that one would not be anti- semetic. Likewise that someone with a Muggle father would not become a DE. However, I can attest to the fact that the very most anti-semetic utterances I have ever heard have come out of the mouths of Jews. The term "self-hating Jew" is something anyone raised Jewish often comes to know intimately. Snape, I think, is a self-hating half-blood. And that's a self-hatred that was born from his loathesome relationship with his father. Psychologically, joining the DEs proves not that Snape hates Muggles, but that Snape hated his father, and that part and parcel of that is his hatred for himself as his father's son. The desire for "purity" exhibited by the DEs is something Snape wanted, because he wished to purify himself of his father's influence, his father's blood, etc. The racism of many people can be explained by circumstances such as these, but in the end, I think, it doesn't matter. We judge people by what they say. It's extremely possible for a Jew to be an anti- semite. What we say when we are under duress, or drunk, is actually I think what defines us. Does Michael Richards go around burning crosses? No. But his attempt to stress that he's "not a racist" after spewing forth a racist diatribe is ludicrous. So, to my mind, Snape at least WAS a racist because he obviously made a racist statement, and then threw in his lot with a bunch of racists. Rowling has likened the DEs to Nazis. Whether he is now, or whether or not he has gained some insight into why he joined the DEs, remains unclear. The end question for me, though, is, is it possible for him to be a racist and still do the right thing for the right people? Yeah. From rkelley at blazingisp.net Fri Jun 15 05:53:31 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:53:31 -0500 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test Message-ID: <001001c7af11$824f7a20$1d02f504@yourat5qgaac3z> No: HPFGUIDX 170296 Regarding questions 3 & 4: I chose as the ministry decision with the most damaging effect on every day wizard life to be the defeat of the appeal against house-elf slavery. It may not be outwardly apparent, but IMHO any society which allows slavery sets the stage for decay from within. Number one, it reinforces the Purebloods' own ideas of superiority which led to Voldemort's rise in the first place. Number two, it destroys the potential intellectual, artistic, and social contributions from house elves who are allowed only to function as unskilled labor. Number three, it allows the ruling class to become fat and lazy, both physically and mentally and more likely to choose the easy way even if it's wrong. I think it's most damaging because we don't see its effects immediately. As far as choosing the ban against non-humans carrying wands, I can see major problems if giants, dementors, trolls, and others who often support dark wizards were given the power of wands. The giants used DD's magical gifts to kill each other. Trolls would probably accidentally lop off their own ears. Most of the intelligent non-humans - goblins and house elves, for example - have other ways of using magic without wands. I agree with others that leaving the Goblins in charge of Gringott's makes sense because it partially appeased them for past wrongs, plus it takes the business of finance out of ministry hands where someone would surely put their hand in the till where it didn't belong. (I can picture the MOM's savings campaign: "Sleep well, knowing your future financial security is in the hands of Ludo Bagman.") Thank you for listening to my ramblings. Anders From rkelley at blazingisp.net Fri Jun 15 06:20:40 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:20:40 -0500 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings Message-ID: <001101c7af15$4d0e5f30$1d02f504@yourat5qgaac3z> No: HPFGUIDX 170297 magpie: > I had the first one be the one > who made the older Ministers walk out because she was a woman, zgirnius: If I recall correctly, she was the first female Minister (and a former Wizard of the Month, which is where I think I came across this fact). So I was pretty sure this had to be right. > magpie: > the Squib riots during the 60s because that seemed to fit that > time period. zgirnius: Me too. I also guessed that the day of celebration after Voldemort seemed to die led to the removal of the Minister at that time, so chose the widespread violations of the Statute of Secrecy one for Fudge's predecessor (whose name I cannot bring up at the moment). -------------- Magpie and Zgirnius, I agree with both of you on these. I seem to remember something, - I think it was from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, - that while Stump was minister he changed the status of ghosts from beasts to spirits, so the ghost protest floats probably occurred during his term. A farrier is one who shoes horses, and a bone spavin is a swelling sometimes seen on a horse, so I made a loose connection between the name of Faris Spavin and the half-horse centaur, and chose ol' Spout-Hole for the assassin target. I had trouble with question 12, the two policies that would best serve the Ministry in its fight against the Dark Arts. I finally decided on B and E, teaching unforgivable curses from year one, and improving the ministry's information policy. I couldn't see JKR ever being in favor of burning books, and it seems logical that some items used in dark potions are needed for regular potions, too. Granting automatic life sentences in Azkaban without trial is what landed Sirius in jail, so that one's no good. Lifting the jinx against the DADA teacher post would help the school, but I don't know that it would help the ministry - they seem to like it better when they can hand pick the teacher because no one will take the job. The last one is the fluff they already tried with Harry, and that only leaves B and E. Knowing how to block the curses is good for everyone to know, and the ministry acting responsibly for a change can't hurt. Does anyone (or everyone) disagree? Anders From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 15 10:43:54 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:43:54 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions from the test In-Reply-To: <001001c7af11$824f7a20$1d02f504@yourat5qgaac3z> References: <001001c7af11$824f7a20$1d02f504@yourat5qgaac3z> Message-ID: <99819B7B-6F66-4CFC-9F5F-6355754352F6@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 170298 Anders: > As far as choosing the ban against non-humans carrying wands, I can > see > major problems if giants, dementors, trolls, and others who often > support > dark wizards were given the power of wands. jadon: When they're under Voldemort's control he can let them use wands. What the Ministry's saying is 'you can't have access to wands when you're on our side', which, if wand use is something they're after, makes them more likely to turn to Voldemort. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 11:40:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:40:44 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170299 > Sandy: > I thought the Dark Magic ones were the easiest. The only one I had > difficulty answering was The Draught of Living Death, which I also > answered with Bezoar. Jen: I couldn't decide the answer for this one. The Draught isn't a poison so I discarded the bezoar (although that may well be the answer) but there must be some way to awaken the person. I ended up marking 'phoenix tears' on the very slim chance this was some kind of prediction for DH.;) Not Dumbledore but another character. > Sandy: > I put no cure for werewolves because there is none. Jen: The question was worded as what plant, spell or ? would 'conquer' the beast, potion or plant (can't remember exact wording) so I decided on Aconite as an ingredient in Wolfsbane because it conquers the werewolf inside and allows the person to retain their normal human conciousness. I figured Expecto Patronum fights off but doesn't extinguish a Dementor so the same logic would hold true when asking about the werewolf part of an individual. Sandy: > I put sunlight for Devil's Snare. I struggled with that one for a > few minutes because Hermione created fire to banish it, but she > actually said it didn't like sunlight. Since she couldn't conjure > sunlight she conjured fire instead, which had the same effect. I > used fire for the Inferi. With the exception of Draught of Living > Death I am confident I got them all right. It is the only thing I > feel confident about. Jen: I thought the answers needed to be different so I marked sunlight for Devil's Snare too, since Hermione said they didn't like the 'dark and damp'. Fire for the Inferi, yes. What were the others in this section? As for other questions, anyone think there are future implications for 'Occlumency guarding against possession' being false? I hope not - my ambivalence about Snape doesn't extend to wishing to see him or anyone possessed (not even Umbridge!). At least I *think* that one was false because it came in the same section as a curse being stronger than a hex and a hex stronger than a jinx. Oh, and I expect that Scotland will turn out to be the biggest offender against the Statute of Secrecy as a JKR joke. Jen From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 11:59:21 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:59:21 -0500 Subject: Elves and freedom Message-ID: <8ee758b40706150459q68b43788w643cd0135a5653bd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170300 > > Sandy: > This, to me, is what makes the House Elf enslavement so puzzling. They > have > such powerful magic of their own that they don't need a wand to perform, > yet > they remain enslaved. I have to chalk it off to them *wanting* to be > enslaved, as has been proven throughout the books. Dobby seems to be the > only one who > actually wanted to be freed, in big part due to the Masters he served. > Winky > was devastated when she was freed, and the Hogwarts elves ostracize Dobby > because he is free. I understand all of that. What I don't understand is > why > Dobby didn't just walk away. What force is it that keeps the elves who > want to > be free enslaved? montims: love of life? Until the prevailing attitude is changed, elves cannot live free. If it hadn't been for DD rescuing him by offering him paid employment Dobby would have starved to death, despised by most of the WW. Compare it to the treatment of "blacks" under apartheid in South Africa. That existed for a relatively short time, but the majority population was disenfranchised, forced to work away fron their families down the mines or as houseboys and housemaids/nannies, and their children were taught under a special, state-enforced, curriculum that taught them false history, and only enough education to prepare then to becone house boys or housemaids. If they lost their job, it would be nearly impossible to find another, and if they were found in a place at the wrong time or without the correct permit, they were arrested and imprisoned. They were tortured and disposed of like animals. If that had gone on for centuries, like elf enslavement, who would then have had the courage or the ability to fight against the system? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 12:18:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:18:51 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <380-2200765153741328@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170301 > Magpie: > I think we're all getting mixed up because the word "werewolf" is sometimes > used to mean Lupin and sometimes used to mean the monster--the very > not!Lupin monster that Lupin turns into under the full moon without > medication. > > There's nothing prejudicial about being afraid of that creature. You'd be > insane not to be (unless you were a transformed animal yourself at the > time). I think Lupin would be the first person to encourage you to be > afraid of it, because he doesn't want to kill anybody in that state, and he > can't control himself in it. Alla: Indeed, very true, in this thread werewolf is used to mean any person, not just Lupin and sometimes the monster they transform in. I am not having any trouble figuring out what I disagree over with Betsy and some other posters in the thread, but I sure am having a lot of trouble trying to figure out what exactly I said that is disagreeable with what you wrote. It is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf? Sure, it is not, when such person is a werewolf, any person, not just Lupin, no? To be exact ? it is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf during full moon. What exactly we are arguing about again, lol? What I am saying is prejudice is to deny werewolves jobs and any sort of normal lives, when they are **not** werewolves, when they are humans. Yes, regardless of the fact that they are dangerous once a month. If you are disagreeing with that, which I do not think that you do based on what you wrote in the past, then maybe that is what we are arguing about? I am confused. I think that I also said several times in this thread that precautions should be taken. I think the existence of potion shows that it is not as hard as WW likes to imagine, taking precautions I mean. It is not easy either of course, when is the change easy? Magpie: > Being prejudiced against Lupin the person is wrong. He suffers from the > disease as well. Both Lupin and Fenrir turn into something deadly once a > month. Fenrir, the human, uses this deadly thing to evil ends. Lupin makes > the opposite choice and tries to protect everyone from controlling the > deadly thing--through wolfsbane or locking himself up. Most of the time > Lupin and Fenrir are humans, with all the potential for good and evil of > which humans are capable. Alla: Yes again to everything you write LOLOLOL. Oh, maybe that is what disagreeable, I think it is wrong to be prejudiced against **any** person who is werewolf, or I guess to be afraid of any person who is werewolf, when such person is not a werewolf. Unless of course such person chooses to do evil when in control of his mental facilities, like Greyback. Do you disagree with that? Magpie: > Disliking Fenrir, of course, makes sense because he's dangerous as a human > too. But both he and Lupin are perfectly human most of the time. It's just > their presence means you could potentially be in the presence of this > deadly thing once a month. They have a certain connection to a dark > creature. > Alla: Um, yes, again except of course they choose to do different things with that creature while they can. Greyback positions himself closer to victim and Lupin, well you know. Magpie: And when I say monster I mean the transformed > un-medicated werewolf, obviously, which is a monster by definition, not > Lupin the whole person.....> Alla: I really like that again. I did not clarify before again, I certainly see the use of the word monster to the unmedicated transformed werewolf, I just refuse to use it for the reasons above and because I see metaphor as illness, even if fictional and cannot call being sick a monster, but totally understand. > houyhnhnm: > Lupin is compensating for the terrible beast that > erupts out of him every month and over which he has > no control. He does it by completely denying his > *normal* *human* agression. He can't get angry. He > can't stand up for anything. Of course, this misguided > attempt does not in any way lessen the severity of his > transformations. All it does is make him a less > authentic human being. Agression takes a dishonest, > passive form with Lupin. > > Magpie: > It's one of the things I like about Lupin.:-) Alla: Well, yeah, it is just I do not buy that attempt to being nice all the time and I think we see glimpses of angry Lupin too, makes one less authentic human being. I think he is very honest when he tries to repress the "monster within", but hey, JKR did call him a damaged man, and how can he not be? Magpie: And not 100% because it's an accident, imo. I know some people > disagree, but I've always thought it was a consistent part of Lupin's > character--as a kid, of course, he did choose to join his friends outside, > so that wasn't a mistake. But in PoA there's that great battle with Snape > where Lupin's all "I'll drink the Potion later." That's the one time we see > him with the Potion and faced with Snape's pushing he's intentionally blase > about it and refusing to drink it when he's told. Alla: Okay, finally I know we disagree over that. LOLOLOL. You think Lupin did not take potion that night on purpose? Are you sure that you do not support Evil Lupin after all ? Dana: It is not Lupin that is the monster but the disease that turns him into a monster unlike Greyback who is already a monster as a human and becomes worse so when it is a full moon. Alla: Agreed. From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 12:59:32 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:59:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Elves and freedom In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706150459q68b43788w643cd0135a5653bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170302 montims: love of life? Until the prevailing attitude is changed, elves cannot live free. If it hadn't been for DD rescuing him by offering him paid employment Dobby would have starved to death, despised by most of the WW. Sherry now: Snipping your example to give one of my own. I totally agree with all you said. In the days of slavery here in the US, slave owners often said something I've heard characters in the books say several times. "They're happy this way." Those statements always make me slightly sick to my stomach when I read it, even from characters I love, such as Ron. Possibly even more so when it's a character like Ron. I don't think the reader is supposed to accept elf enslavement easily. So many of the statements made about it in canon are exactly the kinds of rhetoric that has been used for generations all over the world to justify slavery. I think Hermione is on the right track by wanting to free them, though she's going about it in the wrong way. Sherry From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 13:18:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:18:29 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170303 > Carol replies: > A mechanism exists to tear the soul through murder, but, according > to Slughorn, a spell is required to encase the soul bit in an object >(or living creature, if DD is right about Nagini). At least we agree > that he didn't (and, IMO, wouldn't) deliberately make Harry a > Horcrux rather than killing or trying to kill him. Jen: I don't think LV deliberately made Harry a Horcrux or arrived with object in hand/spell prepared only to have the process go awry with the rebounded AK. My reasoning is the same as yours (I think) given how spells seem to operate in canon: The spell for encasement of the soul piece in the object occurs after a murder - not before - and thus never took place. Carol: > Yes, Lily's murder would have freshly split his soul. But there's no > indication from DD (or JKR) that Voldemort has lost any parts of his > soul other than those he deliberately transferred to Horcruxes, yet > he apparently killed people before GH whose deaths weren't used for > Horcruxes. The question is whether the soul bits created by murders > other than those used to make Horcruxes (including James's if it > counts as a soul-splitting murder), as well as the fragment created > from Lily's murder, would have just floated away from the main soul > seeking a host to possess rather than staying with the main soul > because no Horcrux spell had been performed. I think that if any > soulbits were released when Voldie vaporized, they would have shared > the fate of soul bits in destroyed Horcruxes, floating off behind > the Veil. Jen: Your proposal could be true. It's more that I can't reject ouright the notion of a soul piece in Harry even though I do reject that Harry is a Horcrux because of what that would mean for the plot and the Horcrux hunt (and Harry, even though I see possibilites for locked door room when it comes to the soul piece). JKR has introduced a mechanism for a soul piece to tear and exist outside the body and she hasn't introduced one for how powers alone transfer. She may well do that in DH. Carol: > One thing's for sure: we know that Harry, unlike Ginny, is not > possessed Nothing similar has happened to Harry, which to me > indicates that he isn't a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. (If his > scar is a Horcrux, despite the absence of a Horcrux-creating spell, > he must have some protection to prevent the soul bit from > corrupting or possessing him. You'd think that Voldie sharing his > blood would undo that protection if it existed, but it hasn't done > so. IOW, he hasn't suffered a fate similar to Ginny's possession > and near-death.) Jen: I don't see how a soul piece making its way into Harry would render him a 'Horcrux, accidental or otherwise' especially if the Horcrux process depends on the object and spell being prepared after a murder. If possession is a factor, and I'm not convinced it is other than with the diary Horcrux, then Harry would be protected from a soul piece the same way he's protected from being possessed by Voldemort in the MOM: his 'ability to love' has always been his protection. Voldemort and his soul have never known love and one of his soul pieces, like Voldemort himself, would be repelled from possessing Harry for this reason. That's my extrapolation from what happened at the MOM and Dumbledore's explanation. Carol: > Anyway, I see no evidence that a soul bit, which has to be encased > in a Horcrux in order to anchor Voldie's soul to earth, would seek > out a host to possess (if it did, destroying a Horcrux would not > destroy the soul bit; the soul bit would simply possess the > destroyer of its "case" as the nearest human to possess); no > evidence that such a thing has happened to Harry either at GH or > when he destroyed the diary; no hope for him if it happens when he > destroys the locket and other Horcruxes; no evidence that a soul > bit can transfer power (Ginny spoke Parseltongue because she was > being possessed, not because Diary!Tom's powers were transferred to > her). Jen: Again, I don't think we're talking about possession. The soul piece isn't possessing Nagini as there's no indication she's been completely taken over or is dying from having a soul piece inside her. According to Dumbledore that's what makes her a poor Horcrux, because she can 'think and move for herself.' And I'm not sure what you mean about a soul bit not being able to be destroyed since we've seen it happen with the diary? They aren't immortal as the host soul is, as long as there are surviving Horcruxes that is (for host soul). There's also no evidence that a transfer of magical powers alone would cause the kind of connection Harry and LV have. More on that below. > Carol: > Actually, Dumbledore says, "You 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." It's Harry > who says, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" and DD > replies, "It certainly seems so" (CoS Am. ed.). In this context, "a > bit of himself" means "some of his powers" rather than "a bit of > his soul." I don't think knowing about deliberately created > Horcruxes, or the fact that the diary was a Horcrux, need affect > our reading of this passage. I agree with Steve that Dumbledore > would certainly have told Harry if he even remotely suspected that > Harry's scar could be an accidental Horcrux. Jen: My mistake. I'll say that Dumbledore agreed with Harry's assessment of Voldemort putting a 'bit of himself' in Harry rather than correcting him and explaining, no, only some of his powers. And will also add that both Harry and Dumbledore refer to the soul pieces as 'bits of soul' in the Horcrux chapter at one point. That may mean nothing but it's how they reference the torn soul pieces at one point. Jen before: > D) The two share more than powers as the story progresses, > including being able to think each other's thoughts and feel each > other's feelings. > Carol: > Why would the sharing of powers increase because Harry or his scar > is an accidental Horcrux? It would have been one all along. Two > things happen to affect the strength of the scar connection. First, > Voldemort himself is becoming stronger, gaining first a rudimentary > body and then his resurrected former body (don't ask me how that > could happen; it's magic!). Second, he shares some of Harry's blood > thanks to Wormtails' restorative potion. (Of course, the mind link > is currently blocked by Occlumency, but otherwise, it would > probably be even stronger now than it was in OoP.) Jen: I didn't say the sharing of powers increased in strength when Voldemort regained his body; I said that the two are sharing 'more than' magical powers when LV regained his body. They are sharing thoughts and feelings, human qualities rather than magical powers. Meaning that it is no longer simply about a transfer of magical powers as I understood their connection. > Jen: > E) 'Neither can live while the other survives,' can have several > interpretations including a metaphorical one. My thought > is 'living' constitutes what makes up a life, i.e., thoughts, > feelings, actions and for wizards, magical powers. So Harry and LV > are sharing more than powers as the story progresses, they are > sharing elements of what it means to be alive. A living soul > piece would be a reason for this while a transmission of powers > appears to be an incomplete explanation for what they share. > Carol: > But "neither can live while the other survives" implies that neither > is living *now.* Certainly, that's true for Voldemort, who is, as DD > says somewhere, not truly alive, having lost 6/7 of his soul > As for Harry, metaphorically, he, too, is surviving rather than > living because so much of his life is devoted to the contest with > Voldemort (and, erm, Quidditch). Jen: Yes, I said there are other literal and metaphorical intepretations for the prophecy. I wanted to suggest the possibility that neither is 'living' in the sense of being his own person with his own thoughts, feelings, actions, and powers because they are sharing these aspects of themselves whether Voldemort is practicing Occlumency or not. Occlumency is a temporary measure like shutting off the hose at the valve - the water is still ready to flow if turned back on. The scar connection and all they share because of it is still present between them until the connection is broken. > Carol: > Perhaps. ;-) But my feeling is that Dumbledore told Harry everything > that he knew or guessed about Voldemort and the Horcruxes before > embarking with him on what he knew would be a very dangerous > journey, particularly to himself. I don't think he would have gone > after the Horcrux in the cave without first telling Harry > everything Harry needed to know. Not to tell Harry that his > scar might be a Horcrux, or at least contain a soul bit without > being a true Horcrux since no encasing spell was performed, would > be unconscionable, IMO. Jen: I don't know the answer of course. I don't believe Dumbledore suspects Harry to be a Horcrux per se because he seems to know all there is to know about Horcruxes and, in my opinion, would know exactly how a soul piece is sealed in an object. And if the encasement and spell need to happen after the murder then Dumbledore would be wise to reject the hypothesis that Harry is a Horcrux. ;) If Dumbledore suspects Harry has a soul piece inside, well, I notice Mike has an intriguing idea that I'm going to consider next! Jen From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 15 14:02:34 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:02:34 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170304 > > Alla: > > > It is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf? Sure, it is not, when > such person is a werewolf, any person, not just Lupin, no? To be > exact ? it is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf during full > moon. What exactly we are arguing about again, lol? > > What I am saying is prejudice is to deny werewolves jobs and any > sort of normal lives, when they are **not** werewolves, when they > are humans. Yes, regardless of the fact that they are dangerous once > a month. If you are disagreeing with that, which I do not think that > you do based on what you wrote in the past, then maybe that is what > we are arguing about? I am confused. > colebiancardi: Ahh, I had started the "Snape -a werewolf bigot??" thread because I didn't see Snape as a bigot towards werewolves. Instead, I saw Snape as a man who just hated a man who just happened to be a werewolf. After all, Snape hated Sirius - does that make Snape a pure-blood bigot? ok...going back into my cave...I think I already know what Snape is - a misanthrope in the manner of Moli?re's brilliant work "Le Misanthrope ou l'Atrabilaire amoureux". Alceste doesn't hate everybody, but he certainly tries :) colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 15 14:28:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:28:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <380-2200765153741328@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170305 Alla: > > Oh, and despite him really really not wanting to eat or kill you, he > forgot to take his medication. Yep, he did. Here WW, try to show > compassion and tolerance to person like that, here is the challenge > to you. Pippin: This is where ESE!Lupin shines. If Lupin didn't forget to take his potion after all, (because he took it in secret) then it *won't* look like JKR is saying that even responsible people are going to have compliance issues and that's something we ought to live with. She won't be saying we have to tolerate this behavior any more than we tolerate other kinds of irresponsible behavior that endanger innocent lives. Nor will we have to do a lot of backflips to explain how a responsible person could, in a moment of madness which somehow stretched into hours, forget he was a werewolf, forget he hadn't take his potion, and forget that there would be a full moon. The Lupin story wouldn't be about whether it's reasonable to expect an adult to be responsible about taking medications and managing illness. It would be about whether it's reasonable to alienate people from society and still expect them to act responsibly towards it. It would be about the stigma which people place on werewolves becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. And we know how much JKR loves those. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 14:37:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:37:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) Message-ID: <380-220076515143716812@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170306 > wynnleaf > How is it that the "sexual predator" parallel *can't* be used > because they are "always on the prowl," whereas Lupin is only > driven to kill others monthly, but you *can* parallel being a > werewolf to real life diseases even though those who are afflicted > are *never* "on the prowl?" > > Seems to me a bit arbitrary. Dana: Virusses do not feed on people because they want power over that person but it is the way they survive and multiply and thus are able to exist. That seems like what a werewolf does, doesn't it. It doesn't act like a human it acts like a virus. As I said when Lupin transforms he is no longer human, he is no longer Lupin but a sexual predator is always that person living within his own fantasy. Magpie: But I think what that proves is that wynnleaf is using a different analogy when she brings up child predators. You're talking about what's going inside the person/werewolf and saying (correctly) that a sexual predator is a person and therefore in control of his own will, who chooses to give into his own bad compulsion. He is responsible for his actions in a way that Lupin is not responsible for his actions when he is transformed without taking wolfsbane (and Greyback is more responsible because when in human form he has chosen to do these things and set things up so that he will get the results he wants as a werewolf). Wynnleaf, I thought, was not talking about judging the person but *the danger to other people* that makes them nervous about being near the person. And there it seems to me it's a perfectly good analogy--if an obviously limited and imperfect one. Because unlike other diseases, this is one that puts other people in grave danger if a slight mistake is made on someone's part. Alla: It is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf? Sure, it is not, when such person is a werewolf, any person, not just Lupin, no? To be exact it is not prejudice to be afraid of werewolf during full moon. What exactly we are arguing about again, lol? Magpie: LOL! I don't know--but maybe something like the exchange with Dana above. The difficulty with werewolves is how do you balance the rational fear of the transformed werewolf with the person with the disease. A person being uncomfortable about sending their kid to school with a teacher who's a werewolf could be prejudiced against werewolves, or they could just doubt the safety precautions if something goes wrong. Alla: What I am saying is prejudice is to deny werewolves jobs and any sort of normal lives, when they are **not** werewolves, when they are humans. Yes, regardless of the fact that they are dangerous once a month. If you are disagreeing with that, which I do not think that you do based on what you wrote in the past, then maybe that is what we are arguing about? I am confused.I think that I also said several times in this thread that precautions should be taken. I think the existence of potion shows that it is not as hard as WW likes to imagine, taking precautions I mean. It is not easy either of course, when is the change easy? Magpie: Maybe I'm not arguing with you at all, now that I try to figure it out.:-) Because I agree that it's discriminatory to deny jobs and lives to people with this illness. There are forms of controlling it. There just needs to be a compromise between so that the rational fears someone might have (wanting to make sure there are many layers of protection around the dangerous aspect) and the rights of the person who's the werewolf. Right now the WW is only basing things on fear, and not the actual person with the disease, who is also a member of the society. As I've said, the fear is now counter-productive even in terms of protecting people. If the society learned to take a more rational, compassionate attitude towards Lupin they could have a good teacher and probably also better safety in having him at the school-and the werewolves would be less vulnerable to Voldemort as well. In canon if Lupin worked at the school Dumbledore didn't just have to set up some precautions like the wolfsbane and Shack, there also had to be secrecy, which made things more difficult. They couldn't deal with the possibility for human error because it wasn't going on openly. It's fine to say that it's not Lupin who's the monster--that's true. But there's also the separate issue of practically dealing with the monster he's been saddled with himself. Alla: Yes again to everything you write LOLOLOL. Oh, maybe that is what disagreeable, I think it is wrong to be prejudiced against **any** person who is werewolf, or I guess to be afraid of any person who is werewolf, when such person is not a werewolf. Unless of course such person chooses to do evil when in control of his mental facilities, like Greyback. Do you disagree with that? Magpie: I agree with it. I really used the word "prejudice" incorrectly. Being afraid of Greyback isn't prejudice against werewolves, it's reacting to a violent, evil-minded person. This one just happens to have a scary weapon at his disposal because he also happens to be a werewolf. Alla: Okay, finally I know we disagree over that. LOLOLOL. You think Lupin did not take potion that night on purpose? Are you sure that you do not support Evil Lupin after all ? Magpie; No, no. It's more subtle. Lupin himself did not make any conscious decision to not take his Potion. It's not like Greyback positioning himself near people or making any sort of evil decision. But as a literary creation this is a pattern. The one time we have Lupin dealing with his Potion he's showing resistance to it--it's for a human reason that's clear in the context of the scene in retrospect, but I don't think it was an accident that JKR put it that way. She established in that scene that having the Potion didn't just make if a non-issue. Instead she showed Lupin in control of taking it or not. It's Snape in the scene who's all about the Potion being taken as a priority. It's not about Lupin being evil, it's JKR's using repitition (as always) to set things up. What it says about Lupin's character is maybe that he's created like so many of JKR's others, around a conflict. Sirius tries to protect Harry telling him not to be reckless, but is reckless himself and tries to coax him out of Hogwarts. Hermione wants freedom for House Elves but then tries to make them do things she thinks they should do. - From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 15 14:40:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:40:00 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170307 > > Jen: I don't think LV deliberately made Harry a Horcrux or arrived > with object in hand/spell prepared only to have the process go awry > with the rebounded AK. My reasoning is the same as yours (I think) > given how spells seem to operate in canon: The spell for encasement > of the soul piece in the object occurs after a murder - not before - > and thus never took place. Pippin: But there's accidental magic, and it produces exactly the same results as a deliberate hex. In OOP, Harry unintentionally zaps Snape with a Stinging Hex and isn't aware that he's done so until Snape tells him. In the moment when Voldemort saw his killing curse rebound from Harry, when he realized what was about to happen to him, wouldn't he instinctively defend himself in the only way he knew? Could he not, by accident and unawares, have performed the magic that would encase a soul bit in Harry? Pippin From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 15 14:07:47 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:07:47 +0100 Subject: Elves and freedom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170308 > Sherry: > In the days of slavery here in the US, slave owners often said > something I've heard characters in the books say several > times. "They're happy this way." > So many of the statements made about it in canon are exactly the > kinds of rhetoric that has been used for generations all over the > world to justify slavery. jadon: A difference is that the house-elves themselves use this 'rhetoric,' isn't it? GoF: "House-elves is not supposed to have fun, Harry Potter," said Winky firmly. OotP:"Winky is still drinking lots, sir," he [Dobby] said sadly, his enormous round green eyes, large as tennis balls, downcast. "She still does not care for clothes, Harry Potter. Nor do the other house elves. None of them will clean Gryffindor Tower any more, not with the hats and socks hidden everywhere, they finds them insulting, sir." Even Kreacher, who hates his master, doesn't want to be _free_: "Kreacher is cleaning," the elf repeated. "Kreacher lives to serve the Noble House of Black." Both Kreacher and Dobby are a bit weird, but Winky is supposed to be our voice of house-elf normality, isn't she? - and from her persective, freedom has ruined her life. That's not to say that house elves were always enslaved, or that they are incapable of being happy if freed, but that at the moment _they_ are happy with their situation. That Appeal Against House-Elf Slavery in 1973 can't have been made/supported by house-elves. (I wonder why Hermione hasn't read about it in Recent Events in Wizarding History, or whatever it was she bought for background reading in PS, if it's important enough to have been the most significant disaster in a minister's career.) Forcing freedom onto modern house-elves is a bit like forcing civilisation onto aboriginal tribes in the rainforest: it's completely failing to take into account the values of the elves, pressing onto them the values of wizards instead - which, if it was wizards who enslaved house-elves in the first place, aren't exactly to be trusted as consistent. I _do_ think that house-elves could be perfectly happy unenslaved, but it could take a lot of upset getting to that position. The current attempts at helping them are misdirected - take Hermione's list (GoF): "Our short-term aims," said Hermione, speaking even more loudly than Ron, and acting as though she hadn't heard a word, "are to secure house-elves fair wages and working conditions. Our long-term aims include changing the law about non-wand use, and trying to get an elf into the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, because they're shockingly underrepresented." Are 'fair wages' enough to buy stripy socks all year round? Working conditions - the abuse is self-imposed (but yes, Dobby for one doesn't like it). Wands - house-elf magic can be far more powerful than anything a wizard can do with a wand (wouldn't it be fantastic for LV to find himself - at the very last, the moment of doom - thwarted by an army of insulted house-elves from the Hogwarts kitchens?) Representation - that's only something they'll need if they start acting and thinking like humans, and *human wizards are not automagically superior to non-human magical beings* - is Hermione ever going to learn that? jadon From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 15 15:59:09 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:59:09 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) Message-ID: <5614883.1181923149254.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170309 Jen: >I don't think LV deliberately made Harry a Horcrux or arrived >with object in hand/spell prepared only to have the process go awry >with the rebounded AK. My reasoning is the same as yours (I think) >given how spells seem to operate in canon: The spell for encasement >of the soul piece in the object occurs after a murder - not before - >and thus never took place. Bart: I suspect that many have taken JKR a mite too literally in terms of Horcruxes. Murder rends the soul, but it doesn't destroy a piece of it; otherwise horcruxes would be the rule rather than the exception, since it preserves the torn piece. Left to itself, the soul is repaired, albeit not perfectly (I used to know a man who was a sniper in Viet Nam. The experience certainly left his soul scarred, but he was not left a soulless monster). With a horcrux, you complete the process, tearing the piece of soul completely off, to preserve it. Even to thoroughly power-hungry wizards, such a thing would likely not be worth the price. The loophole is that if you are already disconnected from your soul, like Tommy Riddle was, then losing a few pieces won't make much of a difference to you. Now, as far as him even considering creating a new Horcrux in killing Harry, I doubt it strongly. My logic is that Morty had decades to make his Horcruxes, and he was already well on his way to conquering the WW. I do not believe he would have even STARTED without having created all 7 horcuxes in advance, and, given the power of the number "7", he would have had no plans to create more. Similarly, I don't think he would make a living being a horcrux, because living beings have a nasty habit of dying. As far as how many horcruxes Morty has left, well, the ring and diary are destroyed. There is the locket, which may or may not have destroyed. And, let's not forget, there's whatever horcrux that contained the piece of his soul now residing in his body. That's 2 destroyed, one maybe destroyed, and one used up. That leaves three more. Assuming that JKR can count, which is NOT a good assumption... Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 16:02:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:02:43 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > > As Dung pointed out, Rowling's statement can be taken > two ways. The more I think about it, the more I am > inclined to think that by "His being a werewolf is > really a metaphor for people's reactions to illness > and disability," she meant people's reactions to *their own* > illness and disability. I can certainly think of real > life examples in my own acquaintance, people who were > over-protected as children because of diabetes or > epilepsy and who grew up compensating by becoming > excessive risk takers, in a couple of cases with tragic results. > > Lupin is compensating for the terrible beast that > erupts out of him every month and over which he has > no control. He does it by completely denying his > *normal* *human* agression. He can't get angry. He > can't stand up for anything. Of course, this misguided > attempt does not in any way lessen the severity of his > transformations. All it does is make him a less > authentic human being. Agression takes a dishonest, > passive form with Lupin. > lizzyben: This is an interesting perspective, and it does make a lot of sense. So, Rowling wasn't talking about the way society perceives his disability, but the way Lupin himself does? I tried to find the full quote to get some context - "Professor Lupin, who appears in the third book, is one of my favourite characters. He's a damaged person, literally and metaphorically. I think it's important for children to know that adults, too, have their problems, that they struggle. His being a werewolf is a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability. ... I almost always have complete histories for my characters. If I put all that detail in, each book would be the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but I do have to be careful that I don't just assume that the reader knows as much as I do. Sirius Black is a good example. I have a whole childhood worked out for him. The readers don't need to know that but I do." IMO, that one missing sentence makes all the difference - "adults, too, have their problems, and they struggle." It seems clear that she's talking about Lupin's own struggles w/his disability, not making a wider point about societal discrimination. She's talking about the histories of each character, and how that history affects who they are & how they act. That seems much more in line w/your interpretation of this quote. Whew! But even if that was the intent, it doesn't seem like that was made clear to readers. > In this way, too, he is like Snape. Both men have > learned to fear something which is a natural part of > being human, agression in the case of Lupin, anger on > the part of Snape, and both have chosen maladaptive > ways of dealing it. Both have shut down their emotions > and shut themselves off from human relationships. lizzyben: They are both damaged souls, and it's interesting that they were both sent back to the source of that damage in HBP - Snape to the Death Eaters & Voldemort, Lupin to the werewolves & Fenir. If you think of it, that was almost cruel. Lupin's little sad speech about going to "my equals, my fellows" was just painful. And those maladaptive coping strategies aren't working for either of them: Lupin is nice, but becomes passive-aggressive & unreliable, while Snape maintains an attitude of cold disdain until he melts into an angry, spitting rage. Harry himself seems to be heading down the same path - cutting himself off from others (Ginny), and his own emotions in order to cope. > If you look at Rowling's words this way (and I am > more and more inclined to do so), then the paradox > disappears. It is fandom, not Rowling, that has > made Lupin a poster boy for political correctness. > She's bigger than than that. (Or so I think on Tuesdays > and Thursdays.) > lizzyben: I hope so, because as a "politically correct" message against prejudice and discrimination, it fails completely. There's a number of places in the novels that have this same weird subtext - the characters first think some group is a victim of unfair discrimination or bigotry, and then realize no, it's actually OK to discriminate against them! They actually ARE evil, dangerous, servile, etc. The giants are a good example of this. Hermione says it's no big deal if Hagrid is half-giant, & the bad things people say about giants (and werewolves) are just a result of prejudice & bigotry. Then later on we find out, no, Ron was right - giants are all violent, brutal & stupid. Same thing w/elves - Hermione wants them to have rights & freedom, but later learns no, they actually like slavery, don't want money, and are happiest serving their masters. With all of these groups, the liberal message against "bigotry & prejudice" is actually subverted by the text itself. The actual message becomes that these groups actually are inferior & don't deserve equal rights. In the Wizarding World, the bigots are right! That's what I find odd. Lizzyben From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 15 16:15:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:15:24 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) Message-ID: <11145572.1181924125120.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170311 From: pippin_999 Pippin: >But there's accidental magic, and it produces exactly the same >results as a deliberate hex. In OOP, Harry unintentionally >zaps Snape with a Stinging Hex and isn't aware that he's >done so until Snape tells him. Bart: It is said that, one afternoon, pianist Van Cliburn was practicing, and told his butler that, if anybody called, to tell the caller that Van Cliburn was out for the day. Someone called, and the butler dutifully stated that his employer was gone for the day. "Don't give me that garbage!" said the caller. "I clearly hear him practicing in the background." "You are mistaken, sir." said the butler. "That is me, dusting the keys." Bart From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 16:16:35 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:16:35 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: <380-220076515143716812@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > > Alla: > > Okay, finally I know we disagree over that. LOLOLOL. You think > Lupin did not take potion that night on purpose? Are you sure that > you do not support Evil Lupin after all ? > > Magpie; > No, no. It's more subtle. Lupin himself did not make any conscious > decision to not take his Potion. It's not like Greyback positioning > himself near people or making any sort of evil decision. But as a > literary creation this is a pattern. The one time we have Lupin > dealing with his Potion he's showing resistance to it--it's for a > human reason that's clear in the context of the scene in > retrospect, but I don't think it was an accident > that JKR put it that way. She established in that scene that having > the Potion didn't just make if a non-issue. Instead she showed > Lupin in control of taking it or not. It's Snape in the scene who's > all about the Potion being taken as a priority. It's not about > Lupin being evil, it's JKR's using repitition (as always) to set > things up. > > What it says about Lupin's character is maybe that he's created > like so many of JKR's others, around a conflict. Sirius tries to > protect Harry telling him not to be reckless, but is reckless > himself and tries to coax him out of Hogwarts. Hermione wants > freedom for House Elves but then tries to make them do things she > thinks they should do. > > - > Lupin is being passive-aggressive when Snape comes into the classroom with the potion and tells him he should drink it directly. There's a little power play going on, perhaps a hangover from Marauder days, perhaps the result of having Harry in the room. Lupin is like some who know they have to take medicine to stay well, but inwardly rebel against the whole idea of being ill in the first place, or being controlled. I've known three manic-depressive people. One of them encouraged me on an art project. One was married to a second cousin. One was the girlfriend of a coworker. They were great people to meet. Even so, they all stopped taking their medicine at one point, because they were feeling fine, or because they didn't like its side effects. Two attacked their partners with knives while the partners were sleeping. One burned down his studio, which was in the basement of an apartment building. They all *knew* they could be dangerous if not medicated, and yet, they chose to go off medication. The shadow inside Lupin is quite real. Prejudice against him can't be excused, if he's willing to control his actions. If he doesn't accept responsibility for his own potentially harmful behavior, I don't see how he can blame others, as I think he does. He tells Harry that Snape told the Slytherins about him being a werewolf, implying the blame for his firing lies with Snape. I don't blame Snape. Given Lupin's blaise attitude towards taking the potion, and the subsequent results, the students had the right to know and protect themselves on the full moon. I don't really "blame" the manic-depressive people I knew, because I haven't walked in their shoes and can't understand their experiences. Still, I learned to be aware of signs of missed medication. I think that's fair. lealess From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 15 16:29:49 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:29:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elves and freedom Message-ID: <19092601.1181924989216.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170313 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk >Forcing freedom onto modern house-elves is a bit like >forcing civilisation onto aboriginal tribes in the >rainforest: it's completely failing to take into account >the values of the elves, pressing onto them the values of >wizards instead - which, if it was wizards who enslaved >house-elves in the first place, aren't exactly to be trusted >as consistent. Bart: Worse, I think. Remember, house-elves are NOT human, nor is their psychology. They have a need to serve, and great difficulty in acting independently (Dobby being, by house-elf standards, quite insane). However, this does not mean that it is right to overly take advantage of this trait; the boss of a house-elf has a responsibility as a human being to treat the house-elf kindly. In addition, house-elves appear to have a preference on WHICH human(s) they serve; Dobby, for example, is quite happy serving DD and Harry, while Winky mourns her lost family, taking an almost motherly attitude towards them. I do not know how house elves get bought and sold (I believe Ron used the phrase "cannot afford a house-elf", but it seems that DD, for whatever reason, has refused to enslave Winkie, which would have made her somewhat, if not entirely, more satisfied with her lot. Serving Harry is torture for Kreacher, but Harry's hands are kind of tied on that regard. House elves definitely appear to be capable of love, and the ideal situation for a house elf appears to be to serve someone they love, and who loves them back. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 16:39:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:39:27 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170314 lizzyben wrote: > > Yes, I agree, in the Wizarding World, it's *rational* to be afraid of > werewolves. They are dangerous, & do kill people. It might even be > rational to discriminate against them. That's why I don't understand > JKR's statement that werewolves are a metaphor for a disability. > Wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that people w/disabilities > *should* be discriminated against? Is she saying that people w/a > disease *are* a threat to the community? Because I don't believe that, > and I bet JKR doesn't believe that, but that seems to be the > underlying message of the metaphor as she's created it. So what, > exactly, was JKR doing there? It's a paradox. > Carol responds: I don't understand the disability analogy, either, although I think the focus in JKR's is on the way others react to a person with a disability. But people with disabilities other than psychosis or some other form of mental illness that causes them to compulsively harm others aren't dangerous. It's more like, say, leprosy, which was genuinely dangerous and required the sick person to be quarantined to avoid contaminating others, combined with an irresistible compulsion to spread the disease, except that it only occurs once a month. (I'm assuming that leprosy is now controlled in some way, which is why I'm using past tense.) Actually, there's nothing really comparable--a once-a-month compulsive rapist with syphillis or HIV? But he wouldn't turn his victim into a compulsive rapist like himself. He'd only contaminate her. At any rate, while Lupin and others like him don't station themselves beside their prospective victims, waiting to strike when the moon is full, they do become, in Lupin's own words, "Before the Wolfsbane Potion was discovered, however, I became a fully fledged monster once a month." And he's a "fully fledged monster" when he forgets to take a dose of it as well. (Wonder what he does when he doesn't have access to the potion. Has he been locking himself in or transforming along with the other werewolves and roaming the countryside since he joined them as a spy?) Werewolves, in any case, are not remotely comparable to, say, blind people or paraplegics. They are not normal people who happen to have a disability. They are people who, once a month, become a terrible danger to everyone around them. Wolfsbane potion helps, but only if it's taken on schedule, and only for that one month. IMO, anyone who hires a werewolf or marries a werewolf should make absolutely certain that the werewolf takes his potion or has somewhere to transform that he can't escape from. Werewolves need to be identified and registered so that they won't be roaming loose on full moon nights. It isn't an ideal solution, but it would at least prevent the condition from spreading until some potions genius invents a cure. Carol, who thought that the Wombat test was oddly subjective except for the true-false and condition/cure questions and expects to get a very low score From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 17:13:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:13:22 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170315 > Jen: > As for other questions, anyone think there are future implications > for 'Occlumency guarding against possession' being false? I hope > not - my ambivalence about Snape doesn't extend to wishing to see him > or anyone possessed (not even Umbridge!). At least I *think* that > one was false because it came in the same section as a curse being > stronger than a hex and a hex stronger than a jinx. zgirnius: I think it is false, but I also think it is more a comment on Harry, OotP, and Occlumency lessons. In the end of that book Harry kicked Voldemort out despite his failure at Occlumency lessons. > Jen: > Oh, and I expect that Scotland will turn out to be the biggest > offender against the Statute of Secrecy as a JKR joke. zgirnius: I was SOOO sure of that. That Scottish witch, Jo Ann Rowling, has exposed the secrets of the Wizarding World to hundreds of millions of Muggles! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 17:23:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:23:18 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170316 Alla wrote: > > Yes, tricky, not sure about expensive, but hard to make indeed. That all goes to what I mentioned before - I certainly believe JKR made it hard for her werewolves to get by, especially those who want to be society members. The difference is I believe that JKR IS putting the burden on society eventually, not on werewolves. In a sense that of course they have to want to get medication and be careful on full moon, but society will have to help them. Hopefully. > Carol responds: Your remark about JKR's putting the burden on society is interesting. Can you clarify? Shouldn't part of the responsibility (for werewolves who want to be part of society) be on the werewolves themselves? Are you saying that "society" should educate both werewolves and the general population and then provide both career opportunities and Wolfsbane Potion to make them safe? But then wouldn't it still be the werewolf's responsibility to take it, with employers and husbands or wives stepping in as enforcers, to make sure that they took the potion and were safe? Should there be a place for werewolves to go on full-moon nights and any who don't go there would be considered criminals because they're deliberately endangering society? And what about those who refuse to take advantage of the potion, which I assume should be made available free (werewolf socialism)? What is the ideal solution, and why should the burden be on society and not on the werewolves themselves when they're the ones who present the danger? And by "society," do you mean the MoM? (If that's what JKR thinks, she's certainly not an anarchist.) Or the general public, especially parents who fear for their children's safety? BTW, I keep forgetting to mention that we always think of werewolves as transforming at night, but sometimes the full moon appears in the daytime, so if a werewolf transforms the second the moon rises (PoA to the contrary), they would sometimes be a danger in the daytime, too. (I don't know how folklore deals with the astronomical fact of daylight full moons, but maybe someone can enlighten me.) > Alla: > > I think it is hinted by Lupin's grey hair and shubby appearance that it victimises his host as well, if not to the same degree and examples were given of people with RL who do seek out their victims. Carol: Certainly, Lupin is a victim, too--a victim of Fenrir Greyback. But it's a vicious circle since the victim becomes a predator unless he (or "society") takes precautions. I think that Lupin's prematurely grey hair and lined face are meant to show the intensity of his mental and physical pain when he transforms without Wolfsbane Potion and is not allowed to bite anybody. (He bites himself before the Marauders "rescue" him, at which point the danger passes to the residents of Hogsmeade and any student or staff member unfortunate enough to be on Hogwarts grounds.) His shabbiness probably results from transforming in a particular set of robes. Evidently, he's too poor to buy self-mending robes or even a second set of clothes (and doesn't know any "householdy" spells for repairing them). > Alla: > > Yeah, it does, but that is because even when werewolf non medicated, I see hints of something in JKR world, like with Lupin, Sirius manages to restrain him even when he is not medicated. Carol: But Sirius Black doesn't restrain Lupin in PoA. He manages to drive him off but he gets bitten in the process. "They were locked, jaw to jaw, claws ripping at each other" (PoA Am. ed. 381) and after the werewolf runs off, "Black [in Padfoot form] was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle and back" (381). Evidently, it took both Prongs and Padfoot (with Wormtail along for the ride) to restrain him, and only running free (endangering the Hogsmeade populace) relieved his suffering. Wolfsbane, however far from ideal, is much better, but it's Lupin's responsibility to take it. (Snape, up until the Shrieking Shack incident, acts as enforcer, apparently.) But no one, not even Black, is 100 % safe from werewolf!Lupin--except that the Animagus form protects him against contamination. Alla: > > Hmmmm, I would like to make a bet that the guy whom JKR called the founder of *pureblood supremacy*, was just that and Voldemort did not corrupt the Slytherin House but was the product of this ideology Carol: How is Voldemort a product of Slytherin ideology? He was already torturing children (and lying and stealing and controlling snakes) before he even knew that he was a wizard, and, being a Half-Blood, he can't really believe in pureblood supremacy, however much he hates his Muggle heritage. Slytherin ideology may have given form and direction to Tom Riddle's hatred, and being the Heir of Slytherin was a source of pride to him, but surely he would have been a sociopath no matter which hous e was Sorted into. He merely uses the pureblood supremacy ethic to recruit Purebloods to become Death Eaters. Half-Bloods would, I think require some other incentive. But in any case, he's using the pureblood ideology for his own purposes, including but not restricted to recruiting DEs and "carrying on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Carol, who thinks that "discrimination" against werewolves in the sense of treating them differently from other wizards is inevitable and necessary until a cure is found and the condition ceases to exist From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jun 15 17:27:51 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:27:51 -0000 Subject: Some canon related WOMBAT wonderings/ some questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170317 > > Jen: > > Oh, and I expect that Scotland will turn out to be the biggest > > offender against the Statute of Secrecy as a JKR joke. > > zgirnius: > I was SOOO sure of that. That Scottish witch, Jo Ann Rowling, has > exposed the secrets of the Wizarding World to hundreds of millions of > Muggles! > Hickengruendler: This is actually mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and where to find the, It says that Nessie (a kelpie) and the Yeti make Scotland respectively Tibet the most serious offenders against the Statute of Secrecy. It never says whether Scotland is worse than Tibet, but I took that as a hint that the statement is true. From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 15 17:39:48 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:39:48 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: <380-220076515143716812@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170318 > Magpie: > But I think what that proves is that wynnleaf is using a difference > analogy when she brings up child predators. You're talking about > what's going inside the person/werewolf and saying (correctly) that > a sexual predator is a person and therefore in control of his own > will, who chooses to give into his own bad compulsion. He is > responsible for his actions in a way that Lupin is not responsible > for his actions when he is transformed without taking wolfsbane > (and Greyback is more responsible because when in human > form he has chosen to do these things and set things up so that he > will get the results he wants as a werewolf). Dana: What I was trying to say, and you seemed to be missing the details of the difference, is that a sexual predator is like that by choice. Sexual predator get off on their fantasies and they start to live in that fantasy so much that they want that fantasy to come alive, they want to make it to become reality and they make consious choices to make it so. Most of them specifically choose types of victims that fit within their fantasy pattern and their fantasy increases and becomes bolder, the more they get a way with their offenses. Although LV is not a sexual predator his fantasies about being the most powerful wizard that ever existed is driving his actions just as him wanting to be immortal. It is still a choice that he made and he doesn't care what he has to do to make that fantasy a reality. Lupin is indeed not responsible for his actions as a werewolf because his human self is no longer there to control any type of instinct that the werewolf part represents, he has no choices when he is in his werewolf form, he can't say well I'm not going to act as a werewolf tonight, at least not without the potion, that is why it is emphasized that he keeps his human mind if he takes it and that he bit and scratched himself when he was young in the absence of others to bite. He is only responsible for his actions as a human and if he wants to prevent his werewolf self to bite or kill anyone then his HUMAN side has to take that responsibility and take actions to prevent himself from coming within striking range of anyone. Just as a person infected with AIDS has to make a conscious decision to not want to infect others but he still remains infectious. That does not go away just because the person has taken responsibility. He can't control the virus in itself just his own life-style and the responsibility coming with it and he too in case of accidents can forget he still is infectious as it is not just transmitted through sexual intercourse. In case of sex offenders their human self is what makes them do the things they want to do. It is not merely human weakness but actually the strong urges of wanting to act upon these fantasies that drive them forward and gives them power over their victims. They know it is wrong, that is why most of them kill their victim, so them not being able to tell what is done to them, will not prevent the predator to do it again and again. And many of them become very cleaver and manipulative not only on how to get their victim but also to avoid capitation. Lupin's werewolf part has no capability of planning his actions, it is just an instinctive drive, like that of a real wolf that hunts his prey to survive, to eat and the werewolf will bite or kill anyone that crosses his path. His strikes will be indiscriminately, without preferences or prejudice of what kind of victim he is dealing with. The instinct is one of survival not just to eat but to exist. A sexual predator however can exist and survive without ever having to do anything; it is only the fantasy that he keeps alive with acting on it and it will die with him no matter how many victims he makes. Lupin himself as a human also does not have to do anything to survive or to eat but if no werewolf ever bites anyone then the species becomes extinct (if AIDS is not able to spread it becomes extinct in the same way). It is not the human form that drives the action. The human is just the carrier. Magpie: > Wynnleaf, I thought, was not talking about judging the person but *the danger to other people* that makes them nervous about being > near the person. And there it seems to me it's a perfectly good analogy--if an obviously limited and imperfect one. Because unlike other diseases, this is one that puts other people in grave danger if a slight mistake is made on someone's part. Dana: I think you mean Betsy as Wynnleaf only commented on the prowling bit which werewolves actually do not do (except Greyback because he is driving by other things then just his werewolf instinct) they just hunt like a real animal hunts. They will not prowl until the right victim crosses their path they will hunt anyone that crosses their path. Lupin does not posse a treat in his human form so it is actually an overreaction to be nervous when you are near him. You do not want to leave your kids in the hands of any sexual predator under any circumstance because these people actually do not want to see they are doing wrong because their fantasy gives them so much pleasure and it is much more important to them then doing the right thing. You do not want to join up with the DE because there is no way out if you change you mind. LV made the rule that you can come in but you can never leave because leaving his reign makes him look weak. So his fantasy of ultimate power is driving him to have total control over other peoples will and choices and that is what these kinds of predators do. And before everybody jumps all over me no Lupin did not enjoy going out and create victims when he was young, he had fun with his friends who made the transformations bearable and something to enjoy instead of feared. They did not laugh because Lupin almost got to a person but laughed because they thought they had control enough and got away with it. The analogy is not perfectly good in my opinion because of the simple fact that people with disease and thus Lupin have no choice to turn there disease off on the basis of it being wrong to harm another human being, they can try the best they can to avoid it, while a sexual predator would not be a sexual predator if he would chose the right thing to do. People react to everything they do not know and diseases are one of them and people not wanting to have a sexual predator in their midst are actually right especially if they have kids but people who state that someone with AIDS or any other type of disease has to move if they live next to them are wrong. Knowledge on how and when someone is infectious can empower you to prevent getting infected yourself even in case of Lupin (and how his friends got around him posing a danger to them and no I'm not suggesting that everyone will just have to become an animagus but I'm just saying that knowledge can indeed prevent the danger a werewolf could pose) but knowledge about sexual predators will never make you able to be safe from them if you are their next chosen victim, just like the WW can never be safe from LV because you will never know what he will think off next to reach his self-set goals. JMHO Dana From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 17:40:42 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:40:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elves and freedom In-Reply-To: <19092601.1181924989216.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <19092601.1181924989216.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8ee758b40706151040ie89be99hbcd266c3f3575867@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170319 > > Bart: > > House elves definitely appear to be capable of love, and the ideal > situation for a house elf appears to be to serve someone they love, and who > loves them back. montims: however, if they were also paid, and accorded mutual respect by the WW in general, the situation would be preferable IMO... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 15 18:05:19 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:05:19 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170320 > lizzyben: > This is an interesting perspective, and it does make a lot of > sense. So, Rowling wasn't talking about the way society perceives > his disability, but the way Lupin himself does? I tried to find the > full quote to get some context - > > "Professor Lupin, who appears in the third book, is one of my > favourite characters. He's a damaged person, literally and > metaphorically. I think it's important for children to know that > adults, too, have their problems, that they struggle. *His being a > werewolf is a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and > disability*. ... I almost always have complete histories for my > characters. If I put all that detail in, each book would be the size > of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but I do have to be careful that I > don't just assume that the reader knows as much as I do. Sirius > Black is a good example. I have a whole childhood worked out for > him. The readers don't need to know that but I do." Dana: Actually it is two folded Lupin himself dealing with his problem and the way people react to that problem as the quote also points out by the additation of this *His being a werewolf is a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability*. Many people will call the disease they are dealing with a monster raging inside them or find themself grotesk if their body is deformed because of their disease. Lupin calling himself a fully fletched monster emphezises in my opinion the bitterness he feels about what he is and his behavoir as a human in trying to compensate to me not only indicates how much he actually hates it but his fear to not be seen like anything else then just that and from the reaction we have seen in this topic alone he is actually right isn't he. JMHO Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 18:42:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:42:49 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: <5614883.1181923149254.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170321 Bart wrote: > As far as how many horcruxes Morty has left, well, the ring and diary are destroyed. There is the locket, which may or may not have destroyed. And, let's not forget, there's whatever horcrux that contained the piece of his soul now residing in his body. That's 2 destroyed, one maybe destroyed, and one used up. That leaves three more. Assuming that JKR can count, which is NOT a good assumption... Carol responds: I agree that assuming JKR can count is not necessarily a valid assumption. :-) But I don't understand your reasoning here. What do you mean by "whatever Horcrux contained the piec of his soul now residing in his body"? That was the main soul piece, the one that retained his personality when he was Vaporized, "less than the meanest ghost." It was never a soul bit. It's the part of him that the Horcruxes anchor to the earth. I also see no evidence that a Horcrux is "used up" when Voldies' body is destroyed. Even one remaining Horcrux would be sufficient to anchor it to the earth (keep it from going beyond the Veil, IOW, prevent him from dying even though his body is destroyed). So, by my count (assuming that Harry isn't a Horcrux), we have two destroyed (the ring and the diary), one stolen but probably still intact (the unopenable locket), one known but unlocated (the cup), one unidentified and unlocated ("something from Ravenclaw or Gryffindor), and one possibly misidentified but easily located if it a real Horcrux (Nagini). So my count is the same as Harry's: two done and four to go. Neither Harry nor Dumbledore seems to think that a Horcrux has been "used up." Carol, who really hopes that Harry's count is correct since the Horcruxes are (for me!) the least interesting element of the plot of DH and should be dispensed with as quickly as possible From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 16:00:38 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:00:38 -0000 Subject: Elves and freedom In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706150459q68b43788w643cd0135a5653bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170322 > > Sandy: > This, to me, is what makes the House Elf enslavement so puzzling. They > > have > > such powerful magic of their own that they don't need a wand to perform, > > yet > > they remain enslaved. I have to chalk it off to them *wanting* to be > > enslaved, as has been proven throughout the books. > > I wonder if somewhere in the past of House Elves, that they made a promise to serve Wizards and Witches in exchange for protection agaisnt somethng and as time went on, Wizards and Witches found they creatures more useful in many ways. The House Elves have confused me as well. They are in a way more like Faeries in terms of thier abitlities rather than true Elves form other fictions or maybe the House Elves are related to Santa's Elves. As how they are treated, I'm not sure how long the House Elves live but if you live a certain way for long time, you accept it and you don't know what to do if you suddenly have the ability to do things for yourself and on your own. david. From richardgomito at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 16:20:07 2007 From: richardgomito at hotmail.com (Alan Smithee...oh ok Rich Smith) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:20:07 -0000 Subject: A few questions... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170323 Hello everyone, sorry if this is an oft-discussed topic. I've gone back a little way and couldn't find any mention of it so I thought I would post. I was wondering if anyone knew how old Dumbledore is/was? The reason I ask is that the answer would seem to be very old indeed! He invents the Philosopher's Stone sometime before the start of the 20th Century and he is already an experienced teacher when Voldemort starts school, although one of the witches that examines Harry mentions that she also examined Dumbledore who could do things with a wand she had never seen before. The reason I think this has me confused is that Flamel is hundreds of years old so it stands to reason that Dumbledore is too as he invented the stone with him, so unless Flamel had another way of keeping himself alive an unnatural length of time I can not see Dumbledore being any younger than a few hundred years old! Any answers? My other question is what happened to Harrys grandparents? Where are they? Are both sets dead? If so how old were Harrys parents when they died? And my final question is how do house elves appararate within school grounds when we know this is impossible? Or is it not really apparating, but some other form of magical transportation that only elves can do? Hope someone can help ease my mind of these ridiculous questions! Rich From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 20:11:33 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:11:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170324 > lealess: > > Lupin is being passive-aggressive when Snape comes into the classroom > with the potion and tells him he should drink it directly. There's a > little power play going on, perhaps a hangover from Marauder days, > perhaps the result of having Harry in the room. Lanval: Let's have a look at that scene again. PoA, Scholastic HB, p.156: "Well,...yeah," said Harry. He was suddenly feeling a lot happier. "Professor Lupin, you know the dementors--" He was interrupted by a knock on the door. "Come in," called Lupin. The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes narrowing. "Ah, Severus," said Lupin, smiling. "Thanks very much. Could you leave it here on the desk for me?" Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry and Lupin. "I was just showing Harry my Grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly, pointing at the tank. "Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink that directly, Lupin." "Yes, I will," said Lupin. "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." "I should probably take some more tomorrow, Thanks very much, Severus." "Not at all," said Snape, but there was a look in his eye Harry didn't like. He backed out of the room, unsmiling and watchful. End quote. This is Halloween. By my count, if this is the week leading up to full moon, it will be the third time the moon is full since the beginning of Lupin's stay at Hogwarts. Let's assume he does need to take it more than once in that week. Let's say twice at minimum. That would make it about the fifth or sixth time (again, at minimum) that Snape has supplied Lupin with the potion. Never mind the fact that he (or DD)may have discussed the effects/dosage/instructions with Lupin before. Surely he knows by now that it must be drunk quickly. Why, WHY, couldn't Snape just set down the potion, as Lupin politely asked? Why press it even further, after Lupin states clearly, and without any annoyance, impatience, etc, that he *will* drink it directly? Which he does, I might add. "If you need more?" Please, Sevvie, don't make me laugh. Snape's the one who brews the stuff; he knows when the moon will be full -- who better to know exactly when, how often, and how much his "patient" will need, but the manufacturer and Potions Master Extraordinare, Severus Snape. Could it have to do with Harry being in the room (or anyone, for that matter)? I agree completely. What would amount to Snape's brightest possible moment of this particular year? maybe to see Lupin fired? Anything to make him squirm a bit about his secret will do, though. Even if it's only in front of the Potter boy. Because even he, it turns out, asks questions, which must be evaded. Then the next week, when Lupin's *out of order* -- how about a werewolf discussion in class? And an essay, just to make them delve a little deeper into the subject... Oh, I agree that there's a power play going on here. >Lealess: > Lupin is like some who know they have to take medicine to stay well, > but inwardly rebel against the whole idea of being ill in the first > place, or being controlled. I've known three manic-depressive > people. One of them encouraged me on an art project. One was > married to a second cousin. One was the girlfriend of a coworker. > They were great people to meet. Even so, they all stopped taking > their medicine at one point, because they were feeling fine, or > because they didn't like its side effects. Two attacked their > partners with knives while the partners were sleeping. One burned > down his studio, which was in the basement of an apartment building. > They all *knew* they could be dangerous if not medicated, and yet, > they chose to go off medication. > Lanval: Sad, but hardly comparable here. People diagnosed with a mental disorder, IMO, suffer from said disorder all the time, not just once a month, until they are (maybe, maybe never; often those are lifelong conditions) pronounced cured by some medical authority. Who can say to what extent the medication works? The human brain is a pretty complex thing. Perhaps the decision to stop taking the meds was caused by their condition as well, an impulse that could not be suppressed by the meds? Kind of like the surprising amount of suicides by teenagers/children who took drugs against depression. Clearly a result most people, including medical experts, had not expected. Lupin, on the other hand, is a perfectly sane, normal person with a normally functioning brain for 27 days of the moon cycle. I see no indication that he resents being forced to take medication, feels he doesn't need it, is sick of being sick, etc, which are usually the reasons people give when they go off their meds against orders. Lealess: > The shadow inside Lupin is quite real. Prejudice against him can't > be excused, if he's willing to control his actions. If he doesn't > accept responsibility for his own potentially harmful behavior, I > don't see how he can blame others, as I think he does. He tells > Harry that Snape told the Slytherins about him being a werewolf, > implying the blame for his firing lies with Snape. I don't blame > Snape. Given Lupin's blaise attitude towards taking the potion, and > the subsequent results, the students had the right to know and > protect themselves on the full moon. > > I don't really "blame" the manic-depressive people I knew, because I > haven't walked in their shoes and can't understand their > experiences. Still, I learned to be aware of signs of missed > medication. I think that's fair. > Lanval: Okay, again, where's the canon for Lupin being a habitual childish brat about taking his potion, and being willfully irresponsible? We see ONE instance, and as I've pointed out above, it's very much open to interpretation. I see no evidence that he had any intention of not drinking it. Calling that a blase attitude is going a bit far, I think, and mostly conjecture. As for the SS scene later, it's been discussed. I'm with those who think he *may* just be excused for that one lapse, given the unforeseeable and extraordinary, to say the least, cirumstances (where was Snape, anyway? Here he shows up in the afternoon in Lupin's office, one would think he would have done the same on that afternoon of the SS scene.... but no, he tells Lupin "I've just been to your office", and at that point it's evening, way past dinner), and that Snape obviously could have chosen to do the safe thing and left Lupin in the shack. Also, and I think this has become somewhat lost in the discussion: there are many werewolves in the WW, and as far as we know, only one who canonically is being supplied with the potion on a regular basis. Until HBP, we never hear of any attacks, which of course doesn't mean there aren't any. But clearly most werewolves take *some* sort of precaution, which clearly works -- because otherwise, as someone recently pointed out, the entire WW population would be either dead or werewolves by now. Lupin lived with this disease for many years without the potion, and so do other werewolves. Any room with solid doors (the Shack was no armored room, no dungeon -- the windows were boarded up, that was all) and a good lock will do. Preferably a silencing charm of some sort (or is that an entirely 'fannish' concept'?)Lupin's parents certainly didn't need a Weeping Willow to keep him under control. So what *if* Lupin had 'passive-aggressively' decided he'd rather not take Sevvie's smelly concoction, and submit to an agonizing transformation instead, just for fun and because he hates being told what to do? Would he have been stupid (career-destroyingly, friendship-with-DD-destroyingly, murderously stupid!) enough to just lie in bed, waiting for the moon to come out? Or, perhaps, he would have retired to the Shrieking Shack, the dungeons, *any* safe room, whatever, and locked himself in, as he has likely done all his adult life. Until he came to Hogwarts, where Snape supplied him with the potion, brewed on DD's orders. This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good deal out of proportion. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jun 15 20:18:10 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:18:10 -0000 Subject: A few questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alan Smithee...oh ok Rich Smith" wrote: > > Hello everyone, sorry if this is an oft-discussed topic. I've gone back > a little way and couldn't find any mention of it so I thought I would > post. I was wondering if anyone knew how old Dumbledore is/was? The reason I ask is that the answer would seem to be very old indeed! He invents the Philosopher's Stone sometime before the start of the 20th > Century and he is already an experienced teacher when Voldemort starts > school, although one of the witches that examines Harry mentions that > she also examined Dumbledore who could do things with a wand she had > never seen before. The reason I think this has me confused is that Flamel is hundreds of years old so it stands to reason that Dumbledore is too as he invented the stone with him, so unless Flamel had another way of keeping himself alive an unnatural length of time I can not see Dumbledore being any younger than a few hundred years old! Any answers? Hickengruendler: According to an interview given by JKR, Dumbledore is around 150. He did not invent the Philosopher's Stone with Flamel. They were friends and alchemical partners, but nowhere is it said that Dumbledore helped creating the stone. He just helped hiding it. Rich: > My other question is what happened to Harrys grandparents? Where are they? Are both sets dead? If so how old were Harrys parents when they died? What language is this post in? English French Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch German Danish Swedish Norwegian Finnish Czech Hungarian Polish Romanian Croatian Serbian Gaelic Russian Arabic Greek Hebrew Turkish Japanese Korean Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Simplified) Hickengruendler: All dead. JKR said, she wanted Harry to grow up alone, therefore she disposed of all his grandparents before the story began. She said they died normal deaths, no Death Eater attacks or something. James and Lily were around 22, when they died, so very young. Rich: > And my final question is how do house elves appararate within school grounds when we know this is impossible? Or is it not really apparating, but some other form of magical transportation that only elves can do? Hope someone can help ease my mind of these ridiculous questions! Hickengruendler: They can, because they have different powers than the wizards, according to JKR. Some think this was a mistake from her, and she explaine dit away with this statement, but for me it does make sense, since the House-Elves have to do all the work/ cleaning the Common Rooms, so it would make sense that they can apparate. By the way: www.accio-quote.org and www.jkrowling.com are two very good places to look for answers like this. The first one is an archive, where fans have collected all of JKR's statements about the series (that they found), the second one is JKR's website, where she answered a few of these questions. Hickengruendler From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 20:57:21 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:57:21 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170326 > Lanval, citing PoA: > The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which > was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black > eyes narrowing. zgirnius: I don't understand your reading of this scene. Why do you think Snape's eyes narrow? I took it as a surprised reaction to Harry's presence. If I am right, he was expecting to be bringing the potion to Lupin at a time when Lupin is alone. > Lanval: > Why, WHY, couldn't Snape just set down the potion, as Lupin politely > asked? Why press it even further, after Lupin states clearly, and > without any annoyance, impatience, etc, that he *will* drink it > directly? zgirnius: Nerves on Snape's part are another possible explanation. He may prefer to SEE Lupin drink the stuff. He brings it in and hopes Lupin will drink it, but Lupin instead asks him to put it down on the desk. Hence the reminder that it needs to be drunk directly. > Lanval: > Even if it's only in front of the Potter boy. Because > even he, it turns out, asks questions, which must be evaded. zgirnius: A smoking potion that Harry suspected of being a poison is already going to lead to questions. I don't find anything particularly suggestive in the rest of the dialogue. Lupin may need more of the potion...what is more suspicious about that than the simple presence pf the smoking potion and Lupin's need to take it? > Lanval: > Then the next week, when Lupin's *out of order* -- how about a > werewolf discussion in class? And an essay, just to make them delve > a little deeper into the subject... > > Oh, I agree that there's a power play going on here. zgirnius: A week later, yes. > Lanval: > Okay, again, where's the canon for Lupin being a habitual childish > brat about taking his potion, and being willfully irresponsible? We > see ONE instance, and as I've pointed out above, it's very much open > to interpretation. zgirnius: We se the incident just cited by you upthread, and another, on a full moon night, when he does not take the potion at all, and seems to forget that he even needs to, even after he is reminded of it. > Lanval: Here he shows up in the afternoon in > Lupin's office, one would think he would have done the same on that > afternoon of the SS scene.... but no, he tells Lupin "I've just been > to your office", and at that point it's evening, way past dinner), zgirnius: The afternoon visit was during a Hogsmeade visit, so over a weekend. The SS events occur on a weekday during final exams. Snape and/or Lupin may be busy in the afternoon on a weekday, administering a test, or what have you. Further, according to Snape, the reason he brought a goblet to Lupin's office in the first place that evening was that *Lupin* forgot to take it earlier. It could also be that this was the reason Snape brought the potion on Halloween, by the way, which would also explain Snape's feeling that he does need to remind Lupin of this stuff, despite any past experiences they may have had. To me it makes much more sense that it isd Lupin's responsibility to find Snape and get his potion, than that Snape is supposed to always bring it to him. It is, after all, Lupin who is ill. > Lanval: > and that Snape obviously could have chosen to do the safe thing and > left Lupin in the shack. zgirnius: Huh? Snape's going in himself, based on what he knew at the moment he entered the tunnel, was imperative. Lupin was in there with at least Harry (the cloak Snape found at the Willow would have indicated that to Snape). Once in there, he had no say, since he was knocked out by the Trio. > Lanval: > So what *if* Lupin had 'passive-aggressively' decided he'd rather > not take Sevvie's smelly concoction, and submit to an agonizing > transformation instead, just for fun and because he hates being > told what to do? zgirnius: I don't doubt that he understands the need to take the potion - his discussion of it with Harry in HBP suggests as much. But I do think he has procrastinated with it, likely on both occasions that we are shown, and this was a factor in the events at the end of PoA. > Lanval: > Would he have been stupid (career-destroyingly, > friendship-with-DD-destroyingly, murderously stupid!) enough to just > lie in bed, waiting for the moon to come out? Or, perhaps, he would > have retired to the Shrieking Shack, the dungeons, *any* safe room, > whatever, and locked himself in, as he has likely done all his adult > life. zgirnius: This is not a hypothetical; in one instance, we know what he would do under those circumstances. The night of the Shack incident, he did NOT take the potion. He was later reminded of the fact that he did not take the potion (Snape mentions it), and he still LEFT the Shack. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 15 21:37:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:37:19 -0000 Subject: A few questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alan Smithee...oh ok Rich Smith" wrote: > > Hello everyone, sorry if this is an oft-discussed topic. I've gone back > a little way and couldn't find any mention of it so I thought I would > post. I was wondering if anyone knew how old Dumbledore is/was? The reason I ask is that the answer would seem to be very old indeed! He invents the Philosopher's Stone sometime before the start of the 20th > Century and he is already an experienced teacher when Voldemort starts > school, although one of the witches that examines Harry mentions that > she also examined Dumbledore who could do things with a wand she had > never seen before. The reason I think this has me confused is that Flamel is hundreds of years old so it stands to reason that Dumbledore is too as he invented the stone with him, so unless Flamel had another way of keeping himself alive an unnatural length of time I can not see Dumbledore being any younger than a few hundred years old! Any answers? Geoff: I think there is a measure of confusion here. Dumbledore did NOT invent the Philosopher's Stone and neither did Nicolas Flamel. What does canon say about this? First, information on the Frog Cards tells us that: "Professor Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel." (PS "The Journey from Platfrom Nine and Three-Quarters" p.77 UK edition) Second, Hermione's quote from the book which she had out from the library for a 'bit of light reading': "The ancient study of alchemy is concerned with making the Philosopher's Stone, a legendary substance with astonishing powers..... ...There have been many reports of the Philosopher's Stone over the centuries but the only Stone currently in existence belongs to Mr. Nicolas Flamel, the noted alchemist and opera-lover....." (PS "Nicolas Flamel" p.161 UK edition) I think this makes it quite clear that our two friends were not involved with invention but with research and study of the Stone, of which a number appeared to have been in circulation over a long period. Also, the connection with Flamel does not make Dumbledore incredibly old. You yourself have reminded us about Professor Marchbanks: '"I doubt it," shouted tiny Professor Marchbanks, "not if Dumbledore doesn't want to be found! I should know... examined him personally in Transfiguration and Charms when he did NEWTs... did things with a wand I'd never seen before."' OOTP "OWLs" p.627 UK edition) ...while Hickengruendler has pointed us to JKR's remarks on the subject. I believe that Dumbledore made the acquaintance of Flamel as a young man and they became friends and research colleagues over the years which followed. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 21:46:40 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:46:40 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: <5614883.1181923149254.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170328 > Bart: > I suspect that many have taken JKR a mite too literally in terms of Horcruxes. Murder rends the soul, but it doesn't destroy a piece of it; With a horcrux, you complete the process, tearing the piece of soul completely off, to preserve it. > Now, as far as him even considering creating a new Horcrux in killing Harry, I doubt it strongly. My logic is that Morty had decades to make his Horcruxes, and he was already well on his way to conquering the WW. I do not believe he would have even STARTED without having created all 7 horcuxes in advance, and, given the power of the number "7", he would have had no plans to create more. Similarly, I don't think he would make a living being a horcrux, because living beings have a nasty habit of dying. > > As far as how many horcruxes Morty has left, well, the ring and diary are destroyed. There is the locket, which may or may not have destroyed. And, let's not forget, there's whatever horcrux that contained the piece of his soul now residing in his body. That's 2 destroyed, one maybe destroyed, and one used up. That leaves three more. Assuming that JKR can count, which is NOT a good assumption... > > Bart > JW: I can't completely agree with Bart. JKR has said that horcruxes do NOT get used up. I compare a horcrux to an anchor, which maintains a ship's position, stops it from floating away, but can be used time and time again. IOW, the soul-piece that is in LV's current body is the soul-piece from his original body, whioh hung around as Vapor! Mort for over 13 years because the horcruxes kept it grounded. Further, I find no canonic reason to conclude that all horcruxes were made at about the same time. DD surmised that LV's party with the Potters would be used to create the last horcrux. Events did not allow that to happen. Has it happened since? Or not at all? However, I share Bart's skepticism over the use of living beings. A living horcrux would not be an appropriate foundation for a thousand- year reich. Under this logic, LV's snake would NOT be a horcrux. And I repeat what I wrote a few days ago: IMO an accidental Harry- crux is plausible but unlikely. For those keeping score, I give it a 20% probability, equivalent to 4:1 odds AGAINST it. So what DO we have? By my count, the Mangy 7 might comprise: Ring, diary, LV hisself (not as a horcrux, but he is one of the seven pieces, the other six being horcruxes) are a certain 3. Cup and locket have high probabilities - at least 80% each, equivalent to 4:1 odds in FAVOR of each, IMO. IF we discount the snake, we might consider relics from Ravenclaw (perhaps her missing wand) and Griffindor (perhaps the old blood-stained axe from the RoR, or maybe a certain invisibility cloak). I am flexible as to the specific identity of the last two - valid ideas have been presented at various times, and I promise to research them. However, I admire the symmetry represented by including all 4 founders in the mix. I am the father of 4 boys, 18 thru 27. I wish Bart (a father and GRANDfather) and all our peers a happy father's day weekend. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 15 22:47:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:47:27 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170329 Lanval: > > This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended > solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good > deal out of proportion. > Pippin: Surprisingly, I agree :) According to Draco, Hagrid and Filch, it's at least plausible that there are werewolves living in the Forbidden Forest. Therefore, anyone who is on the grounds during full moon is in some danger of a werewolf attack, regardless of whether there are werewolf students or teachers. It is this, I think, which makes the unwillingness to accept Lupin as a student or teacher an example of prejudice rather than an overreaction to a real danger. If Lupin is escorted off the grounds during his transformations, as he was in his student days, or if he is given his potion, the students do not face any additional danger from werewolves. We see Snape monitoring whether Lupin took his potion or not. The danger only arose because Lupin missed his potion *and* Snape was incapacitated. A similarly dangerous situation could arise if students went into the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid and Hagrid got hurt. Where Lupin was at fault, IMO, is that he knew Snape was incapacitated but he didn't do anything to make sure that the three students who were with him were safe before he transformed. It's true that Sirius was there, but so was Pettigrew, a Death Eater blamed for killing twelve people. It would be a bit of a tall order for Sirius to control a werewolf and Pettigrew as well, and in fact he couldn't manage it. That Lupin may have forgotten his condition would not excuse him, IMO. We accept that alcoholics have a disease which keeps them from controlling their drinking, but would they be allowed to plead that the pressure they were under made them forget they were alcoholic if their drunkenness causes an accident? Pippin From random832 at fastmail.us Fri Jun 15 22:50:05 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:50:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: <5614883.1181923149254.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <5614883.1181923149254.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1B128277-0721-4586-961B-719181466164@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 170330 > Bart: > As far as how many horcruxes Morty has left, well, the ring and > diary are destroyed. There is the locket, which may or may not have > destroyed. And, let's not forget, there's whatever horcrux that > contained the piece of his soul now residing in his body. That's 2 > destroyed, one maybe destroyed, and one used up. That leaves three > more. Assuming that JKR can count, which is NOT a good assumption... Random832 It assumes that Dumbledore was correct. There's no reason seven _splits_ (and thus by implication eight pieces incl. what's left in his body) doesn't carry the magical significance of 'seven' rather than seven total pieces. (This came up fairly recently, see "Six Horcruxes - is Dumbledore right?" --Random832 (quote from earlier thread for convenience) > Miles: > In my opinion this dialogue is at least not clear. I really have > problems to > believe Tom and Slughorn speak about six Horcruxes without > mentioning the > word "six" once. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 22:55:09 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:55:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170331 > zgirnius: > I don't understand your reading of this scene. Why do you think > Snape's eyes narrow? I took it as a surprised reaction to Harry's > presence. If I am right, he was expecting to be bringing the potion > to Lupin at a time when Lupin is alone. > Lanval: Of course he was surprised to see Harry. I never read it as something Snape had planned. But when he found him there, why not make things a little uncomfortable for Lupin? > > Lanval: > > Why, WHY, couldn't Snape just set down the potion, as Lupin > politely > > asked? Why press it even further, after Lupin states clearly, and > > without any annoyance, impatience, etc, that he *will* drink it > > directly? > > zgirnius: > Nerves on Snape's part are another possible explanation. He may > prefer to SEE Lupin drink the stuff. He brings it in and hopes Lupin > will drink it, but Lupin instead asks him to put it down on the desk. > Hence the reminder that it needs to be drunk directly. > Lanval: Which Lupin would know by now. Snape's nerves? Possible; I doubt it very much though. In the Shack, I didn't notice Snape being overly worried about the forgotten potion, even though it IS night, it IS full moon, and he knows Lupin forgot to take the potion. But what does Snape do, urge Lupin to stay put in the shack while he takes Sirius and the kids up to the castle? Bring the potion along? No. He just gloats at having caught him helping Black. So much for Sevvie's nerves. > zgirnius: > A smoking potion that Harry suspected of being a poison is already > going to lead to questions. I don't find anything particularly > suggestive in the rest of the dialogue. Lupin may need more of the > potion...what is more suspicious about that than the simple presence > pf the smoking potion and Lupin's need to take it? > Lanval: He could have, for example, told Lupin that he needed to see him in his office, the moment he noticed Harry. That way all Harry would have seen is Snape, Potions Master, carrying around a steaming potion. You're right, it may still have aroused Harry's interest, but it seems to me that Snape does draw the matter out -- and means to. He could have said he brought the medicine for Lupin's sickly Grindylow? :) My point is that, had Snape wanted to hide the eyebrow-raising fact from Harry that the potion was for Lupin, and that there clearly was something urgent about it, he could have done so. Come on, this is Severus Snape, double-triple-whatever agent. Give him some credit. :) Keeping Lupin's dark secret safe was in Lupin's and DD's interest, not in Snape's. And I'm not trying to put some evil Snape Scheme into this scene, really, or insisting my reading of it is the only one possible; it was merely a reaction to the former poster's statement about Lupin acting all passive-aggressive and doing a power play, and Snape being the innocent one with the pure motive. IMO it can be interpreted in many ways, and this is one of them.. > zgirnius: > We se the incident just cited by you upthread, and another, on a full > moon night, when he does not take the potion at all, and seems to > forget that he even needs to, even after he is reminded of it. Lanval: But that was under different circumstances. My beef was with Lupin having a bad attitude all year about taking his meds. IMP, that's not at all what caused him to forget the potion the night of the Shack. > zgirnius: > The afternoon visit was during a Hogsmeade visit, so over a weekend. > The SS events occur on a weekday during final exams. Snape and/or > Lupin may be busy in the afternoon on a weekday, administering a > test, or what have you. Lanval: True. > > Further, according to Snape, the reason he brought a goblet to > Lupin's office in the first place that evening was that *Lupin* > forgot to take it earlier. It could also be that this was the reason > Snape brought the potion on Halloween, by the way, which would also > explain Snape's feeling that he does need to remind Lupin of this > stuff, despite any past experiences they may have had. > > To me it makes much more sense that it isd Lupin's responsibility to > find Snape and get his potion, than that Snape is supposed to always > bring it to him. It is, after all, Lupin who is ill. Lanval: But since we don't *know* what the arrangement was, I'll just have to go with what I deduce from the earlier scene -- namely that Snape had agreed to bring it when it was done. Lupin shows no surprise at seeing Snape, and Snape says nothing about having waited for Lupin in vain. > zgirnius: > Huh? Snape's going in himself, based on what he knew at the moment he > entered the tunnel, was imperative. Lupin was in there with at least > Harry (the cloak Snape found at the Willow would have indicated that > to Snape). Once in there, he had no say, since he was knocked out by > the Trio. > Lanval: Sorry, I expressed myself badly. What I meant is when Snape says "I'll drag the werewolf". Of course this never comes to pass. But had things gone according to Snape's plan he would have 'dragged' Lupin to the castle, either because he forgot in his triumph about this tiny matter of the transformation which is bound to happen, or because he thinks he can deal with him. > zgirnius: > I don't doubt that he understands the need to take the potion - his > discussion of it with Harry in HBP suggests as much. But I do think > he has procrastinated with it, likely on both occasions that we are > shown, and this was a factor in the events at the end of PoA. > Lanval: Well, that's your reading and it's perfectly valid; mine is different. I see no evidence for procrastination in the first scene, and there's too much conflicting info for the second scene. For me at least. > > zgirnius: > This is not a hypothetical; in one instance, we know what he would do > under those circumstances. The night of the Shack incident, he did > NOT take the potion. He was later reminded of the fact that he did > not take the potion (Snape mentions it), and he still LEFT the Shack. Lanval: Yes. So did Sirius, so would Snape have done. Forgetfulness, due to extreme circumstances, for all of them, then? Though I do agree that Lupin, as the one posing the danger, and being an adult, bears more responsibility. However, had Snape dragged him, or forced him at wandpoint... I wonder, did Peter remember? From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jun 16 00:56:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:56:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4673353F.0@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170332 JW: > Further, I find no canonic reason to conclude that all horcruxes were > made at about the same time. DD surmised that LV's party with the > Potters would be used to create the last horcrux. Events did not > allow that to happen. Has it happened since? Or not at all? Bart: Given what we know of Morty's personality, I find it hard to believe that he would have started acting publicly until all the horcruxes were made. Bart From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Jun 16 00:55:18 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:55:18 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170333 > > Lanval, citing PoA: > > The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which > > was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black > > eyes narrowing. > > zgirnius: > I don't understand your reading of this scene. Why do you think > Snape's eyes narrow? I took it as a surprised reaction to Harry's > presence. If I am right, he was expecting to be bringing the potion > to Lupin at a time when Lupin is alone. Dungrollin: Absolutely. (This is why I *love* PoA!) Moreover, he's probably got a lot of jumbled up thoughts rushing through his head, what he remembers of the marauders (who he hated) and what he knows of Harry (who he hates) and what he knows specifically this year about adult Lupin (who he hates). He's a suspicious man. Great, he thinks, the enemy from my schooldays who tried to kill me, who is an old friend of the deranged killer who is currently on the loose (who is also an enemy from my schooldays and who also tried to kill me), the teacher who humiliated me in front of his entire class on his first lesson, is getting *pally with Potter*. We've been told not to let Potter know that it was Black who betrayed his parents, what's Lupin chatting about? > > Lanval: > > Why, WHY, couldn't Snape just set down the potion, as Lupin > politely > > asked? Why press it even further, after Lupin states clearly, and > > without any annoyance, impatience, etc, that he *will* drink it > > directly? Dungrollin: Because his mind's buzzing with suspicions. He's playing for time. > > Lanval: > > Even if it's only in front of the Potter boy. Because > > even he, it turns out, asks questions, which must be evaded. > > zgirnius: > A smoking potion that Harry suspected of being a poison is already > going to lead to questions. I don't find anything particularly > suggestive in the rest of the dialogue. Lupin may need more of the > potion...what is more suspicious about that than the simple presence > pf the smoking potion and Lupin's need to take it? Dungrollin: Nah. I don't think he's trying to drop any hints to Harry at this point. > > Lanval: > > Then the next week, when Lupin's *out of order* -- how about a > > werewolf discussion in class? And an essay, just to make them delve > > a little deeper into the subject... Dungrollin: See, I see that as revenge for the Neville Boggart stunt in chapter 7. They're just falling straight back into their old schooldays pattern, Snape and Lupin, but they're adults and teachers now, so the puerile nature of their ridiculous battles is all hidden under this layer of repression. Lupin carries it off a lot more calmly than Snape, though he pretends that he's risen above it in the shrieking shack whereas he's really just as bad as Snape. Snape, on the other hand, spends much of PoA furious, which is how I like him. I have to wonder whether Snape really thought any of the students would guess that Lupin was a werewolf. After all, he learned exactly the same stuff, and wrote exactly the same essay question for his O.W.L while he was at school with Lupin for five years, and *he* never guessed (score one Hermione). Nobody guessed except the marauders because they slept in the same dormitory. I think Snape set that essay just to make Lupin uncomfortable, because as soon as Lupin found out he told them that they didn't have to do it. If Snape had really wanted to screw Lupin, he'd have set the homework to have been handed in (to him rather than Lupin, as he in fact did) *before* their next lesson with Lupin, so that he wouldn't have the chance to find out about it until it was too late and the whole class had had to do it. Snape's a scheming bastard, he'd have checked when their next lesson was. As it was, Hermione was the only one who had already finished it. Lanval: > > Oh, I agree that there's a power play going on here. > > zgirnius: > A week later, yes. Dungrollin: No no no, it goes right the way through the novel. All the way from the glowering at the welcome feast, through Lupin's *highly amusing* suggestion of how Neville could make his boggart funny, and right the way up to Snape ultimately winning the petty mud-throwing war (well, he would, wouldn't he?) and "letting slip" that precious nugget of information after Sirius escapes. Snape *really* hates Lupin, and the course of PoA just confirms everything he thinks he knows. Snape is the ultimate ESE!Lupiner. He is *paranoid* about Lupin. The same night Harry talks to Lupin and Snape brings the potion is the Halloween feast, and harry notices Snape's eyes flickering towards Lupin more often than was natural. That is when Black breaks into the castle and slashes the Fat Lady's portrait because she won't let him into Gryffindor tower. The whole school sleeps in the great hall. Snape helps search the castle, and then tries to make Dumbledore see that Black must have had inside help to get into the castle. He's wrong, of course, but he's right that Lupin's withholding information, because Black *shouldn't* be able to get into the castle. Then we have Snape taking over Lupin's DADA class. Then Lupin is absent for Christmas dinner, and Snape confirms that he has made the potion for him again. Then Black gets all the way into Harry's dormitory, but got the wrong bed. How on earth could he have got hold of those passwords to the tower without inside help? It's impossible! Snape is *certain* that it was Lupin. I mean, who else could it *possibly* be? It's quite a reasonable surmise, actually. Does Snape find out that Lupin's teaching Harry how to conjure a patronus? That's a way of combating Dementors. Is Lupin, thinks he, perchance trying to help Harry get out of the school grounds? The very thing that Dumbledore had insisted must under no circumstances happen with Sirius Black on the loose, who has already managed to break into the castle twice? Then there's my favourite scene, which I covered in detail here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169386 In which Snape thinks he's finally got Lupin cornered (the air of supressed triumph), and Lupin manages to slither out of trouble *again*. It's really little wonder that by the time he follows Lupin to the Shrieking Shack Snape is frothing at the mouth. His concentrated loathing of Lupin is not because Lupin is a werewolf, but because Lupin is *the* werewolf that frightened the **** out of him sixteen years ago. It is notable that three years later, when, on the top of the Astronomy Tower he completely and utterly ignores Fenrir, who is described as "enraged". I find it interesting to compare Snape's interactions with Lupin with his interactions with Sirius in OotP. In OotP, Snape is the calm and collected one, and Sirius is incensed at the drop of a hat. Should that tell us something? But I still love PoA best. It's like she was making up for not having enough Snape in CoS. Dungrollin. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 03:35:10 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:35:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706152035m3f68cf35h613fc3f3c2e6c4c7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170334 Mike: Thanks to you, Jen, I've changed my position. I'm going with the simplest explanation is the best. Harry is not a Horcrux, but he is a repository of a piece of Voldy's soul. < I will be addressing points of Carol's, also found on this thread. Don't need to reference them, I know em by heart by now ;) > Debbie: Not wanting to quibble with such a well thought-out post, but I think that the notion that Harry is not a Horcrux here may be one of semantics. As I read the text, a horcrux is simply a repository of a piece of soul -- as you say. There's no reason to assume that Harry's scar has not encased the soul piece; otherwise, why did it not escape? Bart: Murder rends the soul, but it doesn't destroy a piece of it; otherwise horcruxes would be the rule rather than the exception, since it preserves the torn piece. Left to itself, the soul is repaired, albeit not perfectly (I used to know a man who was a sniper in Viet Nam. The experience certainly left his soul scarred, but he was not left a soulless monster). With a horcrux, you complete the process, tearing the piece of soul completely off, to preserve it. Debbie: I'll have to quibble with this, too. Slughorn states, "Killing rips the soul apart." Thus, any murder, with or without the intent to create a horcrux, splits the soul into separate pieces. A murderer who has not created horcruxes has the capacity for redemption because the pieces still reside in his body; he will be scarred, but the tear can be repaired. Creating a horcrux is so much worse because it forecloses the possibility of healing. JW: I share Bart's skepticism over the use of living beings. A living horcrux would not be an appropriate foundation for a thousand- year reich. Under this logic, LV's snake would NOT be a horcrux. Debbie: I agree with you, and yet I don't. Dumbledore said it was inadvisable "to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself," at the very moment that he was suggesting Nagini as a very likely horcrux candidate. To me, the real oddity in Dumbledore's suggestion is why, having surmised that Voldy set out to track down Ravenclaw and Gryffindor items, he would have opted for Nagini without having completed that mission. Either it's a clue that Harrycrux is not impossible, or there's a very unique reason why (like the diary, which served more than one purpose) for Nagini to be a horcrux, or both. The only rationale I can come up with for using Nagini is that the last time Voldy lost his body, he resorted to possession of animals, none of whom survived for long. Perhaps if Nagini holds a part of his soul, he can possess her without killing her. Unlike Harry, who as the embodiment of love is Voldemort's opposite so that possession is very painful for both, she does his bidding willingly, so that possession does not overwhelm and destroy her own life force. Furthermore, Nagini and Voldemort seem fond of one another. (Heh, this sounds like a Dark Marriage - yuk!) Mike: This is where the uniquness of events at GH come into play. The unblockable curse was not only blocked but rebounded onto the caster. The curse that leaves no mark, somehow leaves a cut on Harry's forehead. And one more unexplanable, never-happened-before thing occurs, the torn off soul piece lodges itself in Harry. Harry isn't a Horcrux, the piece wasn't bound by spell to do what it did, but nevertheless, that's what happened. Debbie: Are we certain that the AK caused the scar, or is this an assumption we're making based on vague references in the text? For example, PS/SS ch. 1: "Under a tuft of jet-black hair over his forehead they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning. '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.'" Why did Dumbledore cut McGonagall off like that? Maybe JKR didn't want to be too clear about what caused the scar. Several chapters later, Hagrid isn't any more illuminating: "Never wondered how you got that mark on yer forehead? That was no ordinary cut. That's what yet get when a powerful, evil curse touches yeh--" A ricocheting AK flinging a piece o' recently torn soul at baby Harry could be all the ingredients of a powerful evil curse. It seems more likely to me that Harry received the cut when he received Voldy's powers (and soul, in my view), not when the AK was initially deflected. Mike: A second possibility occurs to me. This soul piece went into Harry with the intention of *possessing* him. But Harry had "powers the Dark Lord knows not". The soul piece was captured by a stronger soul, Harry's soul, and Harry's soul now controls it. This would mean if and when Harry figures this out, and figures out how to consciously control this, he can do some real damage with it. Debbie: While I find it hard to believe that Voldy, in his moment of crisis, and expecting Harry to be dead, intended to possess him. Nevertheless, I like the rest of your thought so much I'd like to tweak it for my own use. ;-) Perhaps Voldy's evil soul piece was attracted to Harry on the "opposites attract" theory. Second, Harry's pure soul was able to capture the piece and entrap it. Third, and going with your premise that this isn't just an ordinary horcrux, Harry's soul-piece (or his scar, for you unbelievers) provides a real connection to Voldemort that both Harry and Voldy can feel. Dumbledore points out that Voldy was not aware when the diary was destroyed. Either Harry's has more life because he is a living thing, or his purity of heart has infused it with his own humanity. Mike: But Harry is still not a Horcrux. So this soul piece is not one of Voldy's anchors. And it will not help him once the rest of the pieces are freed from their Horcruxes. Debbie: I'm having trouble with your logic here. There's no evidence that this piece of Voldy's soul is dead; the scar connection strongly suggests that this piece is quite alive. Therefore, if the others are destroyed (including the piece that resides in Voldy's new body), Harry's piece would anchor him to life just as well as the others, and maybe much better, because it has coexisted with Harry for so long. Voldy has lost so much of his humanity, illustrated by his snakelike features. Could a Harrycrux restore that humanity? I know someone will ask how Harry could infuse Voldy's soul with love without his own soul becoming infected. This is Lily's doing. Harry's purity -- his ability to love -- is protected because of Lily's love and sacrifice. Mike astutely suggested that Harry could defeat Voldy, or at least do great damage, by harnessing the power his soul has over Voldy's. This is, in my view, the key to Harry's survival. If he harbors a piece of Voldy's soul, upon discovering this fact he will assume that he must sacrifice himself to defeat Voldy. However, there will be a better way. I have no idea what that better way might be, and I'm not going to speculate (at least not much) because I want to be surprised. But the locked room and the veil are two good bets here. Debbie who finished her first reading of HBP with only two convictions, one of which was Harrycrux, so she can't let go [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 05:24:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:24:18 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170335 Dungrollin wrote: > See, I see that as revenge for the Neville Boggart stunt in chapter 7. They're just falling straight back into their old schooldays pattern, Snape and Lupin, but they're adults and teachers now, so the puerile nature of their ridiculous battles is all hidden under this layer of repression. Lupin carries it off a lot more calmly than Snape, though he pretends that he's risen above it in the shrieking shack whereas he's really just as bad as Snape. Snape, on the other hand, spends much of PoA furious, which is how I like him. > I have to wonder whether Snape really thought any of the students would guess that Lupin was a werewolf. After all, he learned exactly the same stuff, and wrote exactly the same essay question for his O.W.L while he was at school with Lupin for five years, and *he* never guessed (score one Hermione). Nobody guessed except the marauders because they slept in the same dormitory. I think Snape set that essay just to make Lupin uncomfortable, because as soon as Lupin found out he told them that they didn't have to do it. If Snape had really wanted to screw Lupin, he'd have set the homework to have been handed in (to him rather than Lupin, as he in fact did) *before* their next lesson with Lupin, so that he wouldn't have the chance to find out about it until it was too late and the whole class had had to do it. Snape's a scheming bastard, he'd have checked when their next lesson was. As it was, Hermione was the only one who had already finished it. Carol responds: I think there's more going on here than power plays and schoolboy grudges. Lupin is hiding something, a Snape thinks he's trying to help Sirius Black get into the school to kill Harry. He also knows (without being *afraid* of him now that he's an adult and a DADA expert) that Lupin is very dangerous in and of himself. I think that Snape, who clearly deosn't trust Lupin, wouldn't put it past Lupin to refuse (or "forget") to drink his potion. Snape is also (IMO) very uncomfortable seeing the man he suspects (increasingly thoroughout the year, but even to some degree at this early point) of being the "murderer" Black's accomplice and friend becoming close to Harry. Snape, as usual, is protecting Harry, trying to keep him out of Hogsmeade and away from Black, and here's Lupin with Harry in his office. (Could he be telling Harry how to get past the Dementors, a Black did to escape from Azkaban)? As for the essay, although he seems to be bound by some sort of promise to Dumbledore not to reveal Lupin's secret (it's Lupin himself who reveals it by transforming later in the story), and an obligation to make the potion and make it perfectly (and, IMO, a self-imposed obligation to see that it's drunk), he also wants to be sure that the students can protect themselves should Lupin actually transform. Or, at the very least, that the one student he's sure will write the essay, Hermione, figures out what's causing Lupin to be "indisposed." In any case, as I've already pointed out in post #169699 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/169699 Snape's essay is by no means the same as the non-essay question on the DADA exam. To quote my own post: " [T]he question on the DADA exam is significantly different from the essay that Snape assigned. One is simply listing the five traits that differentiate a werewolf from a true wolf--characteristics that Severus had not yet had a chance to experience in person. There was no reason for him to associate a tufted tail or a differently shaped snout (OoP am. ed. 643) with Remus Lupin, whom he had seen going to the Shrieking Shack accompanied by Madam Pomfrey. We don't know when he saw that happen or how often it happened. It may have only happened once. Nor would Severus, bright though he undoubtedly is, would have necessarily associated a full-moon night with Remus's removal to the tunnel behind the Whomping Willow, which he wouldn't have known led to the Shrieking Shack. Nor would Severus suspect even the open-minded Dumbledore of allowing a werewolf into the school, risking death and worse than death for any student encountering him on a full-moon night. Seeing Remus being led away on a full-moon night would not lead inevitably to such a conclusion. far from it, IMO. "Hermione, in contrast, has seen Lupin's full-moon Boggart and no doubt wondered about both it and his absence from the classroom. (She also saw him looking ill and shabby, sleeping in the Hogwarts Express and knew [from Harry] about the potion Snape was preparing for him.) That information would come into her mind as she researched and wrote Snape's essay, which, far from requesting a list of characteristics that distinguish a werewolf from a true wolf, requires the student to "two rolls of parchment on the subject [of how to recognize and kill a werewolf]" (PoA am. ed. 173), a completely different subject as it would involve recognizing the werewolf in human as well as werewolf form." IMO, the whole episode is not child's play to Snape, nor is it about revenge for a schoolboy "prank," or even the embarrassment of the Boggart incident. In DDM!Snape's view, Lupin is a very dangerous man, tricking Dumbledore into believing that he's "a tame werewolf" when in fact he could, through carelessness or malice, easily kill any student he encounters on a full-moon night or turn them into a werewolf. The Wolfsbane Potion is the only precaution being taken, and Snape wants to ensure that Lupin does so. Moreover, this particular werewolf appears to be the ally and accomplice of Sirius Black, the (supposed) DE spy who (ostensibly) betrayed the Potters and murdered twelve Muggles and the "loyal" Peter Pettigrew (Snape's view of the situation at that time). Carol, who think Snape's behavior throughout PoA is not about the Prank, or at least not primarily; it's about the students' safety, and particularly Harry's From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 05:42:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:42:32 -0000 Subject: A "bit" of Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170336 I mentioned earlier that the phrase "a bit of himself" is not Dumbledore's but Harry's and that the context suggest suggests powers, not soul bits, which can only be read into the passage in hindsight; they aren't mentioned in CoS. But in rereading CoS, I noticed that the concept of a "bit" of someone does come up in relation to the *physical* self. Hermione tells Harry and Ron that one of the ingredients of the Polyjuice Potion is "a bit of whoever we want to change into." Ron reacts with, "Excuse me? What d'you mean, a bit of whoever we're changing into? I'm drinking *nothing* with Crabbe's toenails in it" (CoS Am. ed. 163). The "bits" turn out to be hairs, but they're still a physical part of the person. This use of the word "bit" with reference to part of a person isn't proof, of course, that some physical "bit" of Voldemort, as opposed to the not-yet introduced soul bit, is what Dumbledore concedes *may* have entered Harry to give him Voldemort's powers, but if Voldie's body exploded, a "bit" of his flesh and (magical) blood could have entered the cut on Harry's forehead as easily, and perhaps more easily, than a nontangible soul bit could have done. Or the powers could have entered Harry by some other as yet unknown mechanism, but I think they entered via the cut that would become the scar since it serves as Harry's link to Voldemort. Carol, wondering if JKR was already looking forward to Harry's using the HBP's toenail hex on Crabbe when she wrote Ron's lines about Crabbe's toenails From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 16 06:36:50 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:36:50 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: <1B128277-0721-4586-961B-719181466164@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jordan Abel wrote: > > > Bart: > > As far as how many horcruxes Morty has left, well, the ring and > > diary are destroyed. There is the locket, which may or may not have > > destroyed. And, let's not forget, there's whatever horcrux that > > contained the piece of his soul now residing in his body. That's 2 > > destroyed, one maybe destroyed, and one used up. That leaves three > > more. Assuming that JKR can count, which is NOT a good assumption... > > Random832 > It assumes that Dumbledore was correct. There's no reason seven > _splits_ (and thus by implication eight pieces incl. what's left in > his body) doesn't carry the magical significance of 'seven' rather > than seven total pieces. (This came up fairly recently, see "Six > Horcruxes - is Dumbledore right?" > --Random832 > > (quote from earlier thread for convenience) > > Miles: > > In my opinion this dialogue is at least not clear. I really have > > problems to > > believe Tom and Slughorn speak about six Horcruxes without > > mentioning the > > word "six" once. Geoff: Six isn't mentioned because Tom and Slughorn talk about seven being the perfect number and since, believe it or not :-), Voldemort needs to keep a bit of his soul within himself this leaves six fragments available for Horcruxes assuming that he's aiming for what, in his estimation, is the ideal situation. This raises the question as to does he /want/ more than the ideal seven fragments since the whole point of the Horcruxes is his drive towards gaining immortality? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 06:46:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:46:13 -0000 Subject: A "bit" of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170338 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > I mentioned earlier that the phrase "a bit of himself" > is not Dumbledore's but Harry's and that the context > suggest suggests powers, not soul bits, which can only > be read into the passage in hindsight; they aren't > mentioned in CoS. > bboyminn: Not quite, in their conversation, by way of a warning, Dumbledore makes it clear that Voldemort's power and his soul are separate things. Dumbledore says something to the effect that despite Voldemort having shredded his soul, his magical power is still in tact and very formidable; not a direct quote of course, but in essence that is what Dumbledore says. My point is, of course, that Voldemort's magical powers do not seem to be tied to his soul bits. His power has not diminished as each soul-bit is lost from the core-soul. The only thing the transfer of soul serves in the /concept/ of Horcruxes, but I really don't see it serving the story as it's been present in the past or as it is likely to be presented in the future. JMHO. So, if a bit of Voldemort's soul was transferred to Harry, which I have a real problem with, it was independent of and mostly unrelated to the transfer of Voldemort's powers and the unique scar connection. Or perhaps it is unrelated to the transfer of powers, but is (maybe) related to the scar connection. I think I tend to agree with the other poster who put the odds of a piece of Voldemort's soul being transferred at about 20%. Because the idea has some merit in established concepts, I can't discount it completely, but the theory also takes great leaps of speculation to make it work. I'm not really contradicting anything you said, just hoping to expand on the soul/power 'bit'. As to you idea that some physical bit of Voldemort entered Harry, say a drop of blood through his scar wound, that is an interesting and novel concept that I haven't heard before. That could certainly have so real merit. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Jun 16 13:01:42 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:01:42 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (Was: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170339 > Carol responds: > I think there's more going on here than power plays and schoolboy > grudges. Lupin is hiding something, a Snape thinks he's trying to help Sirius Black get into the school to kill Harry. He also knows (without being *afraid* of him now that he's an adult and a DADA > expert) that Lupin is very dangerous in and of himself. Dung: Yes, but that's not why he *hates* Lupin. He tells DD that Lupin can't be trusted even before the start of term, before Lupin even arrives at the castle. The question (I thought) we were discussing was whether Snape hates Lupin because he's anti-werewolf, or whether it's something more personal to do with Lupin, and I believe that, given how he utterly ignores Fenrir, the thing with Lupin is *all* personal. Carol: I think that Snape, who clearly deosn't trust Lupin, wouldn't put it past Lupin to refuse (or "forget") to drink his potion. Snape is also (IMO) very uncomfortable > seeing the man he suspects (increasingly thoroughout the year, but > even to some degree at this early point) of being the "murderer" > Black's accomplice and friend becoming close to Harry. Snape, as > usual, is protecting Harry, trying to keep him out of Hogsmeade and > away from Black, and here's Lupin with Harry in his office. (Could he be telling Harry how to get past the Dementors, a Black did to escape from Azkaban)? Dung: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Carol > In any case, as I've already pointed out in post #169699 > " [T]he question on the DADA exam is significantly different > from the essay that Snape assigned. One is simply listing the five > traits that differentiate a werewolf from a true wolf-- characteristics that Severus had not yet had a chance to experience in person. > "two rolls of parchment on the subject [of how to recognize and kill a werewolf]" (PoA am. ed. 173), a completely different subject as it would involve recognizing the werewolf in human as well as > werewolf form." Dung Yeah, you're right, I'd forgotten the exact wording. Carol > IMO, the whole episode is not child's play to Snape, nor is it about > revenge for a schoolboy "prank," or even the embarrassment of the > Boggart incident. Dung: I didn't mean that he considered it a *game*, no no, not at all! Nor do I think that he was seeking revenge for the prank. It's not consciously about revenge in Snape's mind, it's deadly serious, he *does* *not* *trust* Lupin *one* inch. He doesn't trust him not to help his old friend Black, he doesn't trust him to take his potion, he doesn't trust him to tell the truth. And lets face it, on all three counts, Snape's right, just for the wrong reasons. Lupin's a traitor through weakness rather than the malice Snape attributes to him. Carol: In DDM!Snape's view, Lupin is a very dangerous man, Dung Yes, I agree. I never suggested otherwise. But it's only partly because he's a werewolf that Snape thinks Lupin's dangerous, it's only because he thinks that Lupin the man is not worthy of DD's trust that he worries about Lupin the werewolf. He doesn't think Lupin handled his condition responsibly when he was a kid, and he doesn't believe that Lupin has changed (which he hasn't, and Lupin admits so himself). If he's so terrified of werewolves running amok in the school why does he not bat an eyelid at Fenrir's presence on the tower? Because he knows he's in control of Fenrir. But Snape has *never* had any control over Lupin or any of the marauders, and he's a control freak, so it freaks him out. Carol: > tricking Dumbledore into believing that he's "a tame werewolf" when in fact he could, through carelessness or malice, easily kill any student he encounters on a full-moon night or turn them into a werewolf. The Wolfsbane Potion is the only precaution being taken, and Snape wants to ensure that Lupin does so. Moreover, this particular werewolf appears to be the ally and accomplice of Sirius Black, the (supposed) DE spy who (ostensibly) betrayed the Potters and murdered twelve Muggles and the "loyal" Peter Pettigrew (Snape's > view of the situation at that time). Dung See, I'd put it the other way around. Snape has convinced himself that Lupin is in league with Black, (possibly that he always had been, and was in on the sk betrayal of the Potters, too), and that if Lupin's attempts to get Black into the castle to kill Harry continue to fail, he can always try to lure Harry out of school and into Hogsmeade where he'll be easy to catch. I'd stick the "oh, and if he forgot to take his potion he could run amok around the school and infect someone" as the afterthought, rather than the believing him to be in league with Black as the afterthought. It's just a difference in emphasis, I suppose. Anyway, Snape can't prove Lupin's in league with Black, and DD won't listen. But his suspicions are driven by his poisonous hatred for Lupin, and the fierce joy with which he would behold Lupin locked away together with Black in Azkaban. The two would-be murderers from his youth, finally where they belong, rather than just another werewolf to be locked up or put down. > Carol, who think Snape's behavior throughout PoA is not about the > Prank, or at least not primarily; it's about the students' safety, and particularly Harry's Dung: Ah, there I think you're wrong. I think it's all about *Lupin*, and for Snape, Lupin *is* the prank. And yes, he hates Lupin because he thought he was in on the joke, but he also hates Lupin for a whole load of other reasons, and by the end of PoA he has a handful *more* reasons to add to his collection, and which further deepen his already profound loathing. (I hope that in DH we find out why Snape thought Lupin was in on the prank.) The students' safety, and Harry's in particular are the levers Snape tries to use on DD (to no avail, DD *insists* on trusting Lupin), and the failures of responsibility on Lupin's part that Snape believes ought to get DD's attention. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that Snape doesn't take his responsibilities seriously, because I think he *does*. I don't think he'd ever deliberately allow harm to come to any of the students, because it's his job as a teacher to protect them, and he's good at it, and he likes the idea that he might be praised for doing his job well. I just don't think that it's fear for the students and Harry's safety at the hands of werewolf!Lupin that makes him determined to get Lupin out of Hogwarts by the end of the year. I think it's a big mixture of the prank, the Marauders, and a fair amount of jealousy and impatience with regard to Dumbledore's trust that with Black on the loose Lupin will behave responsibly like he never did before. Snape is certain tha DD's trust in Lupin *the man* is misplaced, and it makes him *livid*. Dungrollin Wondering if it ever occurred to Lupin that with anti-Dementor lessons Harry might be able to sneak into Hogsmeade, but still gave the lessons anyway. From karen.l.evans at wmich.edu Sat Jun 16 13:08:34 2007 From: karen.l.evans at wmich.edu (karen) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:08:34 -0000 Subject: A "bit" of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170340 JustCarol67: I mentioned earlier that the phrase "a bit of himself" is not > Dumbledore's but Harry's and that the context suggest suggests powers, > not soul bits, which can only be read into the passage in hindsight; > they aren't mentioned in CoS. Karen: I can just see JKR coming back to that point and being like "haha you guys thought the bits were just powers, but let me tell you- they were soul bits! Doesn't that twist the plot?!" From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 14:39:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:39:20 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170341 > >>Magpie: > ... also, just a note to Betsy, but werewolves did > classically turn into wolves, not furry people. That's Hollywood--I > think they also invented the silver bullet idea, and certainly that > poem). Betsy Hp: That first bit pleases me, because it means JKR has chosen to stick pretty close to classic werewolf myth. The second bit doesn't please me because one of my favorite Stephen King comments (from "It" maybe?) is that adults invented the werewolf but children invented the silver bullet (though, hmmm.... maybe it was vampires and stakes?). The third bit confuses me: what poem? > >>Dana: > What I was trying to say, and you seemed to be missing the details > of the difference, is that a sexual predator is like that by > choice. > Betsy Hp: Ah, but not according to some. There are pedophiles who claim they are the way they are because they themselves were preyed upon as children. Or you've got the serial killer, Ted Bundy, who said to his arresting officer, "I wish you had killed me", suggesting that part of himself was horrified by his actions. How *true* those sort of claims are, I don't know and won't pretend to. However, I do suspect that these sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde killers (charming and sweet on one hand; horrifyingly brutal on the other) gave rise to the werewolf myth. Including the common werewolf plea: kill me. So, running with the idea that the werewolf myth was the way people got a handle on the above sort of phenomenon, and looking at how JKR is sticking awfully close to that myth, pedophilia seems the closest match to me. Not a perfect match by any means (as has been pointed out, the moon has nothing to do with it in RL) but closer, IMO, than a physical (rather than mental) disease or a disability. > >>Dana: > Lupin's werewolf part has no capability of planning his actions, it > is just an instinctive drive, like that of a real wolf that hunts > his prey to survive, to eat and the werewolf will bite or kill > anyone that crosses his path. His strikes will be indiscriminately, > without preferences or prejudice of what kind of victim he is > dealing with. Betsy Hp: That's not completely accurate. Yes, a transformed werewolf in JKR's world doesn't seem to be a thinking creature; it seems that nothing of the host remains and the werewolf is solely about the hunt. But his prey *is* specific. The werewolf hunts only humans. A deer will not do (fortunately for James). Though, hmmm... I do wonder now how specfic the werewolf is about his human vicitms. While Fenrir has to position himself by a chosen victim, how does the werewolf know to seek out the child in the household rather than the parents? I can't imagine Fenrir being able to creep into his chosen one's bedroom to await transformation. So how did Fenrir arrange it that he struck young Lupin and not say, Lupin's mother? Eh, I think I'll write that one off as over-thinking, because I'm pretty sure JKR wants her werewolves as pure beasts, with the choice of how to deal with this unwanted monster within being left with the infected human host. Ooh, which is interesting because Fenrir is obviously putting off his creepy vibe in his human form. It's how Fenrir deals with his werewolf-ism that makes him so repulsive. So if the werewolf itself isn't actually a specific kind of deviant and violent lust could it be that Fenrir is actually training his "pack" into directing their werewolf-ism in the path of his choosing? > >>Dana: > ... I'm just saying that knowledge can indeed prevent the > danger a werewolf could pose) but knowledge about sexual predators > will never make you able to be safe from them if you are their next > chosen victim... Betsy Hp: But it's a similar sort of knowledge. You are told a werewolf is out there, so you take steps to protect your family from a predator, telling your kids to be in on full moon nights. Similarly, you warn your kids about taking candy from strangers. Again, it's not a prefect match by any means. But knowledge does make you safer in both examples because it helps you decide on precautions. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 14:40:26 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:40:26 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (Was: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170342 > Dung: > (I hope that in DH we find out why Snape > thought Lupin was in on the prank.) zgirnius: If I might suggest a reason young!Snape would think this - he knew nothing about the Marauders being Animagi and running about transformed with transformed Lupin on full moon nights. In other words, as far as he knew, it was as important to the Marauders that Lupin stay locked away and isolated in the Shack as it was to anyone else. Yet Sirius knew the secret for entering the passageway, and the most logical source of that information was Lupin. (Since, I presume, the other possible sources would have been Pomfrey and Dumbledore). Why else would Lupin tell Sirius, if not to set up the 'prank'? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 16 15:42:05 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:42:05 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170343 Betsy Hp: > So, running with the idea that the werewolf myth was the way people got a handle on the above sort of phenomenon, and looking at how JKR is sticking awfully close to that myth, pedophilia seems the closest match to me. Not a perfect match by any means (as has been pointed out, the moon has nothing to do with it in RL) but closer, IMO, than a physical (rather than mental) disease or a disability. Ceridwen: Some people do say that pedophiles are mentally ill and can't control themselves. I wish I could remember where I read it, but a very long time ago, I did read that mental illnesses had some sort of pattern and this was why people blamed the moon, calling insanity "lunacy". Another cyclical thing is in some forms of abuse, where there is a pattern: the act, contrition, a sort-of honeymoon phase, then escalation, again ending in the act. I don't think lycanthropy is directly parallel to any real life debilitation. But I think it's closer to mental illness than physical diseases. Someone mentioned friends who were manic- depressive. That's the same thing as bipolar, before the name change. Bipolar Disorder involves huge mood swings that don't happen all the time. There is medication for it. But, in real life cases, a person might feel that he or she doesn't need the medicine, especially when the symptoms of depression aren't there. But the wild mood swings also include feeling extremely good, overspending, etc. I'm not going to say that Lupin reminds me of someone who is bipolar, but the medication/potion flap does remind me of a bipolar friend's refusal to take her meds when she was feeling good, which of course led to some wild spending sprees and affairs, and feeling even worse when the depression hit. Betsy Hp: Though, hmmm... I do wonder now how specfic the werewolf is about his human vicitms. While Fenrir has to position himself by a chosen victim, how does the werewolf know to seek out the child in the household rather than the parents? I can't imagine Fenrir being able to creep into his chosen one's bedroom to await transformation. So how did Fenrir arrange it that he struck young Lupin and not say, Lupin's mother? Ceridwen: I don't know either, but I can think of possible ways offhand. He might literally position himself near or beside the child, so that is the first victim he sees. Even if the child runs at the transformation, the werewolf, having caught the child's scent, will run after him or her. He might position himself near a child's home, then convince himself he's hungry for a tasty child rather than a stringy, tough adult. I can't imagine Greyback doing this now since he is so creepy, but before he got too creepy, he might have made friends with the child, then called the child outside when he was due to transform. I always had the idea that he knew where a certain child would be at a particular time. He had time to watch the child's movements. But, if a parent knew FG was after them, they would certainly keep their child in at full moon time, wouldn't they? Oh, full moon time would probably take into account the nights of the entire full phase, which is two to three nights. I think werewolves are supposed to be nocturnal. Betsy Hp: Ooh, which is interesting because Fenrir is obviously putting off his creepy vibe in his human form. It's how Fenrir deals with his werewolf-ism that makes him so repulsive. Ceridwen: Fenrir is also savaging people while in human form, and his bites are still magical. Wasn't it mentioned that Bill's wounds wouldn't heal, owing to that? So, actually, werewolves pose a reduced threat, if they decide to bite you, all the time. Greyback means to bite people, and he's gotten a taste for human flesh. Yes, he's creepy! Self-aware, but creepy. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 16 16:02:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:02:00 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170344 > > Pippin: > > And where is the Secret Keeper's secret hidden? > > Why, in the *soul* of the Secret Keeper. What > > if on the night he gave Harry that scar, Voldemort > > transferred not only his powers but his secrets to Harry? > > > > > Neri: > I think this is a brilliant idea, but I see some difficulties with it. > What is the secret that Voldemort had hidden in his own soul? The > location of the DEs HQ? Why would that be such an important secret? Pippin: Because it's what keeps a zillion Aurors from showing up to take ol' Voldie down -- and it's an 'official' mystery. "Every Auror in the Ministry was -- and is -- trying to find him and round up his followers, but we happen to be talking about one of the most powerful wizards of all time, a wizard who has eluded capture for almost three decades!" -HBP ch 1 "They won't find Snape till they find Voldemort, and seeing as they've never managed to do that in all this time..." -HBP ch 30 Sounds like Secret-Keeper at work, doesn't it? I've always thought Azkaban would be Voldemort's ideal HQ -- but with Secret Keeper, he actually could be there already! Perhaps underground? Neri: > Wouldn't it be more logical to hide the secret of the locations of the > Horcruxes themselves? Pippin: Why didn't Dumbledore use Fidelius to hide the Philosopher's Stone? IMO, because the safety of the stone wasn't as important to him as capturing the one who meant to steal it. He preferred to booby-trap the prize in hopes to catch the thief. Dumbledore uses similar logic to explain Voldemort's protections for the horcrux in the cave: "He would want to keep them alive long enough to find out [...] why they were so intent on emptying the basin. Do not forget that Lord Voldemort believes that he alone knows about his Horcruxes." Which brings up another reason not to use Fidelius -- it's for secrets that need to be shared by a select group. There are other ways to hide information that only needs to be known by one person. Neri: > If some secret is hidden in Voldemort's soul, then it must be the most > important secret of all. What would be even more important than the > location of the Horcruxes? Pippin: If there is more than one, there are probably three. I'd guess the location of Voldemort's hideout and the secret identity of the real spy, but I'm stumped as to a third. Any guesses? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 16:05:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:05:14 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170345 > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, which is interesting because Fenrir is obviously putting off his > creepy vibe in his human form. It's how Fenrir deals with his > werewolf-ism that makes him so repulsive. > > Ceridwen: > Fenrir is also savaging people while in human form, and his bites are > still magical. Wasn't it mentioned that Bill's wounds wouldn't heal, > owing to that? So, actually, werewolves pose a reduced threat, if > they decide to bite you, all the time. Greyback means to bite > people, and he's gotten a taste for human flesh. Yes, he's creepy! > Self-aware, but creepy. Alla: Right, I agree that Greyback is giving out creepy vibe all the time and that is what makes him so scary to me. But what reduced threat all the time? During the time full moon is not there, human has full control over their mind, there was no mention AFAIR that during that time they have any **urge** to bite you. So, sure, if some evil human **chooses** to bite you when he is human, not werewolf, the wounds will not heal completely, which again reminds me of RL analogy. There is no indication that human wants to do it due to his werewolfism, is it not? Only if such human deliberately chooses to, when he is not transformed, I mean. I actually really, really like Lexicon's wording when they define werewolf: " A werewolf is the most unusual creature in that it does not technically exist except for a brief period of time during full moon. At any other time werewolf is a completely normal human". The article on werewolfs if anybody had not read it yet is a really nice summation actually. But yeah, that is what defines it to me - at any other time it is completely normal human and in my opinion should be treated as such. Of course as Magpie said, balance should be stricken between werewolves interests and the precautions, etc. IMO, Alla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 16:39:07 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:39:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elves and freedom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706160939l49c2165te28bcd7a6788b771@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170346 > > Sherry: > > In the days of slavery here in the US, slave owners often said > > something I've heard characters in the books say several > > times. "They're happy this way." > > > > ... rhetoric that has been used for generations all over the > > world to justify slavery. > jadon: > A difference is that the house-elves themselves use this 'rhetoric,' > isn't it? > > GoF: > "House-elves is not supposed to have fun, Harry Potter," said Winky > firmly. > > OotP:"Winky is still drinking lots, sir, ... She still does not care for clothes, Harry Potter. Nor do the other house elves. None of them will clean Gryffindor Tower any more, not with the hats and socks hidden everywhere, they finds them insulting, sir." > > Even Kreacher, who hates his master, doesn't want to be _free_: > ... snip Kreacher quote from canon ... > > Both Kreacher and Dobby are a bit weird, but Winky is supposed to be our voice of house-elf normality, isn't she? Kemper now: The norm isn't Winky's statement of House Elves not suppose to have fun. Rather, it's Dobby's statement that none of them want clothes which suggests none of them want freedom. Winky's statement and actions remind me of somebody's who's in an abusive, codependent relationship. She's been beaten down to believe she's not supposed to have fun. And, I imagine, since she believes herself to be a 'normal' House Elf, she makes a blanket statement that /all/ House Elves aren't suppose to have fun. You can take a codependent out of a relationship, but you can't take the relationship out of the codependent. It seems to me that the Hogwart's House Elves are the ones that are 'normal'. They want to serve Harry and Ron. Winky refuses to serve, Kreacher resents to serve, Dobby gets paid to serve. The Hogwart House Elves are treated without abuse (at least, I imagine, since DD's Headmaster tenure.) Winky and Dobby were treated with abuse and probably Kreacher. > Jadon: > > Forcing freedom onto modern house-elves ... completely fail[s] to take into account the values of the elves, pressing onto them the values of wizards instead - which, if it was wizards who enslaved house-elves in the first place, aren't exactly to be trusted as consistent. Kemper now: The House Elf value system, at its core, seems to be a combination of 'to serve' and 'to please'. Freedom seems to represent for House Elves the fear of being unable to live within their value system. > Jadon: > I _do_ think that house-elves could be perfectly happy unenslaved, > but it could take a lot of upset getting to that position. The > current attempts at helping them are misdirected - take Hermione's > list (GoF): > ... snip hermione's quote from canon... Kemper now: I agree, Hermione attempts are a bit off and humancentric (she doesn't talk to the elves first). However, I think Dumbledore would be proud of her as she does what is right and not what is easy. To make Balzac's quote my own: It is easy to sit up and take notice. What is right is to stand up and take action. Instead of poopooing Hermione (and I'm not saying you are, Jadon), what should she have done besides following the status quo and, as others suggest, continuing the practice of species enslavement but treating slaves kinder? I think an example of exemplary kindness to one's slave is not the same as an exemplary example of a human. Kemper From jeffntonya1995 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 16:39:51 2007 From: jeffntonya1995 at yahoo.com (Jeff and Tonya) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:39:51 -0000 Subject: Lucious Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170347 I have been wondering lately why we don't know more about Lucious. He has appeared in all five books but yet we don't know much about his background. LV trusted him with one of his horcruxes so he must have done something to earn that trust. I know I wouldn't have let anybody have a piece of my soul if I was LV. He was also trusted enough to be sent after the prophecy. Lucious was smart enough and conected to the right people to keep himself out of Azkaban. I can't help but wonder what role he will play in the final book and how huge of a role it might be. It just seems that if he was important enough to have a piece of LV soul that we should know more about him. Looking forward to others thoughts and opinions, Jeff From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jun 16 17:37:41 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:37:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A "bit" of Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46741FE5.5000606@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170348 Karen: > I can just see JKR coming back to that point and being like "haha you > guys thought the bits were just powers, but let me tell you- they were > soul bits! Doesn't that twist the plot?!" Bart: A day or two ago, I wrote a post, which, based on the private reaction, was not widely understood, so I will make my point clearer: A horcrux spell has been described as being quite complex (far more complex than an AK spell, which seems to require the word and the intent more than fine wand movements and precise pronunciation). I find it to be wildly improbable that a spell that was not supposed to be a horcrux spell could somehow accidentally become one (as improbable as someone dusting the keys to a piano would sound like an expert concert pianist playing). Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jun 16 17:41:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467420D9.7020701@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170349 Betsy Hp: > That first bit pleases me, because it means JKR has chosen to stick > pretty close to classic werewolf myth. The second bit doesn't please > me because one of my favorite Stephen King comments (from "It" > maybe?) is that adults invented the werewolf but children invented > the silver bullet (though, hmmm.... maybe it was vampires and > stakes?). The third bit confuses me: what poem? Bart: Well, the silver bullet idea is actual a Christian idea (although I have no idea how much Christianity JKR is using in her novels). The myth runs something as follows: because silver was used for the betrayal Jesus, as a sort of compensation, silver was given the power to destroy evil magic. Hence, a vampire will not be reflected in a silvered mirror (because silver will not reflect evil), and silver can harm otherwise invulnerable lycanthropes. Bart From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 17:49:40 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:49:40 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Lanval: > > > > This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended > > solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good > > deal out of proportion. > > > > Pippin: > Surprisingly, I agree :) Lanval: Ah! I shall enjoy it while it lasts! :) Pippin: > According to Draco, Hagrid and Filch, it's at least plausible that there > are werewolves living in the Forbidden Forest. Therefore, anyone who > is on the grounds during full moon is in some danger of a werewolf > attack, regardless of whether there are werewolf students or teachers. > It is this, I think, which makes the unwillingness to accept Lupin as a > student or teacher an example of prejudice rather than an > overreaction to a real danger. Lanval: Right. Which always has me going tsk, tsk over that detention in SS/PS, where Hagrid takes the kids into the forest and then splits them up. What was he thinking? And did Professor McGonagall not enquire on the nature of the detention that Hagrid planned? Sorry, I can't find the book right now and I'm a little hazy on the circumstances; I may have forgotten some details here. But it likely just plays in with Hogwarts in general *not at all, not ever* being a safe place, at least according to our RL modern standards. That's why I usually shrug at such issues and choose not to get too analytical or outraged -- they are such a deeply ingrained aspect of the WW, and comparisons with 'our' world will *always* be problematic. >Pippin: > Where Lupin was at fault, IMO, is that he knew Snape was > incapacitated but he didn't do anything to make sure that the > three students who were with him were safe before he transformed. > It's true that Sirius was there, but so was Pettigrew, a Death > Eater blamed for killing twelve people. It would > be a bit of a tall order for Sirius to control a werewolf and > Pettigrew as well, and in fact he couldn't manage it. > Lanval: Precisely. They would have had to come up with some different order of exit -- bringing out unconscious Snape and bound Peter one at a time? JKR complicates the issue, naturally, by her explanation of the moon coming out, yet we are told that Lupin transforms not matter what in canon. > That Lupin may have forgotten his condition would not excuse > him, IMO. We accept that alcoholics have a disease which keeps > them from controlling their drinking, but would they be allowed to > plead that the pressure they were under made them forget > they were alcoholic if their drunkenness causes an accident? > > Pippin Lanval: No, it's no excuse, just extenuating circumstances (for all of them). I'm not sure I agree with your example, though, because I don't think Lupin forgot his condition. >Ceridwen: I don't think lycanthropy is directly parallel to any real life debilitation. But I think it's closer to mental illness than physical diseases. Lanval: I think you are right in that there's no exact parallel, and that mental illness is closer, considering that the problematic (read:safety) part of the lycantrophy -- as mentioned by Lupin -- is not the physical aspect. Lupin still transforms into a wolf, but keeps his mind. The tranformation, I suspect, is still painful, the only difference is that Lupin, being in full possession of his mental facilities and devoid of bloodlust, does not inflict harm upon himself. However, JKR stressed that part of the prejudice has to do with lycantrophy being contagious, which does not apply to mental illnesses in general (with the exception possibly of contagious diseases that also affect the mind, such as rabies). Another difficulty I see is that lycantrophy, unlike mental disorders, is not only identifiable by just about anybody and can be diagnosed even before the first symptoms appear, but is also so very predictable and the medication's effect so straightforward. Meaning that the usual RL problems with psychopharmaceuticals don't quite apply when it comes to "Lupin forgetting his meds". From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 17:54:36 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:54:36 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170351 > > Neri: > > What is the secret that Voldemort had hidden in his own soul? The > > location of the DEs HQ? Why would that be such an important secret? > Pippin: > Because it's what keeps a zillion Aurors from showing up to > take ol' Voldie down -- and it's an 'official' mystery. > > "Every Auror in the Ministry was -- and is -- trying to find him > and round up his followers, but we happen to be talking about > one of the most powerful wizards of all time, a wizard who has > eluded capture for almost three decades!" -HBP ch 1 > > "They won't find Snape till they find Voldemort, and seeing > as they've never managed to do that in all this time..." -HBP > ch 30 > > Sounds like Secret-Keeper at work, doesn't it? I've always > thought Azkaban would be Voldemort's ideal HQ -- but with > Secret Keeper, he actually could be there already! Perhaps > underground? > Neri: If there's an official mystery here at all, then it's at most "how does Voldemort manage to evade capture?", and Fudge gives the logical answer in that very sentence: "we happen to be talking about one of the most powerful wizards of all time". But I don't see any official mystery of "where is Voldemort hiding?" (in the sense of a particular place) and certainly not "where is Voldemort's HQ?". I don't know of any canon clue that the DEs even have an HQ (except that the Order has one) and an HQ seems redundant anyway, considering that Voldemort can summon all DEs to him wherever he is. I'd say right now this mystery is hardly official enough to justify the biggest secret of the series. Note that in order to fit the theory we need a secret that has existed since before GH (or it wouldn't be hidden in the soul bit inside Harry). If it's a secret HQ, why wouldn't Vapor!mort run there after GH to meet with his DEs? Why run all the way to Albania when the safest hideout is nearby? I think the secret must be connected with the Horcruxes because this is the most official mystery of all (in terms of the page time that was devoted to presenting it). Maybe it is the location of the last horcrux or the way to destroy horcruxes, but these don't sound right to me. > Pippin: > > Dumbledore uses similar logic to explain Voldemort's > protections for the horcrux in the cave: "He would want to > keep them alive long enough to find out [...] why they were > so intent on emptying the basin. Do not forget that Lord > Voldemort believes that he alone knows about his Horcruxes." > Neri: Dumbledore says that Voldemort would want to question the Horcrux finder, but the rationale he gives is that Voldemort would want to know how the finder has discovered his secrets. This seems redundant since with horcruxes protected by Fidelius Voldemort wouldn't have to worry about anybody discovering his secret in the first place. > Pippin: > If there is more than one, there are probably three. I'd guess > the location of Voldemort's hideout and the secret identity of the > real spy, but I'm stumped as to a third. Any guesses? > Neri: If by the identity of the real spy you mean ESE!Lupin, I think your theory has a slight consistency problem: before GH Sirius was suspecting that Lupin was the spy. If I understand how the charm works, once the identity of the spy is Fidelius-protected nobody would be able to even suspect Lupin. Neri From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 16 18:06:14 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:06:14 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Elves and freedom, Hermione In-Reply-To: <700201d40706160939l49c2165te28bcd7a6788b771@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40706160939l49c2165te28bcd7a6788b771@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <69D8ED95-9967-496D-ACCD-6D1FFEF53F11@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 170352 Kemper: > Instead of poopooing Hermione (and I'm not saying you are, Jadon), > what should she have done besides following the status quo and, as > others suggest, continuing the practice of species enslavement but > treating slaves kinder? jadon: At the moment, I'm not sure she ought to be doing anything: her first priority should be and is to back up Harry and defeat LV. The House- Elf Rights problem is not as urgent as the war: pretty much everyone, including the elves, is (as far as we know - I want to hear more about 1973) happy with the status quo. Perhaps that's part of the problem: it's been let slide. Being Hermione, I'd suggest a good place for her to start would be to take a clipboard and start interviewing some elves in her spare time. At the moment she's trying to fix the problem without having properly researched it -- I wonder if this is one of the things in her character (impulsive, well-intentioned, stubborn; in crisis losing that cultivated veneer of academicity) that tipped the Sorting Hat's decision towards putting her in Gryffindor, and not Ravenclaw. IMO 'continuing the practice of species enslavement' but treating the elves more kindly is a pretty good interim solution till Hermione/JKR does some research into the historical reasons for house-elf enslavement on behalf of the readers. My general point: we don't know enough to make judgements on the fate of the species, any more than Hermione does. Kemper: > I think an example of exemplary kindness to one's slave is not the > same as an exemplary example of a human. jadon: I'm not exactly sure what you're saying there - are you referring to Sirius in GoF? Jadon From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 16 18:18:53 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:18:53 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <929B385A-6231-4DCC-86AE-DF1545CD8851@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 170353 >> Neri: >> >> The >> location of the DEs HQ? Why would that be such an important secret? > > Pippin: > Because it's what keeps a zillion Aurors from showing up to > take ol' Voldie down -- and it's an 'official' mystery. Jadon: Why would the DEs need a headquarters? They can be summoned instantly: we've seen that happening and it doesn't seem to be to anywhere special. There aren't very many of them; they're a guerrilla group - best to keep on the move, out of sight, terrorise and kill the odd muggle who stumbles across them. It's not like they have _meetings_, or long discussions round the breakfast table, as the Order do. The DEs just need to show up, listen to LV being dark and impressive/keeping his hand in at crucio, and disapparate to carry out his orders. If they do need to have private discussions between themselves at any point, they've probably got enough well-warded manors between them to do so without an Aunt Petunia poking her neck over the hedges at them. Jadon From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jun 16 19:42:54 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:42:54 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0706152035m3f68cf35h613fc3f3c2e6c4c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170354 > Debbie: > Not wanting to quibble with such a well thought-out post, but I > think that the notion that Harry is not a Horcrux here may be one > of semantics. As I read the text, a horcrux is simply a repository > of piece of soul -- as you say. There's no reason to assume that > Harry's scar has not encased the soul piece; otherwise, why did it > not escape? Jen: I'd say it all comes back to the prophecy. If Harry is marked as Voldemort's equal and 'either must die at the hand of the other' that means they should be equitable (except for the 'power the Dark Lord knows not'). As a Horcrux, Harry would be acting as an anchor for Voldemort and keeping him from being killed but Harry wouldn't be equal to him in this way. Sure, Voldemort's given Harry 'powers, and a future, which have fitted [Harry] to escape him not once, but four times so far - ...' (OOTP, 'The Lost Prophecy', p. 742, UK ed.) and there's the blood protection, yet presumably Harry can be killed in any number of ways other than by Voldemort's hand if he is another Horcrux. That would render 'either must die at the hand of the other' an untrue statement in my mind. Which brings me to what some will think is a very odd conclusion....the possibility that Harry is *also* immortal right now, anchored to Voldemort's Horcruxes because he shares part of Voldemort's soul. And what power does Harry have that the 'Dark Lord knows not'? The power to love, to be willing to destroy the Horcruxes and sacrifice himself if it comes to that in order for Voldemort to be destroyed. Voldemort *can't* do the same in order to destroy Harry because he's never known love. Jen, appreciating any input on this idea since she's still trying to work out if it fits with the canon we have so far. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 16 19:53:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:53:22 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170355 Alla: But what reduced threat all the time? During the time full moon is not there, human has full control over their mind, there was no mention AFAIR that during that time they have any **urge** to bite you. Ceridwen: The threat is that their bite is magically potent at any time. The reduction is that Greyback is notable for his willingness to bite as a human. That means that most werewolves don't have this desire, and to me, this also means that this doesn't come naturally to Greyback the Werewolf. Greyback the Human uses this property of the conditon to extend his reign of fear. But, he is using something that is part of his condition. This is information we haven't encountered before. Lupin isn't like this. Alla: So, sure, if some evil human **chooses** to bite you when he is human, not werewolf, the wounds will not heal completely, which again reminds me of RL analogy. Ceridwen: Right. Greyback is a dastardly threat. He will maim, even when in his right mind. And he uses a property of the condition that we didn't know about to make this threat more terrifying for potential victims. If he is actively teaching his pack to do this, as Betsy wondered, then he and the members of his pack who are following his lead are threats at all times of the month. They're just not as dangerous as they are at the full moon. This doesn't remind me of any real life analogy, though there are some things, like the case Dana mentioned, where it could draw a parallel. There are a lot of things that werewolfism might symbolize, if you're looking for symbols of real life things. I'm not. I jumped into the thread because the discussion made me think of things as people were debating, not because I thought of these things on my own. I think fiction is just that, fiction, and while we're supposed to get some general guidelines about behavior perhaps, clear and direct analogies are not being drawn. To me, the subject is fairness, threat, and balancing between the two, not shunting AIDS patients away from society, or sticking the crazy aunt into the attic. Werewolves are generally humans who should be accepted on their own merits, so it is grossly unfair of the WW to enact legislation against employing them. There is a huge difference between Lupin and Greyback, and that difference must be acknowledged. Generalizations cannot be drawn between them. But, they are both dangerous at the full moon without intervention. This is reality in the Potterverse. It wouldn't matter if it was Greyback or Lupin attacking you, the results to yourself, and the impact on your family and friends, would be the same. There would be more insult to Greyback's attack, since it's almost certain that he deliberately targets certain people. Maybe he doesn't do that all the time, but the suspicion will still be there, in Greyback's case, that it may not be a random violent act of a bestial mentality. With Lupin, or others, it would just be rotten luck that put you in their path. Alla: But yeah, that is what defines it to me - at any other time it is completely normal human and in my opinion should be treated as such. Of course as Magpie said, balance should be stricken between werewolves interests and the precautions, etc. Ceridwen: Absolutely in agreement. It isn't right to judge Lupin on the worst of his occasional kind. It isn't right to judge Greyback based on better men. Still, precautions need to be taken at full moon. I think this is exactly the message, if there is one, that we're supposed to take away from the werewolf part of the stories. Umbridge and the Ministry are wrong to paint all werewolves with the same broad brush. When people do that, they usually find the worst example of the target group and assume that all others could, ***and therefore will***, be the same. They're going on something we didn't know before, that the bite of an untransformed werewolf is also dangerous, to a lesser extent. BUT!!! They can't assume that every werewolf will be the same as Greyback, their lowest example. That can go for any group, whether physical or mental illness, or for any other group that can be designated "Other", in my opinion. Maybe werewolves exist in the Potterverse as an echo of the Pureblood Supremacy issue. But, I don't look for any real life analogies. Heck, I don't even look for the broader lesson. Unless someone says something that brings up a thought. ;) That's just me. It might all exist purely for entertainment. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 16 19:55:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:55:25 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170356 > Neri: > If there's an official mystery here at all, then it's at most "how > does Voldemort manage to evade capture?", and Fudge gives the logical > answer in that very sentence: "we happen to be talking about one of > the most powerful wizards of all time". But I don't see any official > mystery of "where is Voldemort hiding?" (in the sense of a particular > place) and certainly not "where is Voldemort's HQ?". Pippin: "No," said Snape softly. "I mean the one concerning a man kneeling in the middle of a darkened room..." [...] "How do that man and that room come to be inside your head, Potter?" -OOP ch 26 The room in question is the one Harry dreamed of earlier in the chapter: "a dark curtained room lit by a branch of candles" with "a dark velvet chair" "a door" and "a cracked, age-spotted mirror." Clearly Snape recognized it, so it has been used more than once. Also, from the story-telling point of view, JKR needs to make it plausible that Harry has to go after Voldemort alone, not with an army of aurors for backup. Neri: > Note that in order to fit the theory we need a secret that has existed > since before GH (or it wouldn't be hidden in the soul bit inside > Harry). If it's a secret HQ, why wouldn't Vapor!mort run there after > GH to meet with his DEs? Why run all the way to Albania when the > safest hideout is nearby? Pippin: While aurors wouldn't be able to find him at his old hideout, traitorous DE's would, so in his weakened form he couldn't risk it. Only DE's who wanted him to return to power and believed in him enough to think it was possible would risk exposing themselves by seeking him out. > Neri: > Dumbledore says that Voldemort would want to question the Horcrux > finder, but the rationale he gives is that Voldemort would want to > know how the finder has discovered his secrets. This seems redundant > since with horcruxes protected by Fidelius Voldemort wouldn't have to > worry about anybody discovering his secret in the first place. Pippin: Secret keeper doesn't stop you from knowing something is hidden. Bella knows that the Order has an HQ. But Snape can't say the name of the place, or, I suppose, tell her whether any guess of hers is correct. > Neri: > If by the identity of the real spy you mean ESE!Lupin, I think your > theory has a slight consistency problem: before GH Sirius was > suspecting that Lupin was the spy. If I understand how the charm > works, once the identity of the spy is Fidelius-protected nobody would > be able to even suspect Lupin. Pippin: I don't think that's how it works. Flitwick's example is that even if Voldemort had his nose against their drawing room window, he wouldn't be able to see the Potters. He wouldn't have his nose against their window in the first place if he didn't suspect they were there. I don't think SK stops you from guessing, it just keeps you from knowing that your guess is correct and keeps anyone who does know the secret from telling you your guess is correct. My guess is that Snape *knew* that Lupin was the spy, but he was unable to tell Dumbledore this, and all of the proofs were likewise protected by Secret Keeper. That was why he was so strongly against Lupin from the beginning of his tenure, IMO. It explains Snape's glee when he thinks he has independent proof of Lupin's perfidy. It also explains why he accused Lupin of everything *but* spying for Voldemort, while Sirius, who was not in on the secret, could say that he thought Lupin was the spy, but obviously couldn't establish it for a fact. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 20:11:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:11:07 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170357 > Alla: > But what reduced threat all the time? During the time full moon is not > there, human has full control over their mind, there was no mention > AFAIR that during that time they have any **urge** to bite you. > > Ceridwen: > The threat is that their bite is magically potent at any time. The > reduction is that Greyback is notable for his willingness to bite as > a human. That means that most werewolves don't have this desire, and > to me, this also means that this doesn't come naturally to Greyback > the Werewolf. Greyback the Human uses this property of the conditon > to extend his reign of fear. But, he is using something that is part > of his condition. This is information we haven't encountered > before. Lupin isn't like this. Alla: I guess I took what you said as meaning that all werewolfs are threat at all time and I just cannot go with it, but if you add that **evil** werewolves have reduced threat all the time, I can go along with it. Does that make sense? Does that follow that we need to be afraid of any werewolf when there is no full moon, because this werewolf may choose to bite you when human? I would say absolutely not, I would say just as in RL there is no way to predict whether the person would choose to be a criminal oe not, you know? But I understand what you are saying, I think. > Ceridwen: > I think fiction is just that, fiction, and while we're supposed to > get some general guidelines about behavior perhaps, clear and direct > analogies are not being drawn. To me, the subject is fairness, > threat, and balancing between the two, not shunting AIDS patients > away from society, or sticking the crazy aunt into the attic. Alla: For me, it depends, you know? I certainly do not start reading story to look at the RL issues ( unless I am looking for story about it) and seek direct parallels, absolutely not, but if I see direct parallels, I cannot close my eyes, LOL, if that makes sense? Of course everybody sees those parallels differently, or not at all, but to me if there is something there, there is something there. I said it many times, but I think I will say it again, to me the fact that JKR chose to put her story in the world **parallel** to us, always meant that she wants us to draw some parallels with RW. Not direct, not always, sometimes they are parody, etc. But I see RW reflections in Potterverse, I really do. > Ceridwen: > Absolutely in agreement. It isn't right to judge Lupin on the worst > of his occasional kind. It isn't right to judge Greyback based on > better men. > > Still, precautions need to be taken at full moon. I think this is > exactly the message, if there is one, that we're supposed to take > away from the werewolf part of the stories. Umbridge and the > Ministry are wrong to paint all werewolves with the same broad > brush. When people do that, they usually find the worst example of > the target group and assume that all others could, ***and therefore > will***, be the same. They're going on something we didn't know > before, that the bite of an untransformed werewolf is also dangerous, > to a lesser extent. BUT!!! They can't assume that every werewolf > will be the same as Greyback, their lowest example. > > That can go for any group, whether physical or mental illness, or for > any other group that can be designated "Other", in my opinion. Maybe > werewolves exist in the Potterverse as an echo of the Pureblood > Supremacy issue. Alla: Yes, indeed. :) Ceridwen: > But, I don't look for any real life analogies. Heck, I don't even > look for the broader lesson. Unless someone says something that > brings up a thought. ;) That's just me. It might all exist purely > for entertainment. Alla: Right, they jump out on me, I am not looking for them, I do not want the story to be the lesson, but sometimes I think it just cannot not be in some aspect. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 20:51:04 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:51:04 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Dungrollin wrote: > > > See, I see that as revenge for the Neville Boggart stunt in chapter > 7. They're just falling straight back into their old schooldays > pattern, Snape and Lupin, but they're adults and teachers now, so the > puerile nature of their ridiculous battles is all hidden under this > layer of repression. Lupin carries it off a lot more calmly than > Snape, though he pretends that he's risen above it in the shrieking > shack whereas he's really just as bad as Snape. Snape, on the other > hand, spends much of PoA furious, which is how I like him. > Lanval: :) He does pull of the spittle-flying rage well, doesn't he? I agree that the power play cuts both ways, but in the instance of the potion-delivery, I find it more in character for Snape to be the initiator. I really think that had Snape not been so hostile before Lupin was even hired, Lupin would have let the past be the past. He seems to have more important matters on his mind than dwelling on a old schoolboy grudge. Just IMO, of course. I freely confess to my Lupin bias, just as others who have argued this question clearly seem to have a Snape bias. Some believe that nothing Lupin does is ever sincere. *g* > Dungrollin: > > I have to wonder whether Snape really thought any of the students > would guess that Lupin was a werewolf. After all, he learned exactly > the same stuff, and wrote exactly the same essay question for his > O.W.L while he was at school with Lupin for five years, and *he* > never guessed (score one Hermione). Nobody guessed except the > marauders because they slept in the same dormitory. I think Snape set > that essay just to make Lupin uncomfortable, because as soon as Lupin > found out he told them that they didn't have to do it. If Snape had > really wanted to screw Lupin, he'd have set the homework to have been > handed in (to him rather than Lupin, as he in fact did) *before* > their next lesson with Lupin, so that he wouldn't have the chance to > find out about it until it was too late and the whole class had had to > do it. Snape's a scheming bastard, he'd have checked when their next > lesson was. As it was, Hermione was the only one who had already > finished it. > Lanval: Keeping in mind Snape's low opinion of most of the students' mental capacity, he probably knew it would be a miracle if any of them made the connection. Though perhaps he thought that one or two of them mentioned it casually to their parents? Draco perhaps, writing to dead Dad? But making Lupin uncomfortable, yes, is guaranteed. Score for Snape, just like in the scene with the potion, IMO. > Carol responds: > I think there's more going on here than power plays and schoolboy > grudges. Lupin is hiding something, a Snape thinks he's trying to help > Sirius Black get into the school to kill Harry. He also knows (without > being *afraid* of him now that he's an adult and a DADA expert) that > Lupin is very dangerous in and of himself. I think that Snape, who > clearly deosn't trust Lupin, wouldn't put it past Lupin to refuse (or > "forget") to drink his potion. Lanval: But *why*? It would be close to suicide for Lupin! Why would Snape think that Lupin had plans to feast on schoolchildren? >Carol: > As for the essay, although he seems to be bound by some sort of > promise to Dumbledore not to reveal Lupin's secret (it's Lupin himself > who reveals it by transforming later in the story), and an obligation > to make the potion and make it perfectly (and, IMO, a self-imposed > obligation to see that it's drunk), he also wants to be sure that the > students can protect themselves should Lupin actually transform. Lanval: Not trying to be funny here. But the assigned essay topic is "How to recognize and kill werewolves". So, assuming Snape's deeply worried about his students, and his sincere intent is to help and protect these Third Year dunderheads, believing they can learn how to overcome and KILL a werewolf from *books*...?? what does that make of his claim that Sirius tried to murder him, Severus Snape -- that Severus Snape, Fifth Year (meaning werewolves and the defense against them had to be known to him, seeing as it's part of the Third Year curriculum), more gifted and knowledgeable in the ways of the Dark Arts than most teachers, had been in danger of losing his life? Carol: > " [T]he question on the DADA exam is significantly different > from the essay that Snape assigned. One is simply listing the five > traits that differentiate a werewolf from a true wolf-- characteristics > that Severus had not yet had a chance to experience in person. There > was no reason for him to associate a tufted tail or a differently > shaped snout (OoP am. ed. 643) with Remus Lupin, whom he had seen > going to the Shrieking Shack accompanied by Madam Pomfrey. We don't > know when he saw that happen or how often it happened. It may > have only happened once. Nor would Severus, bright though he > undoubtedly is, would have necessarily associated a full-moon night > with Remus's removal to the tunnel behind the Whomping Willow, which > he wouldn't have known led to the Shrieking Shack. Lanval: No, but it's not impossible either that he DID notice and associate. He seems to have been spying on them quite a bit. Lupin mentions that Snape was interested in where he went "every month". Lupin further states that "one evening" Snape saw him going to the Willow with Madame Pomfrey; that does by no means exclude the IMO very likely possibility that Snape observed Lupin and Madame Pomfrey on several later occasions. As I've said before, give Snape some credit; he's a very smart and observant guy! :) And the OWL question? Just because this one specific question asked about five differing traits of werewolves does not mean that this is *all* the information students learned about werewolves throughout this year, or previous ones. We can't IMO conclude from the content of the question that Snape had *only* that much knowledge, and was thus unable to suspect Lupin of being a werewolf. Carol: Nor would > Severus suspect even the open-minded Dumbledore of allowing a werewolf > into the school, risking death and worse than death for any student > encountering him on a full-moon night. Seeing Remus being led away on > a full-moon night would not lead inevitably to such a conclusion. far > from it, IMO. > Lanval: Why would he not suspect it? He doesn't exactly strike me as someone having difficulty assuming the worst of everyone, if you know what I mean. And if he believed DD responsible enough to be concerned for the safety of the students, it then follows that Lupin's Nights Out had to have a fairly harmless reason. Didn't he realize that DD had to be behind this school-sanctioned scheme? Why not just give it a rest, for God's sake? Why persist in finding out? Isn't Sev considered to be a bit of a stickler for rules (at least when it comes to otheres not following them...) Carol: (She > also saw him looking ill and shabby, sleeping in the Hogwarts Express > and knew [from Harry] about the potion Snape was preparing for him.) Lanval: Snape the teenager would have noticed Lupin the teenager looking tired and ill once a month, too. For many years. Carol: > That information would come into her mind as she researched and wrote > Snape's essay, which, far from requesting a list of characteristics > that distinguish a werewolf from a true wolf, requires the student to > "two rolls of parchment on the subject [of how to recognize and kill a > werewolf]" (PoA am. ed. 173), a completely different subject as it > would involve recognizing the werewolf in human as well as werewolf form." > Lanval: See above. It's not only probable but quite likely that the werewolf's distinguishing traits while in human form, and ways of killing/defending oneself, HAD been covered in homework or class at some time during Snape's school years prior to the OWLs. Carol: In DDM!Snape's view, Lupin is a very dangerous man, > tricking Dumbledore into believing that he's "a tame werewolf" when in > fact he could, through carelessness or malice, easily kill any student > he encounters on a full-moon night or turn them into a werewolf. Lanval: But Carol, almost every teacher at Hogwarts (and even some students *cough*Draco*cough*) with enough malicious intent would have the ability to kill someone! Think of Professor Sprout and the contents of her greenhouses. Think of Hagrid, and his little darling critters. One really doesn't have to be a werewolf -- that aspect would in fact render it more difficult (assuming of course one would hope to evade capture and conviction). I can't for the life of me see why Lupin, of all people, would consider killing people in werewolf form, out of malice, while working as a teacher at Hogwarts. How could he hide that crime from anyone? Surely Snape's mind would grasp that? That would leave carelessness, and well, DD is pretty smart, isn't he, by giving Snape a part in preventing that? And never mind the absolutely delicious irony of *Snape* being outraged over DD hiring someone with a questionable past and a history of dangerous activities.. :D :D :D Carol: The > Wolfsbane Potion is the only precaution being taken, and Snape wants > to ensure that Lupin does so. Moreover, this particular werewolf > appears to be the ally and accomplice of Sirius Black, the (supposed) > DE spy who (ostensibly) betrayed the Potters and murdered twelve > Muggles and the "loyal" Peter Pettigrew (Snape's view of the situation > at that time). Lanval: Hm, there's still the question why Snape would believe Sirius to be a DE. Does that mean Snape believes Lupin to be working for LV as well? What reasons would Snape have to believe that, him being quite the insider on DE matters? But that's another can of worms entirely. From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Jun 16 21:15:44 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:15:44 -0400 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) Message-ID: <2F6951E1-B98E-4709-AC88-663E4FD41743@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170359 > JW: > I can't completely agree with Bart. JKR has said that horcruxes do > NOT get used up. I compare a horcrux to an anchor, which maintains a > ship's position, stops it from floating away, but can be used time > and time again. doug: Another metaphor is Voldemort as the hot air balloon, and the horcruxes as ropes tethered, anchored, staked, to the ground. This is like the embodiment of a soul bit into an object. All these metaphors require some kind of "silver thread' connecting the soul bit yet to the main one. This may be a problem with the power of metaphor, or a revelation into the kind of thinking necessary to realize the idea in the magical world we're dealing with. There must be some kind of ethereal connection between the anchored en-object bits yet with the main soul portion in Voldemort, else what is there to *HOLD* the un-embodied Vapourmort to the earth? > Carol: > I mentioned earlier that the phrase "a bit of himself" is not > Dumbledore's but Harry's and that the context suggest suggests powers, > not soul bits, which can only be read into the passage in hindsight; > they aren't mentioned in CoS. doug: You insist that everything be revealed at once? > Carol: > This use of the word "bit" with reference to part of a person isn't > proof, of course, that some physical "bit" of Voldemort, as opposed to > the not-yet introduced soul bit, doug: Why can we not retroactively read earlier parts of the story with new information? > Carol: > is what Dumbledore concedes *may* > have entered Harry to give him Voldemort's powers, but if Voldie's > body exploded, a "bit" of his flesh and (magical) blood could have > entered the cut on Harry's forehead as easily, doug: and just as improbbably > Carol: > and perhaps more > easily, than a nontangible soul bit could have done. Or the powers > could have entered Harry by some other as yet unknown mechanism, doug: Yes. Perhaps a soul projected as the power behind the Avada Kadavra. But in favour of Occam, fewer more elegant explanations are better. >> doug: >> I have been proposing a theory of magic, based admittedly on a >> small bit of canon, that of Lupin's explanation of the Patronus >> spell. A thought completely of Happiness is projected to become a >> kind of impenetrable Dementor shield. I think that that is >> basically how magic works in Potterverse, a thought is manifest as >> real, like an image on film is projected against a screen. So to >> enchant an object, the projected image is severed and now exists >> in the now enchanted object. Otherwise they return to the caster. >> >> And as to the soul ..... what better to force the removal of the >> life force of another than by projecting your own? steve bbboymin: > As to [your] idea that some physical bit of Voldemort > entered Harry, say a drop of blood through his scar > wound, that is an interesting and novel concept that > I haven't heard before. That could certainly have so > real merit. doug: What hasn't been explored, and thus doesn't disprove this idea, is why do consumers of Polyjuice potions not seemingly acquire the powers presumably inherent in the bit? Harry seemingly has Voldemorts powers based on whatever bit of Voldemort is in Harry. If powers can be transferred through body bits, why is there not a trade in blood and body bits? This idea has indeed been done to death on various forums at Mugglenet. What remains is for supporters of Physical Bits to explain how Voldemort recovered his own powers in the graveyard resurrection with no original body parts... he does not have his Fathers powers. He does not have Pettigrew's powers. He does not have Harry's powers. What remains for supporters of soul as source of power is to explain why Voldemort's powers... > boyminn: > Not quite, in their conversation, by way of a warning, > Dumbledore makes it clear that Voldemort's power and > his soul are separate things. Dumbledore says something > to the effect that despite Voldemort having shredded > his soul, his magical power is still [intact] doug: ? despite having his soul been parcelled out, remain intact. 1) *IF* there remains an ethereal connection enabling the horcruxes to actually anchor the main soul to the earthly realm, then the soul is not really in pieces is it? *IF* perhaps soul is source of power, then for this purpose, the soul remains intact enough enough to hold magical power no matter what its size, or where it is distributed. or 2) Perhaps it is because magical powers are neither of the soul, nor the body? but magic is of the Mind, and requires body - and parts of the body, most notably, opposable thumbs, to operate. Magic is Thought, Emotion, Will Desire, Imagination, Idea? projected onto the world so as to manifest as real. And the argument against that is that 'Rowling has said Magic is a gene', and is somehow inherited in families and yet can mysteriously pop up in Muggle families. Sound science speaks against it being a single gene. Convenient Deus Ex Machina explanation is all it has working for it. Yet if something is magically thrown so as to affect a magical action in the world, why cannot Harry bear an imprint of Voldemort -his soul, as it were- and have the effect of a horcrux, have all the power and mind based connections? yet not be a horcux, yet have a 'portion 'of his soul, and not have to die. ___ __ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 21:24:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:24:59 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170360 > Lanval: > Just IMO, of course. I freely confess to my Lupin bias, just as > others who have argued this question clearly seem to have a Snape > bias. Some believe that nothing Lupin does is ever sincere. *g* < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Oy, can I just express my admiration for your posts, like each and every one of them? Okay, here is a funny thing, for me anyways. I do not **have** any Lupin bias, LOL. I mean, I of course have antiSnape bias, but I cannot say that I had ever been a big fan of Lupin. I mean, sympathize with him of course more than with Snape, if that counts as bias and giggle every time I hear Lupin being called evil, but I had never had especially high opinion of him. For the most part I find him weak and boring. Isn't it funny that he is getting the most smack for one night when he really **acts**? I know why he is the way he is because of his illness, etc. But give me Sirius any time. Give me Sirius any time also because Sirius, half crazy after Azkaban still has capacity to love Harry and Remus just does not seem to bother to get closer to Harry without Azkaban. And I know why JKR made Lupin to be distant from Harry IMO anyways, I am pretty sure that she means to keep him alive and father figures who are close to poor Harry end up dead as we know, but that does not make me less annoyed with Lupin. So, what I am trying to say is that I judge Lupin/ Snape interaction on their actions mostly, I would like to think and boy, Snape still comes out as disgusting bigot to me. I mean, of course I have nothing but contempt for Snape left, but I still look at his actions and shake my head in disgust. I mean, I certainly feel a need to defend Sirius often enough when he is being argued against, but I still on the intellectual level recognize his bad actions and acknowledge it. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 22:49:58 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:49:58 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170361 > Pippin: > "No," said Snape softly. "I mean the one concerning a man kneeling > in the middle of a darkened room..." [...] > "How do that man and that room come to be inside your head, > Potter?" -OOP ch 26 > > The room in question is the one Harry dreamed of earlier in the > chapter: "a dark curtained room lit by a branch of candles" > with "a dark velvet chair" "a door" and "a cracked, age-spotted > mirror." Clearly Snape recognized it, so it has been used more > than once. > Neri: I see here evidence that Voldy chose to hold conference in some room rather than under open sky, and that Snape was in that room too, but I still don't see any official mystery of where the DEs HQ is, if they even have one (as opposed to just any place Voldemort uses as his hideout at any given time). If that room held any special importance for the plot I'd expect JKR to describe it in a much more memorable way. A "branch of candles", a "dark velvet chair", a "cracked mirror" (which is only there so Harry can look in it and see the reflection of Voldemort) and "a door"??? And this is to be our first glimpse of the fabled DEs HQ that is supposed to be the greatest secret in the series, hidden in Voldemort's very soul that passed accidentally to Harry in GH? Nah, JKR has a much better sense of drama than that, and she's much better at descriptions. > Pippin: > Also, from the story-telling point of view, JKR needs to make > it plausible that Harry has to go after Voldemort alone, not > with an army of aurors for backup. > Neri: It doesn't seem plausible to me. If the soul bit has now become a part of Harry, then Harry is a SK and he can tell anyone where the (hypothetical) HQ is. If the soul is separate from Harry's soul, why would it divulge the secret to Harry when it has been so good at concealing even its own very existence? If the soul bit is separate but chooses to divulge the secret to Harry of its free will, then it can also divulge the secrets to anybody else through Harry (we have canon of another of Voldemort's soul bits using Harry's mouth to talk, and yet another using Ginny's mouth to speak parseltongue in order to open the Chamber of Secrets). If the soul bit is malicious and discovers the location of the HQ only to Harry in order to lead him to a trap alone, then why do the plot even requires this soul bit at all? Voldemort himself could do that. As a whole I don't see a secret inside the Voldemort soul bit used in this way. The more plausible scenario would be that this is the most important secret of the series, so it's probably has something to do with the horcruxes, which Harry is already hiding from the Aurors so no additional plot reason is required. > Pippin: > I don't think that's how it works. Flitwick's example is that even if > Voldemort had his nose against their drawing room window, he > wouldn't be able to see the Potters. He wouldn't have his nose > against their window in the first place if he didn't suspect they > were there. Neri: I thought he had his nose against their window for the purpose of Flitwick's example . > Pippin: > I don't think SK stops you from guessing, it just > keeps you from knowing that your guess is correct and keeps > anyone who does know the secret from telling you your guess > is correct. > Neri: In that case the Fidelius doesn't seem to be very effective after all. It was enough for Sirius to merely suspect Lupin in order to hide the critical information about the SK switch from him. So Dumbledore too would only have to suspect ESE!Lupin and this would be enough to exclude him from anything important and effectively render him useless as a spy. You hardly need an accidental soul transfer for that. > Pippin: > My guess is that Snape *knew* that Lupin was the spy, but > he was unable to tell Dumbledore this, and all of the proofs were > likewise protected by Secret Keeper. That was why he was so strongly > against Lupin from the beginning of his tenure, IMO. It > explains Snape's glee when he thinks he has independent proof > of Lupin's perfidy. It also explains why he accused Lupin of > everything *but* spying for Voldemort Neri: Then it was rather stupid of him to insist so vehemently that Sirius was the one who betrayed the Potters. Neri From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 23:05:33 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:05:33 -0000 Subject: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170362 Lord Voldemort apperates into the classroom filled with his prospective Death Eaters. He gives them all his "settle down" look and they all go quiet, in hushed reverance. He nods his head and, in unison, the PDEs say, "At your command, Master". LV: First, hand in your papers on employing the Cruciatus Curse. Avery (from the back of the room) yells out: Goyle can't do the curse. LV (pointing wand at Avery): *Crucio*,... OK Goyle, you try it. Use Avery. Goyle: "Crukeeo". LV: Goyle you have to point your wand at Avery, and it's "Crucio" not whatever it was you said. Try it again. Goyle (wand out this time): "Croukeea" LV: Idiot boy. You and Avery - detention, my office, tonite at 7. You'll be practicing the Cruciatus on each other. ::To the Whole Class:: LV: Today we will be studying Horcruxes. First off, who can tell me the definition if a Horcrux? Severus (hand waving in air): Ooh, Ooh, I know. A Horcrux is an object -- LV: "Silencio". You will speak when called on, Mr. Snape, and not until. Now, does anybody else know? -- Silence-- LV: Alright, maybe this is too advanced for your simple minds. Let's start out more basic. How do you split your soul? Mr. Snape - "Finite Incantatum" - now you can speak. SS (looking rather smug): Master, you split your soul by committing murder. And not just any killing will do, you have to purposedly kill someone unable to flee, defend themselves, or in any way fight back. LV: Thank you Mr. Snape. "Crucio" - I don't want any smug looks from you or anybody in my classroom, understood. Whole Class: "Yes Master" LV: OK, splitting the soul is the first step to creating a Horcrux. If that's all you do is commit murder, that torn piece of soul will still stay in your body. ::In a quiet voice:: Now if you apply the four Rs, that is - Remorse, Repentence, Restitution and Reconciliation - you can mend that torn piece. But that's not something that we teach in my school. So I don't want to ever hear of any of you trying to apply the four Rs, not that you are really capable of it anyway. Now, there is a spell that you use to remove this torn soul piece from your body and encase it into an object. You will not be learning that spell until after your O.W.L.S., that is if any of you pass them. I won't have just any PDE out there trying to make Horcruxes, it is a very advanced magic. Most of you would end up removing your whole soul as if you got sucked by a Dementor. I've got plenty of Inferi, I'm not teaching you all now just to have you become something like those mindless beings. OK, who can tell me why we have to use a spell to encase the soul piece? (Door bursts open - in strolls Lucius Malfoy): What did I miss? LV: "Incarcerous" (nvbl "Levicorpus") A tied up and gagged Malfoy hangs above the class, upside down, with his silk underwear embroidered with "LM" showing. LV: Mr. Malfoy, so gald you could join us. If you would be so kind as to hang around after class, I'd like a word. You can probably guess what word I intend to use. LV: Back to my question, before we were so rudely interrupted by Mr. Malfoy, why do we need to *encase* the soul piece. Crabbe. Crabbe: Umm, it needs to stay warm? LV: Really, so would you say we can only use another living being as our Horcrux? Crabbe: Ahh, I guess so. LV: Alright class, listen up because this is important and I'm only going to say this once, NEVER use another living being as a Horcrux. If it can think for itself, even if it's only got a rudimentary brain like Mr. Crabbe here, it will never be in your complete control. If it goes and gets itself killed, that could kill your soul piece or it may easily cause the soul piece to be released, which all comes to the same thing - no more Horcrux. LV: Can anybody else tell me why we *encase* the soul piece. Nott: Master, (pauses for LV to nod at him), Master we encase the soul piece because otherwise it will fly off to beyond the veil and be lost forever. LV: That's right. The whole purpose of a Horcrux is to anchor your soul to this earth. While your soul is inside your body, it's anchored but vulnerable. If you get killed, the soul escapes the body and follows it's natural inclination to go beyond the veil. If you take your torn piece out of your body, but don't encase it with that spell, it's going beyond the veil too. Once you have a Horcrux, no soul pieces can ever escape to beyond the veil. Good job Nott, *you* may kiss my robes. (Nott, looking like a better reward would have been to be excused from the rest of class, kisses LV's robe and sits back down) Rookwood (raising his hand a getting the nod): But Master, won't you be in some kind of spectoral existance if you get killed with a Horcrux? McNair (looking up from pulling heads off of flies under his desk): Cool, spectoral existance! LV: McNair, what did I tell you about pulling heads off flies in my classroom? McNair (looking sheepish): To always have a purpose for my cruelty, Master. LV: That's right. What are you going to do with those dead flies? McNair (thinking quickly): Feed them to my baby Basilisk. LV: You hatched a Basilisk, McNair? I'm impressed!! LV to Rookwood: Yes, Rookwood, you'll have a spectoral existance, so what? If you make it to N.E.W.T.S. we'll teach you how to get your body back. By the way, is your father still living? Rookwood: Yes, Master. LV: Too bad, but then again, that will just be something to work around. Voldemort sits down on his nail cushioned throne, as he points his wand at the dangling Malfoy and thinks "Liberacorpus". Malfoy falls down with a crash onto Lestrange's head and LV has an evil grin moment. He nonverbally removes Malfoy's ropes and says, "Take a seat Mr. Malfoy." Then goes into his Lecture Mode. LV: "You all know, I think, what happened to me at Godric's Hollow. (The distaste at saying the name "Godric" is apparant on LV's face) The AK I used on the Potter brat backfired and got me. All it did to the boy was cut him on the forehead. << "for the Avada Kedavra curse does not usually leave any sign of damage... The exception sits before me," Dumbledore added, with a nod to Harry's scar. (HBP p.366, US)>> The reason for the backfire was ancient magic used by the foolish mother. But it was my mistake that allowed the magic to work. I should have stunned the woman to get her out of the way, she was of no consequence to me. But I killed her instead." "Mr. Snape has given you the answer about soul splitting murders. This murder was a soul splitting murder, one that I had not intended to do. So not only did my mistake cause the ancient magical protection to activate around the boy, but when the AK rebounded on me, I had just split my soul. When my body was killed, that torn soul piece was free and I lost it. Myself, as a disembodied soul, could not do any magic to recapture that torn piece. As Mr. Nott has explained, that loose soul piece would have gone beyond the veil, if I had not already had a Horcrux (adding under his breath), or so. Where that soul piece is now, I cannot say. It most likely sought out another soul to bond with or to possess. It may just have tried to possess the Potter brat, but I don't see how it would have penetrated the ancient magic." "So class, what was my big mistake? Well, it was just as I keep telling Mr. McNair, always have a purpose for your cruelty. By killing that woman for no purpose, I lost a valuable piece of possible Horcrux material. Lesson learned." The bell rings and LV stands up. As the PDEs gather their stuff, LV: For next lesson, I want 2 rolls of parchment on suitable Horcrux objects and why. Oh, and read the chapter on Imperious, there will be a quiz. You may disapperate. ************************************************** Maybe a slightly more entertaining way to put forth my opinion on the mechanics of Horcrux creation and what happened at GH. I think LV was right in his speculation, that loose soul piece he had just made tried to bond with or possess Harry. But Harry's soul was too strong, has too much of the power the Dark Lord knows not - Love - and Harry's soul could not be possessed by LV's soul piece. But there the soul piece remains to this day, within Harry. Whether captured by Harry's soul or simply residing behind Harry's scar, it cannot go beyond the veil, so it does the next best thing and finds a host body. But is most definitely not destroyed. But I don't think Harry has to be killed for this soul piece to be released. It wasn't encased with the Horcrux encasing spell, so it is only bound to this earth by the other Horcruxed soul pieces of LV. Any questions, see me after class :D Mike From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 16 23:41:19 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:41:19 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170363 Betsy Hp: > Ah, but not according to some. There are pedophiles who claim they > are the way they are because they themselves were preyed upon as > children. Or you've got the serial killer, Ted Bundy, who said to > his arresting officer, "I wish you had killed me", suggesting that > part of himself was horrified by his actions. How *true* those > sort of claims are, I don't know and won't pretend to. However, I > do suspect that these sort of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde killers (charming > and sweet on one hand; horrifyingly brutal on the other) gave rise > to the werewolf myth. Including the common werewolf plea: kill me. Dana: The problem sexual predators are dealing with are not mental diseases in the sense that something is affecting the brain's chemical balances and in that way their behavior. They have a social disorders affecting their take on the world and there place in it. Many types of social stimulation can bring this type of behavior on but it is certainly not brought on by disease factors. To be honest with you I do not care what any type of sexual predator brings to the table to excuse his own behavior. There are many people that have to deal with the same kind of social stimulations but still do not result in behaving that way. Ted Bundy did not say kill me because he was sorry for what he had done but because he was sorry he was caught. He kept his claim of being innocent until he was incarcerated for a long time and wanted his memoirs published and this took the need for him to confess. Sexual predators come into their behavior by feeling utterly powerless about the world they live in and they start to create a fantasy in which they are in total control. Many resort to torturing animals first, before they move on to human victims. There are different categories of sex offenders but all of these offences are about dominating their victim. Some resort to torturing their victims while others do not, some have a very few victims or repeat their offense on one and the same victim for years while others move through society claiming as many victims as they can. This analogy fits much better with LV (without the sexual part that is) and the contrast Harry provides to having similar upbringings but where different choices in life can lead you in opposite directions. Where LV became a sociopath and lost all compassion in his search for ultimate power and will go to any length to reach his goals, Harry has embraced friends and a social structure around him that makes him more compassionate about many things then his fellow students. It is like Sirius said about his parents being sympathetic to LV's ideas at first until they learned what LV was willing to do. Many people at Ted Bundy's trial did not believe he was really guilty of the crimes he was accused off because he was so charismatic and many women started to dye their hair brown and wrote love letters and wanted to marry him until they learned that he really did these crimes and was proud of it. JKR has used the basis of myths to create her own but her werewolf story is not based on the actual myths or folklore. She in HBP makes Harry and Lupin himself state that werewolves do not regularly kill but under certain circumstances they can. The main objective of a werewolf in JKR's story is not about killing the victim but about infecting the victim to make another werewolf. The werewolf reason for wanting to bite another human is about reproduction and thus about existence. Betsy Hp: > That's not completely accurate. Yes, a transformed werewolf in > JKR's world doesn't seem to be a thinking creature; it seems that > nothing of the host remains and the werewolf is solely about the > hunt. But his prey *is* specific. The werewolf hunts only humans. > A deer will not do (fortunately for James). Dana: As I stated above the werewolf's main drive to bite another human is about reproduction and because he can't turn animals into werewolves, the species carrier basis is with humans. The human aids virus (and I apologize for using this virus as an example over and over but it is the most publicized virus there is and not me thinking that JKR had this in mind or that no other disease would make a good analogy) is not transmittable (unless it mutates and then it is no longer the same virus) to other species and therefore it will not be able to reproduce and thus can't exist in a different kind of carrier (in its current form). Hagrid in PoA was scared that Lupin had attacked Buckbeak and asked Lupin about it but Lupin did not reply that a werewolf never kills other animals but stated according to Hagrid that he had not eaten anything. Prongs was not just a deer but a stag (yes, I know he is a male deer and that is what I mean) and mythology they cannot be easily killed by a wolf (as it needs a pack to bring down a stag) or other types of animal predators unless they are mortally injured and thus incapable to defend themselves. It would not be easy for a werewolf to just kill a stag and that is why JKR chose James animagus to be a stag. In my opinion people focus to much on the killing bit while the werewolf hunger for blood is actually not about killing its victim and we only hear about one victim that dies as a result of a werewolf attack and it was attacked by a very specific person (Greyback) that even has a thrust for blood if it is not a full moon. It no longer is part of his wolfishness but part of his human evilness. Betsy Hp: > Though, hmmm... I do wonder now how specfic the werewolf is about > his human vicitms. While Fenrir has to position himself by a > chosen victim, how does the werewolf know to seek out the child in > the household rather than the parents? I can't imagine Fenrir > being able to creep into his chosen one's bedroom to await > transformation. So how did Fenrir arrange it that he struck young > Lupin and not say, Lupin's mother? > Ooh, which is interesting because Fenrir is obviously putting off > his creepy vibe in his human form. It's how Fenrir deals with his > werewolf-ism that makes him so repulsive. So if the werewolf > itself isn't actually a specific kind of deviant and violent lust > could it be that Fenrir is actually training his "pack" into > directing their werewolf-ism in the path of his choosing? Dana: A normal werewolf is not specific about its victim as Lupin himself indicates by his statement I could have bitten any one of the trio. He bites the victim that he comes across and only Fenrir seems to break with the werewolf indiscriminate behavior. Why would Fenrir not be able to creep in the chosen one's bedroom? This world is magical and although DD would never apparate to someone's front door or into someone's house, I see no reason why Fenrir would hold himself to the same customs of appropriate behavior. By the time the parents find out, Fenrir has already regained his human form and disapperate out of the house. That is probably why he likes young kids as they mostly are in their beds when he is out to get them. Besides of course that he is able to isolate them from society and under his control. In the western world is doesn't happen often that parents abandon their childeren because of diseases but unfortunately in some countries it does happen, sometimes because the parents have no money to take care of the child but sometimes also because they do not want to have anything to do with it. It seems that with Greyback's story and the ability he has to isolate these kids from society it seems JKR wants to resonate that parents of kids bitten by him are often abandoned but that Lupin's parents were pretty much an exception and why he was the only one at Hogwarts. Betsy Hp: > But it's a similar sort of knowledge. You are told a werewolf is > out there, so you take steps to protect your family from a > predator, telling your kids to be in on full moon nights. > Similarly, you warn your kids about taking candy from strangers. > Again, it's not a prefect match by any means. But knowledge does > make you safer in both examples because it helps you decide on > precautions. Dana: I disagree but maybe it is just me but I hardly think that JKR was trying to make Lupin a sex offender that was in control of his urges. I also wasn't specifically referencing to the knowledge of keeping indoors on a full moon but knowledge about the disease in itself. This learning has already led to the invention of the wolfsbane potion and it made 3 students learn to become animagi. In RL it has led to people understanding that a person infected with HIV can't transmit it to you by shaking his hand or sitting next to you and it has let to the use of condoms and anti-viral medication to expend the life-span and delay the onset of AIDS. To me the warning you imply is precisely what people do when they learn someone is a werewolf, keep away from them as far as possible. Learning about werewolves is not only about warnings but also about learning that these people a perfectly normal when it is not a full moon, while sex offenders are always a danger and you should keep away from them period. Even therapy will not help as these people no longer are able to separate themselves from the fantasy they want to live in, they no longer have empathy for other people's feelings. They will just pretend they are cured but no amount of medication can stop their urges as it does not have a medical background but a social one. That is why it is important to pick these signals up as young as possible but even then it can already be too late. Again this analogy does fit Greyback and even LV but certainly is not a good analogy in my opinion to make a parallel to all werewolves and with JKR's own statement about Lupin being a metaphor for how people react to illness and disability I certainly do not believe she had this in mind when she created his character. Your analogy is precisly what people do and should not do when it comes to disease and disabilities but indeed should always be on alert when it comes to sexual predators. Also I saw someone mentioning about Greyback biting Bill and the wounds not healing, isn't it precisely what happened with Arthur when he was attacked by Nagini? To me it seems more an indication of Fenrir using something evil to make himself werewolf- like around the clock then it truly being something that is part of being a werewolf in general. Nagini is certainly no longer a "normal" Snake either. JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 17 00:35:33 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:35:33 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170364 Neri: Nah, > JKR has a much better sense of drama than that, and she's much better > at descriptions. Pippin: Yet the fabled department of mysteries makes its debut as a plain black door set at the end of a corridor. The Room of Requirement appears first as a room full of chamber pots. No, a candlelit room with a velvet chair and a mirror will be quite enough to identify the place should we see it again. > Pippin: > > Also, from the story-telling point of view, JKR needs to make > > it plausible that Harry has to go after Voldemort alone, not > > with an army of aurors for backup. > > > > Neri: > It doesn't seem plausible to me. If the soul bit has now become a part > of Harry, then Harry is a SK and he can tell anyone where the > (hypothetical) HQ is. If the soul is separate from Harry's soul, why > would it divulge the secret to Harry when it has been so good at > concealing even its own very existence? Pippin: I doubt very much Harry would let himself be possessed by even a fragment of Voldemort's soul. OTOH, he might be able to possess *it*. If that happened, then he would know what it knows, but he still, IMO, wouldn't be able to divulge the secret to anyone else. > > Pippin: > > I don't think SK stops you from guessing, it just > > keeps you from knowing that your guess is correct and keeps > > anyone who does know the secret from telling you your guess > > is correct. > > > > Neri: > In that case the Fidelius doesn't seem to be very effective after all. > It was enough for Sirius to merely suspect Lupin in order to hide the > critical information about the SK switch from him. > Pippin: I'm not sure at all that Sirius succeeded in hiding the SK switch from Lupin. He thought he did, and Lupin allowed him to think so, perhaps. But what proof do we have? Pettigrew's confession? Do you think that's the sort of confession a civil rights advocate like JKR would want us to believe is valid? Extracted at wand point, with no witnesses present to speak in defense? Phooey! In any case, I'm sure Dumbledore hid information from various Order members in his attempts to thwart or catch out the spy. Voldemort would of course have to be very careful as to how he used the information, whether it was Peter's or Lupin's, in order not to give his spy away. But that's all standard espionage stuff, and the presence or absence of Secret Keeper doesn't change it. > > Neri: > Then it was rather stupid of him to insist so vehemently that Sirius > was the one who betrayed the Potters. > Pippin: Of course only the secret keeper could have betrayed the Potters. But why do the secret keeper and the spy have to be the same person? They don't, and there's no reason that Snape would have to believe they are. Pippin From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 17 01:06:33 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:06:33 EDT Subject: A "bit" of Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170365 Karen: > I can just see JKR coming back to that point and being like "haha you > guys thought the bits were just powers, but let me tell you- they were > soul bits! Doesn't that twist the plot?!" Bart: A day or two ago, I wrote a post, which, based on the private reaction, was not widely understood, so I will make my point clearer: A horcrux spell has been described as being quite complex (far more complex than an AK spell, which seems to require the word and the intent more than fine wand movements and precise pronunciation). I find it to be wildly improbable that a spell that was not supposed to be a horcrux spell could somehow accidentally become one (as improbable as someone dusting the keys to a piano would sound like an expert concert pianist playing). Julie: I don't see why not. The AK doesn't replace a Horcrux spell, but when the AK misfired one of the aftereffects was the cut that appeared o Harry's forehead, which allowed the soul bit access into Harry's head. No prepared Horcrux spell, no intent to put the soul bit inside Harry, but a mere byproduct. So a loose piece of Voldy's soul (the piece that was created by the murder of James and perhaps intended to be placed in an actual Horcrux container at a later date, not the "main" soul piece that drifted away intact within itself and became Vapor!mort) finds an unexpected place but welcome place to lodge itself provided by the open cut on Harry's forehead--at least more welcome than floating around aimlessly, unable to move beyond the veil without the rest of the split apart soul, and not able to reunite with the main soul piece (perhaps because as Voldemort became more proactive about creating his Horcruxes, he prepared his soul in advance to directly release the soon to be split soul piece, rather than removing that soul piece at a later time--and perhaps in a different manner--as he did with the Diary). We don't know enough about the mechanics of creating a Horcrux, or the mechanics of removing a split soul piece from any connection to the "main" soul to be sure whether or not an "accidental" Horcrux (it's definition being nothing more than a container) can be created. We don't really know where the soul pieces from the destroyed Horcruxes go, except that it's not right back to the main soul piece, or Voldemort would have known the second the Diary was destroyed, not to mention the Ring Horcrux. Whether Voldemort used a spell to counter what would seem to be a logical attraction between soul pieces to "hang together", or the splitting of the soul itself creates that effect, we also don't know. Though it does make one wonder what happens to someone who has split or torn their soul once that person is beyond the veil--do the pieces actually come together again into one entity if a broken one, or do they remain apart (and what does that feel like? Hell, perhaps?). There are just *way* too many unknowns about Horcruxes, souls both whole and split, etc, in the Potter universe for me to dismiss the possibility that Harry is an "accidental Horcrux"--i.e. that he does have a piece of Voldemort's soul inside him. (As for the fact that the split soul pieces don't seem to split up Voldy's magical powers, since Dumbledore said the resurrected Voldemort maintained his full magical abilities, could that mean each soul piece has the same full spectrum of magical ability at its disposal? Which would explain why Harry has many of Voldemort's powers, as well as a piece of his soul--the two do not mutually exclude each other.) Julie, hoping some of this makes sense, as the more I think about Horcruxes and soul pieces, the more questions I have about both! ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 04:02:46 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:02:46 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes 401 (Was Re: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170366 > Mike: > I think LV was right in his speculation, that loose soul > piece he had just made tried to bond with or possess Harry. > But Harry's soul was too strong, has too much of the power > the Dark Lord knows not - Love - and Harry's soul could not > be possessed by LV's soul piece. But there the soul piece > remains to this day, within Harry. Whether captured by > Harry's soul or simply residing behind Harry's scar, it > cannot go beyond the veil, so it does the next best thing > and finds a host body. But is most definitely not destroyed. > But I don't think Harry has to be killed for this soul piece > to be released. It wasn't encased with the Horcrux encasing > spell, so it is only bound to this earth by the other Horcruxed > soul pieces of LV. > Any questions, see me after class :D Goddlefrood: Well, as you mention it, there was just one question. I wonder if you have considered it? Basically, in my considered opinion the end Horcrux involves a three step process. What I propose to do today is proffer an explanation of why Lord Voldemort said: "I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked ... for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it." (p. 566 - The Death Eaters - GoF - Bloomsbury hardback edition) Hm, typing that out made me realise I had got at least one of the recent WOMBAT test questions wrong, in that there are two documented cases of a person surviving a killing curse. One is Harry, the other Lord Voldemort, although his testimony might be less than credible. Be that as it may, here is the Horcrux process 401, part of the Masters course that will shortly be available from Horace Slughorn productions. What follows is reasonable inference from what we have in canon. The first step of the Horcrux process, as noted by Severus Snape in Mike's primer course on Horcruxes, is to kill someone in cold blood with the clear intent to do so. The second step, which is implied from Lord Voldemort's above words is to prepare a vessel to store the soul fragment. Oh, indeed, the vessel in which the soul fragment is to be kept must, IMO, have some preparation. Hence the experimentation. It seems reasonable to suggest, as I hereby do, that the experiments LV was talking about in the above quote were his experiments to prepare the several vessels in which he was to place a soul fragment. Each time he did this by a dissimilar methodology. That he did this preparation of the vessel in diverse ways should be clear enough, even from what we do know of the Horcrux creating process. The Diary Horcrux acted in its own way and I believe the other Horcruxes will too. Each of the remaining Horcruxes will be destroyed in a different manner and be found to have differing enchantments or bindings on them. The Ring Horcrux accounted for by Dumbledore, based on the little he described of its destruction, was very unlike the Diary. That the remaining 4, or possibly 3, will each cause their own problems and have unalike enchantments is something I would expect. A locket has a compartment, a cup arguably has not, a living Horcrux container would be different again and the other as yet undetermined Horcrux will also have its own idiosyncracies. None will have the same protections, as far as this reader is concerned. A little idea occurred to me recently, partially linked to the Deluxe Scholastic cover. It is that if Harry and Co. visit a treasure vault then it will be one guarded by a dragon, only one though. This can be extrapolated from what we have heard as a rumour regarding Gringotts Bank from all the way back in PS / SS. Hagrid, iirc, tells Harry that there are reports of dragons at Gringotts. Part of the process of accessing the vault would include getting past a dragon. If that is the case then the same dragon may assist in furthering their quest and be the one artistically depicted on the said Deluxe Cover. It will also have been guarding a Horcrux. Back then to the Horcrux process. The third step, as correctly stated in Mike's primer course, is the transferral of the rent soul fragment to the vessel to contain it and its sealing. Neither of the latter two steps are present in the instance of Harry, therefore, it is easy to conclude that he is not a Horcrux and nor is his scar. On this idea of the soul fragment being trapped in a non- Horcrux Harry, whether behind, in or with a lead to his scar, I would say simply that in the situation where there is nothing to keep the split soul piece in place, as there is with a Horcrux once done in the correct manner, then there is no anchor. In my opinion it would be so far removed from any of the existing exterior soul legends that it is extremely unlikely. Not necessarily impossible, just highly improbable. Mind you, there has been a considerable divergence already. The usual story goes that the soul is wholly exterior to the body and thus the body itself can not be destroyed until the soul has been found and destroyed first. In LV's case he has a resident soul piece, as far as we have been told, and his original body has been destroyed. JKR has most likely read "The Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer. Chapter 66 of that is entitled "The External Soul in Folk-Tales". It runs through many, if not almost all, of the legends involving wizards, ogres and many and varied others who had an exterior soul often inside an animal ultimately. The work is available on line at Bartlebys, the chapter is quite short and it is recommended reading for all wishing to theorise on Horcruxes. Here is a direct link to it: http://www.bartleby.com/196/166.html Chapter 67 of the same work may also be found to be of value. I do have a further prediction on Horcruxes, which is that one of the remaining ones will be found at Azkaban. This is due to the link between the number seven, Lord Voldemort and the seven steps to be taken to find the soul of Koschei the Deathless. The soul of Koschei was kept in an island called Buyan, which may or may not equate to the island of Rugen in the Baltic sea. In other words I would not be surprised if the island upon which Azkaban is located is adjacent to the Baltic Sea, which itself is not unadjacent to the north of the North Sea. Goddlefrood, preparing if he's wrong on Harry and the soul piece to locate and eat the Sorting Hat. From limerent4ever at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 05:44:53 2007 From: limerent4ever at gmail.com (limerent4ever) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:44:53 -0000 Subject: Wormtail and Voldemort's Plans for Murder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170367 I am rereading GoF and ran across an old note I made in the margins where I wondered who else's murder Wormtail and Voldemort were planning at the time of their conversation in Chapter One. "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. "All through our journey I have gone over the plan in my head -- My Lord, Bertha Jorkin's disappearance will not go unnoticed for long, and if we proceed, if I murder --" "If?" whispered the second voice. "If? If you follow the plan, Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died. You will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could do it myself, but in my present condition ... Come, Wormtail, one more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have rejoined us --" Bertha is already dead I presume and is supposed to eventually be known about as shown by the word 'else' in this sentence fragment, "the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died". Moody they need for info and hair so I think he is out. Harry they need for the ritual and in any case I don't think they would want to hide it from the Ministry. So who else could have been murdered that may not be known yet? Earlier in the chapter Wormtail says this... "My Lord, I do not say this out of concern for the boy!" said Wormtail, his voice rising squeakily. "The boy is nothing to me, nothing at all! It is merely that if we were to use another witch or wizard -- any wizard -- the thing could be done so much more quickly! If you allowed me to leave you for a short while -- you know that I can disguise myself most effectively -- I could be back here in as little as two days with a suitable person --" So is Wormtail disguising himself as the murdered person at times so no-one suspects? We don't see him in the 5th book but he does appear at the beginning of the 6th book. Does anyone have any thoughts on who was meant to be killed without the Ministry knowing? limerent From limerent4ever at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 06:46:23 2007 From: limerent4ever at gmail.com (limerent4ever) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:46:23 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170368 In book 5 Snape tells Harry that eye contact is necessary for leglimancy except in Harry's case because of the bond they seem to have. But in Book 4 Voldemort is able to tell that Frank is lying even though the chair is still turned away from Frank at that point. And a bit earlier Voldemort could tell Wormtail was lying though it seems they didn't have eye contact either as it made a big deal of the fear/disgust/reluctance each time Wormtail had to look at Voldemort. So is Voldemort that good at leglimancy, even better than Snape thinks, that he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of judgement mean for Snape if it is true? limerent From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 17 10:45:44 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:45:44 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170369 limerent wrote: > > In book 5 Snape tells Harry that eye contact is necessary for > leglimancy except in Harry's case because of the bond they seem to > have. But in Book 4 Voldemort is able to tell that Frank is lying > even though the chair is still turned away from Frank at that point. > And a bit earlier Voldemort could tell Wormtail was lying though it > seems they didn't have eye contact either as it made a big deal of the > fear/disgust/reluctance each time Wormtail had to look at Voldemort. > So is Voldemort that good at leglimancy, even better than Snape > thinks, that he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of > judgement mean for Snape if it is true? > colebiancardi: Actually, Snape tells Harry that "eye contact is OFTEN essential to Legilimency" (caps mine) Am Ed Hardcover OotP, p 531, not that is is necessary. The full quote is (same page) "The Dark Lord is at a considerable distance and the walls and grounds of Hogwards are guarded by many ancient spells and charms to ensure the bodily and mental safety of those who dwell within them," said Snape. "Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye contact is often necessary to Legilimency." Well then, why do I have to learn Occlumency?" Snape eyed Harry, tracing his mouth with one long, thin finger as he did so. "The usual rules do not seem to apply with you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you & the Dark Lord. The evidence suggests that at times, when your mind is most relaxed and vulnerable -- when you are asleep, for instance -- you are sharing the Dark Lord's thoughts and emotions" So, Snape is stating that there are many factors why normal Legilimency wouldn't work at Hogwarts with Voldemort - time, space, the ancient spells & charms - eye contact is important, but not "often" necessary. As far as Frank goes, take in the fact that he was just a muggle. No magic about him at all. He does not have any spells or charms protecting him, and is within the same time & space as Voldy. As Voldemort is a powerful Legilimens, a muggle would be quite easy for him, no? Snape didn't have a slip of judgement - he knows, as we've read, that one can perform Legilimency without eye contact. We also know that Snape is very good at Occlumency (thru the book) colebiancardi From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 17 11:01:21 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:01:21 -0000 Subject: Wormtail and Voldemort's Plans for Murder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170370 limerent wrote: > Does anyone have any thoughts on who was meant to be killed > without the Ministry knowing? Dana: My best quess would be Barty Crouch Sr. who is the only one besides Bertha who knows that his son did not die in Azkaban. LV said in the quote you brought forward that Wormtail did not have to do it alone as his most faithful servant will have rejoined them by that time. We of course know by the end of the book that he meant Barty Jr with that. JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 17 14:59:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:59:19 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170371 > Lanval: > Right. Which always has me going tsk, tsk over that detention in > SS/PS, where Hagrid takes the kids into the forest and then splits > them up. What was he thinking? And did Professor McGonagall not > enquire on the nature of the detention that Hagrid planned? Pippin: IMO, he was thinking that it wasn't a full moon. That part of the forest was frequented by centaurs, who are powerful enough to keep dangerous creatures away and won't harm foals themselves. The unicorn had been attacked earlier, and no doubt it was thought that the attacker had already drunk the blood and wouldn't linger. Lanval quoted in 170360: > Lanval: > Just IMO, of course. I freely confess to my Lupin bias, just as > others who have argued this question clearly seem to have a Snape > bias. Some believe that nothing Lupin does is ever sincere. *g* < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Okay, here is a funny thing, for me anyways. I do not **have** any Lupin bias, LOL. I mean, I of course have antiSnape bias, but I cannot say that I had ever been a big fan of Lupin. I mean, sympathize with him of course more than with Snape, if that counts as bias and giggle every time I hear Lupin being called evil, but I had never had especially high opinion of him. For the most part I find him weak and boring Pippin: I don't think I have Lupin bias either. No, really. I don't hate him. Of course I have proSnape bias, LOL, but I'm not determined to hate Lupin because of it. It's just that EverSoWeak!Lupin doesn't work for me. Lupin's weaknesses don't matter because things always turn out all right anyway, or so it seems. Well, if they don't matter, why should I care? Why should any one? Why on earth would JKR make her favorite adult character *boring*? I wouldn't mind seeing Lupin triumph over his weaknesses. But if Lupin triumphing over his weakness was the story, we should see his weaknesses as dangerous, not dull. But every time Lupin fails to honor a commitment, it's brushed aside, and no harm done. That's very different than Sirius's rashness or Harry's illogical conclusions or Hermione's insensitivity or Snape's vile temper and sadism. That doesn't make Lupin's compassion insincere, although I have previously posited that it might be. I think, two books later, that he has a genuine sense of compassion. But compassion, in JKR's world, can take you only so far. It's not enough to feel sorry for others, you have to act on their behalf. Lupin won't, not if he thinks it will cost him. He often expresses remorse, but, as I've said before, it's always for something that might have happened, or something that he could have done but didn't do. Show me, just once, where he accepts responsibility for something that he actually did and the consequences that actually happened. He doesn't shut down his compassion, but he shuts down his sense of responsibility, and I think, though others may disagree, that to do that is evil. Pippin who doesn't think Lupin "accidentally" forgot his potion any more than Snape "accidentally" let slip that Lupin was a werewolf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 15:05:29 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:05:29 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170372 > limerent: > So is Voldemort that good at leglimancy, even better than Snape > thinks, that he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of > judgement mean for Snape if it is true? zgirnius: I think we may rest confident in the fact that Snape has evaded detection by Voldemort (if indeed he has) by measures other than refusing eye contact. If Voldemort were trying to Legilimens a Death Eater, and the Death Eater refused to look at him, I think Voldemort would object. Violently. Similarly, I think we can also conclude that Snape does something different and more subtle from what Draco does to evade Snape's Legilimency in HBP. Simply hiding the truth from Voldemort would not, in my view, suffice. If Voldemort could tell Snaep was hiding something (the way Snape could with Draco), that would be enough to get Snape into hot watrer with Voldemort. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 17 16:28:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:28:10 -0000 Subject: A "bit" of Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170373 Bart: > A horcrux spell has been described as being quite complex (far more > complex than an AK spell, which seems to require the word and the intent > more than fine wand movements and precise pronunciation). Pippin: I don't see that the horcrux spell is described as being complex. Did I miss something? Or is this fanon? The spell is certainly regarded as evil and is kept highly secret, but that doesn't mean it's hard to do. The secrecy rather implies that it isn't, since otherwise the difficulty itself would protect it. The technique might be hard to discover but relatively easy to perform, or it might be hard to master but again easy to do, like the animagus transformation, which Sirius could manage even in Azkaban. Pippin thinking that if there are three of Voldemort's secrets protected by Secret Keeper, the third might be the horcrux spell, in which case, if Voldemort dies, the secret of their making will be safe indeed. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jun 17 16:55:23 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:55:23 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/17/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1182099323.24.12067.m49@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170374 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday June 17, 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 elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 17:25:30 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:25:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0706152035m3f68cf35h613fc3f3c2e6c4c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706171025l479d3cb5p6d6708738a06021c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170375 Jen: I'd say it all comes back to the prophecy. If Harry is marked as Voldemort's equal and 'either must die at the hand of the other' that means they should be equitable (except for the 'power the Dark Lord knows not'). Debbie: Ahhh, the Prophecy. Since it is a near-certainty that the Prophecy will be fulfilled in some manner, we should evaluate all our theories in its light. Starting with the portion you quoted, the full excerpt reads: ". . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . ." It is the second clause the puzzles me most of all, because obviously Harry is alive and -- at some level -- so is Voldemort. However, Harry's life is not fully independent of Voldemort, as the scar connection shows. He feels emotions that re not his. Dumbledore tells Harry in OOP: "On those rare occasions when we had close contact, I thought I saw a shadow of him stir behind your eyes." And Harry's purity of heart does not mix well with Voldemort's evil, causing them both pain. Jen: As a Horcrux, Harry would be acting as an anchor for Voldemort and keeping him from being killed but Harry wouldn't be equal to him in this way. Sure, Voldemort's given Harry 'powers, and a future, which have fitted [Harry] to escape him not once, but four times so far - ...' (OOTP, 'The Lost Prophecy', p. 742, UK ed.) and there's the blood protection, yet presumably Harry can be killed in any number of ways other than by Voldemort's hand if he is another Horcrux. That would render 'either must die at the hand of the other' an untrue statement in my mind. Debbie: Dumbledore, in HBP ch. 23, suggests that the reason either must die at the hand of the other is simply because Voldemort "will continue to hunt [Harry] . . . which makes it certain, really, that -- " I don't think it's necessary that Harry be fully protected from death by any other hand, though Lily's sacrifice and the blood protection provided through Petunia (neither of which would be in place had Voldemort not gone after Harry) go pretty far in that respect. Dumbledore's point is that Voldemort himself drives the fulfillment of the Prophecy. That's how Harry got his powers, that's why they're connected in such a way that Harry's existence is not fully separate, and why either must die at the hand of the other. The only part of the Prophecy that's true independent of Voldemort is Harry's innate purity of heart. So, I don't think Harrycrux is inconsistent with the Prophecy. Jen: Which brings me to what some will think is a very odd conclusion....the possibility that Harry is *also* immortal right now, anchored to Voldemort's Horcruxes because he shares part of Voldemort's soul. And what power does Harry have that the 'Dark Lord knows not'? The power to love, to be willing to destroy the Horcruxes and sacrifice himself if it comes to that in order for Voldemort to be destroyed. Voldemort *can't* do the same in order to destroy Harry because he's never known love. Debbie: The answer to this question may depend on whether Voldemort's soul has become intertwined with Voldemort's in any way. Would Voldemort's other Horcruxes tie Harry's soul to this earth? I tend to think not, but I have not given it a lot of thought. Carol: But in rereading CoS, I noticed that the concept of a "bit" of someone does come up in relation to the *physical* self. Hermione tells Harry and Ron that one of the ingredients of the Polyjuice Potion is "a bit of whoever we want to change into." [snip] This use of the word "bit" with reference to part of a person isn't proof, of course, that some physical "bit" of Voldemort, as opposed to the not-yet introduced soul bit, is what Dumbledore concedes *may* have entered Harry to give him Voldemort's powers, but if Voldie's body exploded, a "bit" of his flesh and (magical) blood could have entered the cut on Harry's forehead as easily, and perhaps more easily, than a nontangible soul bit could have done. Debbie: The Polyjuice effect is very different from the transfer of powers or the separation of the soul. Polyjuice only causes a person to assume the physical characteristics of a person, so it makes sense to require a physical bit of the person. Harry was just himself inside Crabbe's (or was it Goyle's) body. Fortunately, he didn't assume either their minds or their powers, or lack thereof. Doug: 1) *IF* there remains an ethereal connection enabling the horcruxes to actually anchor the main soul to the earthly realm, then the soul is not really in pieces is it? *IF* perhaps soul is source of power, then for this purpose, the soul remains intact enough enough to hold magical power no matter what its size, or where it is distributed. or 2) Perhaps it is because magical powers are neither of the soul, nor the body? but magic is of the Mind, and requires body - and parts of the body, most notably, opposable thumbs, to operate. Magic is Thought, Emotion, Will Desire, Imagination, Idea? projected onto the world so as to manifest as real. Debbie: I'll go with #1, and a small helping of #2. A soul is not corporeal, but it's easier to describe as if it were; each 'bit' of soul retains whatever is in the soul, except that shredding a soul by acts of murder essentially starts chipping away at whatever makes that soul human. Magic is of the mind, but often requires the body to aid it along. One cannot use a wand, or prepare a potion, without a body. But Vapor!Mort retained his mind, and such of his powers that did not require a body, i.e., possession. I read this to mean that the mind and powers remain with the soul. Doug: Yet if something is magically thrown so as to affect a magical action in the world, why cannot Harry bear an imprint of Voldemort -his soul, as it were- and have the effect of a horcrux, have all the power and mind based connections? yet not be a horcux, yet have a 'portion 'of his soul, and not have to die. Debbie: All this is magical theory (and there are more magical theories of Horcruxes circulating this list this weekend; it's all I can do to keep up with them all), but as I suggested above, my view is that all of an individual's unique magical talents, i.e., whatever is programmed into their DNA, is bound up with the person's soul. Take Riddle's diary, for example. Diary!Riddle was much more than a mere memory. It contained all of the 16-year-old Riddle's memories. It could think and act for itself, which is what led Dumbledore to conclude that it was probably a Horcrux. And once Riddle borrowed enough life force to escape, Diary!Riddle could perform magic -- the same magic that Riddle himself could have performed. He couldn't have gotten this magic from Ginny along with her life force; it was too advanced. But, yes, none of this -- soul or mind -- is corporeal. Bart: > A horcrux spell has been described as being quite complex (far more > complex than an AK spell, which seems to require the word and the intent > more than fine wand movements and precise pronunciation). Pippin: I don't see that the horcrux spell is described as being complex. Did I miss something? Or is this fanon? Debbie: I was going to ask the same question. I thought perhaps Bart was confusing this with the Fidelius Charm, which is described as complex. Slughorn says only that there is a spell which he does not know because he hasn't tried to make one. For all we know the spell may be as simple as blowing the soul bit at an object with the requisite intent. Goddlefrood: The second step, which is implied from Lord Voldemort's above words is to prepare a vessel to store the soul fragment. Oh, indeed, the vessel in which the soul fragment is to be kept must, IMO, have some preparation. [snip] That he did this preparation of the vessel in diverse ways should be clear enough, even from what we do know of the Horcrux creating process. The Diary Horcrux acted in its own way and I believe the other Horcruxes will too. Each of the remaining Horcruxes will be destroyed in a different manner and be found to have differing enchantments or bindings on them. The Ring Horcrux accounted for by Dumbledore, based on the little he described of its destruction, was very unlike the Diary. That the remaining 4, or possibly 3, will each cause their own problems and have unalike enchantments is something I would expect. A locket has a compartment, a cup arguably has not, a living Horcrux container would be different again and the other as yet undetermined Horcrux will also have its own idiosyncracies. None will have the same protections, as far as this reader is concerned. Debbie: Two points. First, my understanding is that the Horcrux becomes embedded in the object itself, and the object is not necessarily a container like the locket. Second, I agree that it's clear that each horcrux is protected in its own unique way. However, I read the text to mean that the enchantments were added to protect the horcrux, and not that they are part of the horcrux. The ring had a terrible curse on it. The locket had a whole series of protections on it, and even if you could reach the locket, it could not be opened. On the other hand, the diary was designed to be used, and its use did not release the soul. If the protections (or other unique features) could be added later, they are not part of the horcrux spell. Mike: But I don't think Harry has to be killed for this soul piece to be released. It wasn't encased with the Horcrux encasing spell, so it is only bound to this earth by the other Horcruxed soul pieces of LV. Debbie: I agree, but for a different reason. Because most horcruxes are inanimate objects, they must be destroyed to release the soul within. Harry as a living being, may have the power to release it himself, something he will realize only when it becomes essential, as he realized how to destroy the Diary. Mike: Any questions, see me after class :D Debbie: I'll be right there. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 17:25:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:25:39 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170376 Jen: > I'd say it all comes back to the prophecy. If Harry is marked as Voldemort's equal and 'either must die at the hand of the other' that means they should be equitable (except for the 'power the Dark Lord knows not'). As a Horcrux, Harry would be acting as an anchor for Voldemort and keeping him from being killed but Harry wouldn't be equal to him in this way. Carol: Exactly. Which pretty much destroys the Harry!Horcrux argument right there. > Jen: > Which brings me to what some will think is a very odd conclusion....the possibility that Harry is *also* immortal right now, anchored to Voldemort's Horcruxes because he shares part of Voldemort's soul. And what power does Harry have that the 'Dark Lord knows not'? The power to love, to be willing to destroy the Horcruxes and sacrifice himself if it comes to that in order for Voldemort to be destroyed. Voldemort *can't* do the same in order to destroy Harry because he's never known love. Carol: But Horcruxes are the antithesis of Love, and being a Horcrux seems antithetical to using Love magic to conquer Voldemort. Also, I don't see how having a bit of *Voldemort's* soul in him would make Harry immortal, any more than Nagini, however long-lived a magical snake may be, is immortal because she's a Horcrux (if she is, and I think DD is right). We know that Horcruxes can be destroyed, as both the diary and the ring have been. Why would Harry!Horcrux be any different? Also, though this may not matter to people who aren't DDM!Snapers, Snape's attempts to protect Harry would be stripped of their thematic significance if Harry were immortal. And wouldn't Harry have died from the Basilisk venom if it hadn't been for Fawkes's tears? He certainly didn't seem immortal in that scene? As I said, before, I think that the "bit" of Voldemor that entered Harry's cut and gave him some of Voldemort's powers was physical. The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eye when he learned that the resurrected Voldemort had some of Harry's blood in him could have been a recognition that the same thing had happened to *Harry*--he was "marked as Voldemort's equal" not by the scar per se but by what was in it, a bit of Voldemort's magical blood, now sealed inside the scar. As for the question someone (Deb?) asked about what happened to the soul bit from Lily's murder, possibly nothing happened to it at all. Voldie probably had a lot of unused soul bits from various murders, which would need to be detached and encased by a Horcrux spell before they could leave the main soul. Normally, of course, a soul bit would remain within the murderer until and unless it was placed in a Horcrux. We have no indication that the soul bit from Lily's murder or any of the others would just fly off looking for a host, nor, if a soul bit could possess someone, would it need a cut to enter through. Are all the soul bits from all those other murders Voldie committed still flying around looking for hosts? Clearly, they haven't found them or we'd have heard about it. I think that *if* any soul bits came loose and detached themselves from the main soul, they went behind the Veil. More likely, without a Horcrux spell to detach them, they remained with the main soul, like a loose tooth ready to be pulled or a perforated postage stamp ready to be detached from the main sheet, because they were anchored to the main soul by the Horcruxes. *If* they could escape, surely they'd have gone behind the Veil, free to die. I don't think that's what's happened, though. Voldie has lost the 6/7 of his soul that he's deliberately placed in Horcruxes and retains one seventh (2/7 at that point because he hadn't yet made his last Horcrux). Yes, the math is odd--killing wouldn't automatically split off 1/7 of a soul, but it's JKR's math, not mine). Anyway, I see no need to complicate the plot by making Harry a Horcrux. Just let him share some of Voldie's powers (we need to see at least one more in DH) and the scar connection, as he already does, and destroy the four remaining Horcruxes (with help, probably) as we've been promised. I expect and hope that the heart of DH will be Harry's emotional development, not some magical complication making him the human equivalent of the Hufflepuff Cup. Harry is not a superhero. The whole point of the books is that he's an ordinary wizarding boy with a unique history, one or two unusual powers (Parseltongue and a mental link to Voldemort and Love), a lot of luck, a lot of courage and resourcefulness, and loyal friends--a boy who seems to be outmatched by his enemy but who will win the conflict through those means, not because he's an accidental Horcrux. Or so I fervently hope. Carol, who thinks that the whole David/Goliath aspect of the Harry/Voldemort conflict would be ruined if Harry were immortal, and "either must die at the hand of the other" suggests that he *can* die From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 17 17:56:34 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:56:34 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170377 limerent: > In book 5 Snape tells Harry that eye contact is > necessary for leglimancy except in Harry's case because > of the bond they seem to have. But in Book 4 Voldemort > is able to tell that Frank is lying even though the chair > is still turned away from Frank at that point. And a bit > earlier Voldemort could tell Wormtail was lying though > it seems they didn't have eye contact either as it made > a big deal of the fear/disgust/reluctance each time > Wormtail had to look at Voldemort. So is Voldemort that > good at leglimancy, even better than Snape thinks, that > he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of > judgement mean for Snape if it is true? houyhnhnm: I'm not sure that Voldemort would have needed to use Legilimency in either case. Surely Voldemort and Wormtail would have done a minimum of reconnaissance before taking up residence in the Riddle House. Simple observation would have told them that Frank Bryce lived alone. In the second case, Voldemort called Wormtail a liar after Wormtail took credit for realizing the usefulness of Bertha Jorkins when he brought her to Voldemort. So in the scene in the Riddle House, Voldemort isn't so much detecting a current falsehood as he is accusing Wormtail of misrepresenting his own motives about something that has already happened between the two of them. When Wormtail brought Bertha to Voldemort, it may be that he had simply screwed up and allowed himself to be identified, didn't know what to do about, and brought the problem to Voldemort to sort out. Voldemort could have used Legilimency at that time to learn that this was so. On the other hand, Voldemort may only have determined through Legilimency that Wormtail sees himself as a rat, a traitor, and an incompetent wizard and he uses that information to keep Wormtail down. At any rate, I don't see Voldemort's use of the word "liar" as signifying a literal detection of a falsehood so much as a determination to put Wormtail in his place. I've never been certain whether the possession of a magical art like Occlumency or Legilimency is supposed to imply the absence of an ordinary Muggle ability like simple human logic. Dumbledore possessed both (He *deduced* that Crouch!Moody was an imposter because of the inconsistancy of his actions rather than discovering it through Legilimency), but Dumbledore was the greatest wizard of his age. It may be that most wizards could not have done that("A lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic.") Nevertheless, we know from the puzzle he devised to protect the Stone, that Snape does possess logic. That may be his greatest strength against Voldemort. It may enable him to see Voldemort's greatest weakness--his megalomania--and use it against him in a way that other wizards, even those adept at the arts of Legilimency and Occlumency like Bellatrix, cannot. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 17 18:31:45 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:31:45 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170378 Lizzyben: > I hope so, because as a "politically correct" message > against prejudice and discrimination, it fails > completely. There's a number of places in the novels > that have this same weird subtext - the characters > first think some group is a victim of unfair > discrimination or bigotry, and then realize no, > it's actually OK to discriminate against them! They > actually ARE evil, dangerous, servile, etc. > The giants are a good example of this. Hermione says it's > no big deal if Hagrid is half-giant, & the bad things > people say about giants (and werewolves) are just a > result of prejudice & bigotry. Then later on we find > out, no, Ron was right - giants are all violent, brutal > & stupid. Same thing w/elves - Hermione wants them to > have rights & freedom, but later learns no, they actually > like slavery, don't want money, and are happiest serving > their masters. > With all of these groups, the liberal message against > "bigotry & prejudice" is actually subverted by the text > itself. The actual message becomes that these groups > actually are inferior & don't deserve equal rights. In > the Wizarding World, the bigots are right! That's what I find odd. houyhnhnm: I think what she is trying to show is that creating a romantic fantasy about an oppressed group is not the mature way to work for justice. ************************** JK: Exactly. Well, she's fun to write because Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them. She's not very sensitive to their ************************** What Hermione needs to learn is that non-human magical beings have rights whether they are "lovable" or not and that she's not some kind of Lady Bountiful who can patronizingly, condescendingly "give them their rights". I agree it is somewhat crudely done. The pidgen English that Rowling puts in the mouths of the house elves really grates on my nerves (as do the cheesy accents of the "foreigners"). From limerent4ever at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 15:21:41 2007 From: limerent4ever at gmail.com (limerent4ever) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:21:41 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > I think we may rest confident in the fact that Snape has evaded > detection by Voldemort (if indeed he has) by measures other than > refusing eye contact. If Voldemort were trying to Legilimens a Death > Eater, and the Death Eater refused to look at him, I think Voldemort > would object. Violently. Similarly, I think we can also conclude that > Snape does something different and more subtle from what Draco does to > evade Snape's Legilimency in HBP. Simply hiding the truth from > Voldemort would not, in my view, suffice. If Voldemort could tell Snaep > was hiding something (the way Snape could with Draco), that would be > enough to get Snape into hot watrer with Voldemort. > limerent: As I love Snape I hope so! I find it interesting that Voldemort seems to not need the eye contact not just with Harry but with Wormtail and Frank too. And I wonder if the boundaries than lie in he can only do that if in the same room as them? Or building? Or county? Or country? Where does it end? And how does he do it? From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Jun 17 18:54:11 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:54:11 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > limerent: > > > In book 5 Snape tells Harry that eye contact is > > necessary for leglimancy except in Harry's case because > > of the bond they seem to have. But in Book 4 Voldemort > > is able to tell that Frank is lying even though the chair > > is still turned away from Frank at that point. And a bit > > earlier Voldemort could tell Wormtail was lying though > > it seems they didn't have eye contact either as it made > > a big deal of the fear/disgust/reluctance each time > > Wormtail had to look at Voldemort. So is Voldemort that > > good at leglimancy, even better than Snape thinks, that > > he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of > > judgement mean for Snape if it is true? > > houyhnhnm: > > I'm not sure that Voldemort would have needed to use > Legilimency in either case. > > Surely Voldemort and Wormtail would have done a minimum > of reconnaissance before taking up residence in the > Riddle House. Simple observation would have told them > that Frank Bryce lived alone. Quick_Silver: However Voldemort and Wormtail doing reconnaissance is a very logical thing to do...despite the supposed subtext that wizards are not logical. > houyhnhnm: > I've never been certain whether the possession of a > magical art like Occlumency or Legilimency is supposed > to imply the absence of an ordinary Muggle ability like simple > human logic. Dumbledore possessed both (He *deduced* > that Crouch!Moody was an imposter because of the > inconsistancy of his actions rather than discovering > it through Legilimency), but Dumbledore was the greatest > wizard of his age. It may be that most wizards could > not have done that("A lot of the greatest wizards haven't > got an ounce of logic.") > > Nevertheless, we know from the puzzle he devised to protect > the Stone, that Snape does possess logic. That may be his > greatest strength against Voldemort. It may enable him to > see Voldemort's greatest weakness--his megalomania--and use > it against him in a way that other wizards, even those adept > at the arts of Legilimency and Occlumency like Bellatrix, cannot. Quick_Silver: Yet you overlook the fact that Voldemort and/or Quirral managed to overcome Snape's vaunted logic trap in PS/SS. So either Quirral was another rare logical wizard or Voldemort does possess a grasp of logic. I'm always intrigued when people mention the wizard's lack of logic because I have trouble seeing it in the novels. Aside from Hermione mentioning that many great wizards have no logic I really can think of nothing else supporting the concept. So to me it comes across as Hermione making a unsupported statement and then JK using the concept to help the plot along when need be. For instance the wizards are implied to be illogical because they have magic instead yet JK then portrays their magic as being a very logical concept almost another branch of science and technology. It becomes very circular in my mind. Quick_Silver From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 20:04:49 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:04:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcruxes 401 (Was Re: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706171304t43cfb60dle5ce8df9819e13b4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170381 > Goddlefrood: > That he did this preparation of the vessel in diverse ways > should be clear enough, even from what we do know of the > Horcrux creating process. The Diary Horcrux acted in its > own way and I believe the other Horcruxes will too. Each > of the remaining Horcruxes will be destroyed in a different > manner and be found to have differing enchantments or bindings > on them. > > The Ring Horcrux accounted for by Dumbledore, based on the > little he described of its destruction, was very unlike the > Diary. That the remaining 4, or possibly 3, will each cause > their own problems and have unalike enchantments is something > I would expect. Kemper now: I agree that each Horcrux will have its specific defenses/protections. But I'm betting that since the Dark Lord feels that an Horcrux needs protection then they must be relatively easy to destroy. My impression of the Horcrux creation is that all of it is 'easy' and none of it is 'right': from the intention to kill, to tearing away a piece of the soul, to placing it in an object. Yes, it's the Darkest Magic, but I doubt it's the most powerful. The Diary was destroyed after Harry rendered the paper. It is unclear, as far as I was able to tell, how the Ring was destroyed, but as the ring is _not_ described of having a crack in it within any of the pensieve memories, I believe it is reasonable to assume the black stone was whole. It is only described as cracked when Harry sees it on Dumbledore's hand after while visiting Slughorn. My assumption is that after DD got passed the protections, he cracked the stone thus releasing the soul piece within. Again, why all the protection unless they are easily destroyed? jmao > Goddlefrood asides: > A little idea occurred to me recently, partially linked to the > Deluxe Scholastic cover. It is that if Harry and Co. visit a > treasure vault then it will be one guarded by a dragon, only > one though. This can be extrapolated from what we have heard > as a rumour regarding Gringotts Bank from all the way back in > PS / SS. Hagrid, iirc, tells Harry that there are reports of > dragons at Gringotts. Part of the process of accessing the > vault would include getting past a dragon. If that is the > case then the same dragon may assist in furthering their quest > and be the one artistically depicted on the said Deluxe Cover. > It will also have been guarding a Horcrux. Kemper asides as well: I've been thinking similarly, but that the Antipodean Dragon on the cover is so named not just because of where they live that the these dragons can teleport to opposite ends of the world. Maybe the Horcrux is hanging from a horn. Anyone attempting to take it, and the dragon would teleport to its antipodean on globe. Kemper From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 20:20:22 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:20:22 -0000 Subject: Regulus' death(was: Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > lizzyben04: > > The problem I have with that theory is that neither Sirius nor > Lupin > > seem to have any idea what Regulus was up to. > > > > It actually doesn't seem like Sirius had any contact with his > > brother at all since graduating Hogwarts, maybe even since he was > > first sorted into Slytherin, and that's a little sad. > > > wynnleaf > My impression was that Sirius' knowledge was rather vague about what > happened to Regulus. > > So where did Lupin get his "few days" knowledge if not from Sirius? > And if Lupin had that knowledge, why didn't Sirius appear to have > it? lizzyben: >From Lupin's Death Eater friends, of course! :) If Lupin got that info from a "good" source, you'd think he would have shared that w/Sirius, and the Order. Sirius certainly would have wanted to know. But he kept quiet - IMO because if he informed the others, they would next ask *how* Lupin knew this, and Lupin didn't want to reveal his source. This indicates that Lupin's source was probably shady/evil - someone Lupin wouldn't want the others to know that he was in contact with. wynnleaf: > Some speculate that the info came from Dumbledore. But Dumbledore > did *not* share information about Snape's turning from Voldemort to > the Order back at that time, so I can't see it likely that he'd > share information about Regulus turning either -- assuming > Dumbledore knew anything. > Further, if Dumbledore *did* know more info and shared it, wouldn't > he have been more likely to share it with Sirius than with Lupin? > Yet Lupin seemed to have the greater knowledge. lizzyben: I don't think Dumbledore did know. He certainly didn't know about the Horcrux switch, and Regulus apparantly didn't contact him for safety. Regulus died before Snape switched sides, so DD wouldn't have an informant in the Death Eaters. And even if DD did know, why would he tell Lupin & not Sirius? DD is usually pretty closed-mouth w/his information. No, Lupin had to have heard it from someone else. The only people who knew when Regulus left would be Voldemort & the other Death Eaters. And who actually killed Regulus? Who told them where Regulus was hiding? Could it be... Lupin? Maybe Regulus came to his brother's friend for advice, and Lupin turned around to inform Voldemort? Just a suspicious suggestion. wynnleaf: > And this is a piece of literature, after all. > > This comment by Lupin could a small plot hole, without any real > explanation for how Lupin knew when Regulus turned and therefore > knew it was only "a few days" before he was killed. lizzyben: That's possible. Books have "plot holes" when the author needed to give information w/o a plausible reason behind it. JKR needed to remind readers of Regulus Black early in the novel in order to provide a clue about RAB's identity. And Lupin is the only person left who could plausibly provide this information. So maybe JKR gave him this line as a clue - without thinking about how or why Lupin would know this information. wynnleaf: > On the other hand, if there *is* an explanation, then JKR obviously > knows exactly what that explanation is and it has some importance. > And if it has some importance, it's not something trivial -- > although it could have more to do with Regulus' possible activities > surrounding the horcruxes than anything bad about Lupin. lizzyben: Well, it does prove that Lupin, and Sirius, were wrong about Regulus. He didn't just run away, but formulated a plan to stop Voldemort. I guess this indicates that the Order wasn't involved in Regulus' plan. It may be more of a hint about Regulus than Lupin. But I think it's interesting that LUPIN gave this line about the past, given that he's been so quiet about his own past. I don't think that was a coincidence. wynnleaf: > The problem with the "plot hole" option is that there are just too > many plot holes surrounding Lupin's actions and comments for me to > think all of those plot holes are just JKR slipping up more often > with Lupin than other major characters. > > wynnleaf > lizzyben: Yeah, Lupin is a slippery character, which is why I don't trust him very much. JKR has been careful to conceal his whereabouts during the past 12 years, while Lupin repeatedly drops hints that indicate a familiarity w/the Dark Arts & Death Eaters, and others drop hints that they considered him a possible spy/traitor. Why wouldn't James let Lupin be his Secret Keeper? Why haven't we heard an explanation yet? Why does Lupin keep lying about Snape, while maintaining a supposedly neutral stance? Lupin maintains this passive stance that allows him to gather a lot of information about people, & disappear from view w/o causing too many questions. He's tricky. Lizzyben, who doesn't believe Lupin was really asleep on the Hogwarts Express. From rmatovic at ssk.com Sun Jun 17 20:35:37 2007 From: rmatovic at ssk.com (Rebecca M) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:35:37 -0000 Subject: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170383 haven't posted here in a while ... I was re-reading OotP and something struck me that I couldn't figure out how to search for to see if it has been discussed ... if it has been discussed, can you have mercy and suggest the search terms I can check to find the discussion? So here's the rather half-formed thought: At the beginning of OotP, the Sorting hat sings about unity between the houses being the answer to troubles. That theme is sort of picked up, but I'd argue not fully paid off in the rest of the book or in HBP. On page 399 (US hardback) Hermione is asked why she isn't in Ravenclaw (after doing the protean charm on the coins). At the beginning we know that Harry is considered for Slytherin. Ron is the prototypical Gryfindor, from a whole family of the same. Neville certainly seems more of a Hufflepuff. So are the four somehow recreating the dynamic of the founders? Will something about their interaction play in the way the whole thing gets resolved? It seems that there are several themes that need to be resolved in DH ... Harry/Voldemort Snape/Snape Relations between the races of magical creatures Possibly this other one about Hogwarts, the founders, and bringing unity to the different threads they represent From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 21:04:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:04:25 -0000 Subject: Wormtail and Voldemort's Plans for Murder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170384 Limerent wrote: > I am rereading GoF and ran across an old note I made in the margins where I wondered who else's murder Wormtail and Voldemort were planning at the time of their conversation in Chapter One. > > "My Lord, I must speak!" said Wormtail, panic in his voice now. > "All through our journey I have gone over the plan in my head -- > My Lord, Bertha Jorkin's disappearance will not go unnoticed for > long, and if we proceed, if I murder --" > "If?" whispered the second voice. "If? If you follow the plan, > Wormtail, the Ministry need never know that anyone else has died. > You will do it quietly and without fuss; I only wish that I could > do it myself, but in my present condition ... Come, Wormtail, one > more death and our path to Harry Potter is clear. I am not asking > you to do it alone. By that time, my faithful servant will have > rejoined us --" > > > Earlier in the chapter Wormtail says this... > > > "My Lord, I do not say this out of concern for the boy!" said > Wormtail, his voice rising squeakily. "The boy is nothing to > me, nothing at all! It is merely that if we were to use another > witch or wizard -- any wizard -- the thing could be done so much > more quickly! If you allowed me to leave you for a short while -- > you know that I can disguise myself most effectively -- I could > be back here in as little as two days with a suitable person --" > > So is Wormtail disguising himself as the murdered person at > times so no-one suspects? We don't see him in the 5th book > but he does appear at the beginning of the 6th book. > > Does anyone have any thoughts on who was meant to be killed > without the Ministry knowing? > > limerent > Carol responds: I'm guessing that you're using the Scholastic edition. (I wondered the same thing when I first read GoF, also using that edition.) The question was at least partially answered by the differences between the US and UK editions. The UK edition reads "If I curse" rather than "if I murder," "one more obstacle removed" rather than "one more death," and "one more curse" rather than "one more murder." http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/differences-gf.html It's possible that the U.S. editor misunderstood and thought that Voldie and Wormtail were talking about Harry's murder rather than removing the obstacle (Barty Sr. or Mad-Eye Moody) who stood in the way of the plan. I think "one more curse" refers to the Imperius Curse placed on Barty Sr. but I'm not sure. Other interpretations are more than welcome, but I think we can take the UK edition as definitive here. As for Wormtail's ability to disguise himself, I'm sure he's referring to his ability to transform into a rat--much more effective for his purposes than Polyjuice. Carol, noting that such significant alterations by a copyeditor would normally have been queried and wondering how they got past JKR (whose exhaustion after completing GoF is the only explanation that occurs to me) From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jun 17 21:16:41 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:16:41 -0000 Subject: Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170385 Quick_Silver: > Yet you overlook the fact that Voldemort and/or > Quirral managed to overcome Snape's vaunted logic > trap in PS/SS. So either Quirral was another rare > logical wizard or Voldemort does possess a grasp of logic. > I'm always intrigued when people mention the wizard's > lack of logic because I have trouble seeing it in the > novels. Aside from Hermione mentioning that many great > wizards have no logic I really can think of nothing > else supporting the concept. So to me it comes across > as Hermione making a unsupported statement and then JK > using the concept to help the plot along when need be. > For instance the wizards are implied to be illogical > because they have magic instead yet JK then portrays > their magic as being a very logical concept almost > another branch of science and technology. It becomes > very circular in my mind. houyhnhnm: I overlooked it because I am not really very interested in arguing that point of view. It's not the way I interpret the Potterverse. I don't really think that wizards are autistic, that every concealment of a lie or detection of a falsehood involves the use of Occlumency or Legilimency. Still that is the way some see it and, I suppose, it is a possibility. I was asking the question, I guess. Does every act of perspicacity on the part of wizards involve the exercise of some kind of magical art or do they sometimes make observations and draw conclusions just the same as Muggles do? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 22:15:21 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:15:21 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170386 > Jen: > I'd say it all comes back to the prophecy. If Harry is marked as > Voldemort's equal and 'either must die at the hand of the other' > that means they should be equitable (except for the 'power the Dark > Lord knows not'). As a Horcrux, Harry would be acting as an anchor > for Voldemort and keeping him from being killed but Harry wouldn't > be equal to him in this way. Mike: If the "marking" incident occurs at GH and involves a soul piece that carries with it Voldemort's special powers, that would qualify as "mark him as his equal". The connotation I read is that by the transferrence of powers Harry now has as much potential to use those powers as Voldemort can. Yet, Voldemort "marking" Harry as his "equal" is not the same thing as them being "equals". The prophecy itself says that Harry has "power the Dark Lord knows not", which right there says that Harry and LV are not "equals". And Voldemort has developed his powers to a degree that Harry may never achieve, some of those powers undoubtedly involve dark magic that Harry wouldn't *want* to develop. As an analogy, there is a race car series where all the participants get the same car. They then have time to make whatever adjustments to the spoilers and such that they think will give them an edge. Likewise, each driver does not have the same talent nor have they all learned to drive the same way or have the same experience level. Voldemort gave Harry the same race car that he drives. But Voldemort has had much more time to make adjustments, gathered much more experience, learned how far he can push his car and still keep racing, and just what his car can do that other cars can't. Harry got the car as a baby, he knows none of this stuff, and there are ways that Voldemort pushed the envelope with his car that Harry won't even try with his own. But Harry has the ability to see the condition that will cause a crash to occur in front of him. Voldemort in his arrogance, doesn't think a crash will ever affect his race and therefore ignores any of the signs and outright ridicules anybody who thinks someone elses crash could ever affect him. > Carol: > We know that Horcruxes can be destroyed, as both the diary and > the ring have been. Why would Harry!Horcrux be any different? Mike: This brings up a point where I think JKR is confusing us. On the one hand, Dumbledore told us that after Harry defeated the Diary, "That particular fragment of soul is no more; you saw to that." (HBP p.501) So it would seem that when Harry stabbed the Diary he *killed* the soul piece. But later in that chapter both Dumbledore and Harry refer to destroying the Horcrux, which I take to mean destroying the objects magical capacity of encasing a soul piece, as certainly both the diary and the ring still existed after the fact. So which is it? Does Harry have to get to the soul piece inside the Horcrux and kill it or does he merely have to destroy the capacity of the object, the Horcrux, to contain the soul piece? > Carol: > > As I said, before, I think that the "bit" of Voldemor that entered > Harry's cut and gave him some of Voldemort's powers was physical. > The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eye when he learned that the resurrected > Voldemort had some of Harry's blood in him could have been a > recognition that the same thing had happened to *Harry*--he was > "marked as Voldemort's equal" not by the scar per se but by what was > in it, a bit of Voldemort's magical blood, now sealed inside the > scar. Mike: I have two problems with the blood transferrence theory: 1) The Harry!Crux theory has always been hampered by the question of why Dumbledore wouldn't tell Harry this if he suspected it. By the same logic, why wouldn't Dumbledore the magical blood scholar, tell Harry that Voldemort transferred some of his blood to Harry and that was why Harry got some of LV's powers? 2) Voldemort, or more exactly Quirrell!Mort couldn't touch Harry without suffering great pain because of Lily's love protection. After Voldemort got Harry's blood, that was no longer an obstacle. But if Harry got a magical transfer of powers from some of Voldemort's blood, why could LV not touch Harry before? IOW, if LV can touch Harry after getting some Harry blood that carries magical properties, LV should have been able to touch Harry all along because Harry had gotten some LV blood that carried magical properties. > Carol: > As for the question someone (Deb?) asked about what happened to the > soul bit from Lily's murder, possibly nothing happened to it at all. > Voldie probably had a lot of unused soul bits from various murders, > which would need to be detached and encased by a Horcrux spell > before they could leave the main soul. Mike: Slughorn tells Tom how to *split* the soul, said killing rips the soul *apart*, that one would encase the torn *portion*. This clearly means that a murder *seperates* a piece of soul, and that the Horcrux spell is not needed to "detach" the piece of soul from the main, it was "detached" completely by the murder. > Carol: > Normally, of course, a soul bit would remain within the murderer > until and unless it was placed in a Horcrux. Mike: And if the murderer is no more, what happens to this detached, unfettered by a body's containment soul piece? > Carol: > We have no indication that the soul bit from Lily's murder or any > of the others would just fly off looking for a host, nor, if a > soul bit could possess someone, would it need a cut to enter > through. Mike: We have a detached, bodiless soul piece, recently created by Lily's murder. What happened to it is anybody's guess, since we haven't been given any other time in canon where a Horcrux protected wizard who had just committed a soul-splitting murder was blown up by a rebounding AK. But some of us believe the "indication" is that Harry acquired a piece of Voldemort's soul at this time. Whether Harry got that piece because it was trying to possess and take control of Harry, or it was compelled to transfer to Harry because of the action of a Horcrux encasing spell and Harry being "marked", or it was simply looking for a place to reside until it could pass beyond the veil, is all speculation. But it does meet your requirement of some "indication" that it has happened. > Carol: > Are all the soul bits from all those other murders Voldie committed > still flying around looking for hosts? Clearly, they haven't found > them or we'd have heard about it. Mike: This assumes that the soul pieces from other murders haven't in some way at least partially re-attached themselves to the main. That these detached pieces attempt to heal, seems a viable alternative to them remaining forever rent. > Carol: > I think that *if* any soul bits came loose and detached themselves > from the main soul, they went behind the Veil. Mike: But Voldy's Horcruxes prevent this from happening. > Carol: > because they were anchored to the main soul by the Horcruxes. Mike: Horcruxes anchor the soul to this realm. Where did your reading cause you to surmise that Horcruxes anchor soul pieces to each other? That seems rather antithetical to the purpose of a Horcrux. > Carol: > Anyway, I see no need to complicate the plot by making Harry a > Horcrux. Mike: I don't understand this reasoning. We speculate what, when, why, and how something happened. Something that JKR has not fully explained. If it turns out we are right in our speculation, that means that JKR chose our storyline and has a plan for resolving it. *We* are not putting a burden on JKR nor on Harry. JKR has already done that, and we are trying to guess at *how* she did it. Your reluctance seems to be that you have presupposed that any resolution to this dilemna will be unsatisfying, at least that's the way it appears to me, all evidence of JKR's storytelling ability to the contrary. > Carol, who thinks that the whole David/Goliath aspect of the > Harry/Voldemort conflict would be ruined if Harry were immortal, and > "either must die at the hand of the other" suggests that he *can* > die Mike, who also thinks that Harry is not immortal, but may be supra- mortal because he has some extra soul ;) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jun 17 22:21:18 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:21:18 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and The Boys From Brazil (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170387 If JKR is doing her job right, then the deepest mystery of the HP series, what JKR once referred to as "the heart of it all", should reflect directly the central theme of the series. If you know the theme you have better chances at solving the mystery. And unlike plot clues, the central theme isn't something that JKR can practically hide. So what *is* meant to be the central theme of HP series? Ever since reading CoS I've been certain that it is the theme of Free Will. In the resolution of CoS Dumbledore says to Harry "it is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities". Just in case anyone has failed to notice the significance of these words in first reading, JKR recently flagged them for our attention herself: **************************************************************** http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm JKR: Yes, definitely, because I think there's a line there between the moment in "Chamber of Secrets" when Dumbledore says so famously, `It's our choices that define us, not our abilities,' straight through to Dumbledore sitting in his office, saying to Harry, "the prophecy is significant only because you and Voldemort choose to make it so." ***************************************************************** (Interestingly she slightly misquotes her own canon here. She says "our choices *define* us" instead of "show what we truly are". But this is perhaps for another post). A central idea, perhaps *the* Central Idea of all current monotheistic religions as well as western humanism, is that human beings have the ability to know good from evil, and especially that they have the responsibility to choose good, and face the consequences of their choice even if they aren't easy. Already in Genesis 3 the ancient serpent tells Adam and Eve that once they eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they "will be like God, knowing good and evil". Interestingly snakes are a recurring motif in the Harry Potter series. In Genesis 4 Cain, who is contemplating the first murder, is told: "sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it". Again interestingly, the hero of the HP series is known by a conspicuous mark on his forehead. The opposite of the concept of Free Will is Determinism: the idea that our fate or our biology or our upbringing can deny us our freedom to choose good from evil. Throughout the series Determinism of all these kinds is repeatedly brought up and condemned. The ideology of the bad guys in the story ? the "pureblood" dogma ? is a typical philosophy of biological determinism, claiming that someone's birth gives him the right to abuse those of "lower" birth. In contrast Dumbledore, the Author's prophet within the story, believes in "second chances" and, despite his great power, knowledge and authority, typically exercises a laissez-faire policy to the point of "detachment". Most of the main non-human and "half-human" characters in the series dramatically refute the determinism of their biology: Dobby and Kreacher both hack the magical geis enforcing house elves to obey their masters, and choose to do either good or evil. Firenze denies centaur fatalism in order to fight evil and save a human foal. Hagrid, despite the obvious heritage of his giant blood, is the kindest character in the series. Lupin, forced to turn into a mindless monster every month since he was five, is the opposite in character of anything you'd expect from a werewolf. JKR's human characters refute not only the determinism of Nature, but also the determinism of Nurture: Sirius had hated the pureblood ideology despite growing up in a family of Dark wizards. James, an arrogant berk at fifteen, saved the life of the person he hated at sixteen. Peter became a traitor and a DE despite being a Gryffindor. Draco, despite being a DE's son, decides in his moment of truth that he is not a killer. Yes, yes, we will discuss Snape presently. Most of the deepest magic in the Potterverse takes its power from moral Choice. Lily's sacrifice, for example, had the power to protect Harry "because she could have lived and chose to die" (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm). James's sacrifice did not have that same protection power because he didn't have the opportunity to choose. Likewise the protection of 4 Privet Drive had to be sealed by Petunia's decision to take Harry in. The Fidelius (as the name itself suggests) depends on the choice of the Secret Keeper to remain loyal to his friends. The Life Debt takes its power from the choice to save another wizard's life. The Unbreakable Vow depends on a wizard's choice to back his word with his life. The Patronus depends on the choice to keep on fighting, rather than surrender to despair and take the easy way out. In all these examples the most difficult part isn't technically mastering the spell (indeed, in the cases of Lily's sacrifice and the Life Debt a technical part doesn't seem to exist at all) but in the moral choosing of what is right over what is easy. The more difficult the choice, the more powerful the magic. Likewise, the power of the Darkest magic in the Potterverse usually comes from *immoral* choice to embrace evil. Horcruxes can only be created by a choice to commit murder and renounce a part of one's soul. The Unforgivables require a deep intent to hurt the victim, even enjoy it (but interestingly, the Unforgivable that takes away the victim's freedom of choice, Imperius, *can* be resisted, again by using the power of will rather than by applying any sophisticated magical technique). It seems that the Potterverse Dark Arts are not necessarily difficult in the technical sense: some of the most powerful DEs do not appear overly bright, and the admittedly bright Crouch Jr. had very little time to become so proficient. Rather, it looks like the Dark Arts are difficult mainly because they require a conscious choice to embrace evil. This concept is common enough, both in folklore and literature (the "contract with the devil" theme) and in RL ("admission exams" for new members into some satanic cults and terror groups often require performing a crime, the more heinous the better). The most dramatic example yet of the importance of Free Will in the series is of course the prophecy, outwardly the very embodiment of Determinism and fate. As both JKR and Dumbledore explain in detail, the prophecy actually depended on Free Will in *three* different ways: first in Voldemort's choice to act upon the prophecy, second in his choice to attack Harry rather than Neville, and third in Harry's choice to fight Voldemort back. And should anybody doubt the obvious, JKR herself (see quote in the beginning of this post) connected the last one with Dumbledore's speech about choices in CoS. Once again she has consciously brought up a deterministic plot device only to shoot it down with her Free Will theme. However, I think that even the prophecy isn't the most important way in which the theme of Free Will plays in the series. There's a far more important way. I'm talking about the many parallels and similarities that JKR draws between Voldemort and Harry. Granted, JKR is hardly the first fantasy writer to draw parallels between her hero and her evil overlord. Tolkien, for example, did it when he had the ring taken from Frodo by severing his finger, the same as had happened before to Sauron. But I can't think of any author who indulges in this parallelism as much as JKR does. She starts already in the first book, in the scene at Olivander's, where we find that the wand that chose Harry is "the brother" of the wand that chose Voldemort. Strange, isn't it, how these things happen. This theme continues in another of the most famous HP scenes ? the Sorting ? in which we find that Harry would have done well in Slytherin. In the next books we begin to discover what it was that the wand and the Sorting Hat saw in Harry's head. Diary!Riddle notes: "There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. We even look something alike ". We learn that Harry is considered by many to be himself a powerful Dark wizard, a possible replacement for Voldemort. We learn that Voldemort has "put a bit of himself" in Harry without intending it, we learn that there is a unique connection between their minds. In OotP we have several scenes in which the narrator practically describes Harry *as* Voldemort, not just seeing what Voldemort is seeing, but actually feeling his emotions and even actively saying words that are Voldemort's words and taking actions that are in fact Voldemort's actions. Why does JKR invest so much in drawing all these parallels and connections between the hero and evil overlord? In the context of the Free Will theme the answer is obvious: if Harry and Voldemort are so similar, then it is indeed only their opposite choices that make one of them good and the other evil. This reminds me of a thought experiment that is sometime presented in philosophy and Science Fiction. Lets look at one example: "The Boys from Brazil" (TBFB) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077269/ is a 1978 movie by F. J. Schaffner, based on a book (which I haven't read) by Ira Levin. Below are spoilers for both the movie and the book, but I wouldn't let this stop me: the movie at least is a rather standard seventies thriller and IMHO mediocre at best. It really isn't worth the effort to locate (which might not be easy anyway) and watch it. I mention it here purely for its main plot assumption. SPOILERS FOR "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL" AHEAD So, in TBFB, a nazi hunter is attempting to track down Josef Mengele, the infamous doctor who had performed experiments on many human victims in Auschwitz and escaped to South America after the war (note: Dr. Mengele was a real person and had indeed escaped from trial after the war, but his role in TBFB is completely fictional). The mystery plot in the beginning of the movie is that Mengele appears to be connected, for unknown reasons, with the murders of several men with no common denominator, except that all of them have sons, boys at the age of 13. Rather predictably it turns out (I believe most people will see the solution to the mystery from about mile away) that Mengele is attempting to clone Adolph Hitler. He had brought with him from Germany cell cultures taken from Hitler's body, and had managed to implant them in the wombs of several women who came to hospital for fertility treatments. Now that his Hitler clones have reached 13 Mengle is attempting to recreate not only Nature, but also Nurture: since the original Adolph Hitler had lost his father at the age of 13, Mengele murders the fathers of his little Hitlers to be. The power in the plot of TBFB is the thought experiment: if you created a genetic clone of Hitler and further attempted to also recreate his upbringing, would that clone have the Choice to become a good person rather than an evil one? The weakness in TBFB is that it does not attempt to address this question in any real way. We meet only briefly with one of these boys and he indeed shows tendencies for sadism, but we do not come to know him, and his fate (as that of the other boys) is left open in the end. I think TBFB could have been much more powerful if it was told from this boy's point of view, but that would have taken some courage and ability, which the writers of TBFB obviously didn't have. However, JKR might. Of course, JKR is writing a fantasy series, not a Sci-Fi thriller, so she wouldn't use genetic cloning, she'd use a magic plot mechanism instead. Like having the boy share a part of the soul of the evil overlord. The principle is the same: it is a thought experiment in which the boy shares the essence of the evil overlord. Now, can Free Will trump Determinism? Is this boy compelled to become the next evil overlord, or can he choose good? I don't see the point of JKR investing so much in drawing all these parallels unless Harry has a bit of Voldemort's soul in him, either as a Horcrux or as mere possession (and I'm not sure JKR even sees a principle difference between these two possibilities). Yes, yes, but what about Snape, some of you must be asking by now . If Free Will is the main theme of the series, then what is the role of Snape's character in this theme? Well, in this obvious duality of the two mirror images, Harry and Voldemort, the one who chose good and the one who chose evil, Snape stands in the middle like a wild card, always ambiguous, always refusing to take a side. For these structural reasons I think Snape's character was created in order to represent the attempt to refuse choice altogether, to enjoy the best of both worlds, to play on both sides at once. In this way Snape being the "double/triple/quadruple agent" isn't merely an act and a mystery to be solved, but is in fact deeply thematic. It neatly symbolizes Snape's refusal to choose once and for all between good and evil and be accountable for this choice. Lets consider what Dumbledore reveals in HBP about Snape's history. Snape was a DE who was assigned to spy on Dumbledore. I used to think that realistically he must have committed some horrible crimes during his career as a DE, but now I think that it may actually be more thematic if, unlike Regulus, Snape had actually managed to get away without the really nasty DE stuff. It appears that Voldemort always had enough Crabs, Goyles and Bellas to do the torturing and killing, but someone smart like Snape was too valuable to be wasted as a common thug. So while Regulus was forced to choose, murder some innocent victim or die himself, Snape had it easy for a while. His role required him to maintain a convincing good guy cover, so whenever some killing or torturing was on the menu he always had a handy excuse for "slithering away from action on the Dark Lord's orders", as Bella characterizes him in Spinner's End. He only dealt with information, he passed it to his evil master and didn't have to think about what this master was doing with it. He thought he could avoid facing the really unpleasant consequences of his choices. Well, he should have known that he wouldn't be able to get away with it in a series that has Choice as its central theme. *Of course* one of those impersonal pieces of information he was passing to his master turned out, by a nice twist of fate, to have critical implications for Snape personally. Dumbledore explains in HBP that Snape only went to him when he found that Voldemort was specifically after the Potters. He didn't care before that, when he thought it was about some people he didn't know. This is a *huge* red flag with a central theme like that. As I see it, Snape's character must be punished on page, *not* for choosing evil (we have quite enough bad guys in the series for that), but for thinking that he can avoid being accountable for the consequences of this choice. This isn't something that I or JKR have against Snape. I simply think this is his role in the theme, the reason his character exists in the first place. Same as Harry was created to be the boy who chose good and Tom was created to be the boy who chose evil, Snape was created to be the one who refused to choose. But throughout the first six books Snape isn't punished. On the contrary, he reestablishes his old "double/triple/quadruple agent" role that would enable him to come out on top whichever side wins, hinting that he's still haven't learned his lesson and is still applying his considerable intellect to avoid difficult choices with consequences that must be faced. Only in the end of HBP, on the tower, JKR nails Snape and finally forces him to go through "the Regulus Dilemma" ? kill an innocent victim with your own hands or die yourself ? which Snape has managed to avoid all these years, and with Draco's choice to provide the dramatic contrast for Snape's opposite choice. Snape was finally forced to pick a side, and in DH he will be forced to face the full consequences of this choice. The way I see it, the central theme of the series practically demands it. Therefore LID!Snape theorizes that Snape went to Dumbledore before GH to avoid the consequences of his Life Debt to James, that throughout the series his game was attempting to end up on the winning side (whichever it turns out to be) while ridding himself of his Debt, and that in DH he will finally pay this Debt and face the full consequences. There's of course also the strong canon support for both LID!Snape and Horcrux!Harry. But mainly both these theories (in this or that variation) are, IMO, so deeply thematic that I suspect they are unavoidable. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 17 22:25:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:25:13 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170388 Lizzyben: > > The giants are a good example of this. Hermione says it's > > no big deal if Hagrid is half-giant, & the bad things > > people say about giants (and werewolves) are just a > > result of prejudice & bigotry. Then later on we find > > out, no, Ron was right - giants are all violent, brutal > > & stupid. Same thing w/elves - Hermione wants them to > > have rights & freedom, but later learns no, they actually > > like slavery, don't want money, and are happiest serving > > their masters. > > > With all of these groups, the liberal message against > > "bigotry & prejudice" is actually subverted by the text > > itself. The actual message becomes that these groups > > actually are inferior & don't deserve equal rights. In > > the Wizarding World, the bigots are right! That's what I find odd. > > houyhnhnm: > > I think what she is trying to show is that creating a > romantic fantasy about an oppressed group is not the > mature way to work for justice. Pippin: I think she's also trying to show that if putting an end to bigotry was as easy as pointing out that the status quo is terribly unfair, it would have happened already. There will always be excuses for those who do not want to undertake the hard work of creating a more equitable society. Slave- holding societies and and violent societies do function, after a fashion, or they wouldn't exist in the first place. But elves do not deserve to be inferior because they can adapt to their inferior status, nor are the giants undeserving of equal rights because they respond to overcrowding with violence. Humans have the same weaknesses, of course. I think JKR wants to show Hermione learning how difficult the task she has set herself really is, not that it's impossible or not worth doing, but that it may be the work of a lifetime. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Jun 17 23:30:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:30:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4675C416.7060408@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170389 limerent4ever wrote: > So is Voldemort that good at leglimancy, even better than Snape > thinks, that he doesn't need eye contact? And what would this slip of > judgement mean for Snape if it is true? Bart: There's more than one way to tell if someone is lying. While the above SHOULD be sufficient, (and because there are some who have complained that I am too cryptic), I mean by that is that there are other means of telling of someone is truthful or lying other than leglimancy, although leglimancy is probably one of the more accurate methods. For example, if you know what the truth is in advance, that helps a lot. And police have long known that a good bluff will work 99 times out of 100. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jun 17 23:42:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:42:34 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170390 > Jen previous: > I'd say it all comes back to the prophecy. If Harry is marked as > Voldemort's equal and 'either must die at the hand of the other' > that means they should be equitable (except for the 'power the Dark > Lord knows not'). As a Horcrux, Harry would be acting as an anchor > for Voldemort and keeping him from being killed but Harry wouldn't > be equal to him in this way. > Carol: > Exactly. Which pretty much destroys the Harry!Horcrux argument right > there. Jen: If Harry is a Horcrux anchoring Voldemort then I don't see them as equal, no, but that's just me - JKR may have a different intepretation. ;) However, whatever gives Harry the ability to 'see into [LV's] thoughts, his ambitions, that [Harry] even understand the snakelike language in which he gives orders...'*, and it seems likely to be a soul piece in my view, then sharing part of Voldemort's soul strikes me today as the equalizing factor I was searching for in my last post. Harry's ability is a 'privileged insight into Voldemort's world' and he is the only person in the WW capable of this insight. *(HBP, chap. 23, p. 477, UK ed.) Mike: > Yet, Voldemort "marking" Harry as his "equal" is not the same thing > as them being "equals". The prophecy itself says that Harry > has "power the Dark Lord knows not", which right there says that > Harry and LV are not "equals". And Voldemort has developed his > powers to a degree that Harry may never achieve, some of those > powers undoubtedly involve dark magic that Harry wouldn't *want* to > develop. Jen: I was writing as you posted and see that my paragraph above and your first paragraph are compatible, so a big 'I agree' is in order! But I wanted to address this section specifically and say I was writing about the two yesterday as being equals *up to* the point Harry's power is factored into the equation. Presumably this element is the key to Voldemort's vanquishment because it changes the power balance in Harry's favor. Debbie: > Ahhh, the Prophecy. Since it is a near-certainty that the Prophecy > will be fulfilled in some manner, we should evaluate all our > theories in its light. Starting with the portion you quoted, the > full excerpt reads: ". . . and either must die at the hand of the > other for neither can live while the other survives . . ." It is > the second clause the puzzles me most of all, because obviously > Harry is alive and -- at some level -- so is Voldemort. However, > Harry's life is not fully independent of Voldemort, as the scar > connection shows. He feels emotions that re not his. Dumbledore > tells Harry in OOP: "On those rare occasions when we had close > contact, I thought I saw a shadow of him stir behind your eyes." > And Harry's purity of heart does not mix well with Voldemort's > evil, causing them both pain. Jen: Yes, if living for the story purposes is each person having his own thoughts, feelings, choice-making ability, magical powers etc., and I'd say those are the major components that make up anyone's life :), then neither is living completely on his own as long as the connection between them exists. > Jen: > Which brings me to what some will think is a very odd > conclusion....the possibility that Harry is *also* immortal right > now, anchored to Voldemort's Horcruxes because he shares part of > Voldemort's soul. And what power does Harry have that the 'Dark > Lord knows not'? The power to love, to be willing to destroy the > Horcruxes and sacrifice himself if it comes to that in order for > Voldemort to be destroyed. Voldemort *can't* do the same in order > to destroy Harry because he's never known love. > Carol: > But Horcruxes are the antithesis of Love, and being a Horcrux seems > antithetical to using Love magic to conquer Voldemort. Also, I don't > see how having a bit of *Voldemort's* soul in him would make Harry > immortal... > Also, though this may not matter to people who aren't DDM!Snapers, > Snape's attempts to protect Harry would be stripped of their > thematic significance if Harry were immortal. And wouldn't Harry > have died from the Basilisk venom if it hadn't been for Fawkes's > tears? He certainly didn't seem immortal in that scene? Jen: I decided immortality was a silly idea after thinking more about it, for the reasons you mention above and also what came into my own mind: that the blood protection, all the years at the Dursleys, Harry's characterization as an average guy that others can relate to and other aspects of Harry's story and Dumbledore's protections would be invalidated and rendered almost meaningless. So I dumped that idea -poster's privilege to begin again, hehe. Carol: > I expect and hope that the heart of DH will be Harry's emotional > development, not some magical complication making him the human > equivalent of the Hufflepuff Cup. Harry is not a superhero. The > whole point of the books is that he's an ordinary wizarding boy > with a unique history, one or two unusual powers (Parseltongue and > a mental link to Voldemort and Love), a lot of luck, a lot of > courage and resourcefulness, and loyal friends--a boy who seems to > be outmatched by his enemy but who will win the conflict through > those means, not because he's an accidental Horcrux. Or so I > fervently hope. Jen: Well, I can nod along with most of your paragraph except for Harry being equivalent to Hufflepuff's cup! I don't think he'll win because he has a soul piece; a soul piece would only explain what happened at Godric's Hollow and why Harry and Voldemort are connected by the scar. The premise I accept for why Harry will vanquish Voldemort is that he possesses a power Voldemort 'has not at all,' which makes possible Harry's loyal friendships, the ability to call objects and beings/beasts to him when needed most and his willingness to sacrifice himself for others. None of those characteristics come from an LV soul piece inside of him but from his own 'untarnished and whole' soul. Jen From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 17 23:52:13 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:52:13 -0000 Subject: teachers / Snape / Diary / WOMBAT / Wolfsbane Potion / Sorting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170391 Mike Crudele concluded : << Maybe a slightly more entertaining way to put forth my opinion on the mechanics of Horcrux creation and what happened at GH. >> Quite entertaining! Bart wrote in : << That's standard operating procedure for American teachers, at least. The theory, at least, is that if you have one person in the class who knows all the answers, the rest of the class gets lazy. The basic message is, "Does anybody know the answer? Yes, Hermione, I know you know the answer, but you ALWAYS know the answer, and that will be considered in your grade, but I want to give the other students a chance." >> I've always believed that the message IS "I hate you for being smart. You must be forced to be stupid in the name of all students being equal. I will give you a very low grade because I grade on Improvement and you improved very little because you knew so much to start with." I have been reinforced in this opinion by some posts on list, from alleged teachers praising the way Snape deals with Hermione. Of course, I am VERY not wise, or I would have followed the example of wise students, who deliberately put wrong answers on the pre-test and pretended not to know the answers when called on, so their large fraction of right answers on the final demonstrated A+ Improvement. JW wrote in : << [Snape] despises EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, bloodline, or species of origin. He is an equal-opportunity miscreant. >> Canon has yet to show any sign of Severus despising Lucius, Draco, or Narcissa, and only highly controversial signs of Severus despising Dumbledore -- when is he showing his true thoughts and when is he putting on an act because he's a spy? Actually, I don't recall canon showing any sign of Severus despising Fudge or Scrimgeour, even tho' they *deserve* to be despised. Goddlefrood wrote in : << From what little can be gathered of the split soul pieces (thinking particularly of the diary revenant) they appear to have some independent power. >> The Diary is not a typical Horcrux, because first a 'memory' was housed in it and later a fragment of 'soul' was added. It appears that most Horcruxes don't contain a 'memory'. We know that Pensieve magic can turn a memory into a 3-D all-senses virtual environment that Harry can walk around in, and it can cause a 3-D miniature image of a person to rise from the magic fluid and speak. At least one of the Diary pages functioned like a Pensieve that Harry fell into. And the lifesize lifelike Tom outside the Diary might have started as an audioanimatronic hologram rising up from the page. Before the soul fragment was added, the memory hologram would acted on its programming instead of having free will; it would have remained attached to the page instead of roaming freely. But if the memory hologram hadn't been there for the soul fragment to occupy, I say the soul fragment would have stayed inert. The Diary also wrote replies to Harry, as we saw the Marauder's Map write replies to Snape; maybe the Map, at least the insult portion, was powered by the Marauders putting memories in it. Alla wrote in : << First of all I must say I was blinking when I saw the question that even suggests that some decision of Ministry can have good effect on everyday WW life, >> I blinked when I saw the choices for 'best' and the choices for 'worst' were the same list. I also chose '(d) the 1865 decision to leave full control of Gringotts in the Goblin hands' as the best, but my reasoning is that if the Ministry had taken control of everyone's money, they would either have stolen it all or really screwed up the economy with inflations and depressions. I'm not sure whether 'a) the creation of the international statute of Wizarding secrecy in 1692' or 'e) the Wand band of 1631, which forbade non-human magical beings to carry wands' is worst. The Statute of Secrecy has allowed them to keep their culture, which is good, but long ago I read a very persuasive essay that the need for constant and rapid enforcement of the Statute of Secrecy resulted in an official State of Emergency ever since, which is why imprisonment without trial and other violations of human rights are allowed, which is bad. Depriving non-humans of their wands is pure racism. (Some will say that species aren't races. On the other tentacle, the existence of cross-bred people like Fleur a quarter-Veela and Flitwick with a bit of Goblin in his genealogy, suggests that they ARE NOT different species.) It is a big step toward making any wizarding human more powerful than any non-human (there are exceptions, such as House Elf magic doesn't need wands and is human-controlled by enslaving the House Elves, and Veela powers don't need a wand either). When the people of other races factually have less power, it's easier to think of them as inferior and easier to ignore their rights and easier to ignore their needs and desires and easier to ignore their ideas. This causes the wizarding folk to have an excessively high opinion of themselves. So they remain ignorant about a lot of things because they think they know everything, and they take a lot of risks because either they don't know about the risk due to their ignorance or they think they're too powerful to be endangered by the risk, and they never accept advice, let alone ask for advice. This arrogant careless stupidity causes bad things to happen to them (Muggle analogy: people build a house on a cliff edge in an area with frequent landslides, then are surprised when their house falls down the cliff. What bad luck! Time for federal disaster assistance so they can rebuild!) and is the worst thing about their culture. It is good that some wizarding folks wanted to end House Elf slavery as recently as 1973. If they had succeeded, I don't know what would have happened -- would there have been mass suicides, or at least substance abuse, among heart-broken freed House Elves like Winky? Or freed House Elves seeking revenge for generations of abuse by forming a secret group sort of like a cross between Death Eaters (except aimed at wizards, not at muggles) and the Mafia? Or would they have hurried to start small businesses (many of them in food prepartion, laundry, etc), where their talent and hard work would eventually make them rich? There could be some kind of scenario where free House Elves, free to use their powerful magic, defeated the Death Eaters either for their own self-defense or out of kind concern for humans. If that last, then failing to end House Elf Slavery was the worst decision. But if ending House Elf slavery resulted in a lot of freed House Elves doing a lot of different things, such that only a few of them fought Death Eaters, then the important thing would be the effect on the wizarding folk and their culture. People who go to a House Elf greengrocer because she has the freshest veggies, and have to haggle with her just like a human greengrocer, would gradually start thinking of House Elves as people, rather than as some kind of animal/property. That would be a start in lowering their unrealistic arrogance, mentioned two paragraphs ago. But I don't believe that 34 years is long enough for such a gradual process to have deeply changed the culture yet. Alla quoted in : << e) A secret task force of wizards and muggles helped allies to victory in the second world war. >> Does that have something to do with Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald in 1945? << i) upon his death in battle in 1762, goblin rebel Vargot was discovered to be a renegade house elf >> Is this a clue that the main difference between Goblins and House Elves is their different cultures? Betsy Hp wrote in : << The massive risk that the [Wolfsbane Potion] *isn't* taken. That the guy has an argument with his girlfriend or finds out his mom is dying and he forgets. >> 'Directly observed therapy' seems to work for making sure people take their six months or one year or two years daily drugs against tuberculosis. Why not for Wolfsbane Potion? But Snape as the observer didn't work because he's too stubbornly independent. When the observer observed that the patient didn't take his meds, the observer should notify the authorities (Dumbledore) to get a lot of qualified people looking for Lupin to bring him in, make him take his meds if it's not too late, or cage him until the Full Moon has past if it is too late. If it were Snape AND McGonagall AND Flitwick who followed Lupin into the Shrieking Shack, they wouldn't have waited under an Invisibility Cloak seeking evidence; they wouldn't have threatened to set the Dementors on both Black and Lupin without taking them back to the Castle; without that threat, the kids wouldn't have tried to disarm them, but three kids using the disarming spell on three adults ought not to knock anyone unconscious. Rebecca wrote in : << On page 399 (US hardback) Hermione is asked why she isn't in Ravenclaw (after doing the protean charm on the coins). >> If assignment to Houses went by personality, I'd ask why Hermione wasn't in SLYTHERIN. She stops at very little when she wants to achieve her ends. Most recently, Confunding McLaggen during the try-outs. Before that, hiding the little hats and socks under untidiness to *trick* the House Elves into picking them up. Her Polyjuice scheme in CoS broke a whole forest of rules. << At the beginning we know that Harry is considered for Slytherin. >> I don't think that the Hat ever actually considered Harry for Slytherin. I think it was just teasing him. He thought "Not Slytherin!" so the Hat said: "Are you sure?" << Neville certainly seems more of a Hufflepuff. >> Is theory that Neville, being a duffer, belongs in a House often considered to be a bunch of duffers? It's not a fair characterization of Hufflepuff House -- Cedric Diggory was a Hufflepuff and there was nothing clumsy or inept or stupid about him. One of his Hufflepuff traits was being so devoted to Fair Play that he wanted a rematch when he caught the Snitch because the way he caught it was unfair (and not his fault). From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Jun 18 00:46:47 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:46:47 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: teachers / Snape / Diary / WOMBAT / Wolfsbane Potion / Sorting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170392 From: "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > I've always believed that the message IS "I hate you for being smart. > You must be forced to be stupid in the name of all students being > equal. I will give you a very low grade because I grade on Improvement > and you improved very little because you knew so much to start with." > I have been reinforced in this opinion by some posts on list, from > alleged teachers praising the way Snape deals with Hermione. Shaun: Well, I'm writing here as a teacher who specialises in teaching the brightest kids - kids like Hermione. And, yes, I have to say that it is very common for teachers to deliberately not call on these children in classes, because they want to give other children the chance to answer questions. And some of these teachers do hate these children for being smart, but that's generally not the reason most do it. The fact is, as Bart alluded to, the theory behind it is normally that other children will just coast if they know there's somebody in the class who answers all the questions, while other children will be intimidated. And while I certainly believe it is of critical importance that teaches give the bright kids what they need, they do still have to consider the impact that child's behaviour has on the class as a whole. Personally, I don't think Snape handles Hermione particularly well on this issue. He basically ignores her, and acts like she isn't there - statements like "Can't anybody answer my question?" when you have a student with their hand up is not the way I would handle this. Rather, "I'd like to hear to hear from some different people this time" or something similar is better. And you can't do it all the time - you have to give the child some chance to show their strengths, as long as they don't overly dominate the class. The thing is, though, while I don't think Snape handles this well, my impression is that many of the other teachers don't either. They seem to me, in many cases, to go to the other extreme and let Hermione answer nearly all the questions. That's not a good approach either and in that environment, I think Snape's actions are less likely to be problematic for Hermione - but only by accident. He's certainly not giving her what she needs deliberately. I should also say though, that I think Snape's classes *do* give Hermione something that a child like her does need. Genuine challenge. And that is something way too many gifted children miss out on in schools. The work needs to be hard enough to challenge them, and it does seem that Hermione gets that in Snape's class (and not just Snape's class - this seems to me to be a common strength of Hogwarts, missing from too many schools - high standards - and not marking on things like 'Improvement' but rather on results (Note - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with considering whether a student has improved, when they have, and acknowledging that - but all too often, that measure is treated as more important than actual achievement and that can cause serious problems for children achieving at a high level). And I certainly will praise Snape for delivering a challenging classroom environment - because that is a positive. A major positive. It doesn't mean I think he's doing *everything* right. 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 bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 18 01:09:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:09:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4675DB40.3070502@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170393 Rebecca M wrote: > On page 399 (US hardback) Hermione is asked why she isn't in > Ravenclaw (after doing the protean charm on the coins). At the > beginning we know that Harry is considered for Slytherin. Ron is the > prototypical Gryfindor, from a whole family of the same. Neville > certainly seems more of a Hufflepuff. > > So are the four somehow recreating the dynamic of the founders? Will > something about their interaction play in the way the whole thing > gets resolved? Bart: I have two theories; the second is based on the first. The first theory, better backed in canon, is based on Harry's experiences with the Sorting Hat, and Dumbledore's comments. The Sorting Hat APPEARED to want to sort Harry into Slytherin (at least it made a half-hearted attempt to convince Harry), but ultimately went with Harry's choice. My conclusion from the evidence is that, among the factors the Sorting Hat considers, the student's preference is one. More precisely, if the student has a strong preference, and there is no reason NOT to put the student into the house (for example, Hermione in Slytherin, or Neville in Ravenclaw), they get put into their house of choice. This would also explain why Cedric got into Hufflepuff; he probably would have been a Gryffindor, but had some reason to choose Hufflepuff (maybe his father told him, "I hope you get into Hufflepuff, son; that will give you an opportunity to really stand out!"). The second theory has to do with Hermione, in particular. As was pointed out, all told, she seemed to be more of a Ravenclaw type than a Gryffindor type. Mind you, she is certainly brave enough, but she has a belief in studying, learning, THEN acting; having a plan before going ahead, and that is more of a Ravenclaw trait as we know it than the foolhardy Gryffindors. As a Muggle-born, there was no obvious reason for her to WANT to get into Gryffindor. So, we have to take a look at less than obvious reasons. Consider, in PS/SS, the Trio happened to have just the right set of skills to get through the traps (also note that the most difficult trap for them was a plant trap). Also note the evidence that has been pointed out in the past that Dumbledore was trying to prepare Harry for the tasks ahead of him, and the training could not always be safe, or nice, or even fair. I suspect that Dumbledore ARRANGED for Harry to get the friends he did. He hoped that, being brought up in the Dursley home, Harry would develop a personality which would identify with victims, and against bullies. Timing things so that he would meet the Weasleys at the platform would be easy enough (based on their personalities, I don't think Molly was in on it, although Arthur might have been, even unknowingly; "Arthur, could you see that your family gets to the platform at 8:55 AM on the dot? I have something on my mind, and may want to meet you there." Molly is both too sharp to be fooled easily, but not good at hiding her emotions). According to the theory, Dumbledore figured that nature would take its course, and Harry, exposed to Ron, would make friends and end up getting into Gryffindor. I also believe that he expected Harry to identify with Neville, and become friends, and, once again given this theory, was a bit disappointed that they didn't become better friends. Now, here was this Muggle-born student (Hermione), accepted by Hogwarts, who, from the interview process and Dumbledore's observations, was an information sponge. Even at age 10, Hermione showed herself to be highly intelligent, and quite capable of doing research (how many purebloods and half-bloods knew as much as she did, coming in?). Also, a shrewd observer. And, she knew a bit too much about Harold and Mort (oh, dear, I do hope that Harry doesn't stage a fake death in TDH), even based on her summer studies. In any case, from here on, it's pure guesswork, stemming from a single clue: In OOP, Minnie the Cat, when told by Harry his analysis of the Pink Dolly's opening lecture, remarks, approvingly, that he's been listening to Hermione. My guess is that Hermione was specifically asked to befriend Harry. Her initial attempts were clumsy, so much so that, in the incident of the troll in PS/SS, she runs away to the euphemism to cry. Luckily, that succeeds in cementing the friendship. Now, don't get me wrong, Hermione DOES become a genuine friend of Harry's. That she kept the origin of the friendship a secret for so long may well have been why she was entrusted with a time-turner. But, to me, the only explanation that makes sense to me about Hermione getting into Gryffindor is so that she could become a friend of Harry's. Of course, the master manipulator could have been JKR and not Dumbledore, but that would be a shame. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 01:26:40 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:26:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) Message-ID: <380-22007611812640718@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170394 lealess: Lupin is being passive-aggressive when Snape comes into the classroom with the potion and tells him he should drink it directly. There's a little power play going on, perhaps a hangover from Marauder days, perhaps the result of having Harry in the room. Magpie: Yes, when Snape comes in he's defining Lupin via his disease, probably making him feel different and rubbing it in, and Lupin is getting some control back. Dana: What I was trying to say, and you seemed to be missing the details of the difference, is that a sexual predator is like that by choice. Sexual predator get off on their fantasies and they start to live in that fantasy so much that they want that fantasy to come alive, they want to make it to become reality and they make consious choices to make it so. Magpie: I don't see how I could be missing that when I believe I repeated it in my post. A sexual predator doesn't perhaps choose to have the compulsion he has, but as a human he is able to control his impulses. A transformed werwolf without wolfsbane, by contrast, no longer has access to a human mind and so can not be held responsible for biting someone-unless, like Fenrir, he arranged it when he was human. The point *I* was making, as I said, was that the distinction you are drawing is all about culpability and what is going on in the mind of the predator. The sexual predator can control himself and a transformed werwolf can't. So it's not a good analogy. But the analogy I thought wynnleaf was making was that in terms of DANGER there is an analogy. Because people need to be protected from a sexual predator in the area and from a transformed werewolf. If a registered offender moves into a community people are going to ask: How can our safety be protected? What if the wolfbane doesn't work? What if my child happens to be near him and that happens? Fenrir may have taken conscious choices to place himself near Lupin as a child, but Lupin would have just been acting like a normal kid when he got bitten. Dana: I think you mean Betsy as Wynnleaf only commented on the prowling bit which werewolves actually do not do (except Greyback because he is driving by other things then just his werewolf instinct) they just hunt like a real animal hunts. They will not prowl until the right victim crosses their path they will hunt anyone that crosses their path. Magpie: I meant what I said, that they are dangerous to people in the vicinity. The fact that they may only kill people who cross their path hardly matters to the person living in the area who might cross their path. Sexual predators are known to attack on opportunity as well. I don't think you can speak with quite such authority on exactly how werewolves are in the HP-verse, though. We have no canon whatsoever about exactly how they might hunt. Lupin feels being with Animagi made him a bit more human and he certainly wasn't hunting on those nights, but I don't know whether we can say for sure that they don't hunt under any circumstances. I mean, what is "hunting" in that case anyway? He gives chase if he spots prey. He sees a person and the hunt is on. Dana: Lupin does not posse a treat in his human form so it is actually an overreaction to be nervous when you are near him. Magpie: Again, not that point. Nobody's saying it's rational to be nervous around Lupin on a Saturday afternoon during the quarter moon. If Lupin lives next door and it's a full moon night, it's not irrational to really hope he didn't miss a dose or that the wolfsbane wasn't prepared incorrectly etc. Which is why like it or not it's not *completely* irrational for someone to be nervous about their child at school with him--it's possible he could wind up loose and transformed without wolfsbane, and many people might consider that just too close for them, given the fear wizards seem to have of werwolves. Dana: People react to everything they do not know and diseases are one of them and people not wanting to have a sexual predator in their midst are actually right especially if they have kids but people who state that someone with AIDS or any other type of disease has to move if they live next to them are wrong. Magpie: Yeah, they're wrong. But Lupin doesn't have AIDS, so we can't just take what's true for that disease and directly apply it. Knowledge about how not to get infected works a bit differently with a werewolf, obviously. You don't get infected if the werewolf took exactly the right dosage of potion, or is securely confined or you are. If one of those things doesn't work, ways of not being infected are going to bear a bit more resemblance to hiding from or not getting killed by a monster, unless you are lucky enough to be in a position to bring the wolf in without hurting him. lanva: Never mind the fact that he (or DD)may have discussed the effects/dosage/instructions with Lupin before. Surely he knows by now that it must be drunk quickly. Why, WHY, couldn't Snape just set down the potion, as Lupin politely asked? Why press it even further, after Lupin states clearly, and without any annoyance, impatience, etc, that he *will* drink it directly? Which he does, I might add. "If you need more?" Please, Sevvie, don't make me laugh. Snape's the one who brews the stuff; he knows when the moon will be full -- who better to know exactly when, how often, and how much his "patient" will need, but the manufacturer and Potions Master Extraordinare, Severus Snape. Magpie: Yeah, Snape and Lupin are *both* being passive-aggressive. Snape's rubbing in that he wants Lupin to drink it right that second (and he's got more in case Lupin thinks he needs it!!) and Lupin's saying he will drink it when he's ready. It's a powerplay going on in front of Harry, with both men knowing that Harry is there as part of it. Of course Snape could have just set it down and not brought up werewolves in class. So could Lupin have drunk the Potion in front of Snape like a good boy who knows what a risk it all is. But they're totally at each other.:-) Lanval: Sad, but hardly comparable here. People diagnosed with a mental disorder, IMO, suffer from said disorder all the time, not just once a month, until they are (maybe, maybe never; often those are lifelong conditions) pronounced cured by some medical authority. Who can say to what extent the medication works? Magpie: I don't know about that. I don't think it's a direct analogy by any means, because a mental illness is woven into the being of a person differently than Lupin's condition, but I think there's certainly something there about chronically ill people and the way they can react to their medicine. Not just mentally ill people. I know from reading and from friends who are bipolar that with that condition going off meds often is something that happens a lot for a lot of reasons that I don't think apply to Lupin--in his case, really, the wolfsbane might be seen as the opposite since his werewolf self isn't his real self at all. But I absolutely think there's something complicated in Lupin's relationship with wolfsbane. lanva: Lupin, on the other hand, is a perfectly sane, normal person with a normally functioning brain for 27 days of the moon cycle. I see no indication that he resents being forced to take medication, feels he doesn't need it, is sick of being sick, etc, which are usually the reasons people give when they go off their meds against orders. Magpie: I think there are some other reasons too. But in Lupin's case I have no trouble believing at all that he would be forced to take medication, and might be sick of being sick. Goodness, why not? His illness controls his entire life! He would hardly show it, given his personality, and yet in this scene especially Snape's even rubbing it in. Like I said, I don't see him disliking wolfsbane itself the way some people might dislike their medicine, but I think it's got more meaning for him than that. Lanval: Okay, again, where's the canon for Lupin being a habitual childish brat about taking his potion, and being willfully irresponsible? We see ONE instance, and as I've pointed out above, it's very much open to interpretation. I see no evidence that he had any intention of not drinking it. Calling that a blase attitude is going a bit far, I think, and mostly conjecture. Magpie: I don't think she's saying he has a blase attitude in general, but that he's showing one (intentionally) to Snape. Lupin's entire part in the books revolves around doing irresponsible things. He goes running with the Marauders regularly in school, he covers up for Sirius, he forgets to take his Potion in PoA. Of course these things don't define the entire man if he were a person, but as a literary creation, if Lupin was a chesspiece this would be part of his signature move. It's not conjecture anymore than saying Sirius can be reckless. Lanva: So what *if* Lupin had 'passive-aggressively' decided he'd rather not take Sevvie's smelly concoction, and submit to an agonizing transformation instead, just for fun and because he hates being told what to do? Magpie: I don't think the point is that he's choosing to go through the transformation. He is having a power play with Snape by not drinking the concoction immediately, which sets up the repitition later when he forgets it. Lanva: This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good deal out of proportion. Magpie: I don't see how it can be blown out of proportion. It's not like we're given back ups for Lupin while he's at Hogwarts. He's teaching at the school and controlling his condition through Wolfsbane. That's significant to the plot. Sure there are things that could be done other than wolfsbane--Lupin didn't have it when he went to school as a kid. But wolfsbane is important in PoA. Too much "everything's dangerous at Hogwarts" and the plots of every book stop mattering. Another thing I love about the Snape/Lupin scene with the Potion, btw, is I think when Snape comes in and sees Lupin with Harry that's already a blow to Snape. I mean, we know the guy lives in the past, and he hates having Lupin there. I think he saw those two together and went right into the same kind of defensiveness he had in the Pensieve scene, as if now there's two of them plotting. And he starts his own passive-aggressive attack on Lupin--which Lupin parries in the most Lupin-like way. Dungrollin: Snape is the ultimate ESE!Lupiner. He is *paranoid* about Lupin. Magpie: Hee! Agreed. Dung See, I'd put it the other way around. Snape has convinced himself that Lupin is in league with Black, (possibly that he always had been, and was in on the sk betrayal of the Potters, too), and that if Lupin's attempts to get Black into the castle to kill Harry continue to fail, he can always try to lure Harry out of school and into Hogsmeade where he'll be easy to catch. I'd stick the "oh, and if he forgot to take his potion he could run amok around the school and infect someone" as the afterthought, rather than the believing him to be in league with Black as the afterthought. Magpie: Interesting to think that given that Snape's view of Lupin is so emotional and paranoid (which doesn't make him always wrong, but not right either), he really might think he would not take the Potion on purpose. The Prank, after all, was all about setting up Snape the way Fenrir set up Remus. He may on some level just associate Lupin with using his disease on others. It's not really rational to think Lupin would intentionally not take his potion, but Snape isn't always rational when his buttons are pressed. Betsy Hp: That first bit pleases me, because it means JKR has chosen to stick pretty close to classic werewolf myth. The second bit doesn't please me because one of my favorite Stephen King comments (from "It" maybe?) is that adults invented the werewolf but children invented the silver bullet (though, hmmm.... maybe it was vampires and stakes?). The third bit confuses me: what poem? Magpie: Sorry--the werewolf poem: "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers at night, may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms and the moon is full and bright". That was made up for the movie. lanva: I really think that had Snape not been so hostile before Lupin was even hired, Lupin would have let the past be the past. He seems to have more important matters on his mind than dwelling on a old schoolboy grudge. Magpie: I think that's true--Lupin himself says he neither likes nor dislikes Snape and I believe him. But of course Snape was going to be the first aggressor because not only is he the more emotional one but he's the one who feels slighted. The Marauders *won* and both Lupin and Snape know it. Even with the Prank Snape's still enraged and Lupin can still say it's just a stupid joke. I think Lupin handles Snape in a way that drives Snape crazy--and that's just Snape, but I think the scene with the Potion is part of Lupin struggling with Snape. It's just also setting up the later scene where he forgets the Potion. Which just fascinates me because JKR *could* have had Lupin be all frantic about taking the Potion to set up just how important it was that he always get it on time, and then in turn use that to show how shocked he was by seeing Peter (because we'd know how important it was). The scene she wrote was imo more interesting and says things a bit more interesting about Lupin. He's never just the Patron Martyr Saint of Werewolves. Dana: JKR has used the basis of myths to create her own but her werewolf story is not based on the actual myths or folklore. She in HBP makes Harry and Lupin himself state that werewolves do not regularly kill but under certain circumstances they can. The main objective of a werewolf in JKR's story is not about killing the victim but about infecting the victim to make another werewolf. The werewolf reason for wanting to bite another human is about reproduction and thus about existence. Magpie: Err...says you, maybe. You're saying that a werewolf biting another person is about survival of the species, but that's just your personal idea of how it works. There's no canon that being bitten by a werewolf makes you some other species for whom contagion is like sex. Lupin has never spoken of having the urge to create other werewolves (and if he did that would open a whole nother can of sexual predator worms so maybe we don't want to go there). Perhaps under the full moon he simply becomes *aggressive* without needing to actually kill, because he's not attacking creatures for food. When werewolves are hungry they apparently do eat their victims. If the disease gives them an impulse to infect then it's the disease that has an impulse to reproduce, like a virus or something. *Greyback* is the only werewolf we've heard say anything about wanting to produce more werewolves, and there again he's doing it with his human mind, trying to create an army. Lupin seems to associate reproduction with purely human means--like Tonks. We might actually throw another illness into the mix here, which has probably been left out far too long: how about some rabies? Isn't that probably also a basis for the legend? Dana: Your analogy is precisly what people do and should not do when it comes to disease and disabilities but indeed should always be on alert when it comes to sexual predators. Magpie: Yeah, but isn't that kind of why the werewolf analogy is problematic to people to begin with? Because for most of the month they're just people--not sexual predators or people with AIDS or otherwise. For three nights they're not people at all (un-wolfsbaned), they're fully-fledged monsters. Perhaps it would be better to say it's like a regular person who has a pet animal that three nights a month becomes savage--unless it's given a correct dose of wolfbane. If it's not, it must be kept confined. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 01:40:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:40:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? Message-ID: <380-22007611814029406@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170395 Bart: I have two theories; the second is based on the first. The first theory, better backed in canon, is based on Harry's experiences with the Sorting Hat, and Dumbledore's comments. The Sorting Hat APPEARED to want to sort Harry into Slytherin (at least it made a half-hearted attempt to convince Harry), but ultimately went with Harry's choice. My conclusion from the evidence is that, among the factors the Sorting Hat considers, the student's preference is one. More precisely, if the student has a strong preference, and there is no reason NOT to put the student into the house (for example, Hermione in Slytherin, or Neville in Ravenclaw), they get put into their house of choice. This would also explain why Cedric got into Hufflepuff; he probably would have been a Gryffindor, but had some reason to choose Hufflepuff (maybe his father told him, "I hope you get into Hufflepuff, son; that will give you an opportunity to really stand out!"). The second theory has to do with Hermione, in particular. As was pointed out, all told, she seemed to be more of a Ravenclaw type than a Gryffindor type. Mind you, she is certainly brave enough, but she has a belief in studying, learning, THEN acting; having a plan before going ahead, and that is more of a Ravenclaw trait as we know it than the foolhardy Gryffindors. Magpie: I think the real answer is more straightforward. As JKR said, the hat is never wrong, meaning there are different types correctly Sorted--it's not just about what you want. Hermione has never struck me as anything other than a Gryffindor. The fact that she's clever and likes to do well in all her classes and learn things doesn't make her a Ravenclaw in itself--those are, imo, abilities rather than choices (as Dumbledore says). For her choice, I don't think it's so much "she chooses Gryffindor" as that her priorities are clearly in that house rather than Ravenclaw. She's totally motivated by doing practical things in the world with her knowledge. And Harry's motivated by, as we've heard, a "saving people" thing. He's got a Slytherin side to him, as everyone does (since everyone has all four sides to them), but he mostly fits into the Gryffindor slot, just as both his parents did (and almost everyone he's close to as well). JKR didn't choose to divide people by abilities so that Hermione was Harry's Ravenclaw friend and Ron his Hufflepuff friend and Draco his Slytherin enemy. She put most of the heroes in Gryffindor because they have the values of that house, and also allowed other people in different houses to be impressive people. Cedric, for instance, seems completely Hufflepuff to me just based on the little we know of that group, with the way he acts to Harry in different contexts. Hermione doesn't seem to much fit in with the students who are in Ravenclaw. (I've actually always felt Ravenclaw was slightly dodgy in JKR's scheme of things--it's hard to explain exactly why, but let's just say that I wasn't surprised the minor villain in OotP was a Ravenclaw.) So really I think Terry Boot's (or whoever it was) asking Hermione why she wasn't in Ravenclaw because she could do impressive magic to make the coins before NEWT level didn't say anything about Hermione, it just showed Terry didn't get it. Hermione isn't in Ravenclaw for the same reason Cedric wasn't in Gryffindor, because Ravenclaw isn't defined by being smart (Draco made his own coins at the beginning of the next year and he seems totally Slytherin) and Gryffindor isn't defined by being brave. It's more about approaching the world from a certain perspective with certain priorities. (Neville, btw, doesn't seem particularly Hufflepuff to me; that is, I think he fits fine in Gryffindor.) We've seen through Peter that one can be a cowardly Gryffindor. I think you could be a stupid Ravenclaw too. (I tend to think of Lockhart as a Gryffindor myself.) - From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Jun 18 02:36:36 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:36:36 -0400 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170396 "Lanval: Okay, again, where's the canon for Lupin being a habitual childish brat about taking his potion, and being willfully irresponsible? We see ONE instance, and as I've pointed out above, it's very much open to interpretation. I see no evidence that he had any intention of not drinking it. Calling that a blase attitude is going a bit far, I think, and mostly conjecture. " It isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm diabetic. Sometimes I get tired of testing my blood sugar. Sometimes I get fed up with having to consider how many carbs and how much fat is in everything I put in my mouth. I'm not on insulin (yet) but my friends who are say that calculating how much insulin to inject to counteract the carbs and sugar they had at the last meal is a major pain in the epizodic. Intellectually we know how important being vigilent in the management of our condition is, but sometimes we want to just say "The hell with it! If I want a doughnut, I'll have a doughnut! If I don't feel like jabbing myself in the finger to some blood, I won't!" So I can understand why Lupin gets fed up with constantly consulting the lunar phase chart, why sometimes the thought of drinking the Wolfsbane Potion makes him fee nausiated. Does that mean that the times when he doesn't are OK? Of course not! But if he didn't, sometimes, feel that way and even act accordingly the character would be unbelievable. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 03:37:27 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 03:37:27 -0000 Subject: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170397 Mike: > Now, there is a spell that you use to remove this torn soul piece > from your body and encase it into an object. You will not be > learning that spell until after your O.W.L.S., that is if any of > you pass them. I won't have just any PDE out there trying to make > Horcruxes, it is a very advanced magic. Most of you would end up > removing your whole soul as if you got sucked by a Dementor. > LV: Can anybody else tell me why we *encase* the soul piece. > Nott: Master, (pauses for LV to nod at him), Master we encase the > soul piece because otherwise it will fly off to beyond the veil and > be lost forever. > LV: That's right. The whole purpose of a Horcrux is to anchor your > soul to this earth. While your soul is inside your body, it's > anchored but vulnerable. If you get killed, the soul escapes the > body and follows it's natural inclination to go beyond the veil. If > you take your torn piece out of your body, but don't encase it with > that spell, it's going beyond the veil too. Once you have a > Horcrux, no soul pieces can ever escape to beyond the veil. Jen: Now that I've laughed my way through your post twice, something occurred to me that's been tucked away in my subconcious: No matter that Slughorn talks about the spell as 'encasing' the soul, I've always thought the importance of the Horcrux spell is getting the torn soul bit *out* of the body and not the act of closing it up in a jar or what have you. Because closing it up seems like elementary magic. Getting the soul out though...until Horcruxes arrived the only way presented to remove the soul from the body was the Dementor's Kiss, not exactly depicted as a pleasant experience in the book if the Kiss is similar to the effect the Dementors have on Harry x 100 or the comparable number. A soul piece already ripped apart from the soul wouldn't be as strenuous an experience during removal but still, how to get the piece of soul *out* - wouldn't that be the tricky part of encasing the soul in an object? The presentation of soul removal prior to Horcruxes coming into the picture seems like useful canon to consider for speculating the spell is what initiates the removal of the soul. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 03:46:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:46:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter and The Boys From Brazil (long) Message-ID: <380-22007611834622281@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170398 Neri: The power in the plot of TBFB is the thought experiment: if you created a genetic clone of Hitler and further attempted to also recreate his upbringing, would that clone have the Choice to become a good person rather than an evil one? The weakness in TBFB is that it does not attempt to address this question in any real way. We meet only briefly with one of these boys and he indeed shows tendencies for sadism, but we do not come to know him, and his fate (as that of the other boys) is left open in the end. I think TBFB could have been much more powerful if it was told from this boy's point of view, but that would have taken some courage and ability, which the writers of TBFB obviously didn't have. Magpie: Just as an aside, TBFB was written by Ira Levin, who also wrote Rosemary's Baby and the Stepford Wives (I've read all of them but remember very little of TBFB). Looking at those three I'd think Levin was just more interested in different things that this choice--all three of those books feature a group of people working to create some "perfect" person or people for themselves. In The Stepford Wives modern, real women are replaced by robots who live to please their husbands and be perfect. Rosemary's Baby, of course, creates another child who could grow up to be evil. "Just like his father" a character says about the baby, the baby's father in this case being the Devil. Faced with these children Levin seems more interested, if anything, in the question of whether it's moral to love or kill them rather than the child's choice to be good or evil--the fact that it's open-ended, that these children *might* be genetically evil, is important to the story. The boys and the baby are allowed to live because they might not be Hitler or Satan. My question I'd ask you about Harry in this case is how exactly you see this playing out? Because in Harry's case, despite what Tom says, is there ever any danger that Harry will be evil in the terms it's defined now? I mean, obviously he can be tempted by Dark Magic and anger, but he himself seems to make it a priority not to be that. He goes down that path in many ways in HBP but is snapped out of it when he learns the HBP is Snape because his hatred protects him from continuing to follow him. Dumbledore points out that because Voldemort killed his parents he made Harry seek revenge and not be tempted to be evil and get into the Dark Arts himself. It's not completely unlike Gregory Peck's thought process in TBFB. That's Harry's choice, of course, but it's not exactly a choice between good and evil if given the context. So how do you think she's going to show him ultimately struggling and choosing good? Because right now I really don't feel like Harry is in any way one of the Boys from Brazil with Voldemort instead of Hitler. He's not a Tom Riddle clone, Tom seems more like a Shadow (along with his other Slytherin adversaries). -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 04:05:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:05:48 -0000 Subject: Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170399 Carol earlier: > > > I expect and hope that the heart of DH will be Harry's emotional development, not some magical complication making him the human equivalent of the Hufflepuff Cup. Harry is not a superhero. The whole point of the books is that he's an ordinary wizarding boy with a unique history, one or two unusual powers (Parseltongue and a mental link to Voldemort and Love), a lot of luck, a lot of courage and resourcefulness, and loyal friends--a boy who seems to be outmatched by his enemy but who will win the conflict through those means, not because he's an accidental Horcrux. Or so I fervently hope. > > Jen: Well, I can nod along with most of your paragraph except for Harry being equivalent to Hufflepuff's cup! I don't think he'll win because he has a soul piece; a soul piece would only explain what happened at Godric's Hollow and why Harry and Voldemort are connected by the scar. The premise I accept for why Harry will vanquish Voldemort is that he possesses a power Voldemort 'has not at all,' which makes possible Harry's loyal friendships, the ability to call objects and beings/beasts to him when needed most and his willingness to sacrifice himself for others. None of those characteristics come from an LV soul piece inside of him but from his own 'untarnished and whole' soul. Carol again: Well, we're not too far apart, then, if all we disagree on is the *mechanism* by which Harry acquired his connection to Voldemort and some of Voldemort's powers. You think it's a soul piedc: I think it's a drop of Voldemort's magical blood. (More on that later if I remember.) As long as Harry isn't a Horcrux helping to anchor voldie's soul to earth and having to be killed or destroyed, which leads into the vicious circle of how he can kill Voldemort if he has to be killed to make voldemort mortal, I can live with the mechanism being a soul piece--not an accidental Horcrux or a Horcrux of any kind (the human equivalent of Hufflepuff's cup), and not possession because we know he's not possessed, but the cause of the mind link and Voldie!powers, which I agree make Harry uniquely capable of defeating Voldemort. I just don't think that it's possible to create an accidental Horcrux and don't think that Harry or his scar is one, whatever caused the mind link and shared powers. (I think, again, that DD was right about the Horcruxes and that he would have mentioned the possibility of Harry's being one if it were at all possible.) Maybe at some point he'll *think* he's a Horcrux and be willing to sacrifice himself, but the power will defeat Voldie is *Love*, not a soul piece or a drop of blood or whatever *caused* the connection between Harry and Voldemort. I'd bet my books on that. (I won't go so far as to eat the Sorting Hat, though!) So maybe we're making too big a deal about what caused the transfer of some of Voldie's powers to Harry and forged the mind link; maybe it's the powers and the mind link themselves that matter (along with Love, of course). About the drop of blood idea, which I still like: When Voldie needed to resurrect his old body (and I do think it's his old body magically reconstituted and not a replica with different DNA--he could have chosen to look like his father or his younger self if he were creating a new body; instead, he gets the same snakelike face that he had before): the ingredients (besides whatever was in the potion in the first place--and it's interesting that this potion requires an incantiation to work--we haven't seen that before) are the bone of the father, which I suppose forms the skeleton; blood of an enemy, which of course forms the blood and maybe the whole circulatory system; and the flesh of a servant, which would form the skin, muscles, etc. Obviously, they're not the skeleton of his father, the flesh and muscles of Wormtail, and Harry's blood--they magically transform into his own. But it seems that the blood of the enemy has to be magical blood--Wormtail says that they could use "another witch or wizard--any wizard" (GoF Am. ed. 8-9) rather than Harry to speed up the process--nothing about using a Muggle (one of which is conveniently at hand). So I still think, based on that scene and lines like "not a drop of magical blood in their veins" (as applied to the Dursleys that magical power is in the blood. Voldemort specifically wants Harry's because of the Love protection; otherwise, he might agree to use "any witch or wizard." At any rate, regardless of what kind of "bit (soul piece or magical blood) got into Harry's cut and gave him some of voldies' powers and made the scar a mind link, I think it's the scar itself and its assortied powers (Parseltongue, the mind link, possibly possession) that matters. As for the power of summoning animals to him that you mentioned, if you mean Fawkes in CoS, I think the protection was arranged in advance by Dumbledore: loyalty to DD summoned Fawkes to him, carrying the Sorting Hat (Fawkes on his own clawed out the Basilisk's eyes and healed Harry's wound, probably); crying for help and thinking "help me!" as he put on the Sorting Hat caused the Sword of Gryffindor to fall out ("help will always come to those who ask for it"). as for only a true Gryffindor pulling the sword out of the hat, Harry didn't pull it out; it fell out--and probably only a true Gryffindor would have gone down there in the first place, and DD had a very shrewd idea which one(s) it would be. Anyway, it you compare DD's words in Hagrid's hut with what actually happened, it's pretty clear that he put the protections in place. And Riddle knows it: "So that's what Dumbledore sends his defender--a song bird and an old hat" (quoted from memory in all cases--sorry). Anyway, I don't think that Harry's soul piece, if he has one and I'm not convinced that he does, acts as one of the anchors for Voldemort's main soul, and if it doesn't do that, neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux. He merely has, as we already knew, some of Voldie's powers and a mind link to the Dark Lord who caused the scar by trying to kill him. (I still think it was caused by the AK bursting outward since an AK doesn't cause a scar going in. the scar didn't form first and cause a shield that deflected the curse or anything like that; it was still an open cut when Hagrid placed Harry on the Dursleys' porch.) Carol, glad that Jen abandoned the idea of Immortal Hero!Harry From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 04:42:39 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:42:39 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: <380-22007611812640718@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170400 > Magpie: > Yeah, Snape and Lupin are *both* being passive-aggressive. Snape's > rubbing in that he wants Lupin to drink it right that second (and > he's got more in case Lupin thinks he needs it!!) and Lupin's > saying he will drink it when he's ready. It's a powerplay going on > in front of Harry, with both men knowing that Harry is there as > part of it. Of course Snape could have just set it down and not > brought up werewolves in class. So could Lupin have drunk the > Potion in front of Snape like a good boy who knows what a risk it > all is. But they're totally at each other.:-) Mike: I'm not near as good at this as you are Magpie, so I want to ask your opinion, or anyone else that understands this better than me. Does this little power play remind you at all of a similar power play between James and Lily, with Severus in the Harry role? I know the conditions are different, flirting versus passive-aggressive attitudes, Harry is clueless and not a part of the exchange versus Severus understanding exactly what's playing out and is the object of the exchange (as well as being tormented). And, of course, there is no audience for the Lupin-Snape exchange other than Harry. But it struck me that James and Lily were being outwardly disgusted (well, Lily anyway) while inwardly friendly (or more). Conversely, Snape and Lupin are outwardly friendly but inwardly detesting (might be too strong for Lupin, but not Snape) each other. I'm thinking there is some literary term for this reverse parallel, but it's beyond my scope of learning. :-? > Lanval: > This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended > solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good > deal out of proportion. > > Magpie: > I don't see how it can be blown out of proportion. It's not like > we're given back ups for Lupin while he's at Hogwarts. > > Too much "everything's dangerous at Hogwarts" and the plots > of every book stop mattering. Mike: I'm in agreement about the importance of Lupin taking his meds, because he is in a school full of children. To me, it's the children in the WW, who have no defence against werewolves, that should rightfully fear them. The adults don't seem to be all that concerned, not counting that Umbridge woman. Even Molly, who has kids, doesn't have a problem sharing a table with Lupin. Hell, she tries to play matchmaker for him. What I'm trying to say, (not very well, I might add) is that Lanval has hit on something that doesn't add up, vis-a-vis Snape. Sure, he hates and distrusts Lupin for being a former Marauder. Yet, if the pensieve scene is any indication, Lupin wasn't much of a tormenter of Snape in their youth. That leaves the Prank as Snape's real basis for his boyhood grudge. And that would mean that it'a Lupin's werewolfism that serves as the basis for his hatred. That puts himself in the company of Umbridge as the only other adult that seems to think that werewolves are sub-human. IOW, the rest of the WW seems to have figured out how to deal with this monthly problem, and there does not appear to be a rash of werewolf attacks (leaving Fenrir out of the equation). Yet Snape's words in the Shack hint that he agrees with Umbridge's legislation, werewolves aren't "tame", they can't be trusted to hold down a job amongst normal people. > Dungrollin: > Snape is the ultimate ESE!Lupiner. He is *paranoid* about Lupin. > > Magpie: > Hee! Agreed. Mike: Excellent Dung! > Magpie: > Interesting to think that given that Snape's view of Lupin is so > emotional and paranoid > The Prank, after all, was all about setting up Snape the way > Fenrir set up Remus. He may on some level just associate Lupin > with using his disease on others. It's not really rational to > think Lupin would intentionally not take his potion, but > Snape isn't always rational when his buttons are pressed. Mike: Yes, this is what I'm thinking. The Prank gave Snape an irrational fear of werewolves that has carried through to adulthood and morphed into a prejudice or bigotry against people who are afflicted with lycanthropy. It's not just Lupin the werewolf that Snape hates, it's the whole werewolf community that he despises. He has projected what happened to him as the benchmark for all werewolf behavior. And the sad part is that appears Lupin was not *in* on the Prank. We may find out different in DH. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 07:10:29 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:10:29 -0000 Subject: The BEANS Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170401 Goddlefrood: This theory was in incubation about the time of the book cover releases on both sides of the Atlantic. For that reason distractions occurred which led to its being placed on the backburner. Bits of it have appeared in posts of mine before, so forgive me if this seems somewhat familiar. BEANS = Beginning - End And No Snape. Strictly it is slightly inappropriate as Mr. Multiplicity makes the odd guest appearance. My starting point was, not atypically, a little snippet from JKR's website, this: "So much of what happens in book six relates to book seven that I feel almost as though they are two halves of the same novel." Plain text link available here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=62 Having read, over some years, various theories about the books reflecting each other, many of which exclude GoF as it does not fit with the usual proposition, I gave some credence to the thought that in a general way certain of the books reflect. The above quote made me realise that *if* books 6 and 7 are considered as two parts of one long novel then the formula would be this: Book 1 = Books 6 + 7 Book 2 = Book 5 Book 3 = Book 4. As I say this is in a general way. That it led me to the conclusion that there is a strong likelihood that all routes lead not to Rome, but to Godric's Hollow, is something I hope will become clear in the course of this post. How, then, could this all work? The reflection in the books that is. To start with the existing books first before getting onto the more speculative, and some may feel tenuous, ground that will be covered when book 1 is to be compared to books 6 and 7, let's take book 2 and book 5. In both CoS and OotP the climaxes in terms of the last confrontation in each book take place far underground. The Chamber of Secrets is likely to be the deepest darkest place at Hogwarts and the Department of Mysteries is on the lowest level of the underground Ministry of Magic. In each book a potentially useful ally of Harry's in the conflicts to come is introduced. In CoS it is the House Elves, who I divine will play a role in winning the day for Harry and Co., and in OotP it is the Order itself, whose surviving members obviously will assist Harry where able in DH. I include Severus Snape in this latter despite the fact that the other surviving members, apart from perhaps Aberforth, would give little credence, from their point of view, that Snape is still with them. That's not to say that Severus is DDM, but he will be an asset in my reading of him, for which, as Gilderoy might say, see my published works. There are many other examples, which I could go into but for my purpose the above suffice. Book 3 and book 4 also, IMO, reflect each other in a general way. In book 3 Sirius, who we initially are led to believe belongs to Voldemort, is found to be on Harry's side whereas in book 4 the opposite is the case with Mad-Eye being revealed as actually Barty Junior. In both there is considerable exposition on events from the past that reflect on the present. In PoA this is the prank and in GoF it is Voldemort's first downfall. We have learned far from everything about these two matters but we learned a good deal about them, so again this is a general reflection of the theme. Naturally too there is the comparitor of Scabbers being Peter and Mad-Eye being Barty Junior. The main deceit in each of PoA and GoF involves getting an enemy to a point where he could be killed, the former being Peter Pettigrew and the latter being Harry himself. That both escaped is not a coincidence either in terms of the reverberations, IMO. Again I see other reflections in books 3 and 4, but do not propose to get too much into that. I appreciate that one of my recent posts was rather long and it is by no means my intention to try to equal that feat, in fact this post is rather short. On then to books 1, 6 and 7. Despite PS / SS being the shortest of the books and despite the seeming difficulty of comparing a shade over 200 pages (Bloomsbury) to what will be close to 1300 for books 6 + 7, I'm prepared to try it and see where it might lead us. In general what I do discern about a possible reflection between PS / SS and HBP + DH is that of a recurring theme in the number of obstacles that must be overcome to achieve the goal. In PS / SS there are seven tasks to perform, one of which admittedly was unnecessary in PS / SS and this is one instance of a plausible contention for what is to come in DH. That being that it will come about that there is one less task for Harry to perform than he currently thinks, meaning there will be one Horcrux less to destroy than he is now expecting. The final scene, barring wind down, will be Harry coming face to face with Lord Voldemort. The chase around the country avoiding Owls in book 1, using a wide interpretation, will equate to the chasing around of LV and his Horcruxes (although I'd concede that there are fewer than 192 Horcruxes left). The most interesting aspect, from my viewpoint, will be the link between books 1, 6 + 7 in terms of where the action will take place. Harry's story in respect of his interaction with Lord Voldemort began at Godric's Hollow and so it shall end there. Both will not need to be told the location of the house itself, whatever parlous state it may be in, as they already both know the secret, IMO. Voldemort certainly does and Harry really should, being one of those under the protection. It is possible, and I believe it will be the case, that if Godric's Hollow is the venue for the showdown to come then neither Ron nor Hermione will be able to enter whatever is left of the Potters' House. Bear in mind, though, that Godric's Hollow is a village and to get to it will be the task of a moment, to enter the shell or ruins will not be so easy unless Peter reveals the secret to whoever wants to get access. Peter may actually do this as his repayment of his debt to Harry when Harry is noted by Peter, who finally realises his folly and repents of his conversion to Voldemort's side, to be on the verge of defeat. That's all I have for this post except to say that the ultimate end, barring the postscript, will be the WW celebrating the downfall of Lord Voldemort as they were at the beginning of PS / SS. Criticisms or further expansive thoughts would be gratefully received. Goddlefrood From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 14:02:28 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:02:28 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170402 > Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > It isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm diabetic. Sometimes I get > tired of testing my blood sugar. Sometimes I get fed up with > having to consider how many carbs and how much fat is in > everything I put in my mouth. I'm not on insulin (yet) but > my friends who are say that calculating how much insulin to > inject to counteract the carbs and sugar they had at the last > meal is a major pain in the epizodic. Intellectually we know > how important being vigilent in the management of our condition > is, but sometimes we want to just say "The hell with it! If I > want a doughnut, I'll have a doughnut! If I don't feel like > jabbing myself in the finger to some blood, I won't!" So I > can understand why Lupin gets fed up with constantly consulting > the lunar phase chart, why sometimes the thought of drinking > the Wolfsbane Potion makes him fee nausiated. Does that mean > that the times when he doesn't are OK? Of course not! But if > he didn't, sometimes, feel that way and even act accordingly > the character would be unbelievable. > > Lanval: Oh, I understand what you're saying. Been there, done that, with a hyperactive thyroid some years ago. One DOES get tired of it. However, about Lupin in PoA -- in the scene we're discussing, Lupin has had the benefit of the potion for the third full moon at most. I think he would still be quite happy with the novelty of taking it, and feeling its relief (his body likely still aches badly after a transformation, but there would be less discomfort because he does not attack himself). Or am I forgetting something? I recall him mentioning that his transformations used to be terrible "in those days", when he speaks of his teenage years. Does that mean he's improved since? Shouldn't he have been suffering the same urge to bite and scratch himself as an adult, before the potion was made available to him? Why speak of it as something that happened long ago? Then again, in HBP, he specifically mentions how much relief the potion gave to him during his year of teaching at Howarts. I'm so confused. :) But I still believe that Lupin had no reason to resent having to take the potion, at least not this early in the year, and shows no sign of doing so, not then and not later. > From Brenda.Swift at ahp-dsg.com Mon Jun 18 13:24:51 2007 From: Brenda.Swift at ahp-dsg.com (brendacarlisleswift) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:24:51 -0000 Subject: UK vs US Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170403 I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is that true? Brenda From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 14:33:38 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:33:38 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170404 > > > Lanval: > However, about Lupin in PoA -- in the scene we're discussing, Lupin > has had the benefit of the potion for the third full moon at most. I > think he would still be quite happy with the novelty of taking it, > and feeling its relief (his body likely still aches badly after a > transformation, but there would be less discomfort because he does > not attack himself). ... Then again, in HBP, he specifically mentions how much relief > the potion gave to him during his year of teaching at Howarts. > > I'm so confused. :) But I still believe that Lupin had no reason to > resent having to take the potion, at least not this early in the > year, and shows no sign of doing so, not then and not later. > > > lizzyben: I agree that Lupin had no *reason* to resent taking the potion, but he does. People aren't always reasonable or rational. I think that consciously, Lupin acknowledges that the potion helped him, and he is grateful to Snape for supplying it. He also know that that the potion allows him to transform safely, it saves him pain, and ensures the safety of others. So, really, Lupin should be down on his knees thanking Snape... Snape, the jerk, the taunter, the enemy who never loses a moment to insult Lupin, to refer to his illness in public, to enjoy his new power over Lupin, to triumph in how the tables have turned. Lupin HATES feeling indebted to Snape, and especially hates that Snivellus is now more powerful, more successful, more trusted by Dumbledore - and always ready to rub it in. So when Snape brings his potion, Lupin resists in small ways - trying to recover the power in that relationship. First, he resists drinking it in front of Snape - why give him the satisfaction of being Lupin's "baby-sitter?" Then, over time, as Lupin's guilt over Black grows, as Snape's suspicions grow, Lupin starts to (irrationally) resent him even more - because Snape is right. He *is* deceiving Dumbledore, & Snape seems to know it. And he hates facing Snape, because it makes him feel even more guilty. And he hates having to depend on someone who hates him. So he "forgets" his potion that night - this hurts Lupin, but it also hurts SNAPE. DD entrusted Snape w/the Wolfsbane potion - if Lupin transforms w/o it, DD will blame Snape for failing in his duty. Snape, who was so worried about security, would fail to keep the school safe. This is Lupin's revenge on Snape - and I don't even think he's aware that he's doing it. That's what passive- agressiveness is all about. Lupin keeps all his resentments & anger bottled up inside - he never mentions his anger at Snape, he never fights with Snape, but he lets it come out in other ways. I don't believe he consciously *meant* to forget his potion, but I do believe that he subconciously "forget" on purpose in order to punish both himself, and Snape. Lupin doesn't even know he does this, so there's nothing to stop him from doing it again. I wouldn't trust Lupin to take his potion at all, especially from Snape, given the dynamics of the relationship. IMO this type of lapse was inevitable. lizzyben From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 15:20:34 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:20:34 -0000 Subject: UK vs US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "brendacarlisleswift" wrote: > > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is that true? > > Brenda > TKJ: I have been wondering this too....If that is the case how do I get a hold of the UK copies? TKJ :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 18 15:46:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:46:39 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170406 > > Dungrollin: > > Snape is the ultimate ESE!Lupiner. He is *paranoid* about Lupin. > > > > Magpie: > > Hee! Agreed. > > Mike: > Excellent Dung! > . > > Mike: > Yes, this is what I'm thinking. The Prank gave Snape an irrational > fear of werewolves that has carried through to adulthood and morphed > into a prejudice or bigotry against people who are afflicted with > lycanthropy. It's not just Lupin the werewolf that Snape hates, it's > the whole werewolf community that he despises. He has projected what > happened to him as the benchmark for all werewolf behavior. And the > sad part is that appears Lupin was not *in* on the Prank. We may find > out different in DH. Pippin: I agree Snape is an ESE!Lupiner, but is it paranoia? What if he has actual reasons to believe that Lupin has betrayed the Order? Snape is not the only one who suspected him of that. You would think if Snape backed Umbridge's anti-werewolf crusade, he'd show her more support. But he doesn't. I think Snape goes after Lupin-as-werewolf because it's the one charge he thinks he can prove: a bit like the US nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Snape does not express any animosity towards werewolves in general when Lupin is not present. The essay about recognizing and killing werewolves scandalizes the students only because of its length-- not because recognizing and killing werewolves is something a decent wizard wouldn't do. If Lupin is the only werewolf at Hogwarts (Fudge says he let Dumbledore hire *werewolves*) then Snape's only trying to expose the one, and we can't say that the essay is against werewolves in general. But if there are more than one, then Snape has apparently taught companionably with them for years. My bet would be Professor Vector, as that would put Hermione in an excellent position to guess, especially as she had the time turner. The werewolf is an XXXXX monster in its transformed state, "of murderous intent and no human conscience", " a known wizard killer, impossible to train or domesticate." The wolfsbane potion makes the werewolf tame, but only as much as his human conscience permits. We know that Lupin's human conscience did not restrain him from trying to murder Pettigrew. I think Snape predicted as much. Snape was saying, IMO, that even with wolfsbane, Lupin is not tame, not because he is a werewolf but because he is all too humanly murderous. There is a very common assumption, which Fenrir's appearance ought to have undermined, that a werewolf is harmless when it's not transformed, as though lycanthropes were somehow protected from having murderous designs on their own account. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 18 16:02:00 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:02:00 -0000 Subject: UK vs US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170407 Brenda: > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this > site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is > that true? Pippin: You can order the British editions from amazon.co.uk or the Canadian Raincoast edition which has the same text as the British one from amazon.ca. Both are available in children's or adult versions, but there's no difference except for the cover design. If you just want to check out the differences between these and the Scholastic edition, there's a list at the Harry Potter Lexicon. The changes are usually minor variations in usage or slang. However, the US editions are slightly and perhaps significantly different in some cases where it seems as though corrections were made so late in the publishing process that the British text got them and the US text didn't. The US edition of GoF has Wormtail and Voldemort discussing a murder which in the British edition becomes a curse. The US edition of HBP originally had Dumbledore telling Draco that the Order would be able to convince Voldemort that both he and his mother were dead. These lines were omitted in the British text. Now, according to the lexicon, current US editions have been changed to match the British version. http://www.amazon.co.uk/ http://amazon.ca/ http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ Pippin From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 16:11:01 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:11:01 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170408 > > Lanval: > > > > Just IMO, of course. I freely confess to my Lupin bias, just as > > others who have argued this question clearly seem to have a Snape > > bias. Some believe that nothing Lupin does is ever sincere. *g* > < HUGE SNIP> > > Alla: > > Oy, can I just express my admiration for your posts, like each and > every one of them? Lanval: Thank you, and I guess I'd like to just return that compliment, and also express my admiration for your tireless work and loyalty to this community. :) > Alla: > Okay, here is a funny thing, for me anyways. I do not **have** any > Lupin bias, LOL. I mean, I of course have antiSnape bias, but I > cannot say that I had ever been a big fan of Lupin. I mean, > sympathize with him of course more than with Snape, if that counts > as bias and giggle every time I hear Lupin being called evil, but I > had never had especially high opinion of him. For the most part I > find him weak and boring. Isn't it funny that he is getting the most > smack for one night when he really **acts**? Lanval: Oh, how I wish Lupin would "act up" a bit more! Such patient, noble suffering. And when he's in No Contractions Mode, as in the HBP Christmas scene? Argh. Slap-worthy. :) >Alla: > I know why he is the way he is because of his illness, etc. But > give me Sirius any time. Give me Sirius any time also because > Sirius, half crazy after Azkaban still has capacity to love Harry > and Remus just does not seem to bother to get closer to Harry > without Azkaban. > And I know why JKR made Lupin to be distant from Harry IMO anyways, > I am pretty sure that she means to keep him alive and father figures > who are close to poor Harry end up dead as we know, but that does > not make me less annoyed with Lupin. > > So, what I am trying to say is that I judge Lupin/ Snape interaction > on their actions mostly, I would like to think and boy, Snape still > comes out as disgusting bigot to me. I mean, of course I have > nothing but contempt for Snape left, but I still look at his actions > and shake my head in disgust. > > Lanval: Actually, my Sirius bias beats the Lupin bias. Concerning the antiSnape bias, yours probably beats mine, I'd say, but we're fairly close. *g* Contempt for Snape, yes -- for now. We shall see, soon. > Alla: > I mean, I certainly feel a need to defend Sirius often enough when > he is being argued against, but I still on the intellectual level > recognize his bad actions and acknowledge it. > Lanval: Me too, though it may not look that way to most Snape fans. Snape and Sirius -- what clinches it for me, I think, are their adult characters. Both were bastards in their younger days. But what's the worst one can accuse post-Azkaban Sirius of? Attempting murderous revenge, when he's still half-crazed from his years in prison (and a thirteen year old boy manages to talk him out of it in the end). What else? H e's grumpy at times. He gets depressed. He once makes a not-so-nice remark to Harry. Anything else? Well, he also still knows how to LOVE. Deeply. And on the whole, he seems a nice and generous enough fellow to have around. Unless your name happens to be Severus Snape, of course (and Molly Weasley on one occasion). The worst about Adult Snape, IMO, and the reason why I so heartily dislike him (and why on a shallow level *g* I cannot. Ever. Find him sexy, as so many of his fans do. It's not his looks!) is his sheer patheticness. All that self-pity, the endless dwelling on real or imagined past insults and injustices, those constant nasty swipes at helpless kids, the amount of hatred he harbors for a boy whose only sin was to resemble his father -- geez, Severus. Pitiful indeed. As for everything else he's done in those six years, much of which is cited as evidence for him being a Good Guy, I shall await DH. All cards will finally be on the table then, I hope. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Mon Jun 18 16:18:15 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:18:15 -0000 Subject: UK vs US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "brendacarlisleswift" > wrote: > > > > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this > site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is > that true? > > > > Brenda > > > > TKJ: > > I have been wondering this too....If that is the case how do I get a > hold of the UK copies? > Anne Squires: The two versions have different publishers US: Scholastic UK: Bloomsbury. If you go to The Harry Potter Lexicon you will find a readers guide to each book: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/books-hp.html For each book there is another link to a concise synopsis of the differences between the US and UK editions. I get the impression that most of the differences concern American and British use of language and slang. For example car park vs. parking lot, bins vs. trash cans, comprehensive vs. public school, motorway vs. highway, biscuits vs. cookies, whilst vs. while, timetable vs. schedule, etc. I'm sure you get the idea. And this one really, really kills me, peckers up vs. spirits up. In the US you couldn't exactly put that in a children's book, could you? However, in a few instances there are differences in exposition. For example when DD asks Draco to come over to the other side there is much more to DD's speech in the US version. UK version of DD's speeech: 'Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...when the time comes, we can protect him too... come over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer...' VS. US version: "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. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...when the time comes, we can protect him too. Come over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer..." Anne Squires From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 16:29:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:29:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) Message-ID: <380-220076118162917250@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170410 Mike: I'm not near as good at this as you are Magpie, so I want to ask your opinion, or anyone else that understands this better than me. Magpie: Flattery with get you everywhere! Does this little power play remind you at all of a similar power play between James and Lily, with Severus in the Harry role? I know the conditions are different, flirting versus passive-aggressive attitudes, Harry is clueless and not a part of the exchange versus Severus understanding exactly what's playing out and is the object of the exchange (as well as being tormented). And, of course, there is no audience for the Lupin-Snape exchange other than Harry. But it struck me that James and Lily were being outwardly disgusted (well, Lily anyway) while inwardly friendly (or more). Conversely, Snape and Lupin are outwardly friendly but inwardly detesting (might be too strong for Lupin, but not Snape) each other. I'm thinking there is some literary term for this reverse parallel, but it's beyond my scope of learning. :-? Magpie: Good catch! I don't know if there's a specific word for it, but I do think there's a parallel. Actually, it's something JKR uses a lot, having Harry witness a conversation he gets is intense but can't understand. In the James/Lily cases it's I think especially important to the theme, because of what Harry misunderstands. He doesn't get that Lily is interested in James already. With Snape/Lupin again he gets there's animosity and thinks Snape's hurting Lupin with a Potion and trying to poison him while really Snape's again helping Lupin, but passive-aggressively. Both scenes kind of point up how Harry has difficulty when things aren't black and white. He'd be more comfortable if James/Lily was just about hate and Snape/Lupin was Snape bringing him poison. Instead both scenes are on one level about something positive, the mating dance of James/Lily and Severus caring for Lupin (as in giving him potion, not liking him). > Lanval: > This notion that the Hogwarts students's safety somehow depended > solely on Lupin taking his wolfsbane potion is, IMO, blown a good > deal out of proportion. > > Magpie: > I don't see how it can be blown out of proportion. It's not like > we're given back ups for Lupin while he's at Hogwarts. > > Too much "everything's dangerous at Hogwarts" and the plots > of every book stop mattering. Mike: I'm in agreement about the importance of Lupin taking his meds, because he is in a school full of children. To me, it's the children in the WW, who have no defence against werewolves, that should rightfully fear them. The adults don't seem to be all that concerned, not counting that Umbridge woman. Even Molly, who has kids, doesn't have a problem sharing a table with Lupin. Hell, she tries to play matchmaker for him. Magpie: Molly, iirc, is openly nervous about Arthur sharing a hospital room with a newly-bitten werewolf. It seems like she may have gotten used to Lupin while still retaining her instinctive fear of werewolves. I admit I love this undercurrent in Molly, the way she really does often seem to embody your average person not above ignorance. Snape's an interesting case, as you say. I wonder if this is because he considers Lupin as a bit of a Fenrir Greyback, even if that's irrational, because of the Prank. The main point that Snape may have about Lupin, which works metaphorically with him being a werewolf, is that he only *seems* like a nice guy but underneath really isn't. He's weak and can't be trusted. Maybe that's it rather than a general fear of werewolves--like, the DADA lesson could be another way of saying "more backups needed--Lupin's at the school." He's striking out at Lupin via his being a werewolf. (Which I think is bigotry even if he hates Lupin for being Lupin, same as my position on Muggle-baiting.) Mike: Yes, this is what I'm thinking. The Prank gave Snape an irrational fear of werewolves that has carried through to adulthood and morphed into a prejudice or bigotry against people who are afflicted with lycanthropy. It's not just Lupin the werewolf that Snape hates, it's the whole werewolf community that he despises. He has projected what happened to him as the benchmark for all werewolf behavior. And the sad part is that appears Lupin was not *in* on the Prank. We may find out different in DH. Magpie: It does seem like that. Snape seems to hate Lupin as a personl, given his response to Tonks' Patronus, for instance, but by hitting him via his werewolfism it brings in other issues. The kids who sat through his class on killing werewolves, for instance, probably wouldn't have gotten the message that some humans who are werewolves are irresponsible. More like just that werewolves are dangerous and you might need to kill one. Though I wonder if what we're also seeing is people working through having an actual relationship with a werewolf. For instance, some feel that the Marauders are disrespectful to Lupin in the way they talk about wishing it were a full moon, etc. It seems to me more about making Lupin's whole self part of the friendship--they will talk about his condition casually and make that part of their bond. Snape does the opposite, making the werewolfism part of his hatred. I'd be interested to know if that was something he got over, somewhat. I mean, I don't get the impression in later books that Snape really is much upset with Lupin being a werewolf. I wonder if there really was something that was gotten over to an extent, like the way Snape agrees to work with Sirius and no longer rants about him being a murderer etc., even if he still hates him. Lanval: However, about Lupin in PoA -- in the scene we're discussing, Lupin has had the benefit of the potion for the third full moon at most. I think he would still be quite happy with the novelty of taking it, and feeling its relief (his body likely still aches badly after a transformation, but there would be less discomfort because he does not attack himself). Or am I forgetting something? I'm so confused. :) But I still believe that Lupin had no reason to resent having to take the potion, at least not this early in the year, and shows no sign of doing so, not then and not later. Magpie: I think it's a slightly different thing with Lupin. In the scene in question, and throughout the year, I don't think it's the taking of wolfsbane he doesn't like. It's Snape! I mean, Lupin would ideally not want to be a werewolf at all. But with that not being a possibility he seems to much prefer having the wolfsbane. What I see as his issue in this scene isn't resenting taking the wolfsbane but the position this puts him in via Snape. Not because Lupin hates Snape so much he can't stand to be beholden on him (though obviously that's not pleasant)--I think he can take that. But when Snape comes in and is rubbing in that he's a werewolf, I think Lupin absolutely hits back with his own powerplay about the Potion. And in doing that I think he's doing something sort of related to what Bart is describing. It's not quite the same as eating an ice cream when you're a diabetic, but I do think the Potion is just yet another thing that rubs in Lupin's position of weakness in society. The wolfsbane is at once both a relief from his suffering and another reminder of how much he needs it. - From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 18 17:38:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:38:37 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and The Boys From Brazil (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170411 Neri: > Yes, yes, but what about Snape, some of you must be asking by now . > If Free Will is the main theme of the series, then what is the role of > Snape's character in this theme? Well, in this obvious duality of the > two mirror images, Harry and Voldemort, the one who chose good and the > one who chose evil, Snape stands in the middle like a wild card, > always ambiguous, always refusing to take a side. Pippin: What you are leaving out, in your otherwise excellent analysis, is the idea of Second Chances. There is no Free Will without them. No one, not even Dumbledore, can choose rightly every time, so without Second Chances the first wrong choice will lead inevitably to another, and another, and determinism triumphs after all. Snape is the only adult character who has been given both a deliberate second chance and the opportunity to make a different life for himself because of it. Structurally, if it turns out that this is one of Dumbledore's mistakes, then the whole idea of second chances will be undermined, and with it, the idea of choice will crumble. If Snape were the character who couldn't choose, if he were as cagey as he pretends to be at Spinner's End, then why did he not treat Harry as he claimed he did? Why didn't he wait to see what sort of person Harry was, what powers he had, in order to decide how Harry would fit into his schemes? Instead he seemed determined to make Harry hate him from the beginning. What purpose can that hatred serve, if not to convince Voldemort that Harry will never have Snape as an ally and Snape will never want him? So Snape must have been planning from the beginning to help Harry against Voldemort. We never see Snape being indecisive. If anything he makes up his mind all too quickly. OTOH, there is a character who seems unable to make any choice until it is forced on him. He might kill, not to help one side or the other but to keep his options open. Interesting that Lupin is in a position to have killed Sirius, and Snape is not. Of course Lupin could not have killed Dumbledore, but then we don't know what killed Dumbledore really. If we didn't have Harry to tell us that Snape had AK'd him, we'd have no trouble believing he'd died of the poison at all. If Harry, now mature, cannot be mistaken, then second chances are not really necessary to Free Will, nor is freedom necessary to virtue. The only proper exercise of free will would be to turn one's freedom over to the best chooser and make ourselves his slaves. That, not coincidentally, is what Voldemort would like. But if Harry can be mistaken, then he will stand as much in need of second chances as Snape did, and that, IMO, will be far more expressive of JKR's theme. Pippin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jun 18 18:15:03 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:15:03 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170412 > > Mike: > > Yes, this is what I'm thinking. The Prank gave Snape an irrational fear of werewolves that has carried through to adulthood and morphed into a prejudice or bigotry against people who are afflicted with lycanthropy. It's not just Lupin the werewolf that Snape hates, it's the whole werewolf community that he despises. He has projected what happened to him as the benchmark for all werewolf behavior. And the sad part is that appears Lupin was not *in* on the Prank. We may find out different in DH. > Dung: Hmm... maybe I didn't express myself clearly, but that's not what I meant. I think the prank gave Snape a hatred of *Lupin* specifically, and a fear of what he turns into. He's afraid of the wolf, and he hates the man. I imagine he hated the boy long before he knew about the wolf, and if there were a one-shot-cures-all cure for Lycanthropy, I'm certain that Snape would go on hating Lupin just as much as he always has. > Pippin: > I agree Snape is an ESE!Lupiner, but is it paranoia? What if he > has actual reasons to believe that Lupin has betrayed the Order? > Snape is not the only one who suspected him of that. > You would think if Snape backed Umbridge's anti-werewolf crusade, > he'd show her more support. But he doesn't. Dungrollin: I think that throughout PoA Snape's convinced that Lupin's helping Sirius in his attempt to kill Harry. Whether it's for the same reasons that Sirius and James thought Lupin was the spy way-back- when, I don't know, but I think that's the main misdemeanour that Snape's trying to pin on him. So, (unless ESE!Lupin didn't know that Sirius was innocent and *had* been teaching Harry to conjure a patronus in the hopes that he'd get past the dementors and into Sirius's clutches) in that sense Snape *was* being paranoid. Pippin: > I think Snape goes after Lupin-as-werewolf because it's the one > charge he thinks he can prove: a bit like the US nailing Al Capone for > tax evasion. Dung: I think it's also for the benefit of the kids (if we're still talking about the Shrieking Shack in PoA). He has a very short space of time to convince them that Lupin was dangerous, and he can't go into all the suspicions he's had about Lupin throughout the school year, nor all the old history between them, but one thing that should be guaranteed to get their attention is the word *werewolf*. It won't work on DD, because he's already hired Lupin knowing what he is, and (sniff) he doesn't seem to be listening to Snape much these days anyway, but it should work on the kids, who, if they're normal wizarding kids, will be terrified and want to get out of there asap. But you know, there's also *canon* to suggest that he hates Lupin because of the prank rather than due to a general antipathy to werewolves: PoA Ch 18 UK p 62: "So that's why Snape doesn't like you," said Harry slowly, "because he thought you were in on the joke?" "That's right," sneered a cold voice from the wall behind Lupin. Dungrollin From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 18:36:18 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:36:18 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: <380-22007611812640718@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170413 > Magpie: > I think there are some other reasons too. But in Lupin's case I have no > trouble believing at all that he would be forced to take medication, and > might be sick of being sick. Goodness, why not? His illness controls his > entire life! He would hardly show it, given his personality, and yet in > this scene especially Snape's even rubbing it in. Like I said, I don't see > him disliking wolfsbane itself the way some people might dislike their > medicine, but I think it's got more meaning for him than that. Lanval: I'd need more evidence for Lupin resenting the potion, still. As I wrote in a reply to another poster, Lupin can't be too tired of it yet -- it gives him, after all, the most relief he's had in years, and this is only the third time around he's "on" it. That he's tired to death of the condition itself, and probably not to happy for having to be grateful to Snape, of all people -- *that* I have no trouble believing. > > Magpie: > I don't think she's saying he has a blase attitude in general, but that > he's showing one (intentionally) to Snape. Lupin's entire part in the books > revolves around doing irresponsible things. He goes running with the > Marauders regularly in school, he covers up for Sirius, he forgets to take > his Potion in PoA. Of course these things don't define the entire man if he > were a person, but as a literary creation, if Lupin was a chesspiece this > would be part of his signature move. It's not conjecture anymore than > saying Sirius can be reckless. > Lanval: Hm, I guess I just don't see that part of his personality as all that significant. All the kids act irresponsibly, and constantly endanger themselves and others (if they did not, we'd have no story). Teen Snape acts irresponsibly by ignoring both school rules and his Headmaster's judgment. He moreover invents at least one very dark curse, one that inflicts serious injury if not death, and uses it on another student, in the middle of a crowd. I don't see anyone claiming that being irresponsible is a hallmark of young Snape, just as a example. On the other hand we must assume that Lupin dutifully *does* take his potion all year with one exception, where everyone involved seems to have forgotten the werewolf thing. We have no prior history of him ever acting unsafe on full moon nights as an adult, and we know DD *still* trusts him enough to sent him on important missions for the Order (including the fetch-Harry-from-Privet-Drive one), the last of which, going underground and having to face Greyback, being especially demanding, both in trustworthines and sheer bravery. Lupin's signature negative trait, to me, is the weakness of wanting to be liked and accepted that JKR mentioned. Which *can* lead to him acting in an irresponsible way, but that's merely a possible effect, not the flaw itself. > Magpie: > I don't think the point is that he's choosing to go through the > transformation. He is having a power play with Snape by not drinking the > concoction immediately, which sets up the repitition later when he forgets > it. > Lanval: But I don't how one sets up the other...? They seem to be such different circumstances. > Magpie: > I don't see how it can be blown out of proportion. It's not like we're > given back ups for Lupin while he's at Hogwarts. He's teaching at the > school and controlling his condition through Wolfsbane. That's significant > to the plot. Sure there are things that could be done other than > wolfsbane--Lupin didn't have it when he went to school as a kid. But > wolfsbane is important in PoA. Too much "everything's dangerous at > Hogwarts" and the plots of every book stop mattering. > Lanval: There certainly are degrees of danger. Lupin roaming the halls in werewolf form presents a greater imminent danger than, say, flying a broom during a Quidditch practice. Both can be deadly. Yet there are countless kids flying around on brooms, a hundred feet or more up in the air, without supervision, all the time (I won't even get into other school-sanctioned activities involving hippogriffs, or the Triwizard tournament). Lupin will be dangerous on no more than ten or eleven entirely foreseeable occasions throughout the school year, and for those, precautions were taken -- the most complicated part I'd say involving the actual brewing (kudos to Snape for doing a fine job all year). I fact, had there not been such a level of prejudice against werewolves, DD could have simply announced Lupin's "furry little secret" on the first night's feast, and that on full moon nights, students would be strongly advised to stay in their dorms (as an additional precaution on top of the potion). Just as they were strongly advised to stay away from the grounds after dark, due to the (even more deadly!) Dementors, or just as they were told to stay out of a certain corridor during Harry's first year, if they did not want to die a painful death. I don't see the big deal here. Yet when actual > Another thing I love about the Snape/Lupin scene with the Potion, btw, is I > think when Snape comes in and sees Lupin with Harry that's already a blow > to Snape. I mean, we know the guy lives in the past, and he hates having > Lupin there. I think he saw those two together and went right into the same > kind of defensiveness he had in the Pensieve scene, as if now there's two > of them plotting. And he starts his own passive-aggressive attack on > Lupin--which Lupin parries in the most Lupin-like way. Lanval: Yes, it must have been like old times, Lupin and someone looking just like James being chummy. I agree that's why Snape goes into power play mode -- as opposed to Snape fearing for Harry's safety, which I won't buy for a moment. > lanva: > I really think that had Snape not been so hostile before > Lupin was even hired, Lupin would have let the past be the past. He > seems to have more important matters on his mind than dwelling on a > old schoolboy grudge. > > Magpie: > I think that's true--Lupin himself says he neither likes nor dislikes Snape > and I believe him. But of course Snape was going to be the first aggressor > because not only is he the more emotional one but he's the one who feels > slighted. The Marauders *won* and both Lupin and Snape know it. Even with > the Prank Snape's still enraged and Lupin can still say it's just a stupid > joke. I think Lupin handles Snape in a way that drives Snape crazy- -and > that's just Snape, but I think the scene with the Potion is part of Lupin > struggling with Snape. It's just also setting up the later scene where he > forgets the Potion. Lanval: That's true, even though I still don't get Snape's logic (why Lupin would have been "in on the attempt to murder him".) And it's hard for me to see how the Marauders 'won' (unless you mean 'in Snape's mind'?) One is perceived dead, one is truly dead, one is in prison, and the last one is an outcast from society, poor, half-starved, and sickly, with a horrible condition to bear. Snape? Cushy job, three solid meals a day, a steady neverending supply of little victims to bully, brewing potions, hanging out with important folks like L. Malfoy, and just generally enjoying the privilege and recognition that being Potions Master at Hogwarts, and Head of Slytherin House brings with it. Er, no contest for me there. *g* Magpie: > Which just fascinates me because JKR *could* have had Lupin be all frantic > about taking the Potion to set up just how important it was that he always > get it on time, and then in turn use that to show how shocked he was by > seeing Peter (because we'd know how important it was). The scene she wrote > was imo more interesting and says things a bit more interesting about > Lupin. He's never just the Patron Martyr Saint of Werewolves. > Lanval: That would certainly have helped in making a better case for Lupin, but from a writer's perspective it would have been difficult. If Lupin was becoming frantic, knowing evening was near, and Snape had not shown up with the potion, surely he would not have stayed at his desk, studying the map, but gone in search of Snape? But for plot reasons, he had to be reasonably calm and study the map. We have Snape saying that Lupin had forgotten to take his potion *tonight* which implies that Lupin had little reason to be frantic just yet; Snape wasn't all that late by the time Lupin leaves his room, this was shortly after dinner. Of course there's the weird fact that the arrangement seems to have been that Snape would deliver the potion to Lupin, so why does he blame Lupin for having forgotten it? Just Snape being Snape? Patron Martyr Saint with a debilitating illness? Nah. That's the stuff of sappy Victorian novels, and JKR ain't writing one of those. :) From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 18 18:58:06 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:58:06 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170414 Mike: > I'm not near as good at this as you are Magpie, so I > want to ask your opinion, or anyone else that > understands this better than me. Does this little > power play remind you at all of a similar power > play between James and Lily, with Severus in the > Harry role? I know the conditions are different, > flirting versus passive-aggressive attitudes, Harry > is clueless and not a part of the exchange versus > Severus understanding exactly what's playing out > and is the object of the exchange (as well as being > tormented). And, of course, there is no audience > for the Lupin-Snape exchange other than Harry. > But it struck me that James and Lily were being > outwardly disgusted (well, Lily anyway) while inwardly > friendly (or more). Conversely, Snape and Lupin are > outwardly friendly but inwardly detesting (might be > too strong for Lupin, but not Snape) each other. I'm > thinking there is some literary term for this reverse > parallel, but it's beyond my scope of learning. :-? houyhnhnm: First of all, I want to make it clear that I'm responding to the "anyone else" and not the "better than me". :-) I'm a total layperson when it comes to either literary analysis or psychiatry, but your post made me think about the two scenes. There is a similarity that I hadn't noticed before. Both involve a drama triangle with covert transactions and switches or at least potential switches). But there are differences, too. The Pensieve triangle starts out with Snape in the role of Victim, with James as Persecutor and Lily as Rescuer. Except that Lily's motives are not pure. She may have intervened out of a sense of duty as a prefect, but she is also there because she is attracted to James. James lays the trap by telling Snape "You're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus--" and Snape, who has probably noticed Lily's expression twitch as if she were going to smile, takes the bait, calls Lily a Mudblood and accomplishes the switch. Lily is now the Victim, Snape the Persecutor, and James the Rescuer. Well done, James! The scene in Lupin's office is a little more complicated with each character viewing the triangle differently. I think both Lupin and Snape see Harry as the Victim, but each sees himself as the Rescuer with the other as Persecutor. Harry sees Lupin as the Victim (of Snape's poisoning attempt) and himself as would be Rescuer, but he takes no action (other than telling his friends), so the switch doesn't really happen, and the dramatic tension is left unresolved. I hope I'm not spouting complete rubbish. It was an interesting thought problem, however. Thanks. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 18:59:34 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:59:34 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170415 > lizzyben: > > I agree that Lupin had no *reason* to resent taking the potion, but > he does. Lanval: Where's the evidence for that? Please, show me the exact quote that *proves* (because you're stating this as a fact, not an opinion) your claim. > lizzyben: People aren't always reasonable or rational. I think that > consciously, Lupin acknowledges that the > potion helped him, and he is grateful to Snape for supplying it. He > also know that that the potion allows him to transform safely, it > saves him pain, and ensures the safety of others. So, really, Lupin > should be down on his knees thanking Snape... Snape, the jerk, the > taunter, the enemy who never loses a moment to insult Lupin, to > refer to his illness in public, to enjoy his new power over Lupin, > to triumph in how the tables have turned. Lanval: Snape, who was likely *ordered* by DD to brew this potion? JMO. > > lizzyben: > Lupin HATES feeling indebted to Snape,and especially hates that > Snivellus is now more powerful, more successful, more trusted by > Dumbledore Lanval: Canon support? > > lizzyben: and especially hates that > Snivellus is now more powerful, more successful, more trusted by > Dumbledore - and always ready to rub it in. So when Snape brings his > potion, Lupin resists in small ways - trying to recover the power in > that relationship. First, he resists drinking it in front of Snape - > why give him the satisfaction of being Lupin's "baby-sitter?" Then, > over time, as Lupin's guilt over Black grows, as Snape's suspicions > grow, Lupin starts to (irrationally) resent him even more Lanval: Proof? Sorry if this becoming repetitive. > > lizzyben: - because > Snape is right.He *is* deceiving Dumbledore, & Snape seems to know > it. And he hates facing Snape, because it makes him feel even more > guilty. And he hates having to depend on someone who hates him. So > he "forgets" his potion that night - this hurts Lupin, but it also > hurts SNAPE. DD entrusted Snape w/the Wolfsbane potion - if Lupin > transforms w/o it, DD will blame Snape for failing in his duty. > Snape, who was so worried about security, would fail to keep the > school safe. This is Lupin's revenge on Snape - and I don't > even think he's aware that he's doing it. That's what passive- > agressiveness is all about. > Lanval: So... Lupin would potentially sacrifice the live(s) or health of schoolchildren to get a swipe at Snape? Risk unemployment at the very best, Azkaban/execution/whatever at worst? LOL. And where's the proof that Snape was ever worried about security? > > lizzyben: > Lupin keeps all his resentments & anger bottled up inside - he never > mentions his anger at Snape, he never fights with Snape, but he lets > it come out in other ways. I don't believe he consciously *meant* to > forget his potion, but I do believe that he subconciously "forget" > on purpose in order to punish both himself, and Snape. Lupin doesn't > even know he does this, so there's nothing to stop him from doing it > again. I wouldn't trust Lupin to take his potion at all, especially > from Snape, given the dynamics of the relationship. IMO this type of > lapse was inevitable. > Lanval: Sorry, you can either forget subconsciously, or forget on purpose. Not both. There's no proof that Lupin ever did NOT take his potion save on the night of the SS; even on the first occasion he takes it the minute Snape leaves. And while we're still at it -- proof for Lupin being terribly angry with Snape and bottling it up, please? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 19:01:14 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:01:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Leglimancy and Voldemort In-Reply-To: <4675C416.7060408@sprynet.com> References: <4675C416.7060408@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0706181201m6a349ed2l1ec9cd9ffbb23a00@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170416 limerent: in Book 4 Voldemort is able to tell that Frank is lying even though the chair is still turned away from Frank at that point. And a bit earlier Voldemort could tell Wormtail was lying though it seems they didn't have eye contact either as it made a big deal of the fear/disgust/reluctance each time Wormtail had to look at Voldemort Lynda: I would speculate as well, that Frank's tone of voice and general demeanor was that of a man who is stalling for time. He tried a lie and it didn't work. Legiliemency would not necessarily have been an important factor in this encounter. Its a pretty obvious last ditch effort to escape with his life. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 19:30:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:30:54 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170417 Lanval wrote: > > Snape and Sirius -- what clinches it for me, I think, are their adult characters. Both were bastards in their younger days. But what's the worst one can accuse post-Azkaban Sirius of? Attempting murderous revenge, when he's still half-crazed from his years in prison (and a thirteen year old boy manages to talk him out of it in the end). What else? He's grumpy at times. He gets depressed. He once makes a not-so-nice remark to Harry. Anything else? Well, he also still knows how to LOVE. Deeply. And on the whole, he seems a nice and generous enough fellow to have around. Unless your name happens to be Severus Snape, of course (and Molly Weasley on one occasion). > > The worst about Adult Snape, IMO, and the reason why I so heartily dislike him (and why on a shallow level *g* I cannot. Ever. Find him sexy, as so many of his fans do. It's not his looks!) is his sheer patheticness. All that self-pity, the endless dwelling on real or imagined past insults and injustices, those constant nasty swipes at helpless kids, the amount of hatred he harbors for a boy whose only sin was to resemble his father -- geez, Severus. Pitiful indeed. As > for everything else he's done in those six years, much of which is > cited as evidence for him being a Good Guy, I shall await DH. All > cards will finally be on the table then, I hope. > Carol responds: Obviously, our reactions to Sirius Black and Severus Snape are individual and emotion-based and can't be argued (unlike their motives and Snape's loyalties). It seems to me that they're both stuck in the past and bring out each other's worst tendencies (though now Snape is very much on top of his game and it's Black who gets the worst of their exchanges). Both of them see James in Harry and react to him accordingly. They're oddly alike in their arrogance and self-certainty and refusal to see good in the other. At any rate, I find Snape's intellect and power and mystery and sweeping movements, and, yes, even his sarcasm sexy (especially when it's directed at Bellatrix or Wormtail or Umbridge). And Harry does quite a bit to validate Snape's initial view of him as an arrogant rule-breaker like his father, more so as the books go along. I don't see the self-pity, actually, except on the rare but memorable occasions when he's attacking James's arrogance and rule-breaking tendencies in front of Harry or extremely angry at being thwarted in turning Sirius Black over to Fudge. Most of the time, he's coolly in control, which is one of the things I find attractive about him. (The duelling club, for example, would have been a complete disaster had it not been for Snape, who easily cleaned up the spell damage and taught the kids Expelliarmus.) As for self-pity, Sirius Black is wallowing in it throughout OoP, and when he gets to the MoM, he reverts, fatally, to recklessness. Against Snape, all he has is the old nickname "Snivellus" (which grates on my nerves more than it apparently does on Snape's) and "this is my house and Harry is my godson, so there" (Yes, I know he doesn't use those exact words, but that's his childish attitude in my view). He gives Harry bad advice, particularly regarding the Occlumency lessons, which he undermines by suggesting that Snape will try to hurt Harry. And, though it's no fault of Black's, his death causes Harry, who has just reached out to Snape for help and been saved by him, to revert to hating Snape and using him as a scapegoat for Black's death rather than acknowledging his own and Black's contributions (believing Voldemort's vision in Harry's case and fighting Bellatrix Lestrange with his back to the Veil(!) in Black's) or blaming the real culprits, Bellatrix, Voldemort, Kreacher et al.). If Harry hadn't been blaming Snape for Black's death, he might have realized that Snape's idea of "helping" Draco was trying to keep him alive and out of trouble, not helping him in his mission from Voldemort (assuming DDM!Snape, of course) and might not have reacted so dramatically to the eavesdropping revelation. He might even have succeeded in persuading DD that Draco was up to something dangerous in the RoR if he hadn't exploded in an anti-Snape tirade and kept Trelawney from coming into DD's office and telling her story. Oh, well. I suspect that Behind-the Veil!Black and Secretly-DDM!Snape will both play small but crucial roles in DH, and I suspect that our feelings about them as individual characters won't change as a result. I don't know how I'll feel about Snape himself if he turns out to be OFH (ESE, as in loyal to Voldemort all along like Bellatrix and Barty Jr., is highly unlikely, IMO). I'll probably just be angry with JKR for deceiving me. :-) If he turns out to be DDM!, I will, of course, feel that my opinion has been validated, and if he survives to become, say, a St. Mungo's researcher, I'll celebrate. But I can't help it; I'll never like arrogant, reckless, Snape-hating Sirius Black, whether he's helping James Potter to insult and bully Severus as a teenager, setting him up to be bitten by a werewolf, preparing to murder Wormtail, or sulking in 12 Grimmauld Place because he's foolishly revealed himself in dog form to Lucius Malfoy and can't go out any more without risking being recognized and killed or arrested. I do have one or two moments of sympathy for him, for example when he's listening to Harry's story in GoF and tries to comfort him, and I do realize that his arrested development is the result of all those years in Azkaban, but I just can't like him. Even his love for Harry is really, IMO, fraternal love for James redirected to a James lookalike (combined, maybe, with regret for the years that he and Harry never had together because he brilliantly tried to take justice into his own hands after GH). I certainly don't see him as a "nice and generous fellow to have around" except maybe, briefly, when he's decorating the house for Christmas. (Wonder why the "generous" Black didn't will some robes and money, or even his house, to *Lupin*, who needs them much more than Harry does. And, of course, there's his treatment of Kreacher, but I won't go there as I don't like Kreacher, either, though I do feel a tinge of pity for him.) Carol, just sharing feelings, which, of course, won't persuade anyone to share them From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 19:11:55 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:11:55 -0000 Subject: Crouch as Moody - the best DADA teacher? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170418 I am interested to know what the general opinion is as to why Crouch as Moody taught the students the unforgiveable curses. At first I thought it was because he enjoyed torturing the children whose parents had gone through similar suffering as that of the spider. However, why did he tutor Harry until he was able to fight the curse? (UK paperback GOF p. 204). The reasons I can think of are: 1. He wanted to see just how strong Harry was. 2. He enjoyed putting Harry through it with the trade off that Harry would learn at the same time. 3. He was doing something else to Harry when they all thought he was using the imperius curse. Or something else maybe? Jo. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 19:41:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:41:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) Message-ID: <380-220076118194118953@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170419 Lanval: I'd need more evidence for Lupin resenting the potion, still. As I wrote in a reply to another poster, Lupin can't be too tired of it yet -- it gives him, after all, the most relief he's had in years, and this is only the third time around he's "on" it. That he's tired to death of the condition itself, and probably not to happy for having to be grateful to Snape, of all people -- *that* I have no trouble believing. Magpie: Yes, that's my point. It's not that Lupin is tired of *the Potion.* I think he'd love to just have a supply sent to him that he could take at the proper time. The problem is that in context the Potion comes with Snape having something to hang over his head. And the Potion itself isn't even given to him regularly; only when he's at Hogwarts with the teaching job. It's presumably taken away when he's not needed any more. (Which--speculating now--I wonder might not make him fatalistic and not want to get too used to having it.) What I'm saying about the Potion here is that it's not like getting tired of a medication you take all the time--he doesn't get a chance to feel that way because the medication isn't something he can count on. In this context I think it's just that it's being used to make a point by Snape and that's what makes Lupin feel a bit sick and tired. He doesn't like Snape doing that to him and hits back by refusing to leap on the Potion immediately. He's trying to show some independence and control in the situation. > Magpie: > I don't think she's saying he has a blase attitude in general, but that > he's showing one (intentionally) to Snape. Lupin's entire part in the books > revolves around doing irresponsible things. He goes running with the > Marauders regularly in school, he covers up for Sirius, he forgets to take > his Potion in PoA. Of course these things don't define the entire man if he > were a person, but as a literary creation, if Lupin was a chesspiece this > would be part of his signature move. It's not conjecture anymore than > saying Sirius can be reckless. > Lanval: Hm, I guess I just don't see that part of his personality as all that significant. All the kids act irresponsibly, and constantly endanger themselves and others (if they did not, we'd have no story). Teen Snape acts irresponsibly by ignoring both school rules and his Headmaster's judgment. He moreover invents at least one very dark curse, one that inflicts serious injury if not death, and uses it on another student, in the middle of a crowd. I don't see anyone claiming that being irresponsible is a hallmark of young Snape, just as a example. Magpie: Some of Lupin's most important contributions to the plot revolve around him being a werewolf and having close calls with it. Not being careful enough to stop that from happening--and this goes along with the Lupin who doesn't speak up about what he knows about Sirius and hwo doesn't speak up when Snape's being bullied. If I were making a list of significant attributes of this character I'd think that was very important--that would be the one side, and the other side is his kindness and abilities as a good teacher. One doesn't have to define Lupin's personality that way--if one were asked to describe Lupin one would probably start with his being kind or a good teacher. But as a character I think ignoring Lupin's moments of irresponsibility or making the wrong choice would be like saying Sirius' desire for excitement and action that significant. By comparison Lupin's ability to handle students like Neville, like in the Boggart scene, is not as important. His crunch moments turn more on the moments he dropped the ball. (As opposed to Neville, for instance, who is on the surface more timid and flustered but in moments of truth effects the plot through his core courage.) Lanval: On the other hand we must assume that Lupin dutifully *does* take his potion all year with one exception, where everyone involved seems to have forgotten the werewolf thing. We have no prior history of him ever acting unsafe on full moon nights as an adult, and we know DD *still* trusts him enough to sent him on important missions for the Order (including the fetch-Harry-from-Privet-Drive one), the last of which, going underground and having to face Greyback, being especially demanding, both in trustworthines and sheer bravery. Magpie: Sure. It would be inaccurate to paint Lupin as somebody who isn't competent at all. There's other parts of his personality too. But it's like Hagrid--he's loyal to Dumbledore and Harry, but he also consistently blabs or does stuff wrong. Lanval: Lupin's signature negative trait, to me, is the weakness of wanting to be liked and accepted that JKR mentioned. Which *can* lead to him acting in an irresponsible way, but that's merely a possible effect, not the flaw itself. Magpie: I happily go along with that--I have never wanted to say that Lupin's irresponsibility must be an end to itself. Hagrid is also irresponsible for totally different reasons. They're not irresponsible just to be irresponsibile. But knowing the reason why is mostly important because it lets you know where to watch this guy. > Magpie: > I don't think the point is that he's choosing to go through the > transformation. He is having a power play with Snape by not drinking the > concoction immediately, which sets up the repitition later when he forgets > it. > Lanval: But I don't how one sets up the other...? They seem to be such different circumstances. Magpie: One sets up the other in terms of repitition. We have a scene with Lupin and his Potion where the Potion doesn't get drunk (iirc) during the scene. This shows how Snape brings the Potion and Lupin must drink it. She almost always repeats things that way. In CoS, for instance, we see Ron's wand backfire on him with the slugs, so when Lockhart does it we've seen what can happen. Totally different circumstances, but still set up earlier. In GoF Harry and Draco fire hexes at the same time and they bounce off each other. That sets up later when Harry and Voldemort also throw hexes at the same time in different circumstances--they have brother wands, so there's a different result. The first one sets up the second one, which will be in different circumstances. In PoA Snape brings Lupin the Potion twice. The first time Lupin puts off drinking it until after the scene (iirc). That's why Snape can show up later and say he went to Lupin's room etc. and we understand it immediately from the first scene where Snape was also encouraging him to drink the Potion while Lupin acted more blase about it. As soon as Snape shows up talking about the Potion again it's automatically echoing the first scene where he did that. Lanval: There certainly are degrees of danger. Lupin roaming the halls in werewolf form presents a greater imminent danger than, say, flying a broom during a Quidditch practice. Both can be deadly. Yet there are countless kids flying around on brooms, a hundred feet or more up in the air, without supervision, all the time (I won't even get into other school-sanctioned activities involving hippogriffs, or the Triwizard tournament). Lupin will be dangerous on no more than ten or eleven entirely foreseeable occasions throughout the school year, and for those, precautions were taken -- the most complicated part I'd say involving the actual brewing (kudos to Snape for doing a fine job all year). Magpie: I agree--I'm just saying that we still need to, imo, go with what is established as important or unusual for the plot. Lupin's missing his wolfsbane pays off when he forgets the Potion just once and the kids are in danger, and the scene's written in a scary way. If it's not really a big deal it undercuts it as a climax. Lanval: I fact, had there not been such a level of prejudice against werewolves, DD could have simply announced Lupin's "furry little secret" on the first night's feast, and that on full moon nights, students would be strongly advised to stay in their dorms (as an additional precaution on top of the potion). Just as they were strongly advised to stay away from the grounds after dark, due to the (even more deadly!) Dementors, or just as they were told to stay out of a certain corridor during Harry's first year, if they did not want to die a painful death. I don't see the big deal here. Magpie: I think it's being a big deal is necessary for the climax where Lupin transforms. I agree that if there was no prejudice it could all be handled better--though I'm going to guess that would mean more open precautions for Lupin as well as probably humorous warnings to the kids. But then, the Triwizard Tournament could have been played strictly for laughs too (it's played for laughs when talking about the history of it). But I think it, like the werewolf situation and wolfsbane, needs to be taken seriously for the plot. Lanval: And it's hard for me to see how the Marauders 'won' (unless you mean 'in Snape's mind'?) One is perceived dead, one is truly dead, one is in prison, and the last one is an outcast from society, poor, half-starved, and sickly, with a horrible condition to bear. Snape? Cushy job, three solid meals a day, a steady neverending supply of little victims to bully, brewing potions, hanging out with important folks like L. Malfoy, and just generally enjoying the privilege and recognition that being Potions Master at Hogwarts, and Head of Slytherin House brings with it. Magpie: I agree-but I was indeed talking about in Snape's mind.:-) If there's one lesson Snape doesn't seem to have learned, it's that living well (or better) is the best revenge. What I think he sees is them winning is just that he's never been vindicated and been "right" about them. James was made Head Boy, Dumbledore still doesn't side with him about the Prank, James got Lily, Snape made all these mistakes, James is the hero. Magpie: > Which just fascinates me because JKR *could* have had Lupin be all frantic > about taking the Potion to set up just how important it was that he always > get it on time, and then in turn use that to show how shocked he was by > seeing Peter (because we'd know how important it was). The scene she wrote > was imo more interesting and says things a bit more interesting about > Lupin. He's never just the Patron Martyr Saint of Werewolves. > Lanval: That would certainly have helped in making a better case for Lupin, but from a writer's perspective it would have been difficult. If Lupin was becoming frantic, knowing evening was near, and Snape had not shown up with the potion, surely he would not have stayed at his desk, studying the map, but gone in search of Snape? But for plot reasons, he had to be reasonably calm and study the map. Magpie: Whatever the plot reason, it rmeans something to Lupin's character. It's just like his covering up what he knows about Sirius. She needed Lupin to do that for the plot, but the reasons she had for him doing it are central to his character as well. She didn't choose to have him blackmailed or not know about Sirius' secret somehow, or have made a vow not to tell or whatever. She went right out there with a guy who seems really nice but was concealing information because ultimately his priorities are not always those one would expect from the responsible adult. The guy chose to preserve his rep with Dumbledore than spill his guts to protect Harry. Lanval: We have Snape saying that Lupin had forgotten to take his potion *tonight* which implies that Lupin had little reason to be frantic just yet; Snape wasn't all that late by the time Lupin leaves his room, this was shortly after dinner. Of course there's the weird fact that the arrangement seems to have been that Snape would deliver the potion to Lupin, so why does he blame Lupin for having forgotten it? Just Snape being Snape? Magpie: Well, it could be that Snape comes to Lupin only when Lupin forgets or if he hasn't finished making the Potion or whatever. There's no reason to be frantic since the Potion is coming and he's calm about it. But I don't think Snape's accusing Lupin of anything unfairly. Snape, in the earlier scene, seems to be more uptight about the Potion in general, and likes it taken the earlier the better. It doesn't seem odd for Snape to be honestly saying that Lupin's forgotten the Potion if it's after dinner and this is one of the nights he needs to take it. - From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 18 20:11:20 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:11:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and The Boys From Brazil (long). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170420 "Neri" I really enjoyed your post, I think you made some excellent points! I've read "Boys From Brazil" but I confess I never noticed a parallel between it and Harry Potter, not until I read your post. Thanks, excellent job! Fortunately I did find one thing to disagree with. I say fortunately because if we agreed on everything things would get a bit dull. You said: > The opposite of the concept of > Free Will is Determinism: Your mention of "free will" sort of pushed my buttons, because I believe there is no idea in philosophy or criminal law stupider than the idea of free will; it's a classic example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong. Determinism says every event has a cause, but free will says the reason I don't take an ax and chop your head off with it is that the very idea of it fills me with horror; but that horror is the reason, the CAUSE, I don't chop your head off. The opposite of free will is gibberish, just as the opposite of gibberish is more gibberish. I'm not saying determinism must be correct, perhaps some events have no cause, but I am saying the concept of free will must improve itself enormously before in can be elevated into the exalted category of being incorrect; right now it is just gibberish. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 20:17:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:17:21 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170421 Lanval: > I'd need more evidence for Lupin resenting the potion, still. As I wrote in a reply to another poster, Lupin can't be too tired of it yet -- it gives him, after all, the most relief he's had in years, and this is only the third time around he's "on" it. > > That he's tired to death of the condition itself, and probably not to happy for having to be grateful to Snape, of all people -- *that* I have no trouble believing. > > Carol responds: Well, we know that Lupin thinks the potion is disgusting and comments, "Too bad sugar makes it useless." He'd certainly be more willing to take it if it tasted like, say, pumpkin juice. Also, I don't know about you, but I find it all too easy to put off doing what's good for me or necessary to my existence, whether it's going to the doctor for a check-up (it's been about seven years since I made myself do that) or paying my electric bill (which usually requires a reminder notice from the electric company threatening to turn off the power if I don't pay by a set date). Lupin, being human, probably has the same tendency. And Snape, of all people, knows how important it is that Lupin not forget or procrastinate too long. and Lupin, IMO, tends to do what's easy rather than what's right, as we see from his days as Hogwarts' least effectual Prefect. Lanval: > Hm, I guess I just don't see that part of his personality as all > that significant. All the kids act irresponsibly, and constantly > endanger themselves and others (if they did not, we'd have no > story). Teen Snape acts irresponsibly by ignoring both school rules > and his Headmaster's judgment. He moreover invents at least one very > dark curse, one that inflicts serious injury if not death, and uses > it on another student, in the middle of a crowd. I don't see anyone > claiming that being irresponsible is a hallmark of young Snape, just > as a example. Carol responds: I keep seeing the assumption that the little cutting hex that Severus uses on James is Sectumsempra, but where's all the blood? There's only a bit spattered on his robes? Where's the danger that no one sees? Why does everyone from James to Lily act as if Severus has cast something no worse than a Jelly Legs Jinx? Where's the unhealed cut that requires a complex countercurse to cure? If it's really Sectumsempra, neither James nor Madam Pomfrey could have cured the gash on James's cheek. We have no indication that he even bears a scar as a result of that little cutting hex, which can probably be healed as quickly and easily as DD heals his knife wound in the cave scene in HBP. (Surely, if Severus had been forced to recite his chant to cure James, we'd have heard about it.) Nor does Severus have any reason, at this point, to invent a Dark Curse "for enemies." IMO, that desire for revenge was prompted by the so-called Prank the following year. I think that the little cutting hex was merely a precursor. At any rate, we can't assume that it was Sectumsempra given what we know about that spell's effects, not to mention how angry Severus was when he cast that hex. If, in his fury, he'd set aside the consequences to himself of casting a genuinely Dark and deadly curse in front of forty or so witnesses, he'd have ended up in Azkaban despite his youth. So either he controlled the curse (and someone who didn't know the countercurse was somehow able to heal the gash and keep James from bleeding to death or having a permanently open gash on his cheek) or Sectumsempra proper (and its complex countercurse) hadn't been invented yet because Severus did not yet have the incentive to invent anything worse than Levicorpus and the toenail hex. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think we can safely assume that the two cutting spells are one and the same just because Severus cast the first and invented the second. Another thing, too. There's no indication that the cutting hex was a nonverbal spell. Harry must have heard the incantation, and if it were "Sectumsempra," surely even he would remember having heard it somewhere before when he read it in the margins of the HBP's Potions book. Carol, pretty sure that Sectumsempra was invented in Severus's sixth year, after the so-called Prank and in retaliation for it From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 20:48:12 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:48:12 -0000 Subject: Crouch as Moody - the best DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jo (Joanna)" wrote: > I am interested to know what the general opinion is as to why Crouch > as Moody taught the students the unforgiveable curses. > At first I thought it was because he enjoyed torturing the children > whose parents had gone through similar suffering as that of the > spider. > However, why did he tutor Harry until he was able to fight the > curse? (UK paperback GOF p. 204). > > The reasons I can think of are: > 1. He wanted to see just how strong Harry was. > 2. He enjoyed putting Harry through it with the trade off that Harry > would learn at the same time. > 3. He was doing something else to Harry when they all thought he was > using the imperius curse. > Or something else maybe? zanooda: We discussed this before AFAIR, but I couldn't find that thread. Basically, I remember that the most probable reasons for Fake!Moody to teach Harry how to resist the Imperius Curse were: 1. Fake!Moody needed Harry to win the tournament, that's why he wanted him to be able to throw off the Imperius Curse in case Karkaroff uses it against Harry in order to give Krum an advantage. 2. Fake!Moody enjoyed using UCs and was eager to do it after his long imprisonment. The lessons on UCs gave him the opportunity to curse students (and spiders) in class "legally". 3. Fake!Moody was watching the students' reactions to the UCs with the purpose of looking for the possible future "DE material". I even think there were more reasons offered, but I can't remember right now. Maybe someone else will :-). From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 18 21:07:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch as Moody - the best DADA teacher? Message-ID: <21975750.1182200849614.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170423 From: "Jo (Joanna)" >However, why did he tutor Harry until he was able to fight the >curse? (UK paperback GOF p. 204). > >The reasons I can think of are: > >1. He wanted to see just how strong Harry was. >2. He enjoyed putting Harry through it with the trade off that Harry >would learn at the same time. >3. He was doing something else to Harry when they all thought he was >using the imperius curse. > >Or something else maybe? Bart: I'm guessing all of the below: A) He wanted to increase Harry's self confidence; as I have mentioned, there DOES seem to be a self-confidence aspect to casting magic in the WW. B) He was following Moody's lesson plans; since the real Moody had already gotten permission to cast the UC's, it would have looked suspicious if "he" suddenly changed "his" mind. C) In the 1950's and early 1960's, there was a recurring character in Batman comics called "Bat-Mite". He was a magical creature from another dimension who was a big fan of Batman's. So much so that he would interfere with Batman's cases, by increasing the abilities of the villains or handicapping Batman, so that, during his visits to Batman's dimension, he could see his hero overcome a REAL challenge. I suspect that he was similarly helping Harry increase his power to show how strong Morty REALLY was when he offed Harry. D) Dumbledore asked him to give special training to Harry, and, between his not wanting to blow his cover and A, B, and C, he complied. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 21:56:06 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:56:06 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (was:Werewolves and RL equivalents... In-Reply-To: <380-220076118194118953@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170424 > >>Magpie: > > It's not that Lupin is tired of *the Potion.* I think he'd love to > just have a supply sent to him that he could take at the proper > time. The problem is that in context the Potion comes with Snape > having something to hang over his head. > > In this context I think it's just that it's being used to make a > point by Snape and that's what makes Lupin feel a bit sick and > tired. He doesn't like Snape doing that to him and hits back by > refusing to leap on the Potion immediately. He's trying to show some > independence and control in the situation. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure Snape's primary motive in this scene is to lord it over Lupin. Honestly, I think Snape sees Lupin as too much of a threat to engage in those sort of games (unlike Sirius in the kitchen at Grimmauld Place). He never takes his eyes off of Lupin, going so far as to actually back out of the room. So it's hard for me to think Snape is going for a petty power play. I like what houyhnhnm says here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170414 > >>houyhnhnm: > > The scene in Lupin's office is a little more complicated with each > character viewing the triangle differently. I think both Lupin and > Snape see Harry as the Victim, but each sees himself as the Rescuer > with the other as Persecutor. > Betsy Hp: Though, I don't think Lupin sees Snape as Persecutor or Harry as his victim at this time. In a sense the only one who doesn't change in this scene *is* Lupin. The power of being the enigma I suppose. Also, I've never gotten the sense that Lupin actually distrusts Snape. So I'm not sure what Lupin would have thought he was protecting Harry from. (Though I should probably caveat this by saying that I find it near impossible to read Lupin, myself. Which is why I'm not placing any bets as to Lupin's ultimate loyalties. I simply don't know. No smug certainty here. ) But I *do* think Snape is very, very not pleased to see Harry alone with Lupin in Lupin's office. Remember, Snape isn't just dealing with a person he dislikes here, he's dealing with someone he actively distrusts. (I think Snape probably sees Lupin as the most dangerous of the Marauders, probably because he's the hardest to read.) I'm not sure if Snape was trying to shake something loose in Lupin's mind that he could occlude (to verb the noun ), or was just less than eager to leave with Harry still in there. And possibly he may have been going for the old "I'm watching you!" message. But I think it was based on Snape's feeling that Lupin was an actual threat. Not on an opportunity to one-up an old school rival. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 21:58:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:58:55 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170425 > lizzyben: > > I agree that Lupin had no *reason* to resent taking the potion, but > he does. People aren't always reasonable or rational. I think that > consciously, Lupin acknowledges that the > potion helped him, and he is grateful to Snape for supplying it. He > also know that that the potion allows him to transform safely, it > saves him pain, and ensures the safety of others. So, really, Lupin > should be down on his knees thanking Snape... Snape, the jerk, the > taunter, the enemy who never loses a moment to insult Lupin, to > refer to his illness in public, to enjoy his new power over Lupin, > to triumph in how the tables have turned. > Alla: >From JKR's website: Section: Rumours Lupin will come back as DADA teacher Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press any time soon. Alla: Hmmm, somehow I am not sure JKR means for Lupin to be all **that** grateful to Snape. IMO of course. I think Lupin was more than grateful to the person who did "irrepparable damage" to his career in teaching, much more than that person deserved for making a potion as far as I am concerned on Dumbledore's orders. Yes, I am just speculating, but I am having lots of doubts that Snape would have volunteered to help a person against whose appointment he worked so hard. As to the rest of your post, I want to second Lanval. Could we have some canon support? I mean, totally valid speculation of course IMO, but I see no reason to view it as anything stronger than that. > Lanval: > > Oh, how I wish Lupin would "act up" a bit more! Such patient, noble > suffering. And when he's in No Contractions Mode, as in the > HBP Christmas scene? Argh. Slap-worthy. :) Alla: Totally slap worthy :) Hmmm, we are allowed to do partial me-too post within another one, which is not me too, so I am afraid my reply to you will be such. Lanval: > Snape and Sirius -- what clinches it for me, I think, are their > adult characters. Both were bastards in their younger days. But > what's the worst one can accuse post-Azkaban Sirius of? Attempting > murderous revenge, when he's still half-crazed from his years in > prison (and a thirteen year old boy manages to talk him out of it in > the end). What else? H e's grumpy at times. He gets depressed. He > once makes a not-so-nice remark to Harry. Anything else? Well, he > also still knows how to LOVE. Deeply. And on the whole, he seems a > nice and generous enough fellow to have around. Unless your name > happens to be Severus Snape, of course (and Molly Weasley on one > occasion). > Alla: I already did the post recently on to why I sympathize so with Sirius character and this is certainly the major part of it - He can still love after twelve years of Azkaban. Just imagine, twelve years of Dementors sucking up your happy memories, twelve years and he can still love. I find it fascinating, I find it worthy of the deepest respect, no matter what fallings Sirius character and he has a plenty. He can show Harry love, even if for the short period of time. If there was nothing else to love Sirius character for, I would love him for that. What is Harry's power to defeat Voldemort? Love. I get a feeling that even after Death the bond of Love with Sirius just may play out some part at the end. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 00:17:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:17:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170426 > >>Alla: > From JKR's website: > Section: Rumours > Lupin will come back as DADA teacher > Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to > his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of > Fenrir Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a > good press any time soon. > > Alla: > Hmmm, somehow I am not sure JKR means for Lupin to be all **that** > grateful to Snape. IMO of course. > > I think Lupin was more than grateful to the person who > did "irrepparable damage" to his career in teaching, much more than > that person deserved for making a potion as far as I am concerned > on Dumbledore's orders. > Betsy Hp: I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told him to. I disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his job. Lupin lost that job all by himself. He proved himself unable to balance his being a werewolf with the safety of his students when he transformed in front of three of those students. By reporting the truth Snape was doing *his* job as stand in parent. It is too bad that with both Fenrir and Umbridge out doing their thing, werewolves are seen in a particularly bad light. But that's Fenrir's and Umbridge's doing, not Snape's. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 00:45:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:45:01 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170427 > > Betsy Hp: > I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told him to. I > disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his job. Lupin > lost that job all by himself. He proved himself unable to balance > his being a werewolf with the safety of his students when he > transformed in front of three of those students. By reporting the > truth Snape was doing *his* job as stand in parent. Alla: So I wonder then do you think McGonagall, Flitwick **and** Sprout were doing worse jobs as stand in parents by not telling their students about Lupin? Or could it be that they respected wishes of their boss who it seems like told staff not to tell anybody about Lupin's condition? Unless Snape is Lupin boss I do not think it is up to him to make the determination who should lose the job and who does not, IMO of course. But what can I say? I **hope** karma catches up with Snape. I **hope** that no generation of Hogwarts students will suffer his wrath ever again. Betsy Hp: > It is too bad that with both Fenrir and Umbridge out doing their > thing, werewolves are seen in a particularly bad light. But that's > Fenrir's and Umbridge's doing, not Snape's. Alla: Awww, give Snape some credit, Betsy. . He did his part, me thinks. at least one former teacher has no chances to teach anymore because of him and has a good chance to starve **because of him** and Umbridge of course. It is my opinion of course, but I do not think that Lupin transforming on that night means that he should be forbidden to teach ever again. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 00:46:46 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:46:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape vs Lupin (was:Werewolves and RL equivalents... Message-ID: <380-22007621904646875@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170428 Betsy Hp: I'm not sure Snape's primary motive in this scene is to lord it over Lupin. Honestly, I think Snape sees Lupin as too much of a threat to engage in those sort of games (unlike Sirius in the kitchen at Grimmauld Place). He never takes his eyes off of Lupin, going so far as to actually back out of the room. So it's hard for me to think Snape is going for a petty power play. I'm not sure if Snape was trying to shake something loose in Lupin's mind that he could occlude (to verb the noun ), or was just less than eager to leave with Harry still in there. And possibly he may have been going for the old "I'm watching you!" message. But I think it was based on Snape's feeling that Lupin was an actual threat. Not on an opportunity to one-up an old school rival. Magpie: I don't think it being a power play means it can't be serious--it's not like reading out Witch Weekly to Harry in class. I think the school rival and threat are intertwined as they always were--James didn't just beat Snape at Quidditch, he was a threat. That school rival threat can exert a lot of influence over Snape's thinking at times. It doesn't seem like a game for him but something really important for him to triumph over. It's interesting to think, though, of exactly what the threat is. On one level Lupin, if he's working with Sirius, can be putting Harry in danger. But it's hard for me to not feel like Snape thinks he's also being ganged up on when Harry immediately seems to bond with Lupin and Lupin covers up for him when he's in Hogsmeade. If this puts Harry in danger, well, that's just business as usual. James, too, was killed despite Snape's attempts to save him because of course he thought he and his buddies would win through. Protecting Harry can be sort of bound up with proving a point. >From Lupin's pov, again I don't think Snape's actions here have to be petty for him to hit back passive-aggressively. I think he knows that Snape thinks he's a threat--Snape says it often enough--and that's what he's treating him like here. A threat who's also part of a schoolboy rivalry. -m From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 00:50:55 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:50:55 -0000 Subject: Why Goblet of Fire is the most important book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170429 Goblet of Fire is replete with elemental symbolism, but in most cases, one element is missing. The missing element is usually compensated with another item of equal weight in the story. Follow me to see what I mean. Three schools. Each one named after an element: Hogwarts. Hogs root in the earth, earth symbol. Durmstrang. Strang means storm. Storms bring rain. Water symbol. Beauxbatons. "Good sticks/wands" Wands are the fire symbol in the Tarot. The missing element is air, but there is the whole World Cup event where the players fly in the air. Three schools arrive at the tournament: Beauxbatons - arrive in the air in a flying carriage. Durmstrang - arrive by water Hogwarts - already there (earth) The missing element is fire, but Voldy's arrival is via a firey cauldron Three tasks: Dragons. Breathe fire. Lake. Water. Labyrinth. Earth. The missing element is air, but the cup was a portkey, designed to transport the winner by somewhere by air Three intended champions, each representing one element: Fleur: "Plegm" - symbol for water element Krum: Seeker - flies in the air Cedric: Hufflepuff house - earth The missing element is fire, but then Harry is selected. He is a Gryffindor, which is a fire symbol. JKR has left lots of hints that there needs to be a balance of all things. The Sorting Hat tells us that all the houses need to come together. It's like she is setting up all these situations where there is an imbalance, but the void finds a way to fill itself. It is my feeling that things are not going to end well for the champions. Remember that the book was going to be called The Doomspell Tournament? Perhaps JKR felt that calling it The Tournament That Spells Doom might have been too obvious. Cedric - already dead. But his body is returned. Is there more to that then just sympathy for his family? Fleur - marrying a possible werewolf. Would she sacrifice for her man? I think she would. Victor - just the kind of guy who would come to the rescue and die in the effort. And then there is Harry. I think he will die but be resurrected. Perhaps he will go through the veil. Anyway, that's why I think that Goblet of Fire is not the book that "doesn't fit", but is the book that lays out the whole we-gotta- come-together mission of the series. ~ CV, speculating while there's still time. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 01:01:49 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:01:49 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170430 > > > > Betsy Hp: > > I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told him to. > I > > disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his job. Lupin > > lost that job all by himself. He proved himself unable to balance > > his being a werewolf with the safety of his students when he > > transformed in front of three of those students. By reporting the > > truth Snape was doing *his* job as stand in parent. > > Alla: > > So I wonder then do you think McGonagall, Flitwick **and** Sprout were > doing worse jobs as stand in parents by not telling their students > about Lupin? wynnleaf As of that morning, the other professors may have had no idea that Lupin had been running around the grounds in werewolf form. For all the rest of them knew, Lupin had taken his potion and kept safely away from students. It was, as far as we know, only Snape who knew what Lupin had done. Alla > Unless Snape is Lupin boss I do not think it is up to him to make the > determination who should lose the job and who does not, IMO of course. wynnleaf Not always. In the case of a seriously dangerous situation, sometimes a "whistle blower" is indeed needed. But let's not assume that Dumbledore wasn't getting rid of Lupin anyway and for all we know, Snape knew it. The idea that poor Lupin *had* to leave because he'd been "outed" doesn't add up once we see Hagrid, the half-giant, "outed" all over the pages of the Daily Prophet, letters coming in from irate parents to Dumbledore, and guess what? Dumbledore keeps Hagrid anyway. If Dumbledore had wanted to attempt to weather the same storm with Lupin, he could have at least attempted the same thing he did for Hagrid in GOF. No, this was *Dumbledore's* decision as well. And don't forget Lupin's leave-taking of Dumbledore. It's the one and only time we see them exchange any words in the entire series. The only descriptive word we have for Dumbledore's demeanor is "soberly" which really isn't all that helpful to see what his opinion was. But we also see Harry, as soon as Dumbledore came on the scene, feel that Lupin wanted to leave as soon as possible. And Lupin told Dumbledore not to see him out to the carriages either. My feeling is that Lupin wasn't too comfortable around Dumbledore at that point, and Dumbledore doesn't seem particularly sorry to see Lupin go. Later, when Dumbledore debriefed Harry about the night before, he never mentioned Lupin at all. We get picture of Dumbledore sorry to see Lupin go. I'd say, his silence on the matter was rather interesting, especially when we see him stand up for Hagrid on a number of similar occasions. Yes, Dumbledore brought Lupin back into the Order a year later, but that doesn't mean he wanted to trust him 24/7 around an entire school. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 01:25:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:25:10 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170431 > Betsy Hp: > I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told him to. I > disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his job. Lupin > lost that job all by himself. He proved himself unable to balance > his being a werewolf with the safety of his students when he > transformed in front of three of those students. By reporting the > truth Snape was doing *his* job as stand in parent. > > It is too bad that with both Fenrir and Umbridge out doing their > thing, werewolves are seen in a particularly bad light. But that's > Fenrir's and Umbridge's doing, not Snape's. Jen: Except it was never about a job since Lupin wasn't coming back anyway due to the DADA curse. Snape may not have known about the curse but he didn't even give Lupin and Dumbledore a chance to settle the matter before he decided to act on his own. Snape happens to be in the castle himself only because Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban and gave him a second chance and he's playing judge and jury for Lupin's future. I'll have to see proof in DH that Snape had student protection uppermost in his mind during this slip (and the other times he's attributed with protecting students) to believe that was his primary motive here. It's possible, it just sure seems like from everything that transpired the night before there was an element of revenge at work. From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Jun 19 01:19:30 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:19:30 -0000 Subject: [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? (long, I'm afraid) In-Reply-To: <4675DB40.3070502@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170432 > Bart: > My conclusion from the evidence is that, among the factors the > Sorting Hat considers, the student's preference is one. Ann: I agree with this theory. I disagree with your examples, not seeing why Cedric should have been a Gryffindor, but asking people which House they think they'd fit into seems wise to me. Note that the Sorting Hat didn't mention a House for Harry until he mentioned Slytherin, though it didn't ask him per se. Your Hermione theory is rather dodgier, in my opinion... <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< Ann blinks, fairly sure she hadn't been here a moment before, and very sure that she hadn't a scroll, a hammer, and a bag of nails in her hands. But here she is, she admits, by the shore of a large bay. Several boats bob somewhat despondently on its clear blue waters, while along the shore itself are a row of buildings - a pub, a boathouse, something proclaiming itself the Canon Museum, and others. They seem pleasant enough, though there's rather a lot of rubbish around - she frowns at what looks like a paperweight in the form of a cannon and crosses her arms. Something is wrong, and she can't quite put her finger on it. Then she realises that the place is absolutely silent. There aren't even any seagulls around. Pocketing the paperweight, she walks off the beach, and onto the street. 'Hello?' she calls. Nobody replies. She looks up and down the street, and begins to walk, shivering in the silence. It's like a ghost town, she thinks. As she passes the open doors of the Canon Museum something falls to the ground with a crash. She jumps, then peers inside. It's a tall, wide room, filled with all kinds of things - cannonballs, paintings, trophies, mirrors, broomsticks flying around the ceiling. Something like a large orrery has spilt clockwork across the floor. In one corner is a three-headed dog, barking in triplicate. 'Hello there!' says a woman emerging through a door at the back. She puts something on a table and begins scooping up the clockwork. 'One of my favourites, this. Come in. What kind of theory have you got for me?' 'Theory?' Ann looks down at her hands. The scroll is clearly labelled "Message no. 170393". She unfurls it, reads, and realises what she has to do. 'You must be Faith,' she says. 'Forgive me. I'm new here. Do you have a door?' Five minutes later, she drops the hammer back in her pocket. Message 170393 is nailed to the door of the back room marked "Snape is a Vampire". After all, as Faith had said, no-one came down here any more. Ann points to the message, and explained, 'It's the business with Hermione I'm sceptical about. It seems a little far-fetched.' 'Then you'll be wanting this,' says Faith, handing her a glasses case which is the "Property of Fr. William". Inside is a cut-throat razor. Ann grins. 'Cut all this,' she mutters. 'Now, does Hermione really seem like a Ravenclaw to you? Bart says she plans things before doing them.' 'That's true enough,' says Faith. 'Who does all the legwork for the Second Task?' 'Oh yes, but saying Gryffindors can't plan anything? And Dumbledore is a Gryffindor, isn't he? Show me a bigger plotter than him. Or how Luna plans and considers everything before she does it. And why would a Muggle-born want to be in Gryffindor?' 'Well, you can't expect most Muggle-borns to know the intricacies of the Sorting system.' 'Exactly. Hermione knows about the Houses, and she knows Dumbledore was in Gryffindor. That strikes me as being a reason to want to be in Gryffindor. Again, Ravenclaw: could Luna and Hermione be more different?' 'You agree that Harry's career was a little stage managed, though, don't you?' 'Oh yes, but I blame Rowling for that more than Dumbledore. Imagine the end of PS/SS if they hadn't been able to get past the Devil's Snare, for instance. Dumbledore did some stage managing himself, too. But suggesting that he planned Harry to make particular friends?' She slashes at the message. A strip of parchment falls to the floor. 'How did Dumbledore know what Number Four was like for Harry? Annual reports from Mrs Figg? And if so, why not do something about it? Did he want Harry to grow up like that? Most people identify with victims as against bullies anyway.' More slashing. 'And why would Dumbledore urgently want to meet Arthur Weasley when the Order of the Phoenix was dormant? And how did he arrange for Harry to turn up when he did? Isn't an accident more likely?' She slashes again. 'But Neville and Harry do have rather a lot in common,' says Faith slyly. 'Oh yes,' says Ann. 'I can believe that Dumbledore thought they would become friends. But why would Harry befriend Ron rather than Dean, whose life was much more like his? Now, here I have a really good bit. Bart says: > Even at age 10, Hermione showed herself to be highly intelligent, > and quite capable of doing research (how many purebloods and half- > bloods knew as much as she did, coming in?). Also, a shrewd > observer. And, she knew a bit too much about Harold and Mort (oh, > dear, I do hope that Harry doesn't stage a fake death in TDH), even > based on her summer studies. Ann stares at it in triumph. 'Who says Hermione knows "a bit too much" about Voldemort? Why should this make her a good pawn for Dumbledore when he treats Harry as special from the first Christmas on? And doesn't this entirely contradict his argument about Hermione not knowing anything about the Houses?' A particularly self-satisfied swing at the door, this. 'My, you're petty. But I admit, that's a good point.' 'Thank you. For my next trick, I point to Bart's post again: > In OOP, Minnie the Cat, when told by Harry his analysis of the > Pink Dolly's opening lecture, remarks, approvingly, that he's been > listening to Hermione. Ann grins. 'He even admits it's guesswork. But after four years, wouldn't McGonagall know Hermione's more attentive than Harry? Can you see any evidence that Hermione was told to join Gryffindor purely to help Harry?' Most of the bottom half of the message lies on the floor; the bottom paragraph, unsupported, has fallen of its own accord. 'Well, no,' says Faith, 'but it was only a guess. There was no need to be so violent about it. You've ruined my door.' 'Well, you were the one who says nobody comes down here any more.' Ann hands her Ockham's Razor and picks up the bits of parchment lying on the floor. 'Do you recycle these or use them as kindling?' 'Neither,' says Faith. 'We read them. And since you've ruined this one, you'd better get busy sewing it back together. Apart from anything else, George won't have seen it yet.' Ann From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 01:37:31 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:37:31 -0000 Subject: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170433 > Jen: > No matter that Slughorn talks about the spell as > 'encasing' the soul, I've always thought the importance of the > Horcrux spell is getting the torn soul bit *out* of the body > and not the act of closing it up in a jar or what have you. > Because closing it up seems like elementary magic. Mike: Thank you :) I don't see either of the functions as more or less important than the other. They both do something unique and equally important to the process. I also agree with Pippin and Debbie, this spell has not been called complicated nor complex in canon, and I don't believe it would be. It probably requires more than one or two words, but that's just because it performs two distinct functions; removing a soul piece from a *designated* someone and encasing that piece in a *designated* object. I do think it's at least NEWT-level material. ;) But I see this spell as requiring the kind of conviction that Bella says a proper Crucio requires. I'd imagine that doing something against nature cannot be done on a whim. As Bella said, "You need to mean them". > Jen: > > > A soul piece already ripped apart from the soul wouldn't be as > strenuous an experience during removal but still, how to get the > piece of soul *out* - wouldn't that be the tricky part of encasing > the soul in an object? The presentation of soul removal prior to > Horcruxes coming into the picture seems like useful canon to > consider for speculating the spell is what initiates the removal > of the soul. Mike: Although I'm not completely sure what you're saying/asking here, never let it be said that that stopped me from replying. :D The discovery of how to remove the soul piece could very well have been the breakthrough that made the Horcrux process possible. I think your reasoning is quite logical. Especially since encasement doesn't seem to be a very difficult piece of magic. But I would point out that encasement seems to be just as integral. No encasement and the soul piece would disappear "beyond the veil", imo. And though JKR treats the soul as an organ for the purposes of splitting, I don't think she means for us to believe the soul has a corperal quality. (I believe Debbie already pointed this out) That would mean that one must "encase" an essence or an ethereal... thing. That might have presented it's own set of difficulties to the spell's creator. Re your last sentence: are you suggesting that the spell must do some kind of prep work on the soul to facilitate the tearing/extracting? Or are you suggesting that the soul piece extraction is caused by a seperate spell than the encasement spell? Actually, I don't see anything in canon that would dispute that reading. Sluggy could very well have been speaking of two spells. Hope this helps. :) Mike From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 19 01:55:00 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:55:00 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (was:Werewolves and RL equivalents... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170434 Betsy Hp: > Though, I don't think Lupin sees Snape as Persecutor > or Harry as his victim at this time. In a sense the > only one who doesn't change in this scene *is* Lupin. > The power of being the enigma I suppose. Also, > I've never gotten the sense that Lupin actually > distrusts Snape. So I'm not sure what Lupin would > have thought he was protecting Harry from. houyhnhnm: The power of being the enigma is a good way to put it. The power of passivity. Lupin may not have distrusted Snape in the sense of being an ESE!Snaper, but he had plenty of reason to doubt Snape's goodwill towards himself. Snape surely made no secret of the fact that he disagreed with Dumbledore's decision to hire Lupin and that would be enough motivation, it seems to me, to set up a game in which he is Harry's rescuer and Snape is Harry's persecutor. He'd already done it once with Neville as the Victim. Then, too, right after Harry came into his office, Lupin offered to make tea, apologizing for the fact that he only had teabags. "--but I daresay you've had enough of tea leaves?" Lupin added, his eyes twinkling. In other words, he's there to protect Harry from ALL his bad teachers. Snape's appearing in his office when he did couldn't have come as a total surprise to Lupin. He knew what time of the month it was. I think Lupin was in a gamesy mood and I think he would have "won" if Snape had been provoked into saying something cutting to Harry. But Snape is not so easily played as he once was. The episode ended as a stand-off, though I have the feeling it was Lupin who was inwardly smirking and Snape who was fuming after they parted. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 01:58:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:58:27 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170435 Jen wrote: > Except it was never about a job since Lupin wasn't coming back anyway due to the DADA curse. Snape may not have known about the curse but he didn't even give Lupin and Dumbledore a chance to settle the matter before he decided to act on his own. Snape happens to be in the castle himself only because Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban and gave him a second chance and he's playing judge and jury for Lupin's future. > > I'll have to see proof in DH that Snape had student protection uppermost in his mind during this slip (and the other times he's attributed with protecting students) to believe that was his primary motive here. It's possible, it just sure seems like from everything that transpired the night before there was an element of revenge at work. > Carol responds: Regardless of Snape's motive, it was (IMO) Lupin's duty to resign, and I think that had he not done so, Dumbledore would have requested his resignation. (As you say, the DADA curse was at work. Lupin could not have returned regardless of Snape's actions. It was resign or be fired. He's lucky in comparison with his immediate predecessors.) Lupin had endangered three students by forgetting to drink his potion, not to mention that he had kept important information from Dumbledore all year, and for all Lupin knew, injured Harry. It's also unclear which version of the resignation story, Hagrid's or Lupin's, is correct. (Had Lupin already resigned before Snape "let slip" to his students that Professor Lupin wouldn't be returning because he was a werewolf, which is how I imagine him passing on the information? The time sequence isn't clear, and quite possibly Snape overheard some of his students wondering at breakfast where Lupin was. )Surely, Lupin wouldn't have had the nerve to show up, battered as he was and having endangered three students, as if it were an ordinary day?) At any rate, Snape certainly knew that Lupin would be resigning (or asked to do so) assuming that he hadn't done it already, whether or not he knew about the DADA curse (and how could he not, after thirteen years of teaching and seven of attending Hogwarts?). Not to mention that Fudge knew that Lupin had been running around the grounds in werewolf form and would have made sure that Lupin resigned or was fired if Dumbledore didn't. Lupin had betrayed Dumbledore's trust and had to pay the consequences. Too bad he doesn't actually admit to what he's done wrong, or barely alludes to it, and makes it look like Snape is to blame. Wrong. Snape brewed the potion; Lupin forgot or neglected to take it, and even when Snape mentioned it, did not return to the castle to take it or tell the others to leave the Shrieking Shack so he could transform in there. I don't think that Snape is "playing judge and jury for Lupin's future." Lupin doesn't have a future at that point if "future" means a job at Hogwarts. He's just forfeited it through his own irresponsible behavior--and the DADA curse manipulating him to do so, if it works as I think it does. (Just how Lupin stays alive without a job is unclear; I don't think you can conjure food in the WW. He must have lived on his savings from teaching at Hogwarts for a year. He wouldn't have had many expenses there, except maybe Grindylows.) But, yes, one way or another, the DADA curse would have guaranteed that Lupin didn't return. He's lucky, as Snape is, that Dumbledore believes in second chances and admits him to the restored Order--and even luckier that he didn't end up dead or permanently incapacitated like Quirrell or Lockhart. Carol, overoptimistically hoping that both Lupin and Snape survive and that they reach some sort of understanding in DH, having both been struck by the DADA curse and forced to face the worst in themselves From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 01:58:27 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:58:27 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170436 > > Alla: > > > > So I wonder then do you think McGonagall, Flitwick **and** Sprout were > > doing worse jobs as stand in parents by not telling their students > > about Lupin? > > wynnleaf > As of that morning, the other professors may have had no idea that > Lupin had been running around the grounds in werewolf form. For all > the rest of them knew, Lupin had taken his potion and kept safely away > from students. It was, as far as we know, only Snape who knew what > Lupin had done. Alla: Maybe. Maybe not, because Hagrid already knows what happened, no? Others may know as well. > wynnleaf But let's not assume that > Dumbledore wasn't getting rid of Lupin anyway and for all we know, > Snape knew it. Alla: Hmmmm, I think I will continue to assume that it was not Dumbledore decision, because I see no canon support that it was indeed. wynnleaf: > The idea that poor Lupin *had* to leave because he'd been "outed" > doesn't add up once we see Hagrid, the half-giant, "outed" all over > the pages of the Daily Prophet, letters coming in from irate parents > to Dumbledore, and guess what? Dumbledore keeps Hagrid anyway. If > Dumbledore had wanted to attempt to weather the same storm with Lupin, > he could have at least attempted the same thing he did for Hagrid in > GOF. No, this was *Dumbledore's* decision as well. Alla: I somehow think that being outed as half-giant and being outed as werewolf is very very different and think that Dumbledore had some choice and some possibility of keeping Hagrid and none of keeping Lupin. But that is just my opinion, not a fact. wynnleaf: My feeling is that Lupin > wasn't too comfortable around Dumbledore at that point, and Dumbledore > doesn't seem particularly sorry to see Lupin go. > > Later, when Dumbledore debriefed Harry about the night before, he > never mentioned Lupin at all. We get picture of Dumbledore sorry to > see Lupin go. I'd say, his silence on the matter was rather > interesting, especially when we see him stand up for Hagrid on a > number of similar occasions. > Alla: Yeah, I agree that Lupin is not particularly comfortable around Dumbledore because he feels guilty, but no I do not think Dumbledore is not sorry to let him go. His silence is indeed interesting and I think one interpretation can be like that - I am **sorry** Remus that I can do nothing for you. There is Harry here and I never badmouth professor in front of the student. I cannot say anything, but I am sorry. wynnleaf: > Yes, Dumbledore brought Lupin back into the Order a year later, but > that doesn't mean he wanted to trust him 24/7 around an entire school. Alla: Well, we are not likely to learn what Dumbledore wanted now, no? > Jen: Except it was never about a job since Lupin wasn't coming back > anyway due to the DADA curse. Snape may not have known about the curse > but he didn't even give Lupin and Dumbledore a chance to settle the > matter before he decided to act on his own. Snape happens to be in the > castle himself only because Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban and gave > him a second chance and he's playing judge and jury for Lupin's future. Alla: Can you imagine how many parents, non-Slytherin ones would have sent letters that they do not want former DE ( if he is former LOL) teaching their children? Something tells me that the number would be quite high. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 02:24:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:24:45 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170437 > > > Betsy Hp: > > > I disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his > > > job. Lupin lost that job all by himself. He proved himself > > > unable to balance his being a werewolf with the safety of > > > his students when he transformed in front of three of those > > Alla: > > So I wonder then do you think McGonagall, Flitwick **and** > > Sprout were doing worse jobs as stand in parents by not > > telling their students about Lupin? > wynnleaf > As of that morning, the other professors may have had no idea > that Lupin had been running around the grounds in werewolf form. Goddlefrood: Alla's point seems to be, and do correct me if I am labouring under any kind of misapprehension Alla, that all the teachers including Severus and Dumbledore effectively conspired to keep Lupin's furry little secret from the school as a whole. This particular perceived sleight to Severus for his reporting of Lupin's condition should be laid squarely at Dumbledore's feet. That no teacher reported the lycanthropy of Lupin to any of the parents other than Snape towards the end would be a tad irresponsible to say the least. I do agree that as of the morning after no other teacher might have known of Lupin's transformation. I do, however, think there may be a differing mechanism at play as to why Severus told his tale. Lupin, per the DADA curse, would be only able to teach DADA for a year. In other words he would have had to leave anyway. Is it not then possible that his little secret leaking out was planned precisely so that he would leave? > wynnleaf: > The idea that poor Lupin *had* to leave because he'd been > "outed" doesn't add up once we see Hagrid, the half-giant, > "outed" all over the pages of the Daily Prophet, letters > coming in from irate parents to Dumbledore, and guess what? Goddlefrood: The abover proferred explanation of self is equally if not more plausible. The comparison to Hagrid is hardly an apt one. Hagrid had been effectively Dumbledore's surrogate since Dumbledore managed to persuade whoever he did persuade to allow Hagrid to remain at Hogwarts. This is slightly more than half a century. Lupin, while having been a member of the Order and a spy on the werewolves, was only under Dumbledore's school administration for a year as a teacher. It makes sense to this reader that Dumbledore would be more concerned for Hagrid's wellbeing than for Lupin's. He quiote possibly also needed Remus to return to his Order duties. Lupin does benefit either way in that he continues to have DD's patronage. > wynnleaf: > And don't forget Lupin's leave-taking of Dumbledore. It's the > one and only time we see them exchange any words in the entire > series. Goddlefrood: We have never seen Dumbledore talk to his brother Aberforth in the series at all. Everything we see is from Harry's PoV so no firm opinion can be given and it certainly would not support any view that might be taken that somehow Dumbledore and Lupin did not get along for whatever reason. They most likely had talked before Harry's radar nopted them together, so really this leads us nowhere useful, IMO. Basdically then we can not impute any adverse motives on either Lupin or Dumbledore due to how Lupin left the school. It seems that all three of the protagonists, being Snape, Lupin and DD, played their part and Remus *had to* leave. There may be more to come on this matter in DH, asnd if there is it will be relevant to the prank, IMO. Oh, and if memory serves Severus was unconscious when Lupin transformed and did not necessarily know at that point that his old mucker Peter had been around either. That he knew Lupin had transformed the next day and let slip, to use the words of Lupin in the text, that Lupin was a werewolf would not mean that he was fulfilling his role as a responsible teacher in loco parentis. Just my small two penn'orth Goddlefrood From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 02:23:41 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:23:41 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (was:Werewolves and RL equivalents... In-Reply-To: <380-22007621904646875@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170438 Magpie: >From Lupin's pov, again I don't think Snape's actions here have to be petty for him to hit back passive-aggressively. I think he knows that Snape thinks he's a threat--Snape says it often enough--and that's what he's treating him like here. A threat who's also part of a schoolboy rivalry. Ceridwen: I'm wondering how much of Snape's backing out of the room and insisting in more than one way that Lupin drink his potion has to do with a student (even if it is Harry, maybe because it specifically is Harry) is in the room after hours, with transformation a short time away. Lupin would know more about that particular risk than Snape, of course, and can play on his greater knowledge, to Snape's discomfort. Could that be one way Lupin is passively-agressively taunting Snape? The scene does play like a lot of subtext is missing in our available information. Ceridwen. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 02:26:18 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:26:18 -0000 Subject: Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > > > I agree that Lupin had no *reason* to resent taking the potion, but > > he does. People aren't always reasonable or rational. I think that > > consciously, Lupin acknowledges that the > > potion helped him, and he is grateful to Snape for supplying it. He > > also know that that the potion allows him to transform safely, it > > saves him pain, and ensures the safety of others. So, really, Lupin > > should be down on his knees thanking Snape... Snape, the jerk, the > > taunter, the enemy who never loses a moment to insult Lupin, to > > refer to his illness in public, to enjoy his new power over Lupin, > > to triumph in how the tables have turned. > > > > Alla: > > From JKR's website: > > Section: Rumours > Lupin will come back as DADA teacher > Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to > his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir > Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press > any time soon. > > Alla: > > Hmmm, somehow I am not sure JKR means for Lupin to be all **that** > grateful to Snape. IMO of course. lizzyben: Yes, but I'm sort of portraying this from Lupin's POV. Snape does save people, often, but he's such a jerk about it that it seems almost guaranteed to inspire resentment instead (as in POA, Snape talks about how Harry should "thank him on bended knee," etc.) Lupin knows he should be grateful for the potion, but can't help resenting that he must rely on SNAPE, must thank SNAPE, while Snape sneers. This power play sets up Lupin's passive-aggressive behavior. Alla: > I think Lupin was more than grateful to the person who > did "irrepparable damage" to his career in teaching, much more than > that person deserved for making a potion as far as I am concerned on > Dumbledore's orders. lizzyben: Eh. DD protected Hagrid in spite of the Skeeter article, protected Snape in spite of his unpopularity. DD would keep Lupin if he wanted to - the fact is that DD no longer wanted Lupin to teach at Hogwarts, so he either fired Lupin or accepted his resignation. This IMO has less to do w/Lupin's lycanthropy & more to do w/Lupin's lies to him & failure follow his instructions. Adults already knew Lupin was a werewolf, which is why his career suffered "irreparable damage" BEFORE he came to Hogwarts. He couldn't find a job before, or after. It's a shame, but it seems like Lupin's lycanthropy wasn't a secret to anyone but the students. Alla: > Yes, I am just speculating, but I am having lots of doubts that Snape > would have volunteered to help a person against whose appointment he > worked so hard. lizzyben: Oh no, he totally did it on DD's orders. DD probably also ordered Snape to ensure that Lupin drank the potion immediately. Snape will argue stridently w/DD, but will comply with DD's orders. He also takes a lot of pride in his position as "Potions Master," and would try to do the job right. Finally, he knows the danger a werewolf can pose, and wants to make sure students are not endangered. Alla: > As to the rest of your post, I want to second Lanval. Could we have > some canon support? I mean, totally valid speculation of course IMO, > but I see no reason to view it as anything stronger than that. lizzyben: Well, everyone here knows the canon & knows the basic events of the novel. I'm proposing a psychological theory that explains Lupin's actions. This is based not only on the canon, but also on what we can analyze about Lupin's behavior. Here's the definition of "passive-aggressive behavior," ripped off of Wikipedia: "Passive-aggressive behavior refers to passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is assumed, often explicitly, to be responsible. It is a defensive posture and, more often than not, only partly conscious. For example, people who are passive-aggressive might take so long to get ready for a party they do not wish to attend, that the party is nearly over by the time they arrive." Who does this sound like? Lupin. So when Snape authoritatively tells Lupin to drink his potion, Lupin procrastinates, stubbornly refuses to do it, and fails to accomplish his task. Repeatedly. First he procrastinates in front of Harry, then he "forgets" to take the potion altogether. And this echos Lupin's past w/the Marauders - DD authoritatively instructed Lupin to remain in the Shack during his transformation, and Lupin fails to follow that request as well. This is a pattern for Lupin. And this definition also reflects something I said earlier - this behavior is only "partly conscious." Lupin doesn't KNOW why he keeps resisting his potion; it just keeps "slipping his mind." Like the example of someone who doesn't want to go to a party, so forgets or delays getting ready. Lupin forgets or delays taking the potion because he subconsciously resents having to take it at all. He can't let out his anger & resentment consciously, so it simmers in his subconscious & prompts him to do some irresponsible things. The person who passively-aggressively "forgets" the party accomplishes her goal - she doesn't have to go, but won't be blamed by the hostess for not showing up. I submit that Lupin's "forgetfulness" accomplishes a goal as well - he punishes Snape for forcing the potion on him, causes Snape to fail in his duty, lowers DD's opinion of Snape, punishes the Wizarding World for hating him, and most of all, Lupin punishes himself for not telling the truth about Black. I don't think Lupin consciously intended to hurt people - but IMO he DID subconsciously decide not to take the potion as a way of expressing his self-hatred, anger & resentment. Lupin is NOT RELIABLE because he will passive-aggressively subvert & fail in the responsibilities he is given. And the worst part is, since this behavior is only "partly conscious", Lupin doesn't know why he does this, or how he can stop from doing it again. Given the same circumstances, I could easily see Lupin "forgetting" the Wolfsbane potion yet again. I wouldn't trust him to be able to protect himself or his students from his werewolf form. I'm attaching the list of "passive-aggressive" signs along w/Lupin examples "There are certain signs that help identify passive-aggressive behavior: * Ambiguity ("I neither like nor dislike....") * Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness ("forgetting" Wolfsbane potion) * Blaming others ("Snape told the kids, it's his fault I'm leaving.") * Chronic lateness and forgetfulness (enters DADA late) * Complaining (""I've been underground, living among my fellows, my equals. Werewolves... I am not complaining".) * Does not express hostility or anger openly (Classic Lupin niceness) * Fear of authority (Dumbledore's opinion) * Fear of dependency (Distancing from friends & the Order, on his own for 12 years) * Fear of intimacy (Rejecting Tonks, distancing from Harry) * Making excuses and lying (Lupin lies often in POA & makes excuses for the Marauders) * Obstructionism (Sabatoges DD's plan for his confinement in the Shrieking Shack) * Procrastination ("I'll drink it later") * Resentment (My speculation is that Lupin resents being controlled) * Resists suggestions from others (Molly's nagging, Snape's nagging, Tonk's nagging etc.) OK, how many times do we see Lupin engage in this kind of behavior? OFTEN. Lupin is the classic passive-aggressive, IMO, and after POA, we continue to see him engage in the same type of behavior. Lupin is a "nice guy", but he can't be trusted because of his tendency to sabotage the very people & causes he claims to be working for. lizzyben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jun 19 02:28:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:28:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? (long, I'm afraid) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46773F48.40503@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170440 or.phan_ann wrote: >>Even at age 10, Hermione showed herself to be highly intelligent, >>and quite capable of doing research (how many purebloods and half- >>bloods knew as much as she did, coming in?). Also, a shrewd >>observer. And, she knew a bit too much about Harold and Mort (oh, >>dear, I do hope that Harry doesn't stage a fake death in TDH), even >>based on her summer studies. > > Ann stares at it in triumph. 'Who says Hermione knows "a bit too > much" about Voldemort? Why should this make her a good pawn for > Dumbledore when he treats Harry as special from the first Christmas > on? Sorry; my point was not that Dumbly chose Hermione because she knew too much about Harold and Mort, but that she knew too much about Harold and Mort because Dumbly told her. >>In OOP, Minnie the Cat, when told by Harry his analysis of the >>Pink Dolly's opening lecture, remarks, approvingly, that he's been >>listening to Hermione. > > Ann grins. 'He even admits it's guesswork. But after four years, > wouldn't McGonagall know Hermione's more attentive than Harry? Can > you see any evidence that Hermione was told to join Gryffindor purely > to help Harry?' Minny knew exactly what Hermione told Harry. And, as I mentioned, it appears that ALL of Harry's friends were chosen specifically for him. Whether it was Dumbledore or JKR I don't know. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 02:36:20 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:36:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents Message-ID: <380-22007621923620687@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170441 wynnleaf: > The idea that poor Lupin *had* to leave because he'd been "outed" > doesn't add up once we see Hagrid, the half-giant, "outed" all over > the pages of the Daily Prophet, letters coming in from irate parents > to Dumbledore, and guess what? Dumbledore keeps Hagrid anyway. If > Dumbledore had wanted to attempt to weather the same storm with Lupin, > he could have at least attempted the same thing he did for Hagrid in > GOF. No, this was *Dumbledore's* decision as well. Alla: I somehow think that being outed as half-giant and being outed as werewolf is very very different and think that Dumbledore had some choice and some possibility of keeping Hagrid and none of keeping Lupin. But that is just my opinion, not a fact. Magpie: Really? I don't. I mean, yes, it could be a different thing but at the very least I think we would have seen Dumbledore expressing this regret that he couldn't stand up for his wonderful teacher who was a werewolf in the way he refuses to let the better Grubbly-Plank take over for Half-Giant Hagrid. Maybe I'm forgetting, but it's the impression I got--basically I agree with wynnleaf on this. Dumbledore did not fire Hagrid for being outed as a Half-giant no matter what anyone said, nor would he. I don't think Dumbledore would let any teacher go if it wasn't his (Dumbledore's) choice. Even if Lupin offered his resignation, Dumbledore let him go without any signs of struggle, and I do think the description of the parting of their ways validates this as well. It just seems to totally go against everything I know about Dumbledore that he would be influenced by anyone when it came to who worked at his school. Snape could have shouted from the rooftops that Lupin was a werewolf and I think it would have made Dumbledore all the more determined to keep him just for that reason. No way Snape is in charge of what teachers stay or go. If he was forced to let someone go I think we'd see him being forced. I'm not excusing Snape for outing him for revenge, but it seems like Dumbledore was, in this case, not stepping up for Lupin in ways that he would have for another teacher. And that's not surprising--we talk about Lupin's stated motivation for not telling the information he knew about Sirius--he didn't want Dumbledore to know what he'd done. Perhaps because he knows that Dumbledore will take it seriously. I'm sure Dumbledore would forgive Lupin--he does give second chances, after all, but this doesn't seem like one of those numerous times where Dumbledore's the one encouraging the person to try again. If he didn't decide to let Lupin go himself, he supported his decision to leave. Obviously Dumbledore didn't completely cut himself off from Lupin but I admit for me the important thing about Lupin, and one of the reasons I like him, is that he actually shows himself to be not completely DDM. Dumbledore can deal with people screwing up or letting their personal issues keep them from following Dumbledore's orders perfectly, but Lupin's totally following his own agenda and priorities in PoA. To me that seems like what's going to keep Lupin from being one of the really inner DDM circle--he and Sirius. Goddlefrood: Everything we see is from Harry's PoV so no firm opinion can be given and it certainly would not support any view that might be taken that somehow Dumbledore and Lupin did not get along for whatever reason. They most likely had talked before Harry's radar nopted them together, so really this leads us nowhere useful, IMO. Magpie: Oh, I wouldn't say it led nowhere useful. It's the way JKR dramatizes his leave-taking. We can't assume that they fought or anything, but this is the good-bye she thought was appropriate after what happened. One might expect something different from Dumbledore and Lupin. It's kind of tantalizing, even if we can't know for sure. Lizzyben: Lupin is a "nice guy", but he can't be trusted because of his tendency to sabotage the very people & causes he claims to be working for. Magpie: Yeah, funny how that works, innit?:-) That list of symptoms was really eye-opening. Of course, we see Harry sometimes doing the same thing when he's fighting his situation. In GoF, for instance, he procrastinates, and he fights the Occlumency lessons. Everyone's passive-aggressive some of the time, but I do think it's more of an important quality for some characters like Lupin. - From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 03:02:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:02:42 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170442 Magpie: > It just seems to totally go against everything I know about Dumbledore that > he would be influenced by anyone when it came to who worked at his school. > Snape could have shouted from the rooftops that Lupin was a werewolf and I > think it would have made Dumbledore all the more determined to keep him > just for that reason. No way Snape is in charge of what teachers stay or > go. If he was forced to let someone go I think we'd see him being forced. Alla: Of course Snape is not in charge whether teachers stay or go, but public opinion often is IMO. And no, I do not think Lupin was forced to resign in a sense that he was so overwhelmed with guilt that he decided to do that. But what I am saying is that it was not Snape business to say anything, at all, IMO. Magpie: > I'm not excusing Snape for outing him for revenge, but it seems like > Dumbledore was, in this case, not stepping up for Lupin in ways that he > would have for another teacher. Alla: And I am saying that Dumbledore may not have had a choice indeed. Do you really think for example that if somebody just let it slip that Snape is a DE, that Dumbledore would have had **any** choice as to keeping him in? Something tells me that press would have been really loud and Dumbledore's career as a Headmaster may have come to an end. Just speculating of course. > Magpie: > Oh, I wouldn't say it led nowhere useful. It's the way JKR dramatizes his > leave-taking. We can't assume that they fought or anything, but this is the > good-bye she thought was appropriate after what happened. One might expect > something different from Dumbledore and Lupin. It's kind of tantalizing, > even if we can't know for sure. > Alla: And let me ask again, what would you have expected from Dumbledore **in front of Harry** if he feels really, really angry about what Snape did? I surely would not have expected him to say anything in front of Harry IMO. > Goddlefrood: > > Alla's point seems to be, and do correct me if I am labouring > under any kind of misapprehension Alla, that all the teachers > including Severus and Dumbledore effectively conspired to keep > Lupin's furry little secret from the school as a whole. This > particular perceived sleight to Severus for his reporting of > Lupin's condition should be laid squarely at Dumbledore's feet. > > That no teacher reported the lycanthropy of Lupin to any of > the parents other than Snape towards the end would be a tad > irresponsible to say the least. > Alla: Right, indeed. Conspired :). But I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Who was being irresponsible in your opinion? From karenstitely at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 01:39:41 2007 From: karenstitely at yahoo.com (karenstitely) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:39:41 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170443 > > > Betsy Hp: > > > I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told > > > him to. > wynnleaf > Not always. In the case of a seriously dangerous situation, > sometimes a "whistle blower" is indeed needed. But let's not > assume that Dumbledore wasn't getting rid of Lupin anyway and > for all we know, Snape knew it. > Later, when Dumbledore debriefed Harry about the night before, > he never mentioned Lupin at all. We get picture of Dumbledore > sorry to see Lupin go. Karen: Hey! I just joined the site and this is my first post - Interesting analysis. My thought is...We know some of the prejudices and social taboo of this marvelous world of Rowling, but not all. In my eyes, a werewolf seems much more dangerous and lower on the social scale than a half giant who has proven himself for years at Hogwarts - not just a teacher but as a groundskeeper. Lupin cannot control himself when he turns. We find out from Lupin in book 5 (?) that he cannot find a job and is living a life of poverty - running with the werewolves under Dumbledore's orders. He is unable to find a job..the prejudices against werewolves are just too great. Just as Hagrid set off during the summer to meet with Giants, perhaps Lupin's work for the Order came much sooner. I am sure that Lupin having to accept Snape's help--and Snape having to help Lupin was an awful situation for them both. After Black's attack on the Fat Lady's portrait Snape began to truly believe Lupin was helping Black. Could Snape have made a placebo? Just throwing that out there...also---if I was made into a warewolf, I might learn how to make my antedote myself! Karen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 03:26:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:26:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents Message-ID: <380-22007621932639281@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170444 Alla: Of course Snape is not in charge whether teachers stay or go, but public opinion often is IMO. And no, I do not think Lupin was forced to resign in a sense that he was so overwhelmed with guilt that he decided to do that. Magpie: Where have we ever seen Dumbledore led by public opinion? Has there even been time for there to be a public outcry by the time Lupin's gone? There are times where Dumbledore couldn't stop things from happening, but when they do we generally see that he's being forced--for instance, when he can't keep Hagrid out of Azkaban in CoS or the board of governors votes him out, but we see that he's doing it under duress and when he can he makes things right again. He doesn't seem to consult public opinion before keeping Hagrid on in GoF or hiring Firenze. In PoA Dumbledore's having to let Lupin go, there's none of that. Either he agrees that Lupin should leave or is fine with his deciding to resign. He doesn't even make a speech about how he can't do anything to stop it. Alla: And I am saying that Dumbledore may not have had a choice indeed. Do you really think for example that if somebody just let it slip that Snape is a DE, that Dumbledore would have had **any** choice as to keeping him in? Something tells me that press would have been really loud and Dumbledore's career as a Headmaster may have come to an end. Just speculating of course. Magpie: To answer your question: yes, I think he would have a choice in that case and I think he would fight for Snape and keep him on all the way. Snape outs himself to Fudge in GoF. And if the press had a field day and Dumbledore for some reason felt compelled to let Snape go (not that I think the press would make him feel that way) it would be played as that. We'd know that Dumbledore is unable to keep the person on as he wants to do. Seems to me PoA is specifically *not* played that way. It's more ambiguous, without Dumbledore explaining how bad it is that he's being forced to let Lupin go. Lupin being a werewolf of course isn't in the paper in PoA--but it is in the paper in GoF, at which point Dumbledore stands firm against whatever the press thinks about his hiring policies. He's Dumbledore! > Magpie: > Oh, I wouldn't say it led nowhere useful. It's the way JKR dramatizes his > leave-taking. We can't assume that they fought or anything, but this is the > good-bye she thought was appropriate after what happened. One might expect > something different from Dumbledore and Lupin. It's kind of tantalizing, > even if we can't know for sure. > Alla: And let me ask again, what would you have expected from Dumbledore **in front of Harry** if he feels really, really angry about what Snape did? I surely would not have expected him to say anything in front of Harry IMO. Magpie: I think JKR would have portrayed the scene that Harry witnesses between Lupin and Dumbledore as something other than the way she did. There are other scenes where Dumbledore defends or tries to excuse or explain Snape while still making it clear he thinks Snape did wrong--and if he were angry I think she'd play a scene where we could see it. It's far from impossible. It's pretty clear Dumbledore's angry at Lucius in CoS, iirc. But here Harry's commenting on the scene between DD and Lupin, not Snape. Speculating based on the situation and the characters, I'd be surprised if DD was furious at Snape. It seems more like he'd expect Snape to stop keeping the secret once Lupin went off on the grounds after keeping it all year. - From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 03:31:06 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:31:06 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170445 > > Goddlefrood of the near past: > > That no teacher reported the lycanthropy of Lupin to any of > > the parents other than Snape towards the end would be a tad > > irresponsible to say the least. > > Alla: > But I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Who was being > irresponsible in your opinion? Goddlefrood of the immediate present: The entire school faculty was being irresponsible is what I meant, sorry if it was unclear to anyoine. The adults at the school most likely knew of Lupin's condition as Dumbeldore would have told them, even if his condition was not widely and well known to the WW in general. It does seem that his lycanthropy was not known to all in the WW otherwise it appears unlikely that the parent body would be as outraged as we have been informed they were. Really then it all comes back to Dumbledore's initial decision to take Remus on as a teacher. Dumbledore had the responsibility for that decision and all that flowed from Remus's appointment is his doing. Following that logic it then would suggest that neither Remus nor Lupin could be blamed entirely for what happened, as ultimately the Supreme Mugwump had struck again. Goddlefrood From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 03:59:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:59:47 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <380-22007621932639281@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170446 > Magpie: > I think JKR would have portrayed the scene that Harry witnesses between > Lupin and Dumbledore as something other than the way she did. There are > other scenes where Dumbledore defends or tries to excuse or explain Snape > while still making it clear he thinks Snape did wrong--and if he were angry > I think she'd play a scene where we could see it. It's far from impossible. > It's pretty clear Dumbledore's angry at Lucius in CoS, iirc. But here > Harry's commenting on the scene between DD and Lupin, not Snape. > Speculating based on the situation and the characters, I'd be surprised if > DD was furious at Snape. It seems more like he'd expect Snape to stop > keeping the secret once Lupin went off on the grounds after keeping it all > year. Alla: I think I am agreeing to disagree for those points - we are really too far apart as to whether it is DD decision or not, but just need a little more clarification on this one. I am sorry, I do not understand. At all. My premise is that Dumbledore **maybe** , not necessarily, but maybe angry at Snape and does not want to show anything in front of Harry, so what do you think JKR would have done differently if she wanted to show just that? I think she really cannot do anything, because it is OOC IMO for DD to show his negative attitude towards school teacher in front of student and this ambiguity is the most she could do, to let us interpret as we wish. I mean of course DD would not hesitate to show anger at Lucius, it is indeed clear, but Lucius is not a school teacher and I do not believe DD feels it is necessary to be restrained in front of Harry, even if he is polite. IMO of course. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 04:25:20 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:25:20 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <380-22007621923620687@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170447 Magpie: > Obviously Dumbledore didn't completely cut himself off from Lupin > but I admit for me the important thing about Lupin, and one of the > reasons I like him, is that he actually shows himself to be not > completely DDM. Dumbledore can deal with people screwing up or > letting their personal issues keep them from following Dumbledore's > orders perfectly, but Lupin's totally following his own agenda and > priorities in PoA. To me that seems like what's going to keep Lupin > from being one of the really inner DDM circle--he and Sirius. Jen: All of the Marauders and Snape had a personal agenda in POA; I don't understand how Lupin was operating on a level that the others weren't? He explained his reasoning for why he made the choices he did throughout the year and some of his choices were based on flawed reasoning and poor judgement. I don't see anything Lupin did specifically which wouldn't fall under him messing up or allowing personal issues to interfere? Or Sirus for that matter. Or Snape! Who comprises the really inner circle for Dumbledore if he has no confidantes according to JKR? I'd say everyone Dumbledore included in the hospital scene in GOF, and Lupin was included by the fact that Sirius was going directly to him after the meeting to contact the old crowd, is considered part of the DDM circle by Dumbledore. Lupin's considered trustworthy enough to be a spy after all. Carol: > Regardless of Snape's motive, it was (IMO) Lupin's duty to resign, > and I think that had he not done so, Dumbledore would have > requested his resignation. (As you say, the DADA curse was at work > Lupin could not have returned regardless of Snape's actions. It was > resign or be fired. He's lucky in comparison with his immediate > predecessors.) Lupin had endangered three students by forgetting to > drink his potion, not to mention that he had kept important > information from Dumbledore all year, and for all Lupin knew, > injured Harry. Jen: Snape's motivation was important because how he feels about the Marauders is a crucial part of the series and may have bearing on revelations about Snape's past and future. My point was there wasn't a chance for Dumbledore or Lupin to make a choice - it was taken out of their hands by Snape. And nowhere does it say Dumbledore believed three students were endangered that night. He's the one who suggested the time turner, sending two of the students back out into the situation, and later convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save lives. Carol: > Not to mention that Fudge knew that Lupin had been running around > the grounds in werewolf form and would have made sure that Lupin > resigned or was fired if Dumbledore didn't. Jen: That's not part of the story though. Dumbledore convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save lives the night before, not endanger them. Fudge appeared to be out of the picture after that night. Carol: > Lupin had betrayed Dumbledore's trust and had to pay the > consequences. Jen: Since when is Dumbledore all about consequences? Lupin may have stated he didn't live up to Dumbledore's trust but nowhere does it say Dumbledore agreed. This is the same guy who was smiling and expressing amazement to find out the Marauders became illegal animagi and were running around the castle grounds as students. Dumbledore was aware when he hired Lupin that he would only be staying a year and that the DADA curse would act on him in some way. DD, and presumably Lupin, agreed to those conditions at the beginning of the contract. Dumbledore knew there would be a poor outcome; he just didn't know what it would be. Carol: > Too bad he doesn't actually admit to what he's done wrong, or > barely alludes to it, and makes it look like Snape is to blame. > Wrong. Snape brewed the potion; Lupin forgot or neglected to take > it, and even when Snape mentioned it, did not return to the castle > to take it or tell the others to leave the Shrieking Shack so he > could transform in there. Jen: What else is Lupin supposed to say besides what he actually said to admit he's done wrong? 'They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you...That must never happen again.' ('Owl Post Again', p. 423, Am. ed.) Yes, someone can infer he's only come to that conclusion because he's leaving and had no choice in the matter, but his words come at the end of the story when everything is being explained. There's no purpose in the series for Lupin to be covering up at that point unless we find out in DH he's back at Hogwarts or something like that. Carol: > I don't think that Snape is "playing judge and jury for Lupin's > future." Lupin doesn't have a future at that point if "future" > means a job at Hogwarts. He's just forfeited it through his own > irresponsible behavior--and the DADA curse manipulating him to do > so, if it works as I think it does. Jen: Future of course doesn't mean Hogwarts as Lupin's not going to stay anyway and likely knew that at the beginning of the year. If Snape had manipulated things in such a way to get Lupin fired that would be one thing, and I would probably agree Snape was acting in what he thought was the best interest of the school. The fact that he is giving out personal information about a fellow teacher to students which will impact the way society will view the fellow teacher for the rest of his life- that's taking things a step further than ensuring the safety of the school and students. Jen From shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 10:28:20 2007 From: shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com (shagufta_naazpk2000) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:28:20 -0000 Subject: Favorite Ron moments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > "Anna" > wrote: > > > Hey someone mentioned starting a thread about > > favorite Ron moments. > Ron is without doubt my favourite character after Harry (and Dumbledore) and the main reason i stopped watching the films - after the first one - is i don't like the actor playing his role (no offence to his fans) Favourite Ron moments - (from memory as i dont have the books at work, :D) PS: 'Will the cloak cover all three of us? You don't think we'd let you go all alone' PS: 'I told mom you weren't expecting any presents' (on Christmas morning) PS: The chess game. 'That's chess, you have to make sacrifices' PA: 'Mind you'd have to dig me up first' (on what would happen if he blew up his aunt) PA: You'll have to kill all three of us (as already quoted) GoF: Grabbing all the Leprachaun(sp?) gold and giving it to Harry GoF: You lousy biased...you gave Krum ten' (on the marks Harry recieves after the first task) OOP: The concern he shows when he spots Harry's scarred hand and his reaction to Percy's letter. I've just read HBP once so far (reread scheduled for second week of july) so don't remember much from there. cheers Shagufta (long time lurker) From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 19 11:05:41 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:05:41 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170449 > > > Betsy Hp: > > > I agree that Snape made the potion because Dumbledore told him to. > > I > > > disagree that Snape was responsible for Lupin losing his job. Lupin > > > lost that job all by himself. > > wynnleaf > > No, this was *Dumbledore's* decision as well. > > And don't forget Lupin's leave-taking of Dumbledore. It's the one and > only time we see them exchange any words in the entire series. The > only descriptive word we have for Dumbledore's demeanor is "soberly" > which really isn't all that helpful to see what his opinion was. But > we also see Harry, as soon as Dumbledore came on the scene, feel that > Lupin wanted to leave as soon as possible. And Lupin told Dumbledore > not to see him out to the carriages either. colebiancardi I don't think Snape had anything with the final decision of Lupin leaving Hogwarts. The curse on the DADA job did it for Lupin. It was written in stone, in other words. Dumbledore knew it, Snape knew it, and I am sure Lupin knew it as well. We know that the Curse brings out the weaknesses of the DADA professor. I think that Snape was concerned about Lupin taking his potion - not that Lupin forget on purpose with evil intent - but that Snape knew about the curse and knew that Lupin would only hold this job for the year. The end result of why Lupin would not be there for the next year was unknown - we know that Quirrell died and Lockhart is locked up as a mental patient. Perhaps Snape was concerned that this time, due to Lupin's own curse of being a werewolf, that Lupin could cause more damage - by biting or even killing students. Snape didn't cause Lupin to leave - the curse of the DADA job did that. colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 19 13:42:36 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:42:36 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170450 > Dungrollin: > I think that throughout PoA Snape's convinced that Lupin's helping > Sirius in his attempt to kill Harry. Whether it's for the same > reasons that Sirius and James thought Lupin was the spy way-back- > when, I don't know, but I think that's the main misdemeanour that > Snape's trying to pin on him. So, (unless ESE!Lupin didn't know that > Sirius was innocent and *had* been teaching Harry to conjure a > patronus in the hopes that he'd get past the dementors and into > Sirius's clutches) in that sense Snape *was* being paranoid. > Pippin: *Everyone* believed that Sirius was trying to kill Harry. And Dumbledore admits that most wizards would find Lupin's being a werewolf and his old friendship with Sirius reason enough to suspect him of helping Black, so I don't see how you can call it paranoia. Snape does seem to have gone a bit mad in the Shrieking Shack, just as he did later in the hospital wing. But Dumbledore explained that: "Oh, he's not imbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He's just suffered a severe disappointment." The activated Marauder's Map in Lupin's office was proof that Lupin had lied to Snape. Lupin *had* helped Harry get out of the castle, or at least escape punishment for leaving. Snape had just heard Lupin admit that he thought Sirius was getting into the castle using Dark Arts he'd learned from Voldemort. Snape didn't hear the part where Sirius explained about the secret keeper switch, and how Crookshanks had helped him steal passwords. I don't know when Snape found out about the claim that Pettigrew was still alive. He seems to have discovered that by legilimency, "planted in Potter's mind" but at that point Harry himself was not persuaded of it. Snape would have thought he had heard more than enough to convince any reasonable wizard that Lupin and Black were putting Harry in danger. If you posit, as I do, that Snape had some proof of Lupin's dual loyalty beyond his old grudge or suspicion of werewolves and Black's friends in general, then Snape was not being paranoid at all. Indeed he would be less paranoid than wizarding society as a whole. Naturally he was furious at Harry for not believing him, and even more at Lupin for cooly asserting that this was all about some old school boy grudge when it was actually about stopping as cold-blooded a band of murderers as the world has ever seen. As to the discussion elsewhere in the thread about who is responsible for Lupin's leaving Hogwarts: Although Dumbledore had the authority to hire and fire teachers, Fudge had the authority to decide whether werewolves could work at all. He says he is the one who let Dumbledore hire Lupin, presumably by bending the laws Umbridge got passed. Although Fudge let himself be convinced that Lupin wasn't actually helping Black, I doubt he would have let himself be convinced that Lupin would never err about his potion again. I'm not sure Dumbledore wouldn't have agreed. I think it's telling that Dumbledore didn't invite Lupin to continue living in the castle as he did with Trelawney. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 14:58:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:58:00 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170451 > Alla: > > I think I am agreeing to disagree for those points - we are really > too far apart as to whether it is DD decision or not, but just need > a little more clarification on this one. > > I am sorry, I do not understand. At all. My premise is that > Dumbledore **maybe** , not necessarily, but maybe angry at Snape and > does not want to show anything in front of Harry, so what do you > think JKR would have done differently if she wanted to show just > that? > > I think she really cannot do anything, because it is OOC IMO for DD > to show his negative attitude towards school teacher in front of > student and this ambiguity is the most she could do, to let us > interpret as we wish. Magpie: I'm not saying that DD couldn't be angry or at the least disappointed in Snape for telling about Lupin. He can be one or both of those things. I'm disagreeing that Snape or public opinion controls who Dumbledore keeps on or fires based on what we've consistently seen about Dumbledore. In terms of DD being angry I was just making a more general point, that if something is important to understanding the situation JKR puts it in in some way. I disagree that she *couldn't* ever show us that Dumbledore was angry at Snape-- she finds ways to hint at Dumbledore's emotions about Snape when she wants those emotions to be seen by us. We generally have an idea how Dumbledore feels about which teachers he wants and why, and given the situation and his response to Lupin he doesn't seem to think his having to leave is a problem at all. Keeping Lupin on, even if in the capacity of a different kind of teacher, is not something Dumbledore does. Jen: Jen: All of the Marauders and Snape had a personal agenda in POA; I don't understand how Lupin was operating on a level that the others weren't? He explained his reasoning for why he made the choices he did throughout the year and some of his choices were based on flawed reasoning and poor judgement. I don't see anything Lupin did specifically which wouldn't fall under him messing up or allowing personal issues to interfere? Or Sirus for that matter. Or Snape! Magpie: Lupin chooses to hide information relevent to the goal of protecting Harry. This is not having a personal issue that mess him up, like when Hagrid totally *wants* to be loyal to DD and but messes up because his understanding and impulse control is limited. Or when Snape refuses to or argues about doing this or that thing. I think Dumbledore can deal with that. Lupin was on the face of it loyal to Dumbledore and trying to stop Sirius, but really was witholding information because it was more important to him that he look good. Of the three I have no problem saying that Snape is DDM, Hagrid is DDM and Lupin is his own man--and Sirius is Harry and James' man. He's not on the same level as Snape or Hagrid in Dumbledore's world either. The Marauders are not centered around Dumbledore. Hagrid and Snape (if he's DDM Snape) are, despite their personal issues. Dumbledore can deal with personal limitations. Lupin's a lot more slippery due to the nature of his flaws. He exists more comfortably in the realm of people working for Dumbledore but not so centered on him as Snape and Hagrid. Jen: Who comprises the really inner circle for Dumbledore if he has no confidantes according to JKR? I'd say everyone Dumbledore included in the hospital scene in GOF, and Lupin was included by the fact that Sirius was going directly to him after the meeting to contact the old crowd, is considered part of the DDM circle by Dumbledore. Lupin's considered trustworthy enough to be a spy after all. Magpie: It isn't about being a confidante but being personally loyal. I see a big difference between Sirius and Lupin and Hagrid and DDM!Snape. They're all in the circle in terms of being in the Order, but Snape and Hagrid have a different relationship to Dumbledore. Jen: Snape's motivation was important because how he feels about the Marauders is a crucial part of the series and may have bearing on revelations about Snape's past and future. My point was there wasn't a chance for Dumbledore or Lupin to make a choice - it was taken out of their hands by Snape. And nowhere does it say Dumbledore believed three students were endangered that night. He's the one who suggested the time turner, sending two of the students back out into the situation, and later convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save lives. Magpie: I think the only choice Snape took out of their hands was the choice to out Lupin. It just goes totally against everything we've seen of Dumbledore and even the way it's played in PoA that Dumbledore wanted Lupin to stay and couldn't because of Snape. I think if that were the case we would most certainly see Dumbledore angry at Snape and openly wanting to find a way to bring Lupin back. Dumbledore, imo, would not just have Lupin on his way before lunch without a fight because tomorrow there will be OWLS arriving from angry parents. No way. As to whether Dumbledore believed students were in danger, that doesn't have to be the biggest factor in Dumbledore not minding if Lupin left, but if he didn't believe they were in danger he had lost grip on reality. They were in danger, obviously, when they faced a transformed werewolf. He covered up for Lupin and knew that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but I can't imagine Dumbledore not thinking there's any danger involved in their being out there with a werewolf. That would be a bit clueless on his part. Jen: Since when is Dumbledore all about consequences? Lupin may have stated he didn't live up to Dumbledore's trust but nowhere does it say Dumbledore agreed. This is the same guy who was smiling and expressing amazement to find out the Marauders became illegal animagi and were running around the castle grounds as students. Dumbledore was aware when he hired Lupin that he would only be staying a year and that the DADA curse would act on him in some way. DD, and presumably Lupin, agreed to those conditions at the beginning of the contract. Dumbledore knew there would be a poor outcome; he just didn't know what it would be. Magpie: We don't know since Dumbledore doesn't say, but I'll just put out that I absolutely think that Dumbledore considers Lupin less than personally loyal to him. Everything about Lupin's behavior in PoA, to me, makes it unsurprising that this character isn't one of that really tight circle. Sirius' behavior is completely different than Lupin's, just as it was when they were at school (though Dumbledore seems to be under no delusions about who he's most loyal to either). Lupin isn't some sort of outcast because of it; he's still useful to the Order and works for Dumbledore. I just don't think the relationship is like that of Hagrid and Snape with him. The nature of the guy's flaws are different from the flaws of those two as well. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 15:29:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:29:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170452 > Alla: > > Of course Snape is not in charge whether teachers stay or go, but public opinion often is IMO. And no, I do not think Lupin was forced to resign in a sense that he was so overwhelmed with guilt that he decided to do that. But what I am saying is that it was not Snape > business to say anything, at all, IMO. Carol responds: To me, it's unclear when Lupin resigned. Hagrid makes it sound as if it was first thing that morning, on his own initiative, which is as it should be. Lupin makes it sound as if he "had to" resign because Snape "let slip" that he was a werewolf--IOW, "Poor me. It's all Snape's fault." But even if Snape did mention that Lupin was a werewolf before Lupin resigned (and why would he do that unless Lupin was absent from breakfast and the Slytherins were talking about him?) the incident with the skipped potion and the endangered students (along with the concealed information all term) is still Lupin's fault. Snape *know* that Lupin will either resign or be asked to leave. Why not mention it? If he *knew* that Lupin had* already resigned* or that DD had *already* asked him to do so, there'd be no problem, would there? Carol, who thinks that Lupin is again having trouble taking responsibility for his own actions and is shifting the blame to Snape From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 15:39:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:39:23 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170453 > Carol responds: Snape *know* > that Lupin will either resign or be asked to leave. Why not mention > it? If he *knew* that Lupin had* already resigned* or that DD had > *already* asked him to do so, there'd be no problem, would there? Alla: Hmmm, why not do it even if Snape knows that Lupin is already resigned, which may or may not be true? Maybe because Snape is aware of the treatment werewolves incur in WW? Maybe because Snape aware that it makes impossible for Lupin to find **any** job after everybody knows that he is a werewolf? Probably for the reasons of basic human decency and compassion, which Snape in my opinion appears to be sadly lacking in this department. Alla. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 15:58:46 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:58:46 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: <380-220076118194118953@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170454 > > Lanval: > That he's tired to death of the condition itself, and probably not > to happy for having to be grateful to Snape, of all people -- *that* > I have no trouble believing. > > Magpie: > Yes, that's my point. It's not that Lupin is tired of *the Potion.* I think > he'd love to just have a supply sent to him that he could take at the > proper time. The problem is that in context the Potion comes with Snape > having something to hang over his head. And the Potion itself isn't even > given to him regularly; only when he's at Hogwarts with the teaching job. > It's presumably taken away when he's not needed any more. > (Which--speculating now--I wonder might not make him fatalistic and not > want to get too used to having it.) Lanval: Interesting point. Especially if he, as discussed in another post, knows about the curse and realizes he won't teach for more than a year. Magpie: What I'm saying about the Potion here > is that it's not like getting tired of a medication you take all the > time--he doesn't get a chance to feel that way because the medication isn't > something he can count on. In this context I think it's just that it's > being used to make a point by Snape and that's what makes Lupin feel a bit > sick and tired. He doesn't like Snape doing that to him and hits back by > refusing to leap on the Potion immediately. He's trying to show some > independence and control in the situation. Lanval: Oh, that's entirely within reason. My point wasn't so much that it's impossible for him to resent the whole situation with the potion, but that Lupin, like a good boy, *does* drink the potion with only minute delay as soon as Snape leaves; a fact that seems to get neglected. Power play, as a response to Snape's attitude? Sure, why not. But others seem to want to build a case for a scenario that has Lupin systematically, with perhaps evil intent, resisting Snape and DD, by forgetting/procrastinating when it comes to his medication all year. And I can't buy that. > > > Magpie: > Some of Lupin's most important contributions to the plot revolve around him > being a werewolf and having close calls with it. Not being careful enough > to stop that from happening--and this goes along with the Lupin who doesn't > speak up about what he knows about Sirius and hwo doesn't speak up when > Snape's being bullied. If I were making a list of significant attributes of > this character I'd think that was very important--that would be the one > side, and the other side is his kindness and abilities as a good teacher. > > One doesn't have to define Lupin's personality that way--if one were asked > to describe Lupin one would probably start with his being kind or a good > teacher. But as a character I think ignoring Lupin's moments of > irresponsibility or making the wrong choice would be like saying Sirius' > desire for excitement and action that significant. By comparison Lupin's > ability to handle students like Neville, like in the Boggart scene, is not > as important. His crunch moments turn more on the moments he dropped the > ball. (As opposed to Neville, for instance, who is on the surface more > timid and flustered but in moments of truth effects the plot through his > core courage.) > Lanval: Hm. I think I get what you're saying now, and I agree -- if what you're saying is that JKR chose to stress certain aspects of Lupin's character because they turn out to be crucial for the plot -- that while Lupin's kindness and talents as a teacher and other obvious 'good points' are out in the open, unfortunately it's his bad moments (caused by his negative traits) that have a huge impact on the story? > Magpie: > One sets up the other in terms of repitition. We have a scene with Lupin > and his Potion where the Potion doesn't get drunk (iirc) during the scene. > This shows how Snape brings the Potion and Lupin must drink it. She almost > always repeats things that way. In CoS, for instance, we see Ron's wand > backfire on him with the slugs, so when Lockhart does it we've seen what > can happen. Totally different circumstances, but still set up earlier. In > GoF Harry and Draco fire hexes at the same time and they bounce off each > other. That sets up later when Harry and Voldemort also throw hexes at the > same time in different circumstances--they have brother wands, so there's a > different result. The first one sets up the second one, which will be in > different circumstances. In PoA Snape brings Lupin the Potion twice. The > first time Lupin puts off drinking it until after the scene (iirc). That's > why Snape can show up later and say he went to Lupin's room etc. and we > understand it immediately from the first scene where Snape was also > encouraging him to drink the Potion while Lupin acted more blase about it. > As soon as Snape shows up talking about the Potion again it's automatically > echoing the first scene where he did that. Lanval: Oh, I see. It wasn't quite clear to me if you meant it as Scene 1 by necessity bringing on Scene 2 (as in: Lupin resents the potion ==> he'll resent it /delay taking it the next time, again and again ==> come that fateful June evening, Lupin's forgetting the potion because that's what he's been 'working toward' all year long). But if you see it as a kind of foreshadowing/writerly device, a hint to the reader that somewhere in the future a situation will arise where Lupin not taking the potion will prove significant -- yes, that makes perfect sense. > Magpie: > I agree--I'm just saying that we still need to, imo, go with what is > established as important or unusual for the plot. Lupin's missing his > wolfsbane pays off when he forgets the Potion just once and the kids are in > danger, and the scene's written in a scary way. If it's not really a big > deal it undercuts it as a climax. > Lanval: True. I think JKR undercuts herself sometimes in that way. Let's take Harry's bucking bewitched broom in SS/PS, when it seems to be important for the plot that Snape at least *try* to save Harry' life. Yet later in PoA, Harry does fall off his broom, but DD is there to slow the fall, and one would hope any teacher present would know a similar spell. Commone sense would demand some sort of precaution, since falling off a broom can happen to any player, at any time, so why not simply put a permanent repelling charm on the ground of the Quidditch field? Or a magical net? But then, there goes the drama/plot device of Snape attempting to pay back the life debt. > Magpie: > I think it's being a big deal is necessary for the climax where Lupin > transforms. I agree that if there was no prejudice it could all be handled > better--though I'm going to guess that would mean more open precautions for > Lupin as well as probably humorous warnings to the kids. But then, the > Triwizard Tournament could have been played strictly for laughs too (it's > played for laughs when talking about the history of it). But I think it, > like the werewolf situation and wolfsbane, needs to be taken seriously for > the plot. Lanval: Right, the Triwizard Tournament would be another example. It becomes deadly serious once it happens, because otherwise, where's the story? And prejudice about werewolves being perhaps on a scale in the WW it doesn't warrant, compared to other everyday hazards -- well, prejudice is rarely logical. So yes, in the end, things don't always make sense in Potterverse, and I suppose we just have to accept that danger matters when the author says it matters. :) > > > Magpie: > I agree-but I was indeed talking about in Snape's mind.:-) If there's one > lesson Snape doesn't seem to have learned, it's that living well (or > better) is the best revenge. What I think he sees is them winning is just > that he's never been vindicated and been "right" about them. James was made > Head Boy, Dumbledore still doesn't side with him about the Prank, James got > Lily, Snape made all these mistakes, James is the hero. > Lanval: Ah, I see. :) > Magpie: > Well, it could be that Snape comes to Lupin only when Lupin forgets or if > he hasn't finished making the Potion or whatever. There's no reason to be > frantic since the Potion is coming and he's calm about it. But I don't > think Snape's accusing Lupin of anything unfairly. Snape, in the earlier > scene, seems to be more uptight about the Potion in general, and likes it > taken the earlier the better. It doesn't seem odd for Snape to be honestly > saying that Lupin's forgotten the Potion if it's after dinner and this is > one of the nights he needs to take it. > Lanval: Anything is of course feasible again, because we don't know if, or how, the arrangement has been changed. Snape sounds as if he expected Lupin to drop by, and when he didn't, Snape went to Lupin's office, bringing a goblet along. Which is oddly enough the exact scenario of the first scene, where this arrangement appears to be taken for granted. It doesn't help either that Snape mentions he made an entire cauldronful; if it has to be drunk immediately, why would he prepare more than one dose? > > > Carol responds: > Well, we know that Lupin thinks the potion is disgusting and comments, > "Too bad sugar makes it useless." He'd certainly be more willing to > take it if it tasted like, say, pumpkin juice. Lanval: That would be childish in the extreme --- to forego something so crucial to his own life and that of others because it tastes bad. No, sorry, I can't see that being a reason. Carol: Also, I don't know > about you, but I find it all too easy to put off doing what's good for > me or necessary to my existence, whether it's going to the doctor for > a check-up (it's been about seven years since I made myself do that)> or paying my electric bill (which usually requires a reminder notice > from the electric company threatening to turn off the power if I don't > pay by a set date). Lanval: Hey, you do know me! *waves to a fellow procrastinator* :) Carol: Lupin, being human, probably has the same > tendency. And Snape, of all people, knows how important it is that > Lupin not forget or procrastinate too long. and Lupin, IMO, tends to > do what's easy rather than what's right, as we see from his days as > Hogwarts' least effectual Prefect. > Lanval: Yes, but the fact remains that he *takes* the potion without further delay once Snape is gone. Right in front of Harry. The time elapsed is meaningless; if the potion were so volatile that it would have to be drunk within seconds of being finished, there would have been other arrangements made. Snape probably took a good few minutes to wander up to Lupin's office from his dungeon, so the one minute of delay is really of no importance to the potion's effectiveness. Now, had Lupin ignored the potion after Snape left, had we not seen him drinking it at all and were left wondering *if* he ever drank it -- then yes, I would be open to considering Lupin being resentful, obstinate, dangerously and willfully irresponsible. As it stands, I'll agree to the power play (Lupin showing Snape his limits -- you brewed it, buddy, the rest is my business), but not the implication that Lupin's forgetting the potion on the night of the Shrieking Shack has its roots here, that a sinister pattern lasting throughout the year begins to evolve here. (See also my response to Magpie -- I won't deny that the scene might serve as foreshadowing, but that's not the same.) > Carol responds: > I keep seeing the assumption that the little cutting hex that Severus > uses on James is Sectumsempra, but where's all the blood? Lanval: "...a gash appeared on the side of James's face, spattering his robes with blood." Ootp, Am.Ed., p.647 Sounds like there's enough for a small wound, more than a trickle. We don't know how big the gash is, so naturally the effect wouldn't be quite as dramatic as it was with Draco. I always assumed it to be quite small -- enough to be visible, but small enough not to cause James much discomfort. Carol: There's only > a bit spattered on his robes? Where's the danger that no one sees? Lanval: Because it was a spell no one seems to recognize, its effects were comparatively minor, and it was kind of lost in the rapid sequence of events? Mere seconds after James is hit, he has Snape dangling in the air. The entertainment value of that certainly would beat a gash on James's face for the time being. Later -- we don't know, do we? Carol: Why > does everyone from James to Lily act as if Severus has cast something > no worse than a Jelly Legs Jinx? Where's the unhealed cut that > requires a complex countercurse to cure? If it's really Sectumsempra, > neither James nor Madam Pomfrey could have cured the gash on James's > cheek. We have no indication that he even bears a scar as a result of > that little cutting hex, which can probably be healed as quickly and > easily as DD heals his knife wound in the cave scene in HBP. (Surely, > if Severus had been forced to recite his chant to cure James, we'd > have heard about it.) > Lanval: We know nothing of the aftermath of this scene. We don't know if James ended up in the hospital wing because the cut wouldn't heal, we don't know if Madam Pomfrey is unable to heal Sectumsempra, we don't know if it left a small scar. Why *would* we hear of Snape being forced to recite the countercurse? Lupin and Sirius don't mention anything, but time was limited in the fireplace talk, and JKR might have her reasons not to give us that info just yet. We hear Sirius and Lupin making excuses for James, which Harry doesn't buy, then the conversation switches to the 'future', James and Lily getting together in seventh year. We never find out about the pants issue either, do we? Carol: > Nor does Severus have any reason, at this point, to invent a Dark > Curse "for enemies." IMO, that desire for revenge was prompted by the > so-called Prank the following year. Lanval: Carol, are you trying to tell me that at the time of SWM, Snape didn't consider James & Co his 'enemies'? That he harbored no yearning for revenge just yet at that time? :) (JMO, and as an aside, but Snape needs enemies the way a fish needs water.) We know that he came to Hogwarts already knowing dark curses; who's to say some of those weren't his own inventions? How early did he start? The book being a sixth year textbook doesn't have to mean anything, if it is indeed his mother's book, he may have been reading/studying it as far back as his first year, given how precocious he is. Carol: I think that the little cutting > hex was merely a precursor. Lanval: Or else a refined version? Carol: At any rate, we can't assume that it was > Sectumsempra given what we know about that spell's effects, not to > mention how angry Severus was when he cast that hex. If, in his fury, > he'd set aside the consequences to himself of casting a genuinely Dark > and deadly curse in front of forty or so witnesses, he'd have ended up > in Azkaban despite his youth. So either he controlled the curse (and > someone who didn't know the countercurse was somehow able to heal the > gash and keep James from bleeding to death or having a permanently > open gash on his cheek) or Sectumsempra proper (and its complex > countercurse) hadn't been invented yet because Severus did not yet > have the incentive to invent anything worse than Levicorpus and the > toenail hex. Lanval: About the incentive -- I'd say that by the time we see the boys in SWM, Snape may have needed no more incentive to create potentially fatal curses for his "enemies" than the fact that they exist. JMO. Even if he had no serious intention of actually trying them out. The mere fact that he knew them might have given him a sense of power. Going back to the foreshadowing issue. We see Levicorpus being used here, and don't see it again until the next book, where it gains a certain significance. Sectumsempra shows up in HBP with a bang -- wouldn't it be just like JKR to give us an early, harmless glimpse of it? About Snape's anger, we see him losing it in PoA as an adult over something much less humiliating than the scene called so aptly 'Snape's Worst Memory'. I'm not saying it WAS a full blown Sectumsempra (Snape points his wand, whereas Harry 'slashes'), or that Snape meant to take James's head off, but he was caught in a terrible situation. Teenagers have snapped with less provocation. I actually always got the impression that the full force of the spell missed James. Sirius yells as Snape aims and shoots, a gash appears on *the side of James's face*. It seems possible that James turned to look as he heard Sirius cry out his warning, and moved out the way a few inches. Sounds more possible to me than Snape attempting a glancing shot. Carol: > I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think we can safely assume > that the two cutting spells are one and the same just because Severus > cast the first and invented the second. Another thing, too. There's no > indication that the cutting hex was a nonverbal spell. Harry must have > heard the incantation, and if it were "Sectumsempra," surely even he > would remember having heard it somewhere before when he read it in the > margins of the HBP's Potions book. Lanval: You're right, of course, we can't safely determine *anything* based on what we know. It's only a possibility. Also, I got the impression that any spell can be performed nonverbally with practice. I don't understand why *must* Harry have heard an incantation? According to the scene as written in the book, there simply wasn't one, not for the cutting spell, not for the Levicorpus following seconds later. How do you arrive at there being no indication that those were nonverbal spells? Harry heard nothing, only saw flashes of light -- on the contrary, I'd say this is about a good an indication that those *were* nonverbal as we're going to get from canon. > > Carol, pretty sure that Sectumsempra was invented in Severus's sixth > year, after the so-called Prank and in retaliation for it > Lanval: Possible. But 'in retaliation' makes it sound as if Snape really, really planned to use it. *eg* From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 16:42:44 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:42:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170455 > > Carol responds: > > Snape *know* > > that Lupin will either resign or be asked to leave. Why not mention > > it? If he *knew* that Lupin had* already resigned* or that DD had > > *already* asked him to do so, there'd be no problem, would there? > > > > Alla: > > Hmmm, why not do it even if Snape knows that Lupin is already > resigned, which may or may not be true? Maybe because Snape is aware > of the treatment werewolves incur in WW? Maybe because Snape aware > that it makes impossible for Lupin to find **any** job after > everybody knows that he is a werewolf? wynnleaf There's some problems with what we're told in canon that seem to conflict with the notion that Snape's revelations about Lupin at breakfast are what caused his problem with employment. We know from Fudge's comments the night before that he had previously okayed Dumbledore hiring a werewolf. So we know that Fudge already knew Lupin was a werewolf. It's therefore a matter of Ministry record. We learned in OOTP that the restrictions written by Umbridge against werewolves are what was making it difficult for Lupin to find a job. Those restrictions were written two years before -- either during or just before POA. Since the Ministry already knew that Lupin was a werewolf (Fudge knew), then Lupin was already constrained, before the end of POA, by the restrictions on werewolves -- the same restrictions that Sirius said in OOTP were what kept Lupin from finding employment. Yet JKR says something in an interview: "Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press any time soon." The question really is *how* specifically was Lupin exposed as a werewolf. Does JKR mean primarily by this that his exposure as a werewolf (by Snape) did damage to his prospects as a teacher? Whereas the Ministry restrictions, which Lupin was already constrained by, hurt his propects for general employment? I think it is the Ministry restrictions that prevent Lupin from finding a job *generally.* And Lupin needed no exposure by Snape to be already constrained by these restrictions. However, it is Snape's exposing Lupin being a werewolf that damages Lupin's career as a teacher -- *even* if the Ministry restrictions were ever lifted. And that, in my opinion, is as it should be. Lupin should not teach, given his history of having endangered students through his werewolf form in the past. So, in my opinion, canon tells us that Snape's revelations about Lupin hurt his ability to ever teach again, regardless of Ministry restrictions. It was Ministry restrictions that were already in effect that hurt Lupin's overall chances of general employment. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 18:18:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:18:25 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > Snape *know* > > that Lupin will either resign or be asked to leave. Why not mention > > it? If he *knew* that Lupin had* already resigned* or that DD had > > *already* asked him to do so, there'd be no problem, would there? > > > > Alla: > > Hmmm, why not do it even if Snape knows that Lupin is already > resigned, which may or may not be true? Maybe because Snape is aware > of the treatment werewolves incur in WW? Maybe because Snape aware > that it makes impossible for Lupin to find **any** job after > everybody knows that he is a werewolf? > > Probably for the reasons of basic human decency and compassion, which > Snape in my opinion appears to be sadly lacking in this department. > > Alla. > Carol responds: I don't think that the students' knowing about Lupin being a werewolf had any bearing at all on his job prospects outside Hogwarts (which he had forfeited through his own negligence), nor would their parents care whether Lupin had a job or not as long as he wasn't endangering their children. The anti-werewolf legislation was already in effect (it had nothing to do with Snape), and Fudge already knew that Lupin was a werewolf and had endangered three students (whether or not he was trying to help them), so he could and IMO have stepped in if Lupin had attempted to violate the law (not to mention that he's close to Umbridge, who passed the legislation, and no doubt learned from Fudge what had happened). I don't see how Snape's words affect Lupin at all. (As I said, we don't even know whether they were spoken before or after his inevitable resignation.) If Snape had remained silent, Lupin would still have resigned, voluntarily or otherwise, and would still have been affected by the anti-werewolf legislation. And all because he endangered three students by running out onto the grounds and forgetting to take his potion. It wasn't Snape's words or the imagined owls from parents that caused Lupin to lose his job. It was Lupin himself in combination with the DADA curse. And he'd have had no job prospects outside Hogwarts in any case. (If he took a job illegally, he'd be discovered rather quickly because of his monthly absences or illnesses, IMO, and would end up in Azkaban thanks to Umbridge, not Snape.) Carol, who thinks that DD would have been angry with Snape if he'd revealed Lupin's condition *before* the Shrieking Shack incident but sees no reason to be angry with him now From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 19 18:28:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:28:33 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170457 Goddlefrood: > a differing mechanism at play as to why Severus > told his tale. Lupin, per the DADA curse, would be > only able to teach DADA for a year. In other words > he would have had to leave anyway. Is it not then > possible that his little secret leaking out was > planned precisely so that he would leave? houyhnhnm: I don't understand. Why would anyone have to plan to make the curse come true? A curse works by itself, doesn't it, in spite of everyone's plans? At least that's my understanding of curses in general and the DADA curse in particular. Goddlefrood: > Lupin, while having been a member of the Order > and a spy on the werewolves, was only under > Dumbledore's school administration for a year > as a teacher. It makes sense to this reader that > Dumbledore would be more concerned for Hagrid's > wellbeing than for Lupin's. He quiote possibly > also needed Remus to return to his Order duties. > Lupin does benefit either way in that he continues > to have DD's patronage. houyhnhnm: Lupin had no Order duties to return to. The Order was disbanded at the time. Hagrid, for whom Dumbledore stood up twice, is not the only comparison. There are also the examples of Trelawney and Firenze, neither of whom Dumbledore would turn away because they had no safe place to go. It makes sense to me that Dumbledore would be concerned for the well-being of all those served under him, especially Lupin who was apparantly destitute and starving when he came to Hogwarts. There is no example to the contrary. Alla: > My premise is that Dumbledore **maybe** , not > necessarily, but maybe angry at Snape and does not > want to show anything in front of Harry, so what do > you think JKR would have done differently if she > wanted to show just that? houyhnhnm: I agree that Dumbledore would not show his displeasure with an employee, either Snape or Lupin, in front of Harry or any other student. I don't doubt, either, that Snape received some sort of reproof from Dumbledore. On the other hand, Snape kept the more important secret--the fact that Harry and Hermione had used a time-turner with DD's blessing to free Sirius and Buckbeak--so I don't expect it was a very severe reproof, and after the scene in the hospital wing the night before, I doubt if Snape's letting slip Lupin's secret to the Slytherins came as any great surprise to DD. And as others have pointed out, Snape's outing of Lupin was irrelevant to Lupin's fate. He was already toast. wynnleaf: > Yet JKR says something in an interview: > "Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did > irreparable damage to his prospects for a career > in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir Greyback > out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a > good press any time soon." > The question really is *how* specifically was Lupin > exposed as a werewolf. Does JKR mean primarily by > this that his exposure as a werewolf (by Snape) did > damage to his prospects as a teacher? houyhnhnm: That is a good point. Rowling worded it carefully. One could just as easily interpret her words to mean that Lupin exposed himself when he transformed in front of three students. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 19 19:27:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:27:18 -0400 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <1182251058.2306.87635.m41@yahoogroups.com> References: <1182251058.2306.87635.m41@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C980BEFC32B152-950-F619@FWM-R03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170458 Jen: Snape's motivation was important because how he feels about the Marauders is a crucial part of the series and may have bearing on revelations about Snape's past and future. My point was there wasn't a chance for Dumbledore or Lupin to make a choice - it was taken out of their hands by Snape. And nowhere does it say Dumbledore believed three students were endangered that night. He's the one who suggested the time turner, sending two of the students back out into the situation, and later convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save lives. > > Julie: I guess that is the crux of the disagreement then, that Dumbledore *couldn't* make a choice. I and others don't agree that is the case, since Dumbledore pretty much does what he wants. And even on the few occasions he CAN'T do what he wants, because the Ministry or someone else has the power to stop him, we've always been made aware of that interference. So why not this time? No good reason I can think of, other than that what is happening is acceptable to Dumbledore. Carol: > Not to mention that Fudge knew that Lupin had been running around > the grounds in werewolf form and would have made sure that Lupin > resigned or was fired if Dumbledore didn't. Jen: That's not part of the story though. Dumbledore convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save lives the night before, not endanger them. Fudge appeared to be out of the picture after that night. Carol: > Lupin had betrayed Dumbledore's trust and had to pay the > consequences. Jen: Since when is Dumbledore all about consequences? Lupin may have stated he didn't live up to Dumbledore's trust but nowhere does it say Dumbledore agreed. This is the same guy who was smiling and expressing amazement to find out the Marauders became illegal animagi and were running around the castle grounds as students. Dumbledore was aware when he hired Lupin that he would only be staying a year and that the DADA curse would act on him in some way. DD, and presumably Lupin, agreed to those conditions at the beginning of the contract. Dumbledore knew there would be a poor outcome; he just didn't know what it would be. > > Julie: Dumbledore smiling about illegal actions of students that happened some two decades earlier is a bit different than expecting Dumbledore to overlook an adult's-a *teacher's* no less--betrayal of his trust. It's not the same thing at all. I agree that Dumbledore knew Lupin would only be staying the year, but I beleive his acceptance of Lupin's resignation was not because Snape's action "forced" it, but because LUPIN'S actions-- both in forgetting to take the Wolfsbane and perhaps even more in keeping his knowledge about Sirius a secret--provided the poor outcome Dumbledore had been expecting. The DADA curse worked as designed, by exploiting Lupin's own character weaknesses. Thus Dumbledore accepted Lupin's resignation, as he knew he would be doing from the beginning, without a word of protest or any effort to change it. > BTW, I don't condone Snape's action, and it may have at least exacerbated Lupin's difficulties in making a living (from his appearance on the train, he was already having difficulties coping in that area). What I still do wonder is not why Dumbledore allowed Lupin to resign and leave Hogwarts without any other job prospects, but why he didn't arrange for Lupin to keep receiving the Wolfsbane potion. I'm sure Snape wouldn't care at all if Lupin stopped receiving it, but if Dumbledore wanted Lupin to keep getting it, surely he could have insisted Snape keep brewing it for Lupin. After all, Lupin did remain involved with the Order, and he had regular contact with both Dumbledore and Snape (as we see in OotP). So why didn't Lupin keep getting the Wolfsbane potion? > Julie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 19:53:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:53:36 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170459 - Lanval: > Carol, are you trying to tell me that at the time of SWM, Snape didn't consider James & Co his 'enemies'? That he harbored no yearning for revenge just yet at that time? :) > We know that he came to Hogwarts already knowing dark curses; who's to say some of those weren't his own inventions? How early did he start? The book being a sixth year textbook doesn't have to mean anything, if it is indeed his mother's book, he may have been reading/studying it as far back as his first year, given how precocious he is. > Carol responds: Already knowing *dark* curses at age eleven? Where does it say that? Sirius Black says that first-year Severus knew more "curses" (no "dark") than most seventh years, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, "curses" is often used for hexes and jinxes, including but not limited to the Babbling Curse, Blasting Curse, Body-Bind Curse, Curse of the Bogies, Impediment Curse, Leg-Locker Curse, and Reductor Curse. See my earlier post 168437 for details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168437 Eloise Midgen attempted to curse off her own acne. I seriously doubt that she used a dark (or Dark) spell on herself, even if it did blow her nose off. And surely "most seventh years" don't go around casting Dark curses. We only know of five Dark curses, in any case: the three Unforgiveable Curses, the Horcrux spell (if that counts as a curse), and one invented spell by schoolboy Severus. The other spells in the HBP's Potions book are either schoolboy hexes (Levicorpus and its countercurse, the toenail hex, Langlock) little different from, say, Densuageo, the tooth-elongating hex that Draco tried to use on Harry (which ricochets onto Hermione) or the boil-causing hex that Harry tries to use on Draco (which ricochets onto Goyle) or useful charms like Muffliato. So, yes, Severus considered James and co. his enemies in the same way that MWPP considered him their enemy or Draco and Harry consider each other enemies. But up until his humiliation in front of the whole fifth-year class, followed by what he viewed as a murder attempt, the enmity was on the schoolboy level. But the murder plot (his view) would have raised the conflict to a point where Severus wanted a serious revenge. Sectumsempra can kill. Levicorpus and the toenail hex and Langlock can't. But he would have been very, very foolish to use it because he'd have been not only expelled but sentenced to Azkaban. Carol earlier: > I think that the little cutting hex was merely a precursor. > Lanval: > Or else a refined version? > Carol: Um, how could a little cutting hex be a "refined version" of a deadly spell? No, I'm sure it was the other way around. Logically, he would take an existing cutting hex, say "Sectum" ("cut") and add "Sempra" ("always") to make the gash unhealable except by a countercurse (which I'm guessing he invented or discovered through research much later, probably after he'd been stricken by remorse). At any rate, Professor Snape didn't just wave his wand over Sectumsempra'd Draco using some nonverbal healing spell as DD did over his knife wound in the cave; he had to *chant* (or sing) the spell three times. Granted, Draco's wounds were more extensive than James's by far, but there's no indication that James was bleeding to death or suffering at all, nothing Dark about that hex or someone would surely have commented, nothing that Madam Pomfrey couldn't easily cure or Black or Lupin would have mentioned it to Harry. (They'd have found a way to blame Severus rather than making excuses for themselves and James.) Madam Pomfrey couldn't possibly have known the countercurse for Sectumsempra unless Severus taught it to her, any more than she can cure Marietta's pustules without knowing the hex that Hermione used on the parchment and its countercurse. And if she couldn't cure the cut, she'd have known it was caused by Dark magic and Severus would have been expelled. Since he wasn't, and no one suspected Dark magic at the time, chances are no Dark magic was involved. > Lanval: > > About the incentive -- I'd say that by the time we see the boys in SWM, Snape may have needed no more incentive to create potentially fatal curses for his "enemies" than the fact that they exist. JMO. > > Even if he had no serious intention of actually trying them out. The mere fact that he knew them might have given him a sense of power. Carol: Agree to disagree? There's a lot of difference between hexing someone in the corridor, or even sneaking up on a person two-on-one, and exposing them to the danger of a werewolf bait. If that didn't up the stakes, nothing could. IMO. Also, as Quirrell told Harry, just because Snape hates someone doesn't mean he wants them dead. Unless, of course, he thinks they tried to kill *him.* > Lanval: > Going back to the foreshadowing issue. We see Levicorpus being used here, and don't see it again until the next book, where it gains a certain significance. Sectumsempra shows up in HBP with a bang -- wouldn't it be just like JKR to give us an early, harmless glimpse of it? Carol: I don't know. Maybe JKR is just confused in her maths, as usual. It's possible, of course, that our precocious Severus was writing his potions improvements and invented spells in what had been his mother's book before his sixth year, but it's also possible that JKR made a mistake (the Charlie Weasley problem in miniature) by having the OoP scene involve a spell (Levicorpus) that Severus hadn't actually invented yet. But regardless, Levicorpus (a nonverbal spell that James shouldn't even have known!!!) was almost certainly invented before Sectumsempra. One is a schoolboy hex that can be used for mischievous purposes (at least one Death Eater seems to have used it on a levitated Muggle, Mrs. Robinson); the other is designed to seriously injure or kill. I can imagine Severus picturing himself with a werewolf bite and imagining what he could do to get the Marauders back. If he could do it without being caught and expelled. Obviously, he never attempted it or he'd never have finished Hogwarts, much less taught there. I don't think there's such a thing as a harmless deadly curse. Sectumsempra is deadly. It's the one and only Dark curse in the HBP's book, and I think it marks a turning point in his development, a first step toward becoming so focused on revenge that he becomes a Death Eater. The difference (in degree of Darkness) between Sectumsempra and Levicorpus is the difference between Crucio and Jelly Legs. As for the significance of Levicorpus, as far as I can see, it consists of Severus's own spell having been used against him, a fact that seems to rankle almost as much as the humiliation of having his greying underwear exposed, twice, to all the fifth years. (I don't think that James actually pantsed him, or he wouldn't have been so concerned about having his own spells used against him.) > > > Carol earlier: > > I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think we can safely assume that the two cutting spells are one and the same just because Severus cast the first and invented the second. Another thing, too. There's no indication that the cutting hex was a nonverbal spell. Harry must have heard the incantation, and if it were "Sectumsempra," surely even he would remember having heard it somewhere before when he read it in the margins of the HBP's Potions book. > > Lanval: > You're right, of course, we can't safely determine *anything* based > on what we know. It's only a possibility. Also, I got the impression > that any spell can be performed nonverbally with practice. > > I don't understand why *must* Harry have heard an incantation? > According to the scene as written in the book, there simply wasn't > one, not for the cutting spell, not for the Levicorpus following > seconds later. > > How do you arrive at there being no indication that those were > nonverbal spells? Harry heard nothing, only saw flashes of light -- > on the contrary, I'd say this is about a good an indication that > those *were* nonverbal as we're going to get from canon. Carol responds: I think that JKR was deliberately not including the spell in the narrative because she doesn't want us to know which spell was used. Besides, all the boys are fifth years and nonverbal spells aren't taught until sixth year. Not even Hermione masters them until then. But, anyway, my whole point was that we can't *assume* that the cutting hex was Sectumsempra, and you've conceded that point, which is all I wanted. We seem to agree that the cutting hex wasn't a full-fledged version. I think it was an ordinary hex of the sort schoolboys routinely use on each other but maybe slightly darker (but not actually Dark), intended to hurt, certainly, because Severus was furious, but not intended to kill. Badly aimed or not, it caused a gash in James' cheek, and if if were Sectumsempra, it would have remained unhealed unless the inventor of the curse administered the countercurse himself, and I can't see that happening. Sectumsempra means "cut *always*." It's Dark magic, after all. > > > > Carol, pretty sure that Sectumsempra was invented in Severus's sixth year, after the so-called Prank and in retaliation for it > > > Lanval: > Possible. But 'in retaliation' makes it sound as if Snape really, really planned to use it. *eg* > Carol: Actually, yes. I think that at the time he invented it, Teen!Snape was hurt and angry and bent on revenge. He felt toward the Marauders as Harry now feels toward Snape. And that desire led him straight to Voldemort. Only later, after he felt remorse, would he have invented a countercurse. I think that the desire for vengeance for the Prank, marked by the invention of Sectumsempra, was Severus's first step toward becoming a Death Eater, just as the desire for vengeance for his father's arrest led to Draco's becoming a DE. Severus's enlightenment came when he realized that Voldemort intended to murder an innocent baby based on his information' Draco's came when he found out that killing isn't as easy as he had believed. Carol, not arguing for Saint Severus, who exists only in Roman Catholic canon, not JKR's From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 20:00:51 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:00:51 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170460 > Lanval: > Anything is of course feasible again, because we don't know if, or > how, the arrangement has been changed. Snape sounds as if he > expected Lupin to drop by, and when he didn't, Snape went to Lupin's > office, bringing a goblet along. Which is oddly enough the exact > scenario of the first scene, where this arrangement appears > to be taken for granted. zgirnius: The arrangement could have been changed, either as a result of this incident or for other reasons (as Lupin seems to have students hang around him, going to Snape's dungeon, which students avoid like the plague, would provide privacy). Or, it could be that Lupin did miss his appointed time to stop by Snape's owing to his meeting Harry - I doubt he knew Harry would not have permission to go to Hogsmeade with his friends. Or Snape could be lying in the Shack, but why? Why accuse Lupin of carelessness, when he has already accused him of being the accomplice of the mass-murderer Sirius Black? Especially as he says the bit about Lupin forgetting in such a matter of course way, he is just outlining the facts that led him to follow Lupin, without placing any emphasis on this (supposed) mistake by Lupin. > Lanval: > Carol, are you trying to tell me that at the time of SWM, Snape > didn't consider James & Co his 'enemies'? That he harbored no > yearning for revenge just yet at that time? :) zgirnius: This touches on the issue of what makes this Snape's Worst Memory (assuming that it is. I tend to want to ask, 'In whose opinion?' but that is neither here nor there). One explanation is that Snape views it in retrospect as when he started moving down the path he would later regret (assuming he did regret it, I realize not everyone sees it that way...) Of course Snape must have wanted revenge, but what form he envisioned it taking may have changed. Look at Harry - Draco is his enemy, but Harry was horrified when he nearly killed him in HBP. Unless you believe Snape at the age of 11 came to Hogwarts already willing to kill or maim his enemies, and added James and Co. to that list on sight, you must admit something changed at some point, and SWM seems like a reasonable point to mark that change. You think Snape used dangerous Dark magic of his own invention against James - maybe it was the first time? Carol suggests this is when he decided he might *want* to, and set about making the simple cutting hex she supposes Snape used into something far more potent. > Lanval: > About the incentive -- I'd say that by the time we see the boys in > SWM, Snape may have needed no more incentive to create potentially > fatal curses for his "enemies" than the fact that they exist. JMO. zgirnius: My difficulty with this is, when do you think Snape reached this point? Voldemort may or may not have been born this way, and certainly seems to have been well on his way by the time he got his Hogwarts letter, but my impression is that he is supposed to be unique in this respect, within the Potterverse. Lanval: > wouldn't it be just like JKR to give us an early, harmless glimpse > of it? zgirnius: It seems to me that regardless of whether Snape used the full blown curse in a refined or controlled way, whether he used it with lethal intent and just missed, or whether he did a little cutting hex he later modified, its descritption in SWM is a clue/foreshadowing about Sectumsempra in HBP. Even if it is a little hex as Carol proposes, it is one related to the Dark Curse Sectumsempra. > Lanval: > About Snape's anger, we see him losing it in PoA as an adult over > something much less humiliating than the scene called so > aptly 'Snape's Worst Memory'. zgirnius: Two objections - first, that is in the eye of the beholder. I can see an argument that the Prank was more humiliating, both because it was something Snape in some ways set in motion by his own decisions, and also because it seems James saved his life in that incident (something we are told he could not stand). Second, you are assuming this is why Snape lost it. Snape, the only one who knows why he lost it, does not confirm he is losing it over the Prank. "You should have died like your father, too arrogant to believe he was mistaken in Black" suggests to me Snape's anger at Sirius that night could be over later events as well. > Lanval: > You're right, of course, we can't safely determine *anything* based > on what we know. It's only a possibility. Also, I got the impression > that any spell can be performed nonverbally with practice. zgirnius: This is my opinion as well. I assume that because Harry did not hear an incantation, the spell WAS nonverbal. Snape is a master at nonverbal spells as an adult (he uses a variety of spells in his duel with Harry, with no mention of any incantations); he had already invented one by the time of this incident, so I presume that whether the spell was a hex or Sectumsempra, he cast it nonverablly. It could be a reason the spell was less effective, too, like Dolohiv's on the MoM, as at this stage Snape would still have been improving his nonverbal spellcasting technique. > > Carol, pretty sure that Sectumsempra was invented in Severus's > sixth > > year, after the so-called Prank and in retaliation for it > > > Lanval: > Possible. But 'in retaliation' makes it sound as if Snape really, > really planned to use it. *eg* zgirnius: Perhaps he planned to use it next time he found himself cornered by an XXXXX Magical Beast, in the event James's conscience proved less sensitive, or Sirius proved more secretive? *eg* From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 20:12:10 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:12:10 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170461 > houyhnhnm: > I don't understand. Why would anyone have to plan to > make the curse come true? A curse works by itself, > doesn't it, in spite of everyone's plans? At least > that's my understanding of curses in general and the > DADA curse in particular. zgirnius: The way I read Goddlefrood's post, if Lupin's outing had not caused his ouster, something else would have arisen that would have done so instead. Perhaps Lupin would have been run over a car, or struck by lightning, or Kissed by a passing Dementor. I believe he is proposing that, in order to avoid the curse taking matters into its own hands in ways that would be regrettable, the plan was from the start for the secret to be exposed before the end of the year. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 20:25:37 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:25:37 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170462 colebiancardi: > I don't think Snape had anything with the final decision of Lupin > leaving Hogwarts. The curse on the DADA job did it for Lupin. It was > written in stone, in other words. Dumbledore knew it, Snape knew it, > and I am sure Lupin knew it as well. > Snape didn't cause Lupin to leave - the curse of the DADA job did > that. Jen: The curse ensures Lupin won't return as Dumbledore has not been able to keep a DADA professor for longer than a year. Actions determine the actual cause of the event though, not the curse; Snape's actions serve the story in some way since they are connected to Lupin's leave-taking. If Snape knew about or suspected a problem with the DADA position that would lead to Lupin leaving regardless of his own actions, then it's difficult to see any reason for Snape to reveal the information if his only goal was getting Lupin ousted. Which means to me he either didn't know the curse would ensure Lupin was leaving or he had another goal in revealing the information. Pippin: > Although Dumbledore had the authority to hire and fire teachers, > Fudge had the authority to decide whether werewolves could work at > all. He says he is the one who let Dumbledore hire Lupin,presumably > by bending the laws Umbridge got passed. > Although Fudge let himself be convinced that Lupin wasn't actually > helping Black, I doubt he would have let himself be convinced that > Lupin would never err about his potion again. I'm not sure > Dumbledore wouldn't have agreed. I think it's telling that > Dumbledore didn't invite Lupin to continue living in the castle as > he did with Trelawney. Jen: Fudge's only concern about Lupin appears to be whether he was consorting with a murderer. As Fudge is leaving he's already talking about how it's going to look that Sirius Black slipped through MOM fingers again and the possibility Buckbeak's escape will become news. He's got bigger fish to fry in the whole matter than Dumbledore's teacher problems. Any why the assumption Umbridge passed the legislation before Lupin was hired? If Sirius' 'two years ago' is being taken as literal then I find it difficult to agree on that basis alone given the way JKR throws around numbers. Sirius talks about Lupin not being able to find a job in the present tense due to the legislation, not his whole life or every year but the one when Dumbledore intervened and Fudge bent the law in order for Lupin to be hired. I can't prove this but it seems logical to me that because the legislation occured in the story after the events of POA, that when Lupin's story became public knowledge it was the impetus behind Umbridge having enough public and political support to pass her legislation. (I can't see any reason for Lupin living in the castle. There's no particular reason he would be singled out by Voldemort as Trelawney and Snape would be if LV returns. ) > Magpie: > Lupin chooses to hide information relevent to the goal of > protecting Harry. This is not having a personal issue that mess him > up, like when Hagrid totally *wants* to be loyal to DD and but > messes up because his understanding and impulse control is limited. > Or when Snape refuses to or argues about doing this or that thing. > I think Dumbledore can deal with that. Lupin was on the face of it > loyal to Dumbledore and trying to stop Sirius, but really was > witholding information because it was more important to him that he > look good. Jen: It's only my interpretation but Lupin's explanation for his actions in POA sound exactly like what you said above about Hagrid: Lupin convinced himself of certain 'truths' because he was cowardly, because it would have meant telling Dumbledore he betrayed his trust as a student. Those are personal failures interfering when Dumbledore's trust 'has meant everything to me.' Magpie: > Of the three I have no problem saying that Snape is DDM, Hagrid is > DDM and Lupin is his own man--and Sirius is Harry and James' man. > He's not on the same level as Snape or Hagrid in Dumbledore's world > either. The Marauders are not centered around Dumbledore. Hagrid > and Snape (if he's DDM Snape) are, despite their personal issues. > Dumbledore can deal with personal limitations. Lupin's a lot more > slippery due to the nature of his flaws. He exists more comfortably > in the realm of people working for Dumbledore but not so centered > on him as Snape and Hagrid. Jen: Okay. I can't really debate this as it never occurred to me Dumbledore was categorizing loyalty beyond the people he trusts being in the Order. He shares information on a need-to-know basis with everyone according to their mission from how I read the story. Snape and Hagrid are more *dependent* on Dumbledore, that I see. Lupin and Sirius neither request nor appear to be in need of Dumbledore's interventions to solve their own problems. So he doesn't offer it. > Magpie: > I think the only choice Snape took out of their hands was the > choice to out Lupin. It just goes totally against everything we've > seen of Dumbledore and even the way it's played in PoA that > Dumbledore wanted Lupin to stay and couldn't because of Snape. I > think if that were the case we would most certainly see Dumbledore > angry at Snape and openly wanting to find a way to bring Lupin > back. Dumbledore, imo, would not just have Lupin on his way before > lunch without a fight because tomorrow there will be OWLS arriving > from angry parents. No way. Jen: It seems like a moot point to consider what Dumbledore wanted or not since he knew Lupin wouldn't be staying past a year no matter what. I guess he could go through the motions of being angry at Snape and talking about finding a way for Lupin to stay, but to no beneficial end from what I can see. There's no other position for Lupin to take but DADA and Lupin isn't in need of Dumbledore's protection or help as others who stay in the castle are. I believe Lupin, having always made his own way, would find it insulting for Dumbledore to offer some assistant job as he did to Hagrid (who was 13 and had no family at the time). Lupin says he's leaving however that transpired and is packing after a private chat with Dumbledore earlier in the morning. It's a done deal by the time Harry is present with both of them. Magpie: > As to whether Dumbledore believed students were in danger, that > doesn't have to be the biggest factor in Dumbledore not minding if > Lupin left, but if he didn't believe they were in danger he had > lost grip on reality. They were in danger, obviously, when they > faced a transformed werewolf. He covered up for Lupin and knew that > he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but I can't imagine Dumbledore not > thinking there's any danger involved in their being out there with > a werewolf. That would be a bit clueless on his part. Jen: The presumption is they are in danger and yet no one focuses on it in the story except Lupin the next day! While Lupin in werewolf form is running loose on the grounds, Fudge and Dumbledore appear to be more concerned about the Dementors and Snape is fixated on Dumbledore trusting his story over the Trio's and Black escaping again. Then Dumbledore approves Harry and Hermione to go back out and wander around the grounds again- heck yeah I think it looks like all of them have lost their grip but none of the characters seem to agree. Julie: > I guess that is the crux of the disagreement then, that Dumbledore > *couldn't* make a choice. I and others don't agree that is the > case, since Dumbledore pretty much does what he wants. And even on > the few occasions he CAN'T do what he wants, because the Ministry > or someone else has the power to stop him, we've always been made > aware of that interference. So why not this time? No good reason I > can think of, other than that what is happening is acceptable to > Dumbledore. Jen: What I meant by that is had Snape waited or not come forward when he did, Dumbledore and Lupin would have revealed the outcome that Lupin was leaving anyway -that's what was taken out of their hands, the choice to present the information as they saw fit and include the details they felt were necessary. So Snape acted preemptively for some mystifying reason. I mean, people are arguing he didn't do it to get Lupin fired and Snape's words had no bearing on Lupin's job prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the students about Lupin if it had no meaning. Jen From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 19 21:08:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:08:49 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170463 > Magpie: > > Of the three I have no problem saying that Snape is DDM, Hagrid is > > DDM and Lupin is his own man--and Sirius is Harry and James' man. > > He's not on the same level as Snape or Hagrid in Dumbledore's world > > either. The Marauders are not centered around Dumbledore. Hagrid > > and Snape (if he's DDM Snape) are, despite their personal issues. > > Dumbledore can deal with personal limitations. Lupin's a lot more > > slippery due to the nature of his flaws. He exists more comfortably > > in the realm of people working for Dumbledore but not so centered > > on him as Snape and Hagrid. > > Jen: Okay. I can't really debate this as it never occurred to me > Dumbledore was categorizing loyalty beyond the people he trusts being > in the Order. He shares information on a need-to-know basis with > everyone according to their mission from how I read the story. Snape > and Hagrid are more *dependent* on Dumbledore, that I see. Lupin and > Sirius neither request nor appear to be in need of Dumbledore's > interventions to solve their own problems. So he doesn't offer it. Magpie: Ironically, I almost used the word "dependent" and didn't because I thought it almost might be too close to the truth, but I agree with it. It's not about sharing information, I don't think, but just that Snape and Hagrid are Dumbledore-centered and dependent. Of all the characters in canon they seem like the two that absolutely are most dependent on Dumbledore--they know it. Lupin and Sirius are independent agents with different people as priorities. This doesn't mean that Hagrid and Snape are Dumbledore's confidantes or that they're let in on things others aren't. I think they just have a far more intimate relationship, one where Dumbledore says stuff like "I trust Hagrid with my life" or "I trust Severus Snape completely." Placing trust in these two despite their many flaws seems kind of important to who Dumbledore is. He doesn't have the same relationship with Lupin. He's not one of Dumbledore's projects. Which I kind of love--because honestly I think Lupin *could have been* one of his projects but is so good at bucking it. > Jen: It seems like a moot point to consider what Dumbledore wanted > or not since he knew Lupin wouldn't be staying past a year no matter > what. I guess he could go through the motions of being angry at > Snape and talking about finding a way for Lupin to stay, but to no > beneficial end from what I can see. There's no other position for > Lupin to take but DADA and Lupin isn't in need of Dumbledore's > protection or help as others who stay in the castle are. I believe > Lupin, having always made his own way, would find it insulting for > Dumbledore to offer some assistant job as he did to Hagrid (who was > 13 and had no family at the time). Magpie: True, but what I was arguing against was the idea that Dumbledore is that Snape outs Lupin and therefore Dumbledore must let Lupin go. That just goes against Dumbledore's character throughout the books-- Snape couldn't play him that way, imo. He wouldn't, imo, fire someone because Snape told students that he was a werewolf and therefore tomorrow there would be angry letters so he'll give up. The many reasons that Dumbledore has for not feeling a reason to protect Lupin or keep him on in some way or even make a point of saying that this is an injustice still mean that Dumbledore isn't being forced by Snape to let go a teacher he doesn't want to let go. Dumbledore letting Lupin go isn't out of character at all. Dumbledore letting him go against his wishes because he fears letters from parents protesting his hiring of a werewolf is what's out of character for Dumbledore imo. > Magpie: > > As to whether Dumbledore believed students were in danger, that > > doesn't have to be the biggest factor in Dumbledore not minding if > > Lupin left, but if he didn't believe they were in danger he had > > lost grip on reality. They were in danger, obviously, when they > > faced a transformed werewolf. He covered up for Lupin and knew that > > he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but I can't imagine Dumbledore not > > thinking there's any danger involved in their being out there with > > a werewolf. That would be a bit clueless on his part. > > Jen: The presumption is they are in danger and yet no one focuses on > it in the story except Lupin the next day! While Lupin in werewolf > form is running loose on the grounds, Fudge and Dumbledore appear to > be more concerned about the Dementors and Snape is fixated on > Dumbledore trusting his story over the Trio's and Black escaping > again. Then Dumbledore approves Harry and Hermione to go back out > and wander around the grounds again- heck yeah I think it looks like > all of them have lost their grip but none of the characters seem to > agree. Magpie: Well, yeah. None of them bring it up as a priority. But I doubt they'd have argued with someone who did bring it up. It's just a slightly different thing--but not necessarily that important. Just as DD isn't being shown being angry at having to let Lupin go, he's also not angry at the kids being in danger. > Jen: What I meant by that is had Snape waited or not come forward > when he did, Dumbledore and Lupin would have revealed the outcome > that Lupin was leaving anyway -that's what was taken out of their > hands, the choice to present the information as they saw fit and > include the details they felt were necessary. So Snape acted > preemptively for some mystifying reason. I mean, people are arguing > he didn't do it to get Lupin fired and Snape's words had no bearing > on Lupin's job prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of > the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the students about > Lupin if it had no meaning. Magpie: Oh, I think Snape certainly did take some things into his own hands-- he decided he was not going to let them do what you're describing. Whatever the direct results it had on Lupin's career or job, I think he told mostly because Snape wanted to tell all year long--perhaps once Lupin blew it and went running around he felt justified in ways he didn't before. He seems to want Lupin's status generally known. I don't know whether it's specifically so that he can't get work--I actually don't think that's the reason, just because it doesn't seem like Snape is specifically motivated by trying to keep Remus from working. What he does seem to want is that he's known to be a werewolf (which of course means he can't work--but I don't think that's Snape's goal specifically). Given what we know about Snape I'd probably connect it to the Prank, which turned on Lupin's condition being a secret. And perhaps also after a night where all sorts of things are covered up for his old enemies and things didn't wind up the way he wanted, he decided the one thing he could do was let out Lupin's secret. So like, in Snape's mind, if Lupin thought he got away with *everything* at least he didn't get away with this. Seriously, I can just so see Snape being so angry the next morning and thinking, "Oh yeah, Remus you spineless little so-and-so. I'm not covering up for you any more. This stops now." -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 21:28:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:28:16 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170464 Magpie: I disagree > that she *couldn't* ever show us that Dumbledore was angry at Snape- - > she finds ways to hint at Dumbledore's emotions about Snape when she > wants those emotions to be seen by us. Alla: And I am just asking you how. When did we ever see DD being angry at a teacher in front of the students? Not at any adult, at the teacher, whom DD is making a point of showing a respect in front of Harry like every time IMO, even if when he should not have IMO? Do you think DD was angry at Snape for stopping Occlumency lessons for example? I think he was, but did I ever see it in canon? Not really. I only saw DD blaming himself. Magpie: > We generally have an idea how Dumbledore feels about which teachers > he wants and why, and given the situation and his response to Lupin > he doesn't seem to think his having to leave is a problem at all. > Keeping Lupin on, even if in the capacity of a different kind of > teacher, is not something Dumbledore does. Alla: And I think we have no idea whether DD considers it to be a problem or not, but even if he does not consider it to be a problem, which is surely possible, just I think another possibility is here too, but for Snape, DD decision would not have come to be, maybe. Curse does not direct the circumstances as far as we know so far, no? Just the bad outcome. > > Magpie: > I think the only choice Snape took out of their hands was the choice > to out Lupin. It just goes totally against everything we've seen of > Dumbledore and even the way it's played in PoA that Dumbledore > wanted Lupin to stay and couldn't because of Snape. I think if that > were the case we would most certainly see Dumbledore angry at Snape > and openly wanting to find a way to bring Lupin back. Alla: Not in front of Harry, no I do not buy it. IMO of course. Dumbledore after all insists on professor and sir and here Dumbledore would show his anger to make Harry even angrier with Snape? Not IMO. Magpie: As to whether Dumbledore believed students were in > danger, that doesn't have to be the biggest factor in Dumbledore not > minding if Lupin left, but if he didn't believe they were in danger > he had lost grip on reality. They were in danger, obviously, when > they faced a transformed werewolf. He covered up for Lupin and knew > that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but I can't imagine Dumbledore > not thinking there's any danger involved in their being out there > with a werewolf. That would be a bit clueless on his part. > Alla: Clueless or not, Dumbledore sends them back. Alone. I agree with Jen, I really doubt that he thought they were in any danger. Wierd, yes, but that is what canon seems to be saying to me. > colebiancardi: > I don't think Snape had anything with the final decision of Lupin > leaving Hogwarts. The curse on the DADA job did it for Lupin. It was > written in stone, in other words. Dumbledore knew it, Snape knew it, > and I am sure Lupin knew it as well. Alla: Bad outcome was written in stone - not the exact outcome, no? Cure as far as we know did not force Snape to do what he did, he still had control over his mental facilities? The outcome of Lupin leaving could have been without every person knowing that he is a werewolf IMO. > Julie: > I guess that is the crux of the disagreement then, that Dumbledore > *couldn't* make a choice. I and others don't agree that is the case, > since Dumbledore pretty much does what he wants. And even on the few > occasions he CAN'T do what he wants, because the Ministry or someone > else has the power to stop him, we've always been made aware of that > interference. So why not this time? No good reason I can think of, > other than that what is happening is acceptable to Dumbledore. > Alla: That is the crux of disagreement on this point to me indeed. I believe we had been sufficiently made aware of the interference - Snape exposing Lupin's secret - the secret Dumbledore was guarding against making public knowledge all year. I think Dumbledore was not telling public that he hired a werewolf for a year for a reason. Maybe because he felt that he would not be able to protect Lupin if such knowledge become public? Funnily Dumbledore guards Snape's secret even more carefully. It tells me that had it been known that former DE teaches at school by general public, Dumbledore would have been just as powerless to protect Snape from angry parents. But what Jen said I quite agree with. Jen: What I meant by that is had Snape waited or not come forward when he did, Dumbledore and Lupin would have revealed the outcome that Lupin was leaving anyway -that's what was taken out of their hands, the choice to present the information as they saw fit and include the details they felt were necessary. So Snape acted preemptively for some mystifying reason. I mean, people are arguing he didn't do it to get Lupin fired and Snape's words had no bearing on Lupin's job prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the students about Lupin if it had no meaning. From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Jun 19 21:54:06 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:54:06 -0000 Subject: The BEANS Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170465 Well, I'm interested. I don't remember seeing another "repetetive" theory treat HBP and DH as the same book; in my experience they tend to treat GoF as a "pivot" for the rest of the series to balance on. And while I'm sure there is some pattern emerging, it's difficult to see it against the web of relationships between the books. In terms of plot they can be divded into PS/SS & CoS/PoA & GoF/OotP, HBP & DH, which is rather similar to your idea, isn't it? My money's on DH reflecting PS/SS and GoF, the pivot - they're equally spaced, and are the only three to have dragons - but I think this is a good idea. Goddlefrood: > In both CoS and OotP the climaxes in terms of the last > confrontation in each book take place far underground. Ann: So does the climax of PS/SS, and the first one of HBP (which in my opinion has two, like PoA); even PoA's first climax involves the secret tunnel. Something Jungian going on? Goddlefrood: > In CoS it is the House Elves, who I divine will play a role in > winning the day for Harry and Co. Ann: I was sure I heard that JKR told Warner Bros. to put Kreacher in the OotP thing-which-is-not, on the grounds that he's important, but apparently that was just speculation. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he does turn out to be important. (Given that Dobby was introduced in CoS and I'm expecting his "shadow" to be important, the importance of the Order's "shadow", Snape, may complement this. Or Maybe Not.) Goddlefrood: > In PS / SS there are seven tasks to perform, one > of which admittedly was unnecessary in PS / SS and this is > one instance of a plausible contention for what is to come > in DH. That being that it will come about that there is one > [...] Horcrux less to destroy than he is now expecting. Ann: If this obtains, I bet Aberforth'll have been behind it. It might also refer to the accidental Horcrux-destruction in CoS, but I think four Horcruxes and Voldemort and Snape would be too much for DH. I don't think book 6,7 will reflect book 1, though it's worth a guess. The thing all repetetive theories seem to agree on is that CoS=HBP, and as for whether PoA will turn out to =GoF or DH, well, we'll have to see the whole chicken before we decide how to carve it up. You did mention that GoF seemed left out in other theories. I think it, PS/SS, and DH will form a trio with two other pairs. On the other hand, I was impressed by Red Hen's essay on possible PoA/DH similarities, at http://www.redhen-publications.com/2ndGuessing.html? Particularly impressed by the Weasleys' being out of the country twice. Ann From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Jun 19 22:45:37 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:45:37 -0000 Subject: [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? In-Reply-To: <46773F48.40503@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170466 Ann stares at the repaired parchment, and smiles. Last time I use Ockham's Razor, she thinks. Now, perhaps I'll - oh, what have I done wrong now? For the ink is fading from the parchment. 'Creepy,' Ann says. 'Faith, have a look at this.' As she comes over from the opposite desk, words reappear on the scroll. But not the same words. Not only has the message number changed to 170440, it appears to be answering Ann's cutting criticism: Bart: > Sorry; my point was not that Dumbly chose Hermione because she knew > too much about Harold and Mort, but that she knew too much about > Harold and Mort because Dumbly told her. Ann scratches her chin. 'That's just more guesswork, isn't it? Dumbledore hasn't even told Harry about Voldemort, so why would he tell someone he barely knows? Hermione only got the Time-turner after the staff had known her for two years. Can you think of any support for that?' 'No, but I *have* had a lot on my mind lately.' 'Of course. Look! It's changing!' Bart: > Minny knew exactly what Hermione told Harry. And, as I mentioned, > it appears that ALL of Harry's friends were chosen specifically > for him. Whether it was Dumbledore or JKR I don't know. Ann pauses a moment. 'Well, there's no evidence for McGonagall knowing exactly what she told Harry, is there? He only repeats the gist of what she said, and McGonagall wouldn't have to be psychic to know Hermione told him.' 'Are you sure?' There's a funny look in Faith's eyes. 'Well... no. And I can hardly check the canon now, can I? The OotP Room is further than this chain will let me walk.' 'I'll let you go after you finish repairing the parchment. Not before.' 'All right, all right. Anyway, there's no canon for Harry's friends being chosen for him, is there? He's not introduced to Neville or Luna at all, and while she's be a long shot, Neville's got more in common with Harry than anyone else. Why isn't Dean, another half- blood, introduced to him? I think I made my feelings about Ron being chosen as a friend for him quite clear enough, and I think Hermione's the same.' 'You don't think anything was planned?' 'Oh, I'm sure Dumbledore was pleased Harry made the friends he did, but I don't think he chose them for him. If you mean that JKR planned things, well, obviously she did.' 'Fair enough,' says Faith, 'but remember, Bart will be disappointed.' And with that, she gets back to polishing her canons. Ann stares at the now-blank parchment glumly, before inspiration strikes. 'Faith,' she says, 'Refresh my memory: who's the one character we do know was ordered to try and become Harry's friend?' 'Draco Malfoy. Lucius told him to. Why?' 'Oh, nothing.' Ann grins, and gets to work on the parchment. Ann, currently hundreds of miles from her copy of OotP and who can't remember what exactly happened. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 19 23:03:17 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:03:17 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170467 > > Jen: Fudge's only concern about Lupin appears to be whether he was > consorting with a murderer. Pippin: "I've had a lot of respect for you [Dumbledore]. I might not have agreed with some of your decisions, but I've kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry. But if you're going to work against me--" GoF ch 36 Clearly Fudge does feel that he gave permission for Dumbledore to hire werewolves, and that permission *in general* has not been rescinded as of GoF. He could have revoked it for Lupin, in the conversation in which Dumbledore convinced him that Lupin had not been helping Black, or it could have been conditional on the werewolves never forgetting to take their potion. It can't be conditional on the public never finding out that werewolves are working there, since Hogwarts staff, ministry officials and assorted hangers-on, eg Lucius Malfoy and Macnair, must be aware of the werewolf presence. As for the purpose of Snape letting slip "accidentally" that Lupin is a werewolf, perhaps it was a hint. Snape can't prove, any more than I can, that Lupin didn't simply slip up and forget to take his potion. He knows that it would be useless to accuse Lupin without proof, and if Lupin is leaving anyway, he can't justify it on the grounds of needing to protect the students. But that Lupin failed to take his potion accidentally and, if Snape is to believe Harry and Sirius, transformed just at the right time to allow Pettigrew's escape, may seem as unlikely to Snape as it does to me. Since Pettigrew's escape didn't cause Lupin to lose his position it can hardly be attributed to the DADA curse. Jen: > (I can't see any reason for Lupin living in the castle. There's no > particular reason he would be singled out by Voldemort as Trelawney > and Snape would be if LV returns. ) Pippin: What sort of home does Lupin have that is more congenial for him than Hogwarts, where he spent the happiest days of his life, and why should Lupin prefer it? Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 19 23:20:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:20:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170468 > > Goddlefrood: > > Lupin, while having been a member of the Order > > and a spy on the werewolves, was only under > > Dumbledore's school administration for a year > > as a teacher. It makes sense to this reader that > > Dumbledore would be more concerned for Hagrid's > > wellbeing than for Lupin's. He quiote possibly > > also needed Remus to return to his Order duties. > > Lupin does benefit either way in that he continues > > to have DD's patronage. > houyhnhnm: > Lupin had no Order duties to return to. The Order > was disbanded at the time. Hagrid, for whom Dumbledore > stood up twice, is not the only comparison. There are > also the examples of Trelawney and Firenze, neither of > whom Dumbledore would turn away because they had no safe > place to go. It makes sense to me that Dumbledore would > be concerned for the well-being of all those served under > him, especially Lupin who was apparantly destitute and > starving when he came to Hogwarts. There is no example > to the contrary. Goddlefrood: Answering this second point as zgirnius has explained the earlier query of our intelligent horse friend in message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170461 The Order of the Phoenix, while being regathered in GoF was not necessarily disbanded. Lupin's spying on the werewolves could well have been an ongoing situation and useful to DD, especially if a close eye on Greyback is necessary. In my contemplation of the workings of the WW it would be something that makes a great deal of sense, that is the movements of the werewolves under Greyback. Many a possible strike could be averted in this manner and as I also mentioned in my previous this is a function that Lupin has fulfilled quite probably on and off since the original Order days back in the groovy 70s. That he may be a peripheral member of the pack and perhaps not wholly trusted by Greyback would not detract from his role. As long as he had some contact with his fellow ravenning beasts then he could pick up information that would assist. And yes, he would have had to leave the school anyway after the one year of teaching. It seems likely that to avert a more adverse manner of leaving some prior plan was worked our. How that then reconciles with the perceived plan of Severus and DD to pull a similar stunt in HBP I would not like to say, but I am sure many of you would. On the other comparitors brought in in the above quote I would suggest that they are perhaps less than prescient. Sybil had to be at the school for her own safety and DD would not, on his own statement, allow her to leave in case she were then used by LV or one of his servants to divulge the Prophecy, which while she has no knowledge of making she would have an extractable memory of from my perspective. Bertha Jorkins' memory of Barty Junior was extracted and I see no reason to suppose that somehow Sybil's of the Prophecy could not have been had she fallen into the wrong hands. On Firenze similar sentiments apply, had he not been under DD's charge then he would have been mauled and maybe killed by his herd. Far better to leave him in the Castle to nurture his burgeoning friendship with Minerva ;-) Lupin's case is very different. He had to leave due to the curse. Somehow or other he'd have been ousted so why not then ensure that the ouster occurs without actually physically harming him? Goddlefrood, writing posts when he should be writing other things ;-) From redwooddawn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:55:56 2007 From: redwooddawn at hotmail.com (redwooddawn) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:55:56 -0000 Subject: Future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170469 I've tried searching lately to see if this has already been discussed, but the server keeps being busy, so I'm just gonna post it. No matter how long the epilogue will be, it will not be long enough (seven more books might be long enough), but surely we'll get a comment on the future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher? I know a lot of people see Neville teaching Herbology, and probably Hermione being Headmaster. I assume once Voldemort is dead the curse will be lifted from the position, so who will make a career of teaching that position? Harry is perfect for it, (as seen in his DA classes) but perhaps if Ron and Hermione are married, then he'll fill that position while she is headmastering. Thoughts? Or threads? (pre-existing, that is.) redwooddawn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 00:26:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:26:19 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170470 Jen wrote: > The curse ensures Lupin won't return as Dumbledore has not been able to keep a DADA professor for longer than a year. Actions determine the actual cause of the event though, not the curse; Snape's actions serve the story in some way since they are connected to Lupin's leave-taking. > > If Snape knew about or suspected a problem with the DADA position that would lead to Lupin leaving regardless of his own actions, then it's difficult to see any reason for Snape to reveal the information if his only goal was getting Lupin ousted. Which means to me he either didn't know the curse would ensure Lupin was leaving or he had another goal in revealing the information. > What I meant by that is had Snape waited or not come forward when he did, Dumbledore and Lupin would have revealed the outcome that Lupin was leaving anyway -that's what was taken out of their hands, the choice to present the information as they saw fit and include the details they felt were necessary. So Snape acted preemptively for some mystifying reason. I mean, people are arguing he didn't do it to get Lupin fired and Snape's words had no bearing on Lupin's job prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the students about Lupin if it had no meaning. Carol responds: My feeling about Snape's role in all this can be summed up in two words: red herring. (It's just like blaming snape's anger in the Shrieking shack on a schoolboy grudge--also Lupin's interpretation BTW). We all seem to agree that through a combination of Lupin's own behavior and the DADA curse, he would have lost his job in any case, so Snape's words have nothing to do with that. Nor do they have anything to do with Umbridge's legislation, which is independent of him and, if JKR's math is right (admittedly an iffy proposition), the werewolf legislation prdeates the Lupin incident and has nothing to do with it--although it might be the reason that Dumbledore hired Lupin (to give him one last job before the legislation made getting a job impossible). At any rate, setting aside Snape's motive, which might have been petty revenge or might have been simply informing his students that Lupin was a dangerous man and now safely out of Hogwarts (he probably was not yet convinced of the truth of Sirius Black's innocence or Lupin's in aiding him), I think it's *Lupin* who makes it a big deal, implying that if it weren't for Snape, he wouldn't have had to resign. His being a danger to his students is treated like an afterthought when it ought to have been his primary consideration. (He doesn't mention the information he concealed from Dumbledore all year long, which was surely another reason for Dumbledore's acceptance of or request for his resignation.) *Maybe* Snape's remark was the stimulus for his offering his resignation, which he did to preempt being asked to leave, but it would have happened anyway, with or without Snape. So the only reason Lupin can have for mentioning Snape's remark to the Slytherins is, IMO, to make it look, to himself and to Harry, as if he could somehow have kept his job if only Snape hadn't "let slip" that he was a werewolf. (The passive-aggressive thing again, blaming Snape for the loss of his job when it was really his own fault.) I don't think that even Harry buys it completely, since he and his friends mention the so-called jinx on the DADA post as having led to one death, one memory loss, one firing, and one teacher locked in his own trunk for ten months. (Oddly, they leave out soul-sucked Barty, who did actually teach the class though he wasn't hired for it. He seems to me as much a victim of the curse as all the others.) So maybe they're starting to see that Lupin couldn't have stayed at Hogwarts, Snape or no Snape. Anyway, aside from illustrating Lupin's apparent inability to admit full responsibility for his own actions and face their consequences, I think the reason JKR had Lupin mention Snape is simply to make Snape look spiteful, paving the way for the seemingly evil Snape at the end of HBP. (Not that Lupin has any idea that that's going to happen; I'm talking about JKR's authorial strategies here.) If Snape doesn't appear to be bent on vengeance against the "innocent" Marauders, how are we (and Harry) going to suspect him of being actually evil when the time comes? The reader who, unlike Harry, is willing to look past Snape's personality can see Snape conjuring stretchers to take the unconscious kids and Black, all of them in danger from both a werewolf and any returning Dementors, back to the castle as a responsible, even noble, action, but Time!Turned Harry's reaction to Snape's entering the Shrieking Shack is to clench his fists and snarl, "Get your filthy hands off it [the Invisibility Cloak]!" (PoA Am. ed. 403). And when Hermione says, "Harry, look at Snape!" and Harry sees Snape conjuring stretchers and lifting their unconscious bodies onto them to get them off the grounds and into the hospital wing, he says nothing. We don't even get Harry's reaction, just an objective description of Snape's actions (412). Evidently Harry pushes the thought from his mind because he doesn't want to react favorably to anything Snape does. No credit for Snape where credit is due because Harry, like Sirius Black, can't see the good in him, even as early as PoA. And since the reader sees from Harry's pov, JKR seems to expect a similar reaction from most readers, especially young readers who empathize with Harry. And *if* Lupin is going to turn traitor, or do something wrong out of weakness, the opposite process is going on. He's being painted as poor innocent Lupin, victim of lycanthropy, anti-werewolf legislation, the DADA curse, and Snape's petty vengeance topping it all off, bearing it all so patiently, his secretiveness and other faults so minor as not to matter because, after all, he was kind to Neville and (reluctantly) taught Harry to cast a Patronus (so Harry could beat Slytherin at Quidditch!). The funny thing is, I rather like Lupin, but I don't trust him much more than Snape does. I don't know where JKR is going with him, but he could well be DDM!Snape's opposite number, as Pippin and others are arguing. Carol, wondering what HBP Snape meant by saying that Tonks's Patronus looked "weak" and wondering how that weakness will manifest itself in DH From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 20 00:54:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:54:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46787AAC.3090108@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170471 or.phan_ann wrote: > Ann stares at the repaired parchment, and smiles. Last time I use > Ockham's Razor, she thinks. Now, perhaps I'll - oh, what have I done > wrong now? For the ink is fading from the parchment. 'Creepy,' Ann > says. 'Faith, have a look at this.' Bart: Occam's Razor is, "Do not unnecessarily multiply entities." Harry Potter comes up with an ideal mix of friends. He is also being shepherded along by a master manipulator. Now, either there was an incredible coincidence that he came up with that particular set of friends, or the manipulator arranged it. Now, of course, there is yet another master manipulator, aka JKR, but I hope that she did not just to decide to have an incredible coincidence. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 01:03:40 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:03:40 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170472 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > > Of the three I have no problem saying that Snape is DDM, Hagrid > is > > > DDM and Lupin is his own man--and Sirius is Harry and James' > man. > > > He's not on the same level as Snape or Hagrid in Dumbledore's > world > > > either. The Marauders are not centered around Dumbledore. Hagrid > > > and Snape (if he's DDM Snape) are, despite their personal > issues. > Ironically, I almost used the word "dependent" and didn't because I > thought it almost might be too close to the truth, but I agree with > it. It's not about sharing information, I don't think, but just that > Snape and Hagrid are Dumbledore-centered and dependent. Of all the > characters in canon they seem like the two that absolutely are most > dependent on Dumbledore--they know it.... > Placing trust in these two despite their many flaws seems kind of > important to who Dumbledore is. He doesn't have the same > relationship with Lupin. He's not one of Dumbledore's projects. > Which I kind of love--because honestly I think Lupin *could have > been* one of his projects but is so good at bucking it. lizzyben: Honestly? I sort of love Lupin for this too. Lupin's smart, and he's also very insightful about other people's feelings. I think he's known, for a long time, that DD doesn't treat people right. He's seen how DD ropes people in with a big favor so they'll owe him from then on out (Snape, Hagrid), or will manipulate people's feelings until they'll do anything DD wants (Harry). He's seen what's involved in being "Dumbledore's Man", and he wants no part of it. He must have seen DD following the same "protege" pattern w/him: DD offering Lupin the carrot (education, Wolfsbane potion) or the stick (expulsion, no potion) based on how loyal Lupin is. And Lupin knows he should reach for the carrot, but can't help going for the stick, every time. Yes, he loses the social standing & security DD promised, but he gains his independence & freedom. This is why I consider Lupin almost courageous in his passive-aggressiveness. He's the only one, besides Sirius, who really rebels against DD's way of operating. He manages to escape from DD's mind games. And God knows, someone needs to rebel against DD, because the man's a manipulative monster. DD seems to view most of his followers as pawns to be used, or sacrificed, in his grand game of Wizard's Chess. This is why the phrase "Dumbledore's Man" makes me gag a little. Harry doesn't need to be DD's man, he needs to become his own man. I believe Snape is on the good side, but I hope he's also become his own man, instead of acting as a pawn in yet another DD scheme. Lupin has lost almost everything, but he has kept his independence, and I give him some credit for that (as long as he isn't ESE!, of course.) lizzyben From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jun 20 01:14:53 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:14:53 -0000 Subject: Future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170473 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redwooddawn" wrote: > > I've tried searching lately to see if this has already been > discussed, but the server keeps being busy, so I'm just gonna > post it. > > No matter how long the epilogue will be, it will not be long > enough (seven more books might be long enough), but surely > we'll get a comment on the future Defense Against the Dark > Arts teacher? > > I know a lot of people see Neville teaching Herbology, and > probably Hermione being Headmaster. I assume once Voldemort > is dead the curse will be lifted from the position, so who > will make a career of teaching that position? > > Harry is perfect for it, (as seen in his DA classes) but perhaps > if Ron and Hermione are married, then he'll fill that position > while she is headmastering. Thoughts? Or threads? (pre-existing, > that is.) > > redwooddawn > Anne Squires: You should see message #168812 by Hickengruendler. It's part of a thread entitled "Student who becomes a teacher." To summarize, JKR has ruled out Harry and Ron as becoming faculty members at Hogwarts. She has strongly suggested that Hermione will *not* become a professor. She has said that *one* of Harry's classmates will become a teacher. Given these hints many people have concluded that Neville suits the bill. Anne From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 01:29:44 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:29:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170474 > > Jen: The presumption is they are in danger and yet no one > > focuses on it in the story except Lupin the next day! While > > Lupin in werewolf form is running loose on the grounds, Fudge and > > Dumbledore appear to be more concerned about the Dementors and > > Snape is fixated on Dumbledore trusting his story over the Trio's > > and Black escaping again. Mike: I've been reading this thread for two days wondering when somebody would bring up this next point. But it seems we are all focusing on the same things that Fudge, Snape, and DD are. ;) I've reread both the first and second Hospital scenes (pre- and post time-turned) and nowhere in there is there any indication that either Snape or Fudge know what's happened with Lupin. In fact, there is no indication that Fudge even knew Lupin was involved at this point. There may well be the logical conjecture, between these two, that Lupin has transformed and is loose on the grounds. But they have no idea of the circumstances surrounding that transformation and whether or not Lupin was ever a danger to the kids. And they only speak of the near miss of the Dementors. Most importantly, neither has been disavowed of the belief that Sirius Black is still an escaped murderer. Snape is particularly still convinced and argues with Dumbledore over this very point. So at the end of the night, when Snape storms out of the Hospital wing, he is still convinced that Sirius is a murderer and that Lupin has been helping him all year. And Dumbledore just won't believe him! Might that be the reason why Snape outs Lupin? I can't remember who said it, but somebody mentioned that Snape's evidence of Lupin's complicity with Black is gone, so he has to resort to the only evidence he has left; Lupin is a werewolf. > > Jen: Then Dumbledore approves Harry and Hermione to go back out > > and wander around the grounds again- heck yeah I think it looks > > like all of them have lost their grip but none of the characters > > seem to agree. > Magpie: > Well, yeah. None of them bring it up as a priority. But I doubt > they'd have argued with someone who did bring it up. It's just a > slightly different thing--but not necessarily that important. Just > as DD isn't being shown being angry at having to let Lupin go, he's > also not angry at the kids being in danger. Mike: I rather like the speculation that Dumbledore thinks that this will be a rather excellent adventure for Harry and Hermione. :-) Besides, in JKR's time-turning universe, Dumbledore already knows that the duo saved Buckbeak and cast a Patronus Charm that fended off a hundred Dementors, before he sends them back. He knows he didn't do this stuff. :-) The only thing he couldn't be sure of is whether they succeeded in rescuing Sirius, but that seems to be the easiest of the tasks at hand, and that's the information most stressed by DD in his briefing. > > Jen: > > So Snape acted preemptively for some mystifying reason. > > I mean, people are arguing he didn't do it to get Lupin > > fired and Snape's words had no bearing on Lupin's job > > prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of > > the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the > > students about Lupin if it had no meaning. Mike: Not mystifying to me. ;-) Snape wanted to do as much damage as he could to Lupin. The morning after sees no change in Snape's position vis-a-vis Lupin from the one he took in the Shack. Lupin *is still* Black's accomplice. Lupin helped Black get into the castle and Lupin hid the fact that Black was an Animagus. All things he *knew* going in or learned while hiding under Harry's IC. (He did not know Black's Animagus form, yet. He will receive that information rather abruptly in the Hospital wing at the end of GoF :D) Since Lupin obviously transformed last night without his wolfsbane, Snape can still use that fact to get Lupin fired, even if Dumbledore doesn't believe the rest of his (Snape's) story. He *knows* Dumbledore can't keep Lupin once he's revealed to be a werewolf that has transformed into a "fully fledged monster" here on the castle grounds. (Speculation on Snape's part that it took place on the castle grounds, but a reasonable guess that noone of consequence could disprove) > Magpie: > I think he told mostly because Snape wanted to tell > all year long--perhaps once Lupin blew it and went running > around he felt justified in ways he didn't before. Mike: Oh yes. Most definitely. > Magpie: > What he does seem to want is that he's known to be a werewolf > (which of course means he can't work--but I don't think > that's Snape's goal specifically). Mike: Right! And we've just come back full circle to Snape using Lupin's condition against him when he has no other proof of wrongdoing. Remember, at this time Snape does not know that Lupin had ever been a direct threat to the kids. If the only thing that happened that night was that Lupin ran around the Forbidden Forest, well, he's just one of many werewolves out there. But since Snape is still convinced of Lupin's complicity, he can feel justified in taking the bigoted position if it leads to *justice* in the end. > Magpie: > Given what we know about Snape I'd probably connect it to the > Prank, which turned on Lupin's condition being a secret. > > So like, in Snape's mind, if Lupin thought he got away with > *everything* at least he didn't get away with this. Mike: Once again, Magpie, you and I agree. I too think it all stems from the Prank. And Snape has never gotten over his boyhood grudge. This brings up a question, that I'm sure Pippin would like to expound on, ;-) Snape is on his "second chance" with Dumbledore. Where's Lupin's "second chance"? Could Lupin, and Sirius through his silence, have left out a few details from the explanation of the Prank? Might Lupin and Sirius already be on their "second chances"? Meaning that Lupin might not have been as innocent of events as he presented them to the Trio in the Shack. > Magpie: > Seriously, I can just so see Snape being so angry the next morning > and thinking, "Oh yeah, Remus you spineless little so-and-so. I'm > not covering up for you any more. This stops now." Mike: LOL. But of course, had Lupin only known a particular thing from Snape's past, I think he would have been holding the trump card. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 01:45:55 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:45:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siriu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0706191845p76974e6as2a50ced7be31334@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170475 lizzyben: DD would keep Lupin if he wanted to - the fact is that DD no longer wanted Lupin to teach at Hogwarts, so he either fired Lupin or accepted his resignation. This IMO has less to do w/Lupin's lycanthropy & more to do w/Lupin's lies to him & failure follow his instructions. Lynda: Umm...no DADA teacher has remained in that position according to Dumbledore, since Voldemort applied for the position the second time, so the point was moot. It was not a case of Dumbledore keeping Lupin on if he wanted to. He knew, when he hired Lupin that it was a one year position, just as it had been with the others and so has nothing to do with Lupin's being a werewolf at all. The position is cursed. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 03:35:08 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:35:08 -0000 Subject: Future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170476 "redwooddawn" : > > No matter how long the epilogue will be, it will not be long > > enough (seven more books might be long enough), but surely > > we'll get a comment on the future Defense Against the Dark > > Arts teacher? > > > > I know a lot of people see Neville teaching Herbology. > > Harry is perfect for it, he'll fill that position > > while Hermione is headmastering. > > > Anne Squires: > > You should see message #168812 by Hickengruendler. It's part of a > thread entitled "Student who becomes a teacher." > > To summarize, JKR has ruled out Harry and Ron as becoming faculty > members at Hogwarts. She has strongly suggested that Hermione will > *not* become a professor. She has said that *one* of Harry's > classmates will become a teacher. Given these hints many people have > concluded that Neville suits the bill. > JW: JKR has also said that Krum will be back. I anticipate him as the transfiguration professor, as a result of his performance in task 2 of the TWT. I would not be surprised if Bill Weasley takes some some time away from Gringotts to apply his curse-breaking skills as a DADA teacher. As for the longer term, I would not be surprised if Luna becomes a professor - if she lives through DH. Otherwise, it is difficult to point towards anybody in addition to Neville. I have difficulty visualizing any other of the present students becoming teachers. Hmmm... Draco???? Could he become a junior Snape if Severus gets himself blown up in DH? If the WW allows non-humans to join in the big magical circle and all sing Cumbaiyah(spelling?), then perhaps more non-humans will join the HW faculty. Goblin bankers for arithmancy? House-elves for... for... never mind. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 03:47:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:47:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents Message-ID: <380-22007632034728859@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170477 Magpie: I disagree > that she *couldn't* ever show us that Dumbledore was angry at Snape- - > she finds ways to hint at Dumbledore's emotions about Snape when she > wants those emotions to be seen by us. Alla: And I am just asking you how. When did we ever see DD being angry at a teacher in front of the students? Not at any adult, at the teacher, whom DD is making a point of showing a respect in front of Harry like every time IMO, even if when he should not have IMO? Do you think DD was angry at Snape for stopping Occlumency lessons for example? I think he was, but did I ever see it in canon? Not really. I only saw DD blaming himself. Magpie: I'm saying I don't see why it matters. It's not important to the plot that Dumbledore is angry at Snape for telling on Lupin, apparently, and if it was I think it would be easy enough for JKR to put something in to hint at it without having Dumbledore dress down Snape in front of Harry. Or at least assert some authority over a Snape who's pulling stuff like this to get the staff he wants. I've no problem with the idea that Dumbledore is angry at Snape--maybe he completely reamed him out in private. But I don't think he's firing Lupin because Snape forced him by telling students he was a werewolf. Dumbledore doesn't fire people because parents write angry letters about his choices. Certainly not without any fight at all. I can't imagine him firing teachers because Snape puts him over a barrel. > > Magpie: > I think the only choice Snape took out of their hands was the choice > to out Lupin. It just goes totally against everything we've seen of > Dumbledore and even the way it's played in PoA that Dumbledore > wanted Lupin to stay and couldn't because of Snape. I think if that > were the case we would most certainly see Dumbledore angry at Snape > and openly wanting to find a way to bring Lupin back. Alla: Not in front of Harry, no I do not buy it. IMO of course. Dumbledore after all insists on professor and sir and here Dumbledore would show his anger to make Harry even angrier with Snape? Not IMO. Magpie: I don't think Dumbledore would shave a problem showing that he was being forced to fire Lupin and wanted and was working to get Lupin back in front of Harry. Alla: Funnily Dumbledore guards Snape's secret even more carefully. It tells me that had it been known that former DE teaches at school by general public, Dumbledore would have been just as powerless to protect Snape from angry parents. Magpie: I don't think he would have been powerless to protect him from angry parents in terms of not firing him. I've no doubt at all that he would have done it, or at the very least tried standing by Snape and his decision to hire him. I don't think Ron telling the other Gryffindors that Snape was a DE would lead to Snape packing before breakfast fleeing angry OWLS while Dumbledore shrugs and does nothing. Not any more than Hagrid being outed as a Half-giant led to that. Though I think of the three of them Snape would need the least protection from angry letters. I think, more so than the other two, he'd be defiant. Alla: But what Jen said I quite agree with. Jen: What I meant by that is had Snape waited or not come forward when he did, Dumbledore and Lupin would have revealed the outcome that Lupin was leaving anyway -that's what was taken out of their hands, the choice to present the information as they saw fit and include the details they felt were necessary. So Snape acted preemptively for some mystifying reason. I mean, people are arguing he didn't do it to get Lupin fired and Snape's words had no bearing on Lupin's job prospects or career, so why did JKR make Snape part of the story? I don't see a purpose for him telling the students about Lupin if it had no meaning. Magpie: Sure it had meaning. But I don't think the meaning was that Dumbledore dropped or abandoned Lupin even though he wanted him as a teacher because he bowed to public anger about werewolves. Snape's telling the secret can have bad consequences without Dumbledore getting played by Snape's bringing negative public opinion to him. Nobody even says that happened: (From PoA) "I was worried this mornin', mind... thought he mighta met Professor Lupin on the grounds, but Lupin says he never ate anythin' las' night...." "What?" said Harry quickly. "Blimey, haven' yeh heard?" said Hagrid, his smile fading a little. He lowered his voice, even though there was nobody in sight. "Er -- Snape told all the Slytherins this mornin'.... Thought everyone'd know by now... Professor Lupin's a werewolf, see. An' he was loose on the grounds las' night.... He's packin' now, o' course. "He's packing?" said Harry, alarmed. "Why?" "Leavin', isn' he?" said Hagrid, looking surprised that Harry had to ask. "Resigned firs' thing this mornin'. Says he can't risk it happenin again. Magpie: Hagrid says Snape told the Slytherins this morning that Lupin's a werewolf and was loose on the grounds. And that he's packing now. Hagrid says he resigned first thing, either before or after Snape told on him, and he says he did it because he (Lupin) says he can't risk it happening again. So Harry goes to see Lupin: "I just saw Hagrid," said Harry. "And he said you'd resigned. It's not true, is it?" "I'm afraid it is," said Lupin. He started opening his desk drawers and taking out the contents. "Why?" said Harry. "The Ministry of Magic don't think you were helping Sirius, do they?" Lupin crossed to the door and closed it behind Harry. "No. Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to save your lives." He sighed. "That was the final straw for Severus. I think the loss of the Order of Merlin hit him hard. So he -- er -- accidentally let slip that I am a werewolf this morning at breakfast." "You're not leaving just because of that!" said Harry. Lupin smiled wryly. "This time tomorrow, the owls will start arriving from parents.... They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you.... That must never happen again." Magpie: Lupin says nothing about Dumbledore firing him because of what Snape said, or about Dumbledore bowing to angry parents. Seems like it's entirely Lupin's decision to me, one that Dumbledore isn't standing in the way of. I must say on re-reading that it fits the behavior of the two of them when they say good-bye, actually. Because it seems to me it's Lupin who runs away from the idea of angry parents--Lupin, who needs so badly to be liked. It seems more like that's what Snape does to Lupin is to bring hatred down on his head, and that's something Lupin fears. It's Lupin who pre-emptively removes himself from office. He's leaving before the angry OWLS he already sees in his head have arrived (though Harry and his friends certainly still like him in this scene, especially after the wry smile and sad explanation of Snape's actions). Carol: I think it's *Lupin* who makes it a big deal, implying that if it weren't for Snape, he wouldn't have had to resign. Magpie: That wry smile is well played. And upon re-reading, it seems like Snape's hit Lupin where he lives not by getting him fired but by, Lupin (everybody's favorite teacher!) believes, making him the target for hatred. If you're greatest flaw is that you want to be liked, the correct response is obvious. Snape's comment about the "weak" Patronus takes on a bit more meaning... Carol: Anyway, aside from illustrating Lupin's apparent inability to admit full responsibility for his own actions and face their consequences, I think the reason JKR had Lupin mention Snape is simply to make Snape look spiteful, paving the way for the seemingly evil Snape at the end of HBP. Magpie: And it greys everything a bit as well. Snape gets to have a spiteful moment he can be blamed for without the plot really turning on Snape being the mean teacher villain who unfairly drives away the innocent nice teacher Lupin. Mike: Right! And we've just come back full circle to Snape using Lupin's condition against him when he has no other proof of wrongdoing. Remember, at this time Snape does not know that Lupin had ever been a direct threat to the kids. If the only thing that happened that night was that Lupin ran around the Forbidden Forest, well, he's just one of many werewolves out there. But since Snape is still convinced of Lupin's complicity, he can feel justified in taking the bigoted position if it leads to *justice* in the end. Magpie: Yup, it does seem that Snape is obviously saying he's got this to use against Lupin and he does. Mike: LOL. But of course, had Lupin only known a particular thing from Snape's past, I think he would have been holding the trump card. Magpie: LOL! And it's so Snape to probably not even think of that--I mean, in his mind it's probably completely different. Although I don't think it would have been a trump card, to be honest. I think Snape would be prepared to weather the reaction to his being a DE in ways Lupin was not ready to weather the reaction to his being a werewolf. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 03:47:31 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:47:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? Message-ID: <380-22007632034731906@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170478 Ann: Ann stares at the now-blank parchment glumly, before inspiration strikes. 'Faith,' she says, 'Refresh my memory: who's the one character we do know was ordered to try and become Harry's friend?' 'Draco Malfoy. Lucius told him to. Why?' 'Oh, nothing.' Ann grins, and gets to work on the parchment. Magpie: Err...we don't know that Lucius told Draco any such thing. Draco first tries to talk to Harry in PS before he knows who he is. Then on the train he comes looking for the famous Harry Potter. In CoS Lucius responds to his complaints about Harry by saying it's not "prudent" to appear less than fond of him because "their kind" say he rid them of the Dark Lord. But that doesn't add up to Lucius ordering Draco to try to become Harry's friend. In fact, in that scene Lucius sounds to me like he couldn't care less that Draco and Harry aren't friends. He just wants Draco to act differently about it. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 03:58:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:58:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: <380-22007632034728859@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170479 > Mike: > LOL. But of course, had Lupin only known a particular thing from > Snape's past, I think he would have been holding the trump card. > > Magpie: > LOL! And it's so Snape to probably not even think of that--I mean, in his > mind it's probably completely different. Although I don't think it would > have been a trump card, to be honest. I think Snape would be prepared to > weather the reaction to his being a DE in ways Lupin was not ready to > weather the reaction to his being a werewolf. Alla: Too bad we would never know now most likely. But I think that by the way Snape reacts to fake Moody making jubs at his past, he would not have much defiance indeed. Just my opinion obviously, but I do not believe Snape would want anybody know about his past if that can be helped - for whatever different reasons depending on Snape you support. I mean, you mention earlier that he outs himself to Fudge. Did he though? I was under impression that Fudge was perfectly aware of Snape being former DE, just did not know about Dark Mark or did I always read that scene wrong? But even if Fudge had no clue, outing himself towards the Minister, whom Snape has all the reasons IMo to believe would do what Dumbledore say, is not the same as to show himself to general public IMO. I do not see Snape outing himself towards Rita Skeeter for example. By the way, why does she not say anything, what do you think? Wasn't she on Snape's trial? Or she was on only second one, I guess. I digress. No, I do not think Snape would have cherished general public knowing his dirty past and frankly looking forward with glee even if Snape is DD!M to at least few pages of him being the paria of WW in DH and see with how much defiance Snape dear will take that. And I hope he will remember of half starved Lupin, LOL. I am sorry, I just think that Snape's action cannot be justified at all and completely disgusted by it. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 20 04:31:28 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:31:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170480 > > Mike: > > LOL. But of course, had Lupin only known a particular thing from > > Snape's past, I think he would have been holding the trump card. > > > > Magpie: > > LOL! And it's so Snape to probably not even think of that--I mean, > in his > > mind it's probably completely different. Although I don't think it > would > > have been a trump card, to be honest. I think Snape would be > prepared to > > weather the reaction to his being a DE in ways Lupin was not ready to > > weather the reaction to his being a werewolf. > > > Alla: > > Too bad we would never know now most likely. But I think that by the > way Snape reacts to fake Moody making jubs at his past, he would not > have much defiance indeed. > > Just my opinion obviously, but I do not believe Snape would want > anybody know about his past if that can be helped - for whatever > different reasons depending on Snape you support. > > I mean, you mention earlier that he outs himself to Fudge. Did he > though? > > I was under impression that Fudge was perfectly aware of Snape being > former DE, just did not know about Dark Mark or did I always read that > scene wrong? > > > But even if Fudge had no clue, outing himself towards the Minister, > whom Snape has all the reasons IMo to believe would do what Dumbledore > say, is not the same as to show himself to general public IMO. > I do not see Snape outing himself towards Rita Skeeter for example. By > the way, why does she not say anything, what do you think? wynnleaf Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all (not just this post, but all these posts that assume Snape's being a Death Eater was some deep secret). In GOF, when Harry went into Dumbledore's pensieve, he landed in the courtroom at the MOM. Please note this passage at the beginning of Harry's entrance into the memory: <> This is the *same* memory where Karkaroff is brought in and questioned by Crouch Sr. At the end of Karkaroff's evidence he accuses Snape of being a Death Eater. Dumbledore got *to his feet* (no he didn't just leaning over and whisper to Crouch) and made this statement: "I have given evidence already in this matter," he said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." Please note: two hundred witches and wizards heard this. This wasn't just a little private chat between Crouch, Dumbledore and Karkaroff. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that Snape's having been a Death Eater remained a secret following that. Certainly, it makes sense that Sirius (in Azkaban at the time) had never heard about it. But certainly there were plenty of people in the midst of that group of 200 who were quite aware that Snape was currently holding down the Potions position at Hogwarts. Sure, Snape got pretty touchy when Barty Jr confronted him as fake!Moody. Snape seemed sort of insecure regarding Dumbledore's trust, as though any comments by Moody made him really defensive. But that certainly doesn't mean that no one knew he'd been a Death Eater. And Fudge was certainly bound to know as well. It's pretty certain this is the sort of gossip that would come up now and again. Two hundred people. No, the students may have known nothing about it, but you can bet lots of adults were quite aware of Snape's past. wynnleaf From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 05:07:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:07:14 -0000 Subject: Predictions and Parallels (was: The BEANS Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170481 > Ann: > > I was impressed by Red Hen's essay on possible PoA/DH similarities, > at http://www.redhen-publications.com/2ndGuessing.html? > Particularly impressed by the Weasleys' being out of the country > twice. Mike: You reminded me of something I wrote to Red Hen about a year ago. Back then, I thought I'd try my hand at some predictions about the PoA = DH possibilities. So I present them here for your amusement. Two things; I wrote this as a message *to* Red Hen, so I've changed the "you"s to "Red Hen" and fixed the verb tenses to match. But other than that I have not edited. And I left the date it was written. Second, this was before JKR's night at Radio City where she pronounced Dumbledore dead. But I'm leaving in that stuff anyway, so y'all can make fun of me! ;) Oh, just to pat myself on the back a little, Red Hen didn't have the Weasleys going out of country in her essay before I sent her this correspondence. She did thank me for the input :) So here it is: ******************************************************* More Predictions May 21, 2006 I've always liked the parallels Red Hen drew between books 1 & 5, 2 & 6, and the likelihood that 3 & 7 will mimic each other. So in that vein I've got some more for book 7 that I think have a chance. But first, a guess about what we saw in HBP. I agree, that the whole death on the tower scene needed another accomplice. But my vote is for Slughorn. I don't think Hagrid is that good of an actor. I think Dumbledore needed someone who could whip up a DotLD and could be waiting for him at the bottom of the tower. Then if Snape can't throw out all the protecting spells on Albus, old Sluggy is the backup. Sluggy collects Albus' wand then catches Albus with the `fall slowly' charm, gives him the DotLD and scurries back into the castle. In Minerva's wrap-up meeting Sluggy is all sweaty and pale. What caused this perspiration, notifying the ministry? What, did he run there and back? No, I think Sluggy was scurrying around behind the scenes. He blurts out his displeasure with Snape as he walks into the room to assure everyone there that He's sure Snape killed Albus. At the end of the meeting, the group is discussing Dumbledore's funeral arraignments, Slughorn is agitated over this. Why? Because he knows this will mean some new difficulties, wasn't in the plan? Maybe, at this moment he's thinking what this will do to the plan. Then he comes up with the idea of making a simulacrum. More work, but I can do it, "I suppose yes " I think Sluggy is a much better actor than Hagrid, he's certainly a better wizard to count on, and he's got some experience with this whole faking one's death thing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Sluggy had a hand in hiding Regulus, if Reggie is still alive. Now the Book 3 to 7 parallels: 1. The Weasley family will be out of the country during the summer holidays. I think there will be a group decision to move Bill and Fleur's wedding to the continent, probably to her parents' home in France, because of the unrest in Britain. Hermione will go but Harry won't. Why? I dunno, failed apparition test? He thinks he should stay in the Dursley house to collect his last bit of blood protection because he promised Dumbledore? Finds some of Lily's letters to Petunia and feels like he needs to follow up on some clue immediately? 2. Harry will have a row with one of the Dursleys about one of his parents and depart #4 Privet Dr. for London. I can't pinpoint what this argument will be about, but I'll guess it will be with Petunia and will be in regards to her sister Lily. Harry will go to #12 Grimmauld Place to await the return of Ron and Hermione from the mainland. He'll bring all his stuff with him and set up #12 as his base of operations. [I put this one forward as conditional. I still have the feeling the Dumbledore let the Dursleys in on #12's secret for a reason. I could easily see all of them going for the Dursley's protection] 3. Harry will lose, or more likely have destroyed, something he received 2 years ago. He will subsequently get it replaced by a like object but better; however there will be suspicions about the trustworthiness of this new object. My prediction is the two-way mirror he got from Sirius. While he's at #12 he discovers Sirius' half of the connecting mirrors, remembers his is broken in the bottom of his trunk, digs the pieces out and gives them a Repairo. Now the trio can use these two mirrors to communicate when one is separated from the other two. After one of these two gets destroyed (by Kreacher?), Harry finds a new mirror amongst the ruins in Godric's Hollow. Hermione is suspicious; she thinks this new mirror might have been planted here by Snape to spy on the trio's adventures. (It turns out in the end that Snape did plant it here). Finally Harry tries using it and finds this mirror allows him to communicate with Aberforth, or at least he thinks that's who he's talking to. I really like this one, maybe not all the dressing up, but definitely the mirrors. JKR was asked about the mirrors in her Muggle-Leaky interview the day of HBP's release. She clammed up with one of her `you'll see' type responses. So I see the mirrors coming into play both as a result of JKR's response and as a neat parallel to the broomsticks in PoA. 4. Not quite in the same vein but about mirrors: JKR said in that same interview that Harry has been taught more than he realizes. My mind immediately went to the Mirror of Erised. Harry knows how to use it; he did it to thwart Voldemort once. What if he were to stand in front of it again concentrating very hard on how to find that last missing Horcrux? Wouldn't be especially poetic if all he saw was himself, and his scar? Can't you just see the conundrum? Did I do it wrong? Is this thing on? Ron, com'ere, you try it. 5. Red Hen predicted the parallel in the Sirius-Pettigrew scenario, the enemy who betrayed his parents is really on Harry's side while the dead hero is really the betrayer, and book 7 having Snape-Albus play these parts. Well we need someone to play the part of that guy who Harry hates showing up and mucking up the works. JKR has told us that someone who hasn't shown any magical abilities to date will get magic late in life. Who fits both these bills? I'm going with Filch finally getting the hang of things from his Kwikspell lessons. I don't know what spell he'll use, nor how he mucks up things, but I can see Filch busting into a meeting/confrontation at the Hogs Head and wildly waving his wand around at anything that moves. Of course he won't have a clue as to what is going on and he'll see Albus disguised as Aberforth and be none the wiser. But when he sees Snape, he'll think he has just saved the day and caught a murderer. In fact, we've been told that there are four secret passageways out of Hogwarts that Filch knows of, but not where they are or where they end up. Could he have been using one of these all along to sneak off to the Hogs Head for a nightcap? He sneaks out this time and finds himself coming out of a closet right into a startling scene, which shocks him into performing magic for the first time in his life. Maybe Filch carries a magically cored feather duster with him wherever he goes. I like Hagrid to play Lupin's part in this little scenario. He's the guy that thought Snape was guilty but has come around to realize that Albus isn't dead. He just saw Aberforth tending bar seconds before he hears Harry's voice and a commotion in the back room, comes into the room and sees *Aberforth* lying on a bed (unconscious from another mishap, Snape was checking up on him?). I don't know and I'm not going to try to write Rowling's book for her. I'm just making some predictions. 6. OK, now for a little fun and series long symmetry. Let's say that the Dursleys did take Harry up on his offer to shelter at #12 Grimmauld Place. So the war is over, Harry picks up the Dursleys and escorts them back to Privet Drive. He finds Dumbledore and McGonagall there to wish him well, present him with NEWT qualifications based on all his adventures over the past year, and to say goodbye. Then Hagrid shows up on Sirius' flying motorcycle, which he had kept hidden all this time, and gives Harry a ride to Godric's Hollow where Harry is going to live. Hey, Storybook ending anyone? From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jun 20 05:17:29 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:17:29 EDT Subject: [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170482 or.phan_ann wrote: > Ann stares at the repaired parchment, and smiles. Last time I use > Ockham's Razor, she thinks. Now, perhaps I'll - oh, what have I done > wrong now? For the ink is fading from the parchment. 'Creepy,' Ann > says. 'Faith, have a look at this.' Bart: Occam's Razor is, "Do not unnecessarily multiply entities." Harry Potter comes up with an ideal mix of friends. He is also being shepherded along by a master manipulator. Now, either there was an incredible coincidence that he came up with that particular set of friends, or the manipulator arranged it. Now, of course, there is yet another master manipulator, aka JKR, but I hope that she did not just to decide to have an incredible coincidence. Julie: I don't think it's an incredible coincidence, not even a mere coincidence. Don't most of us come up with an "ideal" mix of friends, people who are strong in areas where we are weak, people who fulfill our specific needs in friends? That's what attracts people to each other. Additionally, Ron was really the only friend with whom Harry bonded immediately. It took both of them quite a while to warm up to Hermione, and that was because she was around them enough so that they were able to see past her bossiness and appreciate her other qualities. It's the same principle with Neville and the others who have become good friends of Harry's. And it is no coincidence that most of Harry's friends are in Gryffindor, because our friends are usually culled from those with whom we spend a great deal of time, whether at school, at work, at church, in our local neighborhood, etc. (Even if there were "better" friends to be had we aren't going to find them if we have no meaningful contact with them.) I really can't see why it's necessary for Dumbledore to manipulate Harry into any friendships. Like all of us, Harry will find the set of friends that fits him best. As he has. Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 05:27:56 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:27:56 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170483 Mike: > I've reread both the first and second Hospital scenes (pre- and > post time-turned) and nowhere in there is there any indication that > either Snape or Fudge know what's happened with Lupin. In fact, > there is no indication that Fudge even knew Lupin was involved at > this point. There may well be the logical conjecture, between > these two, that Lupin has transformed and is loose on the grounds. > But they have no idea of the circumstances surrounding that > transformation and whether or not Lupin was ever a danger to the > kids. And they only speak of the near miss of the Dementors. Jen: Ooo, interesting. You're right that Snape didn't see the transformation take place or know what transpired afterward. It does seem logical to me since Snape brews and brings the potion to Lupin that he knows when the full moon has arrived, but that point doesn't come up between Snape and Fudge. Fudge does know Lupin is involved though, since Snape talks about the children consorting with a 'murderer and werewolf.' Unless I'm misunderstanding your point? Not to say he knows Lupin is in his transformed state. > Magpie: > Well, yeah. None of them bring it up as a priority. But I doubt > they'd have argued with someone who did bring it up. It's just a > slightly different thing--but not necessarily that important. Just > as DD isn't being shown being angry at having to let Lupin go, he's > also not angry at the kids being in danger. Mike: > I rather like the speculation that Dumbledore thinks that this will > be a rather excellent adventure for Harry and Hermione. :-) Besides, > in JKR's time-turning universe, Dumbledore already knows that the > duo saved Buckbeak and cast a Patronus Charm that fended off a > hundred Dementors, before he sends them back. He knows he didn't do > this stuff. :-) The only thing he couldn't be sure of is whether > they succeeded in rescuing Sirius, but that seems to be the easiest > of the tasks at hand, and that's the information most stressed by > DD in his briefing. Jen: I think this is true when looking inside the story. I don't believe Dumbledore would really let Harry and Hermione go out on the grounds if he thought they were in grave danger. Like you said, Dumbledore is already certain of the outcome and also trusts that Hermione wouldn't do anything to mess with the time-space continuum (or allow Harry to do so, maybe the most important component of the plan!). Mike: > Not mystifying to me. ;-) Snape wanted to do as much damage as he > could to Lupin. The morning after sees no change in Snape's position > vis-a-vis Lupin from the one he took in the Shack. Jen: I'm pretty certain JKR doesn't include information in her big endings that have no meaning for the big ending. ;) I read revenge written all over Snape telling the Slytherins even though it's not exactly clear to me what Snape hoped to achieve. I just had a sense Snape wasn't going to wait around for Dumbledore to do the 'right' thing when he didn't after the Prank in Snape's eyes and when the events of the night before had Dumbledore choosing the Trio's (Marauders') story over his version. Magpie: > This doesn't mean that Hagrid and Snape are Dumbledore's > confidantes or that they're let in on things others aren't. I think > they just have a far more intimate relationship, one where > Dumbledore says stuff like "I trust Hagrid with my life" or "I > trust Severus Snape completely." Placing trust in these two > despite their many flaws seems kind of important to who Dumbledore > is. He doesn't have the same relationship with Lupin. He's not one > of Dumbledore's projects. Which I kind of love--because honestly I > think Lupin *could have been* one of his projects but is so good at > bucking it. Jen: It muddies the water a little bit for me that his expressions of trust come at times others are expressing mistrust. He also vouches for Sirius in the hospital wing in the face of Snape questioning his presence. But I do agree Dumbledore has indeed included Snape and Hagrid in the ever-growing group of people, beings and beasts under his protection at Hogwarts. I just wouldn't say DD does this because he sees them as more loyal so much as feeling more responsible for protecting and defending them. Magpie: > True, but what I was arguing against was the idea that Dumbledore is > that Snape outs Lupin and therefore Dumbledore must let Lupin go. > That just goes against Dumbledore's character throughout the books-- > Snape couldn't play him that way, imo. He wouldn't, imo, fire > someone because Snape told students that he was a werewolf and > therefore tomorrow there would be angry letters so he'll give up. Jen: The bottom line for me is I read the interaction between Lupin and Dumbledore as a nice character moment rather having undercurrents of something else, so I didn't feel the need for reluctance or last requests on Dumbledore's part. Dumbledore had accepted Lupin's decision and was treating him with the dignity and reserve that Lupin would expect and find comfortable. Lupin is a person who exists within a world of formalities and their interaction appears very authentic for both characters rather than having a subtext of loss of faith on Dumbledore's part. Carol: > Anyway, aside from illustrating Lupin's apparent inability to admit > full responsibility for his own actions and face their > consequences, I think the reason JKR had Lupin mention Snape is > simply to make Snape look spiteful, paving the way for the > seemingly evil Snape at the end of HBP. (Not that Lupin has any > idea that that's going to happen; I'm talking about JKR's authorial > strategies here.) If Snape doesn't appear to be bent on vengeance > against the "innocent" Marauders, how are we (and Harry) going to > suspect him of being actually evil when the time comes? Jen: I'm snipping down to these points because everything you said leads here. And what I'm reading is that there are significant revelations in POA that should not be accepted as they are stated because they will play later into a reversal about Snape. The problem is that authorial strategy has no end - how many parts of each book will be part of this reversal? If Snape isn't really operating from a 'schoolboy grudge', if he doesn't really believe 'vengeance is very sweet', if Lupin wasn't right that Snape talking to the Slytherins played some role in his leaving...well, the story in POA starts to internally combust and a basic facet of Snape's characterization, his long-standing animosity toward the Marauders, is lost imo. Carol: > The reader who, unlike Harry, is willing to look past Snape's > personality can see Snape conjuring stretchers to take the > unconsciouskids and Black, all of them in danger from both a > werewolf and any returning Dementors, back to the castle as a > responsible, even noble, action, but Time!Turned Harry's reaction > to Snape's entering the Shrieking Shack is to clench his fists and > snarl, "Get your filthy hands off it [the Invisibility Cloak]!" (PoA > Am. ed. 403). And when Hermione says, "Harry, look at Snape!" and > Harry sees Snape conjuring stretchers and lifting their unconscious > bodies onto them to get them off the grounds and into the hospital > wing, he says nothing. We don't even get Harry's reaction, just an > objective description of Snape's actions (412). Evidently Harry > pushes the thought from his mind because he doesn't want to react > favorably to anything Snape does. No credit for Snape where credit > is due because Harry, like Sirius Black, can't see the good in him, > even as early as PoA. And since the reader sees from Harry's pov, > JKR seems to expect a similar reaction from most readers, > especially young readers who empathize with Harry. Jen: It's not just Snape's personality that gets in the way of identifying with his side of the story over Harry's! For instance, the above description leaves out some critical information about Snape's actions. Like the fact that Harry knows exactly what's coming next when Snape grabs the Invisibility Cloak and it involves Snape's refusal to listen to the truth in the Shack and then oh-so- carefully placing Sirius on a stretcher in order to take him up to the castle for a Kiss. Harry and Hermione haven't saved Sirius yet when all this is occuring; his fate still hangs in the balance. So no, it isn't always the naivete of the reader that interferes with the reading of Snape but Snape himself, always his own worst enemy. Jen From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jun 20 05:36:52 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:36:52 -0000 Subject: Future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170484 Anne Squires wrote: > > To summarize, JKR has ruled out Harry and Ron as becoming faculty > > members at Hogwarts. She has strongly suggested that Hermione will > > *not* become a professor. She has said that *one* of Harry's > > classmates will become a teacher. Given these hints many people > have > > concluded that Neville suits the bill. > > > > JW: > JKR has also said that Krum will be back. I anticipate him as the > transfiguration professor, as a result of his performance in task 2 > of the TWT. I would not be surprised if Bill Weasley takes some some > time away from Gringotts to apply his curse-breaking skills as a DADA > teacher. > > As for the longer term, I would not be surprised if Luna becomes a > professor - if she lives through DH. Otherwise, it is difficult to > point towards anybody in addition to Neville. I have difficulty > visualizing any other of the present students becoming teachers. > Hmmm... Draco???? Could he become a junior Snape if Severus gets > himself blown up in DH? Julie: You've touched on my favorite future Hogwarts scenario, Neville as Herbology professor and Draco as Potions professor. Can't you just see the two of them becoming the next generation's Lupin and Snape, though without the deeper personal bitterness toward each other? Professor Malfoy delivering his sarcastic commentary, Professor Longbottom blithely letting it all wash over him, thus frustrating Professor Malfoy into even more sarcastic commentary... I'd love it! Julie From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jun 20 12:05:17 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:05:17 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170485 > Mike: > > I've reread both the first and second Hospital scenes (pre- and > > post time-turned) and nowhere in there is there any indication that > > either Snape or Fudge know what's happened with Lupin. In fact, > > there is no indication that Fudge even knew Lupin was involved at > > this point. wynnleaf This is incorrect. At the beginning of Hermione's Secret, Snape says to Fudge (in the midst of other things), "Consider Minister - against all school rules - after all the precautions put in place for his protection - out-of-bounds, at night, consorting with a werewolf and a murderer..." Rather obviously, Snape told Fudge about Lupin's involvement. And since Lupin said that Dumbledore had to convince Fudge that he (Lupin) was innocent of helping Sirius, it seems pretty clear that Fudge had been told enough to think Lupin might be guilty of helping Sirius. Mike There may well be the logical conjecture, between > > these two, that Lupin has transformed and is loose on the grounds. wynnleaf Well, I certainly think so! After all, Snape was perfectly well aware that Lupin was about to transform and hadn't had the wolfsbane potion. Of course Snape knew he transformed. Mike > > But they have no idea of the circumstances surrounding that > > transformation and whether or not Lupin was ever a danger to the > > kids. And they only speak of the near miss of the Dementors. wynnleaf It's true that Fudge may not have learned of the actual transformation circumstances. But Snape would have told Fudge the circumstances that led him to Lupin's office in the first place (Lupin not taking the potion), and Fudge would therefore know that Lupin was down at the Shrieking Shack with 3 kids about to transform without the potion. Snape's comment is in what appears to be a kind of re-cap of what he'd already told Fudge. It would seem highly likely that he'd have included in his initial comments to Fudge (not given in Harry's hearing) all of the basics of the story which quite naturally include all of Lupin's actions of which Snape was aware. Later, Sirius told Dumbledore what occurred and he'd surely have included the reason for Peter's escape. So Dumbledore knew that Lupin had transformed right in front of the children. Fudge would have known from Snape's story that Lupin was involved in helping Sirius AND that Lupin had not taken his potion and been down there with 3 children. Fudge, even being a bit dim, could easily figure out that Lupin had put kids at risk to transform in an unprotected state. No, Fudge probably *didn't* know for sure that Lupin transformed right with the children -- unless Fudge learned some of Sirius' statement which would include an explanation for how Pettigrew got away. > Mike: > > I rather like the speculation that Dumbledore thinks that this will > > be a rather excellent adventure for Harry and Hermione. :-) wynnleaf Dumbledore allows Harry to have any number of adventures. And Dumbledore congratulates Harry afterward regarding some quite risky adventures. It doesn't absolve characters like Quirrell, Voldemort, etc for subjecting Harry to life-threatening situations. I don't think it absolves Lupin either. Knowing that Harry or the Trio will make it through in one piece isn't the same as giving those who put them at risk a free pass to do so. > > Jen: I think this is true when looking inside the story. I don't > believe Dumbledore would really let Harry and Hermione go out on the > grounds if he thought they were in grave danger. wynnleaf Dumbledore already knew that they must have made it through safely because he knew Harry had done something to get rid of the crowd of dementors. Dumbledore may know even more than that, as he often seems strangely knowing (but that's another topic). Anyway, the point is that Dumbledore knowing that the children will make it through unscathed is not the same as Dumbledore having no problem with Lupin transforming into a werewolf around children. > > Mike: > > Not mystifying to me. ;-) Snape wanted to do as much damage as he > > could to Lupin. The morning after sees no change in Snape's position > > vis-a-vis Lupin from the one he took in the Shack. wynnleaf Actually, we don't know that. We have no idea when Dumbledore went about explaining things to Snape as regards Peter being alive. Dumbledore seems to me to be giving Snape a sort of "heads up" regarding the use of the time-turner (which surely Hermione's primary teachers would know about and was a Ministry approved when given to her -- it's not a state secret, after all), when Dumbledore told Snape that the Trio couldn't have been involved in Sirius' escape without being in two places at once. Snape ceased his complaints immediately and left the room -- still angry, but at that point he'd have realized that Dumbledore was behind the use of the time-turner to help Sirius escape. Even if you don't think Dumbledore was signaling the use of the time-turner to Snape, it's still quite possible that Dumbledore told Snape that night about Peter being alive. However, learning that Lupin wasn't helping a crazed killer still doesn't change the fact that Lupin had forgotten his potion and endangered students, nor did it change the fact that Lupin had deceived Dumbledore and possibly endangered students all year through keeping vital info secret. Because of that, Snape could still tell the students about Lupin being a werewolf with the excuse (whatever his real motives were) that the students now had a need to know. > Jen: The bottom line for me is I read the interaction between Lupin > and Dumbledore as a nice character moment rather having undercurrents > of something else, so I didn't feel the need for reluctance or last > requests on Dumbledore's part. Dumbledore had accepted Lupin's > decision and was treating him with the dignity and reserve that Lupin > would expect and find comfortable. Lupin is a person who exists > within a world of formalities and their interaction appears very > authentic for both characters rather than having a subtext of loss of > faith on Dumbledore's part. wynnleaf The problem with that one-and-only scene between Dumbledore and Lupin is that we get really *no* indication of Dumbledore's attitude toward Lupin from Dumbledore's own comments. The only word that in any way describes Dumbledore's demeanor, manner, attitude, etc. is "soberly." The only other indicators we get of their attitudes toward each other at that point is 1. Harry's feeling *after* Dumbledore entered that Lupin wanted to leave as soon as a possible and 2. Lupin's comment to Dumbledore not to see him to his carriage. Further, in the scene immediately following, as Dumbledore talked to Harry, one would think there'd be some mention of Lupin. Even without undermining another teacher by showing any anger toward Snape (if Dumbledore was angry with him), wouldn't one expect *something* that at least alludes to Lupin's part in everything? Or how about some sign of regret that Lupin had to leave? Some comment about Harry's discovery that Lupin is a werewolf? Anything? Instead, Dumbledore says nothing whatsoever about Lupin. When I combine that with Dumbledore's lack of any attempt to keep Lupin on as a teacher or at Hogwarts (even without being in the DADA position), that leads me to believe that Dumbledore likely wanted Lupin to go. > > Carol: > > Anyway, aside from illustrating Lupin's apparent inability to admit > > full responsibility for his own actions and face their > > consequences, I think the reason JKR had Lupin mention Snape is > > simply to make Snape look spiteful, paving the way for the > > seemingly evil Snape at the end of HBP. (Not that Lupin has any > > idea that that's going to happen; I'm talking about JKR's authorial > > strategies here.) If Snape doesn't appear to be bent on vengeance > > against the "innocent" Marauders, how are we (and Harry) going to > > suspect him of being actually evil when the time comes? > > Jen: I'm snipping down to these points because everything you said > leads here. And what I'm reading is that there are significant > revelations in POA that should not be accepted as they are stated > because they will play later into a reversal about Snape. The > problem is that authorial strategy has no end - how many parts of > each book will be part of this reversal? wynnleaf Snape is probably the source of some of the biggest revelations of the series. JKR has built Harry's hatred of Snape steadily over the books and has been careful to give readers more and more "evidence" that Snape operates on petty grudges and hatreds. If she is going to reverse this, she doesn't need to go back and one-by-one reverse every instance of her supposed "evidence" in the previous books. All she needs to give us (and Harry) is the truth about Snape, through which perspective we can then view all the previous books, statements from other characters, etc. Jen If Snape isn't really > operating from a 'schoolboy grudge', if he doesn't really > believe 'vengeance is very sweet', if Lupin wasn't right that Snape > talking to the Slytherins played some role in his leaving...well, the > story in POA starts to internally combust and a basic facet of > Snape's characterization, his long-standing animosity toward the > Marauders, is lost imo. wynnleaf His longstanding animosity toward them doesn't combust, only his some of his *reasons* for that animosity and the validity of his reasons. And that's already been refuted, even internally in POA. Lupin calls it a "schoolboy grudge." Snape calls it attempted murder. It's clear even in POA that Snape believed Sirius wanted to kill him. Sirius, in Snape's hearing, seemed to support that notion (at least, Snape would think he was supporting it) saying that Snape deserved it. If Snape's belief was correct, hating someone for attempted murder is not a "school boy grudge." And as far as Snape's motives, what matters here is what he *believes* to be true. Later, in OOTP, Dumbledore refers to Snape's feelings (and Dumbledore seems to be including Snape's feelings about the past, including Marauder interactions) as "wounds" that go "too deep for healing." Clearly, Dumbledore doesn't rate this as a petty school-boy grudge that Snape out to just "get over." That doesn't mean Snape wasn't perfectly sincere about revenge being sweet. But characters are clearly able to have several motivations at once, and to assume that Snape's motivations are fueled solely by revenge is, in my opinion, to miss many of his other motivations. Snape is far more three-dimensional than that. > Jen: It's not just Snape's personality that gets in the way of > identifying with his side of the story over Harry's! For instance, > the above description leaves out some critical information about > Snape's actions. Like the fact that Harry knows exactly what's > coming next when Snape grabs the Invisibility Cloak and it involves > Snape's refusal to listen to the truth in the Shack and then oh-so- > carefully placing Sirius on a stretcher in order to take him up to > the castle for a Kiss. Harry and Hermione haven't saved Sirius yet > when all this is occuring; his fate still hangs in the balance. So > no, it isn't always the naivete of the reader that interferes with > the reading of Snape but Snape himself, always his own worst enemy. > wynnleaf I think most readers, at least on first reading, are prone to follow Harry's assumptions. Further, especially on the first read, it's easy to feel as though Snape must know all of the same information that the reader and Harry knows and forget, or lose track of the fact that Snape didn't hear all of the explanations. Further, the reader tends to follow Harry's assessment of the circumstances, including Harry's assessment of what Snape is doing, why he's doing it, etc. Harry doesn't see the scene from Snape's point of view, and without taking ourselves out of Harry's pov, and seeing it more objectively, neither does the reader. Harry isn't thinking -- and it's therefore not pointed out to the reader -- that Snape entered the scene to see what appeared to be a crazed murderer and his accomplice with a badly injured student, and the accomplice, Lupin going on and on about breaking Dumbledore's trust, sounding a bit like a villain reviewing his actions. Then Sirius chimes in and when Snape's name comes up, Sirius expresses his approval of what Snape believes was attempted murder and that Snape deserved it. Then, as soon as Snape reveals himself, Lupin calls him a "fool" and refers to what Snape sees as attempted murder as a school-boy grudge. Then as soon as Sirius starts to speak to Snape, his first words to him are "the joke's on you," which sounds to Snape just like the bullying Sirius of old. These two men acted pretty much exactly as Snape would have expected, therefore doing nothing more than cementing his interpretation of the scene. But because we are reading from Harry's point of view, we don't really pay attention to Snape's interpretation of what's going on. Oh, yes, we read his comments, but we see it from Harry's perspective, as though Snape is just disregarding the obvious. Only it's *not* obvious when Snape hasn't seen and heard all the same things Harry did. JKR uses this method of writing to give the reader the same impression of Snape as Harry has -- that Snape's hatred over a school boy grudge is so deep that he will do anything, and overlook all manner of clear evidence, in order to get revenge. Is the intent to set us up once more to see Snape in the worst light? Of course. JKR does it repeatedly throughout the books. That's why Snape will be one of her biggest "twists" because she's set it up throughout the series, rather than just in one book. wynnleaf From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 14:02:35 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:02:35 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170486 > wynnleaf > I think most readers, at least on first reading, are prone to follow > Harry's assumptions. Further, especially on the first read, it's > easy to feel as though Snape must know all of the same information > that the reader and Harry knows and forget, or lose track of the > fact that Snape didn't hear all of the explanations. Further, the > reader tends to follow Harry's assessment of the circumstances, > including Harry's assessment of what Snape is doing, why he's doing > it, etc. Harry doesn't see the scene from Snape's point of view, > and without taking ourselves out of Harry's pov, and seeing it more >objectively, neither does the reader. Jen: I was only pointing out that reading the scene from Snape's view also offers an incomplete reading. You and Carol are making a point that might not be obvious to the general public but it's not new to me after reading countless posts on the Shack scene from Snape's angle. Understanding where Snape is coming from in that scene and betting JKR is going to overthrow some basic premises of the story are two totally different points. wynleaf: > Is the intent to set us up once more to see Snape in the worst > light? Of course. JKR does it repeatedly throughout the books. > That's why Snape will be one of her biggest "twists" because she's > set it up throughout the series, rather than just in one book. Jen: Sure, whether Snape is loyal is a huge part of the book that JKR's been building up from the beginning. Basic tenets of his characterization being overturned? That's more than a twist, that's rescinding carefully laid character development which helps explain Snape's motives for joining the DEs, returning to Dumbledore's side and the actions he takes in the current story. Readers are fascinated by JKR's twists but the real beauty of her story in my opinion is how carefully she builds these characters, *especially* the adults, to come across as both deeply flawed and remarkably sympathetic. I expect no less in the end from the Snape character. Then it becomes a matter of whether a reader identifies with the remarkably sympathetic side or the deeply flawed! Jen From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 14:20:42 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:20:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siriu In-Reply-To: <2795713f0706191845p76974e6as2a50ced7be31334@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > lizzyben: > > DD would keep Lupin if he wanted to - the > fact is that DD no longer wanted Lupin to teach at Hogwarts, so he > either fired Lupin or accepted his resignation. This IMO has less to do > w/Lupin's lycanthropy & more to do w/Lupin's lies to him & failure > follow his instructions. > > Lynda: > > Umm...no DADA teacher has remained in that position according to Dumbledore, > since Voldemort applied for the position the second time, so the point was > moot. It was not a case of Dumbledore keeping Lupin on if he wanted to. He > knew, when he hired Lupin that it was a one year position, just as it had > been with the others and so has nothing to do with Lupin's being a werewolf > at all. The position is cursed. > > Lynda lizzyben: It doesn't seem like that's the way the curse works. Quirrel didn't submit his resignation because of the "DADA curse," he left because people found out VD was living in his turban. Lockhart didn't resign because the curse requires it, he left after being oblivated after attacking Harry. etc. It doesn't seem like the curse works in an "official" way - as in, the teacher knows & accepts it's a one- year term & then resigns. No, the curse works instead to expose & intensify that person's faults & secrets. Dead, disgraced, exposed, humiliated, they leave. So, no, I don't think DD accepted Lupin's resignation because of the curse, instead, the curse worked to expose Lupin's faults & lies until he had no choice but to leave. DD has kept people at Hogwarts before, even after they made a mistake - Hagrid & Trelawny, for example. He could have kept Lupin teaching in a different position, or let him live at Hogwarts. But he didn't. And he didn't let Lupin stay because Lupin had proven himself untrustworthy around students, and disloyal to Dumbledore (cynically, I think this bothered DD the most). DD was forced to let Lupin go, & I think Lupin was secretly glad to be gone. Now that I think of it, it seems almost cruel to keep hiring a new DADA teacher/victim each year, when everyone else knows that person will end up destroyed or disgraced by the end of that year. I wonder if DD includes that little clause in the employment contract? Lizzyben From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 20 14:54:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:54:34 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170488 > Mike: > Once again, Magpie, you and I agree. I too think it all stems from > the Prank. And Snape has never gotten over his boyhood grudge. > > This brings up a question, that I'm sure Pippin would like to expound > on, ;-) Snape is on his "second chance" with Dumbledore. Where's > Lupin's "second chance"? Could Lupin, and Sirius through his silence, > have left out a few details from the explanation of the Prank? Might > Lupin and Sirius already be on their "second chances"? Meaning that > Lupin might not have been as innocent of events as he presented them > to the Trio in the Shack. > Pippin (who can't resist expounding): Ah, clever JKR. She gets us all hung up on Snape's charge that Lupin was in on the prank itself, and gets us to ignore the fact that Lupin should in any case have kept the knowledge of how to get into the willow to himself and not shared it with a reckless prankster like Sirius. Dumbledore apparently didn't learn that Sirius was an animagus and had been running with the werewolf, but it could hardly be concealed that Sirius and James had learned that Lupin was a werewolf, that he went to the willow to transform, and that Lupin must have told them how to enter it. It sets up a nice parallel with eavesdropper!Snape. Even though Snape didn't know what Voldemort would be doing with the information, he could have reasonably foreseen that it would endanger innocent people. Likewise Lupin should have known that Sirius would use his secret to cause trouble. IMO, that was Lupin's first chance (and Sirius's as well.) Dumbledore forgave them. But when Sirius seemingly betrayed him a second time, Dumbledore let him be sent to Azkaban. Then, in PoA, Dumbledore learned that Lupin had betrayed his trust for the second time. Lupin left Hogwarts, but Dumbledore let him remain a part of the Order. I think Lupin's kindness to Harry blinded Dumbledore as it seems to have blinded so many readers, and contrary to his custom he gave Lupin a third chance for Harry's sake. This works structurally in that Dumbledore's stated weakness, caring about Harry too much, leads to the mistake of trusting recklessly in Lupin. OTOH, no one has ever really come up with a good reason for Dumbledore to be soft on Snape. Certainly it can't be Snape's tenderness towards Harry! Snape claims and Harry supposes that Dumbledore's weakness is seeing only the good in people. But this is not borne out by canon. Dumbledore doesn't see only the good in Sirius or Scrimgeour, nor does he fall for the claim that the stories about Riddle are lies. But Harry does not and will not want to believe that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was justified. He does not want to face his own guilt in going to the Ministry and in weakening Dumbledore. And yet, if Lupin is the real culprit in the death of Sirius and in helping the DE's enter the castle, then only if Harry faces up to and forgives himself for his own failings can the real culprit be found! Pippin who thinks that Snape called Tonks's werewolf patronus 'weak' because the Secret Keeper spell wouldn't let him say 'evil'. From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Jun 20 15:09:01 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:09:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182352141.919.1196160191@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170489 Pippin: > But when Sirius seemingly > betrayed him a second time, Dumbledore let him be > sent to Azkaban. I hope you're not suggesting this excuses his inaction - while Dumbledore may not be obligated to give him a "third chance" if Sirius had in fact betrayed him, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a duty to find out the truth. A false accusation is not worth a "strike". -- Random832 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 15:45:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170490 > > Magpie: > > LOL! And it's so Snape to probably not even think of that--I mean, > in his > > mind it's probably completely different. Although I don't think it > would > > have been a trump card, to be honest. I think Snape would be > prepared to > > weather the reaction to his being a DE in ways Lupin was not ready to > > weather the reaction to his being a werewolf. > > > Alla: > > Too bad we would never know now most likely. But I think that by the > way Snape reacts to fake Moody making jubs at his past, he would not > have much defiance indeed. Magpie: I was thinking of just that scene when I said it. Moody insinuates that Dumbledore doesn't trust him and that he's still a DE and Snape angrily declares that Dumbledore trusts him. I think he'd do the same in response to parents claiming he's still a DE. He's a spy now. Snape isn't angry that his being a DE is known--he knows Moody knows this already. He's defensive about the idea that Dumbledore doesn't trust him now. Alla: > I mean, you mention earlier that he outs himself to Fudge. Did he > though? > > I was under impression that Fudge was perfectly aware of Snape being > former DE, just did not know about Dark Mark or did I always read that > scene wrong? Magpie: You are right, Fudge already knew--he revealed that his Dark Mark was getting darker so that he was still tied to LV as a former DE. But my point is that Snape has an identity now as a former DE who's now a spy. Hiding that he was once a DE doesn't seem like something he spends much time doing. On the contrary he is (if he's DDM) still pretending to be a DE. Snape's got his own issues with his past that I think are one of his prime motivations. I just don't think they're the same as Lupin's with his werewolfism. Presumably the Slytherins all already know Snape is a former (and then current) DE. wynnleaf: Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all (not just this post, but all these posts that assume Snape's being a Death Eater was some deep secret). In GOF, when Harry went into Dumbledore's pensieve, he landed in the courtroom at the MOM. Magpie: Exactly. Snape has an identity now that includes his being a DE in the past, even if everyone doesn't know about it. If a parent just found out about it and complained, I think he'd be prepared to defend his position now. And of course Dumbledore would defend it too. wynnleaf: Sure, Snape got pretty touchy when Barty Jr confronted him as fake!Moody. Snape seemed sort of insecure regarding Dumbledore's trust, as though any comments by Moody made him really defensive. But that certainly doesn't mean that no one knew he'd been a Death Eater. Magpie: Exactly--Snape isn't angry at someone knowing he's a DE, but at the implication that his position *now* isn't what he thinks it is. Harry's brought up his being a DE to him before as well. "Yes Potter, that's my job." Snape's past actually isn't even revealed to Harry as a secret that was being kept from him--I don't even think it's the thing he first reacts to upon seeing the trial in the Pensieve. An actual secret about Snape being kept from Harry that Harry reacts to as such is Snape being the eavesdropper. Jen: It muddies the water a little bit for me that his expressions of trust come at times others are expressing mistrust. He also vouches for Sirius in the hospital wing in the face of Snape questioning his presence. But I do agree Dumbledore has indeed included Snape and Hagrid in the ever-growing group of people, beings and beasts under his protection at Hogwarts. I just wouldn't say DD does this because he sees them as more loyal so much as feeling more responsible for protecting and defending them. Magpie: Even if it's his feeling more responsible for protecting and defending them, I think that's part of his being more intimate with them. They are mistrusted by others but Dumbledore always gives his personal assurance that he trusts them. And that's not just about how Dumbledore feels about them but how they feel about Dumbledore--I would actually say that in PoA I get a little territorialism from Snape with Lupin at Hogwarts as well. Does that ring true for you at all? I do think that Snape's outing Lupin to the Slytherins could have a part in his leaving--but his leaving, not Dumbledore's firing him. He didn't ever want Lupin there, and I think was probably driven crazy by Lupin's easily ingratiating himself with everyone. I think that's probably part of the reason that it's so satisfying for Snape to see that he's "right" and Lupin is indeed helping Sirius. But nobody actually says that Dumbledore fired Lupin. There's two slightly different versions of what happened. In both versions Lupin's resigned. First Hagrid says he resigned because he didn't want to risk transforming on the grounds again. Later Lupin says that Snape told on him, and when Harry asks if he's resigning because of that Lupin just smiles wryly. He then says that tomorrow (after he's gone) they'll be angry letters coming. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 16:14:49 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:14:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siri In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0706191845p76974e6as2a50ced7be31334@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0706200914g39127cf3ne5679bdb1117cbfa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170491 Lizzybean: It doesn't seem like that's the way the curse works Lynda: All the curse does is ensure that the person in the position of DADA intructor will only stay in that position for a year. It has nothing to do with whether or not DD wants them to stay. And, since in the nature of curses it works to the detriment of those involved and not their betterment, of course their faults and weaknesses are exposed. Its just the nature of curses. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 16:29:44 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:29:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siri In-Reply-To: <2795713f0706200914g39127cf3ne5679bdb1117cbfa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Lizzybean: > > It doesn't seem like that's the way the curse works > > Lynda: > > All the curse does is ensure that the person in the position of DADA > intructor will only stay in that position for a year. It has nothing to do > with whether or not DD wants them to stay. And, since in the nature of > curses it works to the detriment of those involved and not their betterment, > of course their faults and weaknesses are exposed. Its just the nature of > curses. > > Lynda > > Right, so the curse has nothing to do w/DD not wanting Lupin to stay at Hogwarts in a different capacity. DD made that decision on his own, as a result of what he had learned about Lupin. I'm not really sure where the disagreement is. Lizzyben From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Jun 20 15:07:25 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:07:25 -0000 Subject: Predictions and Parallels (was: The BEANS Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170493 Oh, you're the correspondent I so admired! Red Hen didn't mention a name in the essay. Nicely spotted. I suppose the problems with using repetition to predict DH are that we don't know which book JKR's repeating, nor how accurately she will repeat. I don't think anything will correspond directly to the broomstick, because that would be too major and mechanical, but who knows? (I think minor things are more likely to correspond more directly to predecessors than the major; this creates a pattern but not absolute predictability.) I won't say what I think of your theories in detail (although I agree with 1, part of 2, and 4); I'll write a whole post on my predictions, so you can laugh at what I get wrong come July. Speaking of which, commisserations on the timing of your Dumbledore-is-not-dead theory - Murphy's Law, eh? Ann From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 16:35:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:35:53 -0000 Subject: Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siriu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170494 lizzyben wrote: > > It doesn't seem like that's the way the curse works. Quirrel didn't > submit his resignation because of the "DADA curse," he left because > people found out VD was living in his turban. Lockhart didn't resign > because the curse requires it, he left after being oblivated after > attacking Harry. etc. It doesn't seem like the curse works in > an "official" way - as in, the teacher knows & accepts it's a one- > year term & then resigns. No, the curse works instead to expose & > intensify that person's faults & secrets. Dead, disgraced, exposed, > humiliated, they leave. > > So, no, I don't think DD accepted Lupin's resignation because of the > curse, instead, the curse worked to expose Lupin's faults & lies > until he had no choice but to leave. DD has kept people at Hogwarts > before, even after they made a mistake - Hagrid & Trelawny, for > example. He could have kept Lupin teaching in a different position, > or let him live at Hogwarts. But he didn't. And he didn't let Lupin > stay because Lupin had proven himself untrustworthy around students, > and disloyal to Dumbledore (cynically, I think this bothered DD the > most). DD was forced to let Lupin go, & I think Lupin was secretly > glad to be gone. > > Now that I think of it, it seems almost cruel to keep hiring a new > DADA teacher/victim each year, when everyone else knows that person > will end up destroyed or disgraced by the end of that year. I wonder > if DD includes that little clause in the employment contract? Carol responds: I agree with you about the way the curse works. In fact, I wrote a long post on the subject not long after HBP came out if anyone is interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961?threaded=1&l=1 With regard to what DD tells the DADA applicants, word seems to have gotten around that the position is jinxed or cursed, considering how few applicants there are (most of them former Hogwarts students who would have seen for themselves that the DADA position was a revolving door.) Fake!Moody not only suspects but *knows* that it's a one-year position. He tells the students that Dumbledore wants him at Hogwarts during the TWT and that he intends to go back into retirement afterwards. (Of course, he actually intends to go back to Voldemort, but instead his identity is exposed an he ends up being soul-sucked, as much a victim of the curse as if DD had actually hired him.) Since he's speaking as Moody and giving DD's reasons for hiring the real Moody and the real Moody's intentions after the year is up, it seems likely that he's repeating what the real Moody tells him under coercion from the Imperius Curse, just as he does when he explains why he drinks from the hip flask. (He's giving the real Moody's reasons as a cover story for his own use of the hip flask to conceal Polyjuice Potion). So if both the real and fake Moodys know that it's a one-year position, Dumbledore must have told the real Moody so. Which is not, of course, the same thing as telling him that it's cursed. (I suppose DD thought that the worst that could happen to the real Moody was some revelation of his paranoia. In his case, however, the paranoia was simply validated.) It's impossible to say what Dumbledore told Lupin or Lockhart. Lockhart probably wasn't listening, anyway, or thought that the one-year clause didn't apply to *him* (DD would see how brilliant he was and keep him on), whereas Lupin was grateful for any job and probably suspected that his hiring had something to do with either the new anti-werewolf legislation or Sirius Black being at large, and no doubt DD used the Wolfsbane Potion as an incentive. I would hope that he was open with Lupin about the curse on the position (he's certainly bright enough to have observed that the job never lasted and would, I think, have heard enough about Quirrell and Lockhart to be wary of a job that might lead to a similar fate), but knowing about the curse wouldn't prevent it from working--for Lupin or DDM!Snape. (Umbridge he didn't hire and wouldn't have warned.) I imagine that most of the time, the curse simply reveals a flaw (not being a werewolf but dishonesty and irresponsibility in Lupin's case) that makes it impossible to retain the teacher or causes him to resign in disgrace (as would have happened to Lockhart if he hadn't tried to Memory Charm the boys and been hit by his own spell--Voldemort in miniature). So DD isn't dooming the teachers to death or some other horrible fate--Quirrell and the real and fake Moodys appear to be exceptions to the rule, and Lockhart was hoist with his own petard. Surely, both Snape and Dumbledore know that Snape will be revealed as an apparently loyal Death Eater at the end of his year as DADA teacher (and possibly killed given the danger of that revelation), which is, IMO, why he waited so long to give the position to Snape, who must have agreed with him given the perilous situation in the WW and Draco's predicament in particular that it was time to do so. Unfortunately for Dumbledore, DADA is a required subject for all students up to OWL year and essential to survival in the WW, so he has no choice but to hire the best candidate he can fine (always reserving Snape till he has no choice but to hire him, both for his talents and because it's time to let him go). It's not his fault that the position is cursed or that the few wizards qualified to teach it have either already had their turn or are wary of the position. He does the best he can, actively seeking out Lupin and Moody, just as he actively sought out Slughorn for Potions (and that memory) when it was time to give Snape the DADA post. And even when the DADA teacher is as inept as Lockhart or Umbridge, he can always count on the students to hex each other in the hallways, erm, to teach each other hexes and jinxes. Carol, guessing that Dumbledore, as usual, tells as much of the truth as he thinks the particular applicant needs to know From random832 at fastmail.us Wed Jun 20 15:04:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:04:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Siriu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182351877.32291.1196158861@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170495 > lizzyben: > It doesn't seem like that's the way the curse works. I don't think you're understanding what "that" is - Lynda isn't suggesting that the curse just makes you up and resign after a year, she's saying that at a cause-and-effect level, him leaving was not caused by being a werewolf because he would have still been forced to leave (for some other 'reason') if he were not a werewolf. > He could have kept Lupin teaching in a different position, > or let him live at Hogwarts. I don't think the curse allows that, once you have accepted the DADA position. -- Random832 From technomad at intergate.com Wed Jun 20 16:58:16 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:58:16 -0500 Subject: Ex-Death Eaters Message-ID: <00a001c7b35c$388f3160$69560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 170496 One thing I think a lot of people are forgetting (in re. Snape having been a DE at one time) is that he's a long way from being the only "Death Eater who walked free." Mr. Malfoy, Mr. Crabbe, Mr. Goyle, Walden MacNair...all of them had been DEs before Lord V's little mishap. Oh, yes, they _said_ they were under the Imperius...but we know a lot of people were very skeptical about that story. My own guess is that ex-Death Eaters, unless there was some pretty clear evidence that they'd been acting of their own free will, were often let slip back into society. Many families probably had ex-DEs among them, and the WW might well have had an unspoken but real consensus that letting sleeping dogs lie, and letting the dead bury the dead, was the best way to go. They'd come down on real hard on people like the Lestranges partly _because_ they're trying to start things up again. Even a lot of DE-friendly people or families might well have figured that letting the whole thing die down was a good idea. There just aren't enough witches and wizards for them to have a civil war without it destroying their hidden society, or at least damaging it very badly. Particularly after Voldemort's rampages, the WW was already hurting, and going on a purge against ex-DEs, even ones who acted repentant and claimed to have been under the Imperius, wouldn't bring back the dead. Not to mention, the Imperius Curse _does_ exist, and someone under it honestly can't help himself. (Otherwise Viktor Krum would be in Azkaban; he cast an Unforgivable Curse during the Third Task, didn't he?) Societies that have had really wrenching internecine conflict often come to this sort of unspoken-but-real arrangement. After the US Civil War, most ex-Confederates were eventually rehabilitated, and many went on to prominent careers, even serving as high officers in the US Army. (Anecdote: During the Spanish Civil War, General Joseph Wheeler, who had been a Confederate general during the Civil War, was heard to exhort his troops: "Come on, boys! We've got the d*mn Yankees on the run!") After Pinochet stepped down in Chile, I'm told that both sides in the prior conflict tried to do something of the same sort, which was why a lot of Chilenos were very angry when foreign courts tried bringing charges against Pinochet. Spain _didn't_ do anything of the sort after its Civil War, which contributed to its slow recovery. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 16:48:33 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:48:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin & passive-aggressiveness Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents/ some Sir In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0706200914g39127cf3ne5679bdb1117cbfa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0706200948j7b49781bjdfeacffd2d734364@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170497 Lizzybean: Right, so the curse has nothing to do w/DD not wanting Lupin to stay at Hogwarts in a different capacity. Lynda: But Lupin staying on at Hogwarts in a different capacity was never even on the table as far as we know. DD knew that the position was cursed, knew that it was Lupin he wanted for that year and probably never had any intention of asking him to teach another subject. Work alongside DD yes. Be an instructor at Hogwarts in another post after teaching DADA no. At least not consecutively. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 17:17:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:17:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170498 > Magpie: > I was thinking of just that scene when I said it. Moody insinuates that Dumbledore doesn't trust him and that he's still a DE and Snape angrily declares that Dumbledore trusts him. I think he'd do the same in response to parents claiming he's still a DE. He's a spy now. Snape isn't angry that his being a DE is known--he knows Moody knows this already. He's defensive about the idea that Dumbledore doesn't trust him now. Carol: Right. But he also knows that Harry is there hiding under the Invisibility Cloak (he's seen the map and the egg), and IMO he's angry that "Moody" is insinuating in front of Harry that Snape has a grudge against Harry and might try to hurt him. (Crouch Jr. states that he was doing exactly that when he confesses under the influence of Veritaserum.) > > Alla: > > > I mean, you mention earlier that he outs himself to Fudge. Did he > > though? > > > > I was under impression that Fudge was perfectly aware of Snape > being > > former DE, just did not know about Dark Mark or did I always read > that > > scene wrong? > > Magpie: > You are right, Fudge already knew--he revealed that his Dark Mark > was getting darker so that he was still tied to LV as a former DE. > But my point is that Snape has an identity now as a former DE who's > now a spy. Hiding that he was once a DE doesn't seem like something > he spends much time doing. On the contrary he is (if he's DDM) still > pretending to be a DE. Snape's got his own issues with his past that > I think are one of his prime motivations. I just don't think they're > the same as Lupin's with his werewolfism. Presumably the Slytherins > all already know Snape is a former (and then current) DE. Carol: I'm not so sure that Fudge already knew. The horror and shock on his face indicate otherwise. I don't think that all of the Slytherins necessarily know that he's a former DE (or believe, as of HBP, that he's a current one). Draco does, but his father is a DE and a friend of Snape's, and Bellatrix has evidently persuaded him that Snape is out to "steal his glory." I suspect that Theo Nott and Crabbe and Goyle also know, but unless Draco has mentioned it to the others, say Pansy Parkinson or Blaise Zabini (the latter of whom he doesn't seem particularly close to), I don't see why they would know it. The students in other houses certainly don't. The worst that someone like Percy says of Snape is that he knows a lot about the Dark Arts and covets the DADA position. I doubt that their parents know, either, or they'd have protested. Notice how angry Snape is when Karkaroff enters his class and lifts up his sleeve. Snape doesn't want anyone to see Karkaroff's Dark Mark, let alone suspect that he has one himself. > > wynnleaf: > Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all (not just this post, but all these posts that assume Snape's being a Death Eater was some deep secret). > > In GOF, when Harry went into Dumbledore's pensieve, he landed in the > courtroom at the MOM. > > Magpie: > Exactly. Snape has an identity now that includes his being a DE in > the past, even if everyone doesn't know about it. If a parent just > found out about it and complained, I think he'd be prepared to > defend his position now. And of course Dumbledore would defend it > too. Carol: I partially disagree. Yes, Snape would defend his position if necessary, and absolutely, Dumbledore would defend him, but I don't think either defense is necessary because very few people (other than some other DEs and the Wizengamot) know that he was ever a DE. It's not just Sirius Black, who was in Azkaban and out of the loop, who doesn't know that Snape is a former DE (as of GoF). No one, not Fudge, not Molly Weasley, not McGonagall, not Lupin, seems to know that he was a DE until he reveals the Dark Mark, at which point McGonagall's trust in him starts to depend on Dumbledore's judgment. In CoS, she treats him as a respected colleague and follows his lead regarding Lockhart, a marked contrast to her attitude in HBP. Fudge comments about the names that were in the Daily Prophet, people charged with being a Death Eater who got off (apparently by claiming the Imperius Curse), including Malfoy, Nott, Crabbe, Goyle, Macnair, and Avery, but Snape, who was cleared of the charge of being a Death Eater because he turned spy for "our side" would not have been included in this list. Nor would Snape's own hearing have been publicized. (Note how defensive Crouch Sr. is about him, and Dumbledore vouches for him. I think the members of the Wizengamot would have kept their mouths shut to protect Snape.) Even Karkaroff's hearing was probably confined to the members of the Wizengamot. We see Rita Skeeter at *Ludo Bagman's* hearing, which is a bit of a media spectacle (and would no doubt have included television cameras if the WW had them), but there's no indication of her presence at Karkaroff's hearing. And surely, if she knew that Snape was a former Death Dater, she would have included his name along with half-giant Hagrid, werewolf Lupin, and paranoid ex-Auror Moody as one of Dumbledore's questionable hiring choices. She's out for blood, making DD look as foolish as possible. She'd never leave out a juicy tidbit like Snape's DE past if she knew about it. And Fudge wasn't a member of the Wizengamot at the time of Karkaroff's (or Snape's) hearing. He was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes at the time. If he'd been at any of the Pensieve hearings, Harry would have recognized him, as he recognized DD, Moody, Crouch, Karkaroff, Bagman, and Rita Skeeter at Bagman's hearing (and Bagman's only). Carol, who thinks that Snape's DE past *was* a secret, otherwise the exposure of it would not have deterred DD from giving him the DADA post for so long From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 17:26:42 2007 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ex-Death Eaters In-Reply-To: <00a001c7b35c$388f3160$69560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <793067.74506.qm@web30014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170499 Eric wrote: and going on a purge against ex-DEs, even ones who acted repentant and claimed to have been under the Imperius, wouldn't bring back the dead. Not to mention, the Imperius Curse _does_ exist, and someone under it honestly can't help himself. (Otherwise Viktor Krum would be in Azkaban; he cast an Unforgivable Curse during the Third Task, didn't he?) My (Melanie's) reply I'm not sure I agree with this logic. I mean people do get away with the use of Unforgivable curses...how many times has Harry? At least three times that I can think of. I think many of the DE were able to reintergrate themselves into normal wizarding society by giving the ministry a large amount of gold. They paid off the Ministry to turn the other cheek. They donated to charities etc. In short, they made themselves seem like respectable members of wizarding society. Also, it probably helped that I'm not sure all of the death eaters knew each other. I think they each knew a select few of thier fellow followers but not all. I think it's a large part of why they remained hidden even in secret meetings. ~Melanie From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 18:00:26 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:00:26 -0000 Subject: Snape, Sectumsempra, and other Dark Curses(was: Werewolves and RL equivalents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170500 > > > Carol responds: > Already knowing *dark* curses at age eleven? Where does it say that? > Sirius Black says that first-year Severus knew more "curses" (no > "dark") than most seventh years, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, > "curses" is often used for hexes and jinxes, including but not limited > to the Babbling Curse, Blasting Curse, Body-Bind Curse, Curse of the > Bogies, Impediment Curse, Leg-Locker Curse, and Reductor Curse. See my > earlier post 168437 for details: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168437 > > Eloise Midgen attempted to curse off her own acne. I seriously doubt > that she used a dark (or Dark) spell on herself, even if it did blow > her nose off. And surely "most seventh years" don't go around casting > Dark curses. We only know of five Dark curses, in any case: the three > Unforgiveable Curses, the Horcrux spell (if that counts as a curse), > and one invented spell by schoolboy Severus. > > The other spells in the HBP's Potions book are either schoolboy hexes > (Levicorpus and its countercurse, the toenail hex, Langlock) little > different from, say, Densuageo, the tooth-elongating hex that Draco > tried to use on Harry (which ricochets onto Hermione) or the > boil-causing hex that Harry tries to use on Draco (which ricochets > onto Goyle) or useful charms like Muffliato. > Lanval: Has JKR herself ever defined "dark curses"? Just curious. Besides , I can think of several harmless looking devices that are deadly -- artifacts from the Black house or B&B's. Heck, even the twins's pills which cause heavy bleeding, albeit from a preexisting wound it would seem, that won't stop unless the proper remedy is taken, and could thus be potentially fatal. Katie is after all 'chalk white' by the time people notice there may be a problem. Snape thinks he detects "dark magic" in the Map. I've seen fans agree with him. You could say, well, those are objects, not curses, but at some point those objects needed to be bewitched, cursed, whatever you want to call it. I've heard it argued that memory charms are 'dark' by definition,as are love potions, because they're too close to Imperius for comfort. What about Oppugno? From HP Lexicon: *"oppugno" L. to attack, assault. Causes conjured creatures under the control of the caster to attack the target.* Hermione uses canaries. What if it had been pitbulls? "attack, assault" sounds pretty dark to me, and was created with an intent to hurt. I'm sure I'm overlooking some more. Sirius also says Snape was "a litte oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts". How does that exclude knowing Dark Curses? And then he fell in with Malfoy, Bellatrix, and the rest. I can perhaps accept that Sectumsempra was the only dark curse Snape ever created, but not that he didn't *know* many others, even at a young age. >Carol: > So, yes, Severus considered James and co. his enemies in the same way > that MWPP considered him their enemy or Draco and Harry consider each > other enemies. But up until his humiliation in front of the whole > fifth-year class, followed by what he viewed as a murder attempt, the > enmity was on the schoolboy level. Lanval: Maybe. Maybe not. We don't see into Snape's mind. Plenty of harmless seeming kids in recent years are later shown to have harbored murderous fantasies for years. This usually comes out after they've gone on a killing spree. Carol: But the murder plot (his view) > would have raised the conflict to a point where Severus wanted a > serious revenge. Sectumsempra can kill. Levicorpus and the toenail hex > and Langlock can't. But he would have been very, very foolish to use > it because he'd have been not only expelled but sentenced to Azkaban. > Lanval: As I've pointed out above, a cunning wizard can kill using all sorts of spells, hexes and curses, objects and creatures, that may not have been invented *only* to kill. Numerous Snape fans across the globe believe Sirius tried to kill Snape. He didn't require a deadly curse for that now, did he? Again, I'm not saying Snape planned murder while at school, only that studying and perhaps inventing Dark Curses may have given him some satisfaction, and a certain sense of security. > Carol: > Um, how could a little cutting hex be a "refined version" of a deadly > spell? Lanval: The same way I can use a butcher's knife to daintily trim a steak, or cut someone's throat? Seems to me that wand movement is crucial. Harry slashes wildly. Severus points and fires. The point of Sectumsempra, as you mention, is that the wounds don't seem to heal unless a counterspell is used. Rip someone's chest open -- death will occur pretty soon. Make a nice little cut at the jugular -- same thing. Cut muscle or fat, like cheeks, arms, leg -- and you have a continually oozing cut. And time to work on it if it's small. So it's not always deadly. Depends entirely on the spellcaster's control. Carol: No, I'm sure it was the other way around. Logically, he would > take an existing cutting hex, say "Sectum" ("cut") and add "Sempra" > ("always") to make the gash unhealable except by a countercurse (which > I'm guessing he invented or discovered through research much later, > probably after he'd been stricken by remorse). Lanval: Er. Remorse for what? Ah, but Snape is much too careful. And self-preserving. Any spell can be used against the inventor himself, right? Look at Levicorpus. No, I'm sure he invented the countercurse right along with the curse. It would be the logical and smart thing to do. Especially since Sectumsempra appears to be an awfully easy spell to learn. Or maybe Harry's just becoming so good at it that he gets it right on the first try (same for Levicorpus)? But think of how long he took to perform a simple Accio just a couple years before. If magic were as easy as simply reading the spell incantation, and saying it out loud with one's wand pointed, what are all those classes at Hogwarts for? No, it seems to me that Snape created some curses here that were so easy to pick up that he had to fear of them being used against himself. Or, if you want to think of him as less selfish, he may have considered that an innocent person could get hurt. Either way, no remorse is required. Carol: At any rate, Professor > Snape didn't just wave his wand over Sectumsempra'd Draco using some > nonverbal healing spell as DD did over his knife wound in the cave; he > had to *chant* (or sing) the spell three times. Lanval: "Pushing Harry roughly aside, he knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand, and traced it over the deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that sounded almost like song." HBP, p.523 I know this is the quote that singlehandedly established Snape in Fandom as the Singing Healer, *g* Well, he *mutters*. And the incantation sounds *almost* like song. I see it for now as just another countercurse, because we don't know much about healing countercurses. We don't witness, for example, the Healers at St Mungo's trying out antidotes and spells on Arthur Weasley. Who's to say DD's spell isn't a silent chant? Surely DD could pull it off? As for the three times, that clearly had to do with the severity of the injuries. It would hardly be required for a small gash, IMO. Carol: Granted, Draco's > wounds were more extensive than James's by far, but there's no > indication that James was bleeding to death or suffering at all, > nothing Dark about that hex or someone would surely have commented, > nothing that Madam Pomfrey couldn't easily cure or Black or Lupin > would have mentioned it to Harry. (They'd have found a way to blame > Severus rather than making excuses for themselves and James.) Madam > Pomfrey couldn't possibly have known the countercurse for Sectumsempra > unless Severus taught it to her, any more than she can cure Marietta's > pustules without knowing the hex that Hermione used on the parchment > and its countercurse. And if she couldn't cure the cut, she'd have > known it was caused by Dark magic and Severus would have been > expelled. Since he wasn't, and no one suspected Dark magic at the > time, chances are no Dark magic was involved. > Lanval: By that logic Fred and George would have been expelled when they took Katie to the hospital wing, because it was their pill that made her bleed like a stuck pig and turned a nosebleed into a potentially life-threatening situation. And if they didn't take her (merely took her up to the common room, where they handed her the antidote pill), then surely Angelina and the others would have been a little more upset at the twins having such dark artifacts in their pockets? Do we have any canon that anyone but Madam Pomfrey worked on Marietta? Who's to say *nobody* could find out the countercurse? The Healers found a way eventually for Arthur to heal, without asking LV for the properties of the snake venom. I think we know too little of Magic to determine without fail that every curse must have only one countercurse, and that this can be known only to the inventor until he or she shares it with the world. Seems to me that it's not only a Healer's job to study and memorize known curses and the matching countercurses, but also to be creative and find ways to come up with remedies on their own when confronted with unknown curses. > Carol: > Agree to disagree? There's a lot of difference between hexing someone > in the corridor, or even sneaking up on a person two-on-one, and > exposing them to the danger of a werewolf bait. If that didn't up the > stakes, nothing could. IMO. Also, as Quirrell told Harry, just because > Snape hates someone doesn't mean he wants them dead. Unless, of > course, he thinks they tried to kill *him.* > > Lanval: I wouldn't rely too much on what Quirrell says, but... *g* But yes, of course we have to agree to disagree, because we won't change one another's opinion on Snape. We can still discuss facts, though. > Carol: > I don't know. Maybe JKR is just confused in her maths, as usual. It's > possible, of course, that our precocious Severus was writing his > potions improvements and invented spells in what had been his mother's > book before his sixth year, but it's also possible that JKR made a > mistake (the Charlie Weasley problem in miniature) by having the OoP > scene involve a spell (Levicorpus) that Severus hadn't actually > invented yet. But regardless, Levicorpus (a nonverbal spell that James > shouldn't even have known!!!) was almost certainly invented before > Sectumsempra. One is a schoolboy hex that can be used for mischievous > purposes (at least one Death Eater seems to have used it on a > levitated Muggle, Mrs. Robinson); the other is designed to seriously > injure or kill. Lanval: Well, that argument can be made if education, magical talent, and emotion are to be relied on to progress in a linear fashion throughout one's life. Only I don't think they do. Carol: > I think that the desire for vengeance for the Prank, marked by the > invention of Sectumsempra, was Severus's first step toward becoming a > Death Eater, just as the desire for vengeance for his father's arrest > led to Draco's becoming a DE. Severus's enlightenment came when he > realized that Voldemort intended to murder an innocent baby based on > his information' Draco's came when he found out that killing isn't as > easy as he had believed. > > Carol, not arguing for Saint Severus, who exists only in Roman > Catholic canon, not JKR's > Lanval: See, and I get a creepy vibe from Teen Snape, as early as SWM (which isn't to say I don't feel bad for him!). His way to becoming a DE began long ago, IMO, when he became fascinated with the Dark Arts. And I don't see the "innocent baby" being the reason for his remorse (if there was any; besides, how many innocents were killed during Snape's DE time?), but tend to be in the Snape-loved-or-was-obsessed- with-Lily camp. If he had remorse, I think it was over her. Yes, we will definitely have to agree to disagree. :) Lanval, who isn't arguing for ESE!Snape, and patiently waits for whatever outcome DH will offer us. > zgirnius: > The arrangement could have been changed, either as a result of this > incident or for other reasons (as Lupin seems to have students hang > around him, going to Snape's dungeon, which students avoid like the > plague, would provide privacy). Or, it could be that Lupin did miss > his appointed time to stop by Snape's owing to his meeting Harry - I > doubt he knew Harry would not have permission to go to Hogsmeade with > his friends. > > Or Snape could be lying in the Shack, but why? Why accuse Lupin of > carelessness, when he has already accused him of being the accomplice > of the mass-murderer Sirius Black? Especially as he says the bit > about Lupin forgetting in such a matter of course way, he is just > outlining the facts that led him to follow Lupin, without placing any > emphasis on this (supposed) mistake by Lupin. > Lanval: It's difficult to determine, isn't it, without a statement from the author. It could be a mistake, too. Lupin needed to forget the potion, and Snape needed to find the map, which was in Lupin's office, and Lupin had to be gone from the office by then. Maybe JKR really just overlooked the details of the first scene. > zgirnius: > This touches on the issue of what makes this Snape's Worst Memory > (assuming that it is. I tend to want to ask, 'In whose opinion?' but > that is neither here nor there). One explanation is that Snape views > it in retrospect as when he started moving down the path he would > later regret (assuming he did regret it, I realize not everyone sees > it that way...) > Lanval: His remorse might very well be real and heartfelt; for now we have but DD's word. I do think though that his path to the dark side, as it were, started long before the prank. > zgirnius: > Of course Snape must have wanted revenge, but what form he envisioned > it taking may have changed. Look at Harry - Draco is his enemy, but > Harry was horrified when he nearly killed him in HBP. Unless you > believe Snape at the age of 11 came to Hogwarts already willing to > kill or maim his enemies, and added James and Co. to that list on > sight, you must admit something changed at some point, and SWM seems > like a reasonable point to mark that change. You think Snape used > dangerous Dark magic of his own invention against James - maybe it > was the first time? Carol suggests this is when he decided he might > *want* to, and set about making the simple cutting hex she supposes > Snape used into something far more potent. > Lanval: Who knows what Snape's upbringing was like? Draco seems to be quite happy with the idea of exterminating "mudbloods" at the tender age of twelve. It doesn't mean he would have been prepared to act on it, but wishing death on one's enemies can start at a fairly young age. > > > Lanval: > > About the incentive -- I'd say that by the time we see the boys in > > SWM, Snape may have needed no more incentive to create potentially > > fatal curses for his "enemies" than the fact that they exist. JMO. > > zgirnius: > My difficulty with this is, when do you think Snape reached this > point? Voldemort may or may not have been born this way, and > certainly seems to have been well on his way by the time he got his > Hogwarts letter, but my impression is that he is supposed to be > unique in this respect, within the Potterverse. Lanval: Snape's fifteen at the time I mentioned, not a newborn baby. All over the world, all through history, many kids that age HAVE killed, or at least fantasized about it. When precisely did it start? No idea. But by his fifth year, his rage at the way he was treated might have reached a level where I don't think the prank was needed for him to feel the *desire* to kill. > zgirnius: > It seems to me that regardless of whether Snape used the full blown > curse in a refined or controlled way, whether he used it with lethal > intent and just missed, or whether he did a little cutting hex he > later modified, its descritption in SWM is a clue/foreshadowing about > Sectumsempra in HBP. Even if it is a little hex as Carol proposes, it > is one related to the Dark Curse Sectumsempra. > Lanval: Yes, exactly. > > Lanval: > > About Snape's anger, we see him losing it in PoA as an adult over > > something much less humiliating than the scene called so > > aptly 'Snape's Worst Memory'. > > zgirnius: > Two objections - first, that is in the eye of the beholder. I can see > an argument that the Prank was more humiliating, both because it was > something Snape in some ways set in motion by his own decisions, and > also because it seems James saved his life in that incident > (something we are told he could not stand). > Lanval: True, but to me Snape's rage in PoA is more about the 'present' -- about DD once again not being on his side, about the disappointment over not being the hero, about Black and Lupin walking free. > zgirnius: > Second, you are assuming this is why Snape lost it. Snape, the only > one who knows why he lost it, does not confirm he is losing it over > the Prank. "You should have died like your father, too arrogant to > believe he was mistaken in Black" suggests to me Snape's anger at > Sirius that night could be over later events as well. > Lanval: You mean over the SK thing? Maybe, but there's so much we still don't know. > > zgirnius: > This is my opinion as well. I assume that because Harry did not hear > an incantation, the spell WAS nonverbal. Snape is a master at > nonverbal spells as an adult (he uses a variety of spells in his duel > with Harry, with no mention of any incantations); he had already > invented one by the time of this incident, so I presume that whether > the spell was a hex or Sectumsempra, he cast it nonverablly. It could > be a reason the spell was less effective, too, like Dolohiv's on the > MoM, as at this stage Snape would still have been improving his > nonverbal spellcasting technique. > Lanval: Agree completely. If anyone would be capable of mastering nonverbal spells at that age, prior to being officially taught, it would be Snape. And likely James and Sirius. > > > > Carol, pretty sure that Sectumsempra was invented in Severus's > > sixth > > > year, after the so-called Prank and in retaliation for it > > > > > Lanval: > > Possible. But 'in retaliation' makes it sound as if Snape really, > > really planned to use it. *eg* > > zgirnius: > Perhaps he planned to use it next time he found himself cornered by > an XXXXX Magical Beast, in the event James's conscience proved less > sensitive, or Sirius proved more secretive? *eg* > Lanval: My thoughts precisely! :D From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Jun 20 17:50:43 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:50:43 -0000 Subject: [TBAY] Re: ontongeny recapitulates philogeny? In-Reply-To: <46787AAC.3090108@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170501 Ann scratches her head and gives up. No matter what she does, she can't bring the old words back. She sighs, manacle heavy around her ankle, and eyes the summer sunshine longingly. Oh well. Maybe tomorrow. 'How's it going?' asks Faith, adjusting the positions of the six published books on the Predictive Orrery. 'George won't be pleased if you ruin it before he has a chance to read it.' She glances over. 'Stuck? Well, how were you repairing the message to begin with?' 'Sewing it together,' says Ann, glaring at the needle and thread she was using. 'Wait a minute... thread?' She picks it up, mutters a single word, and with a slight pop several parchments appear on the desk. As they do, the manacle opens itself and crashes to the floor. Ann grins. 'Now, what have I here?' She leafs through the pile for an unread message, and furrows her brow. On top of the pile is Message 170478, signed only "-m", and complaining that Magpie: >Err...we don't know that Lucius told Draco any such thing. Ann dashes off to the CoS Room, and returns a moment later with defeat on her face. 'A very palpable hit,' she complains. 'If I'd only been able to check. But it's the nearest equivalent to what Bart's proposing, isn't it?' Turning to Juli17's message, she nods. 'Exactly. I admit I'm not sure what an "ideal mix of friends is", but I agree with the rest. Now, what's this?' > Bart: > Occam's Razor is, "Do not unnecessarily multiply entities." Harry > Potter comes up with an ideal mix of friends. He is also being > shepherded along by a master manipulator. Now, either there was an > incredible coincidence that he came up with that particular set of > friends, or the manipulator arranged it. Now, of course, there is > yet another master manipulator, aka JKR, but I hope that she did > not just to decide to have an incredible coincidence. Ann snorts, and gazes longingly over at the Razor. 'The "ideal mix of friends" again. Now, whatever that means, surely it's determined by the people Harry has a chance to meet. Given that JKR populated Hogwarts, doesn't that suggest she placed Harry's ideal friends there? This granted, why not manipulate him so he becomes friends with them? What's the point otherwise?' She coughs. 'And he's trying to tell me what the Razor is. Cheek! Well, what else would he use it on? Let's have a look at these manipulations.' 'Manipulations?' asks George, just come in. 'Ah, a new thread... let's have a look.' Ann waits demurely as he does. 'Oh, you have made a fool of yourself here, haven't you?' he tuts. 'Anyway, what were you going to say?' 'Mm? Oh!' Ann giggles. 'Well, ah, it's about the Razor we're both trying to use. Just because someone is a manipulator doesn't mean they manipulate everything, does it? It would be absurd to suggest that Dumbledore stage-managed Sirius' escape from Azkaban so the Order could use Number Twelve as a headquarters, wouldn't it?' George nods. 'Especially since Voldemort was still on the run at the time,' he says, 'so the Order had no use for it.' 'And Harry's other friends,' says Ann, unabashed. 'Dean is another half-blood Gryffindor boy. That sounds like a good bet for a friend, doesn't it? But if there was any manipulation there, it failed. The same with Neville, who's very similar to Harry - they were both orphaned and brought up by unpleasant relatives, for instance. There's no Earthly way anyone could predict Harry becoming Luna's friend, yet there she is in the Ministry of Magic. Now, Ron and the other Weasleys.' 'Dumbledore knows them,' says George. 'And he would certainly have a shrewd idea that Molly would make a good substitute mother for him.' 'Oh yes,' admits Ann. 'Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, meeting Ron. That looks about as accidental as Harry's meeting Draco in Diagon Alley. Sorry to bring him up again, but why not assume that this was an introduction too? Now, what does Bart say about Harry's meeting Ron? Bart: > Timing things so that he would meet the Weasleys at the platform > would be easy enough [snip] "Arthur, could you see that your family > gets to the platform at 8:55 AM on the dot? I have something on my > mind, and may want to meet you there." [snip] Dumbledore figured > that nature would take its course, and Harry, exposed to Ron, would > make friends and end up getting into Gryffindor. Ann continues, 'If Harry was directed to meet the Weasleys, his arrival would have to be controlled - and there's no evidence of that - and the Weasleys would have to be manipulated into arriving at the right time, too. That's wildly unrealistic, given that there's hundreds of families milling around and no reason for Dumbledore to meet Arthur there. Not at such a precise and inconvenient time when the Order of the Phoenix was dormant. And why would getting into Gryffindor be so important? House does seem to be often genetic, but both Harry's parents were Gryffindors too.' 'And Hermione?' 'Even less evidence! Harry doesn't like her at first. I don't see how this helps the theory: Bart: > Even at age 10, Hermione showed herself to be highly intelligent, > and quite capable of doing research (how many purebloods and half- > bloods knew as much as she did, coming in?). Also, a shrewd > observer. And, she knew a bit too much about Harold and Mort Ann smiles. 'Intelligence, research, and observation? Sounds more like a spy than a friend to me, particularly given what we know of Harry's character. Meanwhile, that last point, well... Bart: > my point was not that Dumbly chose Hermione because she knew too > much about Harold and Mort, but that she knew too much about Harold > and Mort because Dumbly told her. Ann jabs a finger at the parchment. 'Pure guesswork. No canon for that at all. So I see neither reason nor canon support for Dumbledore choosing Harry's friends for him. Coincidence is the simplest explanation for why Harry has the friends he does. Particularly given that it would be much simpler for Dumbledore to arrange an introduction to potential friends. Besides, if he was so concerned about Harry's friends why didn't he do anything for him while he was at the Dursleys'? And now I wash my hands of this. I am going to paddle in the Bay.' And she does. Ann P.S. Real-life note: I said in my last message that I was hundreds of miles from my books. I had to visit the bookshop to check CoS, so I hope you appreciate my capitulation, Sistermagpie. :) From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 20 18:34:16 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:34:16 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170502 Goddlefrood: > And yes, he would have had to leave the school anyway > after the one year of teaching. It seems likely that > to avert a more adverse manner of leaving some prior > plan was worked our. How that then reconciles with the > perceived plan of Severus and DD to pull a similar stunt > in HBP I would not like to say, but I am sure many of you would. houyhnhnm: I see. DD and Snape's success at manipulating and second-guessing the DADA curse in PoA engendered the hubris that lead to their downfall in HBP. Interesting, but I don't see much evidence for that or for Lupin's continuing to report to Dumbledore during the time between the wars. Except for one thing. I am wondering now about the terms on which DD offered the DADA post to Lupin. DD knew that Lupin would only be there for one year. Did Lupin? As for the DADA curse itself, it's hard for me to imagine any curse that can be tampered with. No canon for that but plenty of mythology. It seems to me to be in the nature of a curse that it resists any attempts at circumvention. In other words I can't believe they would have gotten away with it even once. Magpie: > > I think he told mostly because Snape > > wanted to tell all year long--perhaps once Lupin > > blew it and went running around he felt justified > > in ways he didn't before. Mike: > Oh yes. Most definitely. houyhnhnm: He'd been wanting to tell for about 18 years. From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jun 20 19:16:43 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:16:43 -0000 Subject: PotionsGenius!Lily again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170503 If Snape invented the Levicorpus spell, then how did James learn of it? Through Lily? Is that one of the reasons Snape was so angry at Lily when James used Levicorpus on him (Snape)? Because he (Snape) felt betrayed by Lily? Lupin (I think) says that it was a popular spell in those days. It certainly wouldn't have been popularized (not intentionaly) by Snape. So it probably was passed around via somebody else... Lily? Nah, she wasn't into that kind of cruel thing. But James via Lily? Sure, unintentionally passed by via Lily, but passed I think. But *how* passed via Lily? Perhaps she borrowed Snape's "Half Blood Prince" potions book and James got his hands on it. Recall that there was some debate whether the handwriting looked like a girl's or boy's. HRH debated that the book once belonged to Snape's mother. But is it possible (probable?) that some of the handwriting is Lily's and some is Snape's? Eddie, who closes with these random Book #7 predictions: Chapter 1 will consist of a meeting of the brain trust of the Order of the Phoenix, including Dumbledore's portrait. All known info will be revealed, clarified, corrected, and shared. Chapter N-1 will be called, "The boy who died" Chapter N will reveal that Neville will join faculty of Hogwarts in Herbology, that Ron will play Quiddich for the Chudley Cannons (2nd string), and that Hermione will become a Healer specializing in Elfish Welfare. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 19:23:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:23:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170504 wynnleaf: > I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that Snape's having > been a Death Eater remained a secret following that. Certainly, it > makes sense that Sirius (in Azkaban at the time) had never heard about > it. But certainly there were plenty of people in the midst of that > group of 200 who were quite aware that Snape was currently holding > down the Potions position at Hogwarts. > > Sure, Snape got pretty touchy when Barty Jr confronted him as > fake!Moody. Snape seemed sort of insecure regarding Dumbledore's > trust, as though any comments by Moody made him really defensive. But > that certainly doesn't mean that no one knew he'd been a Death Eater. > > And Fudge was certainly bound to know as well. It's pretty certain > this is the sort of gossip that would come up now and again. > > Two hundred people. No, the students may have known nothing about it, > but you can bet lots of adults were quite aware of Snape's past. Alla: I was not thinking of Sirius as proof that Snape's dirty past is not well known. I totally realise that Azkaban is not the best place to stay on top of the latest news. I know as well that members of that jury ( I guess, can we say that was a jury?) were aware of that, but my guess is that they were sworn to secrecy. But I think I will let Carol answer you, since I (oh my :)) actually agree with her on this point, well partially anyways, since I do think that Fudge knew. Carol: It's not just Sirius Black, who was in Azkaban and out of the loop, who doesn't know that Snape is a former DE (as of GoF). No one, not Fudge, not Molly Weasley, not McGonagall, not Lupin, seems to know that he was a DE until he reveals the Dark Mark, at which point McGonagall's trust in him starts to depend on Dumbledore's judgment. Alla: I mean, sure, one can say that those particular adults just did not to happen to know anybody who was on that jury, but IMO since this is a book, the possibilities should be limited and if Snape's past was not a secret, **somebody** whom we know, some character I mean besides Dumbledore would have known about it. JMO, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 19:53:52 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:53:52 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents (was:Re: Snape - a werewolf bigot?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170505 > Pippin: He doesn't shut down > his compassion, but he shuts down his sense of responsibility, > and I think, though others may disagree, that to do that is > evil. > Finwitch: Well, I wouldn't say evil. Immature. For to be mature, one *should* have that sense of responsibility. And that maturity is a huge part of what adults need to have to earn respect. You know, BE the adults. It takes more than 18 years of existence, you know. Snape, to me, seems to be like a teen - not like a mature adult. And I have doubts to his true maturity. Lupin - one who seems mature but isn't. (but true teens&kids don't know that). Sirius Black - just the opposite of Lupin, I think - IS mature but doesn't seem to be. (to Molly, at least.) Most teachers at Hogwarts at least ARE truly mature (anyone over 70 it seems...) Finwitch From lauren1 at catliness.com Wed Jun 20 17:02:38 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:02:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs US References: Message-ID: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 170506 Brenda: > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this > site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is > that true? Hi, I'm sure this was discussed a long time ago, but I am new. Why does the UK version call it "philosopher's stone" and the US version call it the "sorcerer's stone?" Thanks Lauren ----- Original Message ----- From: pippin_999 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs US Brenda: > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this > site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is > that true? Pippin: You can order the British editions from amazon.co.uk or the Canadian Raincoast edition which has the same text as the British one from amazon.ca. Both are available in children's or adult versions, but there's no difference except for the cover design. If you just want to check out the differences between these and the Scholastic edition, there's a list at the Harry Potter Lexicon. The changes are usually minor variations in usage or slang. However, the US editions are slightly and perhaps significantly different in some cases where it seems as though corrections were made so late in the publishing process that the British text got them and the US text didn't. The US edition of GoF has Wormtail and Voldemort discussing a murder which in the British edition becomes a curse. The US edition of HBP originally had Dumbledore telling Draco that the Order would be able to convince Voldemort that both he and his mother were dead. These lines were omitted in the British text. Now, according to the lexicon, current US editions have been changed to match the British version. http://www.amazon.co.uk/ http://amazon.ca/ http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ Pippin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 20:25:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:25:38 -0000 Subject: Maturity of adults characters WAS: Werewolves and RL equivalents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170507 > > Pippin: > He doesn't shut down > > his compassion, but he shuts down his sense of responsibility, > > and I think, though others may disagree, that to do that is > > evil. > > > > Finwitch: > > Well, I wouldn't say evil. Immature. For to be mature, one *should* > have that sense of responsibility. And that maturity is a huge part of > what adults need to have to earn respect. You know, BE the adults. It > takes more than 18 years of existence, you know. > > Snape, to me, seems to be like a teen - not like a mature adult. And I > have doubts to his true maturity. > Lupin - one who seems mature but isn't. (but true teens&kids don't > know that). > Sirius Black - just the opposite of Lupin, I think - IS mature but > doesn't seem to be. (to Molly, at least.) > > Most teachers at Hogwarts at least ARE truly mature (anyone over 70 it > seems...) Alla: LOL, Finwitch, you have **doubts** about Snape's maturity? I can say that I have **no** doubts whatsoever about his maturity - as in I have no doubts that he has none - no matter what drives him, on whose side he is, Snape demonstrated to me beyond reasonable doubt that he is immature character, completely. Anybody who treats the son of your dead rival the way he treats Harry is at the very best immature, revenge seeking brat in my opinion. That's me being generous. Sirius, well, I love him dearly, but I also cannot call him mature all together. But Sirius has an excuse - he has twelve years of Azkaban to get over. JKR called Sirius the case of arrested development after all for a reason. I give Sirius props for trying though. I think arrested development and all that, he tried his very best to be mature where Harry is concerned. Leaving his refuge to help Harry in GoF, wanting to treat Harry as an adult in OOP contrary to what Dumbledore wanted? Yep, I applaud Sirius for that and some other things. I think if he lived, he would have gotten over Azkaban eventually. IMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 20 20:35:54 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:35:54 -0000 Subject: UK vs US In-Reply-To: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Merryfield" wrote: > > Brenda: > > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on this > > site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. Is > > that true? Lauren: > Hi, > I'm sure this was discussed a long time ago, but I am new. Why does the UK version call it "philosopher's stone" and the US version call it the "sorcerer's stone?" > Thanks Geoff: The Philosopher's Stone is supposed to exist as a legendary object sought by folk such as alchemists. Nicolas Flamel was supposed to have made one. If you Google these two names, there are useful links to relevant pages in Wikipedia. I read somewhere that, when the book came to be published in the US, the publishers believed that readers would be ignorant of and put off by this name and so settled on the title of Sorcerer's Stone for the American edition rather than JKR's original name. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Jun 20 20:14:35 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:14:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's dirty past uncovered WAS: Re: Werewolves and RL equivalents References: Message-ID: <01e301c7b377$9f8ac3a0$6501a8c0@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170509 > > > I mean, you mention earlier that he outs himself to Fudge. Did he > > > though? > > > > > > I was under impression that Fudge was perfectly aware of Snape being > > > former DE, just did not know about Dark Mark or did I always read that > > > scene wrong? > > > > Magpie: > > You are right, Fudge already knew--he revealed that his Dark Mark > > was getting darker so that he was still tied to LV as a former DE. > > But my point is that Snape has an identity now as a former DE who's > > now a spy. Hiding that he was once a DE doesn't seem like something > > he spends much time doing. On the contrary he is (if he's DDM) still > > pretending to be a DE. Snape's got his own issues with his past that > > I think are one of his prime motivations. I just don't think they're > > the same as Lupin's with his werewolfism. Presumably the Slytherins > > all already know Snape is a former (and then current) DE. > > Carol: > I'm not so sure that Fudge already knew. The horror and shock on his > face indicate otherwise. About Fudge- I think the horror and shock on his face was that a Dark Mark was being shoved in his face- a dark mark that clearly contridicts what he is going to tell the world anyway. He knows- it was "right there", and undoubtedly, clear and easy to read- but still to have to SEE it that close means he knows he will have to lie all that much more in his pretending: "nothing is wrong- citizens- go about your lives in peace". I think he's shocked because he would have much rather have just been told about it so he had some measure of plausibile denyability- some room to say he "doubted the truth of the story"- but if his memory is ever probed into, there is no denying seeing it for himself- no doubt on anyone's part that he saw the proof first hand. He might have even been a little scared of Snape, wondering if he might still be a current DE if the mark was that bright and clear. He might have feared that Snape would have to kill Fudge just for having shown him the mark itself. I don't think Fudge would have known if merely having the dark mark itself made a person dangerous- if LV could control his DEs using that mark, so that Snape himself became a threat at that very moment. I think Fudge had to have known about Snape being a former DE- Snape would have had to have made a deal to stay out of Azakaban- but whether it was with the Ministry of Magic or just Dumbledore is a mystery to me. Either way, I think the current Minister of Magic would have been informed so that they didn't persue Snape for any crimes which they could have put him away for. I just don't think Fudge realized at all that a former DE would still have that mark permently on his skin, many years later. After all, how many old DEs are flashing dark marks in his face? It wasn't an event that happened every day, for sure! Shelley From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 20 20:26:26 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:26:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs US In-Reply-To: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <7D703F18-7410-4922-9C06-786537168C65@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 170510 On 20 Jun 2007, at 18:02, Lauren Merryfield wrote: > I'm sure this was discussed a long time ago, but I am new. Why > does the UK version call it "philosopher's stone" and the US > version call it the "sorcerer's stone?" Supposedly it was thought that the American audience would be unfamiliar with the legend of the philosopher's stone and be confused about the subject of the book. From one of the interviews with JKR (see http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ about/books/books-hp.html): "Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader. I have had some criticism from other British writers about allowing any changes at all, but I feel the natural extension of that argument is to go and tell French and Danish children that we will not be translating Harry Potter, so they'd better go and learn English. The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. We discussed several alternative titles and Sorcerer's Stone was my idea." Jadon From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 21:43:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:43:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170511 > Carol: > I'm not so sure that Fudge already knew. The horror and shock on his > face indicate otherwise. I don't think that all of the Slytherins > necessarily know that he's a former DE (or believe, as of HBP, that > he's a current one). Draco does, but his father is a DE and a friend > of Snape's, and Bellatrix has evidently persuaded him that Snape is > out to "steal his glory." I suspect that Theo Nott and Crabbe and > Goyle also know, but unless Draco has mentioned it to the others, say > Pansy Parkinson or Blaise Zabini (the latter of whom he doesn't seem > particularly close to), I don't see why they would know it. The > students in other houses certainly don't. The worst that someone like > Percy says of Snape is that he knows a lot about the Dark Arts and > covets the DADA position. I doubt that their parents know, either, or > they'd have protested. Notice how angry Snape is when Karkaroff enters > his class and lifts up his sleeve. Snape doesn't want anyone to see > Karkaroff's Dark Mark, let alone suspect that he has one himself. Magpie: I think I sounded like Snape's was actually more public about his DE past than I thought he was in my rush to say he wouldn't be crushed by its coming out. In saying the Slytherins know I actually agree that it doesn't seem to be something bandied about. I just meant that the DE kids know, and might have told others--Draco could have told Blaise or Pansy, for instance. Now that you mention it, though, I realize that this could be sort of a mirror of the things the Trio knows about some of the people in the Order. It's possible that Draco and the other DE kids have always considered Snape's past something to keep secret, where they believe his sympathies officially lie now. I had been going on the assumption that Draco et al. weren't specifically told not to share this information, and that they might have talked about it as part of showing all the stuff they know about their side. But now I realize it's possible it was a secret they themselves guarded-- or perhaps only Draco himself knew and guarded, for all we know. (Goes off on reverie of wanting to know everything about Draco and Snape's relationship.) We don't know when Draco found out himself. I still think that Snape would be prepared to weather a storm of protest from parents in ways that Lupin isn't when it comes to his being a werewolf, which is why I don't think Lupin's being able to out Snape as an ex-DE would have been the same kind of trump card. When I say he has an identity now that includes his being an ex-DE, I didn't mean this was publically known far and wide, but just that if his past is exposed, this is his answer to it. He *was* a DE, but he was cleared and Dumbledore considers him on the right side-- unlike Lupin, who's being outed as a werewolf, something that's always shown as a secret of his. I would assume Dumbledore, too, would be willing to defend his choice of Snape just as he defended him before the court. Snape might not want his past advertised, but he has an answer for it in ways that Lupin unfortunately can't answer for being a werewolf. Carol: > Carol, who thinks that Snape's DE past *was* a secret, otherwise the > exposure of it would not have deterred DD from giving him the DADA > post for so long Magpie: Wait, I didn't understand this last part. Are you saying that Dumbledore didn't give Snape the DADA position until HBP because it would expose his DE past? Geoff: The Philosopher's Stone is supposed to exist as a legendary object sought by folk such as alchemists. Nicolas Flamel was supposed to have made one. If you Google these two names, there are useful links to relevant pages in Wikipedia. I read somewhere that, when the book came to be published in the US, the publishers believed that readers would be ignorant of and put off by this name and so settled on the title of Sorcerer's Stone for the American edition rather than JKR's original name. Magpie: Apparently, it wasn't that they thought they would ignorant, so much as that they wanted something in the title that suggested magic and wizardry. That's what was misleading, not necessarily that Americans didn't know what the Philosopher's Stone was. They asked JKR for an alternate title like "Harry Potter and the School of Magic" to give more of an idea of that, and she suggested Sorcerer's Stone. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 22:06:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:06:46 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Lupin (was:Werewolves and RL equivalents... In-Reply-To: <380-22007621904646875@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170512 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm not sure Snape's primary motive in this scene is to lord it > > over Lupin. Honestly, I think Snape sees Lupin as too much of a > > threat to engage in those sort of games (unlike Sirius in the > > kitchen at Grimmauld Place). He never takes his eyes off of > > Lupin, going so far as to actually back out of the room. So it's > > hard for me to think Snape is going for a petty power play. > > > >>Magpie: > I don't think it being a power play means it can't be serious--it's > not like reading out Witch Weekly to Harry in class. I think the > school rival and threat are intertwined as they always were--James > didn't just beat Snape at Quidditch, he was a threat. Betsy Hp: Maybe back in the day, but not now. At this point I think Snape is looking at the two men he thought betrayed James (and his wife and son) as a threat. He's not looking at James in that light. IOWs, Snape has moved on, after a fashion. It's not a popularity contest to Snape now, no matter Lupin's attempts to couch it as such. > >>Magpie: > That school rival threat can exert a lot of influence over Snape's > thinking at times. It doesn't seem like a game for him but > something really important for him to triumph over. Betsy Hp: I think it stopped being a school game the moment Snape decided to join the Death Eaters. IMO, the moment he called Lily a mudblood. What's interesting to me, is that when Snape switched sides (going with DDM!Snape here, of course) as far as he could tell, Lupin and Sirius *also* switched sides. So, in Snape's opinion, James becomes a fool in that he trusts the wrong people, but James is no longer an enemy. (Except of course for how all stupid people are Snape's enemies. ) However, both Lupin and Sirius *remain* enemies. They conspire to get James and Lily and Harry killed. Snape is still working against them as he's working against any Deatheater. And while Snape probably has a sort of smug sense that he always knew they were no good (murderers in their boyhood, etc.) I think he definitely sees the current game as one of life and death. It's spy versus spy here. (Man, I'd *love* to see Snape and Lupin go head to head in that sort of game!) > >>Magpie: > It's interesting to think, though, of exactly what the threat is. > On one level Lupin, if he's working with Sirius, can be putting > Harry in danger. But it's hard for me to not feel like Snape thinks > he's also being ganged up on when Harry immediately seems to bond > with Lupin and Lupin covers up for him when he's in Hogsmeade. If > this puts Harry in danger, well, that's just business as usual. > James, too, was killed despite Snape's attempts to save him because > of course he thought he and his buddies would win through. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, I don't see that at all in this scene. Not the ganged up on bit. Because I honestly don't think Snape would ever expect Harry to be on his side. Or even take a neutral stance. Hence Snape not bothering with trying to sway Harry. In fact, I agree that Snape puts Harry in James's role: Harry is the fool. Harry, like his father, trusts the wrong people. But that Snape doesn't try to sway Harry, that he doesn't do anything to make Lupin look bad to Harry suggests, IMO, that Snape isn't too worried about Harry's opinion here. What Snape is worried about, is keyed into, I think, is Lupin and Lupin's motives and activities. Of course, the scene where Lupin lies about the Marauders' Map I can see where Snape might feel ganged up on. But I again suspect that this is more from Harry's POV, who *is* looking at things from a schoolboy's view point. With Snape, I think this is yet another beat where he feels Lupin is showing himself as standing against Dumbledore. And again, Harry the fool trusts the wrong person, the guy giving him candy, if you will. Where Harry's role of fool gets to be too much for Snape is the in the Shrieking Shack. At that point I do grant you that Snape felt (and was) mightly ganged up on. [A tiny bit of an aside here: I think Mike earlier expressed doubt that Snape would have felt any bad feelings towards "live and let live" Lupin when he had Sirius and James in his face 24/7. On the contrary, I imagine young!Snape would have felt a great deal of anger towards the boy who assisted in his downfall but never ever got caught and maintained the image of a perfect little angel to surrouding adults.] > >>Magpie: > From Lupin's pov, again I don't think Snape's actions here have to > be petty for him to hit back passive-aggressively. I think he knows > that Snape thinks he's a threat--Snape says it often enough--and > that's what he's treating him like here. A threat who's also part > of a schoolboy rivalry. Betsy Hp: Snape definitely makes it clear that he distrusts Lupin. And honestly, I wouldn't even term it passive-aggressive. Snape is pretty aggressively distrustful. Which works, because I don't think passive-aggressiveness is Snape's forte. And yeah, there's definitely a sense of "all alone with Harry, I see?" going on too. Which probably also pissed Lupin off. And yeah, I totally agree that this is why Lupin strikes back. Snape makes clear that he doesn't trust Lupin, Lupin makes clear that he doesn't give a crap. It's very sweetly done. (The "showing Harry my grindylow" line is classic, IMO. Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days, Lupin? It's like he's rubbing Snape's face in it. Which shouldn't amuse the hell out of me, but it really, really does. Lupin gets all the points in this scene.) But, I think that while Lupin is operating on the schoolboy rivalry level (I don't get the sense that Lupin thought Snape an actual enemy) I still don't see that Snape was going there. For Snape this was all about Voldemort versus Dumbledore rather than Slytherin versus Gryffindor or oddball versus popular boy. Hee! Unless of course Lupin is evil. Then he's playing at Snape's level and *still* trouncing him! (Which maybe speaks against Lupin as villain? JKR's villain's are never this smooth are they?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170477 > >>Magpie: > > And upon re-reading, it seems like Snape's hit Lupin where he lives > not by getting him fired but by, Lupin (everybody's favorite > teacher!) believes, making him the target for hatred. If you're > greatest flaw is that you want to be liked, the correct response is > obvious. Snape's comment about the "weak" Patronus takes on a bit > more meaning... Betsy Hp: Ooh, is Snape this smooth? I'd love to think so... Though I always fear making him too much of a bad-ass. (I have to keep recalling his moments of screaming, spit-flying rage.) Hmm, suddenly I wonder if the great Snape versus Lupin match would be as even as I first thought? If you're correct than Snape knows Lupin's weakness, does Lupin know Snape's? (Okay, yeah, I'm sure Lupin knows Snape's. Lupin just strikes me as the kind of guy who knows to figure that sort of thing out. So good, the match is still on. ) I agree with whomever said that Snape's being waiting 18 years to expose the truth about Lupin. And I will say that since Snape has been forced to confront his own demons (again, going with DDM!Snape) he'd have very little sympathy for anyone hiding from theirs. I suspect that Snape agreed to keep Lupin's secret from the students for Dumbledore's sake, for as long, and only as long, as Lupin kept the werewolf bit under control. (I can so picture the scene where Dumbledore and Snape come to that arrangement. ) Going by Hagrid's account it reads like Snape gathered his Slytherins together for a "personal safety" announcement. Which fits with my image of Snape being all mother hen and protective of his Slytherins. (I picture him being much more hands-on than McGonagall, though I'm not really sure why. I picture Sprout being more hands-on than Flitwick for that matter.) Betsy Hp (stopping before the rambling gets too far out of hand) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 22:47:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:47:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's dirty past uncovered/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170513 Carol earlier: > > Carol, who thinks that Snape's DE past *was* a secret, otherwise > the > > exposure of it would not have deterred DD from giving him the DADA > > post for so long > > Magpie: > Wait, I didn't understand this last part. Are you saying that > Dumbledore didn't give Snape the DADA position until HBP because it > would expose his DE past? Carol again: In a word, yes, but that's only part of it. If the DADA curse exposes the faults or secrets of the DADA teacher, then it will act on something related to Snape's DE past. Rather than causing him to fall back into his "old ways" (infatuation with Dark magic or supposed loyalty to Voldemort), which I think is Snape's and DD's cover story, the curse would reveal him as a DE, apparently loyal to Voldemort. And I think that, despite Snape's obvious qualifications for the post and real or supposed desire to teach that class, Dumbledore wanted to have him around as long as possible. But once Voldemort had returned and was no longer distracted by the Prophecy orb, Dumbledore couldn't, IMO, afford to wait any longer. He needed Snape as DADA teacher (including the side job of dealing with any Dark magic that made its way into Hogwarts) more than he needed him as Potions master. Conditions conspired to make HBP Snape's DADA year: Voldemort's return to power and the consequent need for Snape's expertise while there was still time, no other qualified applicants and the danger of another Ministry-approved teacher if DD didn't hire Snape, Draco's mission, Dumbledore's Horcrux injury, Harry's approaching coming-of-age, the need to bring Slughorn (who just happened to be qualified to teach Snape's old subject and take his place as HOH after the curse struck) to Hogwarts, the need to send Snape under cover as a DE at the end of the year (which, I'm sure, is the form they both expected the curse to take). His exposure as a DE (which would, they perhaps hoped, force DD to fire him) would enable him to pretend to be loyal to Voldemort while secretly spying for the Order. Unfortunately for them both, the UV (IMO, a manisfestation of the DADA curse) got in the way and spoiled their plan. I know I've mentioned all this before, but I realize that it's hard to keep track of everyone's views, so youve probably forgotten. :-) But, again, yes--I think that both Snape and DD expected the DADA curse to take the form of Snape's exposure as a "loyal" DE, which would cause him to be fired. Once the UV was in place, they probably feared something much worse, but, by then, it was too late to change their plan. (I'm not talking about a plan to fake DD's death, only a plan to send Snape undercover at the end of his year as DADA teacher.) But that Dumbledore waited to give Snape the DADA position until it was absolutely necessary, or until the time was right, as you prefer, seems to me crystal clear. Carol, who thinks that, as usual, Dumbledore had more than one reason for his action, and in this case, it's hard to say which was the main one From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 22:48:07 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:48:07 -0000 Subject: Future Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170514 > Anne Squires wrote: > Given [JKR's] hints many people have concluded that Neville suits the bill. > > Julie: > You've touched on my favorite future Hogwarts scenario, Neville as > Herbology professor and Draco as Potions professor. CV: How about Neville as DADA teacher? We have Harry's opinion that nobody improved their DADA skills under his proper tutelage than Neville. Does anybody doubt that he will prove himself a true Gryffindor in the Final Battle? My vote is Neville for DADA. The Herbology post is, of course, already filled by Professor Sprout. CV From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 22:54:46 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:54:46 -0000 Subject: Charlie problem? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170515 Ok I saw this in someones post and I don't know what they are referring to. It was in the context of timing mess ups that JKR has made Can anyone help me out? . Thanks TJ :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 23:20:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:20:18 -0000 Subject: Charlie problem? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170516 Tandra wrote: > > Ok I saw this in someones post and I don't know what they are referring to. It was in the context of timing mess ups that JKR has made Can anyone help me out? . Thanks > Carol responds: Since the post in question was mine, I'll explain what I meant. On the one hand, "the legendary Charlie Weasley," who "could have played Quidditch for England," is supposedly only three years older than Percy. (At first, JKR had him being two years older than Percy, but changed it so he would no longer be at school.) That being the case, Charlie left Hogwarts just before Ron and Harry entered it. His age is not actually referred to in canon, but we have Bill's remark in GoF that he hasn't been at Hogwarts for five years. (So, oops. I guess she forgot to move his age up one year as well.) According to the Twins (I forget which book; I think SS/PS), Gryffindor hasn't won the cup since Charlie left. (That would be last year, boys!) On the other hand, Gryffindor hasn't won the Quidditch Cup for seven years as of SS/PS (and seven years again in PoA, IIRC, but let's not complicate things). So if Charlie Weasley really is just three years older than Percy, Gryffindor somehow managed to lose the cup for all seven years that he attended--but they must have won it before he came, or it would be more than seven years. Not only would Gryffindor have Charlie, who could have played for England, playing as Seeker for at least five of those years and possibly six (he wouldn't have played as a first-year, unlike Harry), they also had Oliver Wood as Keeper for the last three or four years (he's a fifth-year as of SS/PS) and the Twins as Beaters for at least the previous year and probably the last two. They also had two of the same Chasers for at least the last year, and yet Oliver hopes that they have "a better team than last year." A better team than Charlie Weasley, Oliver Wood, the Weasley Twins, Angelina, and what's her name? That team lost the Quidditch Cup, and a team with Charlie on it lost for five or six years running, yet Gryffindor won the Cup the year before Charlie came to Hogwarts? It does not compute. And there's the additional problem of his parents' ages: on the one hand, they left Hogwarts and got married at the start of Voldemort's first reign some ten years before Harry was born; on the other hand, the gamekeeper was not Hagrid but "a man named Ogg," yet Hagrid had been training as gamekeeper since he was thirteen and would at the time they left Hogwarts have been around forty years old. (And Filch, whom we know to have been in his current position at least since MWPP's fifth year, was apparently not at Hogwarts yet, his predecessor being one Apollyon Pringle. I can see Filch being hired immediately after the Weasleys left, but I can't account for Ogg.) Carol, for whom "the Charlie Weasley problem" is indicative of JKR's difficulties with simple arithmetic, otherwise known as "Oh, dear. Maths" From keltobin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 20 23:43:52 2007 From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:43:52 -0000 Subject: Umbridge's Quill Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170517 Like many of you, I've been re-reading the books and started wondering about the blood-letting quill of Delores Umbridge. I saw in an interview that Umbridge would make a re-appearance in the last book and that there would be opportunity for her to receive more bad treatment from the author. What do we know about this quill? What happened to it and what was it created for (doesn't it seem like something someone would use for a dark contract)? Could this be of importance in the final book? When I was re-reading for some reason this "dark object" started to make me wonder. I know objects often make a re-appearance. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? The main thought I have is that it may have been the tool by which the dark mark tattoos were created. From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 00:12:53 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:12:53 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170518 > Geoff: > I read somewhere that, when the book came to be published > in the US, the publishers believed that readers would be ignorant > of and put off by this name and so settled on the title of > Sorcerer's Stone for the American edition rather than JKR's > original name. > > Magpie: > Apparently, it wasn't that they thought they would ignorant, so much > as that they wanted something in the title that suggested magic and > wizardry. That's what was misleading, not necessarily that Americans > didn't know what the Philosopher's Stone was. They asked JKR for an > alternate title like "Harry Potter and the School of Magic" to give > more of an idea of that, and she suggested Sorcerer's Stone. Eddie: But British children wouldn't be confused by "Philosopher's Stone"? Is the term so common that Brit kids knew the book was about magic? Feh. Eddie, who likes to add subordinate clauses to his signature a la justcarol67. From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 00:20:58 2007 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane "Panhandle" Penhaligon) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:20:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170519 > Eddie: > But British children wouldn't be confused by "Philosopher's Stone"? > Is the term so common that Brit kids knew the book was about magic? > > Feh. I always thought that the British kids might not necessarily know, but their parent's would and could easily answer the question. On the other hand, I'm not sure that most American parents would be able to answer the question. And yes, I am an American. -- Jane Penhaligon penhaligon at gmail.com From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 21 00:26:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:26:16 -0400 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US Message-ID: <380-2200764210261615@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170520 BetsyHp I suspect that Snape agreed to keep Lupin's secret from the students for Dumbledore's sake, for as long, and only as long, as Lupin kept the werewolf bit under control. (I can so picture the scene where Dumbledore and Snape come to that arrangement. ) Going by Hagrid's account it reads like Snape gathered his Slytherins together for a "personal safety" announcement. Which fits with my image of Snape being all mother hen and protective of his Slytherins. (I picture him being much more hands-on than McGonagall, though I'm not really sure why. I picture Sprout being more hands-on than Flitwick for that matter.) Magpie: You want rambling? I'll give you rambling. I'm kind of fascinated by the way JKR's linked both Snape and Draco to fear or werewolves, as if that's a Slytherin thing (while Sirius is all "Wish it were a full moon! Having a werewolf buddy is fun!). I wonder if there's an Occlumency thing there, the way the Gryffindors tend to like recklessness while the Slytherins are more associated with Occlumency (Snape and Draco both being naturals) who think their emotions (which are almost operatic in their intensity) are a weakness. Draco's worried about werewolves as early as PS, and in HBP Fenrir seems to be some symbol of both the scariest thing he can use to threaten others and something he's terrified of himself. You've got this loved werewolf on the Gryffindor side and that seems to be the symbol of something dark on the Slytherin side. I don't know, I just thought it was kind of interesting. I wonder if there's something that works in the opposite direction--though I don't think so, since we don't know Slytherin as well. > Geoff: > I read somewhere that, when the book came to be published > in the US, the publishers believed that readers would be ignorant > of and put off by this name and so settled on the title of > Sorcerer's Stone for the American edition rather than JKR's > original name. > > Magpie: > Apparently, it wasn't that they thought they would ignorant, so much > as that they wanted something in the title that suggested magic and > wizardry. That's what was misleading, not necessarily that Americans > didn't know what the Philosopher's Stone was. They asked JKR for an > alternate title like "Harry Potter and the School of Magic" to give > more of an idea of that, and she suggested Sorcerer's Stone. Eddie: But British children wouldn't be confused by "Philosopher's Stone"? Is the term so common that Brit kids knew the book was about magic? Feh. Magpie: No--Just because the American publishers specifically asked for the title to contain magic doesn't mean they thought British kids knew it was about magic and wouldn't be confused. They just had a different request for the title than the British publishers did, so the US title had something specifically magical in it. They weren't comparing the two, probably. Although the Philosopher's Stone is known both in the US and UK, I doubt all schoolchildren in either country necessarily know what it is. - From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 01:10:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:10:46 -0000 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <380-2200764210261615@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170521 > >>Magpie: > You want rambling? I'll give you rambling. I'm kind of fascinated > by the way JKR's linked both Snape and Draco to fear or werewolves, > as if that's a Slytherin thing (while Sirius is all "Wish it were a > full moon! Having a werewolf buddy is fun!). I wonder if there's an > Occlumency thing there, the way the Gryffindors tend to like > recklessness while the Slytherins are more associated with > Occlumency (Snape and Draco both being naturals) who think their > emotions (which are almost operatic in their intensity) are a > weakness. Draco's worried about werewolves as early as PS, and in > HBP Fenrir seems to be some symbol of both the scariest thing he > can use to threaten others and something he's terrified of himself. > You've got this loved werewolf on the Gryffindor side and that > seems to be the symbol of something dark on the Slytherin side. > > I don't know, I just thought it was kind of interesting. I wonder if > there's something that works in the opposite direction--though I > don't think so, since we don't know Slytherin as well. Betsy Hp: I have a couple of ideas. One is tied to the blood purity thing. If Slytherins are all about blood-purity (which I have a hard time buying, since no other house is *all* about just one thing, but yes I'll agree Slytherins are more interested in blood than other houses, or at least they'll admit to it ) it stands to reason they'd fear the one creature that can take it all away from them. From pureblood to half-breed with one bite. Doesn't work as well with Snape since Snape isn't pureblooded and knows it. But no one says your deepest darkest fears need to be logical. The other is the Slytherin as a female house thing. Werewolves are the embodiment of male aggression, so naturally the feminine Slytherins fear them, and the masculine Gryffindors love them. Which leads to that thing the Gryffindors' fear the most: chest monsters, obviously. Dating, hand-holding, talking about feelings, associating with *girls* and their *cooties*, in *tea shops of DOOOOOM*. GAH! Madness that gets friend turning on friend and birds flying in your face. Most Gryffindor's have found it best to just steer clear. (And I'll spare you the quidditch as masturbation imagery I started to run with and decided best to delete.) On a more serious note, I agree that we won't get a correlation. Alas. Betsy Hp (meeting your rambling and raising you a random) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 01:44:33 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:44:33 -0000 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <380-2200764210261615@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170522 > In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170487 > Lizzyben: > Quirrel didn't submit his resignation because of the "DADA > curse," he left because people found out VD was living in his > turban. Goddlefrood: He certainly left these mortal coils, anyway, or perhaps you have a theory on his survival? ;) > Eddie: > But British children wouldn't be confused by "Philosopher's > Stone"? Is the term so common that Brit kids knew the book was > about magic? > Feh. > Magpie: > Although the Philosopher's Stone is known both in the US and > UK, I doubt all schoolchildren in either country necessarily > know what it is. Goddlefrood: It's unlikely anyone knows what it is, except for as a concept. Iirc no one ever managed to create one, except in fiction. Should you be aware of the location of such a stone, Magpie, then I'd be interested as I could use a little elixir myself. Oh, and JKR has expressed regret that she changed the title although she did suggest the US version herself, it's in the eToys interview. Toodle oo From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 21 02:05:14 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:05:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs US In-Reply-To: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <4679DCDA.2060804@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170523 Lauren Merryfield wrote: > I'm sure this was discussed a long time ago, but I am new. Why does > the UK version call it "philosopher's stone" and the US version call > it the "sorcerer's stone?" Bart: Because, in the United States, "philosophy" is a 4-letter word. One would think that JKR was doing the counting. This is close to being serious; Scholastic told JKR that American children would not buy a book with the word "philosopher" in the title. Bart From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jun 21 02:11:10 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:11:10 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170524 > > Eddie: > > But British children wouldn't be confused by "Philosopher's Stone"? > > Is the term so common that Brit kids knew the book was about magic? > > > > Feh. > > > Jane Penhaligon wrote > I always thought that the British kids might not necessarily know, but their > parent's would and could easily answer the question. On the other hand, I'm > not sure that most American parents would be able to answer the question. > And yes, I am an American. colebiancardi: hmmmm. I am American and I am not ancient by any means, and I know what a "Philosopher's Stone" is - I've known it since I was about 7, thanks to a great book sent in Switzerland in an alternate Earth World, where weird intelligent beasties & men live together. Can't remember the title. However, most Americans who go thru high school learn about myths and history and not-so-long-ago alchemey as a science. If anything, I think that there is probably an equal amount of Americans and Brits who would have to google this to know what it means. Besides, you do KNOW what it is by reading the book. colebiancardi (sorry, off topic & no canon directly related to the books) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 21 03:00:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:00:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US Message-ID: <380-2200764213053890@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170525 Betsy Hp: I have a couple of ideas. One is tied to the blood purity thing. If Slytherins are all about blood-purity (which I have a hard time buying, since no other house is *all* about just one thing, but yes I'll agree Slytherins are more interested in blood than other houses, or at least they'll admit to it ) it stands to reason they'd fear the one creature that can take it all away from them. From pureblood to half-breed with one bite. Magpie: I've definitely always thought that made sense for Draco, certainly, the idea of contamination. I always found it interesting the way there were pernicious theories about Snape being a vampire and Draco being a werewolf when on some levels one might ask why it wasn't the other way around since Draco has the coloring of a vampire and Fanon!Draco is often seductive while canon!Snape sometimes loses it in a rage. In HBP Draco wasted away--they both have some nice Victorian touches, and compared to the Gryffindors seem much more potentially Goth and mournful. Narcissa looks like a drowned woman etc. Snape's got the red elf wine. Yet it somehow seems right. Snape isn't a Pureblood, but maybe it also means other stuff--loss of control, people seeing the inner beast. Snape tries to put himself across as more cerebral and sophisticated. BetsyHp: The other is the Slytherin as a female house thing. Werewolves are the embodiment of male aggression, so naturally the feminine Slytherins fear them, and the masculine Gryffindors love them. Which leads to that thing the Gryffindors' fear the most: chest monsters, obviously. Dating, hand-holding, talking about feelings, associating with *girls* and their *cooties*, in *tea shops of DOOOOOM*. GAH! Madness that gets friend turning on friend and birds flying in your face. Most Gryffindor's have found it best to just steer clear. (And I'll spare you the quidditch as masturbation imagery I started to run with and decided best to delete.) On a more serious note, I agree that we won't get a correlation. Alas. Magpie: Ha! Yup. But of course, you know what monster symbolizes seduction and sex, right? Vampires! Interesting that the one we see in canon is at Slughorn's party--and that he's somewhat played for laughs, which kind of undermines the potential for fear in ways that isn't done with werewolves. I was totally pleased to see some of those fanon touches in the way Slytherin was presented in HBP--Snape had his wine and bookcases, Draco was not only emo but when Harry walked into the Slytherin compartment there's super sexy Blaise (the son of a woman who mates and kills!) and Draco draping himself across Pansy's lap in a frankly sexual pose, with more open sexual talk--just a whole different approach to the subject ("You're so hard to please, Blaise..."). I find myself hoping that if they do this scene in the movie the Slytherin compartment will be accompanied by sitar music or something. -m From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 03:24:25 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:24:25 -0000 Subject: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170526 > Goddlefrood: > > He certainly left these mortal coils, anyway, or perhaps you > have a theory on his survival? ;) > CV: Sigh. Quirrell may well be dead, but it is highly unlikely that he died in the dungeon. Let's review. Here's what happened in the dungeon: ------ Quirrell raised his hand to preform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face - "AAAARGH!" Quirrell rolled off him, his face blistering, too, and then Harry knew: Quirrell couldn't touch his bare skin, not without suffering terrible pain. Harry jumped to his feet, caught Quirrell by the arm, and hung on as tight as he could. Quirrell screamed and tried to throw Harry off - the pain in Harry's head was building - he couldn't see - he could only hear Quirrell's terrible shrieks and Voldemort's yells of "KILL HIM! KILL HIM!" and other voices, maybe in Harry's onw head, crying "Harry! Harry!" ---- First, Harry may have touched Quirrell's face, but at the time Voldemort leaves, Harry only has ahold of Quirrell's *arm*. Furthermore, Quirrell is *alive* when Harry loses consciousness. Quirrell is shrieking when the rescuers are arriving. And notice, it's *rescuers* - plural. Harry hears *other voices*. Secondly, just after Harry grabs Quirrell, Harry is blinded. This is the last thing that Harry is to see for the next three days. One might question what JKR doesn't want Harry (or us) to see? Then there is a gap of three days before the narrative resumes with Harry waking up in the hospital wing. If you listen closely to Dumbledore's speech to Harry, he clearly makes the case that Quirrell did not die in the dungeon. Let's review: "Professor Quirrell did not manage to take [the stone] from you. I arrived in time to prevent that, although you were doing very well on your own, I must say." "I arrived in time to pull Quirrell off you." Quirrell must have still been alive when Harry was blacking out. Dumbledore had to pull Quirrell off him. And what does Dumbledore say about the end of Quirrell? "[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies." Notice the "left to die" phrasing. It is clear that when Voldemort left, Quirrell was not yet dead. What else does Dumbledore say about Quirrell? "[T]o have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loves us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." Dumbledore says it was "agony" for Quirrell to touch Harry, not that it was fatal. And then, there's the unicorn blood. ------ "[I]t is a monstrous thing to slay a unicorn," said Firenze. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price ...." "But who'd be that desperate?" [Harry] wondered aloud. "If you're going to be cursed forever, death's better, isn't it?" "It is," Firenze agreed, "unless all you need is to stay alive long enough to drink something else -- something that will bring you back to full strength and power -- something that will mean you can never die." ----- Something whose prime ingredient is right there in the room with them along with a wizard who knows how to make it? But didn't he die when Voldemort left? Um - not likely. Let's see what Voldy has to say: ----- "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes inhabited animals ? snakes, of course, being my preference ? but their bodies were ill adapted to perform magic and my possession of them shortened their lives; none of them lasted long " ... "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as ever I had been " ----- There is no doubt that Voldemort thinks that Quirrell died when he left his body. But we have Dumbledore's evidence that contridicts that. ("I arrived in time to pull Quirrell off you.") Voldemort is assuming that leaving a possessed body causes the host to die because that always happened with the animals. But note ? the animals died because their bodies were ill adapted to perform magic. The animals died because they weren't wizards. And it's a good thing that wizards can survive a possession because Harry is possessed in the battle at the Ministry of Magic. There is no reason to assume that Quirrell would have died because of the possession by Voldemort. At worst, Quirrell has a blistered face, a sore arm and a cursed half life. The only way that Quirrell could have died in that dungeon would be if Dumbledore killed him himself. I know what everybody is thinking. The movie couldn't have been that wrong. Doesn't JKR have script approval? Now? Yes. But then? Not so much. "I have been allowed to make my views felt. You know, that's not to say they're going to take my views on board, but the conscience rests easy, if you like, knowing that I was able to sit in the meeting and say what I would not be comfortable with. But it's not my call. .. All I can really say on that is that I've, I've been allowed to say what I would be happy with, whether that happens or not, it's not in my control." ? Ballard, Nigel. Interview, BBC Bristol, 12 November, 2001 And how about this: Jeff Jensen: "Do you have kind of control over what Warner Bros. does with Harry Potter?" JKR: "Can I prevent it in terms of what's in my contract? No. But they have been very gracious in allowing my input; and I have been asked a lot of questions I never expected to be asked." Interview with Entertainment Weekly, Aug 4, 2000, "Rowling Thunder" See? She never saw the script beforehand and only was there to respond to questions put to her. The conclusion is that there is absolutely NO canonical proof that Quirrell died there in the dungeon, movie notwithstanding, and there is plenty of suggestive evidence that he did not die there. ~ CV, fandom's Quirrell expert. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jun 21 03:34:35 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:34:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US References: Message-ID: <00a501c7b3b5$172fce90$6501a8c0@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170527 It just astounds me that in the age of the Internet and Google that we would assume we would be ignorant of anything- geesh. Even British words- they are so easily looked up these days- frankly, I have been put off that even a word was changed between versions. It's an insult to all of us. Hell, we've had a fun time even looking up all the names and finding their references, and looking up mythology- a couple of words wouldn't have make a difference in the end. I have another theory on this though- two publishers- how do you split the market? Territory yes, but larger than that- if you allow each to have their own cover, and change some of the wording, even the title of the first book, and BINGO! you have two different books with cross-over markets. Some Americans will buy the British books to see what's different, and vise versa. They both benefit directly from the differences. I don't think it had anything to do at all about anyone "understanding" what certain words meant, but it's a convenient excuse to keep the markets separate, is it not? Shelley From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 04:04:15 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Josef Djugashvili) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:04:15 -0000 Subject: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170528 > > Goddlefrood: > > He certainly left these mortal coils, anyway, or perhaps you > > have a theory on his survival? ;) > CV: > Sigh. Quirrell may well be dead, but it is highly unlikely > that he died in the dungeon. > Dumbledore: > "[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little > mercy to his followers as his enemies." > Lord Voldemort: > "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as > weak as ever I had been " > CV: > At worst, Quirrell has a blistered face, a sore arm and a > cursed half life. > ~ CV, fandom's Quirrell expert. Goddlefrood, who claims no expertise at all: The argument, although a good one, is rather flawed unfortunately. It failed to consider certain matters to which we are all privy through numerous archives, including JKR's own site, around this great cyber realm in which we dwell. This: FAQ: "Why could Harry see the Thestrals 'Order of the Phoenix'? Shouldn't he have been able to see them much earlier, because he saw his parents/Quirrell/Cedric die?" JKR: "I've been asked this a lot. Harry didn't see his parents die. He was in his cot at the time (he was just over a year old) and, as I say in `Philosopher's Stone', all he saw was a flash of green light. He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. Harry had passed out before Quirrell died and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last chapter." Available from: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=21 That suggests Quirinus is indeed deceased as far as I am concerned. I expect no return by him in DH. Constant Vigilence in respect of these matters would be the prescription methinks ;-) Goddlefrood who never said Quirrell died in the dungeon unless I'm much mistaken. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jun 21 04:13:11 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:13:11 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <00a501c7b3b5$172fce90$6501a8c0@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170529 Shelley: > I don't think it had anything to do at all about anyone "understanding" what certain words meant, but it's a convenient excuse to keep the markets separate, is it not? Ceridwen: That's true for adults, but the books, PS/SS and CoS especially, are for a children's market. Children know a lot, but if the author started saying that the walls have skirts (baseboards: US), they may not want to try and find a British to American dictionary on-line, they'll just imagine the walls wearing women's clothing. They might have a good laugh at calling a "stove" a "cooker", too. I was thirteen when I first read Sherlock Holmes. This is both a time and place difference, but I thought Holmes and Watson walked around London holding hands, because they went "in a hansom". Yes, I did learn that it's a type of cab, after several years. That's why a lot of "Classics" have footnotes, to explain differences of time (Lydia got a fish? Phew!). And, confess, when the books started calling pull-over sweaters "jumpers", how many people flashed to little dresses made to wear over blouses? Even if you know what the author's talking about, the mental images can yank you right out of the story if they're foreign enough. Who wants to stop reading in the middle of a good part just to check some on-line dictionary? Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 21 04:17:25 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:17:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170530 Magpie: > > I'm kind of fascinated by the way JKR's linked both > > Snape and Draco to fear or werewolves, as if that's > > a Slytherin thing (while Sirius is all "Wish it were > > a full moon! Having a werewolf buddy is fun!). Betsy Hp: > I have a couple of ideas. One is tied to the blood > purity thing. If Slytherins are all about blood-purity > (which I have a hard time buying, since no other house > is *all* about just one thing, but yes I'll agree > Slytherins are more interested in blood than other > houses, or at least they'll admit to it ) it > stands to reason they'd fear the one creature that > can take it all away from them. From pureblood to > half-breed with one bite. > [...] > The other is the Slytherin as a female house thing. > Werewolves are the embodiment of male aggression, so > naturally the feminine Slytherins fear them, and the > masculine Gryffindors love them. houyhnhnm: Both of those explanations make sense, though I hadn't really thought about the way the two Houses react to werewolves. I have thought about the differences between Slytherin and Gryffindor with respect to fear in general. I think fear is a specifically Slytherin issue. Which is not to say they are cowards, but rather that fear is something that those with a Slytherin temperament have to come to terms with as they grow up in a way that young Gryffindors do not. Draco is not afraid only of the werewolves in the Forbidden Forest. "--there's all sorts of things in there--." It wasn't a werewolf that caused him to let out a terrible scream and bolt from the forest. I had the feeling that it was really fear behind the bravado that got him in trouble with the Hippogriff, and all through HBP we see Draco grappling with fear. And can anyone doubt that Severus "Snivellus" "DON'T CALL ME COWARD" Snape hasn't wrestled with fear issues? Magpie: > I don't know, I just thought it was kind of interesting. > I wonder if there's something that works in the opposite > direction--though I don't think so, since we don't know > Slytherin as well. houyhnhnm: I think it might be Dementors. Gryffindors are much more dependent on "spirits" or "heart" as a driving force. A dark creature that can make them *depressed* has got to be the worst nightmare for a Gryffindor. For Slytherins, being such emotional creatures to start with and *having* to learn to deal with emotions, including bad ones, Dementors probably do not hold the same kind of terror. I don't mean that they are not affected by Dementors or that they are immune to their effects in some way (Gryffindors are not immune to werewolves). I mean little Slytherin kids may be afraid of a werewolf in the closet. With Gryffindor kids, it's more likely to be a Dementor. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 04:50:11 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:50:11 -0000 Subject: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Josef Djugashvili" (Josef Djugashvili? You are Stalin? I never noticed that before!) > > Goddlefrood, who claims no expertise at all: > > The argument, although a good one, is rather flawed unfortunately. > It failed to consider certain matters to which we are all privy > through numerous archives, including JKR's own site, around this > great cyber realm in which we dwell. > > This: > > FAQ: "Why could Harry see the Thestrals 'Order of the Phoenix'? > Shouldn't he have been able to see them much earlier, because > he saw his parents/Quirrell/Cedric die?" > > JKR: "I've been asked this a lot. Harry didn't see his parents > die. He was in his cot at the time (he was just over a year old) > and, as I say in `Philosopher's Stone', all he saw was a flash > of green light. He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. Harry > had passed out before Quirrell died and was only told about it > by Dumbledore in the last chapter." > > Available from: > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=21 Yes, I am quite familiar with the FAQ and that particular quote. It does not really counter my argument. First of all, Dumbledore is not being truthful about Quirrell in general. He claims that he has never been able to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year because of the curese, but Quirrell must have been a teacher - and a teacher of DADA - for more than one year, and more likely for three or four. This has been discussed before, so I won't repeat the argument here. The fact that we readers have a problem with this statement from Dumbledore only proves that he is not good at not being truthful, especially since he just got done saying "I will of course, never lie." One can only assume he had his fingers crossed at the time. There is something that he is doing that is so secret, that he tells Harry a whopper, and JKR - in order not to spoil - must repeat the error on her website. She is known to throw us curveballs that are perilously close to lies before: "You told me all this had nothing to do with He-Who-Must-Not-Be- Named, remember? Well --' "It was a clue, sir," said Dobby, his eyes widening as though this was obvious. "Was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name could be freely named." Now let's reread the FAQ quote, annotating it in the manner that Dobby (and JKR) believe to be fair: "He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. (Because Quirrell didn't die there) Harry had passed out before Quirrell died (in Book 7) and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last chapter (when Dumbly was fibbing)." The only other possibility is that Dumbledore finished a helpless Quirrell off himself. I can't believe that of Dumbledore. As I said, Quirrell may be dead. He may not appear in Book 7. But there is no canonical or FAQ evidence (that can't be refuted) that Quirrell perished in the dungeon, or anywhere in the first book. ~ CV From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 05:15:09 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:15:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170532 > wynnleaf > At the beginning of Hermione's Secret, Snape says to Fudge > (in the midst of other things), "Consider Minister - against > all school rules - after all the precautions put in place for his > protection - out-of-bounds, at night, consorting with a werewolf > and a murderer..." Rather obviously, Snape told Fudge about Lupin's > involvement. And since Lupin said that Dumbledore had to convince > Fudge that he (Lupin) was innocent of helping Sirius, it seems > pretty clear that Fudge had been told enough to think Lupin might > be guilty of helping Sirius. Mike: GAH! You are right of course. My brain was up to the transformation scene while my fingers were still typing a general statement. What I meant to say was that Fudge would have no idea when Lupin transformed and doesn't seem to be considering the possibility that Lupin was the immediate threat that the Dementors were. Even after the second Hospital ward scene, Fudge is all about the Dementors almost kissing an innocent boy. No short aside along the lines of, "And Dumbledore, you have a werewolf problem. I expect he will be shown the door?" Fudge is certainly the type to want to spread the blame around rather than shoulder it all himself. With the Dementors being his idea, I'm sure he would have loved to point out to Dumbledore that hiring the werewolf was his (DD's) fault. > wynnleaf > It's true that Fudge may not have learned of the actual > transformation circumstances. But Snape would have told Fudge the > circumstances that led him to Lupin's office in the first place > (Lupin not taking the potion), and Fudge would therefore know that > Lupin was down at the Shrieking Shack with 3 kids about to > transform without the potion. Mike: I read this scene as both Snape and Fudge being all about Black. At this point, Lupin is a side note. Fudge is grateful to Snape for "bringing in" Black. He's had one fiasco tonight with the Hippogriff escaping, but the re-capture of Black will completely wipe out that event. And Snape is at his smarmiest cooing to Fudge, downplaying his role just the right amount to make Fudge offer him an Order of Merlin. Snape's perspective: What a night, Black's about to gets his just desserts at my hand no less and I get an award on top of it all. Lupin who? > wynnleaf > Later, Sirius told Dumbledore what occurred and he'd surely have > included the reason for Peter's escape. So Dumbledore knew that > Lupin had transformed right in front of the children. Mike: Well yeah Dumbledore, as usual, has the more complete story. How does that affect Snape or Fudge? > wynnleaf > Fudge would have known from Snape's story that Lupin was involved in > helping Sirius AND that Lupin had not taken his potion and been down > there with 3 children. Fudge, even being a bit dim, could easily > figure out that Lupin had put kids at risk to transform in an > unprotected state. No, Fudge probably *didn't* know for sure that > Lupin transformed right with the children -- unless Fudge learned > some of Sirius' statement which would include an explanation for how > Pettigrew got away. Mike: I think you've credited Snape with talking much more about Lupin than I do. I also think that Fudge could give a rat's ass about where Lupin fit into the story at this point. And since neither of them know about Pettigrew and his escape, they really don't care why Lupin was nowhere to be found when Snape nabbed the unconscious Black. They understand why Black, Harry and the girl were unconscious - what more is there to understand? And after Black's escape, Snape still doesn't think about Lupin. He's focused on Potter and that he *must* have hand in the escape. Lupin is still not on Snape's nor Fudge's radar. I don't think he ever causes a blip for Fudge, until next year when he can throw it in Dumbledore's face. > > > > Mike: > > Snape wanted to do as much damage as he could to Lupin. > > The morning after sees no change in Snape's position > > vis-a-vis Lupin from the one he took in the Shack. > > wynnleaf > Actually, we don't know that. We have no idea when Dumbledore went > about explaining things to Snape as regards Peter being alive. > > when Dumbledore told Snape that the Trio couldn't have been > involved in Sirius' escape without being in two places at once. > Snape ceased his complaints immediately and left the room -- > still angry, but at that point he'd have realized that > Dumbledore was behind the use of the time-turner to help Sirius > escape. Even if you don't think Dumbledore was signaling the use of > the time-turner to Snape, it's still quite possible that Dumbledore > told Snape that night about Peter being alive. Mike: The way Snape stormed out of the room, completely pissed that Dumbledore had taken the Marauders side (again?), I think he's in no mood to listen to any of Dumbledore's explanations. And remembering how long Dumbledore let Hagrid stew in GoF, I'd rather doubt that DD called Snape to his side that night. Harry's the one that gets the debriefings. I don't think Snape refocuses on Lupin until later, maybe not until he sees him the next morning. At that point, Lupin is all Snape has left. So why not reveal that secret? As Magpie said, "Your not getting away this time, Lupin." It wouldn't surprise me if DD never tried to explain Sirius' innocence to Snape. Just as it wouldn't surprise me to discover that Snape *still* thought Sirius was guilty when he returns to human form right in front of him in GoF. It's possible that Snape thinks Sirius is guilty right up until the moment in the graveyard when he sees Pettigrew with his own eyes. He's the short, whimpering guy over there playing with his new silver hand. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170512 Betsy Hp: [A tiny bit of an aside here: I think Mike earlier expressed doubt that Snape would have felt any bad feelings towards "live and let live" Lupin when he had Sirius and James in his face 24/7. On the contrary, I imagine young!Snape would have felt a great deal of anger towards the boy who assisted in his downfall but never ever got caught and maintained the image of a perfect little angel to surrouding adults.] Mike: :D Yep, that was me. It's not that Snape liked Lupin or anything, he just wasn't a big part of what Snape went through in school, imo. Until the Prank, that is. There are two possibilities here. If Lupin's part was more than innocent lycanthrope getting pranked himself, then Snape had a legitimate beef with him. If Lupin knew nothing of Sirius' grand scheme (tongue in cheek here), then Snape's hatred of Lupin and fear of werewolves into adulthood is being overplayed by Snape, imo. (Assuming that Snape still fears werewolves, which I'm not so sure he does) I'm not getting what "downfall" of Snape's you are refering to? Since we last saw him hanging in the air by his ankle, shouldn't that be an upfall? ;-) One last thing. This DADA curse. Every teacher before Snape gets whacked to one degree or another, in the end. But at the end of Snape's term, Dumbledore gets whacked. Where's the justice in that? Just another reason for me to believe that Snape's got some serious comeuppance due to him. Mike From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 05:28:19 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Lev Davidovich Bronstien) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:28:19 -0000 Subject: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Josef Djugashvili" > > (Josef Djugashvili? You are Stalin? I never noticed that before!) Goddlefrood: Not this time, no. > CV: > Yes, I am quite familiar with the FAQ and that particular > quote. > It does not really counter my argument. First of all, > Dumbledore is not being truthful about Quirrell in > general. He claims that he has never been able to keep > a DADA teacher for more than a year because of the curse, > but Quirrell must have been a teacher - and a teacher of > DADA - for more than one year, and more likely for three > or four. > This has been discussed before, so I won't repeat the argument > here. Goddlefrood: I have familiarity with the argument and only comment that it is one of the continuing mysteries of the books. I'm also well aware that Dumbledore is often economical with the truth, but do not propse to repeat the reasons why. The Dobby matter and many more threw we poor befuddled readers, I'll grant you. > CV, spinning the spinner: > "He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. (Because Quirrell > didn't die there) Harry had passed out before Quirrell died (in > Book 7) and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last > chapter (when Dumbly was fibbing)." Goddlefrood: Here's another spin on that: "He didn't see Quirrell's death, either (beacuse it was too early in book 2 to introduce the Thestrals). Harry had passed out before Quirrell died (later that same day, but before Harry regained consciousness) and was only told about it by Dumbledore (who had tried all hew could to save Quirrell's life, but failed) in the last chapter." > CV: > As I said, Quirrell may be dead. He may not appear in Book 7. > But there is no canonical or FAQ evidence (that can't be refuted) > that Quirrell perished in the dungeon, or anywhere in the first > book. Goddlefrood: Agreed eseentially except that Lord Voldemort also believes Quirrell died (possibly erroneously, I'll give you that). Quirrell was sadly deluded, as I've said before and it probably cost him his life. As I've also said before, with the exception of Gilderoy (who was hardly bad anyway, just a show pony), all the bad things in the books ultimately flow from Voldemort. Tis his responsibility, and his alone, that Quirrell is dead, and I accept he is. Goddlefrood from the Blue House > > ~ CV > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 21 06:37:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 06:37:00 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <00a501c7b3b5$172fce90$6501a8c0@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: Shelley: > It just astounds me that in the age of the Internet and Google that we would > assume we would be ignorant of anything- geesh. Even British words- they are > so easily looked up these days- frankly, I have been put off that even a > word was changed between versions. It's an insult to all of us. Hell, we've > had a fun time even looking up all the names and finding their references, > and looking up mythology- a couple of words wouldn't have make a difference > in the end. Geoff: But don't forget that when JKR finally managed to get "Philosopher's Stone" published, it was in 1997. The Net was still making its way into the collective conscience here in the UK and the Goverment was still rabbiting on about "The Information Superhighway".... From waddleduck1984 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 21 09:06:19 2007 From: waddleduck1984 at yahoo.co.uk (waddleduck1984) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:06:19 -0000 Subject: How did Harry Get his Wand Back? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170535 This May have been touched on before, however, whilst reading the books again for a top up before the new one comes out, In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry's Wand is taken from him when Umbridge finds him using her fire to find Sirius. After they lead Umbridge into the forest to be then chased off by Grawp, the others meet back up with Harry and Hermione. However, when they finally get to the Ministry of Magic, Harry has his wand? This was never mentioned how he managed to get his wand back. I know he probably did a simple Accio Wand Spell however this is not stated and is playing on my mind. Can anyone help? Waddleduck x From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 09:58:22 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:58:22 -0000 Subject: Umbridge's Quill In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170536 Kelly wrote: Like many of you, I've been re-reading the books and started wondering about the blood-letting quill of Dolores Umbridge. The main thought I have is that it may have been the tool by which the dark mark tattoos were created. Jo wrotes: That is a good idea, but that means each person would have had to draw the mark loads of times again and again, drawing their blood, to then have the image etched on their arms like Harry had the words etched onto the back of his hand. Also, I wonder how this would link them to Voldemort (probably a dark spell we just don't know about yet)? It does seem to be rather a dark object though and one she probably shouldn't have been using (she had probably picked it up at the Ministry, from the items confiscated from dark wizards). I hope that if Umbridge makes a reappearance in book 7, she has the quill with her and she is involved in using it on herself somehow, so she can get a taste for the torture she put Harry through! Jo. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jun 21 11:10:03 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:10:03 -0000 Subject: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170537 mike wrote: > One last thing. This DADA curse. Every teacher before Snape gets > whacked to one degree or another, in the end. But at the end of > Snape's term, Dumbledore gets whacked. Where's the justice in that? > Just another reason for me to believe that Snape's got some serious > comeuppance due to him. > colebiancardi: whacked....thinking of Tony Soprano right now.... anyway, if what you mean by "whacked" is that the curse's outcome was not favorable to the DADA teacher, well, Snape has been "whacked". He is now an outcast and untrustworthy to the wizarding community, due to his part in Dumbledore's death (note, I don't say murder, because I don't believe Snape murdered Dumbledore...30 days before we know for sure) There is no justice in the DADA curse. Why should there be? It is a curse, not a trial by law. Lockhart, Lupin & the real Moody, despite their flaws, did not deserve the effects of the curse. Yeah, Yeah, Lockhart is a prat, but to spend the rest of his life as a mental patient? And Umbridge - still a member of the wizarding community - her only comeuppance was to deal with the Centuars. The curse for Snape, IMHO, was that he was not to die; that he had to fulfill the UV; that he had to release Dumbledore from the Horcrux Ring curse that had plagued DD all year. Justice? Justice would be that Harry finally understands this and doesn't view Snape thru that dark lens of his. of course, in 30 days, I could be eating crow....I like my birds young & tender, well-done with a nice wine sauce on the side. colebiancardi From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jun 21 11:15:14 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:15:14 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170538 > Shelley: > > It just astounds me that in the age of the Internet and Google that we would > > assume we would be ignorant of anything- geesh. Even British words- they are > > so easily looked up these days- frankly, I have been put off that even a > > word was changed between versions. I > > > > Geoff: > But don't forget that when JKR finally managed to get "Philosopher's Stone" > published, it was in 1997. The Net was still making its way into the collective > conscience here in the UK and the Goverment was still rabbiting on about > "The Information Superhighway".... > colebiancardi: 1997 was not the dark ages in the US with the 'net. I program for the web, and have done so since 1994. There were other search engines besides google in the olden days, not to mention (OMG) real, books called dictionaries. at any rate, if one reads the book, you know what a philosopher's stone is and most people, including children, look at the cover art (magical) and read the back of the cover to get the general idea of what the book is about. again, the publishers messed it up. colebiancardi From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 11:44:08 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 06:44:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706210444j7beb64feu5596dc5e6027acb7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170539 > > colebiancardi: > > 1997 was not the dark ages in the US with the 'net. I program for the > web, and have done so since 1994. There were other search engines > besides google in the olden days, not to mention (OMG) real, books > called dictionaries. > > at any rate, if one reads the book, you know what a philosopher's > stone is and most people, including children, look at the cover art > (magical) and read the back of the cover to get the general idea of > what the book is about. > > again, the publishers messed it up. montims: but it is not just the HP books. All British books published in America are Americanised - it is what they do. I've said it before on other threads, so I apologise if you've heard it before, but I buy all British books from eBay.co.uk or Amazon.uk, because I hate reading about a Londoner carrying a checkbook in her purse, for example, and American spelling is very intrusive to me in a particularly British book (whether fiction or non-fiction). On the other hand, I have been a voracious reader all my life, happily reading American books with their own terminology and spelling, and learning new words and phrases as I went. Some things I still have to ask my American husband about... In the UK, books are published in their original format. I earned some money on the side, one time, Americanising a British anti-smoking website, so I understand that the people who do this for American publishers can earn a tidy sum... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 12:57:58 2007 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:57:58 -0000 Subject: How did Harry Get his Wand Back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170540 IIRC, Ron got from Malfor when he, Ginny, Luna and Neville broke free of the Inquisitorial Squad. He gave it to Harry when they found him and Hermione in the forest. Distaiyi, Just finished all 6 in 2 weeks for a topoff. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 21 13:02:51 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:02:51 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and RL equivalents! In-Reply-To: <1182352141.919.1196160191@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170541 - > Pippin: > > But when Sirius seemingly > > betrayed him a second time, Dumbledore let him be > > sent to Azkaban. Random832 > I hope you're not suggesting this excuses his inaction - while > Dumbledore may not be obligated to give him a "third chance" if Sirius > had in fact betrayed him, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a duty to > find out the truth. A false accusation is not worth a "strike". > -- Pippin: You may be underestimating how cunningly Sirius was framed. Dumbledore suspected him for some time before GH, perhaps for as long as a year. In all that time, the real spy had to make sure there was never any evidence that would clear Sirius and never quite enough to convince Dumbledore to turn him in. Of course the real spy wouldn't want Sirius arrested since it would deprive him of cover for his operations. The temptation to arrest Sirius on suspicion alone must have been enormous and Dumbledore deserves credit for resisting it, IMO. But once he had what he thought was unconditional proof of Sirius's guilt, he could only let the WW's version of justice take its course. We saw in HBP that Dumbledore's efforts to stop the Ministry from holding people without trial were in vain. There was no point in Dumbledore visiting Sirius in Azkaban since he was already convinced that Sirius was guilty (much as he believed that Draco was guilty in HBP). Pippin From faithvsion at aol.com Thu Jun 21 13:12:48 2007 From: faithvsion at aol.com (faithvsion at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:12:48 EDT Subject: How did Harry Get his Wand Back? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170542 waddleduck1984 at yahoo.co.uk writes: After they lead Umbridge into the forest to be then chased off by Grawp, the others meet back up with Harry and Hermione. However, when they finally get to the Ministry of Magic, Harry has his wand? This was never mentioned how he managed to get his wand back. Nancy: It is mentioned. US Hardcover page 760 in the chapter "Fight and Flight" I quote "So," said Ron, pushing aside a low hanging branch and holding out Harry's wand, "had any ideas?" Ron got it back from the inquisitorial squad when the DA jinxed them to get away and follow Harry and Hermione. Two sentences later he also hands Hermione's wand back to her: "Couple of Stunners, a Disarming Charm, Neville brought off a nice little Impediment Jinx," said Ron airily, now handing back Hermione's wand too.... Nancy From hexicon at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 14:13:52 2007 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Kristen) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:13:52 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: colebiancardi: > at any rate, if one reads the book, you know what a philosopher's > stone is and most people, including children, look at the cover art > (magical) and read the back of the cover to get the general idea of > what the book is about. > > again, the publishers messed it up. > > colebiancardi > Hexicon: What I don't understand is why "philosopher" must become "sorcerer," "jumper" must become "sweater," but "spotted dick" isn't changed! That it's raisin pudding may be inferred from the context, but I think that one gave nightmares to a generation of U.S. kids Hexicon, who as a youthful eccentricity used British spelling until an "English" teacher started docking her grades for it. From laurel_lei at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 13:14:46 2007 From: laurel_lei at yahoo.com (Laurel Lei) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:14:46 -0000 Subject: How did Harry Get his Wand Back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "waddleduck1984" wrote: > > This May have been touched on before, however, whilst reading the > books again for a top up before the new one comes out, > > In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry's Wand is taken from him when > Umbridge finds him using her fire to find Sirius. > > After they lead Umbridge into the forest to be then chased off by > Grawp, the others meet back up with Harry and Hermione. > > However, when they finally get to the Ministry of Magic, Harry has > his wand? > > This was never mentioned how he managed to get his wand back. Laurel Lei here... >From memory, sorry don't have my book with me... I remember when reading this chapter that I also noticed this and reread the chapter more carefully... >From memory... there was the fight between the DA and Umbridge's Syltherin students (Draco included)... the DA was victorious and got away. This occurred just after Hermione lead Umbridge into the forest. I believe it was Ron, who met up with them just after the confrontation with Firenze's family and Grawp and returned Harry and Hermione's wands... was a very brief scene, but it's there. All the best! -Laurel Lei From schefflerj at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 14:33:38 2007 From: schefflerj at yahoo.com (Joanna Scheffler) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Umbridge's Quill Message-ID: <145682.86128.qm@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170545 I've wondered if Umbridge is a vampire. In one of JK's descriptions of her, she stresses that Umbridge has very sharp teeth, and this was before the quill appeared. Just a thought... schefflerj From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 16:27:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:27:51 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170546 > mike wrote: > > One last thing. This DADA curse. Every teacher before Snape gets > > whacked to one degree or another, in the end. But at the end of > > Snape's term, Dumbledore gets whacked. Where's the justice in that? > > Just another reason for me to believe that Snape's got some serious > > comeuppance due to him. > > > > > colebiancardi: > There is no justice in the DADA curse. Why should there be? It is a > curse, not a trial by law. Lockhart, Lupin & the real Moody, despite > their flaws, did not deserve the effects of the curse. Yeah, Yeah, > Lockhart is a prat, but to spend the rest of his life as a mental > patient? And Umbridge - still a member of the wizarding community - > her only comeuppance was to deal with the Centuars. > > The curse for Snape, IMHO, was that he was not to die; that he had to > fulfill the UV; that he had to release Dumbledore from the Horcrux > Ring curse that had plagued DD all year. > > Justice? Justice would be that Harry finally understands this and > doesn't view Snape thru that dark lens of his. Alla: I may be wrong, but I do not think Mike meant *justice* of the curse. Of course curse can carry no justice, LOL. It is called a curse for a reason after all IMO. I think Mike just meant a general justice being carried out towards Snape dear, and as you know I also think that Snape did not experience any sort of justice yet. Hopefully he will. He delivers prophecy to Voldemort and two young people die and one boy remains an orphan ? does he get punished for that? Not as far as I know. On the contrary, he comes back to Dumbledore and supposedly tells him how **sorry** he was and instead of Azkaban he gets a nice job as Hogwarts professor ? food, shelter, protection and all that. Snape treats Harry like crap and what does he get for that? Um, nothing as far as I know. Of course I am talking about my opinions as I see Snape ? if you do not share my opinion that he treats Harry like crap, obviously he does not need any punishment. He takes it upon himself to expose Lupin, contrary to what Dumbledore told him to. I could care less about what Lupin was supposed to do himself, I just do not buy that it was upon Snape to expose him. Does Snape gets anything for that? Well, as I mentioned before, maybe, just maybe him being on the run and paria of WW at least for a while, maybe he will remember Lupin once in a while and consider it some sort of karma. And he kills his mentor, somebody who saved his sorry ass from Azkaban. Again, of course I am proceeding on the assumption that it was murder, not anything else ? if it was not, different story. If it was murder, I want Snape pay for it, I really really want it. I know that by all literary laws, Harry will forgive Snape at the end, but boy or boy, do I want to see some real carmic justice being served to this character. Just a page, a few sentences? Please JKR, let me see Snape powerless, humiliated, suffering, pretty please and then let Harry be the better man again and forgive Snape. Colebiancardi: > of course, in 30 days, I could be eating crow....I like my birds young > & tender, well-done with a nice wine sauce on the side. > Alla: Heee, I will cook for you and you will cook for me, how about that? I have home cooked recipe ready ;) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jun 21 16:33:07 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:33:07 -0000 Subject: POA, territorialism and the pecking order (Snape's dirty past uncovered ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170547 > Jen: But I do agree Dumbledore has indeed included Snape and Hagrid > in the ever-growing group of people, beings and beasts under his > protection at Hogwarts. I just wouldn't say DD does this because he > sees them as more loyal so much as feeling more responsible for > protecting and defending them. > Magpie: > Even if it's his feeling more responsible for protecting and > defending them, I think that's part of his being more intimate with > them. They are mistrusted by others but Dumbledore always gives his > personal assurance that he trusts them. > > And that's not just about how Dumbledore feels about them but how > they feel about Dumbledore--I would actually say that in PoA I get > a little territorialism from Snape with Lupin at Hogwarts as well. > Does that ring true for you at all? Jen: Territorialism does ring true for me, very much so in a book about people turning into animals! There's almost a feral sense in POA with a pecking order in the works and Snape ending up at the bottom of the hierarchy again like he did after the Prank (in his own mind at least). And he's worked so hard all year to establish his authority because Hogwarts *is* his territory, only to be passively snubbed by Lupin and overtly crossed by Harry-as-a-proxy-for-James. Then to top it off, alpha dog-Dumbledore nips at his pup Snape and puts him back in his place when he attempts to move above it! Ah, if only there weren't emotions involved everyone would have accepted the hierarchy and moved on. ;) Seriously though, I'm thinking of POA in a whole new way since you made that comment, Magpie. It ties back to the intimacy you talked about Dumbledore having with Snape and Hagrid over Lupin and Sirius (who have created their own intimacy with the Marauders). There's another dog metaphor circling in my mind: Snape and Hagrid are part of Dumbledore's pack just as the Marauders have their own pack and that leads to an intimacy and trust between the three of them. It's similar to how the Marauders built their own trust and intimacy with each other and Lily, although different in scope because Dumbledore will always hold a place above Snape and Hagrid. But I understand more clearly what you were saying now. Before I thought you were saying Dumbledore didn't *really* trust Lupin or Sirius but now I think you were talking about the...depth of trust, if that's the right way to phrase it? One other funny thought since we're all rambling in these days of waiting, eh? Wouldn't it be ironic if JKR plays *some* of the Snape stuff with Harry similar to Sirius with Harry, in that Snape is jostling the favored son from a sibling rivalry for Dumbledore's attention as much as anything else. Yeah, he's an adult and teacher and *should* be more mature than that but he's also stunted in his emotional growth in a way very similar to Sirius if for different reasons. It would make me rethink some of the scenes like Snape stopping Harry from seeing Dumbledore in GOF when he was so desperate to talk to him and also Snape's attempts to get Harry expelled so he can establish his own place with Dumbledore again. I don't know if this would end up the case but I'd personally enjoy a Snape parallel with Sirius. I think of them as being much more alike than they care to admit or maybe they are flip sides of the same coin? I haven't quite worked it out but there's something attaching the two characters in my mind even though they appear very different to Harry. Magpie: > I do think that Snape's outing Lupin to the Slytherins could have a > part in his leaving--but his leaving, not Dumbledore's firing him. > He didn't ever want Lupin there, and I think was probably driven > crazy by Lupin's easily ingratiating himself with everyone. I think > that's probably part of the reason that it's so satisfying for > Snape to see that he's "right" and Lupin is indeed helping Sirius. Jen: I agree with this interpretation. Lupin is so self-contained it's difficult for me to imagine anyone *making* him do something he wasn't planning to do; he's got a will of iron under that pleasant facade, fired over the years by hardship and survival. Whatever Snape's motive, Lupin understands Snape's actions have just made his life even harder and I'd guess he's pissed under that wry smile. Or maybe he's just resigned to what's ahead? I'm not sure. At any rate, the exchange with Harry about the letters arriving is just the tip of the iceberg for what Lupin will face when leaves the protection of Hogwarts and he knows it. Jen From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 21 16:43:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:43:51 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kristen" wrote: > What I don't understand is why "philosopher" must > become "sorcerer," "jumper" must become "sweater," but "spotted dick" > isn't changed! That it's raisin pudding may be inferred from the > context, but I think that one gave nightmares to a generation of U.S. > kids Bart: First of all, The Philosopher's Stone was a real world concept in alchemy; in a predecessor to Fred Kantor's Information Mechanics, in that it was a theoretical construct that would alter the infomration in an elemental structure, and cause transmutation by altering the elemental balance. In spiritual alchemy, it was considered to be the instrument of ultimate enlightment (what is referred to as "Moksha" in Sanskrit); once one has created it, one has become one with the Universe itself. However, for decades, there has been a systematic degradation of the study of philosophy in the United States, trying (with a great deal of success) to brand it as a useless waste of time. This is neither the time nor the place to get into the details (I have given a 1 1/2 hour lecture on the subject in several venues), but part of the result was that the term "philospher" or "philosophy" has become a major turn-off in the United States for a lot of people. Scholastic Publishing, not realizing what a hit they had on their hands, decided to get rid of the word "philosopher", because they perceived American kids as never having heard of the "philosopher's stone" (although it had been used in comic books without any problem), and that the term "philosopher" in the title would be a turn-off. JKR complied, although she has since said that she regretted the decision. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 21 16:44:56 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:44:56 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170549 > Alla: > > I think Mike just meant a general justice being carried out towards > Snape dear, and as you know I also think that Snape did not > experience any sort of justice yet. Hopefully he will. > > He delivers prophecy to Voldemort and two young people die and one > boy remains an orphan ? does he get punished for that? Not as far as > I know. On the contrary, he comes back to Dumbledore and supposedly > tells him how **sorry** he was and instead of Azkaban he gets a nice > job as Hogwarts professor ? food, shelter, protection and all that. Pippin: Um, what about the part where he turned spy for the Order at great personal risk? Are you saying that if he had been a careless spy and gotten himself killed it would have been just, but since he was a good spy and stayed alive so he could keep supplying the Order with information, it was a slap on the wrist? IOW, Dumbledore should have sent him on a suicide mission? I don't think so. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 21 16:51:00 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:51:00 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170550 Bart: Please read the next paragraph, CAREFULLY, before responding. Thanks! The list elves have pre-approved this topic. However, please, please, please don't answer this in any context with any real world Harry Potter movie. The purpose of this exercise is to get more insight into the characters of the books. Here is the set-up (note the topic is FANTASY casting): A new computerized filmaking technique has been discovered. You can take any character played by any actor in film or television (including cartoons) in history, and it will convert that character into a character for the new movie, being played more or less the same way. The character can be converted from one age to another, or even changed in appearance (so you could theoretically have a 5 year old Shirley Temple playing Mrs. Figg; note how many characters Tom Hanks played in Polar Express even using RW technology). Now, it has been announced that YOU are going to be helping with the casting of a special Harry Potter maxi-series, which will cover all 6 (eventually 7) books, in detail. Name performances by actors that you would use for various parts. If you have trouble remembering who an actor is and what they have been in, the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com) is an excellent source. Here are a few examples: Professor Snape: I think one of the reasons a lot of people thought he was a vampire is because Christopher Lee's performances as Dracula in the Hammer Dracula films would be so perfect for him. Sirius Black: Errol Flynn; in particular, his performance in Captain Blood (as a doctor who, by circumstances, was forced into becoming a pirate). Filch: I think Don Knotts' performance as Deputy Barney Fife on the old Andy Griffith Show is absolutely perfect. Too bad Filch never says, "We'll nip it in the bud! Nip it in the bud!" Mrs. Figg: not a lot to go on, but I would take Hermione Gingold; specifically her performance in Gigi. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 21 16:52:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:52:13 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) Message-ID: <18073318.1182444733786.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170551 From: Constance Vigilance >The only other possibility is that Dumbledore finished a helpless >Quirrell off himself. I can't believe that of Dumbledore. > >As I said, Quirrell may be dead. He may not appear in Book 7. But >there is no canonical or FAQ evidence (that can't be refuted) that >Quirrell perished in the dungeon, or anywhere in the first book. Bart: In the real world, there are plenty of cases where organs can be in failure, you are going to die very soon, but you don't die immediately. My belief is that when Morty left Quirrel's body, there were some leftover "life energies" (or whatever you want to call them), but Quirrel no longer had the ability to create new life energies. So he was able to remain alive for a few minutes after Morty left, but there was no way to save him. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jun 21 16:52:53 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:52:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US References: Message-ID: <00f901c7b424$9c8b84c0$6501a8c0@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170552 > Shelley: > > It just astounds me that in the age of the Internet and Google that we would > > assume we would be ignorant of anything- geesh. Even British words- they are > > so easily looked up these days- frankly, I have been put off that even a > > word was changed between versions. It's an insult to all of us. Hell, we've > > had a fun time even looking up all the names and finding their references, > > and looking up mythology- a couple of words wouldn't have make a difference > > in the end. > > > > Geoff: > But don't forget that when JKR finally managed to get "Philosopher's Stone" > published, it was in 1997. The Net was still making its way into the collective > conscience here in the UK and the Goverment was still rabbiting on about > "The Information Superhighway".... Good graceous! You guys must be way behind the times!!! Or behind the States anyway in what's trendy. In the States at that time, every college was hooked up to the internet and kids regularly knew how to search for things. Google may not have been popular, but I did my entire senior reseach paper for my International Business class via the Internet, and my teacher said it was the best paper she's ever gotten because it was so through and up-to-date. At that point, I had been using the internet for about 5 years. (15 total now, give or take) Shelley From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 17:17:14 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:17:14 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bart Lidofsky" wrote: > Bart: > JKR complied, although she has since > said that she regretted the decision. Eddie: Perhaps it's time for Scholastic to fix their regrettable error and issue a new edition with "Sorcerer" returned to "Philosopher". Eddie, who always pauses a mo' when encountering "jumper" and "spotted dick"... and whose kids insist on the British editions... and who always buys the American edition too because the kids can't wait for the Brit version to be mailed especially when we almost always leave for vacation in the days in between the books' releases and the time the Brit versions arrive by mail. Sigh. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 21 17:19:50 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:19:50 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US/PoA Territorialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170554 > Hexicon: > What I don't understand is why "philosopher" must > become "sorcerer," "jumper" must become "sweater," but "spotted dick" > isn't changed! That it's raisin pudding may be inferred from the > context, but I think that one gave nightmares to a generation of U.S. > kids > > Hexicon, who as a youthful eccentricity used British spelling until > an "English" teacher started docking her grades for it. Magpie: Changes are always rather ridiculous and arbitrary. But that said, philosopher didn't have to "become" sorcerer. When the thought process was explained, it turned out it didn't have to do with American children being stupider than British children about philosophy or alchemy, or the idea that British parents could easily answer questions about philosopher stones where American parents couldn't. The US publishers wanted a title that had something about magic in it, and this was JKR's title, so it's quite possible she was the one who suggested changing the name of the stone to make it more magical- sounding to a young child. If you compare the art on the book jackets of the two editions of PS, they also have different feels to them. When changing jumpers to sweaters and changing the spelling the publishers are thinking about words American kids use, but the title just seemed to be a case of what they were looking for in a title (remembering that this was the first book and they had no reason to think it was be as popular as it became--I'm sure the idea of people buying both UK and US copies--much less copies in Latin--never entered their heads). Also, it's not unheard of for a British publisher to make changes, I don't think. Susan Cooper had very funny stories about a British copy edtor who kept querying things in her books, trying to catch her out on Americanisms because she had moved to America. Most of The Dark is Rising books were published in the US first so Cooper's characters speak as accurately English (and Welsh), but the books use US spelling and American words for things like sweaters (though I don't know if he ever in his dialogue says the word). I would not be surprised if the British editors changed little words like that, though I'm not sure they did. However, I wouldn't accuse the US publishers of just altogether thinking kids were too stupid to learn other words--they did keep the Welsh, after all! Jen: But I understand more clearly what you were saying now. Before I thought you were saying Dumbledore didn't *really* trust Lupin or Sirius but now I think you were talking about the...depth of trust, if that's the right way to phrase it? Magpie: Yes--I was having trouble really putting my finger on it, but I love the pack metaphor. Instinctively, doesn't that seem like the case? The Marauders are such a pack with each other, and Snape and Hagrid so seem to have that mentality with Dumbledore. And it is funny to think of Snape also being threatened by Harry in that capacity. Of course, that also gets back to all the shades of meaning of "Dumbledore's Man." I once said I thought that fit Snape more than Harry, not because Snape was more committed to the cause, but that Snape seemed to really need stuff from Dumbledore that Harry doesn't. When Harry says he's DDM he means he's an independent person siding with Dumbledore and not, I think, the way Snape would mean it. -m (who has only the British children's editions, which she prefers for the text but not for the covers) From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Jun 21 17:46:49 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:46:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182448009.22456.1196389523@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170555 On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:10:03 -0000, "colebiancardi" said: > Yeah, Yeah, > Lockhart is a prat, but to spend the rest of his life as a mental > patient? Absolutely. Every bit of what happened to him was meant for Harry and Ron, he deserves the consequences. And before you blame the broken wand for the strength of the spell as well as the mis-aim, remember that his cover story was to have been "...you two tragically lost your minds at the sight of her mangled body." -- Random832 From toonmili at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 17:41:36 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:41:36 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170556 > > > Alla: > > > > > I think Mike just meant a general justice being carried out towards > > Snape dear, and as you know I also think that Snape did not > > experience any sort of justice yet. Hopefully he will. > > > > He delivers prophecy to Voldemort and two young people die and one > > boy remains an orphan ? does he get punished for that? Not as far as > > I know. On the contrary, he comes back to Dumbledore and supposedly > > tells him how **sorry** he was and instead of Azkaban he gets a nice > > job as Hogwarts professor ? food, shelter, protection and all that. > Toonmili: I think living with the guilt would be quite enough punishment. He clearly feels bad about it, up to this day he can't say Lily's name. Snape did tell Voldemort the prophecy but Lily, James and Harry would have been fine had Wormtail not sell them out. The difference between Wormtail and Snape is that Snape never denied responsibility, he told Dumbledore what he did. Wormtial hid as a rat, let another man who was his friend spend 12 years in Azkaban and then lied about it when he was discovered. Another thing is that Snape repays his debts. When James saved his life, Snape choose to repay it by saving Harry's life. Has Wormtail ever tried to help Harry since he saved his life. No, not once. if it's anyone who needs to experience any sort of justice it's him. I think Snape's life is enough of a tragedy. From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 17:35:19 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <238733.69398.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170557 Bart, this sounds good. I would have Alec Guiness or Tom Baker from Doctor Who as Dumbledore. David From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 18:02:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:02:04 -0000 Subject: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170558 > Mike: > I read this scene as both Snape and Fudge being all about Black. At > this point, Lupin is a side note. Fudge is grateful to Snape > for "bringing in" Black. He's had one fiasco tonight with the > Hippogriff escaping, but the re-capture of Black will completely wipe > out that event. And Snape is at his smarmiest cooing to Fudge, > downplaying his role just the right amount to make Fudge offer him an > Order of Merlin. Snape's perspective: What a night, Black's about to > gets his just desserts at my hand no less and I get an award on top > of it all. Lupin who? > > > > wynnleaf > > Later, Sirius told Dumbledore what occurred and he'd surely have > > included the reason for Peter's escape. So Dumbledore knew that > > Lupin had transformed right in front of the children. > > Mike: > Well yeah Dumbledore, as usual, has the more complete story. How does > that affect Snape or Fudge? > > > > wynnleaf > > Fudge would have known from Snape's story that Lupin was involved in > > helping Sirius AND that Lupin had not taken his potion and been down > > there with 3 children. Fudge, even being a bit dim, could easily > > figure out that Lupin had put kids at risk to transform in an > > unprotected state. No, Fudge probably *didn't* know for sure that > > Lupin transformed right with the children -- unless Fudge learned > > some of Sirius' statement which would include an explanation for how > > Pettigrew got away. > > Mike: > I think you've credited Snape with talking much more about Lupin than > I do. I also think that Fudge could give a rat's ass about where > Lupin fit into the story at this point. And since neither of them > know about Pettigrew and his escape, they really don't care why Lupin > was nowhere to be found when Snape nabbed the unconscious Black. They > understand why Black, Harry and the girl were unconscious - what more > is there to understand? > > And after Black's escape, Snape still doesn't think about Lupin. He's > focused on Potter and that he *must* have hand in the escape. Lupin > is still not on Snape's nor Fudge's radar. I don't think he ever > causes a blip for Fudge, until next year when he can throw it in > Dumbledore's face. Carol responds: Since Snape has conjured stretchers to get the kids and Black to the hospital wing and he's about to receive an Orde of Merlin (until dumbledore spoils it all by taking Lupin off the hook and giving him more credit than he deserves--he certainly didn't rush out to save the kids--he rushed out because he saw Pettigrew on the map and realized that Black must be innocent, at least of that murder), what is Snape being rewarded for? Bringing Black in, yes, but he didn't knock him unconscious. The Dementors did that. Surely it's also about saving the kids. From what? The Dementors *could* come back, of course, but the chief danger is the werewolf prowling the grounds. And note that while Harry, Hermione, and Black are unconscious because of the Dementors, Ron is still near the entrance to the tunnel. Someone has hit him with a spell that knocked him out. And according to the information available to Snape, who doesn't know about Pettigrew, that someone has to be either Black or his werewolf accomplice, Lupin. I really don't understand why you don't think that the kids were in actual danger from the transformed werewolf or why Snape, who knew that Lupin hadn't taken his potion, wouldn't think it was primarily Lupin that they needed to be saved from or why Fudge wouldn't agree with them. Snape *could* have simply brought in Black and turned him in to Fudge and left the kids to wake up on their own, but somehow he thought that might not be a good idea. I also don't understand why it would be *all* about Black for Snape. He thinks that Lupin was in on the so-called Prank, and Lupin has just accused him of being unwilling to listen because of a schoolboy grudge. While this statement is partly true, the "grudge" is for Snape a murder attempt, Black is still a murderer, and Lupin is the murderer's werewolf accomplice. When Snape conjures the stretchers, the "murderer" is no longer a danger. He's unconscious, and Snape binds and gags him to be extra safe. But the werewolf is nowhere in sight, and as it's a full-moon night and he hasn't taken his potion, he must have transformed and be in full werewolf mode (without his human mind). IOW, he's extremely dangerous, and the kids *cannot* be safely left on the grounds, conscious or otherwise. Carol, who thinks that Snape, though wrong about the murderer and his accomplice, was right that the werewolf was deadly and really did save their lives From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 18:04:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:04:55 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170559 > Pippin: > Um, what about the part where he turned spy for the Order at > great personal risk? Are you saying that if he had been a careless > spy and gotten himself killed it would have been just, > but since he was a good spy and stayed alive so he could keep > supplying the Order with information, it was a slap on the wrist? > > IOW, Dumbledore should have sent him on a suicide mission? > I don't think so. Alla: No, I am saying that I am not convinced that Snape was spying for Dumbledore at great personal risk AND accordingly so far I am not convinced that this was sufficient punishment for what he did, since I do not know what exactly he did for Dumbledore and whether it was for Dumbledore or for Voldemort or for Snape. Toonmili: > I think living with the guilt would be quite enough > punishment. He clearly feels bad about it, up to this day he can't > say Lily's name. Alla: Well, not to me. Actually scratch that - if I will **see** that Snape is living with guilt indeed, not hear through second party word that he is, I may revise my opinion. Right now Dumbledore's *greatest remorse* is countered by Snape's spinned him a tale of the deepest remorse in my mind. If I hear from Snape that he is sorry for what he helped doing to Harry's parents and Harry and that he regrets it, I may think it counts, but I want to hear it from Snape's mouth. So, basically all depends on how it is written and only if Snape DD! M. Since right now I think of him as murderous, treacherous bastard and child abuser, no punishment is too big for him in my view. Toonmili: > Snape did tell Voldemort the prophecy but Lily, James and Harry would > have been fine had Wormtail not sell them out. The difference between > Wormtail and Snape is that Snape never denied responsibility, he told > Dumbledore what he did. Wormtial hid as a rat, let another man who > was his friend spend 12 years in Azkaban and then lied about it when > he was discovered. > > Another thing is that Snape repays his debts. When James saved his > life, Snape choose to repay it by saving Harry's life. Has Wormtail > ever tried to help Harry since he saved his life. No, not once. if > it's anyone who needs to experience any sort of justice it's him. Alla: Um, what's Wormtail has to do with it? Of course Wormtal is the scam of the earth and should be brought to justice as well as far as I am concerned. I cannot share your confidence that Potters would have been fine had Wormtail not sold them out. Without Snape, they may not have a need to go in hiding in the first place and no need to come up with Secret Keeper, etc, no? Toonmili: > I think Snape's life is enough of a tragedy. Alla: Not nearly enough for me yet. I think the life circumstances of the boy he helped to become an orphan is a tragedy,which this boy may beat or not, I think young couple who would have a chance to beat the odds and live and enjoy life without him and did not is a tragedy, I think the death of Dumbledore is a tragedy. Snape's life so far? For the most part as far as I think he was enjoying nice quiet life as Hogwarts professor, yeah, yeah, I know, he may not have liked teaching "brats". I think beats Azkaban any time. Maybe now when he is despised by WW, maybe he will have some well overdue tragedy in his life IMO. I hope Snape will get what he deserves, depends on whatever Snape we see. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jun 21 18:19:10 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:19:10 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <238733.69398.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170560 Snape: even though he is too handsome for Snape, his performance as Guy of Gisbourne in the BBC Robin Hood series reminds me of Snape - Richard Armitage Dumbledore: I like the Tom Baker idea (my personal fav) I have to think about the rest - I have to brush up on my British actors... :) colebiancardi From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Jun 21 18:42:35 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:42:35 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170561 > > Pippin: > > Um, what about the part where he turned spy for the Order at > > great personal risk? Are you saying that if he had been a careless > > spy and gotten himself killed it would have been just, > > but since he was a good spy and stayed alive so he could keep > > supplying the Order with information, it was a slap on the wrist? > > > > IOW, Dumbledore should have sent him on a suicide mission? > > I don't think so. > > > Alla: > > No, I am saying that I am not convinced that Snape was spying for > Dumbledore at great personal risk AND accordingly so far I am not > convinced that this was sufficient punishment for what he did, since > I do not know what exactly he did for Dumbledore and whether it was > for Dumbledore or for Voldemort or for Snape. > > Toonmili: > > I think living with the guilt would be quite enough > > punishment. He clearly feels bad about it, up to this day he can't > > say Lily's name. > > Alla: > > Well, not to me. Actually scratch that - if I will **see** that Snape > is living with guilt indeed, not hear through second party word that > he is, I may revise my opinion. > > > Right now Dumbledore's *greatest remorse* is countered by Snape's > spinned him a tale of the deepest remorse in my mind. > > If I hear from Snape that he is sorry for what he helped doing to > Harry's parents and Harry and that he regrets it, I may think it > counts, but I want to hear it from Snape's mouth. > > So, basically all depends on how it is written and only if Snape DD! > M. Since right now I think of him as murderous, treacherous bastard > and child abuser, no punishment is too big for him in my view. wynnleaf Well, of course, it *all* depends on whether he's good or evil, right? If he's ESE!Snape, it's hardly a question, because Harry probably won't forgive him and he'll get punished right along with Bella and the rest. I don't think JKR is going to have Harry have to forgive ESE!Snape, when he won't have to forgive Bella, Voldemort and the rest. If Snape is just a nasty, evil guy, but was always serving Dumbledore (maybe for his own ends), then I can understand wanting to see him get some extra punishment. After all, if he's a nasty evil meany, then even if he's serving the Order, he must be having a great time over with Voldemort's crowd, where he can kill and torture people to his heart's content, right? And he doesn't *care* about being a pariah to the good side, because he hates them all anyway. And all that part about him risking his life spying -- well, it doesn't matter much because his life wasn't worth living anyway, so what does it matter? What he really needs is some good old fashion punishment, so all the good guys can feel better about the classroom sarcasm and insults. Right. Hm... I have to admit, even with the above scenario, I'm not sure what Harry's forgiveness is worth, to himself or Snape, if Harry still needs to have retribution, or some sort of punishment for Snape *after* he's forgiven Snape. Okay. Now, let's suppose that Dumbledore was right all along and JKR reveals Snape to be *actually* very remorseful for the Potter's deaths. Let's say he really did risk his life spying all those years. Let's say he realized the value of Dumbledore's trust and actually felt exactly like Harry when he AK'd Dumbledore -- hating himself and repulsed by his own actions. Let's say he's always been a loner, but at least had Dumbledore for the past many years as someone who was on the good side and actually trusted him. Now he's off with the Death Eaters who are his enemies and all the good guys hate him. But nevertheless, he's still trying to complete Dumbledore's order. Well, obviously if these things are true, JKR is going to have to *show* Harry and the readers that they're true. Harry didn't believe Dumbledore, so I don't see how he'd believe some posthumous statement from a portrait or a pensieve. JKR will have to *show* Harry and therefore us, Snape's real motives. So if the above is true, Harry will be shown that truth, not just get told once again. Do we still need punishment for Snape now? I don't think so. If this is the Snape JKR will reveal (and I think the signs are that it will be), Snape is already a figure of great remorse and lots of sacrifice. wynnleaf From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 21 18:45:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:45:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <13628886.1182451526300.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170562 From: dragonkeeper >Bart, this sounds good. > > I would have Alec Guiness or Tom Baker from Doctor Who as Dumbledore. Bart: I don't believe Alec Guinness ever actually played Doctor Who, or appeared in any Doctor Who episode. As he was one of those chameleonlike actors who could play just about anything (and because the "rules" call for it), I'm interested in which Alec Guinness roles you are thinking about. (Note that Tom Baker, as well, has starred as a wide variety of characters, but I'm assuming that you are thinking of his portrayal of the Doctor). Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 19:03:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:03:44 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170563 > wynnleaf > Well, of course, it *all* depends on whether he's good or evil, > right? > > If he's ESE!Snape, it's hardly a question, because Harry probably > won't forgive him and he'll get punished right along with Bella and > the rest. I don't think JKR is going to have Harry have to forgive > ESE!Snape, when he won't have to forgive Bella, Voldemort and the > rest. Alla: Sure - if he is ESE till the end, which even I do not think will be true, then it is hardly a question. If Evil Snape sees a light at the end, I can totally see Harry forgiving him at the end though. wynnleaf: > If Snape is just a nasty, evil guy, but was always serving > Dumbledore (maybe for his own ends), then I can understand wanting > to see him get some extra punishment. After all, if he's a nasty > evil meany, then even if he's serving the Order, he must be having a > great time over with Voldemort's crowd, where he can kill and > torture people to his heart's content, right? And he doesn't *care* > about being a pariah to the good side, because he hates them all > anyway. And all that part about him risking his life spying -- > well, it doesn't matter much because his life wasn't worth living > anyway, so what does it matter? What he really needs is some good > old fashion punishment, so all the good guys can feel better about > the classroom sarcasm and insults. > > Right. Hm... > > I have to admit, even with the above scenario, I'm not sure what > Harry's forgiveness is worth, to himself or Snape, if Harry still > needs to have retribution, or some sort of punishment for Snape > *after* he's forgiven Snape. Alla: Well, yes, I see that likely? I think some sort of OFH! LID! or Grey! Snape scenario is very likely to play out with Harry forgiveness and to be compelling. And I think if JKR chooses to give Snape some punishment that will be before, NOT after Harry forgives him. And yes, I think emotional satisfaction of the reader is a good enough reason to wish evil character to be punished ( or grey, whatever it is). Him risking his life spying - well, sure it will matter for me as I wrote to Pippin if he did just that. But so far even the wording that we have from Dumbledore, does not really say that IMO. It says *at great personal risk*. Can for example mean Snape was risking being exposed as evil spy of Voldemort too, no? But wording is just the words play, my thing is that Snape may have deceived DD, yes. wynnleaf: > Okay. Now, let's suppose that Dumbledore was right all along and > JKR reveals Snape to be *actually* very remorseful for the Potter's > deaths. Do we still need punishment for Snape now? I don't think so. If > this is the Snape JKR will reveal (and I think the signs are that it > will be), Snape is already a figure of great remorse and lots of > sacrifice. > Alla: 30 days and we will know :) From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 19:09:28 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:09:28 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170564 > Bart: > Here is the set-up (note the topic is FANTASY casting): A new computerized filmaking > technique has been discovered. You can take any character played by any actor in > film or television (including cartoons) in history, and it will convert that character > into a character for the new movie, being played more or less the same way. Eddie: * No offense to Michael Gambon, but it would have been sweet to have had Richard Harris play Dumbledore for all 7 movies. * No offense to Julie Christie, who was excellent and beautiful in Doctor Zhivago and Fahrenheit 451 but she is about 35 years older than I ever imagined Madame Rosmerta being, let alone somebody Ron would get the hots for. So, I'd pick instead... Julie Christie from about 35 years ago. Everybody else seems pretty much spot-on already. Replace Maggie Smith as McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (JKR's own fantasy choice), Alan Rickman as Snape, Timothy Spall as Pettigrew / Wormtail? These are indelibly stamped in my imagination. Eddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 19:33:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:33:22 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170565 colebiancardi wrote: > > 1997 was not the dark ages in the US with the 'net. I program for the web, and have done so since 1994. There were other search engines besides google in the olden days, not to mention (OMG) real, books called dictionaries. > > at any rate, if one reads the book, you know what a philosopher's stone is and most people, including children, look at the cover art (magical) and read the back of the cover to get the general idea of what the book is about. > > again, the publishers messed it up. Carol responds: If you're only talking about changing the title, I'd agree with you. But if you mean Americanizing the text of the books to some degree, I don't think that the publishers messed up, but of course it's just my own opinion. Even with many of the terms Americanized, I notice the remaining Briticisms as I read. Sometimes, they just make the books feel British, which is great ("git" and "prat" and "mate" and "horrible great fang" and "pudding" instead of "dessert," for example), but other times, they're distracting (Urgh! Spotted dick! What's that? Not that such a term could be "translated" since there's no equivalent, but it does jump out at me every time I read it, as do some of Ron's less intelligible slang expressions). I'm not going to stop reading, at least on a first read-through, to look something up, nor do I think most child readers would do so. (At most, they'd ask the nearest adult what the term means.) And dictionaries don't generally translate British English to American English; you need a special dictionary (many of which are now online, but *I* couldn't have found them in 1997 because I didn't start using the Internet until 1998) to "translate" them. BTW, my favorite British-to-American online dictionary, a humorous one, can be found at http://english2american.com/ At any rate, all publishers have style manuals that copyeditors have to follow, specifying things like punctuation, spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, and when to spell out numbers. (The best-known and most commonly used American style manual is the 900-plus-page "Chicago Manual of Style.") American publishers generally require copyeditors to Americanize punctuation and spelling (no so-called inverted commas instead of double quotes; no "u" in "color" or "behavior," etc.) And, generally, when a term would be misunderstood by many readers, even adults, it's changed to an American equivalent. (Even some editions of classics like the Austen or Dickens novels Americanize the punctuation, as do the Norton Anthologies of English Literature, for the sake of readability.) In a previously unpublished manuscript written by a British author for American readers, we (copyeditors) would Americanize the spelling and punctuation and change the wording if and only if it might be misleading or otherwise interfere with readability. We would leave, say, "turn about" rather than changing it to "turn around" because there's no ambiguity, or "petrol" and "lorry" rather than changing them to "gasoline" and "truck" because they're reasonable familiar to American readers. I'm not sure about a kids' book, though. I think that most copyeditors would change those last two, just as "jumper" was changed to "sweater," so the kids won't be confused. I agree that "philosopher's stone" should not have been changed (How many British kids under twelve or so were deterred from reading it by the title yet didn't know what it meant any more than American kids of the same age do? Probably not many. I know of *adults* who were deterred from reading *GoF* by the length, but that's another matter--and their loss.) Changing "Mum" to "Mom" (or "Mummy" to "Mommy" for Ginny) was another bad change, which fortunately, occurred only in "Sorcerer's Stone." OTOH, no American copyeditor would leave something like "knock up" in a children's book because it means "impregnate" in American English--not at all what a British author would have intended. (I'm not sure whether JKR uses that expression; it's just an example of what needs to be changed, IMO.) At any rate, publisher have their policies, which copyeditors have no choice but to follow, and there's a reason for those policies (readability and anticipated p-r-o-f-i-t-s). They want to be sure that a book will appeal to its intended audience, and the intended audience for SS/PS is explicitly stated by JKR in her query letter to prospective publishers and agents as being nine-to-twelve-year-olds. Carol, who sometimes wishes that the American editions included a glossary From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 19:58:16 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:58:16 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170566 > Toonmili: > Has Wormtail > ever tried to help Harry since he saved his life. No, not once. Eddie: No, but he bit MCG (Malfoy/Crabbe/Goyle) once.... From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 20:05:37 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:05:37 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <13628886.1182451526300.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170567 > > dragonkeeper: > > I would have Alec Guiness or Tom Baker from Doctor Who as Dumbledore. > > Bart: > I don't believe Alec Guinness ever actually played Doctor Who, or appeared in any Doctor Who episode. Eddie: I think that was meant to be read as "Alec Guinness" or "Tom Baker from Doctor Who". Unless you were kidding, in which case I apologize. But on the subject of Guinness, he was famous for playing multiple roles in the same movie, so perhaps Guinness would be good for EVERY role in the fantasy movie? Eddie, who likes pithy threads From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 20:49:05 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:49:05 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > No offense to Julie Christie, who was excellent and beautiful in > Doctor Zhivago and Fahrenheit 451 but she is about 35 years older than > I ever imagined Madame Rosmerta being, let alone somebody Ron would > get the hots for. So, I'd pick instead... Julie Christie from about > 35 years ago. How old do you imagine Rosmerta to be? I'm just asking out of curiosity, because I thought about it myself. If she ever went to Hogwarts, she has to be older then the Marauders, but if she never went there she can be any age we like :-). I'm talking about her real age here, not about how old she looks. > Everybody else seems pretty much spot-on already. Replace Maggie > Smith as McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid (JKR's own fantasy > choice), Alan Rickman as Snape, Timothy Spall as Pettigrew / > Wormtail? These are indelibly stamped in my imagination. I guess you could replace present day Rickman by Rickman from 25 years ago, then he would be closer to Snape's actual age. I believe Bart's rules allow this kind of change :-). You did it with Julie Cristie already! zanooda From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 20:32:40 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:32:40 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170569 > wynnleaf: > > Okay. Now, let's suppose that Dumbledore was right all along and > > JKR reveals Snape to be *actually* very remorseful for the Potter's > > deaths. Do we still need punishment for Snape now? I don't > think so. If > > this is the Snape JKR will reveal (and I think the signs are that > it > > will be), Snape is already a figure of great remorse and lots of > > sacrifice. > > > > Alla: > > 30 days and we will know :) > Biff: I've been reading this exchange and wanted to jump in with my fisrt post on this board, if I may. I think for me, Snape's fate should be determined based upon his actions directly with Harry, not on his behalf or behind the scenes, where we only have second hand knowledge. We don't know for sure the extent of Snape's spying- he could have been playing both ends against the middle, so to speak, and supplied information to both Voldemort and Dumbledore for personal gain. Because we don't know Snape's motivations, I don't think we can know for sure what he was really doing and why. I would love a scene between Harry and Snape where Harry confronts Snape and repeats the accusation he yelled to Dumbledore- that Snape sold out Harry's parents. Snape's reaction to the accusation will be very telling for me personally. I tend to be very loyal to Harry and want his suspicions of Snape to be proven correct, but at the same time, part of me wants Snape to show his true colors in the end and die whispering an apology to Harry. Biff From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 21:05:39 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:05:39 -0000 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <380-2200764213053890@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170570 > >>Magpie: > > I was totally pleased to see some of those fanon touches in the way > Slytherin was presented in HBP--Snape had his wine and bookcases, > Draco was not only emo but when Harry walked into the Slytherin > compartment there's super sexy Blaise (the son of a woman who mates > and kills!) and Draco draping himself across Pansy's lap in a > frankly sexual pose, with more open sexual talk--just a whole > different approach to the subject ("You're so hard to please, > Blaise..."). I find myself hoping that if they do this scene in the > movie the Slytherin compartment will be accompanied by sitar music > or something. Betsy Hp: Hee! Which immediately makes me picture Draco as Captain Kirk in that lounge with the dancing green lady. Which yeah, Draco is not Kirk, though oh my goodness he'd so enjoy playing him! That getting chased by a helicopter is a classic Captain Kirk type story, and I'll stop. But yes, while Gyffindors play guess how many meat pies I can stuff in my mouth, the Slytherins are playing Seven Minutes in Heaven. And the differences there do, I think, point out how not completely crazy the Vampire!Snape theories were. And oddly enough, especially with their quidditch team, I get the sense that boys and girls hang together a bit more freely in Slytherin than in Gryffindor. I mean, Pansy seemed much more one of the guys (her comments to Blaise) than Hermione ever has. Maybe because Hermione is more like a mom? > >>Magpie: > > > > I wonder if there's something that works in the opposite > > direction--though I don't think so, since we don't know > > Slytherin as well. > >>houyhnhnm: > I think it might be Dementors. Gryffindors are much > more dependent on "spirits" or "heart" as a driving > force. A dark creature that can make them *depressed* > has got to be the worst nightmare for a Gryffindor. > For Slytherins, being such emotional creatures to > start with and *having* to learn to deal with emotions, > including bad ones, Dementors probably do not hold > the same kind of terror. I don't mean that they are > not affected by Dementors or that they are immune to > their effects in some way (Gryffindors are not immune > to werewolves). I mean little Slytherin kids may be > afraid of a werewolf in the closet. With Gryffindor > kids, it's more likely to be a Dementor. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I *love* this, houyhnhnm! You can see it reflected in the different ways Harry and Draco dealt with overwhelming stress. Harry got all angry and capslocky and given to sudden bursts of rage. While Draco went all pale and withdrawn and curled up with a ghost to have a good cry. And in the seperated at birth way of looking at Harry and Snape (which I love to do, not merely because both characters would *hate* it ) both Harry and Snape become something of an expert at defeating their houses particular demon. (Or at least, I assume Fenrir flinched away from Snape because he knew Snape could kick his ass.) Betsy Hp From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Jun 21 21:05:52 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:05:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1182459952.26821.1196421873@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170571 Well, for Dumbledore, I'd pick Sir Ian McKellen, but not as Gandalf - I think having him play Dumbledore like he played Magneto would make for a good portrayal of the "manipulative!DD" theory. Would need longer hair and a beard though. Hugo Weaving as Mr. Smith would make an interesting Lucius - and, again, change the hair. As for Snape... hmm. Who was that guy who played Metatron on Dogma? *grin, run away* Moody should be Sean Connery from, well, anything since he got old. -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 21:28:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:28:51 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170572 Alla wrote: > > No, I am saying that I am not convinced that Snape was spying for > Dumbledore at great personal risk AND accordingly so far I am not > convinced that this was sufficient punishment for what he did, since > I do not know what exactly he did for Dumbledore and whether it was > for Dumbledore or for Voldemort or for Snape. Carol: I don't think that his spying at great personal risk (which, to me, suggests risk of death if Voldemort found out) was ever intended as punishment. It's more Snape's attempt to *atone for* revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. If he's DDM!, he's trying to undo the damage. Unfortunately, the effort is in vain because Pettigrew reveals the Secret to Voldemort. (I don't think he's ESE! and OFH!Snape going to Dumbledore makes no sense to me since Voldemort was winning at that point.) > Alla: > > Well, not to me. Actually scratch that - if I will **see** that Snape is living with guilt indeed, not hear through second party word that he is, I may revise my opinion. Carol: I also want to see (hear) from Snape himself directly. Not that I doubt his repentance or remorse or loyalties, only that no second-hand account will be as satisfying or convincing as Snape telling his own story (a la Sirius Black) and having Harry believe him. > Alla: > Right now Dumbledore's *greatest remorse* is countered by Snape's > spinned him a tale of the deepest remorse in my mind. Carol: Well, yes. But Snape can hardly tell Bellatrix (or Voldemort, to whom he must have told essentially the same version of events) that his remorse was genuine, could he? One or the other has to be false. and the gaps in Snape's version of events to Bellatrix (no mention of what caused DD's "serious injury," much less that Snape himself prevented it from being immediately fatal; no mention that Snape sent the Order to the MoM, etc.) indicates that he's at the very least concealing information and probably twisting the truth much as Rita Skeeter does to make himself look as loyal to Voldemort as possible, just as he does later with Draco (to whom he mentions only part of the Unbreakable Vow and for whom he is posing, IMO, as loyal to Voldemort, though "your master" rather than "our master" is an interesting slip). Obviously, if Snape is Dumbledore's man, he's not going to admit that to Bellatrix (or Narcissa). That would be suicide. The bit about DD's protection being all that was keeping him out of Azkaban is patently false; Crouch Sr. says that the Wizengamot pardoned Snape (and DD makes clear that the reason was his spying for "our side"--reporting not to the Order but to DD himself, I think--"at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow, and presumably before he began teaching at Hogwarts, where the risk would be considerably lessened). What I'm trying to say is that there was no longer any danger of his being sent to Azkaban once he had been pardoned, so that part of his story to Bellatrix is a complete lie. Also, he tells Bellatrix that he "spun him [DD] a tale of deepest remorse when I joined his staff, fresh from my Death Eater days" (HBP Am. ed. 31), but in fact, the tale of remorse has to have been told some time before that, when Snape first learned how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy and before he began spying, which in turn has to be some time before he began teaching if any risk was involved, perhaps soon after Harry's and Neville's births. And "fresh from my Death Eater days" makes no sense because when Snape started teaching, he was still a Death Eater (though not a loyal one if DD is right). Voldemort was still embodied and well on his way to power. IOW, Snape seems to me to be lying to Bellatrix, giving her the same cover stories he has prepared for Voldemort. While Snape's version of events here matches well with Harry's version in the hospital wing, in which Snape's tale of remorse follows the Potters' deaths, it doesn't match what Dumbledore actually said, both in the Pensievein GoF and directly to Harry in HBP. At any rate, of course the story Snape tells Bellatrix (and Voldemort) doesn't match Dumbledore's version of events. If it did, Snape would be a dead man. So either he's giving Bellatrix and Voldemort an edited and altered version of events, or he's been fooling Dumbledore for fifteen years. (Snape says "sixteen," but either that's a slip for the time he began spying for DD, or JKR's difficulties with math are manifesting themselves again.) Carol, who doesn't take anything that Snape says to Bellatrix at face value but thinks that the hoodwinking of Voldemort, which he suggests is impossible, is anything but From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Thu Jun 21 21:30:50 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:30:50 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170573 > > Ceridwen: > That's true for adults, but the books, PS/SS and CoS especially, are > for a children's market. Children know a lot, but if the author > started saying that the walls have skirts (baseboards: US), they may > not want to try and find a British to American dictionary on-line, > they'll just imagine the walls wearing women's clothing. They might > have a good laugh at calling a "stove" a "cooker", too. > > I was thirteen when I first read Sherlock Holmes. This is both a > time and place difference, but I thought Holmes and Watson walked > around London holding hands, because they went "in a hansom". Yes, I > did learn that it's a type of cab, after several years. That's why a > lot of "Classics" have footnotes, to explain differences of time > (Lydia got a fish? Phew!). > > And, confess, when the books started calling pull-over > sweaters "jumpers", how many people flashed to little dresses made to > wear over blouses? Even if you know what the author's talking about, > the mental images can yank you right out of the story if they're > foreign enough. Who wants to stop reading in the middle of a good > part just to check some on-line dictionary? > > Ceridwen. > Anne Squires: I would like to point out that not *all* Britishisms were purged from the earlier books. A quick skim of the first few chapters of "Sorcerer's Stone" reveals underground instead of subway, post instead of mail, cupboard instead of closet. There are probably more examples; but, as I said, I merely skimmed. Furthermore, I have the distinct impression that more Brit-speak has been included in the American versions as the series has progressed so that by the time OotP and HBP came out numerous expressions were not changed. And I must say I was chuffed to learn "chuffed" and other similar expressions. Quite often one can extrapolate meaning from context. But not always. It can be both fun and interesting to figure out what different expressions mean. However, sometimes it can just be distracting. I consider myself a well educated (BA & MA) and well read person; but, it took me four or five HP books to realize that "pudding" means dessert. I thought everyone in the books must really love what I, as an American, think of as pudding which is a type of soft, thick dessert similar to custard. I thought this preference for "pudding" was a wizard thing. I had no idea what treacle was until I googled it. I think that too many Britishisms can distract the average American reader, child or adult, from the flow of the story. Of course, as one reads a British book you want it to have a British feel or tone. However, you don't want to sacrifice comprehensibility for tone, I wouldn't think at any rate. I think it's a delicate balancing act that the publisher/editor has to walk in this regard. Also, we mustn't forget that the peculiarities of the WW are enough to deal with for the average reader (or should I have said "to be going on with"?). For an American reader the world one becomes immersed in is two-fold: not only the Wizarding World itself, but also the fact that we are reading about the **British** Wizarding World. As Ceridwen said, if the author says the walls have skirts many American children would think just that, given the fact that we are dealing with a magical world. Remember how many of the wizards at the World Cup were inappropriately dressed? Well, for many Americans, if the author says men are wearing "jumpers" then they are going to think the men are wearing a type of dress. What is British vs. what is wizardish becomes the problem. Usually when one reads a British novel set in the RW one can figure out meaning. In the case of the HP series that is not the case however. The very fact that one is immersed into an imaginary world can pose a problem for extrapolating meaning. When I first read that the title of the first book had been changed, I was insulted. I thought the publisher was underestimating the American public. However, I have since changed my opinion. It was a marketing strategy, pure and simple. We can't say for sure how much the title affected early sales of the book over here. Perhaps, their strategy did, if fact, work. Or maybe the title wasn't a factor at all in the sales figures. We'll never know. I also note that some four years later in 2001 Warner Brothers went with "Sorcerer" instead of "Philosopher." They must have discussed the matter as well (I bet extensively); yet, they went with the US title. Someone must have thought that "Sorcerer" would sell better than "Philosopher." Who's to say they were wrong? It was marketing, that's all. Remember this was the first medium-not-to-be-named. For many people this was their first introduction to the series. The term "Philosopher," I think, (and obviously others think as well) ***could*** have been a major turn-off for many potential audience members. For what it's worth, I think JKR could have titled DH "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Ontology" and the book would sell millions in pre-orders alone in the US. Anne Squires From toonmili at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 21:31:15 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:31:15 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170574 > Alla: > > Well, not to me. Actually scratch that - if I will **see** that Snape > is living with guilt indeed, not hear through second party word that > he is, I may revise my opinion. > > > Right now Dumbledore's *greatest remorse* is countered by Snape's > spinned him a tale of the deepest remorse in my mind. > > If I hear from Snape that he is sorry for what he helped doing to > Harry's parents and Harry and that he regrets it, I may think it > counts, but I want to hear it from Snape's mouth. > > So, basically all depends on how it is written and only if Snape DD! > M. Since right now I think of him as murderous, treacherous bastard > and child abuser, no punishment is too big for him in my view. > Toonmili: The fact that Harry has never heard it from Snape himself is even more indication that it is real. If Snape really didn't care he would just say: You know what, I got your parents killed and I'm sorry 'bout that." But the fact that he can't talk about it, espcially to Harry indicates that he has strong feelings about it. I think more can be gathered from what Snape is not saying, rather than what he is saying. > Alla: > > Um, what's Wormtail has to do with it? Of course Wormtal is the scam > of the earth and should be brought to justice as well as far as I am > concerned. > > I cannot share your confidence that Potters would have been fine had > Wormtail not sold them out. Without Snape, they may not have a need > to go in hiding in the first place and no need to come up with Secret > Keeper, etc, no? Toonmili: I think Snape and Wormtail are on opposit banks of a river. They were both partly responsible for Lily and James' death but look how each dealth with it. Wormtail decided that he would go and hide out. Snape faced the music. We never saw what happened all those years ago so we cannot assume that DD was easy on him. Well the way I see it if Voldemort had no idea where they were it would be pretty impossible to attack them. > Alla: > > Not nearly enough for me yet. I think the life circumstances of the > boy he helped > to become an orphan is a tragedy, which this boy may beat or not, I > think young couple who would have > a chance to beat the odds and live and enjoy life without him and did > not is a tragedy, I think the death of Dumbledore is a tragedy. > > Snape's life so far? For the most part as far as I think he was > enjoying nice quiet life as Hogwarts professor, yeah, yeah, I know, > he may not have liked teaching "brats". I think beats Azkaban any > time. > > Maybe now when he is despised by WW, maybe he will have some well > overdue tragedy in his life IMO. > > I hope Snape will get what he deserves, depends on whatever Snape we > see. > Toonmili: Oh come on. I really don't think he set out trying to destroy the Potters. We don't know his full story and why he did what he did. The only person who knew his reason trusted him. I think Dumbledore is a very intelligent person and he can tell when people are being sinsere, just like he picked up on Tom. Why is it when it comes to Snape do we think that DD is suddenly unreliable. We don't know his full story. The little parts I saw of it seemed pretty bad. I don't imagine he ever had a happy day in his life. His school life was horrible. His home life was horrible. I can't imagine being a death eater is all fun and games either and I know it seems like a good life to you but if he was in love with lily (and this is very possible) then his life at Hogwarts would be horrible as well as he would have to live with the guilt of having caused her death. For some reason you seem to think he is living it up. There is no doubt in my mind that he has paid and is still paying for his part in the whole thing. I'm certain by the end of bookk seven you will change your mind. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 21:58:25 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:58:25 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170575 > > Toonmili: > > Has Wormtail > > ever tried to help Harry since he saved his life. No, not once. > > Eddie: > No, but he bit MCG (Malfoy/Crabbe/Goyle) once.... > JW: At the Riddle House, in the beginning of GoF, WT tried to talk LV out of going after HP when "any wizard will do" (paraphrase). WT claims "he does not mean anything to me, but this way is faster and easier" (huge paraphrase). However, as this scene occurs no more than 2 months after HP saved WT's life, I interpret this to be an attempt by WT to pay back the life debt. Further, this attempt to redirect LV to benefit HP shows more courage than one might expect from WT. Perhaps this foreshadows what we will see next month. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 22:05:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:05:06 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170577 > Toonmili: > The fact that Harry has never heard it from Snape himself > is even more indication that it is real. If Snape really didn't care > he would just say: You know what, I got your parents killed and I'm > sorry 'bout that." But the fact that he can't talk about it, > especially to Harry indicates that he has strong feelings about it. I > think more can be gathered from what Snape is not saying, rather than > what he is saying. Alla: Sure, it is a possibility. There is also another possibility - Snape is not saying anything to Harry, because he is **not** sorry about his parents death at all IMO. > Toonmili: > I think Snape and Wormtail are on opposit banks of a river. > They were both partly responsible for Lily and James' death but look > how each dealth with it. Wormtail decided that he would go and hide > out. Snape faced the music. We never saw what happened all those > years ago so we cannot assume that DD was easy on him. > > Well the way I see it if Voldemort had no idea where they were it > would be pretty impossible to attack them. Alla: Well, sure, we do not know what DD did, but we know one thing - DD did not sent him to Azkaban and DD did let him teach in Hogwarts, no? Does not look that he was too hard on him to me. Again IMO. >> Toonmili: > Oh come on. I really don't think he set out trying to > destroy the Potters. We don't know his full story and why he did what > he did. The only person who knew his reason trusted him. I think > Dumbledore is a very intelligent person and he can tell when people > are being sinsere, just like he picked up on Tom. Why is it when it > comes to Snape do we think that DD is suddenly unreliable. Alla: Um, I think Snape saying *Avada Kedavra* to the person who trusted him so much is a rather big point against Dumbledore's trust being well placed. IMO of course. As to whether Snape set to destroy the Potters. As canon stands right now - I do not know that, although I won't be surprised if we will learn that Snape did know that Lily got pregnant before he delivered Prophecy, maybe same day or something. But again - this is my speculation, nothing more. What I see as canon supported fact is that Snape sold *unnamed prophecy couple and their baby* to his boss. That to me is a fact. Unless of course you dig Dumbledore told Snape to do so speculation. Then to the list of the characters I hate, I will add Dumbledore, that's all. So, I do not **care** why Snape did that. All that I know that he did, he as far as I am concerned in cold blood delivered two people and their unborn babt to the monster. I absolutely find this despicable. Dumbledore says that Snape regretted it when he learned the couple names? Maybe, as I said I want to hear it from Snape's mouth to believe it. Toonmili: > We don't know his full story. The little parts I saw of it seemed > pretty bad. I don't imagine he ever had a happy day in his life. His > school life was horrible. His home life was horrible. I can't imagine > being a death eater is all fun and games either and I know it seems > like a good life to you but if he was in love with lily (and this is > very possible) then his life at Hogwarts would be horrible as well as > he would have to live with the guilt of having caused her death. For > some reason you seem to think he is living it up. There is no doubt > in my mind that he has paid and is still paying for his part in the > whole thing. Alla: His home life was horrible? Again, maybe, maybe not IMO. We do not know who the people in that memory were and I will not be surprised if none of them was Snape. His DE life was not fun and games? Okay. Am I supposed to feel sorry for Snape choosing it then? > Biff: > I would love a scene between Harry and Snape where Harry confronts > Snape and repeats the accusation he yelled to Dumbledore- that Snape > sold out Harry's parents. Snape's reaction to the accusation will be > very telling for me personally. > I tend to be very loyal to Harry and want his suspicions of Snape to > be proven correct, but at the same time, part of me wants Snape to > show his true colors in the end and die whispering an apology to > Harry. Alla: Me too, me too, that is how I feel as well. Toonmili: > I'm certain by the end of book seven you will change your mind. Alla: If faced with hard cold canon sure I will, LOL, but only then. And as I cheerfully promised on list, I will write a long apology to Severus Snape - the Saint of all Causes. My crow is handy nearby, but I am not starting to cook it yet From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jun 21 22:17:44 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:17:44 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <1182459952.26821.1196421873@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170578 Random832: > As for Snape... hmm. Who was that guy who played > Metatron on Dogma?*grin, run away* houyhnhnm: No, the guy who played De Valera in "Michael Collins" would make a better Snape. More ambiguous. From toonmili at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 22:38:29 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:38:29 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170579 > Alla: > > Um, I think Snape saying *Avada Kedavra* to the person who trusted > him so much is a rather big point against Dumbledore's trust being > well placed. IMO of course. Toonmili: There is strong evidence that the whole thing was planned. I cannot ignore that. When it comes to writing it makes no sense to reveal your big traitor a book early. That is usually kept until the last moment possible. He is still working the Order. There is no doubt in my mind that DD would take one for team. And couldn't Snape have just let DD die ealier in the term when he was weak from destroying the Horcrux? Why didn't he do it. The whole point of book six was to kill DD. He had a chance before, they could have saved a lot of time. > Alla: As to whether Snape set to destroy the Potters. As canon > stands right now - I do not know that, although I won't be > surprised if we will learn that Snape did know that Lily got > pregnant before he delivered Prophecy, maybe same day or something. Toonmili: Ouch, I can't believe you said that. There was no way he could have known. Lily and James trice defied Voldemort. I doubt they went about advertising it that Lily was expecting. How do you think they knew it was someone close to them who was spying. They only told a very few amount of people and somehow Voldemort found out they had a child. Unless you think that Lily wrote Snape and told him that she was having a baby. There is no way he could know that was expecting unless they were in touch. And I think we can assume that they weren't. >Alla: So, I do not **care** why Snape did that. All that I know > that he did, he as far as I am concerned in cold blood delivered > two people and their unborn babt to the monster. I absolutely find > this despicable. Toonmili: I never said that he was a good person. It was not a good thing to do. But it is important why he did it. What if his back was against the wall just as Draco's had been. > Alla: Dumbledore says that Snape regretted it when he learned the > couple names? Maybe, as I said I want to hear it from Snape's mouth > to believe it. Toonmili: Dumbeldore's word has always been good enough for me. He seems to trust the right people. > Alla: > > His home life was horrible? Again, maybe, maybe not IMO. We do not > know who the people in that memory were and I will not be surprised > if none of them was Snape. > > His DE life was not fun and games? Okay. Am I supposed to feel sorry > for Snape choosing it then? Toonmili: That is why I think it is important we understand why he joined the death eaters. We don't know if joined on his own accord, if he was tricked, if he was forced, we just don't know. And the memories form Occlumency are his, unless you are suggesting that Snape has someone else's memories in his head and finds tham so personal that he wants to hide it from Harry. > Alla: > > If faced with hard cold canon sure I will, LOL, but only then. And > as I cheerfully promised on list, I will write a long apology to > Severus Snape - the Saint of all Causes. Toonmili: Then you should start typing from now. :) From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 21 23:09:20 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:09:20 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170580 > > Eddie: > > No offense to Julie Christie, who was excellent and beautiful in > > Doctor Zhivago and Fahrenheit 451 but she is about 35 years older than > > I ever imagined Madame Rosmerta being, let alone somebody Ron would > > get the hots for. So, I'd pick instead... Julie Christie from about > > 35 years ago. > > Zanooda: > How old do you imagine Rosmerta to be? I'm just asking out of > curiosity, because I thought about it myself. If she ever went to > Hogwarts, she has to be older then the Marauders, but if she never went > there she can be any age we like :-). I'm talking about her real age > here, not about how old she looks. Eddie: I suppose the issue is: how young would a witch have to be for a 13-, 14-year-old Ron to be attracted to her? Witches and wizards live longer lives than muggles, so maybe they look much better older? Could Rosmerta be 66 and look like a muggle 33 year old? Julie Christie is 66 years old in real life. No offense to how she looks (and not to be sexist) but could Ron be attracted to any 66-year-old muggle (Julie Christie in Real Life) lady? And if he could be attracted, then..... eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Eddie, who will now receive hate mail from the Julie Christie Anti-Defamation Groupies From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 23:57:00 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:57:00 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170581 > > > David: > > > I would have Alec Guiness or Tom Baker from Doctor Who as > > > Dumbledore. > Eddie: > On the subject of Guinness, he was famous for playing multiple > roles in the same movie, so perhaps Guinness would be good for > EVERY role in the fantasy movie? Eddie, I can't see Sir Alec Guinness in a dress...lol. I think he would have made a great Dumbledore. And yes, you are correct in my mispost of candidates. I would think "Vincent Price" from several horror films of the 50s and 60s including one of my favorites, "The Raven" would make a great Lucius Malfoy and "Richard O'Brien" who did Riff Raff from the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" as Wormtail. The charactors are so close to each other in style. David From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 01:28:26 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:28:26 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170582 > Bart: > Name performances by actors that you would use for various > parts. Goddlefrood: I do have one small suggestion. W. C. Fields for Horace Slughorn. He would bring a certain je ne c'est quoi to the part and is more or less how I imagine Uncle Horace. Mr. Fields played no real different part throughout his screen life. He always played W. C. Fields. W. C.'s oft stated dislike of children need not be a problem as those he did not appreciate could be AKed quite easily and no longer trouble him. That may lead to a sharp reduction in the student body at Hogwarts, though, so he would need restraining from time to time. The red face, propensity for a tipple and rotundness fir Slughorn rather well. It could work just fine, just use your imagination and surely you'll agree that Mr. Fields would be perfect for the part. Goddlefrood, who also likes children - fried. From darksworld at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 01:28:19 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:28:19 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > Name performances by actors that you would use for various parts. If you have trouble > remembering who an actor is and what they have been in, the Internet Movie Database > (http://www.imdb.com) is an excellent source. Charles: My only reference to the currently standing movies (not including the OOTP movie about to come out) is to say that I really can only think of two or three changes I would make. I would nix Gary Oldman as Sirius and get Cary Elwes as Westley/The Man in Black/Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride. I would also get Gabe Jarret as Mitch Taylor in Real Genius to play Krum. I'm not certain on this one, but I think that although I can't name a role that would fit that he has already played, Dick Van Dyke would make a SPECTACULAR Dumbledore. As to casting characters we haven't seen in one of the movies yet: Rufus Scrimgeour: Ron Perelman. I remember vividly his performance as Vincent in "Beauty and the Beast" in the 80's. He looks the part, and I think he could carry Scrimgeour off beautifully.Not a perfect fit as far as the characters of Vincent and Scrimgeour, but he is the actor that springs immediately to mind for the part. Kingsley Shacklebolt: Hmm. While again not a perfect fit, I see Ving Rhames portrayal of Marsellus Wallace as coming very close to Kingsley. Quiet for the most part, and extremely deadly when provoked. Dedalus Diggle: Ed Wynn as Uncle Albert in Mary Poppins. Hands down, no contest. Bill Weasley: John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness from Doctor Who. I just see Bill making women swoon like Jack does. Mundungus Fletcher: Hmm again. This is a real stretch. Let's see if I can get this straight. Mundungus is red haired, so that means he's most likely written as a white guy. But I see Damon Wayans as perfect for the role. A variation of the "mo' money" thing from In Living Color... Amelia Bones: Dame Judi Dench as Jean Pargetter/Hardcastle from As Time Goes By. No nonsense, but fair and understanding at the same time. Griselda Marchbanks: Estelle Getty as Sophia Petrillo from Golden Girls. Good heart with the ability to be cantankerous and spit nails when necessary. Cormac McClaggen: Chris Barrie as Arnold Rimmer in Red Dwarf. An almost perfect match. Both characters are absolutely full of themselves for no good reason. Rimmer is too old to be in school though. I'd better stop, or this might get way too long. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 01:53:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:53:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467B2B96.90004@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170584 Eddie wrote: > * No offense to Michael Gambon, but it would have been sweet to have > had Richard Harris play Dumbledore xxxxxxxxxx Do not mention the medium that must not be named, or the list elves will put an end to the thread. This is for a fantasy computerized animation!!!! Any actor, any time in history!!!! Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 01:57:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:57:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467B2CA4.9090206@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170585 Eddie wrote: > But on the subject of Guinness, he was famous for playing multiple > roles in the same movie, so perhaps Guinness would be good for EVERY > role in the fantasy movie? Well, one Guiness role in particular was The Man in the White Suit, a character who would have made a very good Arthur Weasley. For Quirrell: Here's one that isn't immediately obvious: Vincent Price, in any of his earlier roles (although, if you insist, I'll take his role in "The Fly"). For Peter Pettigrew: If you can get past the accent, Peter Lorre (I'll take Casablanca) would have made a GREAT Peter Pettigrew. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 02:47:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:47:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <467B383E.7040200@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170586 Goddlefrood wrote: > I do have one small suggestion. W. C. Fields for Horace Slughorn. > > He would bring a certain je ne c'est quoi to the part and is > more or less how I imagine Uncle Horace. Mr. Fields played no > real different part throughout his screen life. He always played > W. C. Fields. Bart: In "It's a Gift" (his best movie, according to some), he adds a third dimension to his character; in spite of everything, he loves his family, including his children. That is, at a comfortable distance. Even if it's kumquats instead of crystallized pineapple (from a classic scene from the movie). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025318/ Bart From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 22 02:51:03 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:51:03 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <467B2CA4.9090206@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170587 Bart: > For Peter Pettigrew: If you can get past the accent, Peter Lorre (I'll > take Casablanca) would have made a GREAT Peter Pettigrew. Ceridwen: He'd be a great Peter Pettigrew. The role was made for him! How about Basil Rathbone as Snape? Or, Jeremy Brett? Both men played Sherlock Holmes, who has a physical resemblance, at least in descriptions, to Snape (*cough*nose*cough*). I don't know how either would do the "softly simmering cauldron" speech, but being actors, I'm sure they'd rise to the occasion. Of course, there's always the actor who portrayed the Sherrif of Nottingham in Robin Hood, Prince of Heaven... er, Thieves. He'd have to shave, of course, but snark can't get much better. ;) For the portrait of Mrs Black: Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. Van Gough!" For Kingsley Shacklebolt, I've got to go with Denzel Washington as Don Pedro in Much Ado About Nothing. So he'll have to shave his head. Who cares? Class, class, class, and hawt. Mundungus Fletcher: Michael Keaton, same movie, in his role as the completely off-the-wall constable, Dogberry. That's all I can think of just now. Ceridwen. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jun 22 03:04:21 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:04:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <380-2200765223421125@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170588 Bart: > For Peter Pettigrew: If you can get past the accent, Peter Lorre (I'll > take Casablanca) would have made a GREAT Peter Pettigrew. Ceridwen: He'd be a great Peter Pettigrew. The role was made for him! How about Basil Rathbone as Snape? Or, Jeremy Brett? Both men played Sherlock Holmes, who has a physical resemblance, at least in descriptions, to Snape (*cough*nose*cough*). I don't know how either would do the "softly simmering cauldron" speech, but being actors, I'm sure they'd rise to the occasion. Magpie: I have to say, I remember recently watching Captain Blood a while back and when Errol Flynn first appeared with his long black hair and dressing gown I thought--omg, it's Fanon!Snape! So he could have done well in Spinner's End. - From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 03:32:44 2007 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:32:44 -0000 Subject: More evidence for DDM!Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170589 Hi everyone, I'm sure the "What side is Snape on?" question has been discussed ad nauseam, but I can't help but add my own two cents on the matter. I was just re-reading GoF last night and noticed an interesting detail in the scene where Imposter Moody has just revealed himself to Harry as a DE and is about to kill him. We're told that there are three shapes in the foe glass just before DD blasts the door open and stuns Imposter Moody, one shape corresponding to each of DD, McGonagall and Snape. I'm assuming that Imposter Moody "tweaked" the foe glass so that his enemies, i.e., enemies of a Death Eater or enemies of the Dark Side, would show up in the glass, which makes sense of DD and McGonagall doing so. It also makes sense of Snape doing so *if and only if he is on the side of the Order*. If you re- read that scene, JKR seems to make it a point to mention a second time that Snape is seen in the foe glass, and this time she mentions him specifically. I don't think this is knock-down evidence for Snape being Dumbledore's man, but it's weighty evidence nonetheless. I'm counting the days till we find out for certain. Alcuin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 04:08:54 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:08:54 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170590 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170537 > > colebiancardi: > well, Snape has been "whacked". He is now an outcast and > untrustworthy to the wizarding community > > There is no justice in the DADA curse. Mike: No, no, justice for me and Alla and Sherry and all the other faithful Snape-hating readers. When Snape got the DADA job we had such high hopes, for what lay ahead for "Snivellus". It may have been too much to hope for the Quirrell treatment, and it seemed unlikely that he would get the same that befell the substitute (Barty Jr). But we felt safe in hoping for some of that personal time off that Moody enjoyed. And though we wouldn't have minded something like what happened to Lockhart, we definitely didn't want Snape to forget his torture. Umbridge got off too easy for our erstwhile Potions Master, unless of course, we could've traded the centaurs for a pack of Mountain Trolls with a penchant for really bad poetry, Vorgon style. Obviously, getting simply sacked like Lupin was nowhere good enough for dear Sevie. That's the justice I was looking for. Instead, Dumbledore got whacked, and Snape went for a stroll across the front lawn. The world just isn't fair. :( ************ In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170558 Carol: I really don't understand why you don't think that the kids were in actual danger from the transformed werewolf or why Snape, who knew that Lupin hadn't taken his potion, wouldn't think it was primarily Lupin that they needed to be saved from or why Fudge wouldn't agree with them. Snape *could* have simply brought in Black and turned him in to Fudge and left the kids to wake up on their own, but somehow he thought that might not be a good idea. Mike: I am afraid we are not talking about the same scene. I was thinking about the whole 'in the castle' back and forth with Snape, Fudge, and Dumbledore, *after* everybody was safe in the castle. That's where the whole focus of Fudge and Snape is on the benefits of capturing Black. So Lupin transformed and may have threatened the kids, so what? They're safe now, unharmed except by the Dementors draining. Whatever happened with Lupin, both of them are happy with the apparent outcome now. Despite Snape knowing that Lupin must have transformed, he can only guess about the situation that ensued. Any speculation on his part that Lupin threatened the kids had better be spot on or Harry and Hermione are most assuredly going to deny that was what happened and impugn Snape's character for making up stories about something he has no direct knowledge of. This territory is too dangerous for Snape to chance looking foolish. Carol, who thinks that Snape, though wrong about the murderer and his accomplice, was right that the werewolf was deadly and really did save their lives Mike: I'm thinking time-turned Harry and Hermione would disagree with this assessment. Had they all left Snape tied up in the Shack, wandless, I'm betting these two could have rescued their unconscious alter selves and Ron and Sirius. Of course, that's not what happened, and it is a moot point to speculate how things would have been different. But that doesn't mean that once again Snape is credited for doing something that actually made it harder for the "right" outcome to happen. ************ In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170561 > wynnleaf > > > Right. Hm... > > I have to admit, even with the above scenario, I'm not sure what > Harry's forgiveness is worth, to himself or Snape, if Harry still > needs to have retribution, or some sort of punishment for Snape > *after* he's forgiven Snape. Mike: Without Dumbledore there, I don't see anybody getting Harry to shake Snape's hand the way he made Snape and Black. No matter how Harry gets his inevitable revelation of DDM!Snape, the best outcome Snape should hope for would be Harry turning his back and walking away, imo. There is no hope for anything beyond a deeply disgusted but ever so slight respect for Snape from Harry's perspective. > wynnleaf > Okay. Now, let's suppose that Dumbledore was right all along and > JKR reveals Snape to be *actually* very remorseful for the Potter's > deaths. Let's say he really did risk his life spying all those > years. Mike: As I've posted before, no amount of remorse will bring back Harry's parents. And Harry shouldn't and won't, imo, ever get past this basic truth. No matter what Snape does to redeem himself. You can't cut the brake lines on a vehicle then complain that the wrong people got in the car and drove away to their deaths. It's too late for Snape to say he did all in his power to protect the Potters after he told the prophesy to Voldemort. At least to his credit, Snape has never blamed Sirius for him (Snape) not getting to redeem his mistake. Oh, wait, my bad, he did blame him. "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant..." Speaking of arrogance, how arrogant to blame the SK for giving up a secret that wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if it wasn't for him. > wynnleaf > Let's say he realized the value of Dumbledore's trust and > actually felt exactly like Harry when he AK'd Dumbledore -- hating > himself and repulsed by his own actions. Mike: I can't help but reminded of something that Sirhan Sirhan said at one of his parole hearings, to try and get paroled. He told the board that Bobby Kennedy would have wanted him to be paroled. To which someone remarked - such a shame. The one guy that would have voted *for* his parole, AND HE KILLED HIM. > wynnleaf > Do we still need punishment for Snape now? Mike: Heh, I already gave my answer to this query. ;) ************ In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170572 Carol: ... or [Snape's] been fooling Dumbledore for fifteen years. (Snape says "sixteen," but either that's a slip for the time he began spying for DD, or JKR's difficulties with math are manifesting themselves again.) Mike: Actually Carol, I don't think JKR's maths missed here. Snape is speaking from the perspective of Summer '95 - Voldemort's rebirth. He said he had sixteen years of info on DD when LV returned. That puts his starting point around the summer of '79. If the prophesy happened on Halloween '79, as you and I think, that only puts Snape "spying" on Dumbledore for a few months before the prophesy. Surely his eavesdropping wasn't his first day on the job. And even if it was, 16 is the best number of years anyway. >From a different post, someone said Snape had all those years of spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk". The earliest I can conceive of Snape knowing the Potters would become LV's target would be the late Winter or early Spring of '80. Since he joined the Hogwarts staff in August of '81, "years" is a might bit generous, imo. For my part, I'm not yet convinced that Snape "returned" after the prophesy. In fact, I'm not convinced at all that the prophesy was Snape's primary motivation siding with Dumbledore to affect Voldemort's demise. But I'll leave that there for now. Mike From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 22 04:13:32 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:13:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <987818123.20070621211332@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170591 Thanks for this thread, Bart -- This is something I've thought about in the past... So here is my own fantasy casting: McGonnegall: EDNA MAY OLIVER Edna May Oliver frequently portrayed stern but loving matrons, the archtype of which must be her portrayal of Aunt Betsey in MGM's version of DAVID COPPERFIELD. Anyone who can do such a definitive Aunt Betsey could, with a the right glasses and a Scottish accent, be Minerva McGonnegal. Lupin: MICHAEL RENNIE His calm, cool, almost other-worldly voice (especially in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL) seems to suit the most mild-mannered (except once a month) of the Mauraders. Tonks: JANE HORROCKS I'm ready to concede that's she's just a little too old now, but about ten years ago, in her days as LITTLE VOICE, and Rimmer's love interest in RED DWARF, she had just the right combo of quirkiness and sex appeal to be our lovely Nymphadora. Lucius Malfoy: HENRY DANIELL Daniell practically made a whole career of playing Lucius-like, "respectable" sadists, from Brocklehurst in Orson Welles' version of JANE EYRE, to the Joesef Goebbels character ("Garbage") in Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR. Alastor Moody: FINLAY CURRIE Character actor Finlay Currie could have passed for Mad-Eye when he played Magwitch in David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1946), in the scene when he returns for Austrailia and gives poor John Mills the creeps -- Just exchange his eye-patch for a Magical Eye, and you've got him. Lord Thingy: EDUARDO CIANNELLI Ciannelli, who portrayed the ESE Guru (with an appropriately high, cold voice) in GUNGA DIN (1939), is how I used to envision Salazaar Slytherin, and with some strategic makeup and a fair dose of Skele-gro, he could work as Slytherin's tall, snake-faced heir. Wormtail: ROY KINNEAR British comedian Kinnear was appropriately watery-eyed and weak-kneed in WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, obeying daughter Veruca's orders at all times without question. Umbridge: JEAN KENT If you put her in a trash compactor and made her short and squat, I can imagine Ms. Kent, who in such films as THE BROWNING VERSION (the original 1951 vesrion, with Michael Redgrave) is all sugar-coated arsenic. Slughorn: MILES MALLESON Actor and screenwriter Malleson is like a "big overgrown baby" (complete with the walrus-like mustache) as the Sultan in Korda's 1940 version of THE THIEF OF BAGDAD -- a silly old man who loves his mechanical toy collection as much as Slughorn loves his "toys" (smoking jackets, crystalized pineapple, etc.), and who is more than willing to sell his own daughter to get in good with the neighboring powers-that-be. Dumbledore: EDMUND GWINN & ROBERT DONAT I'm afraid this one might require some genetic splicing, but take the kindly bearded face and gentle voice of Edmund Gwinn (MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET) and combine it with the stature and professorial quality of Robert Donat (GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS), and I think you have an ideal Albus. And since cartoons are allowed, I'll add: Teenage Tom Riddle: MOZENRATH Handsome, slick, and ESE, the arch villian from Disney's ALADDIN (the TV series) would be ideal as the young, pre-Horcrux Voldemort. He even covets the Philosopher's Stone in one episode! Dave From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 04:27:43 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:27:43 -0000 Subject: Quirrell and the dungeon - long (was: Slytherins and Werewolves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170592 ContanceVigilance: > It does not really counter my argument. First of all, Dumbledore is > not being truthful about Quirrell in general. He claims that he has > never been able to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year because > of the curese, but Quirrell must have been a teacher - and a teacher > of DADA - for more than one year, and more likely for three or four. > This has been discussed before, so I won't repeat the argument here. > The fact that we readers have a problem with this statement from > Dumbledore only proves that he is not good at not being truthful, > especially since he just got done saying "I will of course, never > lie." One can only assume he had his fingers crossed at the time. > > The only other possibility is that Dumbledore finished a helpless > Quirrell off himself. I can't believe that of Dumbledore. > > As I said, Quirrell may be dead. He may not appear in Book 7. But > there is no canonical or FAQ evidence (that can't be refuted) that > Quirrell perished in the dungeon, or anywhere in the first book. > > ~ CV > lizzyben: It seems like we don't really know what happened to Voldemort, or Quirell. It's possible that Quirrell died, but DD never says so. I got the impression that Quirrell was simply sent to Azkaban, back to Bulgaria or placed in hiding. I wanted to ask a resident Quirrell expert - what did happen in that room, anyway? What did DD do after Harry passed out? DD was there, he had an opportunity to attack Voldemort - didn't he use it? Why did he suddenly appear only after Harry was on the verge of passing out? Why did he (apparently) send an 11-year old to take on VD in the first place? It's all very vague, and DD never really explains what happened after Harry passed out. Harry is a child, and he doesn't wonder about this, but readers do. I truly can't stand DD, mostly because of issues like this. lizzyben From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 04:57:01 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:57:01 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170593 > Anne Squires: > Furthermore, I have the distinct impression that more > Brit-speak has been included in the American versions as the > series has progressed so that by the time OotP and HBP came out > numerous expressions were not changed. And I must say I was > chuffed to learn "chuffed" and other similar expressions. Mike: Sorry I had to snip so much of your excellent post. I have also enjoyed the many new British expressions. I still haven't figured them all out. Right now, I don't know if I should or shouldn't be having a "shufti" after reading some parts of DH. No amount of context has been able to enlighten me as to the meaning of this slang. And you know, I'm not at all pissed. I just go to the pub and get pissed. :) Mike From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jun 22 07:36:15 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:36:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... References: Message-ID: <006001c7b4a0$040cc020$6501a8c0@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170594 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > No offense to Julie Christie, who was excellent and beautiful in > > Doctor Zhivago and Fahrenheit 451 but she is about 35 years older than > > I ever imagined Madame Rosmerta being, let alone somebody Ron would > > get the hots for. So, I'd pick instead... Julie Christie from about > > 35 years ago. > > zanooda : > How old do you imagine Rosmerta to be? I'm just asking out of > curiosity, because I thought about it myself. If she ever went to > Hogwarts, she has to be older then the Marauders, but if she never went > there she can be any age we like :-). I'm talking about her real age > here, not about how old she looks. I imagine Madam Rosmerta to be in the range from 28 to say, 34. Old enough to be "mature" but young enough to still look "hot". She'd have to have that "older woman" syndrome of looking so good that even young bucks drool over her, but I don't imagine her to be slutty- just charismatic. I have having a hard time finding a person to fit the bill, but I am thinking from the older movies done comedy style where all the guys just fell over hand and foot for one girl- maybe say Marilyn Monroe from "some Like It Hot"; one where the starring girl can do no wrong. I'd keep her fully robed (tongue in cheek there) in a traditional Wizard wear that goes all the way up to the neck, but even then you can tell which Witches have a nice figure, especially if her robes are tailor cut to show off her shape. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Jun 22 07:54:02 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:54:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... References: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <1182459952.26821.1196421873@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <007301c7b4a2$7fcecf30$6501a8c0@joe> No: HPFGUIDX 170595 > Goddlefrood: > > I do have one small suggestion. W. C. Fields for Horace Slughorn. > > He would bring a certain je ne c'est quoi to the part and is > more or less how I imagine Uncle Horace. Mr. Fields played no > real different part throughout his screen life. He always played > W. C. Fields. Snip... > The red face, propensity for a tipple and rotundness fir Slughorn > rather well. It could work just fine, just use your imagination > and surely you'll agree that Mr. Fields would be perfect for the > part. Shelley: As soon as you mentioned him, I instantly pictured him as Slughorn, and I thin the personality. He would also have the rounded face for the job. > Random832: > Well, for Dumbledore, I'd pick Sir Ian McKellen, but not as Gandalf - I > think having him play Dumbledore like he played Magneto would make for a > good portrayal of the "manipulative!DD" theory. Would need longer hair > and a beard though. > Moody should be Sean Connery from, well, anything since he got old. Shelley: I highly applaud these two picks! I might have to add Conen O'Brian from the late night tv for Lockhart- just add the curly wig. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could sport a constantly wide smile and be sappily full of himself. The medium which shall not be named didn't show enough teeth, which were mentioned over and over in the books, so whomever plays Lockhart must first have a good smile. I haven't seen Conen's full set of choppers, so he might not be the best pick after all. I can't think of whom else would be slightly more mature who still runs around like a 20 year old beach volleyball player adoring all of his lady fans who is all teeth and wide grin. Maybe those who follow the tournaments can give a good pick from that sport. From mercuryblue144 at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 08:13:18 2007 From: mercuryblue144 at gmail.com (Beth Hartung) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:13:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <006001c7b4a0$040cc020$6501a8c0@joe> References: <006001c7b4a0$040cc020$6501a8c0@joe> Message-ID: <1be73e550706220113g45e5289cs81f7a2f55cc4f55c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170596 zanooda: How old do you imagine Rosmerta to be? Shelley: I imagine Madam Rosmerta to be in the range from 28 to say, 34. MercuryBlue: No can do, Shelley. Rosmerta's old enough that she was working at the Three Broomsticks when the Marauders were in Hogwarts. She might well look early thirties, but she's got to be fifty at least. MercuryBlue -- "The truth shall set you free." --Aletha Freeman to Sirius Black, Where We Belong [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 22 11:20:44 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:20:44 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <1be73e550706220113g45e5289cs81f7a2f55cc4f55c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170597 looks like I read the rules wrong - it can be anyone, not just brit actors. nobody's mentioned Bellatrix, so I will :) Bellatrix: Bette Davis. I think she was beautiful in an unconventional sense and Bella is/was considered to be a beautiful woman. Bette has the "hooded" eyes and can play an emotional, deranged, wicked, snarky, deceptive woman who can cast you under her spell. Bette in her heyday. Narcissa: Tough call. If I could "age" her a little, Gwynth Paltrow for some reason comes to mind. I have never seen Gwynth play a "baddie" before, but Cissa isn't so wicked as she is a major snob. Long blond hair, lean and willowly with her nose in the air. Or Faye Dunaway, as she looked in Bonnie & Clyde - Hey, I like that one better!! Can be tough as nails, which Cissa is. Rosemarta: Hello Boys - of course, Rita Hayworth. Very sexy and I could see Ron drooling over her even if she was in her 40's. colebiancardi (still thinking of others...) From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 11:31:03 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:31:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706220431n3a6e0b4ch63197b497b0f2bb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170598 > > Mike: > Sorry I had to snip so much of your excellent post. > > I have also enjoyed the many new British expressions. I still haven't > figured them all out. Right now, I don't know if I should or shouldn't > be having a "shufti" after reading some parts of DH. No amount of > context has been able to enlighten me as to the meaning of this slang. montims: In fact, to have a shufti means to have a look, and its origin is pretty uniformly agreed to be military slang, brought back from the Middle East, like dekko and others. Google brings up a lot of explanations, such as: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-shu1.htm SHUFTI [Q] *From Nick Carrington, UK*: "What's the origin of *shufty*, meaning look, as in *take a shufty*?" [A] *Shufti* (another way of writing it, the one usually given in dictionaries) is Arabic. In that language it means "have you seen?". It's a bit of military slang, picked up by British servicemen formerly based in the Middle East. The first recorded examples in print are from the Second World War, suggesting that it may have originated among soldiers in the desert campaign. However, Eric Partridge says that it actually started life with Royal Air Force stations in that area about 1925, but that it had spread to the Army by 1930. This seems probable, to judge from the extent of its use in World War Two, and the number of compounds it spawned, none of which seem to have survived the end of the War. Among them, Partridge mentions * shuftiscope*, which had a number of senses, one of which he defines with ponderous delicacy as "an instrument used by doctors for research in cases of dysentery". However, while I understand what American readers have written about skirting boards, jumpers, and puddings, etc, I would point out that British readers have read American books for years, and understood them... Maybe we get some things wrong, but I enjoy coming across words in strange contexts and puzzling out their meanings. We also, of course, watch American films and understand what the protagonists are saying by context, if nothing else... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aixoise at snet.net Fri Jun 22 11:51:28 2007 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:51:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <031601c7b4c3$ac001f20$65fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170599 Everyone's suggestions for this thread have been very interesting (and have sent me searching for some actors on the web. I haven't been able to come up with anything earth shattering but since Colebiancardi wrote: nobody's mentioned Bellatrix, so I will :) Now Stacey again: One actress comes to my mind for Bellatrix. She's young so I would certainly age her but anyone who saw Fairuza Balk in The Craft has to admit she'd do the job as Bella well! She's also got that haunting yet somehow beautiful look. Still thinking of more! Stacey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 12:30:00 2007 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:30:00 -0000 Subject: ADMIN - List Closure Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170600 The Last Canon Theory Bay lay, dark and silent, under the waxing moon. Grand vessels, sails furled for night, rode at anchor near barges, rowboats, skiffs, catamarans, and some dodgy craft which, by all the laws of nature, should not have stayed afloat. They were oblivious to the huge gates made of spiked tree trunks which dominated the scene. Occasionally, a thunderous quake would shake the gates, sending shock waves across the water. List elves began to wander out of the George and gathered in a knot below the gates. "One more month." "One more month!" "Give or take!", piped up Phlytie Elf. The murmur swept the crowd. The gates shuddered in response as the Last Canon trembled impatiently behind them. Elfy heads turned involuntarily to the assortment of craft at anchor, wondering which would still be afloat after the Last Canon's barrage. Zaney Elf hurried importantly out of the tavern shuffling sheets of parchment in her hands. "All right, elfses, listen up!" The other elves, unused to such human forms of address, shuffled uncomfortably in their cleanly-pressed tea towels and cozies. "There is just one more month before the Last Canon is released." The gates shuddered again at Zaney's pronouncement. Several elves moved away from the gate, leaving fellow elves, who had been farther away, closer to the threatening spires. "In respect for the release of the Last Canon, not to mention concern for elfy ears, the Harry Potter for Grown-Ups list will be closed for postings, beginning at midnight, the morning of the 21st of July, British Summer Time. Members can access the list to read, but may not post, until..." The elves strained to hear the announcement they had all been waiting for. Zaney shuffled her papers and squinted at the spidery writing, nearly invisible in the half-moon's light. Shorty Elf, wanting to be helpful, brought a lantern from the doorpost of the George so Zaney could read. "Thankee," Zaney said. "Shorty's pleasure," Shorty replied. Zaney drew a pair of half-moon spectacles from her tea towel and propped them on her nose. Provided with light, and with clear vision, she continued. "The list will be closed from midnight, the morning of July 21st, until Tuesday, July 24th, 9 p.m. British Summer Time." The elves hopped up and down excitedly. A time had been set! Duties would now be assigned... "Not all list members, or elves for that matter, live in British Summer Time." Marvin Elf whipped out his trusty lunar calculator, his elfy fingers flying over its buttons. "The moon will be just past its quarter phase. That means that members and elves will again have posting access to the board at..." Brussels and Much of Western Europe Time - 10 p. m. Eastern Standard Time - 4 p. m. Central Time: 3 p. m. Mountain Time - 2 p. m. Pacific Time - 1 p. m. Wednesday 25th: India - 1.30 a. m. Australia West - 4 a. m. Australia East - 6 a. m. Fiji - 8 a. m. The list elves would like to request... Main List Spoiler Policy: The present spoiler policy will be lifted on the main HPFGU list when it reopens to posting. Based on our experience with past releases, every post will have DH spoilers, so there will be no reason for anyone who has not yet read the book to visit the list. The policy will be clearly stated on the home page as RAYOR - Read At Your Own Risk. Members who want to talk about their reading, without mentioning spoilers: OT-Chatter. This list will be designated as a spoiler-free zone, for the benefit of members of our community who will not have immediate access to DH. Any post to this list containing DH spoilers will be deleted and the poster will be placed on moderated status. We mean it! For those of you that can't wait to begin discussing DH: The HPFGU chat room will be open throughout the list closure period. If you enter the chat room and find no one there, we suggest that you post to OT-Chatter inviting others to join you. Chat can be found here: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 If you want to discuss the list closing, spoilers or anything else, please email us at hpforgrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com or bring it up over at Feedback: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ The List Elves: Alla -- Alika Elf -- dumbledore11214@ yahoo.com Amanar -- Drivey Elf -- naama2486@ yahoo.com Amanda -- Amandageist -- editor@ texas.net Betsy Hp -- Oopsie Elf -- horridporrid03@ yahoo.com Ceridwen -- Vexxy Elf -- ceridwennight@ hotmail.com Colebiancardi -- Cardi Elf -- muellem@ bc.edu Dan -- Kranky Elf -- darkthirty@ shaw.ca Debbie -- Speedy Elf -- elfundeb@ comcast.net Goddlefrood -- Marvin Elf -- gav_fiji@ yahoo.com Geoff -- Exmoor Elf -- gbannister10@ tiscali.co.uk Jen -- Ari Elf -- stevejjen@ earthlink.net Kathy -- Zaney Elf -- zanelupin@ yahoo.com Kelley -- Kelley Elf -- kelley_thompson@ sbcglobal.net Kemper -- Twisp Elf -- kempermentor@ yahoo.com Laura -- Wilder Elf -- lhuntley@ fandm.edu Magpie -- Corbie Elf -- belviso@ attglobal.net Mary Ann -- Dizzy Elf -- marycloudt@ yahoo.ca Mike -- Phlytie Elf -- mcrudele78@ yahoo.com Petra -- Penapart Elf -- PenapartElf@ aol.com Pippin -- Peppy Elf -- foxmoth@ qnet.com Rebecca -- Bex Elf -- dontask2much@ yahoo.com Shaun -- Crikey Elf -- drednort@ alphalink.com.au Sherry -- Blinky Elf -- sherriola@ earthlink.net Sheryll -- Rylly Elf -- s_ings@ yahoo.com SSSusan -- Shorty Elf -- susiequsie23@ sbcglobal.net Tim -- Kroppy Elf -- timregan@ microsoft.com Zara -- Zippy Elf -- zgirnius@ yahoo.com Heidi -- HPEF Liaison and Unspeakable -- heidi@ fictionalley.org Paul -- TechnoGeist Steve -- Keeper of the Lexicon From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 13:53:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <22812419.1182520433620.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170601 From: Dave Hardenbrook >Dumbledore: EDMUND GWINN & ROBERT DONAT >I'm afraid this one might require some genetic splicing, but take the >kindly bearded face and gentle voice of Edmund Gwinn (MIRACLE ON 34TH >STREET) and combine it with the stature and professorial quality of >Robert Donat (GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS), and I think you have an ideal Albus. Bart: I was thinking about Edmund Gwenn myself for Dumbledore, but he wasn't quite right. I like your genetic splicing idea. Here's a thought. I can't really think of any actors who would make a good Harry Potter, but, in anime, Tetsuro from Galaxy Express 999 (late 70's version), although on the short side, has the right combination of toughness, niceness, and an insistence on playing the hero. Note to everyone: If you can't remember the name of an actor or role, try http://wwww.imdb.com Bart From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 22 14:15:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:15:09 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <467B383E.7040200@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170602 Peter Ustinov as Slughorn Margaret Hamilton as McGonagall Rod Steiger as Scrimgeour Dirk Bogarde as Snape (with prosthesis) (It's a FANTASY thread, right?) houyhnhnm From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 22 14:27:47 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:27:47 -0000 Subject: More evidence for DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170603 "alcuin74" wrote: > We're told that there are three shapes > in the foe glass just before DD blasts > the door open and stuns Imposter Moody, > one shape corresponding to each of DD, > McGonagall and Snape. But in the very next book Harry tells the members of the DA not to rely of a foe glass too much because it can be fooled. And there is absolutely no doubt Snape is very good at fooling people; for 15 years Snape has fooled Voldemort or Dumbledore or both. If he can fool wizards like that I think he could fool a foe glass. Eggplant From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jun 22 14:31:23 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:31:23 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706220431n3a6e0b4ch63197b497b0f2bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170604 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > However, while I understand what American readers have written about > skirting boards, jumpers, and puddings, etc, I would point out that British > readers have read American books for years, and understood them... Maybe we > get some things wrong, but I enjoy coming across words in strange contexts > and puzzling out their meanings. We also, of course, watch American films > and understand what the protagonists are saying by context, if nothing > else... > Ken: And I think a lot of us are saying that we would prefer to have the same experience of British works. In fact I think we do when it comes to movies, they don't redub those do they??? It all gets a bit odd and sometimes downright insulting. Lately I've noticed that TV newscasts that interview British speakers will more and more often include subtitles even though there are hardly any British accents that are impenetrable to American ears. In fact it is the vocabulary, not the accents that causes whatever trouble there is and of course the subtitles repeat that verbatim. But then, and so help me I swear that this is true, I've even seen local TV news subtitle southern American speakers!!! We are not idiots and we don't want our Harry Potter or anything else in predigested form from a copy editor. Sorry, Carol.... Ken, who is enjoying the history of the Lord of the Rings however From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 22 14:44:23 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:44:23 -0000 Subject: More evidence for DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170605 > "alcuin74" wrote: > > > We're told that there are three shapes > > in the foe glass just before DD blasts > > the door open and stuns Imposter Moody, > > one shape corresponding to each of DD, > > McGonagall and Snape. > > eggplant wrote: > But in the very next book Harry tells the members of the DA not to > rely of a foe glass too much because it can be fooled. And there is > absolutely no doubt Snape is very good at fooling people; for 15 years > Snape has fooled Voldemort or Dumbledore or both. If he can fool > wizards like that I think he could fool a foe glass. colebiancardi: but where did Harry get that information from? Is that just his own "opinion" or fact? If his "opinion", it is biased, IMHO Also, I have always wondered about the foe glass - is it showing the true enemies of the owner of said glass or the perceived enemies (they think they are, but they truly aren't). Does the foe glass work off of true ownership - which begs the question, did Moody's foe glass belong to the Fake!Moody or the Real!Moody? colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 22 14:50:56 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:50:56 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170606 > Alla: > > Well, not to me. Actually scratch that - if I will **see** that Snape > is living with guilt indeed, not hear through second party word that > he is, I may revise my opinion. > > > Right now Dumbledore's *greatest remorse* is countered by Snape's > spinned him a tale of the deepest remorse in my mind. > > If I hear from Snape that he is sorry for what he helped doing to > Harry's parents and Harry and that he regrets it, I may think it > counts, but I want to hear it from Snape's mouth. Pippin: I don't know why you would believe Snape if you didn't believe Dumbledore. Surely Dumbledore is the more reliable of the two? If Dumbledore said that Snape felt remorseful, I would believe Dumbledore, even if Snape denied it and laughed. But in any case, Snape's account in Spinner's End rings false. First, we've never seen Dumbledore taken in by false remorse. Of course JKR could still show us that, but more likely the whole question is a red herring. Because secondly and more important, none of Dumbledore's second chances have been conditional on remorse or anything else. Riddle wasn't remorseful. He didn't look remotely abashed at being caught thieving, and though Dumbledore ordered him to apologize to his victims, he did not insist that the apology be sincere. In fact he said he didn't think Riddle had repented. It was enough that it was possible. Draco was offered his second chance unconditionally. All he had to do was accept it. He was not asked whether he felt sorry for any of the harm he had done, or even whether he was willing to atone for it. *Why* Dumbledore did this, I don't know, but I expect JKR to explain it to us shortly. I'd hazard a guess it has something to do with her faith. Dumbledore *believes* in second chances. He believes in the power of love. Voldemort, OTOH, would be a sucker for Snape's tale of false remorse because genuine remorse is beyond him. He has to believe that Dumbledore is foolish and gullible, because he thinks that only foolish and gullible people would trust in the power of love. Nor has remorse ever been what it took to win Dumbledore's trust. We've seen how Dumbledore's trust in Harry developed, culminating in the words, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." Harry did not win that trust by apologizing or by undergoing punishments. He won it by actions of unquestionable courage, moral fibre and loyalty, some of which Dumbledore witnessed first hand, others attested by the results and by the accounts of those whom Dumbledore trusted. Was that second hand trust? Should the WW have refused to believe that Harry had fought Voldemort because they didn't see it with their own eyes? As for the wrong Snape did by bringing information to Voldemort, how many lives did he save by bringing information to the good side? Was that not worthy of some reward? Karkaroff won his freedom just for turning over one name when the danger was over and everyone thought they were safe. Snape turned spy while Voldemort was still in power. Crouch was satisfied of that, so I don't see why we shouldn't be. Dumbedore's word alone would hardly have been enough. Heck, it couldn't even persuade Fudge not to arrest Hagrid. Crouch turned his own son over to the dementors despite his pleas of innocence, and you think he would release into the community an admitted Death Eater while getting nothing in return? If JKR wants us to believe that happened, she's going to have to overturn the whole character of Barty Sr, and he's just not important enough for that. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 22 15:03:58 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:03:58 -0000 Subject: Slytherins and Werewolves (was:Snape vs Lupin/UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170607 Magpie: > > I'm kind of fascinated by the way JKR's linked both > > Snape and Draco to fear or werewolves, as if that's > > a Slytherin thing (while Sirius is all "Wish it were > > a full moon! Having a werewolf buddy is fun!). Betsy Hp: > I have a couple of ideas. One is tied to the blood > purity thing. If Slytherins are all about blood-purity > (which I have a hard time buying, since no other house > is *all* about just one thing, but yes I'll agree > Slytherins are more interested in blood than other > houses, or at least they'll admit to it ) it > stands to reason they'd fear the one creature that > can take it all away from them. From pureblood to > half-breed with one bite. > [...] > The other is the Slytherin as a female house thing. > Werewolves are the embodiment of male aggression, so > naturally the feminine Slytherins fear them, and the > masculine Gryffindors love them. houyhnhnm: Another reason for the werewolf being Slytherins' particular bugaboo occurred to me. Lycanthropy represents loss of control and Slytherins are all about control, control over themselves and their emotions, control over others, control over surroundings. This is what I read into Snape's "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works." The thought of being outside of oneself, of being cut off from one's own mind every month must be truly horrifying to Snape. A werewolf has no control over when he (or she?) transforms, no control over what he does while transformed, no memory of what occurred during transformation. Unable to integrate the human into the beast, Fenrir chose to reject his humanity altogether and be a beast all of the time. This could be seen as a means of re-establishing control. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 22 15:04:45 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:04:45 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170608 > Carol, who thinks that Snape, though wrong about the murderer and his > accomplice, was right that the werewolf was deadly and really did save > their lives > > Mike: > I'm thinking time-turned Harry and Hermione would disagree with this > assessment. Had they all left Snape tied up in the Shack, wandless, > I'm betting these two could have rescued their unconscious alter > selves and Ron and Sirius. Pippin: Harry and Hermione don't seem to agree: "Hermione!" said Harry suddenly. "We've got to move!" "We mustn't, I keep telling you--" "Not to interfere! Lupin's going to run into the forest, right at us!" Hermione gasped. They're not at all confident of their ability to handle a werewolf, either here or earlier when Sirius fought Lupin for them. Harry stood frozen, for once unable to move when a friend was in danger. > Mike: > As I've posted before, no amount of remorse will bring back Harry's > parents. And Harry shouldn't and won't, imo, ever get past this basic > truth. No matter what Snape does to redeem himself. Pippin: And no amount of punishment will bring them back either. Pippin From rdransom at verizon.net Fri Jun 22 13:59:56 2007 From: rdransom at verizon.net (R Ransom) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:59:56 -0500 Subject: UK vs. US Message-ID: <0JK100IUMIVW6IS6@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170609 Posted by: "Mike" mcrudele78 at yahoo.com mcrudele78 Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:57 pm (PST) <<>> I'm re-reading Order of the Phoenix right now an am still confused about what a 'wooly bladder' is - when Hermione is knitting her hats - can someone tell me? (it sounds painful) Thanks -- ~R~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 22 15:22:34 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:22:34 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170610 Young Tom Riddle = Young Fred Rodgers of Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood fame; I'm serious, after Riddle's mistake with Dumbledore at the orphanage he learned to keep his boiling hostility a secret. In those days if you insulted Tom he wouldn't dream of threatening you and thus putting you on your guard, instead he would continue being scrupulously polite toward you; it's just that very soon afterward you would suffer a horrible "accident". Horace Slughorn = Bob Hoskins Bellatrix Lestrange = Uma Thurman, after seeing Kill Bill I know she could handle the action sequences Dolores Umbridge = Claire Bloom from Brideshead Revisited or Sian Phillips from I Claudius or perhaps Danny DeVito in drag. Eggplant From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Jun 22 15:58:23 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:58:23 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <22812419.1182520433620.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170611 Bart: > Here's a thought. I can't really think of any actors who would make a good Harry Potter, but, in anime, Tetsuro from Galaxy Express 999 (late 70's version), although on the short side, has the right combination of toughness, niceness, and an insistence on playing the hero. Ceridwen: I was browsing around at IMDB and ran across some pics of Stephen Fry in glasses, hunched up in a warm-looking coat. Young him down to seventeen or so, and give him green contacts, and he'd look the part. Ceridwen. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 16:08:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <16427391.1182528508443.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170612 From: houyhnhnm102 >Peter Ustinov as Slughorn >Margaret Hamilton as McGonagall >Rod Steiger as Scrimgeour >Dirk Bogarde as Snape (with prosthesis) >(It's a FANTASY thread, right?) Bart: Margaret Hamilton, I assume you mean as The Wicked Witch of the West. Or are you referring to her Maxwell House commercials? Peter Ustinov and Rod Steiger played too big a variety of parts for me to figure out which role you are talking about. Dirk Bogarde: Are you referring to The Night Porter? Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 22 16:11:59 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:11:59 -0000 Subject: More evidence for DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170613 Alcuin: > We're told that there are three > shapes in the foe glass just before DD blasts the door open and > stuns Imposter Moody, one shape corresponding to each of DD, > McGonagall and Snape. I'm assuming that Imposter Moody "tweaked" > the foe glass so that his enemies, i.e., enemies of a Death Eater > or enemies of the Dark Side, would show up in the glass, which > makes sense of DD and McGonagall doing so. It also makes sense of > Snape doing so *if and only if he is on the side of the Order*. If > you re-read that scene, JKR seems to make it a point to mention a > second time that Snape is seen in the foe glass, and this time she > mentions him specifically. Dana: Well there is a slight problem with the Foe Glass being used to proof DDM!Snape. If the Foe glass would show enemies of the Dark Side then there is one person in that room that isn't reflected in it while it should. Harry indeed. He is an enemy, the only one that is prophesized to be able to vanquish the Dark Lord so he surely should have been visible in the Glass if it indeed showed enemies of the Dark Side. So it actually does not show this unless anyone wants to suggest that Harry is actually a Dark Wizard himself. The Foe Glass is indeed tweaked because otherwise it would only show the real Moody's enemies. DD and McGonagall are surely not (I do not mention Snape because the real Moody does not trust Snape if we go by what we saw in the pensieve). So to be honest with you the Foe Glass is in my opinion a pretty clever red-herring because it actually only reflects Barty Jr's enemies and this includes Snape, not only because Snape is still working with DD and is thought to have left LV forever but also because Barty hates those that denounced LV after his down fall. He hates them so much that he actually wanted to attack them at the Quidditch World Cup but Winky prevented this. JMHO Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 22 16:19:36 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US Message-ID: <823411.1182529176186.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170614 From: Ken Hutchinson >We are not idiots and we don't want our Harry Potter or anything else >in predigested form from a copy editor. Sorry, Carol.... Bart: Yes, the publishers are treating us as if we were, well, CHILDREN! And, as part of my promise not to be quite as cryptic, why was there a need to call this group "Harry Potter for GROWNUPS" (emphasis mine)? It's because the Harry Potter novels were aimed at a primary audience of children, although they were certainly written in a way as to appeal to adults, as well. And publishers know that if kids can't understand what they're reading, they're going to go somewhere else (although humorist Dave Barry once wrote a wonderful column referring to the Britishisms that were still left in the American editions Harry Potter novels). Bart From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Fri Jun 22 16:30:31 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:30:31 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170615 Anne Squires: Charles Laughton: Slughorn Jerry Mathers: Harry Potter Sophia Loren: Madame Rosmerta Hugh Grant (from Bridget Jones, not Love Actually): Scrimgeour From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 16:50:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:50:15 -0000 Subject: More evidence for DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170616 colebiancardi wrote: > > Also, I have always wondered about the foe glass - is it showing the true enemies of the owner of said glass or the perceived enemies (they think they are, but they truly aren't). Does the foe glass work off of true ownership - which begs the question, did Moody's foe glass belong to the Fake!Moody or the Real!Moody? Carol responds: I think that, like everything else in the room from the trunk and Invisibility Cloak to the disabled Sneakoscopes, it belongs to the real Moody, but since you can't disable a mirror (it has to reflect *something*), Barty Jr. Confunded it as he did the Goblet of Fire, causing it to show his own enemies (otherwise, it would have been of no use to him). Obviously, the real Moody's unConfunded Foe Glass wouldn't show Dumbledore or McGonnagall, and Fake!Moody's Foe Glass wouldn't show Harry because Harry is no threat to him personally (and he apparently doesn't see Harry as a real threat to Voldemort, either--he's sending him to Voldie so his blood can be used to restore Voldemort to his body and then Voldie can finish him off). Dumbledore, McGonnagall, and Snape together act as Fake!Moody's enemies, rescuing Harry and revealing Barty's identity, along with forcing him to reveal the details of his wicked plan. (Yes, DD is in charge, but he needs his assistants, particularly Snape. And they enter the room with the intention of exposing and thwarting the imposter even if none but DD actually suspects his true identity.) It can be argued that Snape is Fake!Moody's enemy simply as "a Death Eater who walked free," but I think it's more than that. For one thing, that's not sufficient reason for Snape to want the imposter's identity exposed and his plan (belatedly) thwarted or for Barty Jr. to perceive Snape as a threat. (Fake!Moody wants *Harry* to perceive Snape as a threat, possibly the person who placed his name in the Goblet, as we discover in the scene with Harry in his Invisibility Cloak on the stairs, because he's trying to draw suspicions away from himself, but I think he also suspects Snape of being genuinely loyal to Dumbledore. Quite possibly, he' informed Voldemort of his suspicions via eagle owl, which would partially account for Voldie's belief that Snape has left him forever. Just my opinion and not an actual FoeGlass!Snape argument.) As the original poster to this thread pointed out, JKR takes care to refer more than once to Snape's reflection in particular, and this incident is followed by Snape's providing Winky and the Veritaserum, showing Fudge his Dark Mark to prove that Voldemort is back, and going off with a pale face and glittering eyes to tell his prepared story to Voldemort. I think it's an important clue rather than a red herring. At any rate, that scene cemented my view that Snape was Dumbledore's man through and through before I'd read that phrase. Carol, noting that Harry sees the reflection with his eyes but is too traumatized (and too biased against Snape) to ponder its significance From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 22 16:54:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:54:42 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <16427391.1182528508443.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170617 Bart: > Margaret Hamilton, I assume you mean as The Wicked > Witch of the West. Or are you referring to her Maxwell > House commercials? > Peter Ustinov and Rod Steiger played too big a variety > of parts for me to figure out which role you are talking about. > Dirk Bogarde: Are you referring to The Night Porter? houyhnhnm: With Dirk Bogarde I was thinking specifically of "The Singer Not the Song". I'm not sure about the others. With Peter Ustinov, I must have been thinking of him as Hercule Poirot. And Margaret Hamilton for her looks, but not as the Wicked Witch of the West. I've seen her on some old late night movies I can't even remember the name of. I don't know why Rod Steiger for Scrimgeour. It was just a feeling. A movie I can't remember the name of--not "In the Heat of the Night" I don't think. I love Rod Steiger because he was so different in every role so it's hard to say what about Scrimgeour made me think of Steiger, but he did. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 17:25:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:25:28 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170618 houyhnhnm wrote: > > I don't know why Rod Steiger for Scrimgeour. It was just a feeling. A movie I can't remember the name of--not "In the Heat of the Night" I don't think. I love Rod Steiger because he was so different in every role so it's hard to say what about Scrimgeour made me think of Steiger, but he did. > Carol responds: I wasn't going to respond to this thread because it's hard to bring canon into it, but, oh, well. Maybe you're thinking of Rod Steiger in "Doctor Zhivago"? Not a cop or ex-cop role, but there's something both tough and ambiguous about him, and possibly you suspect Scrimgeour of being a potential bad guy (as opposed to the quintessential tough politician, with Fudge as the quintessential weak one?) At any rate, my vote for Scrimgeour, especially since we can use American here and it's just fantasy, is Ted Levine (with or without a mustache) in any of his tough cop or ex-cop roles--I'm not thinking of Jame Gumb! (Ted can "speak Southern," despite being from the Midwest, so maybe he can manage a British accent. At any rate, he'd look the part, coloring and all, except for the blue eyes. For Rosmerta, how about a forty-something Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mother)? She's too old now, but she used to be cute and perky, and I think she'd have been attractive to a teenage boy without being sexually threatening. As someone mentioned, Rosmerta has to be a bit older than MWPP since she was already running the Three Broomsticks when they were in school, but since witches and wizards age differently from Muggles (unless they're subjected to werewolf bites or Azkaban), we could make her thirty-something instead. Someone suggested Rita Hayworth for Rosmerta, but I don't picture Rosmerta as sultry and smouldering. That's more like Bellatrix before Azkaban, only she'd need a regal air as well, and I don't know if Rita could have managed that. Snape, as Potioncat(?) mentioned, should be Alan Rickman with twenty-five years subtracted from his age. The voice, the gestures, the facial expressions are already perfect, but the age is wrong. Carol, feeling like she's posting to the wrong list since fantasy video games are closer to films than to books From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 14:55:52 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:55:52 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170619 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Sure, it is a possibility. There is also another possibility - Snape > is not saying anything to Harry, because he is **not** sorry about > his parents death at all IMO. Lupinlore: Or maybe not JUST sorry, if he's sorry at all. Maybe he feels hatred for James, and thus by extension hatred for Harry. Maybe he feels love for Lily. Maybe he feels anger at the life debt. Maybe he feels anger at the debt he owes to DD. Maybe he hates Voldy for messing up in Godric's Hollow and getting him into this bind to start with. Maybe he feels all of the above. None of which excuses his actions or reprehensible abusive behavior in any way, form, or fashion, I'd say. And not of which excuses him from punishment. > Alla: > > Well, sure, we do not know what DD did, but we know one thing - DD > did not sent him to Azkaban and DD did let him teach in Hogwarts, no? Lupinlore: And looked the other way while he repeatedly and constantly abused Harry. Which, I think, is a heavy moral burden the story must deal with, if we are not to have an author approving of child abuse. Alla: > Why is it when it comes to Snape do we think that DD is suddenly > unreliable. Lupinlore: Because he's already shown himself to be contemptibly incompetent in allowing Snape to abuse Harry and Neville, I suppose. Because he failed to intervene firmly to put a stop to the Dursleys' abuse of Harry? I'd say he's shown himself to be extremely incompetent and unreliable in anything concerning Harry (and Snape is inextricably bound up with Harry). Alla: > Dumbledore says that Snape regretted it when he learned the couple > names? Maybe, as I said I want to hear it from Snape's mouth to > believe it. Lupinlore: Well, I guess that's PART of what Snape has to do for redemption. But only part. Alla: > My crow is handy nearby, but I am not starting to cook it yet > Lupinlore: Hmmm. I don't know about the whole DDM! thing. I think it is as likely an outcome as any other. It would be clumsy and, I think, incredibly cheesy, but all possibilities have severe problems. However JKR gets herself out of the corner she's backed into, it will involve a great deal of hand-waving and contrived plotting to severely strain believability. I will, however, make my woodchipper handy should the ending be as big a reprehensible moral failure (for instance, nice is not the same as good, loyalty excuses cruelty and abuse) as I suspect it might. As I've said before, I'll even let you keep the mulch. :-) Lupinlore, who made sure to buy gas for the chipper while a couple of the local stations had a price war going on. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 19:27:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:27:45 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170620 Alla: > > If I hear from Snape that he is sorry for what he helped doing to > > Harry's parents and Harry and that he regrets it, I may think it > > counts, but I want to hear it from Snape's mouth. > > Pippin: > I don't know why you would believe Snape if you didn't believe > Dumbledore. Surely Dumbledore is the more reliable of the two? > If Dumbledore said that Snape felt remorseful, I would believe > Dumbledore, even if Snape denied it and laughed. > Alla: Eh, because it is more convincing for me to hear it from the character himself than from the third party. But of course there are additional circumstances as well. I wrote several times in the past that to me Snape's behavior does not ring true as behavior of person who feels remorse and I have not read an argument that convinced me yet. Therefore why would I believe Dumbledore if Snape's behavior does not show me that he is remorseful? Accordingly if Snape denies it and laughs, sure I believe him, since his behavior to me is the behavior of hateful bastard, who continues to try to impose as much misery in Harry's life as he can. I brought up several times the "Coldfire trilogy" and the antihero Gerald Tarant. Snape has to work so hard to be in Tarant's league of badness and he will never reach it. But I **buy** Tarant's change of heart by the end of the trilogy. I SO do. I mean, change of heart enough to make me think that he achieved redemption, not change of heart and him becoming a fluffy bunny. Of course his behavior shows me that he changed first and foremost, but his reluctant admission that the main good guy changed him as well works **wonders** for me to believe him, to sympathize with him, etc. So, if in the last confrontation between Harry and Snape I will **hear** that he is sorry, maybe it will work some wonders as well for me, we shall see. > > Alla: > > > > Sure, it is a possibility. There is also another possibility - Snape > > is not saying anything to Harry, because he is **not** sorry about > > his parents death at all IMO. > > Lupinlore: > Or maybe not JUST sorry, if he's sorry at all. Maybe he feels hatred > for James, and thus by extension hatred for Harry. Maybe he feels > love for Lily. Maybe he feels anger at the life debt. Maybe he > feels anger at the debt he owes to DD. Maybe he hates Voldy for > messing up in Godric's Hollow and getting him into this bind to start > with. Maybe he feels all of the above. Alla: Yes, maybe so. In fact I think his hatred for James is spread to Harry and " you and your filfy father" sort of cemented that for me Lupinlore: None of which excuses his actions or reprehensible abusive behavior in any way, form, or fashion, I'd say. And not of which excuses him from punishment. Alla: Blinks. I am with you on this topic, remember? You do not have to convince me that Snape is a child abuser, I see him as such indeed. > Alla: > > Why is it when it comes to Snape do we think that DD is suddenly > > unreliable. > > Lupinlore: > Because he's already shown himself to be contemptibly incompetent in > allowing Snape to abuse Harry and Neville, I suppose. Because he > failed to intervene firmly to put a stop to the Dursleys' abuse of > Harry? I'd say he's shown himself to be extremely incompetent and > unreliable in anything concerning Harry (and Snape is inextricably > bound up with Harry). Alla: That's great. Except I did not say it, so you are convincing somebody else. I think Toonmili, not 100% sure. I agree with you. > Lupinlore: > Hmmm. I don't know about the whole DDM! thing. I think it is as > likely an outcome as any other. It would be clumsy and, I think, > incredibly cheesy, but all possibilities have severe problems. > However JKR gets herself out of the corner she's backed into, it will > involve a great deal of hand-waving and contrived plotting to > severely strain believability. > Alla: See on this we are in disagreement indeed. I think **any** possibility, **any** sort of Snape, any outcome can be done really really well. I do not believe JKR backed herself in any corner necessarily, I think book 7 can be really wonderful. I mean, I am being absolutely honest that when push comes to shove to me it will all depend on how it is done. Is it possible JKR can do DD!M Snape well? Absolutely, why not. If it happens, I will stare at the page for few minutes, then laugh at myself for few days and that would be it, if it is written well and emotionally satisfactory for me. Granted, right now I have no clue how DD!M Snape would be able to satisfy me, but I do have faith in JKR, we shall see. Of course, I would prefer to see Snape punished, suffering, etc, but if something different is done well, is fine by me. The outcome of Harry's death will upset me, yes. I think it is absolutely normal though ? we all invested our energy, our emotions in those books, so surely we all have hopes for good ending or tragic ending as we see it. So, that would cause me to be disappointed regardless of whether it is well written or not. I would still not use woodchipper, LOLOLOL. But the books will not be among the books which I will be reading and rereading. As I said, I want some hope at the end. I followed Harry's journey for several years now, I want to see that he can survive and beat the ends, I want the end of the journey to be worth it for me. I think Hichkengruendler said it well once ? that how can you not have faith in JKR resolving the plots at the end, if she managed to satisfactory resolve the Molly/ Fleur tension in what one or two sentences? At least for me that resolution was very emotionally satisfying. > Mike: > No, no, justice for me and Alla and Sherry and all the other faithful > Snape-hating readers. When Snape got the DADA job we had such high > hopes, for what lay ahead for "Snivellus". It may have been too much > to hope for the Quirrell treatment, and it seemed unlikely that he > would get the same that befell the substitute (Barty Jr). But we felt > safe in hoping for some of that personal time off that Moody enjoyed. Alla: Yep - that one. JMO, Alla. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 22 19:30:46 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:30:46 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Anne Squires: > > Furthermore, I have the distinct impression that more > > Brit-speak has been included in the American versions as the > > series has progressed so that by the time OotP and HBP came out > > numerous expressions were not changed. And I must say I was > > chuffed to learn "chuffed" and other similar expressions. > > Mike: > Sorry I had to snip so much of your excellent post. > > I have also enjoyed the many new British expressions. I still haven't > figured them all out. Right now, I don't know if I should or shouldn't > be having a "shufti" after reading some parts of DH. No amount of > context has been able to enlighten me as to the meaning of this slang. > > And you know, I'm not at all pissed. I just go to the pub and get > pissed. :) Geoff: Shufti means "to take a look". It took root in UK English as a word used by army personnel from about the 1930s onward. It's an Arabic word in origin. From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 21:39:54 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:39:54 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170622 > Alla: > > Eh, because it is more convincing for me to hear it from the > character himself than from the third party. But of course there are > additional circumstances as well. I wrote several times in the past > that to me Snape's behavior does not ring true as behavior of person > who feels remorse and I have not read an argument that convinced me > yet. Therefore why would I believe Dumbledore if Snape's behavior > does not show me that he is remorseful? Accordingly if Snape denies > it and laughs, sure I believe him, since his behavior to me is the > behavior of hateful bastard, who continues to try to impose as much > misery in Harry's life as he can. Biff: I agree with you Alla- Snape's motivations have never been revealed, at least not that I have seen. Snape may very well lie to Harry if and when he explains, but part of the beauty of the written word is that his expression will be described. I'm envisioning Snape "blanching", or "flushing" (if that's possible for Snape) if he is confronted by Harry about the betrayal to his parents. Whatever he says next in combination with his facial expression will be very telling. I also tend to be pretty skeptical of Dumbledore's ability to see and explain things as they really are. He admitted to Harry in HBP that he had purposely witheld information from Harry, believing it was in Harry's best interests. He also didn't tell Harry about Snape's betrayal, something I believe he had a right to know. I believe that Dumbledore's actions have been colored by blind faith, loyalty, and denial- all human traits and understandable. He admits his faults, which make him more human and endearing to me, but also make me wonder what else he was holding back on until he felt Harry was "ready". Biff From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 22:21:49 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:21:49 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <006001c7b4a0$040cc020$6501a8c0@joe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170623 >> Shelley wrote: >> I imagine Madam Rosmerta to be in the range from 28 to say, 34. > MercuryBlue: > No can do, Shelley. Rosmerta's old enough that she was working at > the Three Broomsticks when the Marauders were in Hogwarts. She > might well look early thirties, but she's got to be fifty at least. Wow, fifty! It's possible, but she can be younger, I think. She only needs to be a few years older then the Marauders. We only know that when they started visiting Hogsmead in their third year, she already worked at the "Three Broomsticks" (is she the owner, BTW?). She could have been just out of school. Anyway, like Shelley and Eddie, I imagine Rosmerta *looking* like she is in her thirties, whatever her real age might be. > Eddie wrote: > Julie Christie is 66 years old in real life. I didn't know Julie Christie, so I had to find her younger pictures, but to me even then she didn't look like Rosmerta. She looks attractive, but her face is too strong, you know? JMHO. Rosmerta's face is described as "pretty". And I couldn't see in the pictures if Christie was "curvy" enough to play Rosmerta :-). I can't offer anyone else, unfortunately, because I really don't know any actors. > Charles wrote: > Amelia Bones: Dame Judi Dench as Jean Pargetter/Hardcastl e from As > Time Goes By. No nonsense, but fair and understanding at the same > time. > Griselda Marchbanks: Estelle Getty as Sophia Petrillo from Golden > Girls. Good heart with the ability to be cantankerous and spit nails > when necessary. As I said, I know very few actors, but these two I know and they are excellent picks, great :-)! zanooda From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 22 23:22:09 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:22:09 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170624 Biff: > I also tend to be pretty skeptical of Dumbledore's > ability to see and explain things as they really are. > He admitted to Harry in HBP that he had purposely witheld ' > information from Harry, believing it was in Harry's best > interests. He also didn't tell Harry about Snape's betrayal, > something I believe he had a right to know. houyhnhnm: What betrayal? Whom had Snape betrayed, to Dumbledore's knowledge, besides Voldemort? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 22 23:47:28 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:47:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170625 > > Mike previously: > > Had they all left Snape tied up in the Shack, wandless, I'm > > betting these two could have rescued their unconscious alter > > selves and Ron and Sirius. > > Pippin: > > Harry and Hermione don't seem to agree: > > "Hermione!" said Harry suddenly. "We've got to move!" > "We mustn't, I keep telling you--" > "Not to interfere! Lupin's going to run into the forest, right at > us!" Hermione gasped. > > They're not at all confident of their ability to handle a werewolf, > either here or earlier when Sirius fought Lupin for them. Harry > stood frozen, for once unable to move when a friend was in danger. Mike now: Let's take them chronoligically. When Lupin transformed, Harry did not freeze. Sirius told them to run, but instead Harry "leapt forward" then Black caught him and threw him back. Harry was not just about to leave Ron. Next, the scene you quoted from. Completely different condition. Lupin!werewolf was running away. There was no need to confront him, he wasn't threatening anyone. Plus, Harry and Hermione were in "non interfering" mode, as evidenced in your quote above. Finally, these two didn't time-turn to capture the werewolf, they have a mission to rescue Sirius. Their avoiding the werewolf had nothing to do with fear of him. I'm not saying that I know they weren't afraid, just that fear of the werewolf did not drive their actions. Then again, Harry didn't exhibit any fear when Lupin transformed while shackled to Pettigrew~Ron. And my original post was about time-turned H & H doing what Snape did, to wit, gathering up Ron, Harry-1, Hermione-1, and Black to take them up to the castle. Even if they couldn't conjure stretchers, they could have used Mobilicorpus to take the 4 unconscious people to safety. I'm saying Harry-2 and Hermione-2 could easily have done what Snape did, just using different magic. IOW, I don't think Snape's *saving* the children was the only way they could have been *saved*. But, of course, Dumbledore told them not to be seen, so they had to let Snape affect *his* rescue. Like I said, Snape got credit for "saving" the kids, but we know the whole story. It would have happened without him. But, he did do it, so he does get the credit, I must accede to that truth. Mike From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 23 00:26:52 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:26:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170626 > mike wrote: > And my original post was about time-turned H & H doing what Snape > did, to wit, gathering up Ron, Harry-1, Hermione-1, and Black to take > them up to the castle. Even if they couldn't conjure stretchers, they > could have used Mobilicorpus to take the 4 unconscious people to > safety. I'm saying Harry-2 and Hermione-2 could easily have done what > Snape did, just using different magic. IOW, I don't think Snape's > *saving* the children was the only way they could have been *saved*. > But, of course, Dumbledore told them not to be seen, so they had to > let Snape affect *his* rescue. > > Like I said, Snape got credit for "saving" the kids, but we know the > whole story. It would have happened without him. But, he did do it, > so he does get the credit, I must accede to that truth. > colebiancardi: LOL!! The ageless question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? If Snape hadn't saved the kids, they probably would not have survived with a werewolf on the loose, time-turner or no. If there is no H&H version 1.0, there is no H&H version 2.0. You can't go back into the past if you don't have the present(ie you are dead) So, the whole story is that Snape saved the children. I doubt it could have happened any other way. And Snape does deserve the credit for that. colebiancardi From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 01:14:19 2007 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 01:14:19 -0000 Subject: You Have Been Summoned: Accio Reprise in Oxford, England 25-27 July 2008! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170627 Accio UK is pleased to announce that the next Accio event will be held from 25 to 27 July 2008. Accio 2008 will bring together academics and adult fans to discuss the Harry Potter series in the Hogwarts-like setting of the University of Oxford. The conference will be held at the beautiful Magdalen College, which boasts such alumni as C.S. Lewis and Oscar Wilde. Accio 2008 seeks to enhance the appreciation of J.K. Rowling's novels as works of literature in her home country. Paper presentations, roundtables, moderated panels, debates and workshops will evoke a lively, interesting and thoughtful discussion on the changes the Harry Potter novels have already made to our world, and on the potential for the novels to have a lasting influence. The conference will feature guest speakers, formal programming sessions and informal opportunities for delegates to get to know one another and the city of Oxford. A banquet will be held in Magdalen College's magnificent Dining Hall on the evening of Saturday 26 July. The Programming Committee is currently accepting presentation proposals. Accio 2008's Call for Papers may be viewed here: http://www.accio.org.uk/callforpapers.shtml . We will send out another announcement in the near future to let you know when the registration system opens. For more information, please visit http://www.accio.org.uk/ . You have been summoned! The Accio 2008 conference is an unofficial event and is not endorsed, sanctioned or in any other way supported, directly or indirectly, by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the Harry Potter book publishers, or J.K. Rowling and her representatives. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 02:17:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:17:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170628 Mike wrote: > > And my original post was about time-turned H & H doing what Snape did, to wit, gathering up Ron, Harry-1, Hermione-1, and Black to take them up to the castle. Even if they couldn't conjure stretchers, they could have used Mobilicorpus to take the 4 unconscious people to safety. I'm saying Harry-2 and Hermione-2 could easily have done what > Snape did, just using different magic. IOW, I don't think Snape's *saving* the children was the only way they could have been *saved*. But, of course, Dumbledore told them not to be seen, so they had to let Snape affect *his* rescue. > > > > Like I said, Snape got credit for "saving" the kids, but we know the whole story. It would have happened without him. But, he did do it, so he does get the credit, I must accede to that truth. > > colebiancardi: > > LOL!! The ageless question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? If Snape hadn't saved the kids, they probably would not have survived with a werewolf on the loose, time-turner or no. If there is no H&H version 1.0, there is no H&H version 2.0. > > You can't go back into the past if you don't have the present(ie you are dead) So, the whole story is that Snape saved the children. I doubt it could have happened any other way. And Snape does deserve the credit for that. Carol responds: Exactly. Time-Turned Harry and Hermione couldn't have saved their unconscious selves (along with Ron and Black) because they had to have been taken to the hospital wing and revived before they could Time-Turn. If Snape hadn't gone after Lupin, no one would have known they were out there on the grounds, unconscious and in the company of a werewolf, and they would certainly have been soul-sucked or killed because Time-Turned!Harry wouldn't exist to send the Patronus and save them a second time. (Snape saved them first.) Snape's presence during the Shrieking Shack scene seems unnecessary (he only overhears part of the conversation and then gets knocked out) until we realize that he had to be there to save all four of them so that Harry and Hermione, in turn, could save "more than one innocent life," including their own. Without Snape, there would *be* no time-turned H and H to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak (and save Harry from having his soul sucked), even if Harry and Hermione could get four unconscious people to the hospital wing without knowing how to conjure stretchers or being attacked by a werewolf, in itself a doubtful proposition. (What were TT!H and H supposed to do, let themselves be seen and knock out Snape, who was doing a better job than they could? They wouldn't have been there if he hadn't saved them in the first place! They'd have been messing with time, undoing something that had already happened, and who knows what the consequences would have been.) If they could have saved themselves, JKR would have written it that way. Instead, like it or not, they owe their lives (and souls) to Snape. And even if they *could* have saved themselves, they didn't. Snape did. (Thanks for acknowledging that, Mike.) Carol, who likes the story as it is and hopes that Harry will come to realize just how often Snape has helped or protected him, preferably before it's too late From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 23 02:39:04 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:39:04 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <823411.1182529176186.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: Ken Hutchinson > >We are not idiots and we don't want our Harry Potter or anything else > >in predigested form from a copy editor. Sorry, Carol.... > > Bart: > Yes, the publishers are treating us as if we were, well, CHILDREN! > No, if they were treating us as Children they would know that with our superior ability to develop language skills we would not need their "help". If a 55 year old can deal with this a 12 year old can do it with ease. Children would have less trouble with Britishisms than copy editors. On the other hand I *am* glad they decided the best course of action was to keep our spirits up.... Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 03:34:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:34:21 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170630 > > Alla: As to whether Snape set to destroy the Potters. As canon > > stands right now - I do not know that, although I won't be > > surprised if we will learn that Snape did know that Lily got > > pregnant before he delivered Prophecy, maybe same day or something. > > Toonmili: Ouch, I can't believe you said that. Alla: Ouch? Toonmili: There was no way he could have known. Lily and James trice defied Voldemort. I doubt they went about advertising it that Lily was expecting. > > How do you think they knew it was someone close to them who was > spying. They only told a very few amount of people and somehow Voldemort found out they had a child. Unless you think that Lily wrote Snape and told him that she was having a baby. There is no way he could know that was expecting unless they were in touch. And I think we can assume that they weren't. Alla: Yep, I specifically said that as canon stands right now he did not know. As canon states right now, he delivered **unnamed couple and their baby** to Voldemort. But do I exclude the possibility that he may have known? No way, especially since I believe that Snape having an obsession about Lily will be disclosed in some way, shape or form. > >Alla: So, I do not **care** why Snape did that. All that I know > > that he did, he as far as I am concerned in cold blood delivered > > two people and their unborn babt to the monster. I absolutely find > > this despicable. > > Toonmili: I never said that he was a good person. It was not a good > thing to do. But it is important why he did it. What if his back was against the wall just as Draco's had been. Alla: No, not to me. This is the kind of action which to me is unexcusable, back against the wall or not. What Draco did is pretty much of the same variety to me . But JKR and myself may differ on Draco, LOL. > Toonmili: That is why I think it is important we understand why he > joined the death eaters. We don't know if joined on his own accord, > if he was tricked, if he was forced, we just don't know. Alla: LOLOLOLOL. That would be what Magpie ( I think) once characterised as JKR coming out in book 7 and telling us about Snape as character - Sorry guys, I was just KIDDING. And if you dig DD!M Snape, why would even this variety of Snape be forced? Isn't Snape working for redemption sort of important part of his character? And if Snape was forced, he does not need any redemption for his past, no? Well, this is one of the prediction I feel rather confident to make - Snape joined DE out of his own free will. Feel free to remind me of that after book 7 :) Toonmili: > And the memories form Occlumency are his, unless you are suggesting that Snape has someone else's memories in his head and finds tham so personal that he wants to hide it from Harry. Alla: Where do I start? How about the man being Snape, not the boy for example? Wouldn't that be the nice trick on JKR's behalf? There are several other possibilities which go against Snape being abused in his childhood and scene being another trick to elicit sympathy for poor Snape. Although that may be " just kidding" backwards, I guess. > > > Alla: > > > > If faced with hard cold canon sure I will, LOL, but only then. And > > as I cheerfully promised on list, I will write a long apology to > > Severus Snape - the Saint of all Causes. > > Toonmili: Then you should start typing from now. :) > Alla: Oh, no worries, I have the template already Want to prepare yours just in case? From leslie41 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 03:40:56 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:40:56 -0000 Subject: Who has the last word on the foe glass? Was: More evidence for DDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170631 Leslie41: The foe glass is one of those objects that we will only be able to figure out completely when Book 7 comes out, it seems. But it's a fascinating magical clue. Harry may tell others that the foe glass can be "fooled," but didn't he get that info from Fake!Moody? Not that this completely discounts it, but it's not like DD told him that, is it? What does Fake!Moody mean by this? Does he have to "tweak" or fool the glass? Is there anywhere it says that? Or does it just recognize him as his new "owner"? Does the foe glass show the people that are actually the owner's enemies (far more valuable), or does it show only those that the owner *thinks* are enemies? And if the foe- glass mistakenly recognizes Barty Crouch Jr. as its new owner, or can be "tweaked" so easily, how far can it be trusted, period? Personally, I think that the foe glass is very effective in a limited fashion, if we don't try to push it too far. That's not its purpose. Firstly, I think that the glass most obviously shows Fake!Moody's enemies, not the real Moody's. Unless Rowling has some surprises in store for us, that's the easiest thing to figure. What Fake!Moody did to ensure that, or whether he had to do anything, doesn't seem evident. I think, though, that the foe glass actually shows people that are a true danger to the owner, and not just a perceived danger. A foe glass that only showed who the owner *thought* was out to get him would be of very limited use, especially if the owner suffered from the least bit of paranoia. We already know who we *think* hates us, after all. Other evidence for this is that Moody wasn't looking at the glass (was he?) when Snape, MgG and DD were on their way. I think the glass must be something like the Weasley's clock, which indicates "mortal peril" when family members are in danger, not just when Molly might *think* they are (in which case it would point to mortal peril all the time). Okay, so if the foe glass indicates the owner's true foes, doesn't that make Snape DDM? Not necessarily. I have to confess I'm a DDM Snape fan, but in this case I'm not sure that the foe-glass helps determine his side. It's not like Snape had any intention of *saving* Fake!Moody. Some characters and their motivations and actions are not either/or. That's most especially true with Snape. For example: even if Snape is evil, would Bellatrix see him in the glass were he approaching her? There's obviously no love lost between them. She loathes him, and if he is Voldemort's lapdog (please, god, no), could he not bear special animosity towards her, and function as her "enemy"? Certainly possible, no honor among thieves and all. Logically, I think the foe glass responds to a direct threat, not a more comprehensive one, thus Moody's comment on his enemies not being a danger until he saw the whites of their eyes. Harry doesn't appear in the glass because at that point, he is no danger to Fake!Moody. Snape, McG, and DD *are* because they intend to rescue Harry and apprehend B. Crouch Jr. Snape doesn't really have another choice in this case, even if he were to want to do things differently, which (considering Snape's feelings toward Bellatrix), I don't think he does. Crouch seems to have the same sort of feelings toward former DEs that did not go to Azkaban that Bellatrix does. So Snape in the end is Fake!Moody's enemy, whether he is good or not. 'Course this will all be moot in a month. But whether or not Snape is DDM, I think it makes perfect sense for him to show up in that glass. (Even if I gave my copy of GoF long ago and I'm just trying to work from memory and common knowledge.) Correct me please, if I'm misrepresenting the facts! From mahlers.com at mahlers.com Sat Jun 23 02:22:52 2007 From: mahlers.com at mahlers.com (W. K. Mahler, Mahlers.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:22:52 -0400 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? References: Message-ID: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> No: HPFGUIDX 170632 Harry Hermione Ron That's our debate. Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? Your thoughts please. Leonda K. Mahler William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com From chaomath at hitthenail.com Sat Jun 23 03:20:13 2007 From: chaomath at hitthenail.com (Maeg) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:20:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5087F0D0-0F4A-4CCA-ADF4-31937FC75E01@hitthenail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170633 >> Alla: >> >> His home life was horrible? Again, maybe, maybe not IMO. We do not >> know who the people in that memory were and I will not be surprised >> if none of them was Snape. >> >> His DE life was not fun and games? Okay. Am I supposed to feel sorry >> for Snape choosing it then? > > > Toonmili: That is why I think it is important we understand why he > joined the death eaters. We don't know if joined on his own accord, > if he was tricked, if he was forced, we just don't know. > > And the memories form Occlumency are his, unless you are suggesting > that Snape has someone else's memories in his head and finds tham > so personal that he wants to hide it from Harry. Exactly. It doesn't ring true that the pensieve memories are a red herring. Of course, I prefer a morally ambiguous Snape with a tortured background (why yes, I do like my boys to suffer a bit) -- it is such a nice parallel to Harry's fairly awful upbringing. I've got a bit of a fantasy about why Snape became a death-eater: seduction. Not sex, mind you (though that does have possibilities... see below), but rather an offer he couldn't refuse: revenge for his brutal upbringing. If LV offered Snape a way to get back at his father, maybe that would be enough to bring him over to the dark side. A slightly more horrible idea is that LV offered Snape a different person: Lily Potter (Evans? not sure of the timeline here). There have been hints of this, and JKR responded very coyly to the question "Will Snape fall in love?" -- specifically mentioning book 7: http://www.crusaders.no/%7Eafhp/interviews/connection/13.%20Snape.mp3 Maeg, hoping the list-elves approve my first post here My mind isn't always in the gutter -- sometimes it comes out to feed. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 05:13:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:13:39 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170634 Ken wrote: > > >We are not idiots and we don't want our Harry Potter or anything else in predigested form from a copy editor. Sorry, Carol.... > > > > Bart: > > Yes, the publishers are treating us as if we were, well, CHILDREN! > > Ken: > No, if they were treating us as Children they would know that with our superior ability to develop language skills we would not need their > "help". If a 55 year old can deal with this a 12 year old can do it with > ease. Children would have less trouble with Britishisms than copy > editors. On the other hand I *am* glad they decided the best course > of action was to keep our spirits up.... > > Ken > Carol: Now, now, I wouldn't insult your profession. Please don't inult mine. We just do what the publishers tell us to do, and if that includes changing british english to American English, we do it. And I , for one, at least appreciate having double quotes instead of single ones. I don't think it's an insult to kids to remove the more difficult or unusual Briticisms. But, of course, that isn't all copyeditors do. If it weren't for us, you'd have to put up with a lot more ungrammatical or wordy sentences, spelling errors, and punctuation errors. Too bad no copyeditor corrected Jane Austen's dangling modifiers. Neither copyeditors nor publishers think that their readers are idiots. They just want to make a manuscript as good as it can be based on a set of preestablished criteria, one of which is saleability and another of which is readability. As for me, I care about the grammar, punctuation, spelling, sentence structure, and to some degree, the dioction, which I like to make as precise and concrete as I can without altering the intended meaning or interfering with the author's "voice." If the publisher or editing service says change the British English to American English, I do it, no questions asked. The HP books *are* intended for children, and the publishers of kids' books know what kids will read (or their parents will buy). If there's a problem with "dumbing down" books for kids, maybe we need to look elsewhere--the educational system or computers or television or video games. (BTW, kids used to learn Latin at six and Greek at nine or ten. They could still do it if "educators" [I don't mean teachers] hadn't decided that ancient languages were both too difficult and insufficiently relevant to the modern world to be taught in schools. Kids learn what they're expected to learn,whether it's grammar and spelling or "multiculturalism." If they can't read at grade level, maybe we should blame the school system for grade inflation and lowered expectations. And if the publishers follow the trend, blame them, not the copyeditors, who are just employees doing their best to follow their employers' instructions. Carol, who wishes you could do my job for a day just to see what it's really like From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jun 23 05:32:13 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:32:13 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170635 > > Toonmili: > There was no way he could have known. Lily and James trice defied > Voldemort. I doubt they went about advertising it that Lily was > expecting. > > > > How do you think they knew it was someone close to them who was > > spying. They only told a very few amount of people and somehow > Voldemort found out they had a child. Unless you think that Lily > wrote Snape and told him that she was having a baby. There is no way > he could know that was expecting unless they were in touch. And I > think we can assume that they weren't. > > > Alla: > > Yep, I specifically said that as canon stands right now he did not > know. As canon states right now, he delivered **unnamed couple and > their baby** to Voldemort. > > But do I exclude the possibility that he may have known? No way, > especially since I believe that Snape having an obsession about Lily > will be disclosed in some way, shape or form. > Julie: I don't think the Prophecy is actually clear enough for Snape to have known he was delivering an unnamed couple and their baby to Voldemort. *Especially* if Snape only heard part of it. Not only is the first part not completely clear on whether this person who "approaches" is already in existence or not, the "either must die at the hand of the other" doesn't come until the second part of the Prophecy. Thus Snape's thought process might have anything from 1. "The Dark Lord will no doubt ignore this, since prophecies are idiotic anyway, but I'll stay in his good graces since he sent me specifically to spy" to 2. "Hmm, someone may in the future be a threat to the Dark Lord, so this information will help him come up with a game plan to protect himself *should* that threat materialize" to 3. "This must refer to a baby who will soon be born, and no doubt the Dark Lord will believe this Prophecy fully and will want to immediately kill this helpless baby and his family instead of waiting around to see if the kid grows up to be some sort of threat. Not that he could ever kill the Dark Lord...AS IF!!!" (Snape only heard part of the Prophecy as far as we know, remember). Which thought is more likely from 20(?) year old Severus Snape, follower of Lord Voldemort? I suspect Thought One is at least as likely if not more likely than Thought Three. Because Snape is little more than a teenager, he still sees the world and everyone in it from his perspective--"If *I* think seers and prophecies are for fools, then everyone else must think so too.) And even if he thinks Voldemort might buy it, he could still reasonably suspect Voldemort would want to "monitor" the situation to see if any child starts to show some incipient power that could be a threat to him. Which leads me to the most likely possibility, that Snape thought Voldemort would file away the information for a later date, perhaps with a plan to neutralize this potential threat to his power should it ever appear. This would be true especially if Snape didn't hear the part about "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives." Without that part, the Prophecy is not a death threat but a threat that Voldemort might be deposed from his seat of power. (Or Snape could have even assumed Voldemort might try and recruit this threat to his side, and *use* that power, an action that is fairly standard for evil lords.) The point is that Snape hearing part of the Prophecy and reporting it to his boss as it were, does not indicate that he knew or even suspected that Voldemort would immediately hunt down and kill a baby who couldn't have yet begun to manifest any power. (And, yes, we know that Voldemort is a paranoid who will preemptively and coldly murder a baby at the mere sign of a potential threat-- and I think the older and far more experienced Snape we either loathe or love--or both!--would expect the same thing--I don't think the younger and inexperienced Snape understood Voldemort's way of thinking at all, until it was too late of course.) Julie, who also figures Thought Three fits well with a genuinely remorseful DDM!Snape, *if* that is who Snape turns out to be. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 05:36:36 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:36:36 -0000 Subject: Should Snape Be Punished? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170636 > > Mike: > > As I've posted before, no amount of remorse from Snape > > will bring back Harry's parents. > > Pippin: > And no amount of punishment will bring them back either. Mike: This may prove interesting. For the purpose of this exercise, I'd like to assume that the end of Deathly Hallows will have Snape being ultimately on the side that eradicates the Voldemort menace. How and why JKR convinces us does not matter for this little exercise, and we have know way of assessing that right now anyway. The question is, with what we know right now of Snape and his misdeeds, should he spend time in Azkaban? Get a community service sentence? Or should he walk free? < Dumbledore in HBP p. 549, US> "Professor Snape mad a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophesy" Mike: After VW I the MoM rounded up all suspected DEs they could catch and punished them. True, many got off by pleading the Imperious, but Snape didn't deny his involvement. On the other hand, as Pippin pointed out, Snape must have convinced Crouch Sr. to clear him and Crouch doesn't appear to be an easy man to win over. Yet, we must keep in mind that Crouch said "cleared by this council" followed immediately by "vouched for by Albus Dumbledore". So, would he have been cleared on the evidence (of his switching sides, I suppose) had he not also had Dumbledore vouch for him? And what about now, when it appears that Snape killed the guy who vouched for him? < Dumbledore in HBP p. 549, US> "But he did not know -- he had no possible way of knowing -- which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onward, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father --" Mike: This quote presents a real problem for Snape. That "which boy" sure seems to indicate that though Snape couldn't know "which", he should have known that there was going to be **a** boy to be hunted by LV. Granted, Dumbledore is speaking to Harry here, but I still don't see a lot of wiggle room for Snape. He's kind of in the position of a terrorist bomb maker claiming he couldn't have known who the bomb was going to kill. You could say he was a young, angry man and trying to ingratiate himself with LV. But Dumbledore told us the years of Voldemort's assent were marked by with disappearances. It stretches credulity to think that Snape wasn't aware of his boss's penchant for eliminating his opposition. Finally, we have to ask: What was Snape's crime in the specific instance of revealing part of the prophesy to Voldemort? Maybe my above analogy to bomb making is too harsh. Though the prophesy did eventually lead to the Potter's deaths, one cannot truly say that it was privledged information of Dumbledore's. It seems that Dumbledore being present was purely happenstance. Also, you may not agree with my argument that Snape should have known LV would try to kill some baby and probably that baby's parents. Snape hasn't been a DE for that long. I suppose it's possible infanticide never occured to Snape. Not the way I read it, but your mileage may vary. I have limited myself to this specific incident because of the premise I set down in the beginning; what we know *now*. We have no knowledge of any other crimes Snape may have commited. And we have Bella's words of "slithering out of action,... on the Dark Lord's orders" which hints that Voldemort thought of Snape as his spy and only as a spy. LV might not have assigned Snape *any* other missions, Bella sure seems to think so. My guess is that JKR will not have Snape spend time in Azkaban, that is if he survives and the DDM premise is true. (My tongue-in-cheek wish for him to suffer horribly, notwithstanding) Whether he does or doesn't get punished is irrespective of whether he *deserves* to be punished. Mike From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 05:48:26 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:48:26 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170637 "W. K. Mahler" > > Harry > Hermione > Ron > > That's our debate. > > Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? > > Your thoughts please. > > Leonda K. Mahler > William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com TKJ: I think that Ron might die. I think it was foreshadowed in SS when he sacraficed himslef during the chess game. A part of me feels that Harry might die too. Just to give the books closure so JKR won't be hassled for more books. I also think that he might be Horocrux.I know, I know this has been discussed to no end and people have their views on it, but I think he might be one and he'll realize he has to die as well as LV for it all to be over. TKJ From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 05:53:09 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 05:53:09 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170638 I know, I know people feel this has been discussed to death, but I had to toss my hat in the ring.... Let me try to verify my accidental making, though I know people think it isn't possible because Slughorn said it takes a complicated piece of magic to make one and so forth. But with Harry, and LV we are dealing with magic that no one has seen. It basica;;y becomes a guessing game for DD as he tries to figure out all the characteristics of Harry's scar or what happened. So what's to say that if an AK is reflected that the person who cast it doesn't lose a piece of their soul in the process. Maybe passing it onto Harry through the scar very untintentionally. Isn't there a theory that he entered the house with the intent to make his last Horocrux anyway, so what's to say he hadn't already started said complicated process before he got to the house and it was somehow completed when the AK failed. Ok I've babbled on long enough...Feel free to tear it apart now. TKJ :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 23 06:36:43 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:36:43 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > I know, I know people feel this has been discussed to death, but I had > to toss my hat in the ring.... > > Let me try to verify my accidental making, though I know people think > it isn't possible because Slughorn said it takes a complicated piece > of magic to make one and so forth. But with Harry, and LV we are > dealing with magic that no one has seen. It basica;;y becomes a > guessing game for DD as he tries to figure out all the characteristics > of Harry's scar or what happened. > > So what's to say that if an AK is reflected that the person who cast > it doesn't lose a piece of their soul in the process. Maybe passing it > onto Harry through the scar very untintentionally. Isn't there a > theory that he entered the house with the intent to make his last > Horocrux anyway, so what's to say he hadn't already started said > complicated process before he got to the house and it was somehow > completed when the AK failed. > > Ok I've babbled on long enough...Feel free to tear it apart now. Geoff: A quick thought. If, as you suggest, he had possibly already started the process, it should be remembered that he did kill two people in advance of his attempt on Harry and if his intent was to kill Harry, so why would he be "assembling" the Horcrux spell for use that night... From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 06:55:37 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:55:37 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170640 When Helga Phugly is all grown-up, she would be the perfect Dolores Jane Umbridge. You can check out a picture here: http://www.quab.ca/angus_port/helga.php Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 08:07:01 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:07:01 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170641 One member of the Potterverse who has always struck me as being akin to Long John Silver from Treasure Island is Alastor Moody. Give Mad-Eye a parrot on his shoulder and he'd be Master Silver's twin, IMO. The perfect portrayal, if a little over the top, but then Long John is a character in the book too who is very much larger than life and needs to be portrayed, if at all, by someone who is overacting, is Robert Newton from the 1950 version. I could not recall his name t'other day so I cribbed and looked at IMDB. Here's the relevant link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043067/ Goddlefrood, who always looks forward every year to International Talk Like a Pirate Day on 19th September. Some of the Judges here do not have such eager anticipation though :-? From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 12:39:07 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:39:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > > And my original post was about time-turned H & H doing what Snape > did, to wit, gathering up Ron, Harry-1, Hermione-1, and Black to take > them up to the castle. Even if they couldn't conjure stretchers, they > could have used Mobilicorpus to take the 4 unconscious people to > safety. I'm saying Harry-2 and Hermione-2 could easily have done what > > Snape did, just using different magic. IOW, I don't think Snape's > *saving* the children was the only way they could have been *saved*. > But, of course, Dumbledore told them not to be seen, so they had to > let Snape affect *his* rescue. > > > > > > Like I said, Snape got credit for "saving" the kids, but we know > the whole story. It would have happened without him. But, he did do > it, so he does get the credit, I must accede to that truth. > > > > colebiancardi: > > > > LOL!! The ageless question: which came first, the chicken or the > egg? If Snape hadn't saved the kids, they probably would not have > survived with a werewolf on the loose, time-turner or no. If there is > no H&H version 1.0, there is no H&H version 2.0. > > > > You can't go back into the past if you don't have the present(ie you > are dead) So, the whole story is that Snape saved the children. I > doubt it could have happened any other way. And Snape does deserve > the credit for that. > > Carol responds: > > Exactly. Time-Turned Harry and Hermione couldn't have saved their > unconscious selves (along with Ron and Black) because they had to have > been taken to the hospital wing and revived before they could > Time-Turn. If Snape hadn't gone after Lupin, no one would have known > they were out there on the grounds, unconscious and in the company of > a werewolf, and they would certainly have been soul-sucked or killed > because Time-Turned!Harry wouldn't exist to send the Patronus and save > them a second time. (Snape saved them first.) > > They wouldn't have been there if he hadn't saved them in the first > place! They'd have been messing with time, undoing something that had > already happened, and who knows what the consequences would have been.) > > If they could have saved themselves, JKR would have written it that > way. Renee : Well, er, JKR *did* write about Harry saving himself plus the others: by casting his stag patronus from across the lake to drive the Dementors off. And this takes place *before* Snape regains consciousness & conjures up the stretchers, etc. Due to the paradoxes of time-turning, Harry2 and Hermione2 were already there when the events following the Shrieking Shack scene unfolded. They *were always there*. (The events of that night don't happen twice, it's Harry and Hermione who happen twice.) So theoretically, they could have done what Snape did - except that they knew Snape had already done it - and they weren't supposed to interfere. They knew they could safely leave and get on with their mission. Carol: Instead, like it or not, they owe their lives (and souls) to > Snape. And even if they *could* have saved themselves, they didn't. > Snape did. (Thanks for acknowledging that, Mike.) Renee: True, Snape took them to the safety of the Hospital Ward. The question is, what did he save them from? At the moment he woke up, there was no immediate danger that we hear of, either from the Dementors or the werewolf. Snape himself actually tells Fudge that the Dementors were heading back to their positions at the entrances of Hogwarts when he came round. Nor does Dumbledore in any way suggest that Snape saved anyone's life or soul that night. Claims that Snape saved Harry's life and soul are therefore grossly exaggerated. Harry1 was saved by Harry2, and by no one else. Renee From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 12:47:38 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:47:38 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170643 Julie: Thus Snape's thought process might have anything from 1. "The Dark Lord will no doubt ignore this, since prophecies are idiotic anyway, but I'll stay in his good graces since he sent me specifically to spy" to 2. "Hmm, someone may in the future be a threat to the Dark Lord, so this information will help him come up with a game plan to protect himself *should* that threat materialize" to 3. "This must refer to a baby who will soon be born, and no doubt the Dark Lord will believe this Prophecy fully and will want to immediately kill this helpless baby and his family instead of waiting around to see if the kid grows up to be some sort of threat. Not that he could ever kill the Dark Lord...AS IF!!!" (Snape only heard part of the Prophecy as far as we know, remember). Ceridwen: Or, he could just have thought, "That mentioned the Dark Lord - I should (or "I am on orders to...") report it to him." TANGENT: Which brings me to a thought. If all of LV's followers are on orders to tell him when they overhear people talking about him, could that be the reason people are afraid to speak his name? Followers report that Witch Grundy said Voldemort should rot in Azkaban, and LV sends someone out to do her in or terrorize her, with the Dark Mark above her house after. Whoever she was talking to remembers that she said such-and-so about LV, and tells the authorities when they investigate. Sooner or later, people will know that if you mention Voldemort by name, his followers will come after you. Better not to mention the name. And this could also be the immediate reason Trelawney was hired. She didn't say Voldemort, but she did say Dark Lord. I know people get by on "You-Know-Who" and "HWMNBN", but she spoke about him negatively (the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord). Even if Julie's number one was correct and Voldemort doesn't believe in prophecies, the idea of someone being able to vanquish him would give opponents hope. At that point, he was winning, and part of that was the validated terror people felt at the mention of his name. Terror gives a sense of hopelessness. Hope erases it. And, if Snape did not report hearing mention of LV's title, he might have gotten into trouble with his boss. I presume at this point a Snape who was honestly a DE, and who very well might not have realized that Voldemort would go after a child. That's something so heinous that it can't even be imagined until it has been done, in my opinion. A loyal follower who would see that as horrible, would not believe the person he chose to follow to be capable of that. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 13:17:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:17:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170644 > Julie: > I don't think the Prophecy is actually clear enough for > Snape to have known he was delivering an unnamed couple > and their baby to Voldemort. *Especially* if Snape only heard > part of it. Not only is the first part not completely clear > on whether this person who "approaches" is already in existence > or not, the "either must die at the hand of the other" doesn't > come until the second part of the Prophecy. > > Thus Snape's thought process might have anything from 1. > "The Dark Lord will no doubt ignore this, since prophecies > are idiotic anyway, but I'll stay in his good graces since > he sent me specifically to spy" to 2. "Hmm, someone may in > the future be a threat to the Dark Lord, so this information > will help him come up with a game plan to protect himself > *should* that threat materialize" to 3. "This must refer to a > baby who will soon be born, and no doubt the Dark Lord will > believe this Prophecy fully and will want to immediately > kill this helpless baby and his family instead of waiting > around to see if the kid grows up to be some sort of threat. > Not that he could ever kill the Dark Lord...AS IF!!!" (Snape > only heard part of the Prophecy as far as we know, remember). > > Which thought is more likely from 20(?) year old Severus > Snape, follower of Lord Voldemort? I suspect Thought One > is at least as likely if not more likely than Thought Three. Alla: Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the prophecy always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that Voldemort even postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever show that he erm.... postpones hunting after his enemies? He tries **obsessively** to get the prophecy all year in OOP, does he not? What exactly may lead Snape to believe that Voldemort would not act right away? Goodness of his heart? Voldemort's I mean? Or of course I always offer possibility that Snape is stupid at 20 years old, but no, sorry, even I can not buy it. I think Snape was perfectly aware of what he was doing and what dark deed he was committing ( Please JKR tell me that DD did not tell him to do that, or get them both together to suffer for eternity). And we do believe Dumbledore, yes? Or we only believe Dumbledore when he *trusts Severus Snape* and do not believe him when he brings up information that does not sound sooo good for Snape? And in the quote that Mike brought up, I think it is clear enough for me that the only thing Snape did not know **which boy** Voldemort will be hunting, NOT that he will be hunting a nameless child and his parents. That I think Snape was perfectly aware of. Ceridwen brought up a point that Snape had to report it to Dark Lord. Eh, why and if he had to, does it make it better somehow? He joined a gang of killers and torturers, so I guess killing and torture was in the job description, does it have to be excused for that reason? Ceridwen, I know you did not suggest the last point, just asking in general. Renee: > Nor does Dumbledore in any way suggest that Snape saved anyone's life > or soul that night. Claims that Snape saved Harry's life and soul are > therefore grossly exaggerated. Harry1 was saved by Harry2, and by no > one else. Alla: Yes, indeed. Thus when Dumbledore mentions that James saved Snape's life, that means that Snape faced mortal danger, no less. But when Dumbledore says that Harry saved lives that night, it still means that Snape saved lives, LOLOLOLOL. Snape always saves lives after all. After all, he conducted that act of **exceptional kindless**, remember? He conjured stretchers to deliver Sirius to execution. MAHAHAHAH. I will deliver you to death with all care and kindess I can. Yeah, I am being sarcastic of course. But the example of Snape making stretchers as him being **kind** always make me want to use sarcasm and since I do not do it often, I thought I just will. Nice to see you Renee. :) From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 14:43:00 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:43:00 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170645 My choices would be: Harrison Ford, from when he played Indiana Jones, as Sirius Black Tim Robbins, from when he played Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption, as Remus Lupin Anthony Hopkins, from when he played Dr Hannibal Lecter, as Voldemort Jo. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 15:57:19 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:57:19 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170646 Harry may be an accidental Horcrux but I think it's even more likely that Dumbledore is; I think you'd have to have something like that if you want a good Snape because nothing less could explain away Snape killing him. That dead hand of Dumbledore's was never entirely explained in book 6 and I'll bet that's when it happened. As for Harry, he may be a Horcrux too, but even if he isn't at some point he will think he is. Eggplant From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 16:04:46 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:04:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170647 > > Carol responds: > > > > Exactly. Time-Turned Harry and Hermione couldn't have saved their > > unconscious selves (along with Ron and Black) because they had to have > > been taken to the hospital wing and revived before they could > > Time-Turn. If Snape hadn't gone after Lupin, no one would have known > > they were out there on the grounds, unconscious and in the company of > > a werewolf, and they would certainly have been soul-sucked or killed > > because Time-Turned!Harry wouldn't exist to send the Patronus and save > > them a second time. (Snape saved them first.) > > Lanval: If Snape hadn't gone after Lupin, and ended up interfering in the Shack, none of the events that followed might have played out the way they did. So I think it's pushing it a little to claim that Snape's presence saved the kids's lives that night. > > Renee : > > Well, er, JKR *did* write about Harry saving himself plus the others: > by casting his stag patronus from across the lake to drive the > Dementors off. And this takes place *before* Snape regains > consciousness & conjures up the stretchers, etc. > > Due to the paradoxes of time-turning, Harry2 and Hermione2 were > already there when the events following the Shrieking Shack scene > unfolded. They *were always there*. (The events of that night don't > happen twice, it's Harry and Hermione who happen twice.) So > theoretically, they could have done what Snape did - except that they > knew Snape had already done it - and they weren't supposed to > interfere. They knew they could safely leave and get on with their > mission. > > Carol: > > Instead, like it or not, they owe their lives (and souls) to > > Snape. And even if they *could* have saved themselves, they didn't. > > Snape did. (Thanks for acknowledging that, Mike.) > > Renee: > True, Snape took them to the safety of the Hospital Ward. The question > is, what did he save them from? At the moment he woke up, there was no > immediate danger that we hear of, either from the Dementors or the > werewolf. Snape himself actually tells Fudge that the Dementors were > heading back to their positions at the entrances of Hogwarts when he > came round. > > Nor does Dumbledore in any way suggest that Snape saved anyone's life > or soul that night. Claims that Snape saved Harry's life and soul are > therefore grossly exaggerated. Harry1 was saved by Harry2, and by no > one else. > > Renee > Lanval: Yes to all. We last hear of Lupin being anywhere near as Hermione2 and Harry2 realize that the werewolf is going to run right toward their hiding spot -- not because he's attacking them, but because that's where they saw him *taking flight (!!!), howling, galloping into the forest* earlier, when Sirius chased him off Ron and Pettigrew. Once Harry2 steps out of Hagrid's cabin, there's no sign that Lupin is close, and DD later specifically says that Lupin is *deep* in the FF. On a side note, if there really are other werewolves in the Forest, nobody would ever be safe anywhere on the grounds of Hogwarts, if they were in the habit of prowling outside of the Forest's bounds. The mere possibility that Lupin *might* have returned from the Forest and *could* have attacked unconscious Ron, Harry, Hermione and Sirius, or that the Dementors *might* have returned, is not quite enough reason to pin a lifesaver badge on Snape just yet. Especially since they are IMO just an annoying extra burden to deal with for Snape; his main objective is to get Black to the castle. Note that he finds time to bind and gag Sirius before he loads him unto a stretcher. Also: PoA, Am.Ed. p 381: "Leave it to me -- RUN!" [....] As the werewolf wrenched itself free of the manacle binding it, the dog seized it about the neck and pulled it backward, away from Ron and Pettigrew. They were locked, jaw to jaw, claws ripping at each other --- [...] Black was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle and back... End quote. I'd say if anybody deserved a badge that night it's Sirius, who without a doubt saved the kids, Snape and Pettigrew in a true fight with the werewolf. Even Harry, who without thinking leaps toward transforming Lupin, to save his best friend Ron, but is held back by Sirius, IMO deserves more recognition for his actions than Snape. From jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 15:56:24 2007 From: jr_pumpkin at yahoo.com (jr_pumpkin) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:56:24 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > So what's to say that if an AK is reflected that the person who cast > it doesn't lose a piece of their soul in the process. Maybe passing it > onto Harry through the scar very untintentionally. Isn't there a > theory that he entered the house with the intent to make his last > Horocrux anyway, so what's to say he hadn't already started said > complicated process before he got to the house and it was somehow > completed when the AK failed. > > Ok I've babbled on long enough...Feel free to tear it apart now. jr_pumpkin: I came across a passage in my re-read that I haven't noticed before, but that convinced me that Harry is NOT a horcrux. (I haven't seen this mentioned in these discussions before, although I must admit that I haven't read them all either, so sorry if it has been said before.) In PS/SS (US hardback p. 299), Dumbledore is telling Harry that Quirrell could not touch him because of Lily's sacrifice. He says: ".....Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, ***sharing his soul with Voldemort,*** could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." (***emphasis*** mine) Reading this again, now knowing about the horcruxes, it seems to me that Harry cannot contain a part of Voldy's soul, since it would be agonizing to him to coexist with it. He would be in a constant state of burning, agony, pain, etc. because the 'good' from Lily's sacrifice would be constantly warring with the evil of Voldemort. Of course, I could be totally reading WAY too much into this one sentence, too!!!!! I guess we'll see soon (though not soon enough!!!!!!!!!!!!) jr_pumpkin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 23 17:03:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:03:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170649 > Alla: > > Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the prophecy > always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that Voldemort even > postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever show that he erm.... > postpones hunting after his enemies? > > He tries **obsessively** to get the prophecy all year in OOP, does he > not? > Pippin: Voldemort's obsessions come and go -- the fact that he was obsessed by the prophecy in OOP does not mean that he has constantly been obsessed by them. Our glimpses into Voldemort's past didn't show any particular fascination with the subject. Young Snape would have been taught divination, if at all, by Sybil Trelawney's predecessor, the one who left Dumbledore thinking "it was against my inclination to allow the subject of Divination to continue at all." I don't imagine that Snape, who likes everything to be precise, would be any fonder of such a wooly subject than Dumbledore or Hermione. Of course Snape knew his master would be deeply interested in anything that might affect the struggle with Dumbledore, but he might have supposed Voldemort would want to test the prophecy rather than accept it unconditionally. That is what Harry would have expected, after all, and Harry has, we are told, more insight into Voldemort's psyche than anyone. If that's the case, then Snape's thoughts would be turned to how Voldemort could test the prediction rather than what he would do if he accepted it as true. But even if Snape gave it a thought, the outcome would have been uncertain. *If* Voldemort accepted the prophecy as true, *if* he could identify the person or creature "born as the seventh month dies", *if* Voldemort decided that "approaches" meant "is soon to be born", *then* an infant and its parents would be in mortal danger. But in any case, the people in mortal danger would be enemies of the Dark Lord, and in mortal peril already. As you say, when has Voldemort ever postponed going after his enemies? Only, Hagrid tells us, in the case of the Potters, and that's a mystery that seemingly has nothing to do with Snape. You could say it was somehow Snape's regard for the Potters that had protected them up to then. But it doesn't mesh with the idea that Snape deliberately was trying to get James and Lily killed. I am not going for naive Snape. I think he knew that the Death Eaters were killing people, if not when he joined, then by the time he overheard the Prophecy. And I don't think he cared. Why should he care if nameless, faceless innocents were going to die, if in the here-and-now those deaths meant that those he cared about would be safe and happy? That JKR had Dumbledore admit to this same emotional weakness shows, IMO, that she sees this as a universal failing of humanity. Dumbledore knew that it was his duty to behave as if he did care, but he put it off, and because of that Sirius died. DD already realized that indiscriminate death cannot by definition be limited only to deaths you don't care about. Snape, I think, only realized it when people he had thought would be safe were put in danger. I don't think Snape ever wanted James dead. I think he wanted James exposed as the arrogant, cowardly, unfeeling, unworthy person he'd been when he and his friends tortured Snape. (And having failed to do that, exposing Harry as the same would be the next best thing.) But a hero's death, defending his wife and child? Far too good for him! Alla: > He joined a gang of killers and torturers, so I guess killing and > torture was in the job description, does it have to be excused for > that reason? Pippin: Nobody says it has to be excused. But, um, we do want people to repent, don't we? If saving innocent lives is important, why would we want to stop people from doing it? The only question, IMO, is *has* Snape devoted his life since then to saving innocent people? Dumbledore thought he had, he was in a position to know, and that Snape could not save everybody, including Dumbledore himself, does not mean he gets no credit for those he did save. I don't believe he murdered Dumbledore of course. It is crystal clear that Snape could not get away with openly refusing to do it if he had been expected to do it, and he thought he'd be expected to do it in the end, the end being when the Dark Lord's game with Draco was over. So even without the vow, he was committed. As you say, it's not like the Dark Lord to postpone going after his enemies. We also know that it's possible for even a mediocre wizard to fake a murder well enough to fool any number of eyewitnesses. And Snape is far from mediocre. > Alla: > > Yes, indeed. Thus when Dumbledore mentions that James saved Snape's > life, that means that Snape faced mortal danger, no less. But when > Dumbledore says that Harry saved lives that night, it still means that > Snape saved lives, LOLOLOLOL. Snape always saves lives after all. Pippin: Dumbledore told Fudge that Lupin was trying to save their lives. It seems to me Snape had as much right to believe the children were in danger as Lupin did. For all Snape knew, Sirius and the werewolf had been about to kill all four of them when the dementors showed up, and would finish the job as soon as Sirius came to. Pippin From elseajay at earthlink.net Sat Jun 23 15:48:20 2007 From: elseajay at earthlink.net (Lois Jamieson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:48:20 -0400 Subject: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <000501c7b5ad$eccbfe30$0c755743@g4j1d8> No: HPFGUIDX 170650 Love this thread! In fact, this is the first time I've posted after several years of reading. . . Actually, I like a lot of the "real" casting. For instance, from the first time I read the first chapter of the first book, I've pictured Maggie Smith as McGonagell. I always saw Derek Jacobi as Dumbledore. Since book 6, I'm starting to see him as Scrimgeour and still hope that happens. Also pulling from "I, Claudius," I pictured Sian Phillips as Trelawney. I adore Emma Thompson, but she's just a little too weird. I pictured Trelawney as having a big more dignity and pathos. This may seem odd in retrospect, but I always saw Kenneth Branagh as Lupin, not Lockhart, although he was excellent as Lockhart. He's a good enough actor to play either. I love the idea of Bob Hoskins as Slughorn! Although Charles Laughton would have been great. And it's still breaking my heart that Judi Dench isn't playing Umbridge. I think she would be so good at conveying the underlying menace that Umbridge just radiates. And the scenes between her and McGonagell would be classic. Lois From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 17:15:11 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:15:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? (long, sorry!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Lanval: (on Lupin) -- not because he's attacking them, but because that's where they saw him *taking flight (!!!), howling, galloping into the forest* earlier, when Sirius chased him off Ron and Pettigrew. *(snip)* ...DD later specifically says that Lupin is *deep* in the FF. On a side note, if there really are other werewolves in the Forest, nobody would ever be safe anywhere on the grounds of Hogwarts, if they were in the habit of prowling outside of the Forest's bounds. Ceridwen: Another Tangent: We've known from PS/SS that there were werewolves in the forest. Draco is afraid of them. In PoA, we see TransformedWerewolf!Lupin fleeing into the forest. We have DD's testimony that he is deep in the forest. We know there are other dangerous creatures in the forest - Aragog and his brood, for one species. We know that Hogwarts has enchantments on it to protect students. Does one of the enchantments make the forest more attractive to dangerous beasts, and confine them within the boundaries of the forest, for safety as well as dividing up the magical living space? Alla: Ceridwen brought up a point that Snape had to report it to Dark Lord. Eh, why and if he had to, does it make it better somehow? He joined a gang of killers and torturers, so I guess killing and torture was in the job description, does it have to be excused for that reason? Ceridwen, I know you did not suggest the last point, just asking in general. Ceridwen: Hee! I know you weren't suggesting that. But it could be interesting to explore, with DH ***less than a month away!*** (yay!) In real life, some people join political organizations because they believe in something in the platform, or because they think the group is doing something worthwhile. Some people join because their parents don't want them to join such a group, and it's a symbol of rebellion. Some people join because they have a certain, possibly distorted, view of the group's standards, similar to believing in something in the platform, though not necessarily in the entire platform. When that platform is an ideology, beliefs can, I think, blur perceptions. We know that Regulas Black joined, and we can understand why he did. Voldemort seemed to be espousing Pureblood Supremacy. The Black family believes in this, shown by their choice of reading material: Nature's Nobility. This seems to be the hook Voldemort used to gain followers. I don't know why Snape, a half-blood, would join, unless as someone else suggested, he was distancing himself from his Muggle half. This seems to be something that a lot of half-bloods and Muggle-borns do: even Hermione distances herself from her Muggle parents in order to spend time with Harry and the Weasleys, though this could just be the usual teenage growing away from family. The organization seems to have presented itself as a champion of Pureblood rights during VoldWarI. That's the impression I get from the books, anyway. They may have presented themselves as particularly agressive champions, but still, champions. Much like smaller, radical political groups do in the real world. People who join those groups don't necessarily think that the group is excessive in its activities, and may even ignore any signs that they're just a bunch of thugs. Idologies have the uncomfortable component of believing that being "Right" absolves them from following the laws in the pursuit of their "naturally ordained" beliefs. How many people who are not members of such an organization think that breaking certain laws, like jay-walking or running a red light at two o'clock in the morning, is somehow morally justifiable? So, a group that presents itself as champions of a group of people collects followers who indeed may not know the extent of that group's heinous activities. They ignore the news reports, believing that the government is planting those stories to foster ill-will toward an unwanted group. They go against their parents and other advisors because "you don't know what things are like these days". Once they're in, they find out that all those stories were true, and that Pureblood Supremacy, or whatever the group's supposed ideology, is just a front for torturing and killing for the sheer enjoyment of breaking the law with the cover of some ideological purpose. We saw in OotP that the MoM uses the Daily Prophet to spread malicious lies against people they dislike, or against people who somehow threaten their stature. Someone like Regulas Black can certainly believe that the Ministry planted false stories about the Death Eaters. They did it once that we know of, that doesn't mean it was the only time. In fact, I would say it's a normal practice with the MoM. We even wondered if the Ministry might not tacitly be on LV's side, or at least some who have posted about this, here and elsewhere, have wondered. Couple this seen, proven tactic of the Ministry with the natural drawing away from authority figures by young people, and I can really see a young person intent on joining the Death Eaters being skeptical about their public reputation as a gang of killers and torturers. We know that at least three people have tried to leave the Death Eaters. Regulus died only a few days after leaving; Igor Karkarov made it a year before he was found and killed. Snape has avoided this by seeming to still be loyal, given DDM!Snape. Karkarov tried to flee because he had cooperated with the Ministry. Regulus didn't know what he'd gotten into. Since Snape doesn't seem to have been outed as a traitor at this point in the books, he must have turned for a reason more similar to that of Regulus than that of Igor. Maybe not the same exact reason, but there was something. If one is fanatically devoted to a cause, certain uncomfortable things must be overlooked. Bellatrix would sacrifice her nephew in lieu of her nonexistent sons, but Snape doesn't strike me as fanatical in Bellatrix's way. Barty jr. killed his own father. Again, this doesn't sound like the Snape I'm reading about in the books. These are emotional responses common with fanatics. But, an idealistic youth just joined would still presume his or her own values on the group because, after all, they all want the same thing, right? In this case, Pureblood Supremacy, according to the publicity. To become disillusioned, certain perceived "truths" must be shed. Regulus had his ideals stripped away somehow after joining. Why not Snape? If Dumbledore's trust was not misplaced, then Snape turned away from the public ideal of the group at a time when that group, according to the people we've heard from, was winning. A turn at that point seems more like disillusionment, to me. And part of that disillusionment could well be not only knowing which couple and boy are the targets, but just the fact that a child was the target at all. Dumbledore doesn't have to tell Harry every nuance. He seems to have a set spiel that he sticks to, and he does, as we know, not tell everything. Sure, that makes this one part speculation, but I don't think it's unreasonable speculation. Your mileage may vary. All I'm suggesting is that an idealistic new recruit may not necessarily believe in the hype put out by opposing organizations, against the organization he or she is joining. Sorry for being so long! Ceridwen. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 23 17:33:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:33:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: <380-22007662317336640@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170652 Alla: Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the prophecy always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that Voldemort even postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever show that he erm.... postpones hunting after his enemies? Magpie: I have to agree. I think it was more a case of Snape being okay with the idea of Voldemort going out and killing somebody due to this information (kid or adult) vs. the reality of the idea that Voldemort is going to kill these people he's connected to and the different way that feels. It's like Draco in terms of the idea in the abstract and the reality--though I think they were probably facing slightly different revelations since they were different people, and Snape was a little bit older. Iow, I really think we'll just have to hear and judge for ourselves exactly how Snape really felt about who the Prophecy turned out to be about and--more importantly--how it changed his thinking on Voldemort (if it did). That's the important thing for any DE who changes his mind, not just why he doesn't like what's happened, but whether it really changes his outlook in general. Lanval: Even Harry, who without thinking leaps toward transforming Lupin, to save his best friend Ron, but is held back by Sirius, IMO deserves more recognition for his actions than Snape. Magpie: I could be wrong, but what I get from Snape as "savior" here is not that he was anywhere near the one most dramatically saving anyone, but that it's an interesting moment where they see Snape, by himself, quietly conjuring stretchers and bringing everyone back to the castle. Whether there was really a werewolf in the vicinity isn't important, because for me the significance isn't that anyone owes Snape their life. It's just that it's JKR putting in a scene where Snape is shown caring for someone efficiently and without much fanfare, and these things have always gone along with his more memorable scenes of being casually cruel and petty and angry at people. JKR could have had Harry and Hermione just waking up on their own outside and wondering what happened, but there is something memorable about them seeing that Snape did that. Not because it makes him a huge savior, but I think if we wrote down everything we see Snape do we'd see a careful balance that included a lot of examples of Snape taking care of stuff like that--the most memorable and dramatic of which is in HBP when he heals Draco. Harry and Hermione could very well have gotten back another way, but it's intriguing they didn't. - From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 23 18:05:00 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:05:00 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <000501c7b5ad$eccbfe30$0c755743@g4j1d8> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170653 Sirius Black: Daniel Day Lewis - circa Last of the Mohicans. The black hair, the looks, a man driven by action, not so much as words. Although I like Gary O very much as Sirius, I found his looks not up to par with the canon version and that JKR stated that Sirius was "dead sexy". DDL, to me at least, is "dead sexy" Lupin: Peter Davison from his Doctor Who days. He played his version of the doctor as an unsure, conflicted timelord, and I think that matches Lupin's character very much. Also, a likable fellow :) If We Get To See Regulus Black In Action in DH: As Sirius is a handsome man, I have always envisioned Regulus to be also quite good-looking. Matter of fact, too good-looking. Think PrettyBoy!Regulus - Rob Lowe, of course. Back in the 1980's to early 1990's. Of course Rob Lowe would work if Regulus actually is living and is older, as Lowe still has that pretty boy look about him. Lowe can play the conflicted character - re: Masquerade - one of my favorite movies and very underrated. colebiancardi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 18:06:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:06:14 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170654 > Julie wrote: > I don't think the Prophecy is actually clear enough for Snape to have known he was delivering an unnamed couple and their baby to Voldemort. *Especially* if Snape only heard part of it. Not only is the first part not completely clear on whether this person who "approaches" is already in existence or not, the "either must die at the hand of the other" doesn't come until the second part of the Prophecy. > > Thus Snape's thought process might have anything from 1. "The Dark Lord will no doubt ignore this, since prophecies are idiotic anyway, but I'll stay in his good graces since he sent me specifically to spy" to 2. "Hmm, someone may in the future be a threat to the Dark Lord, so this information will help him come up with a game plan to protect himself *should* that threat materialize" to 3. "This must refer to a baby who will soon be born, and no doubt the Dark Lord will believe this Prophecy fully and will want to immediately kill this helpless baby and his family instead of waiting around to see if the kid grows up to be some sort of threat. Not that he could ever kill the Dark Lord...AS IF!!!" (Snape only heard part of the Prophecy as far as we know, remember). > > Which thought is more likely from 20(?) year old Severus Snape, follower of Lord Voldemort? I suspect Thought One is at least as likely if not more likely than Thought Three. Because Snape is little more than a teenager, he still sees the world and everyone in it from his perspective--"If *I* think seers and prophecies are for fools, then everyone else must think so too.) And even if he thinks Voldemort might buy it, he could still reasonably suspect Voldemort would want to "monitor" the situation to see if any child starts to show some incipient power that could be a threat to him. > > Which leads me to the most likely possibility, that Snape thought Voldemort would file away the information for a later date, perhaps with a plan to neutralize this potential threat to his power should it ever appear. This would be true especially if Snape didn't hear the part about "either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives." Without that part, the Prophecy is not a death threat but a threat that Voldemort might be deposed from his seat of power. > > The point is that Snape hearing part of the Prophecy and reporting it to his boss as it were, does not indicate that he knew or even suspected that Voldemort would immediately hunt down and kill a baby who couldn't have yet begun to manifest any power. (And, yes, we know that Voldemort is a paranoid who will preemptively and coldly murder a baby at the mere sign of a potential threat--and I think the older and far more experienced Snape we either loathe or love--or both!--would expect the same thing--I don't think the younger and inexperienced Snape understood Voldemort's way of thinking at all, until it was too late of course.) > > Julie, who also figures Thought Three fits well with a genuinely remorseful DDM!Snape, *if* that is who Snape turns out to be. > Carol responds: I agree that we don't know young Snape's thought process, but we do have a clue in Harry's. Even knowing the whole Prophecy and knowing that it applies to a baby, he still thinks that Voldemort would or should logically have waited to see which baby was the greater threat. Snape, being logical, would most likely have thought the same thing. That it did not occur to young Snape that Voldemort would find out who the baby was (or might be since it turns out to fit two possible children) and hunt him down, along with his parents if they resisted or got in the way (killing Lily wasn't part of the plan) is indicated by his going to Dumbledore when he found out "how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy." Which means, quite simply, that Voldemort's interpretation differed from his own, and that interpretation alarmed him sufficiently, indeed, caused him such remorse for delivering the Prophecy to Voldemort that he changed sides and began to spy for Dumbledore "at great personal risk." If his interpretation was the same as Voldemort's and he anticipated the death of a baby and its parents from the outset, I see no reason for remorse. And just the fact that it referred to people he knew (DD's version of the story) can't be all there is (although it's sufficiently vague to include the Longbottoms) because, as Harry and DD both know, he hated and still hates James Potter. So I think it's best not to assume that we know what Snape knew or thought. Prophecies are deliberately vague and aren't always fulfilled. Being logical (and, yes, twenty), he may well have thought that they were bunk and assumed that the Great Lord Voldemort thought likewise. Within nine months, perhaps less, he found out otherwise. Essentially, I think that while he *could* have been vaguely aware of danger to an unknown baby and its family, I think he was more likely thinking of danger *from* that baby when it grew up and warning LV to be on the lookout for someone with "the power to defeat [him]." That Voldemort would take a preemptive strike against a baby while it was still a baby probably never entered Snape's mind, not being a Dark Lord himself. Indeed, it seems to have taken some time to enter *Voldemort's* mind, or he'd have tried to kill Harry as soon as he found out which baby (or babies) had been born at the end of July rather than waiting fifteen months. (The part of the Prophecy that Voldie heard doesn't even specify a boy. It could have been a girl for all they knew.) Carol, who thinks that hindsight will not be 20/20 till we've read the last book, and even then, we may not know how young Snape, as opposed to Voldemort, interpreted the partial Prophecy From emhensley at comcast.net Sat Jun 23 17:16:12 2007 From: emhensley at comcast.net (Melanie Hensley) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:16:12 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170655 Harry will NOT die! There is no way JKR would have taken us through 7 books only to have the main character and hero die at the end. Otherwise why would Harry be so different in the first place? He will have been just like everyone else that LV killed plus JK would get hate mail for life (and I would be one to send it to her). It would make no sense for him to die. He would be the boy who died not lived!! My guess on deaths are all of the Dursley's, maybe Snape for some noble reason, the Malfoys and/or Crabbe and Goyle. Voldemort will most definitely kick off as Harry will find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes. Ron and Hermione will live and Harry will hook up again with Ginny. JKR will leave it open so if she ever wants, she will have the option to write a sequel years down the road if she goes bankrupt (like that will ever happen) or feels like it. (Kind of like the Star Wars saga.) Anyway that is my guess. We'll see how it plays out!! Melanie Seymour, Indiana USA From jim at trueartistgroup.com Sat Jun 23 18:02:32 2007 From: jim at trueartistgroup.com (Jim Zangara) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:02:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? References: Message-ID: <005e01c7b5c0$abef1830$132c530a@usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170656 eggplant: > Harry may be an accidental Horcrux but I think it's even more likely > that Dumbledore is; I think you'd have to have something like that if > you want a good Snape because nothing less could explain away Snape > killing him. That dead hand of Dumbledore's was never entirely > explained in book 6 and I'll bet that's when it happened. As for > Harry, he may be a Horcrux too, but even if he isn't at some point he > will think he is. > Jim: Interesting point. We know Dumbledore was a Gryffindor when he was at school. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 18:21:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:21:33 -0000 Subject: Should Snape Be Punished? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170657 Mike wrote: > > The question is, with what we know right now of Snape and his > misdeeds, should he spend time in Azkaban? Get a community service > sentence? Or should he walk free? > > < Dumbledore in HBP p. 549, US> > > "Professor Snape mad a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord > Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor > Trelawney's prophesy" > > Mike: > After VW I the MoM rounded up all suspected DEs they could catch and > punished them. True, many got off by pleading the Imperious, but > Snape didn't deny his involvement. On the other hand, as Pippin > pointed out, Snape must have convinced Crouch Sr. to clear him and > Crouch doesn't appear to be an easy man to win over. Yet, we must > keep in mind that Crouch said "cleared by this council" followed > immediately by "vouched for by Albus Dumbledore". So, would he have > been cleared on the evidence (of his switching sides, I suppose) had > he not also had Dumbledore vouch for him? And what about now, when it appears that Snape killed the guy who vouched for him? Carol responds: Once you're cleared of all charges, you can't be tried again for the same crime (double jeopardy), even in the WW (I hope!). Anything that Snape did as a DE in VW1 is water under the bridge and can't be held against him. That includes revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. Nor did he do anything as a DE other than spy as a double or triple agent until he killed Albus Dumbledore. That murder or coup de grace or whatever it was is, IMO, all that he'll be tried for. (If he gets a fair trial, which is asking a great deal, he'll be cleared of trying to help Draco get DEs into the tower. He may even be able to prove that he didn't plan or intend to kill Dumbledore. I think that if the WW has degrees of murder rather than one-sentence-fits-all (life in Azkaban), and if they hear his whole story, and, especially, if he does something heroic to save Harry and demonstrate his true loyalty without question, maybe he'll get a short sentence in Azkaban followed by community service. Carol, hoping that Harry will speak for Snape as a witness at his trial and that Snape will forgive him that act of kindness :-) From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sat Jun 23 18:21:14 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:21:14 -0000 Subject: In (many) years to come...? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170658 Somehow I'm sure that the line: "In (many?) years to come, Harry...." is to be found somewhere in one of the books (like indicating Harry might survive). I just don't remember in which book I may have read it - and now I have a bet going on with my daughter, if that phrase actually exists in one of the books, or not. Someone help me out? And if I'm right - please tell me where to find it :) Inge From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 23 19:13:22 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:13:22 -0000 Subject: In (many) years to come...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170659 Inge: > Somehow I'm sure that the line: "In (many?) years > to come, Harry...." is to be found somewhere in one > of the books (like indicating Harry might survive). > I just don't remember in which book I may have read > it - and now I have a bet going on with my daughter, > if that phrase actually exists in one of the books, > or not. Someone help me out? And if I'm right - please > tell me where to find it :) houyhnhnm: I just came across that a couple of days ago while looking up something else. SS, Scholastic, p. 262: In years to come Harry would never quite remember how he had managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to come bursting through the door at any moment. The "years to come" could mean only the next six, but it is suggestive, isn't it, of someone looking back over a great distance of time? From hautbois1 at comcast.net Sat Jun 23 19:21:15 2007 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:21:15 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170660 SNNNIP!! jr_pumpkin: it seems to me that Harry cannot contain a part of Voldy's soul, since it would be agonizing to him to coexist with it. He would be in a constant state of burning, agony, pain, etc. because the 'good' from Lily's sacrifice would be constantly warring with the evil of Voldemort. ohnooboe says: I think that's a really good point. Frankly, I think the Harry is a Horcrux is silly (god help me if it really is the case...) but this is a good way to explain the theory away. LV had a hard time possessing Harry for just a short time in OOTP, I can't imagine that a piece of his soul could exist for 17 years inside Harry without being destroyed. PM From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jun 23 19:39:14 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:39:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: <380-22007662317336640@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170661 > Alla: > Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the > prophecy always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that > Voldemort even postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever > show that he erm....postpones hunting after his enemies? Jen: Dumbledore's explanation of Snape's 'terrible mistake' made clear what Snape *didn't* know about the prophecy and from there, it's not much of an extrapolation to decide what he did know: "But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father -" (HBP, chap. 25, p. 512, UK ed.) I'd say Snape understood a boy child and his parents would be targeted by Voldemort; what Snape couldn't know was the specific family Voldemort would choose. When LV decided to target the Potters, that piece of information was the catalyst for Snape's remorse. JKR said a person has to shut down compassion to be a DE so it fits Snape didn't have compassion for a random family when he turned over the prophecy. Magpie: > Iow, I really think we'll just have to hear and judge for ourselves > exactly how Snape really felt about who the Prophecy turned out to > be about and--more importantly--how it changed his thinking on > Voldemort (if it did). That's the important thing for any DE who > changes his mind, not just why he doesn't like what's happened, but > whether it really changes his outlook in general. Jen: You've just summed up what I'm looking for in DH! > Magpie: > I could be wrong, but what I get from Snape as "savior" here is not > that he was anywhere near the one most dramatically saving anyone, > but that it's an interesting moment where they see Snape, by > himself, quietly conjuring stretchers and bringing everyone back to > the castle. Whether there was really a werewolf in the vicinity > isn't important, because for me the significance isn't that anyone > owes Snape their life. It's just that it's JKR putting in a scene > where Snape is shown caring for someone efficiently and without > much fanfare, and these things have always gone along with his more > memorable scenes of being casually cruel and petty and angry at > people. Jen: The scene fits as a character moment more than a plot moment for me: Snape alone, not realizing he's being watched, doing what he thinks is right with the information he chose to hear and believe that night. A good deal of Snape's motivation is on display in that particular scene in my opinion. He's a duty-bound man following his own code of right and wrong but is limited in his code because he's not open-minded to new information. Plus, I think he will be proven as limited because he rejects some of the values Dumbledore believes in about equality. But he does operate with a moral system and 'right' at that particular moment is taking Sirius to be kissed and the kids to the hospital wing. I prefer this view to Snape saving the kids because in part, Snape doesn't appear to be rushed or casting wary glances around as if he senses imminent danger. That type of information or a comment indicating Pomfrey actually did something to bring the kids to consciousness might have caused me to view the scene in a different light. As it is, the children don't appear to be in danger, even unconcious, and woke up without intervention - something that could have happened on the grounds as well. Maybe JKR intends to go back and have Harry learn how Snape really saved them all that night; it just strikes me as a point Harry wouldn't *get* when in his mind Snape's version of events led to Sirius needing saving in the first place. Jen, with credit to Ceridwen for describing Dutiful!Snape off-list once upon a time and helping her see him from a slightly different angle. From twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 23 18:49:25 2007 From: twodrink.ange at yahoo.co.uk (twodrink.ange) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:49:25 -0000 Subject: In (many) years to come...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Somehow I'm sure that the line: "In (many?) years to come, Harry...." > is to be found somewhere in one of the books (like indicating Harry > might survive). > I just don't remember in which book I may have read it - and now I > have a bet going on with my daughter, if that phrase actually exists > in one of the books, or not. > Someone help me out? And if I'm right - please tell me where to find > it :) twodrink.ange: I think it's found in the Philosophers Stone. I read one of the theories against Harry dying and they said it's the line which goes something like, 'In years to come Harry would wonder how they found the time to do everything they did at Hogwarts.' From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 19:47:51 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:47:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: <380-22007662317336640@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170663 > > Magpie: > I have to agree. I think it was more a case of Snape being okay with the > idea of Voldemort going out and killing somebody due to this information > (kid or adult) vs. the reality of the idea that Voldemort is going to kill > these people he's connected to and the different way that feels. It's like > Draco in terms of the idea in the abstract and the reality--though I think > they were probably facing slightly different revelations since they were > different people, and Snape was a little bit older. > > Iow, I really think we'll just have to hear and judge for ourselves exactly > how Snape really felt about who the Prophecy turned out to be about > and--more importantly--how it changed his thinking on Voldemort (if it > did). That's the important thing for any DE who changes his mind, not just > why he doesn't like what's happened, but whether it really changes his > outlook in general. > Lanval: That's a good comparison with Draco, as far as setting things in motion, and the realization "Whoa, we're talking death here* are concerned. I wish JKR had included some suggestion that Draco felt remorse about almost killing Katie and Ron, though. I'm willing for now to believe that it did make him feel bad and added to his general state toward the end of HBP (instead of it just being fear for his own life). I think you and Alla are both right, too, in suspecting that Snape was okay with *some possible deaths* in exchange for LV's approval, until he knew exactly who the people in question were. > Lanval: > > Even Harry, who without thinking leaps toward transforming Lupin, to > save his best friend Ron, but is held back by Sirius, IMO deserves > more recognition for his actions than Snape. > > Magpie: > I could be wrong, but what I get from Snape as "savior" here is not that he > was anywhere near the one most dramatically saving anyone, but that it's an > interesting moment where they see Snape, by himself, quietly conjuring > stretchers and bringing everyone back to the castle. Lanval: That may well have been JKR's intent, but the question discussed, I think, did focus on whether Snape saved Harry's life (and others) here, and, in a wider context, on the often recurring question of Snape as Savior and Protector of Harry. Magpie: Whether there was > really a werewolf in the vicinity isn't important, because for me the > significance isn't that anyone owes Snape their life. It's just that it's > JKR putting in a scene where Snape is shown caring for someone efficiently > and without much fanfare, and these things have always gone along with his > more memorable scenes of being casually cruel and petty and angry at people. > > JKR could have had Harry and Hermione just waking up on their own outside > and wondering what happened, but there is something memorable about them > seeing that Snape did that. Not because it makes him a huge savior, but I > think if we wrote down everything we see Snape do we'd see a careful > balance that included a lot of examples of Snape taking care of stuff like > that--the most memorable and dramatic of which is in HBP when he heals > Draco. Harry and Hermione could very well have gotten back another way, but > it's intriguing they didn't. > \ Lanval: Again, maybe it was. I can't tell what she was thinking when writing , but if she did intend it, she failed to convince this reader. :) And to me Snape does not look good here at all. Without much fanfare -- certainly not at the lakeshore, no. There's after all no one around. But what happens when Harry wakes up in the Hospital Wing? The first thing he hears is Snape bragging to Fudge, lying his butt off, or at the very least spinning Fudge a fine and fantastic yarn (because nowhere in the Shrieking Shack scene did Snape ever give the slightest hint of believing the kids to be Confunded. Nor has he any proof that the kids went out to catch Black), trying to get Harry & Co suspended or expelled, and just generally sunning himself in Fudge's praise. What exactly *did* Snape do that was so caring? He awoke, by his own words, to see the Dementors drifting back to their positions at the entrances. He had to notice the direction they came from, otherwise he would not have found Harry, Hermione and Sirius by the lake. So he goes to check it out. He notices Ron, also unconscious, conjures a stretcher, so he can bring him along. Which may speak for Snape ensuring Ron's comfort, but could be nothing but common sense. He's a wizard, he has to somehow transport this kid with the broken leg -- it wouldn't require an outrageous amount of compassion to figure out a stretcher being the best idea. Especially since he may have to deal with more than one body. He had no idea what he would find in the direction the Dementors came from, did he? So he sets out toward the lake, floating Ron along (not exactly a sign that he expected a werewolf attack at any time either -- if he had, he could have strapped Ron down, hung the stretcher high enough to be out of reach, and then checked things out), and finds the kids and -- hooray! -- Black! alive, which in the case of Black is a bit of a bummer, but things can still be arranged quite nicely. What an entrance he will make! Three unconscious kids, and the murderer (and Snape-torturer) Black. Whom he promptly binds, and *gags*. The gagging part I find particularly interesting. He really, really wanted to shut Black up as long as he could, didn't he? If he was so absolutely certain of Black's guilt, why bother silencing him? The kids? Well, he couldn't just leave them out there. It would have looked pretty bad, too. The stretchers? Again, the most convenient method for all, *including* Snape. JMO. To me any suggestion that Snape is meant to come across as caring is negated by his appalling behavior in the Hopital Wing. > From lizthelucky at comcast.net Sat Jun 23 18:39:21 2007 From: lizthelucky at comcast.net (Liz the Lucky) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:39:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... References: Message-ID: <011501c7b5c5$d0cdc700$0200a8c0@yourkbv4bfa8sa> No: HPFGUIDX 170664 Tallulah Bankhead for Bellatrix Mrs. Sloccum (Are You Being Served?) for Umbridge Hugs and Kisses, Liz the Lucky lizthelucky at comcast.net http://www.lizthelucky.com/ Who is Will? And why does everyone keep firing at him? From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Jun 23 19:59:45 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:59:45 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170665 > MKMel: > > Harry > Hermione > Ron > > That's our debate. Of those three, I'd say only Harry has a *possibility* of dying. But going beyound HRH, JKRowling said that 2 people will die (maybe more?): From http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2006/6/27/transcript-of-jkr-interview-on-richard-judy: "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die...A price has to be paid" Sooo.... I pick Harry and Ginny and Voldemort. I'm probably wrong, but I like this speculation: Voldemort will go after Ginny as bait for Harry, just as Harry predicted at the end of HBP. Ginny will be killed and this will motivate Harry to go for broke. He would have nobody left to live for. Sure, he thinks the world of Hermione, Ron, Weasleys, Hagrid, etc. but if Ginny is dead then *ALL* of his deepest personal *LOVES* would be dead and he would be fully prepared to join them if that's what it takes to bring down Voldemort. Further, Voldemort will not expect this tactic as he cannot understand the power of love. The "Room of Love" at the ministry will play a key role in the destruction of Voldemort. Eddie From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 20:17:25 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:17:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> References: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170666 W. K. Mahler: > Harry > Hermione > Ron > > That's our debate. > > Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? > > Your thoughts please. If any of the trio dies, I would bet on Ron. Hermione is basically JKR's avatar, and since DD's gone, Hermione's is JKR's last voice in the story. As for Harry, this is his coming-of-age story, and it's a very rare, and even less rarely done well, where the hero dies at the end of that kind of story. (Yes, I've read all the arguments on what novelistic form, or the lack thereof, HP falls under, but I stand by the coming-of-age one.) Moreover, Ron's death sort of has a "most bang for your buck" feel - in other words, Ron's death has the most dramatic impact in the story because it would be deeply felt by most of the characters as well as serving as catalyst for a final confrontation, and his death would also be felt, if not necessarily deeply then at least somewhat, by most readers. That said, I don't believe that any of the trio will die. I think someone quite close to them will, though, and any given Weasley would be a good candidate, with Hagrid also having a fairly decent chance of dying. (Ginny might well die since she is an important person to Harry. Though I can't believe that it's true love, her death would still have a large emotional impact on him, even if I wouldn't care.) That's my bit. It might not mean much, but I'd put money on it. :) ~Ali From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 23 20:32:47 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:32:47 -0000 Subject: Should Snape Be Punished? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170667 > > > > Mike: > > > As I've posted before, no amount of remorse from Snape > > > will bring back Harry's parents. > > > > Pippin: > > And no amount of punishment will bring them back either. > > Mike: > This may prove interesting. For the purpose of this exercise, I'd > like to assume that the end of Deathly Hallows will have Snape being > ultimately on the side that eradicates the Voldemort menace. How and > why JKR convinces us does not matter for this little exercise, and we > have know way of assessing that right now anyway. > > The question is, with what we know right now of Snape and his > misdeeds, should he spend time in Azkaban? Get a community service > sentence? Or should he walk free? And what about now, when it > appears that Snape killed the guy who vouched for him? Pippin: You've said it yourself. Nobody should be punished because it "appears" that they're guilty of murder. It ought to be proven. If it can be proven, then I think we can expect punishment for Snape. Mike: > My guess is that JKR will not have Snape spend time in Azkaban, that > is if he survives and the DDM premise is true. (My tongue-in-cheek > wish for him to suffer horribly, notwithstanding) Whether he does or > doesn't get punished is irrespective of whether he *deserves* to be > punished. Pippin: Deciding who deserves to be punished isn't something the WW is good at. But I don't think JKR thinks real people are much better. It's interesting that we've already seen Snape suffer horribly, twice now (Snape's Worst Memory, and Flight of the Prince) yet those who want to see Snape suffer don't seem to be satisfied by those scenes. Perhaps it's because the suffering is not tied to anything Snape did. But if Snape is DDM! and suffers because of some miscarriage of justice, it *still* won't be tied to anything he did, so I doubt it will be satisfying, even to the people who are longing to see Snape suffer so much. As a literary matter, the villain has to suffer to show us that crime does not pay. But it doesn't seem that Snape ever profitted from being a Death Eater, not if he didn't want James, Sirius or Dumbledore dead, so all JKR has to do is show us that he didn't want them dead. Harry was ready enough to accept the justice of Snape being cleared, provided he really had left the Dark Side, when he didn't know that the people Snape harmed in his Death Eater days were his parents. So his desire to reverse that verdict has an element of vigilante-ism, and a reverse echo of Snape's own indifference to his victims. It strikes me that some people would enjoy seeing Snape pay horribly for just for bullying Harry, but they kinda think this would be overreacting, so they really, really hope that Snape is guilty of something else worse. JKR could easily have written the story so that there was no question of overreacting -- she could have made Snape as vicious as Barty Jr. or Voldemort himself, and as willing to go outside the rules or rewrite them to gratify himself as Umbridge. But that's not what happens. Pippin From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Jun 23 21:05:12 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:05:12 -0400 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? Message-ID: <6F380451-212A-4364-9A81-4C86AB4B53D9@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170668 On Jun-23-07, at 6:52 AM, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: Tandra: > Slughorn said it takes a complicated piece > of magic to make one and so forth. > Doug: No, no, no. It takes an OBSCURE piece of magic. There is no canon to say that the spell is complicated. ___ __ From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Jun 23 21:14:40 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:14:40 -0400 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170669 > jr_pumpkin: > > Reading this again, now knowing about the horcruxes, it seems to me > that Harry cannot contain a part of Voldy's soul, since it would be > agonizing to him to coexist with it. He would be in a constant state > of burning, agony, pain, etc. because the 'good' from Lily's sacrifice > would be constantly warring with the evil of Voldemort. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that Lily's sacrifice was one of Love. It is generally agreed that the locked room at the Ministry is Love. it is generally agreed that any power that Harry has that Voldemort does not is Love. Is it not possible that the soul fragment - if any - possibly residing in Harry - has been transformed by , uhm, Love? A soul that has never known any love all it's "life" until it comes to reside in a body protected by a sacrifice of Love, now held in a body that has the power that Voldemort does not have - Love. Why would it reject such a place? Why would it cause burning or agony or pain to such a generous, loving forgiving host? ___ __ From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 23 21:24:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:24:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170670 \ > > Lanval: > What exactly *did* Snape do that was so caring? He awoke, by his own > words, to see the Dementors drifting back to their positions at the > entrances. He had to notice the direction they came from, otherwise > he would not have found Harry, Hermione and Sirius by the lake. So > he goes to check it out. He notices Ron, also unconscious, conjures > a stretcher, so he can bring him along. Pippin: Ron was unconscious because he was hit by Pettigrew's spell. It's no ordinary stunner, because he's still out of it when Harry and Hermione set off on their adventure. Madam Pomfrey is none too happy about his condition "He'll live" she says "grimly" -- and that last word is a subtle reminder that as far as she knows, Ron was injured by Sirius Black. Snape, of course, would think the same. (One might speculate that Ron at least owes his life directly to Snape and that he might have died from Pettigrew's curse if Snape had not been there. We know Snape knows more about reversing Dark Magic than Madam Pomfrey at any rate.) Regardless of whether they were in immediate danger from the werewolf, Snape would assume there was danger from Sirius. As for whether it was necessary to gag Sirius, we've been told nonverbal spells are weaker than spoken ones. Snape would be taking no chances. Snape's behavior in the Hospital Wing is in character for the part he is playing -- insisting that his old rival must pay, wanting glory for himself, and saying that he thinks Harry is being indulged by the Headmaster into thinking too much of himself. Those are not crimes, either for Snape or for Harry, so it hardly matters whether Fudge agrees or not. The thing Snape could really use to get Harry expelled, proof that Harry had broken wizarding law, Snape chooses not to use. He doesn't blame Harry, Ron and Hermione for attacking him. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 21:34:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:34:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170671 Pippin: > The thing Snape could really use to get Harry expelled, proof > that Harry had broken wizarding law, Snape chooses not to use. > He doesn't blame Harry, Ron and Hermione for attacking him. Alla: Eh, what **proof**? That they used Time turner or do you mean something else? I wonder if Snape could really *prove* it, because for that he would need openly accuse Dumbledore, no? And I doubt that he would dare at that point. And he does not blame kids for attacking him? LOLOL. I found that to be sooo in character as I see it, I think Snape would rather die than admit that three thirteen year olds bested him, so of course he would rather say that they were confunded IMO. And just as Lanval did, I find it **very** telling that Snape makes sure to gag Sirius, not just bind him. He would rather prefer Sirius to be quiet going to his death, doesn't he? JMO, Alla From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 23 21:56:06 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:56:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170672 >>Alla wrote: > And just as Lanval did, I find it **very** telling that Snape makes > sure to gag Sirius, not just bind him. > > He would rather prefer Sirius to be quiet going to his death, > doesn't he? > colebiancardi: well, considering how much Sirius mouths off to Snape, can you blame Snape for gagging him? I would ;) I am sure I wouldn't want to listen to taunts & insults from someone I thought once tried to kill me (zee prank) and is still considered to be an escaped murderer. There is no lost love between the two of them - I don't think it a suprise or at all *telling* that Snape did this. We know that they both loathe each other. I am quite sure if the shoe was on the other foot, Snape would be gagged as well. colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 21:59:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:59:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170673 > colebiancardi: > > well, considering how much Sirius mouths off to Snape, can you blame > Snape for gagging him? I would ;) I am sure I wouldn't want to > listen to taunts & insults from someone I thought once tried to kill > me (zee prank) and is still considered to be an escaped murderer. > > There is no lost love between the two of them - I don't think it a > suprise or at all *telling* that Snape did this. We know that they > both loathe each other. I am quite sure if the shoe was on the other > foot, Snape would be gagged as well. > Alla: Yeah, I actually can blame him, LOL. A lot. Not in the interpretation you gave of course, but in the interpetation that Snape knew that Sirius was innocent - whether he learned that Peter alive earlier or now, does not matter, just that he knew and did not want the truth to be known. So, no love lost or not, I absolutely will blame Snape who knows that Sirius is innocent and did not want innocent man to tell his story. If Snape knows it of course. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 23 22:28:20 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:28:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170675 Pippin: > Regardless of whether they were in immediate danger from > the werewolf, Snape would assume there was danger from Sirius. > As for whether it was necessary to gag Sirius, we've been told > nonverbal spells are weaker than spoken ones. Snape > would be taking no chances. Dana: Really? And with what wand was Sirius going to perform that non- verbal or verbal spell? Also could you provide canon to proof that non-verbal spells are weaker? I saw Harry use a non-verbal spell that was a deathly as the AK, even messier causing the victim a lot more torture before death sets in. You might consider the AK more powerful but it depends on what you want to accomplish I guess. Also why is Snape mocking Harry at the end of HBP that he is to incompetent because he can't keep his mouth shut. Snape indeed would indeed make a lot of assumptions if he indeed did still believe Sirius was out to get Harry as for one, Harry is still alive while Sirius had all the time in the world to kill him after Snape was knocked out. Two, why would Sirius and Lupin have taken the trouble to transport Snape out of the Shack and not just leave him there? Or even why is he still alive while this raging murderous lunatic is supposed to kill anyone that gets in his way? Three, Snape did hear about the marauders becoming animagi and Sirius specifically points out the rat to him. He did hear Lupin state that Peter was the smallest and therefore could prod the knot, yes, indeed the same knot Snape prod when he let himself into the tunnel 20 years before and repeated that night. But still Snape would assume they all were just lying? Or did he just not want to truth to come out because ignorance is bliss when you have revenge on your mind? JMHO Dana From muellem at bc.edu Sat Jun 23 22:29:58 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:29:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170676 Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape > > colebiancardi: > > > > well, considering how much Sirius mouths off to Snape, can you blame > > Snape for gagging him? I would ;) I am sure I wouldn't want to > > listen to taunts & insults from someone I thought once tried to kill > > me (zee prank) and is still considered to be an escaped murderer. > > > > There is no lost love between the two of them - I don't think it a > > suprise or at all *telling* that Snape did this. We know that they > > both loathe each other. I am quite sure if the shoe was on the other > > foot, Snape would be gagged as well. > > > > > Alla: > > Yeah, I actually can blame him, LOL. A lot. Not in the interpretation > you gave of course, but in the interpetation that Snape knew that > Sirius was innocent - whether he learned that Peter alive earlier or > now, does not matter, just that he knew and did not want the truth to > be known. > > So, no love lost or not, I absolutely will blame Snape who knows that > Sirius is innocent and did not want innocent man to tell his story. > > If Snape knows it of course. > colebiancardi: I am not sure what you mean by "Snape knew that Sirius was innocent - whether he learned that Peter alive earlier or now, does not matter, just that he knew..." I have just reread those passages in PoA and there is nothing leading up to Snape's appearance in the Shack where Sirius reveals that the rat is Peter and all Sirius says to Snape is "the rat, look at the rat". As far as Snape knows, Sirius is deranged from his time in Azkaban - afterall, he's been there for 12 years. Scabbers isn't revealed as Peter until after he is knocked out cold. He doesn't see Scabbers transform into Peter, nor hear Peter's tale, nor does he see Peter transform back into a rat outside. Snape has no idea about this, as far as we know(like you said) So, if I was in Snape's shoes, I would have done the same thing (turned him over to the MoM). He isn't a judge or a jury; he is acting on what he knows about Sirius. Which is the same as the rest of the Wizarding World; Lupin thinks it about Sirius, Arthur Weasley thinks it and I would think, as DD didn't do anything to save Sirius 12 years prior, that even Dumbledore thinks that about Sirius - an escaped murderer from Azkaban. Now, of course, that is in Snape's shoes. If one wasn't Snape and did not have a hate-hate relationship with Sirius, one might be more inclined to listen to the escaped murderer while leading him up(bound, of course) to the castle. But I do have to ask - where is the part where Sirius is gagged? And by Snape? The passage I have read is this: "Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermoine, and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away towards the castle." PoA, Am Ed hardback, p 412 I cannot find where Snape "bound & gagged" Sirius. Sirius was out cold. Unlike Sirius's treatment of Snape, when Snape was unconscious, Snape treats them pretty good. from same book, p 378 "Harry went right after Black, who was still making Snape drift along ahead of them; he kept bumping his lolling head on the low ceiling. Harry had the impression that Black was making no effort to prevent this" This just goes to prove that Sirius, in his relationship with Snape, is no better or worse than Snape. In fact, Snape is treats Sirius better, because at least he conjured stretchers for them, instead of the Mobilicorpus spell. colebiancardi (JMHO, of course) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 23 22:34:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:34:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: <380-220076623223453796@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170677 Lanval: That's a good comparison with Draco, as far as setting things in motion, and the realization "Whoa, we're talking death here* are concerned. I wish JKR had included some suggestion that Draco felt remorse about almost killing Katie and Ron, though. I'm willing for now to believe that it did make him feel bad and added to his general state toward the end of HBP (instead of it just being fear for his own life). Magpie: Personally, I do think his response to Katie and Ron adds to his state--it seems important to get him there to me. That's how he learns he's not a killer, is through the different realities of death or almost death he experiences throughout the year. He's not specifically mourning what happened to Katie and Ron (especially since they were okay) but that's what gets him not continuing to try to kill anyone in the second half of the year even as teh pressure mounts. Instead he concentrates on the cabinets alone, and knows by the time he gets up to the Tower he does know what Dumbledore is going to tell him about himself. Lanval: To me any suggestion that Snape is meant to come across as caring is negated by his appalling behavior in the Hopital Wing. Magpie: Yes, and I think that's the idea. There's a difference between Snape "coming across as caring" and just a scene where Snape's taking care of people, which I'm saying this is. A scene where he's putting people onto stretchers to bring them back, that knowledge that he cures Katie, the scene where he cures Draco, counter-curses Quirrel etc. There are no scenes of Snape really being a caring person, exactly (maybe Spinner's End a bit for some). Scenes where he's showing his personality is almost uniformly negative. JKR never softens him up and shows him being some kind of softie underneath. - From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 22:40:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:40:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170678 Carol earlier: > > > > Instead, like it or not, they owe their lives (and souls) to Snape. And even if they *could* have saved themselves, they didn't. Snape did. (Thanks for acknowledging that, Mike.) > > > > Renee: > > True, Snape took them to the safety of the Hospital Ward. Carol: Yes. Emphatically, yes. And that made it possible for them to be treated by Madam Pomfrey. Ron's leg was broken. All four of them were unconscious. Snape had three choices: abandon them to their fates with a werewolf roaming the grounds, conjure stretchers and take them to the hospital wing, or take things into his own hands and treat then himself. He chose the sensible and responsible middle course. Renee: > The question is, what did he save them from? At the moment he woke up, there was no immediate danger that we hear of, either from the Dementors or the werewolf. Snape himself actually tells Fudge that the Dementors were heading back to their positions at the entrances of Hogwarts when he came round. Carol responds: For one thing, Ron had a broken leg, which needed to be treated. For another, he didn't know where the werewolf was. He could show up at any time, and if any of the four were unconscious, they'd be helpless against the ravening beast. At the very least, he saved them from lying wounded and unconscious and possibly traumatized from having faced Dementors, on the Hogwarts grounds. The kids needed to be taken to the safety of Hogwarts and receive treatment from Madam P.; Black, in snape's opinion, needed to be handed over to justice. (Snape thought he was a murderer out to kill Harry, and the "right" thing to do, as he saw it, was to bring him to justice--not directly to the Dementors but to the proper authority, Fudge. > Lanval: > Yes to all. We last hear of Lupin being anywhere near as Hermione2 and Harry2 realize that the werewolf is going to run right toward their hiding spot -- not because he's attacking them, but because that's where they saw him *taking flight (!!!), howling, galloping into the forest* earlier, when Sirius chased him off Ron and Pettigrew. > Carol responds: Which does not mean that he can't or won't return to the shrieking shaack. And Snape doesn't know where Lupin is, only that he's transformed and can return at any time. Lanval: > The mere possibility that Lupin *might* have returned from the Forest and *could* have attacked unconscious Ron, Harry, Hermione and Sirius, or that the Dementors *might* have returned, is not quite enough reason to pin a lifesaver badge on Snape just yet. Especially since they are IMO just an annoying extra burden to deal with for Snape; his main objective is to get Black to the castle. Note that he finds time to bind and gag Sirius before he loads him unto a stretcher. > I'd say if anybody deserved a badge that night it's Sirius, who without a doubt saved the kids, Snape and Pettigrew in a true fight with the werewolf. Carol responds: No one is taking away from Sirius Black's actions in scaring away the werewolf (which Snape didn't witness) or from Harry's casting the Patronus to prevent himself and Black from being soul-sucked in crediting Snape with saving all four unconscious people. All of their actions are necessary for events to turn out as they did. But had Snape not taken HRH them to the hospital wing, Harry and Hermione could not have Time-Turned and therefore they could not have saved anyone. The story would have ended with Sirius Black and Harry soul-sucked (whether or not the unconscious Hermione and the injured and unconscious Ron survived both werewolf and Dementors with no TT!Harry to conjure the Patronus). Alternatively, Snape *could* have summoned the Dementors to soul-suck the supposed murderer on the spot and left the kids who had knocked him unconscious to their fates, knowing that a transformed wereolf was prowling the grounds. That he did not do so is surely to his credit and to me speaks volumes about his loyalties. (And while he was certainly concerned with bringing the supposed murderer to justice, who's to say that was a greater priority than saving the Prophecy and two other students from the very real possibility of grave danger?) If conjuring stretchers to take unconscious kids, at least one of them seriously injured, to the hospital wing rather than leaving them on the grounds when there's even the remotest chance of their being bitten by a werewolf isn't saving their lives, what is it? It's certainly an act of mercy of some sort and protecting them from danger. (That he had no kind feelings for or intentions toward Sirius Black is beside the point. He thought Black was trying to murder Harry, remember? He took him to Fudge rather than dispatching him himself, which, for Snape, is an act of restraint.) As I said before, they could not have Time-Turned without being brought to the hospital wing and restored to consciousness so DD could suggest using the Time Turner. Had Snape not saved them, Harry and Hermione could not have Time-turned and therefore TT!Harry could not have saved them from the Dementors even though the Patronus *seems* to come first in the circular time frame of the TT!sequence. Snape had, in essence, *always* saved them, so they didn't *need* to save themselves (even if they could have done so, which is doubtful), and to interfere with his conjuring the stretchers and taking them to the hopsital wing would have been extremely stupid and dangerous, with unthinkable consequences. Carol, glad for HRH's and the story's sake that Snape was there to conjure those stretchers since no one else could have done so From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 22:46:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:46:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170679 > Magpie: > Yes, and I think that's the idea. There's a difference between Snape > "coming across as caring" and just a scene where Snape's taking care of > people, which I'm saying this is. A scene where he's putting people onto > stretchers to bring them back, that knowledge that he cures Katie, the > scene where he cures Draco, counter-curses Quirrel etc. There are no scenes > of Snape really being a caring person, exactly (maybe Spinner's End a bit > for some). Scenes where he's showing his personality is almost uniformly > negative. JKR never softens him up and shows him being some kind of softie > underneath. Alla: Okay, maybe you can explain this one to me, after all, even when we disagree I can often understand your POV. So, how is this scene is Snape caring for people? I mean, certainly, if we saw Snape putting kids on the stretchers and no Black, absolutely, I will grant you that. But Snape delivers Black to be kissed and to me to call it **caring** is just not that, you know? Praising Snape for that? I mean, sure, if he truly thinks he delivers murderer, I understand, but to say that Snape **cares**? And what Lanval said, I mean how could he leave kids there? I hope that Dumbledore would not have liked that. To me Snape in this scene if he is to be portrayed as **caring** would be an ultimate hyppocrite, Snape I mean, you know? Colebiancardi: > But I do have to ask - where is the part where Sirius is gagged? And > by Snape? The passage I have read is this: > > "Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and > lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermoine, and Black onto them. A > fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his > side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away towards > the castle." > > PoA, Am Ed hardback, p 412 > > I cannot find where Snape "bound & gagged" Sirius. Sirius was out > cold. Unlike Sirius's treatment of Snape, when Snape was unconscious, > Snape treats them pretty good. > > from same book, p 378 > "Harry went right after Black, who was still making Snape drift along > ahead of them; he kept bumping his lolling head on the low ceiling. > Harry had the impression that Black was making no effort to prevent this" > > This just goes to prove that Sirius, in his relationship with Snape, > is no better or worse than Snape. In fact, Snape is treats Sirius > better, because at least he conjured stretchers for them, instead of > the Mobilicorpus spell. Alla: Oh man, you know what - I cannot find it either. Did I just assume that? ;) Hmmmm, must run, hoping that somebody else will find that :) So, not saying OOOPS yet, but certainly will :) Oh and OF COURSE Sirius does not treat Snape any better when Snape is unconscious. For better for worse, rightly or wrongly Sirius treats Snape as enemy. I do not think he treats him in the worst possible way one can treat an enemy, since I do not see him deliberately injuring Snape, but he definitely does not care. I understand that and to me, truly this is much more honest, against rightly or wrongly than what Snape does. What puzzles me is when what Snape does is being called **nice**, you know? To me delivering one to be kissed and hoping that Dumbledore would not interfere is not **nice** in any way, shape or form, but very very cruel. JMO, Alla From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 22:54:00 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:54:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170680 > > Pippin: > Ron was unconscious because he was hit by Pettigrew's spell. It's > no ordinary stunner, because he's still out of it when Harry and > Hermione set off on their adventure. Madam Pomfrey is none too > happy about his condition "He'll live" she says "grimly" -- and > that last word is a subtle reminder that as far as she knows, > Ron was injured by Sirius Black. Snape, of course, would think > the same. > > (One might speculate that Ron at least owes his life directly > to Snape and that he might have died from Pettigrew's curse > if Snape had not been there. We know Snape knows more about > reversing Dark Magic than Madam Pomfrey at any rate.) > Lanval: We know Madam Pomfrey likes to exaggerate the state of her patients, so I wouldn't put too much into her "he'll live". Ron is awake and talking coherently when Harry and Hermione return, when very little time has actually elapsed. It's not as if Ron was out for days. He leaves the Hospital Wing the next day, along with the two others. We know stunning spells can have more severe consequences for people who are weak or elderly, and Ron was in a lot of pain already when the spell hit him, which is perhaps why he remained knocked out for a bit longer than expected. Besides, Crookshanks gets hit with what I assume to be the same spell, same strength, and since I don't believe for a minute that the Rat was trying to be gentle with that particular cat, and no harm has come to Crookshanks, I must logically assume that the spell was harmless enough. Pippin: > Regardless of whether they were in immediate danger from > the werewolf, Snape would assume there was danger from Sirius. > As for whether it was necessary to gag Sirius, we've been told > nonverbal spells are weaker than spoken ones. Snape > would be taking no chances. > Lanval: But Sirius neither had a wand, nor could he move, being bound. Do we know of any spells that are nonverbal, wandless AND require no hand movement? Nah. Snape didn't want Sirius to talk. Pippin: > Snape's behavior in the Hospital Wing is in character for the > part he is playing -- insisting that his old rival must pay, wanting > glory for himself, and saying that he thinks Harry is being > indulged by the Headmaster into thinking too much of himself. > Those are not crimes, either for Snape or for Harry, so it > hardly matters whether Fudge agrees or not. > > The thing Snape could really use to get Harry expelled, proof > that Harry had broken wizarding law, Snape chooses not to use. > He doesn't blame Harry, Ron and Hermione for attacking him. > > Pippin > Lanval: Well, Pippin, you lost me here,as surely you knew you would. :) Since I don't believe for a second that Snape is acting, I can't discuss that possibility. As to Snape not blaming the kids -- why mention them in the first place? Fudge assumed the "nasty cut" to be caused by Sirius, and Snape corrects him, saying it was the kids. Why? Sounds like a good way and a perfect time to bring up the Confunded theory --which not only glosses over the embarrassing fact that Snape was overcome by three third years, but it would also support that the kids really *were* Confunded. Attacking a teacher! From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 23:13:24 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:13:24 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <011501c7b5c5$d0cdc700$0200a8c0@yourkbv4bfa8sa> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz the Lucky" wrote: > Mrs. Sloccum (Are You Being Served?) for Umbridge > Charles: I have to disagree with you on that. I think Mollie Sugden could pull Umbridge off, but she would absolutely shine as Arabella Figg. I can just see her swinging a bag full of cat food at Mundungus now. >From the same series: Wendy Richard (Ms. Brahms) would make a very good Rosmerta. Harold Bennett (Young Mr. Grace) would make a fabulous Professor Tofty. Nicholas Smith (Mr. Rumbold) would be great as Cornelius Fudge. Frank Thornton (Captain Peacock) would be great as Scrimgeour. Larry Martyn (Mr. Mash) would be a superlative Mundungus. And finally, if you could shrink him down and get him to swish just a little bit less, John Inman (Mr. Humphries) could make a really good Flitwick. That's all for me from that series. But from "My Hero," Hugh Dennis (Dr. Piers Crispin) would be a great Lockheart. The characters are remarkably similar. Charles, who is absolutely loving this thread. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 23 23:44:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:44:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170682 > Dana: > Really? And with what wand was Sirius going to perform that non- > verbal or verbal spell? Also could you provide canon to proof that > non-verbal spells are weaker? zgirnius: It is the professional opinion of Madam Pomfrey that the curse that hurt Hermione in OotP could have been much worse if it had been spoken. Since Hermione had silenced Dolohov, he did not have that option. > Dana: > I saw Harry use a non-verbal spell that > was a deathly as the AK, even messier causing the victim a lot more > torture before death sets in. You might consider the AK more powerful > but it depends on what you want to accomplish I guess. zgirnius: Snape may have used Sectumsempra nonverbally as a studentv(this was a topic of some debate in the last few days). That instance, in any case, was nothing close to deadly or torturous, but this could be due not to the nonverbal nature of snape's spell, but because it was actually a different spell. Harry, on the other hand, yelled the incantation aloud the times he used it: in the bathroom on Draco, quite effectively, in the Cave on the Inferi, where it did cut but caused no bleeding, and the time he tried it on Snape at the end of HBP (blocked). > Dana: > Also why is > Snape mocking Harry at the end of HBP that he is to incompetent > because he can't keep his mouth shut. zgirnius: Hermione outlined the defensive advantage of nonverbal spells in the first DADA lesson (an explanation with which Snape agreed). I thought the duel in "The Flight of the Prince" was an excellent illustration of that point, since Snape quite clearly knew what was coming at him from Harry and could block it. Even if spells lose some effectiveness nonverbally, this is better than having them blocked completely, as was happening to Harry. Dana: > Snape indeed would indeed make a lot of assumptions if he indeed did > still believe Sirius was out to get Harry as for one, Harry is still > alive while Sirius had all the time in the world to kill him after > Snape was knocked out. zgirnius: Well, Snape is a Death Eater. He may think Sirius was emulating the Dark Lord by making a long villain speech before getting down to business. > Dana: > Two, why would Sirius and Lupin have taken the > trouble to transport Snape out of the Shack and not just leave him > there? zgirnius: Being left alone in the Shack is hardly dangerous or unpleasant. Snape probably assumed he was moved from there for some nefarious purpose, I would imagine. The most likely being to ensure he stays out of action for some period. If they leave him behind, he could come to quickly and they would not have warning of this. > Dana: > Or even why is he still alive while this raging murderous > lunatic is supposed to kill anyone that gets in his way? zgirnius: He does not know what has happened since he was knocked out. His continuing survival could be due to other factors - an escape attempt by the kids, an attack by Dementors, a falling out among villains, etc. > Dana: > Or did he just not want to truth to come out because > ignorance is bliss when you have revenge on your mind? zgirnius: But it is, this is human nature. Snape was not looking for reasons to clear Sirius, so it seems reasonable to me that during an emotion and surprise filled time in which Lupin manages to forget his condition more than once, Snape might not add together the disparate facts into the correct story which does not fit his cherished beliefs. Snape did not deny any plainly stated facts - the facts were not stated plainly to him. And one key fact was missing. That Peter was an Animagus he heard. That Peter's form was on the small side, he heard, but he had no reason to believe that Peter was alive. *That* was one of the bits he did not overhear, and noone mentioned it after he made his presence known. From lizthelucky at comcast.net Sat Jun 23 22:42:17 2007 From: lizthelucky at comcast.net (Liz the Lucky) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:42:17 -0700 Subject: FANTASY casting... References: <011501c7b5c5$d0cdc700$0200a8c0@yourkbv4bfa8sa> Message-ID: <017e01c7b5e7$c0aa5650$0200a8c0@yourkbv4bfa8sa> No: HPFGUIDX 170683 I've been asked to explain my choices: > Tallulah Bankhead for Bellatrix This is kinda hard to explain because I've only seen her on screen once, in an episode of Batman, when she was sixty-five years old. The image I have of her mostly comes from a couple of mysteries. One is The Tallulah Bankhead Murder Case by George Baxt. The other is one of the Elliot Roosevelt mysteries starring his mother (can't remember which one, sorry). Both gave the impression of a very willful, wild woman who was prone to saying and doing anything that took her fancy. Her lovers were many and of both sexes. And she had a penchant for taking her clothes off at parties. Some of the quotes I've seen creditted to her include, "There is less to this than meets the eye," and "I'm as pure as the driven slush." Oh, and she was a member of Dorothy Parker's Algonquin set. {shrug} She just seems very Bellatrix-ish to me. > Mrs. Sloccum (Are You Being Served?) for Umbridge Okay, I confess, I just want Umbridge to say, "Somebody had to act [about Harry Potter], and I am unanimous in that." Hugs and Kisses, Liz the Lucky lizthelucky at comcast.net http://www.lizthelucky.com/ Who is Will? And why does everyone keep firing at him? From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 24 00:34:58 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:34:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >But had > Snape not taken HRH them to the hospital wing, Harry and Hermione > could not have Time-Turned and therefore they could not have saved > anyone. The story would have ended with Sirius Black and Harry > soul-sucked (whether or not the unconscious Hermione and the injured > and unconscious Ron survived both werewolf and Dementors with no > TT!Harry to conjure the Patronus). Renee: Of course Snape contributed to the happy outcome (though I wonder what he would have done if he'd foreseen it would lead to Sirius's escape). But he did not save any lives and souls, as there was no immediate, life-and-soul-threatening danger at that moment; as others have pointed out, he takes his time. That he enables H&H to Time-turn later, is merely a collateral result of what he thought he was doing, not a merit. Carol: > Alternatively, Snape *could* have summoned the Dementors to soul-suck > the supposed murderer on the spot and left the kids who had knocked > him unconscious to their fates, knowing that a transformed wereolf was > prowling the grounds. That he did not do so is surely to his credit > and to me speaks volumes about his loyalties. Ren?e: It was in the first place his duty; he's a teacher at the school and as such responsible for the well-being of the students, regardless of what they did to him. Any teacher who has his priorities right, would do so. And if he truly still believed Sirius to be a murderer, it was also his duty to turn him in. I don't think this makes a particularly strong case for his loyalty in the larger conflict - a conflict that wasn't even acute at the time. Carol: > As I said before, they could not have Time-Turned without being > brought to the hospital wing and restored to consciousness so DD could > suggest using the Time Turner. Had Snape not saved them, Harry and > Hermione could not have Time-turned and therefore TT!Harry could not > have saved them from the Dementors even though the Patronus *seems* to > come first in the circular time frame of the TT!sequence. Snape had, > in essence, *always* saved them. Renee: But he never "saved" them, except - in his own view - from Sirius Black - from whom they didn't need to be saved. Snape is just one of the people who enabled H&H to Time-turn (and inadvertently at that), and IMO not the most important one. In the circular time frame, Harry2 has always cast the Patronus that ultimately enabled Snape to find the Trio & Sirius with their souls intact and take them to the hospital wing. Even if you insist in calling it saving, Snape couldn't have saved Harry without Harry. Apparently it's not just the time frame that is circular, but also the argument. Ren?e From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Sun Jun 24 00:46:04 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 00:46:04 -0000 Subject: In (many) years to come...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Somehow I'm sure that the line: "In (many?) years to come, Harry...." > is to be found somewhere in one of the books (like indicating Harry > might survive). > SNIP> > Inge Another line in the same vein that gives me additional hope for Harry's survival is at the end of HPB: "He (Harry) had known there was no hope from the moment the full Body-Bind Curse Dumbledore placed upon him lifted, known that it could have happened only because its castor was dead, but there was still no preparation for seeing him here, spread-eagled, broken: the greatest wizard Harry had ever or would ever meet." The last three words of that rather long sentence gave me pause as I re-read them this afternoon. Would JKR have included them if "would ever" refers only to one more year of Harry's life? No proof either way, but it seems likely not. Lilygale, who is mentally preparing herself for mourning Snape's demise but is in total denial regarding even the possibility of Harry's death From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Jun 24 00:40:03 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 20:40:03 -0400 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170686 I think that Hagrid and Fred will die. Hagrid because of his first name--Rubeus. The third and final stage of alchemical transformation is the Rubendo, or Red Stage. The first two are the Nigrendo (Black) and the Albendo (White). So far we have had Sirius BLACK and ALBUS Dumbledore die. Why Fred? Look at the names in the Weasley family. Arthur, Mary (Molly), Charles, William, Percival, Frederick & George, Ronald, and Ginevra. Except for Percival and Ronald, those are all royal names. King George III--a name notorius to Americans--was not supposed to have been king. He had an older brother, Prince Frederick, who died from being hit on the head by a cricket ball, leaving an infant daughter, the Princess Sophie. Sophie died very young; I don't think she saw her fifth birthday. Hence, the next in line was her uncle, her father's younger brother, Prince George, who in due time ascended the throne as King George III. (I've often speculated on how the Revolution might have gone differently if the colonists had been dealing with King Frederick or Queen Sophie, rather than King George.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 01:23:01 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:23:01 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170688 "Tandra" wrote: > > > > I know, I know people feel this has been discussed to death, but I had > > to toss my hat in the ring.... > > > > Let me try to verify my accidental making, though I know people think > > it isn't possible because Slughorn said it takes a complicated piece > > of magic to make one and so forth. But with Harry, and LV we are > > dealing with magic that no one has seen. It basica;;y becomes a > > guessing game for DD as he tries to figure out all the characteristics > > of Harry's scar or what happened. > > > > So what's to say that if an AK is reflected that the person who cast > > it doesn't lose a piece of their soul in the process. Maybe passing it > > onto Harry through the scar very untintentionally. Isn't there a > > theory that he entered the house with the intent to make his last > > Horocrux anyway, so what's to say he hadn't already started said > > complicated process before he got to the house and it was somehow > > completed when the AK failed. > > > > Ok I've babbled on long enough...Feel free to tear it apart now. > > Geoff: > A quick thought. > > If, as you suggest, he had possibly already started the > process, it should be remembered that he did kill two > people in advance of his attempt on Harry and if his > intent was to kill Harry, so why would he be "assembling" > the Horcrux spell for use that night... > TKJ: He would of wanted to use what was prophesied(sp) to be his biggest foe as his last Horcrux. That's the way I see it. Yes, he could of used Lilly or James but seeing as he seems to be all sentimental about things...it makes sense to me that he would of saved the last one for his "biggest" enemy. TKJ :-) From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Sun Jun 24 01:23:38 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:23:38 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170689 Anne Squires: Over at MuggleNet there is a link to "Aint It Cool News." A reporter from the OotP press conference with the cast and crew is reporting that JKR strongly suggested that a character from OotP who was originally written out of the first OotP screenplay should be included or "their hands would be tied" for the seventh medium-not-to-named: Aint It Cool News (quoting Heyman, who is quoting JKR): In the original draft of the screenplay Order of the Phoenix, they had decided to remove a character from the story. Rowling read over the screenplay and said "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that they were free to do whatever they liked, of course, but "if you make a 7th movie you'll have tied your hands." Aint It Cool continues: Heyman wouldn't reveal who that character was and all the Potter nerds (myself included) were debating the point afterwards. Theories included Grawp, Luna and Bellatrix. Luna might be a possibility, but I thought it might be extra tricky of them if they meant James Potter, who we see in a flashback (those that have read the book know what part). Did Heyman mean that the scene was important or the character itself? Hrmmm Anne Squires now: Thus, whomever the makers of the medium-not-to-be-named originally wanted to exclude from OotP must seem like a minor character; but will turn out to be crucial in DH. Who could that be? I personally don't think it's Luna or Bellatrix. I also strongly doubt it's James Potter. I don't know why, but I've had the impression that these particular characters would have been included in the not-to-be-named-medium anyway. I agree that it might be Grawp. The SPEW storyline was cut from the GoF not-to-be-named-medium. (Gracias a Dios); so I wonder if the Grawp storyline had originally been cut from the screenplay? There are other ways to get the Threstrals to come to the rescue, I have always thought. List elves, this, I think, is a question for the main group; but I will understand if you don't agree. The question is: Who or what seems minor in OotP but will turn out to be essential for DH? And why? What do y'all think? Anne Squires From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 24 01:41:11 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 01:41:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170690 > Alla: > > Oh man, you know what - I cannot find it either. Did I just assume > that? ;) > > Hmmmm, must run, hoping that somebody else will find that :) So, not > saying OOOPS yet, but certainly will :) colebiancardi: found it!! No OOOPSIE for you!! pg 387-388 AmEd Hardcover PoA Fudge speaking: "Extradordinary. And yet Black, and Harry, and the girl --" "All unconscious by the time I reached them. I bound and gagged Black, naturally, conjured stretchers, and brought them all straight back to the castle." <<=Snape speaking of course Well, I don't *know* why Snape bound & gagged Sirius when Sirius was out cold, but then again, Snape also tells the whopper of the Trio being under Sirius' Confundus Charm. I can only think that Snape is embellishing here. Ironic, as he accuses the Trio of having a "rather high opinion of themselves", and I view Snape, during his give & take with Fudge, in the same way. > > Alla: Oh and OF COURSE Sirius does not treat Snape any better when Snape > is unconscious. > For better for worse, rightly or wrongly Sirius treats Snape as > enemy. > > I do not think he treats him in the worst possible way one can treat > an enemy, since I do not see him deliberately injuring Snape, but he > definitely does not care. > > I understand that and to me, truly this is much more honest, against > rightly or wrongly than what Snape does. > colebiancardi: well, Snape is not deliberatiely injuring Sirius either. He is turning him over to the MoM for further review. As I stated before, the whole wizarding world thinks Sirius is a murderer. Even Dumbledore, who *now* believes in Sirius's innocence, tells Harry (snipping several passages) "There is not a shred of proof to support Black's story, except your word - and the word of two thirteen-year-old wizards will not convince anybody. A street full of eyewitnesses swore they saw Sirius murder Pettigrew. I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret-Keeper" "Sirius has not acted like an innocent man. The attack on the Fat Lady -- entering Gryffindor Tower with a knife -- without Pettigrew, alive or dead, we have no chance of overturning Sirius's sentence" same book, pgs 392-393 I don't think that Snape acted out of bounds. Sure, he threatened Sirius with the soul-sucking kiss, but in the end, his sense of duty returned made him return Sirius to the proper authorities. And yes, they both hate each other with a passion. >Alla: >What puzzles me is when what Snape does is being called **nice**, > you know? > > To me delivering one to be kissed and hoping that Dumbledore would > not interfere is not **nice** in any way, shape or form, but very > very cruel. colebiancardi: I didn't say Snape treated Sirius "nicely", lord knows!! I said that Sirius received better treatment when he was out cold from Snape than Snape received at the hands of Sirius. Again, how Snape perceives Sirius is no different than anyone else in the Wizarding World up to that point. Dumbledore believed it for 12 years, until Harry told him the events that had happened. So, I am not going to hold it against Snape, not in this case. If someone, who was an escaped murderer, showed up in my backyard, I would not ask that person in for tea. I would lock all my doors and call the police to take that person in. If that person is innocent, then that is what the law is for. In Sirius's case, WE know he is innocent (at the end - we didn't know that at all through-out of PoA). But to the characters in the book, that is something they don't know and they, along with Snape, are all operating under that assumption. colebiancardi (I am reminded of what ASSUME means...makes an ASS out of U and ME - LOL - well, I will find out if I have been an ASS about Snape in less than a month!!) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Jun 24 02:04:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:04:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: <380-2200760242447468@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170691 Alla: Okay, maybe you can explain this one to me, after all, even when we disagree I can often understand your POV. So, how is this scene is Snape caring for people? I mean, certainly, if we saw Snape putting kids on the stretchers and no Black, absolutely, I will grant you that. But Snape delivers Black to be kissed and to me to call it **caring** is just not that, you know? Praising Snape for that? I mean, sure, if he truly thinks he delivers murderer, I understand, but to say that Snape **cares**? Magpie: I think the problem is the word "caring"--and I've been trying to think of a different one, but I can't. Because Snape is being shown here "caring" for people in terms of taking care of them--stretchers, hospital wing, etc. But he doesn't "care for" them in terms of showing affection for them. For Sirius, in particularly, he's bringing him in to justice, not mothering him. There's of course plenty of ways to say that he "had to" do it--but JKR didn't have to have him to it, regardless. It's just an image that I think sticks in the mind a bit. It's just a visual image that goes along with a lot of consistent images for Snape that go along with the scenes of him being sarcastic and cruel. He's not being particularly nice here, but he's not being cruel--even with Sirius, I don't think we can use the fact that Sirius might be kissed against him. He's taking Sirius to the authorities. It's not that he *cares* meaning that he's being affectionate, but he's taking care of people in terms of putting them on stretchers and all. - From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 02:07:38 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:07:38 -0000 Subject: In (many) years to come...? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170692 houyhnhnm: > > I just came across that a couple of days ago while > looking up something else. SS, Scholastic, p. 262: > In years to come Harry would never quite remember how > he had managed to get through his exams when he half > expected Voldemort to come bursting through the door > at any moment. > > The "years to come" could mean only the next six, but > it is suggestive, isn't it, of someone looking back > over a great distance of time? > Snape's Witch: True!! Then there's the fact that we can't very well be reading a story with the POV of someone who's dead! Oh dear -- unless Harry's a 'ghost' writer? Sorry, just had to say that! ;-) From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jun 24 02:23:17 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:23:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Should Snape Be Punished? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170693 Carol responds: Nor did he do anything as a DE other than spy as a double or triple agent until he killed Albus Dumbledore. That murder or coup de grace or whatever it was is, IMO, all that he'll be tried for. (If he gets a fair trial, which is asking a great deal, he'll be cleared of trying to help Draco get DEs into the tower. He may even be able to prove that he didn't plan or intend to kill Dumbledore. I think that if the WW has degrees of murder rather than one-sentence-fits-all (life in Azkaban), and if they hear his whole story, and, especially, if he does something heroic to save Harry and demonstrate his true loyalty without question, maybe he'll get a short sentence in Azkaban followed by community service. Sherry: It is only speculation that Snape did not do anything as a Death eater but spy. We will not know if that is canon or not till DH comes out. Also, even if people didn't plan to kill someone but still end up murdering, there must be consequences. Snape's story, however it turns out, will be a joke if he ends up not having to pay for his crime of murder. And something more than a short stay in Azkaban and then community service. in my opinion, of course. But I think that murder is set up to be so terrible in the WW, that Snape has to pay the price for the murder of Dumbledore, and I certainly do hope he does. Sherry From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 02:25:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:25:49 -0000 Subject: Alchemy (Was: Re: Okay, Who Dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170694 > Bruce Alan Wilson: > I think that Hagrid and Fred will die. > Hagrid because of his first name--Rubeus. The third and final > stage of alchemical transformation is the Rubendo, or Red Stage. > The first two are the Nigrendo (Black) and the Albendo (White). > So far we have had Sirius BLACK and ALBUS Dumbledore die. Goddlefrood: Obviously we shall see if there is any merit in the above in a very short time. I think there is very little in the alchemical based theories to predict death and I'll explain why in this post. An alternative way of linking alchemy to the series is also offered. First, Nigredo - it means blackening, sorry to be pedantic. This stage of the alchemical process refers primarily to what happens before there can be any progress. All that has been formed is broken apart and becomes dark and dead. It would be more appropriate to compare the stages to Harry's reactions to death rather than to try to make it into a pattern of how the deaths roster would proceed. In other words, Sirius's death leads to a shattering of all Harry's beliefs in the inherent underlying goodness in the wizarding world. Black's death marks the end of Harry's wonder of all things wizarding. From that point on he is focused to his task of tracking down and destroying Lord voldemort and all his evil works. Second, Albedo - it refers to the whitening or enlightening of the process. Albus Dumbledore throughout HBP has been preparing Harry for what lies ahead. Harry is being taught and through that teaching he reaches the point by the end of HBP that he is aware of what he must do to move forward in his quest. The wise old wizard must be got out of the way for the hero to proceed, this hads been achieved and JKR has also referred to it as something that had to happen. The upshot is that Albus had to die, but not because his name means white, as Albedo on a literal translation does not. Albedo in fact has its roots in washing or cleansing. Harry has gone through the process of cleansing himself to proceed by both coming to terms with the deaths of his mentors and by accepting what he must do. The final stage, Rubedo has its roots in love, despite it being interpreted as the reddening phase for the alchemy based death prediction theories. It will be through love that Harry conquers Lord Voldemort. There doesn't seem to be much real dispute about that and it has been a theme that has run throughout the series to date. Love being the power Voldemort knows not will be his ultimate downfall. Rubeus will be fine, Madam Maxime will make sure of that. We shall all soon see though. On others who might die I would offer the opinion that HRH will not but Severus Snape will. He will sacrifice himself, in my opinion, at a time crucial to the quest and Harry will ultimately believe that Snape was helping him and be grateful for it even if he does not forgive Snape completely. If not then heaven help Harry because he'll have few powerful wizards on his side. Other than Lord Voldemort another major character who will die in my divination will be Arthur Weasley. He does have red hair and the alchemists can also claim they were right on the deaths if he dies ;-) Goddlefrood From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 02:43:46 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:43:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really? WAS: Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170695 > > Alla: > > > > So, no love lost or not, I absolutely will blame Snape who knows that > > Sirius is innocent and did not want innocent man to tell his story. > > > > If Snape knows it of course. > > > colebiancardi: > > I am not sure what you mean by "Snape knew that Sirius was innocent - > whether he learned that Peter alive earlier or now, does not matter, > just that he knew..." > > I have just reread those passages in PoA and there is nothing leading > up to Snape's appearance in the Shack where Sirius reveals that the > rat is Peter and all Sirius says to Snape is "the rat, look at the > rat". As far as Snape knows, Sirius is deranged from his time in > Azkaban - afterall, he's been there for 12 years. Scabbers isn't > revealed as Peter until after he is knocked out cold. > Lanval: Do we know exactly how much Snape heard? We know when he makes his invisible entrance, but who's to say he wasn't listening at the door prior to that? And the revelation about Peter = Scabbers takes place only minutes before. But leaving that speculation aside for now, here's what happens. Snape's a smart guy, right? He sees Sirius, Lupin and the kids all talking quietly, no threat, no panic. He could tell that the kids at that point perceived neither Sirius nor Lupin as a great threat. They're listening *raptly*. While telling his story, Lupin explains how his friends -- and that includes Peter! -- became Animagi. In great detail. He goes as far as describing Sirius's and James's animagi form as 'large', and Peter's as small enough to crawl under the willow branches, and touch the knot (a concept Snape is all to familiar with *eg*). James, Lupin says, *was* Prongs. Peter, Lupin says, is Wormtail. *Is*. Snape is in the room the entire time. He can see Sirius watching the rat, with a "horrible sort of hunger on his face". When Snape elaborates on the joy of having Sirius's soul sucked, Sirius as good as *begs* him, "You -- you-ve got to hear me out [...] The rat -- look at the rat--" Would it have KILLED Snape to listen for a moment longer? No, but he'd heard enough, I think. This conversation was taking a direction he didn't like, IMO. I have no trouble believing he figured it out. No proof of course. But the possibility is there, very clearly. > colebiancardi: > He doesn't see Scabbers transform into Peter, nor hear Peter's tale, > nor does he see Peter transform back into a rat outside. Snape has no > idea about this, as far as we know(like you said) > > So, if I was in Snape's shoes, I would have done the same thing > (turned him over to the MoM). He isn't a judge or a jury; he is acting > on what he knows about Sirius. Which is the same as the rest of the > Wizarding World; Lupin thinks it about Sirius, Arthur Weasley thinks > it and I would think, as DD didn't do anything to save Sirius 12 years > prior, that even Dumbledore thinks that about Sirius - an escaped > murderer from Azkaban. > Lanval: Sure, no one can blame Snape for doing a Bad Thing legally here. Morally, that's another question. If we were talking about a RL fair justice system in a free and democratic country, Snape does precisely the right thing, legally and morally. But he knows there's no trial awaiting Sirius, no hearing, nothing. It's back to Azkaban at best, immediate soul-sucking, a fate worse than death, much more likely. The latter is in fact what Snape wants and expects. In my mind he has a damned responsibility as a human being to let Sirius have his say, no matter how much he hates him, *especially* since it begins to dawn on him, IMO, that Sirius HAS something important to say. Much is made in Fandom of the Snape - Harry comparison, how often their fate, decisions, and life resemble one another. Well, here's one such comparison. Harry, who hated Sirius as much, if not more, than Snape ever did, hesitates, and listens. To. Reason. A thirteen year old boy can bring himself to do what a grown man cannot. > colebiancardi: > Now, of course, that is in Snape's shoes. If one wasn't Snape and did > not have a hate-hate relationship with Sirius, one might be more > inclined to listen to the escaped murderer while leading him up (bound, > of course) to the castle. > > > But I do have to ask - where is the part where Sirius is gagged? And > by Snape? Lanval: It's in Snape's recounting of events to Fudge. PoA, Am. Ed. p.387: "Extraordinary. And yet Black, and Harry, and the girl --" "All unconscious by the time I reached them. I bound and gagged Black, naturally, conjured stretchers, and brought them all straight back to the castle." End quote. > colebiancardi: > > This just goes to prove that Sirius, in his relationship with Snape, > is no better or worse than Snape. In fact, Snape is treats Sirius > better, because at least he conjured stretchers for them, instead of > the Mobilicorpus spell. Lanval: Well, we can play a game of *who started it*, of course. :) Snape had just announced to Sirius that not only would he get him killed, he would moreover enjoy it. And he refused to listen to Sirius's plea for a minute of his time. Can't blame Sirius either for being a mite grumpy with Snape, and not being particularly attentive to Snape's head. The tunnel is also very narrow; it would have been near impossible to maneuver around with a stretcher in there, or get out of the hole with it. Then, as soon as they were outside Lupin transformed, and all hell broke lose. As for Snape, he had four unconscious people to move, not one, and stretchers were IMO a practical solution, not an act of kindness. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Lanval: > > > The mere possibility that Lupin *might* have returned from the > Forest and *could* have attacked unconscious Ron, Harry, Hermione and > Sirius, or that the Dementors *might* have returned, is not quite > enough reason to pin a lifesaver badge on Snape just yet. Especially > since they are IMO just an annoying extra burden to deal with for > Snape; his main objective is to get Black to the castle. Note that he > finds time to bind and gag Sirius before he loads him unto a > stretcher. > > > I'd say if anybody deserved a badge that night it's Sirius, who > without a doubt saved the kids, Snape and Pettigrew in a true fight > with the werewolf. > > > Carol responds: > No one is taking away from Sirius Black's actions in scaring away the > werewolf (which Snape didn't witness) or from Harry's casting the > Patronus to prevent himself and Black from being soul-sucked in > crediting Snape with saving all four unconscious people. All of their > actions are necessary for events to turn out as they did. Lanval: Renee already argued the circular argument of the time turner much better than I could, so I'll leave that alone for now... just want to add that the outcome depended on more factors than Snape stretchering off the kids; that was but one event in a sequence. And one might just as well argue that Snape brought on much of the disaster in the first place. Had he not rushed to the Shack, who knows -- Lupin may have remebered his forgotten potion, Sirius certainly would not have been burdened with unconscious Snape... Carol: > If conjuring stretchers to take unconscious kids, at least one of them > seriously injured, to the hospital wing rather than leaving them on > the grounds when there's even the remotest chance of their being > bitten by a werewolf isn't saving their lives, what is it? Lanval: Ron was Stunned and had a broken leg; his life seems to have been in no more danger that Harry's or Hermione's. If a pair of dangerous pitbulls roams the neighborhood (as happened here just days ago, when I found myself confronted by three guys with stun-guns in my backyard, informing me of that fact) and five minutes later I spot the neighbor kids playing in the street (which did *not* happen), and I rush out and tell them to go indoors and stay there, maybe walk them home... that's ensuring their safety. I think I'd run into some reluctance on the part of the police and the newspaper, if I tried to get a lifesaver medal and my picture on the front page. If, on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and throw myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different story. I may just deserve that medal then. Carol: > certainly an act of mercy of some sort and protecting them from > danger. (That he had no kind feelings for or intentions toward Sirius > Black is beside the point. He thought Black was trying to murder > Harry, remember? He took him to Fudge rather than dispatching him > himself, which, for Snape, is an act of restraint.) > Lanval: What exactly gave Snape the impression that, during the time he spent listening in the Shack and afterwards, that Sirius was itching to murder Harry? And we've been through the Snape-AK'ing-Sirius-on-the-spot before; that Snape 'restrained himself' from doing so, IMO, in no way counts as a moral decision. The alternative to bring him to Fudge simply was in Snape's better interest. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 24 03:01:28 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:01:28 EDT Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170696 Alla: Okay, the explanation that Snape just did not understand the prophecy always amuses me a lot. Why, why would Snape think that Voldemort even postpone hunting the prophecy couple? Did he ever show that he erm.... postpones hunting after his enemies? Julie: So glad you're amused. Of course, NO ONE fully understands the Prophecy, including the readers, since JKR purposely wrote it ambiguously. And if Snape really didn't hear all of it, how could he possibly understand all it's implications? Please note, I never said Snape assumed someone couldn't or wouldn't get hurt if he told Voldemort about the Prophecy. My point is that we don't know that Snape thought he was turning over a BABY for execution, since he could have easily assumed Voldemort might monitor the situation to see if a child appeared to be turning into a threat. And while it's not likely Voldemort would postpone hunting someone he considers an enemy--he sent out his Death Eaters after Order members presumably, though James and Lily oddly lasted long enough to defy him three times, whatever that means--we don't know that Voldemort ever hunted babies or children specifically, since he would have no reason to consider them any magical threat to him at all. (Children of a targeted adult enemy might certainly become "collateral" damage, but that's a bit different.) If we don't know that, then there's also no way we can know that Snape would have immediately assumed Voldemort would hunt down a baby preemptively to prevent it from growing up to become a potential threat. You may say that Snape should have considered the *possibility*, and perhaps he later wished he had, but in his focus on the order of business--report all he hears promptly to Voldemort--he may well have not given the possible repercussions a whole lot of forethought. (Which is very similar to Sirius setting up the Prank without giving the possible consequences to Snape and *especially* to Lupin much forethought.) Alla: He tries **obsessively** to get the prophecy all year in OOP, does he not? Julie: Er, that's 15 years later, *after* the Prophecy already came true in part by Harry being "marked" as Voldemort's equal, and Harry escaping Voldemort's clutches three different times. OF COURSE Voldemort wants the Prophecy at that point! Alla: What exactly may lead Snape to believe that Voldemort would not act right away? Goodness of his heart? Voldemort's I mean? Julie: As I said before, because Voldemort doesn't *have* to act right away. He has lots of other immediate threats to deal with. Why bother with a baby that can do no magic, and won't be able to do so with any reliability for many years? Alla: Or of course I always offer possibility that Snape is stupid at 20 years old, but no, sorry, even I can not buy it. Julie: Sirius wasn't stupid either. Nor is Harry, or James, or Lupin. But they have all taken actions without fully considering the consequences, and ended up dismayed by the results. You don't have to be stupid to do stupid things. It happens every day ;-) Alla: I think Snape was perfectly aware of what he was doing and what dark deed he was committing ( Please JKR tell me that DD did not tell him to do that, or get them both together to suffer for eternity). Julie: Snape was committing Dark deeds just by being a DE, and this was certainly one of them. I never said he was taking information to Voldemort without expecting people could and would be killed over it. It just doesn't follow that he expected this information to lead to the murder of a baby. Alla: And we do believe Dumbledore, yes? Or we only believe Dumbledore when he *trusts Severus Snape* and do not believe him when he brings up information that does not sound sooo good for Snape? Julie: Or some of us apparently believe the opposite ;-) Seriously, I do believe Dumbledore *both* times. It's possible to do so. Snape as a DE relaying information to a known killer doesn't look sooo good any way you slice it. Alla: And in the quote that Mike brought up, I think it is clear enough for me that the only thing Snape did not know **which boy** Voldemort will be hunting, NOT that he will be hunting a nameless child and his parents. That I think Snape was perfectly aware of. Julie: Dumbledore often shortens explanations to relate the pertinent facts, as we know he has done before. He wants Harry to understand that Snape didn't *target* Harry and his family. He also said right before that "Severus had no idea *how* Voldemort would intepret the Prophecy." The two statements together could mean, "Severus didn't know Voldemort was going to immediately go after a helpless baby, and he certainly had no idea the baby that would be targeted was going to be the son of James and Lily Potter." Or it could mean, "Severus knew Voldemort was going to go out baby-killing but he thought it would be some baby whose parents he didn't know. He's never been much for crying, diaper-messing babies anyway. But he was dismayed to find out he knew the parents. It was one thing killing nameless babies, but another thing killing babies of known schoolmates." Your choice. Either Snape had some sort of conscience and moral code that was activated by Voldemort's targeting of a helpless baby (compatible with DDM), or he doesn't have one but was dismayed by the targeting of *James and Lily's* baby because of that pesky life debt or some weird obsession with Lily (LID, OFH). Really, whatever flavor Snape turns out to be is likely to explain his unclear motivations in many previous situations within itself. He did it all because he has a moral code (DDM), he did it all because of the life debt (LID) or he did it all because he was obsessed with getting Lily (OFH). Alla: Ceridwen brought up a point that Snape had to report it to Dark Lord. Eh, why and if he had to, does it make it better somehow? Julie: Who said it does? Whether Snape reported without considering the impact of the information on other lives because it was his job, or he reported while fully envisoning the worst possible consequences and salivating with glee, he still helped Voldemort carry out his evil. OTOH, maybe it does make a difference, at least when it comes to the man's redeemability. The first one is perhaps capable of remorse, thus potentially redeemable. The second, probably not. Alla: He joined a gang of killers and torturers, so I guess killing and torture was in the job description, does it have to be excused for that reason? Julie: Who's excusing it? Again for me it's more a matter of redeemability. But the debate here is whether Snape assumed Voldemort would immediately target and kill a BABY and *his parents* (I'm not sure where the assumption that the parents must also be killed comes from, but I guess it's because babies are almost always with their parents, unlike older children who might be at school, with friends or even alone), or whether Snape might have taken the Prophecy to Voldemort without making such a SPECIFIC assumption. I simply think it could easily be the latter. Snape would know that the Prophecy could lead to a threat to someone at some point, if Voldemort took it seriously, but he doesn't necessarily make the leap that Voldemort is going to shoot out the door immediately to go baby-hunting. Renee Nor does Dumbledore in any way suggest that Snape saved anyone's life > or soul that night. Claims that Snape saved Harry's life and soul are > therefore grossly exaggerated. Harry1 was saved by Harry2, and by no > one else. Alla: Yes, indeed. Thus when Dumbledore mentions that James saved Snape's life, that means that Snape faced mortal danger, no less. But when Dumbledore says that Harry saved lives that night, it still means that Snape saved lives, LOLOLOLOL. Snape always saves lives after all. After all, he conducted that act of **exceptional kindless**, remember? He conjured stretchers to deliver Sirius to execution. MAHAHAHAH. I will deliver you to death with all care and kindess I can. Julie: I missed where someone said he was "kind." His action was simply that of a decent human being. He could have acted indecently, by leaving them, by kicking Sirius in the head a couple of times (not so different than Sirius banging *his* levitating body against the tunnel walls out of spite), or he could have summoned the Dementors to suck Sirius's soul, and claimed he was still unconscious while it happened. He could have done any number of petty things while he assumed he wasn't being watched. But he didn't. He simply and efficiently did his job. It doesn't have to be a kind act, just the RIGHT act. Proving Snape can (and in this case did) do the right thing on his own initiative, simply *because* it's the right thing. That's not proof of DDM, but it does suggest he was acting on an ethical code, thus it is supportive of the theory. Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jun 24 03:14:37 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 03:14:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170697 Lanval wrote:: If, on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and throw myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different story. I may just deserve that medal then. colebiancardi wrote: funny that you mention that. I know this is about the books and all, but I do wonder WHY this whole exchange was cut out of the movie. Instead, we get what you described - Snape does throw himself between Lupin and kids, protecting them. We don't get the exchange with Fudge & Snape, nor the scene in the hospital wing with Snape & Dumbledore. JKR, by this time, was consulted on the script of PoA and she did approve the new scene of Snape putting himself in front of the children when Lupin transformed. A lot of the "petty" Snape in book version of PoA is cut out in the movie version. I do wonder if that was on purpose; his nastiness and sarcastic behavior is toned down; which is why I believe that movies give a real hint to where Snape's loyalties truly are - that he is DDM!Snape and not ESE!Snape. His whole role as a former DE was downplayed in the movie GoF. Again, why? I know there is a "time" restriction and all - but would it KILL who makes these decisions in the movie version, to add an additional 10 minutes to a 3 hour long movie, if we are to really believe in a Snape that could be going either way? Like we do in the books? I do wonder what JKR discussed with Alan Rickman about his role as Snape. In the movie versions, he is not at all the nasty git, unlike the book versions. I have to think there is something there that speaks to the final version of the Snape in DH. I've been an DDM!Snape'r for a long, long while now - thinking that his description and his mannerisms in the books are the classic "villian" stereotype, which is why I think ESE!Snape is a red herring. That scene in PoA cemented it for me. Anne Squires wrote: Aint It Cool News (quoting Heyman, who is quoting JKR): In the original draft of the screenplay Order of the Phoenix, they had decided to remove a character from the story. Rowling read over the screenplay and said "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that they were free to do whatever they liked, of course, but "if you make a 7th movie you'll have tied your hands." colebiancardi: I bet it was Luna. She really is a minor character in OotP and isn't really necessary for either OotP or HBP (other than comic relief and that I personally think she is great!!) So, this gives me great hope she will be a major player in DH. other possibilites: Tonks Kingsley Shacklebolt Mrs. Arabella Figg as an aside, I cannot believe they have the whole Gawp story line in there - blech. Which means other good stuff will be cut out. colebiancardi From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 24 03:22:13 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 03:22:13 -0000 Subject: Sorting Houses/Sirius's Legacy/Professor Neville/Weasley Given Names/PitBull Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170698 Bart Lidofsky wrote in : << My conclusion from the evidence is that, among the factors the Sorting Hat considers, the student's preference is one. (snip) his would also explain why Cedric got into Hufflepuff; he probably would have been a Gryffindor, but had some reason to choose Hufflepuff >> Like, all his family has been in Hufflepuff? Maybe Hufflepuffs are just Gryffindors who don't seek personal glory. << As a Muggle-born, there was no obvious reason for her to WANT to get into Gryffindor. >> As I am not the first to point out, there's canon in PS/SS: "I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad...." Carol wrote in : << Wonder why the "generous" Black didn't will some robes and money, or even his house, to *Lupin*, who needs them much more than Harry does. >> I like Sirius and I like Severus (as long as he doesn't turn his venom on *me*, whereupon I will switch to hating him) and I like Remus and they're all sexpots. (Digression: I don't like Lucius, but he is definitely a sexpot, too. The listie suggesting JKR4GU calendar guys made just one mistake: she should have put Rufus Scrimgeour instead of Arthur.) But I was quite shocked that Sirius didn't will any money to Remus (not the house; I am sure there are plot reasons why Harry must own the house). All I can figure is that something in those anti-werewolf laws forbids werewolves to inherit anything. Maybe werewolves are forbidden to *own* anything. (I guess Department of Magical Law Enforcements is willing to ignore that he has a couple of shabby robes and a worn-out suitcase that he uses as if he owns, as long as he doesn't offend their sensibilities by renting a flat or wearing nice new robes.) Still, Sirius should have left a note for Harry asking him to help out poor old Remus. Constance_Vigilance wrote in : << The Herbology post is, of course, already filled by Professor Sprout. >> I don't want to wish any harm on any Hogwarts professor still on the job at the end of HBP, but I also don't think any of them are immortal. All of their jobs will be vacant from time to time sometime in the future. Professor Sprout might want to retire someday; Neville IS younger than she is and less likely to be retired by that time. She also might be promoted to Headmistress someday and have to give up teaching Herbology and being Head of House. Bruce wrote in : << Look at the names in the Weasley family. Arthur, Mary (Molly), Charles, William, Percival, Frederick & George, Ronald, and Ginevra.>> I think it's entirely possible that Molly, Charlie, Percy, and Fred are named Molly, Charlie, Percy, and Fred -- no nicknames. JKR said Ginevra's middle name is Molly, indicating that she believes 'Molly' can be a given name, not just a nickname. << kylie: Thanks for writing such wonderful books, Ms Rowling :). Just one question: What are Ron, Hermione and Ginny's middle names? Thank you :) JK Rowling replies -> My pleasure:) Middle names: Ginny is Molly, of course, Hermione 'Jane' and Ron, poor boy, is Bilius. >> I believe Bill is named Bilius, after his uncle Bilius who saw a Grim and died. JKR seems to believe in giving the first-born of each sex the name of the parent of that sex as a middle name; I believe in naming children after deceased relatives. Lanval wrote in : << If a pair of dangerous pitbulls roams the neighborhood (snip) If, on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and throw myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different story. I may just deserve that medal then. >> My spouse's late father's late dog did that, when the pit bull next door got loose from its back yard and menaced a toddler in its front yard. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 04:13:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:13:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170699 > Julie: > So glad you're amused. Of course, NO ONE fully understands the Prophecy, > including the readers, since JKR purposely wrote it ambiguously. And if Snape > really didn't hear all of it, how could he possibly understand all its > implications? Alla: Yes I am amused when I read this argument. And one may not fully understand the prophecy, but I am yet to find one reader ( they may exist of course, just I was not able to find yet) who does not realize that the one with the power to destroy Lordie Voldie approaches. So, yes, I expect no less from Snape. Julie: > Please note, I never said Snape assumed someone couldn't or wouldn't get > hurt if he told Voldemort about the Prophecy. Alla: Good :) Julie: My point is that we don't know > that Snape thought he was turning over a BABY for execution, since he could > have easily assumed Voldemort might monitor the situation to see if a child > appeared to be turning into a threat. Alla: And my point is that I do not understand why Snape would ever make an assumption that Voldemort would monitor the situation to check and see whether threat is real or not. Sounds totally out of character for Voldemort to me and I think should sound out of character to Snape as well. Julie: And while it's not likely Voldemort > would > postpone hunting someone he considers an enemy--we don't know that Voldemort > ever > hunted babies or children specifically, since he would have no reason to > consider > them any magical threat to him at all. Alla: Yes, precisely he targets his enemies right away, so why would anybody think that he would consider postponing targeting baby? > Alla: > What exactly may lead Snape to believe that Voldemort would not act > right away? Goodness of his heart? Voldemort's I mean? > > Julie: > As I said before, because Voldemort doesn't *have* to act right away. He has > lots of other immediate threats to deal with. Why bother with a baby that can > do no magic, and won't be able to do so with any reliability for many years? Alla: It is stated that this baby would have the power to destroy him - sounds as the first order of business to me. IMO. > Alla: > And we do believe Dumbledore, yes? Or we only believe Dumbledore when > he *trusts Severus Snape* and do not believe him when he brings up > information that does not sound sooo good for Snape? > > Julie: > Or some of us apparently believe the opposite ;-) Seriously, I do believe > Dumbledore *both* times. It's possible to do so. Snape as a DE relaying > information to a known killer doesn't look sooo good any way you slice > it. Alla: Oh, I believe Dumbledore in both situations all right. I am pretty sure that he **thought** he had a good reasons to **trust Severus Snape** > Julie: > I missed where someone said he was "kind." Alla: Um, I often make reply to thread in general, when I reply to particular post, sometimes I specify it, sometimes I forget. Sorry about that. But it was said that Snape was **kind** in putting Sirius and kids on stretchers. I will hunt for this post if needed, I am almost positive it was Carol's, just do not remember which one. Julie: His action was simply that > of a decent human being. He could have acted indecently, by leaving them, > by kicking Sirius in the head a couple of times (not so different than Sirius > banging *his* levitating body against the tunnel walls out of spite), or he > could > have summoned the Dementors to suck Sirius's soul, and claimed he was > still unconscious while it happened. He could have done any number of > petty things while he assumed he wasn't being watched. Alla: Him acting in this situation as decent human being is debatable. I wrote in the past on WW being allowed to use deadly force against Sirius - specifically I found no such indications in canon. So to me, Snape bringing Sirius to the castle is doing what he would love to do without risking an Azkaban for murder attempt. He knows that Black would be brought to dementors without further trial, he **hopes** that Dumbledore will not interfere. That is not how decent human being acts to me. > colebiancardi: > > found it!! No OOOPSIE for you!! pg 387-388 AmEd Hardcover PoA > Well, I don't *know* why Snape bound & gagged Sirius when Sirius was > out cold, but then again, Snape also tells the whopper of the Trio > being under Sirius' Confundus Charm. I can only think that Snape is > embellishing here. Ironic, as he accuses the Trio of having a "rather > high opinion of themselves", and I view Snape, during his give & take > with Fudge, in the same way. Alla: Thanks dear :) Yes, the fact that he gagged **unconscious** man suggest to me that Snape may have been really unwilling that authorities would hear Black story. I mean, really maybe he hoped that Sirius would be brought to Dementors gagged for all I know. Thank goodness that Dumbledore finally decided to talk to Sirius thirteen years later. > colebiancardi: > > I didn't say Snape treated Sirius "nicely", lord knows!! I said that > Sirius received better treatment when he was out cold from Snape than > Snape received at the hands of Sirius. > Alla: See what I said to Julie. I tend to reply to the thread in general and sometimes forget to specify. Sorry about that. Oh, and sure if you mean better treatment before delivering him to be kissed, I agree with that. It is just I cannot grasp how the end result of what Snape was going to do can be called better treatment IMO. Colebiancardi: > Again, how Snape perceives Sirius is no different than anyone else in > the Wizarding World up to that point. Dumbledore believed it for 12 > years, until Harry told him the events that had happened. So, I am > not going to hold it against Snape, not in this case. Alla: Snape gagging unconscious man is suspicious to me as I said before. If Snape believed what whole WW did, I will not hold it against him, but if Snape figured it out - whether when he stood and listened or before, then he is, well, sink even lower in my mind, if it is possible. JMO, Alla From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 04:15:15 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:15:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Carol wrote in > : > > << Wonder why the "generous" Black didn't will some robes and money, > or even his house, to *Lupin*, who needs them much more than Harry > does. >> > > But I was quite shocked that Sirius didn't will any money to Remus > (not the house; I am sure there are plot reasons why Harry must own > the house). > > All I can figure is that something in those anti-werewolf laws forbids > werewolves to inherit anything. Maybe werewolves are forbidden to > *own* anything. (I guess Department of Magical Law Enforcements is > willing to ignore that he has a couple of shabby robes and a worn- out > suitcase that he uses as if he owns, as long as he doesn't offend > their sensibilities by renting a flat or wearing nice new robes.) > Still, Sirius should have left a note for Harry asking him to help out > poor old Remus. > Lanval: I haven't answered that post to Carol yet, but here goes: Werewolves might indeed not be able to inherit. Or, Remus may be too proud to take charity from anyone, and may have refused. This would naturally require Sirius to have discussed the will with Remus, who perhaps felt awkward at taking away some of Harry's inheritance -- and protested, promising to hand over every penny Sirius left him to Harry. It's sadly a fact that can't be overlooked, though, that Sirius may not have considered Remus. Sure, for the plot it was crucial that Harry had to inherit, but still.. > > Lanval wrote in > : > > << If a pair of dangerous pitbulls roams the neighborhood (snip) If, > on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and throw > myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different story. I > may just deserve that medal then. >> > Catlady: > My spouse's late father's late dog did that, when the pit bull next > door got loose from its back yard and menaced a toddler in its front yard. > Lanval: Ouch, bless him! I hope this was not the incident that caused him to become a 'late dog'? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > Lanval wrote:: > If, on the other hand, I run outside with a stick or a knife and > throw myself between the dog and the kids, then that's a different > story. I may just deserve that medal then. > > colebiancardi wrote: > > funny that you mention that. I know this is about the books and all, > but I do wonder WHY this whole exchange was cut out of the movie. > Instead, we get what you described - Snape does throw himself between > Lupin and kids, protecting them. We don't get the exchange with Fudge > & Snape, nor the scene in the hospital wing with Snape & Dumbledore. > > JKR, by this time, was consulted on the script of PoA and she did > approve the new scene of Snape putting himself in front of the > children when Lupin transformed. A lot of the "petty" Snape in book > version of PoA is cut out in the movie version. I do wonder if that > was on purpose; his nastiness and sarcastic behavior is toned down; > which is why I believe that movies give a real hint to where Snape's > loyalties truly are - that he is DDM!Snape and not ESE!Snape. His > whole role as a former DE was downplayed in the movie GoF. Again, > why? I know there is a "time" restriction and all - but would it KILL > who makes these decisions in the movie version, to add an additional > 10 minutes to a 3 hour long movie, if we are to really believe in a > Snape that could be going either way? Like we do in the books? > Lanval: Interesting call -- but even as a mere occasional writer I cannot see anyone going through the trouble of writing not just a short scene, but several chapters (stretching from the Shrieking Shack to the last Hospital scene where Snape loses it completely ), putting all that energy into writing such wonderful scenes of Snape being a petty, nasty, vengeful, spittle-spouting GIT... only to later agree that a scene written by someone else is the *real* or *better* version? That she didn't really mean what she wrote? And I think that she merely checked for major pitfalls (such as the graveyard that Cuaron wanted to add), but otherwise let Cuaron and Kloves create their own story. After all, there is so much that's different from PoA. And she's been letting Kloves get away with his version of Ron for a LONG time. > colebiancardi wrote: > I do wonder what JKR discussed with Alan Rickman about his role as > Snape. In the movie versions, he is not at all the nasty git, unlike > the book versions. I have to think there is something there that > speaks to the final version of the Snape in DH. I've been an > DDM!Snape'r for a long, long while now - thinking that his description > and his mannerisms in the books are the classic "villian" stereotype, > which is why I think ESE!Snape is a red herring. That scene in PoA > cemented it for me. Lanval: But why would the directors or Rickman try to tone down Mean!Snape? If he is supposed to be a red herring, why not bring him on, full force? After all, a Bang!effect would be in the movies' best interest too, so why soften it? > > Anne Squires wrote: > > Aint It Cool News (quoting Heyman, who is quoting JKR): > In the original draft of the screenplay Order of the Phoenix, they had > decided to remove a character from the story. Rowling read over the > screenplay and said "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that they were > free to do whatever they liked, of course, but "if you make a 7th > movie you'll have tied your hands." > > colebiancardi: > > I bet it was Luna. She really is a minor character in OotP and isn't > really necessary for either OotP or HBP (other than comic relief and > that I personally think she is great!!) So, this gives me great hope > she will be a major player in DH. > > other possibilites: > > Tonks > Kingsley Shacklebolt > Mrs. Arabella Figg > > as an aside, I cannot believe they have the whole Gawp story line in > there - blech. Which means other good stuff will be cut out. > > colebiancardi > Lanval: Blech for Grawp indeed. But I'd like for the mysterious minor character to be Figgy! *runs off to iron her hands for discussing the medium-that-must-not- be-named* From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jun 24 04:37:36 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:37:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170701 > Julie: > Dumbledore often shortens explanations to relate the pertinent > facts, as we know he has done before. He wants Harry to understand > that Snape didn't *target* Harry and his family. He also said right > before that "Severus had no idea *how* Voldemort would intepret > the Prophecy." Jen: The section you're referring to comes later, after Dumbledore explains that Snape had no way of knowing which boy and parents would be targeted. That's important in the flow of explanation because when Dumbledore said, "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had intepreted the prophecy, Harry," Dumbledore is referring to LV choosing the Potters unless he's contradicting his previous comment. Reading this section another way to assume Snape didn't know what he turned over to LV or didn't think a child and parents would be involved ends up diminishing his remorse and return in my opinion. He was a *real* DE, someone who had shut off his compassion for others in order to serve Voldemort. Then something happened when he found out the Potters were targeted, something that brought about remorse and the 'greatest regret of his life.' IOW, if he truly left Voldemort and returned to Dumbledore, the change involved both his heart (remorse) and his head (regret). Snape opened his eyes to the tragedy of his wrong action because Voldemort's choice was personal to Snape's life. Prior to that time, he did not feel remorse or regret about a random child or family according to Dumbledore's explanation. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 05:24:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 05:24:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170702 Alla wrote: > > Julie: > > I missed where someone said he was "kind." > > Alla: > > Um, I often make reply to thread in general, when I reply to > particular post, sometimes I specify it, sometimes I forget. Sorry > about that. But it was said that Snape was **kind** in putting > Sirius and kids on stretchers. I will hunt for this post if needed, > I am almost positive it was Carol's, just do not remember which one. Carol responds: Not even I would refer to Snape as "kind," though I did use the word in a recent Snape post. Possibly this is the paragraph you had in mind: "If conjuring stretchers to take unconscious kids, at least one of them seriously injured, to the hospital wing rather than leaving them on the grounds when there's even the remotest chance of their being bitten by a werewolf isn't saving their lives, what is it? It's certainly an act of mercy of some sort and protecting them from danger. (That he had no kind feelings for or intentions toward Sirius Black is beside the point. He thought Black was trying to murder Harry, remember? He took him to Fudge rather than dispatching him himself, which, for Snape, is an act of restraint.)" So I did call it "an act of mercy of some sort," by which I meant that he was rescuing helpless people from a sense of duty or responsibility, not acting out of the kindness of his heart. Snape has seldom been kind to anyone in the books though he's occasionally civil or polite. I think the one exception is his treatment of Narcissa in "spinner's End," and even there he's sometimes firm, sometimes kind, sometimes noncommital. (Of course, he's not kind, and barely civil, to Bellatrix and neither kind nor civil to Wormtail.) At any rate, I have no delusions about Snape. He's sarcastic, he docks points unfairly, he's not above petty revenge, and he's done some regretable things (joining the Death Eaters and revealing the Prophecy, for which he's expressed remorse and tried, IMO, to atone, and killing Dumbledore--though that last remains to be explained). Carol, under no delusions about Snape's "kindly" feelings toward the "murderer" Sirius Black or toward Harry, the "mediocre" Chosen One whose life he has to protect if he wants Voldemort to be defeated (and I believe that he does) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jun 24 05:43:56 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 05:43:56 -0000 Subject: Alchemy (Was: Re: Okay, Who Dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170703 > Bruce Alan Wilson: > I think that Hagrid and Fred will die. > > Hagrid because of his first name--Rubeus. The third and final stage > of alchemical transformation is the Rubendo, or Red Stage. The > first two are the Nigrendo (Black) and the Albendo (White). So far > we have had Sirius BLACK and ALBUS Dumbledore die. > Goddlefrood: > First, Nigredo - it means blackening, sorry to be pedantic. > This stage of the alchemical process refers primarily to what > happens before there can be any progress. All that has been > formed is broken apart and becomes dark and dead. It would be > more appropriate to compare the stages to Harry's reactions to > death rather than to try to make it into a pattern of how the > deaths roster would proceed. > > In other words, Sirius's death leads to a shattering of all > Harry's beliefs in the inherent underlying goodness in the > wizarding world. Black's death marks the end of Harry's wonder > of all things wizarding. From that point on he is focused to > his task of tracking down and destroying Lord voldemort and > all his evil works. Jen: You know, I've always agreed with Bruce's outline above which I first read on John Granger's site and found to be a fascinating and reasonable interpretation of the events in the series. Now I think your explanation gets my vote in the alchemy category. :) >From doing a little research on alchemy after reading Granger, I think JKR is using alchemy not only literally with the introduction of the Philosopher's Stone but also adhering to the belief of some alchemists that the physical process of extracting gold or silver from lead could have the effect of transforming a person's soul if the alchemist worked to that end. As the series has progressed and with the introduction of the soul in HBP, it seems that Harry understanding how his power to love is the power 'the Dark Lord knows not' is the quintessential process of Harry's transformation in the series. Back to what you said above, the imagery in OOTP leads me to think the entire book was about the blackening stage and not just Sirius' death. The Disillusionment charm at the beginning of the book marked the process of Harry being stripped down to his essential elements and not liking all that he finds there. The process ends when he learns 'everything' from Albus and recovers a lost part of himself. That signaled a change to the next stage, enlightenment. Goddlefrood: > Second, Albedo - it refers to the whitening or enlightening of > the process. Albus Dumbledore throughout HBP has been preparing > Harry for what lies ahead. Harry is being taught and through that > teaching he reaches the point by the end of HBP that he is aware > of what he must do to move forward in his quest. > > The wise old wizard must be got out of the way for the hero to > proceed, this hads been achieved and JKR has also referred to it > as something that had to happen. The upshot is that Albus had > to die, but not because his name means white, as Albedo on a > literal translation does not. > > Albedo in fact has its roots in washing or cleansing. Harry has > gone through the process of cleansing himself to proceed by both > coming to terms with the deaths of his mentors and by accepting > what he must do. Jen: There's an element of Albus teaching Harry and also an element of Harry changing internally as the year progresses. With Dumbledore's pushing and permission, Harry accesses parts of himself he hasn't used much, like finding his cunning, taking time to plan his actions and starting to gain some control over his emotions. Or rather, setting aside his emotions as secondary to what he must do. As you mentioned, by the end of the book he's translated his time with Dumbledore into resolve and strength of purpose about his quest. Goddlefrood: > The final stage, Rubedo has its roots in love, despite it being > interpreted as the reddening phase for the alchemy based death > prediction theories. It will be through love that Harry conquers > Lord Voldemort. There doesn't seem to be much real dispute about > that and it has been a theme that has run throughout the series > to date. Love being the power Voldemort knows not will be his > ultimate downfall. > > Rubeus will be fine, Madam Maxime will make sure of that. We > shall all soon see though. Jen: This one interests me the most since we haven't seen the Rebedo phase in action. Several thoughts spring to mind: One, that Harry's resolve about his quest will be turned in a way he didn't expect as he claims more of his past during the Horcrux search. His past and the past of the WW will be front in center if I'm divining JKR's clues correctly. ;) So as JKR said, Harry knows or thinks he knows what's ahead, which leaves room for the more important process to take place internally. The last stage of his growth is truly incorportaing all he learned in the Albedo stage and the lessons of love in the Rubedo stage in order to understand how Voldemort can be vanquished. Thanks, Goddlefrood, interesting post. There aren't many alchemy discussions on the list anymore! Jen From lauren1 at catliness.com Sun Jun 24 06:35:20 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:35:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Okay, Who Dies? References: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: <016001c7b62d$208a3320$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 170704 Harry Hermione Ron That's our debate. Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? Your thoughts please. Leonda K. Mahler William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com Hi, I heard somewhere that two people die in DH, but I don't know which ones, and I wish I could remember where I read/heard that. Thanks Lauren ----- Original Message ----- From: W. K. Mahler, Mahlers.com To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:22 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Okay, Who Dies? Harry Hermione Ron That's our debate. Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? Your thoughts please. Leonda K. Mahler William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 11:08 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 24 07:18:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:18:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170705 > > Lanval: > Interesting call -- but even as a mere occasional writer I cannot > see anyone going through the trouble of writing not just a short > scene, but several chapters (stretching from the Shrieking Shack to > the last Hospital scene where Snape loses it completely ), putting > all that energy into writing such wonderful scenes of Snape being a > petty, nasty, vengeful, spittle-spouting GIT... only to later agree > that a scene written by someone else is the *real* or *better* > version? That she didn't really mean what she wrote? And I think > that she merely checked for major pitfalls (such as the graveyard > that Cuaron wanted to add), but otherwise let Cuaron and Kloves > create their own story. After all, there is so much that's different > from PoA. And she's been letting Kloves get away with his version of > Ron for a LONG time. Julie: I really doubt JKR thinks the way Snape was written in POA or in the movies in general is a more *real* or *better* Snape. Not at all. But she did read the scripts, as you say, to warn of any major pitfalls. As for the characters, I imagine as long as they aren't portrayed truly out of character, she leaves it to the script writers to portray the character nuances, such as they are. (So Ron can't be portrayed as a spy for Voldemort, or secretly in love with Draco, but the script writers *can* amp up the funny side of his character while neglecting other aspects.) The movies also have to cram several hundred pages into two plus hours of script so the focus is going to be different. The movies can't afford to go too deeply into those character nuances, especially for the characters outside the Trio, as these three are the stars of the movies to a greater degree even than in the books. While the books focus on character conflict, including conflict between characters outside the Trio, for the movies the most important elements are The Trio, and Action pertaining to trials of The Trio. So what does that mean for Snape's complicated character, his abrasive personality? Like everything else not central to the main plot, or that doesn't lend itself to colorful action scenes, it is downplayed. If Snape's ambiguous loyalties and hatred of James that carries over to Harry becomes a critical part of the main plot in a future movie, then it will be presented in that movie. (I won't be at all surprised if Harry's consuming hatred of Snape throughout HBP translates to something much milder in the movie version, at least until the revelation of Snape leaking the Prophecy to Voldemort, and the murder of Dumbledore.) > > > > colebiancardi wrote: > > I do wonder what JKR discussed with Alan Rickman about his role as > > Snape. In the movie versions, he is not at all the nasty git, > unlike > > the book versions. I have to think there is something there that > > speaks to the final version of the Snape in DH. I've been an > > DDM!Snape'r for a long, long while now - thinking that his > description > > and his mannerisms in the books are the classic "villian" > stereotype, > > which is why I think ESE!Snape is a red herring. That scene in PoA > > cemented it for me. > > > Lanval: > But why would the directors or Rickman try to tone down Mean!Snape? > If he is supposed to be a red herring, why not bring him on, full > force? After all, a Bang!effect would be in the movies' best > interest too, so why soften it? Julie: As I said, the Bang in the HP movies tends to appear later, when it's directly relevant to the main plot of *that* movie. So when Harry discovers Snape leaked the Prophecy, and of course once Snape murders Dumbledore, this will be the point when movie-only HP fans recognize that Snape's current loyalties are suddenly in question. Up until then, Snape was merely former!DE not-so-nice but not-too-hateful Potions professor to HP movie-only fans. (Of course, that will then be followed by the second Bang! when Snape helps Harry defeat Voldemort in movie DH ;-) Truthfully, that's just how it works in the movies. If the Bang isn't imminent, then they won't bother building up to it until the Bang is imminent. Moviegoers expect an immediate payoff, not one six movies down the line. As for Snape's ultimate loyalties, JKR did tell Rickman something about the character. Whether it pertained to that issue, I don't know. But Rickman does play down Snape's nastier expressions, and plays up Snape's sense of responsibility toward his students. Maybe it means something, or maybe Rickman's setting up the character for the ultimate Bang effect in DH. I doubt it's the latter, but you never know ;-) Julie, who thinks the movies are fun, but they cannot begin to compare to the immense pleasure of reading the books. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Jun 24 08:44:20 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (David Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:44:20 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170706 Anne Squires: > > Thus, whomever the makers of the medium-not-to-be-named originally > wanted to exclude from OotP must seem like a minor character; but will > turn out to be crucial in DH. > > Who could that be? Dave: Because he seems deceptively easy to overlook (as the Unnamed Medium apparently did all the other Hufflepuffs in the DA), and yet is a likely descendent of Hepzibah Smith, and is therefore a potential lead in the hunt for the Cup, I'm going to guess that it's Zacharias. Dave From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 24 09:12:34 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:12:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170707 zgirnius: > He does not know what has happened since he was knocked out. His > continuing survival could be due to other factors - an escape > attempt by the kids, an attack by Dementors, a falling out among >villains, etc. Dana: Precisely he doesn't know but yet he assumes the worst. There is no logic to Lupin and Sirius taking everyone out of the shack while they could kill everyone IN the shack and it would take ages for their bodies to be found and it would have given Sirius and Lupin a pretty darn good head start for them to escape. Snape already knows he was knocked out by the kids because he did not want to listen to reason and he already knew from the listening in on the scene for more then 10 minutes that there was no immediate danger. And no, I can't see how Snape's waiting and listening in on Lupin telling his story would classify as Snape believing Sirius is a murderer Harry needs saving from because the scene would have played out differently if he had. He would have rushed in and taken out the threat immediately but that is not what we see him do and him revealing himself also did not have anything to do with him seeing any kind of threat. Snape does not even take out Lupin until he wants Lupin to shut up and he never bounds and gags Sirius because the wandless Sirius Black does not posse a threat to Snape. zgirnius: > But it is, this is human nature. Snape was not looking for reasons > to clear Sirius, so it seems reasonable to me that during an > emotion and surprise filled time in which Lupin manages to forget > his condition more than once, Snape might not add together the > disparate facts into the correct story which does not fit his > cherished beliefs. > > Snape did not deny any plainly stated facts - the facts were not > stated plainly to him. Dana: Harry and Hermione plainly state the facts to him and when DD enters the scene he immediately goes on to state to DD that Black is probably claiming the same fairy tale Harry is stating. Something about a rat and Pettigrew still being alive (PoA pg 286 UKed PB chapter "Hermione's secret") And DD indicates that it is indeed Black's story. So apparently he had already managed to process the information in just a few seconds because Harry and Hermione only relayed this to Fudge just mere seconds before DD walks in. Hermione also specifically states that Ron's rat was the animagus Pettigrew and then Snape tries to plead his case with DD that he did not see Pettigrew anywhere while we know for a fact that he did see Ron's rat as it had been pointed out to him twice. Also the mere fact that he needs to plead with DD is an indication that Snape knows that DD believes Sirius story but yet it isn't enough for Snape to back off. Snape indeed wasn't looking for reasons to clear Sirius because he had no intentions of finding the truth and as we see Snape really tries to shut everyone up because he does not want Fudge to change his mind about Sirius. He does not want the truth to come out and be proven wrong because he had been working all year to proof others wrong, meanly DD. Justice had nothing to do with what Snape wanted to accomplish that night. He did not go after Lupin because he was a good citizen and wanted to comprehend a murderer and his accomplice. He wanted justification for something that happened to him and he did not get 20 years ago and he desperately wanted to proof the person who did not give it to him wrong -> DD. Snape in the hospital wing after he knows that his so-called evidence will not be enough to change DD's mind about believing Sirius's story, changes his focus to himself and that DD had forgotten that Sirius tried to murder him. That is when Snape truly reveals what his intention for Black is about. He does not state to DD; "remember he was the Potters SK and therefore it could only have been him who betrayed the Potters". Why would Snape try to persuade DD with something that had nothing to do with the charges against Sirius in the first place? Because it was not about Harry or the Potters or the death of Pettigrew or the 12 muggles, it was about Snape's personal justice for what was done to him. He does not want to hear anything that would exonerate Sirius, because it was not about Harry but about Severus Snape and only about Severus Snape and why he chased Lupin in the first place and why he did not immediately rush into the scene to put a stop to it. Also isn't it funny that Snape with as little evidence and just mere circumstances was able to conclude the Lupin must have been helping Black while this certainly was not stated plainly to him but then when the same amount of information, or even more actually, is stated plainly to him, he is suddenly incapable of processing the information? Which actually is proven in the scene that he does process it but he just chose to underline that he did not see Pettigrew and leaves out that he did see a rat present in their company that is no longer there if I might add. To me, Snape's behavior in the hospital wing and the things Harry hears him say to Fudge outside of DD's point of view,will never be an indication that Snape had moral justice on his mind. And if he truly had done it all for Harry then he, like Lupin and Sirius when they wanted to kill Peter for what he had done, would have listened to Harry because it was Harry that was supposedly in danger, it was Harry's parents that where supposedly betrayed by Sirius. Also Snape is such a good Legilimens as has been pointed out so many times he surely would know if the kids were lying but he is actions actually do indicate he knows they are telling the truth and why he yells at them to shut up. zgirnius: > And one key fact was missing. That Peter was an Animagus he heard. > That Peter's form was on the small side, he heard, but he had no > reason to believe that Peter was alive. *That* was one of the bits > he did not overhear, and noone mentioned it after he made his > presence known. Dana: Interesting because both Harry and Hermione mention this to Snape in the hospital wing and with the information Snape already had, it should have made him pause for a second and think. H? I did see a rat and I did hear about them being animagi and I did witness Lupin and Sirius being very calm and unarmed and I listened to Lupin explain things to Harry and they did not kill me even though Sirius hates my guts as much as I hate him. Boy, maybe I've been wrong. But Snape has a tendency to never admit to being wrong in public as we only ever hear DD state Snape claimed he was sorry. If Snape had taken the time to listen and as Hermione points out would not have hurt him one bit, then Lupin and Sirius could have proved to him Pettigrew was indeed Ron's rat. But instead Snape yells at her to hold her tong because she doesn't understand and he does so again when she is talking to him in the hospital wing. Snape doesn't want to be proven wrong, he wants to be right and he wants Sirius to have a faith worse then death because it is the only thing that will be gratifying justice to fulfill Snape's personal revenge. Tell me one thing why would Snape even need to provide evidence to proof he was right. Sirius is already looking at facing the Dementors kiss and when DD enters the hospital wing he is not trying to change Fudge's mind about things. So what is Snape afraid off? Indeed that DD will believe Sirius over him once again. It is no longer about justice because Sirius is already locked up and only minutes away from getting his soul sucked out. It is now all about Snape trying to prevent DD from helping Sirius and because DD was present with him and Fudge when they went up to Sirius, it could only be Potter that helped Sirius escape. To me this WAS the turning point of ever believing Snape would be trustworthy when it comes to moral judgment because you will never know what he will think will be justified to do when it comes to him getting his revenge. He already believes it is justifiable to withhold information that could support the story of truth because he does not want the truth to come out. Interesting that it is precisely the same thing he is doing that Lupin has been accused of doing when he withheld information about Sirius being an animagus. So in this case Snape puts Sirius life willingly in danger because he does not want to believe that it was not James that was to arrogant for not wanting to believe that he might be mistaken in Black but Severus Snape himself who was to arrogant to believe he might be mistaken in Black. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Jun 24 09:25:48 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:25:48 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170708 Anne Squires: > > Thus, whomever the makers of the medium-not-to-be-named > > originally wanted to exclude from OotP must seem like a minor > > character; but will > > turn out to be crucial in DH. > > > > Who could that be? Dave: > Because he seems deceptively easy to overlook (as the Unnamed > Medium apparently did all the other Hufflepuffs in the DA), and > yet is a likely descendent of Hepzibah Smith, and is therefore a > potential lead in the hunt for the Cup, I'm going to guess that > it's Zacharias. Dana: I thought it was already stated that JKR stepped in when they wanted to cut out Kreacher but that he was essential to something that would happen in DH. So I do not know why it would now suddenly involve anyone else being cut out the script that JKR prevented. JMHO Dana From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 24 11:43:43 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:43:43 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: Tandra: > > > So what's to say that if an AK is reflected that the person who cast > > > it doesn't lose a piece of their soul in the process. Maybe passing it > > > onto Harry through the scar very untintentionally. Isn't there a > > > theory that he entered the house with the intent to make his last > > > Horocrux anyway, so what's to say he hadn't already started said > > > complicated process before he got to the house and it was somehow > > > completed when the AK failed. > > Geoff: > > A quick thought. > > If, as you suggest, he had possibly already started the > > process, it should be remembered that he did kill two > > people in advance of his attempt on Harry and if his > > intent was to kill Harry, so why would he be "assembling" > > the Horcrux spell for use that night... > TKJ: > He would of wanted to use what was prophesied(sp) to be his biggest > foe as his last Horcrux. That's the way I see it. Yes, he could of > used Lilly or James but seeing as he seems to be all sentimental about > things...it makes sense to me that he would of saved the last one for > his "biggest" enemy. Geoff: Yes, but that doesn't fit the events. I wonder if you have fallen into the common mistake of treating a Horcrux as the actual soul fragment. Remember that "a Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul". (Slughorn in HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition). If Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow with the intent of making Harry into a Horcrux, he would not be casting an Avada Kedavra curse on him because a dead Harry could not become a Horcrux. From lauren1 at catliness.com Sun Jun 24 11:19:13 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:19:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In (many) years to come...? References: Message-ID: <0ee601c7b656$82ada810$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 170710 Snape's Witch: True!! Then there's the fact that we can't very well be reading a story with the POV of someone who's dead! Oh dear -- unless Harry's a 'ghost' writer? Sorry, just had to say that! ;-) Hi, Unless Harry dies and is resurrected, both of which I hope will not happen. Thanks Lauren ----- Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Snape To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 7:07 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In (many) years to come...? houyhnhnm: > > I just came across that a couple of days ago while > looking up something else. SS, Scholastic, p. 262: > In years to come Harry would never quite remember how > he had managed to get through his exams when he half > expected Voldemort to come bursting through the door > at any moment. > > The "years to come" could mean only the next six, but > it is suggestive, isn't it, of someone looking back > over a great distance of time? > Snape's Witch: True!! Then there's the fact that we can't very well be reading a story with the POV of someone who's dead! Oh dear -- unless Harry's a 'ghost' writer? Sorry, just had to say that! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 6/23/2007 11:08 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 24 14:53:57 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:53:57 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170711 > Lanval: > We know Madam Pomfrey likes to exaggerate the state of her patients, > so I wouldn't put too much into her "he'll live". > > Ron is awake and talking coherently when Harry and Hermione return, > when very little time has actually elapsed. It's not as if Ron was > out for days. He leaves the Hospital Wing the next day, along with > the two others. We know stunning spells can have more severe > consequences for people who are weak or elderly, and Ron was in a > lot of pain already when the spell hit him, which is perhaps why he > remained knocked out for a bit longer than expected. Pippin: Why would he be in pain once Madam Pomfrey had fixed his broken leg, and why wouldn't she bring him around with (r)ennervate? Ron took stunners one after another in GoF with no ill effects. This is a different spell, one that Know-it-all Hermione doesn't recognize: --- "What did he do to him?" Hermione whispered. Ron's eyes were only half-closed, his mouth hung open; he was definitely alive, they could hear him breathing, but he didn't seem to recognize them. --- OTOH, Krum, whom Dumbledore diagnosed as Stunned, was unconscious and his eyes were closed. Lanval: > Besides, Crookshanks gets hit with what I assume to be the same > spell, same strength, and since I don't believe for a minute that > the Rat was trying to be gentle with that particular cat, and no > harm has come to Crookshanks, I must logically assume that the spell was harmless enough. Pippin: A spell designed for use on humans may or may not have the same effects on a cat-kneazle mix. As for no ill effects, that's a guess -- though I guess it proves JKR really isn't much of an animal lover. Hermione, who is supposed to adore her cat, never even wonders if Crookshanks is okay. Oops. > Lanval: > But Sirius neither had a wand, nor could he move, being bound. Do we > know of any spells that are nonverbal, wandless AND require no hand > movement? Pippin: Dumbledore says that Snape's story is plausible, and that means Sirius could have put the confundus curse on all three kids without a wand. Plus, he'd managed to escape from Azkaban and that was supposed to be impossible, so who knew what he could do? However, I thank you for your question, because it made me realize that Tom Riddle got himself and two children down a very steep cliff with no wand and no ropes -- and that has *very* interesting implications for Dumbledore's fall from the tower. :) > > Pippin: > > Snape's behavior in the Hospital Wing is in character for the > > part he is playing -- insisting that his old rival must pay, > wanting > > glory for himself, and saying that he thinks Harry is being > > indulged by the Headmaster into thinking too much of himself. > > Those are not crimes, either for Snape or for Harry, so it > > hardly matters whether Fudge agrees or not. > > > > The thing Snape could really use to get Harry expelled, proof > > that Harry had broken wizarding law, Snape chooses not to use. > > He doesn't blame Harry, Ron and Hermione for attacking him. > Lanval: > > Well, Pippin, you lost me here,as surely you knew you would. :) > Since I don't believe for a second that Snape is acting, I can't > discuss that possibility. Pippin: Er, you did say Snape was lying his butt off or at least spinning a fine fantastic yarn. The only question is whether he was acting to get some glory, or acting the part of a glory seeker. But acting he surely was. :) Lanval: > As to Snape not blaming the kids -- why mention them in the first > place? Fudge assumed the "nasty cut" to be caused by Sirius, and > Snape corrects him, saying it was the kids. Why? Sounds like a good > way and a perfect time to bring up the Confunded theory --which not > only glosses over the embarrassing fact that Snape was overcome by > three third years, but it would also support that the kids really > *were* Confunded. Attacking a teacher! Pippin: The Shrieking Shack is not part of Hogwarts. A violation of the Reasonable Restriction for Underage Wizardry would constitute grounds for expulsion, whether Snape was attacked or not. As the Ministry might already have evidence that three expelliarmus charms were cast simultaneously, they had better be accounted for. As far as embarrassment goes, according to his story, Snape let himself be attacked by three students when he knew were being controlled by a dark wizard. Shouldn't have said he'd caught on at once, should he? :) Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jun 24 16:57:11 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 24 Jun 2007 16:57:11 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/24/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1182704231.8.44370.m57@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170712 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday June 24, 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 bartl at sprynet.com Sun Jun 24 18:04:06 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:04:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In (many) years to come...? In-Reply-To: <0ee601c7b656$82ada810$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> References: <0ee601c7b656$82ada810$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <467EB216.1090409@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170713 Lauren Merryfield wrote: > Unless Harry dies and is resurrected, both of which I hope will not happen. Bart: Of course, one has to define "dies" and "resurrected". I think that Sirius is alive, behind the Veil (as he is still in his body). That does not mean that he can be brought back, but, let's say, just for arguments' sake, that Harry pulls Snape with him through the Veil (not such an off-the-wall theory, as it fits in quite well with the theme of free will, or choice, overcoming Prophecy). This could set up the scenario for a double sacrifice, where Sirius, this time voluntarily, allows himself to be doomed, for real this time, to get Harry back to our side of the Veil. I doubt that will be what really happens, but I daresay it WOULD be satisfactory to the readers. Bart From twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 18:19:15 2007 From: twirliewirlie85 at yahoo.com (Jo (Joanna)) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:19:15 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170714 Leonda K. Mahler and William K. Mahler wrote: Harry Hermione Ron That's our debate. Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? Your thoughts please. Jo writes: This is just pure speculation but, I have (as many others no doubt have) been thinking about how the story can end and wondered whether we would go back to where we started. Therefore, I thought maybe Hermione and Ron will marry and have a baby but they will both die in the fight against Voldemort and the baby will be left with Harry, the Godfather, and he will have the chance to do the right thing by the little orphan, unlike the Dursleys did with him. Therefore showing how Harry has become a well rounded adult and showing how he will be able to live happily ever after. Having said all of this, I don't want any of the three to die. Jo. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 18:41:22 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:41:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170715 > > Pippin: > Why would he be in pain once Madam Pomfrey had fixed his > broken leg, and why wouldn't she bring him around with > (r)ennervate? Ron took stunners one after another in GoF with > no ill effects. > Lanval: I meant that he was injured and in pain, and perhaps feeling weak, *before* he got hit by Pettigrew's spell, so the effect may have been worse than if he'd been feeling fine. Pippin: > This is a different spell, one that Know-it-all Hermione > doesn't recognize: > --- > "What did he do to him?" Hermione whispered. Ron's eyes > were only half-closed, his mouth hung open; he was > definitely alive, they could hear him breathing, but he > didn't seem to recognize them. > --- > > OTOH, Krum, whom Dumbledore diagnosed as Stunned, was > unconscious and his eyes were closed. > Lanval: I still think it was a Stunner, and I think eyes closed or half open may just be a reaction different for each victim, but you make a good point about Hermione being puzzled by the spell. > > Pippin: > A spell designed for use on humans may or may not have the > same effects on a cat-kneazle mix. As for no ill effects, that's > a guess -- though I guess it proves JKR really isn't much of > an animal lover. > > Hermione, who is supposed to adore her cat, never even > wonders if Crookshanks is okay. Oops. > Lanval: I was thinking the same thing, after reading it again yesterday! As a Crookshanks fan, I hereby voice my protest. :) I'll agree with you that it may have been a spell unknown to us and Hermione. However, I still don't see proof that Ron's life was in danger. No way Madam Pomfrey would have let him walk out of the Hospital Wing the next day then. I think her 'grimness' has to do with the fact that she believes the spell to have been cast by Sirius Black, which in her opinion would likely make it more heinous than had it come from anyone else. > > Lanval: > > But Sirius neither had a wand, nor could he move, being bound. Do we > > know of any spells that are nonverbal, wandless AND require no hand > > movement? > > Pippin: > Dumbledore says that Snape's story is plausible, and that means > Sirius could have put the confundus curse on all three kids > without a wand. Plus, he'd managed to escape from Azkaban > and that was supposed to be impossible, so who knew what > he could do? > Lanval: DD says that Snape's tale is believable as a whole, but people would hardly fish for details like what wand Black was using, or whether Black is capable of nonverbally casting a Confundus charm. The story that Snape caught Black works with or without the Confundus charm. Besides, I was talking about unconscious, bound Sirius on the stretcher. I see no evidence that Snape ever believes the kids to *be* Confunded, and thus can't really accept this argument as support for Snape fearing Black's nonverbal/wandless magical ability when he stretchers him off. It also makes the point about Sirius Confunding the kids without a wand moot. To me it's still about keeping Sirius quiet. Pippin: > However, I thank you for your question, because it made me > realize that Tom Riddle got himself and two children down > a very steep cliff with no wand and no ropes -- and that > has *very* interesting implications for Dumbledore's fall > from the tower. :) > Lanval: Well, do enlighten us! :) > > Lanval: > > > > Well, Pippin, you lost me here,as surely you knew you would. :) > > Since I don't believe for a second that Snape is acting, I can't > > discuss that possibility. > > Pippin: > Er, you did say Snape was lying his butt off or at least spinning > a fine fantastic yarn. The only question is whether he was acting > to get some glory, or acting the part of a glory seeker. But > acting he surely was. :) > Lanval: Yes, he was lying to Fudge, or at least embellishing, about what happened in the Shack and at the lake. But that's not *acting*, is it? His glory-seeking, his wanting the kids punished, wanting Black dead and Lupin dead or in Azkaban -- those intentions were real and heartfelt IMO, as was his rage; it was the events meant to convince Fudge that he lied about. > Lanval: > > As to Snape not blaming the kids -- why mention them in the first > > place? Fudge assumed the "nasty cut" to be caused by Sirius, and > > Snape corrects him, saying it was the kids. Why? Sounds like a good > > way and a perfect time to bring up the Confunded theory --which not > > only glosses over the embarrassing fact that Snape was overcome by > > three third years, but it would also support that the kids really > > *were* Confunded. Attacking a teacher! > > Pippin: > The Shrieking Shack is not part of Hogwarts. > A violation of the Reasonable Restriction for Underage Wizardry > would constitute grounds for expulsion, whether Snape was > attacked or not. As the Ministry might already have evidence that > three expelliarmus charms were cast simultaneously, they had better > be accounted for. Lanval: Do you think the MoM bothers keeping track of spells cast out of Hogwarts boundaries during the school year? I get the impression that Hogsmeade weekends involve all sorts of magic being flung about outside of school grounds. I don't recall ever reading anything about any restrictions applying there. And what about the Hogwarts Express? But to get back to the point -- it was Snape's choice to bring up the kids. He could have simply agreed to Fudge's suggestion that it was Black's work, perhaps earned a few more points with Fudge for suffering a bloody injury in the course of catching Black. Pippin: > > As far as embarrassment goes, according to his story, Snape let > himself be attacked by three students when he knew were being > controlled by a dark wizard. Shouldn't have said he'd > caught on at once, should he? :) > Lanval: Ah, but he didn't say they were being controlled by a Dark Wizard, did he? He said they were Confunded, confused, befuddled. Which isn't the same as Imperio'd. The way I see it, Snape has several options here. 1. He says nothing about the kids and accepts Fudge's suggestion that it was Black who caused the injury, because being overcome by three third years would be embarrassing for Snape, Dueling Master. He might thus look more heroic to Fudge -- but he still has to take into consideration that three underage wizards's testimony *might* influence Fudge's opinion. Same reason why he gags Sirius IMO. He can't take any chances. His remark about hoping that DD will not cause problems would support that as well. 2. He tells the truth, hoping the kids get expelled. No added heroism, plus some embarrassment, but the joyful possibility of perhaps seeing the last of them. 3. He tells the truth, but adds the lie that the kids were Confunded. It may still not cut out the embarrassment factor entirely, and he probably won't get them expelled that way, but the kids being Confunded will weigh heavily in his favor when it comes to contradicting their story. Plus, he can work out some extra punishment for them by stressing their rule breaking and trying to go after Black. He chooses 3. Really, to me Snape's actions, be it in the Shack when he screams at Hermione, or in the Hospital Wing, strongly suggest Snape realizing that there *is* a case to be made for Sirius, that there *is* reasonable doubt concerning his guilt -- and Snape cannot let that happen. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jun 24 18:45:24 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (gardclan2001) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:45:24 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: <001f01c7b53d$68554640$2f01a8c0@mahlerscom> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170716 > Harry > Hermione > Ron > > That's our debate. > > Do we have to wait till "Deathly Hallows" is released to know? > > Your thoughts please. > > Leonda K. Mahler > William K. Mahler, http://www.mahlers.com > Yes, we have to wait until Deathly Hallows comes out to know for sure- I wouldn't put stock in anyone who swears they know of "inside information" at this point! Along this lines, though, I had a dream last night: Harry was working with a set of ghosts- people that Lord Voldemort had killed and who had stayed behind as Ghosts to get their revenge on LV (much like Myrtle stayed behind to haunt Olive for teasing her). In this group of ghosts were family members of Hogwart's students, and among them were Ron, Draco and Ernie McMillian. It was just a dream, but my pick would be Ron. Harry is the one who has to go one alone- Hermione is just someone who feeds him key information that will help him when he gets there, much like in the series of challenges when they were hunting Quirrell. As in the chess game, Ron will be the sacrifice that helps Harry move on. Shelley From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 18:45:39 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:45:39 -0000 Subject: HP Memories (Fairly Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170717 I cannot believe that DH is so close now! And OotP being released just 10 days before! I mean, I know we all know it, but I am just so freakin' excited, I can't believe it. For the UK members - is OotP being released on July 11th in the UK, too? Just wondering. I decided to reread all the books this week, and I have started reading SS/PS again, which I haven't read for quite a long time. I forgot the thrill that the first book has, as the reader discovers all the things that Harry discovers, and we meet many of the central characters for the first time. I remember reading SS/PS when my now husband and I were on vacation with friends, and I never even heard of Harry Potter. I just picked up the book in a discount bookstore at the beach, as light reading for the holiday. I stayed up all night that first night, and finished the book before dawn. It was really a magical moment for me, reigniting my childhood love of fantasy, which I hadn't lost entirely, but had allowed to become dormant. Reading HP inspired me to pick up all the books from my childhood, like the Narnia series, and the Redwall books, and rewatch movies like Legend and the Neverending Story...and it really changed my life. I found my "inner fairy", as I call her. I had read little but Britsh history books for years, and I had lost even my love for the romance of history. HP made me also remember how much I love myth - and I began reading Norse and Celtic myths and legends. I reread Arthurian romance - Mallory and all that. HP really changed my life for the better, and I cannot help but feel a real loss here "at the end of all things,", to quote Frodo Baggins. I feel so excited to find out how it will all be resolved, but so sad that it is ending. I commented to my mother a while back that I feel awfully lucky to have been part of this - to have been around while the books were being released - while no one except JKR knew how it would turn out. My kids will read HP, and they will love it, but it will be a classic by then - like Narnia or LOTR was for me. I am so grateful that I got to live the excitement of watching the story develop, without knowing how it will all end. It's very special. Anyway, that's all. I just had to share my excitement with my fellow HP lovers. Harry on, all! Katie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 19:20:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:20:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170718 Lanval wrote: > Ah, but he didn't say they were being controlled by a Dark Wizard, > did he? He said they were Confunded, confused, befuddled. Which > isn't the same as Imperio'd. > > The way I see it, Snape has several options here. > > 1. He says nothing about the kids and accepts Fudge's suggestion > that it was Black who caused the injury, because being overcome by > three third years would be embarrassing for Snape, Dueling Master. > > He might thus look more heroic to Fudge -- but he still has to take > into consideration that three underage wizards's testimony *might* > influence Fudge's opinion. Same reason why he gags Sirius IMO. He > can't take any chances. His remark about hoping that DD will not > cause problems would support that as well. > > > 2. He tells the truth, hoping the kids get expelled. No added > heroism, plus some embarrassment, but the joyful possibility of > perhaps seeing the last of them. > > 3. He tells the truth, but adds the lie that the kids were > Confunded. It may still not cut out the embarrassment factor > entirely, and he probably won't get them expelled that way, but the > kids being Confunded will weigh heavily in his favor when it comes > to contradicting their story. > > Plus, he can work out some extra punishment for them by stressing > their rule breaking and trying to go after Black. > > He chooses 3. > > Really, to me Snape's actions, be it in the Shack when he screams at > Hermione, or in the Hospital Wing, strongly suggest Snape realizing > that there *is* a case to be made for Sirius, that there *is* > reasonable doubt concerning his guilt -- and Snape cannot let that > happen. > Carol responds: Or the Confundus Charm idea could be self-delusion similar to Lupin's belief that Sirius Black, whom he knows to be an Animagus, used Dark Magic that he learned from Voldemort to get past the Dementors at Azkaban and again on the Hogwarts. Both are convinced (until Lupin sees Peter Pettigrew on the map) that Sirius Black is the traitor and murderer; both believe that Peter Pettigrew is dead; both are comfortable with that version of events and work to preserve them, Lupin by concealing information about Sirius Black that allows him to enter Hogwarts twice with a twelve-inch knife; Snape by interrupting Lupin at a point that might have shown his view of events to be wrong. And meanwhile, Sirius Black has taken justice into his own hands, terrorizing the school and trying to murder a rat and doesn't want Lupin delaying matters by explaining to Harry what's going on. Lupin's words about a "schoolboy grudge" have exactly the wrong effect. Thjey incense Snape instead of getting him to listen to their story. Not one of them is behaving sensibly; all of them believe what they want to believe. Before he enters the Shrieking Shack, Snape has no way of knowing that Pettigrew is alive, and even then he only hears that Pettigrew, whom he "knows" to be dead, was an Animagus, smaller than the others, along with Black's incoherent, "The rat! Look at the rat!"--not enough, especially given Snape's animosity and his belief that he's saving the kids from a werewolf and a murderer (whom James Potter was too "arrogant" not to suspect of being a traitor) to convince him that his version of events is in some respects inaccurate. (After all, Black has twice broken into the school and slashed up portraits and bedcurtains, Lupin appears to be helping him into the school and helping Harry get into Hogsmeade undetected, Lupin has rushed out to the Shrieking Shack without his potion--*of course,* Snape wants to be proven right and be a hero at the same time, in essence undoing his previous humiliation--and peril--in the Shrieking Shack. He's making things right in his own mind.) If it weren't for his antagonistic relationship with MWPP and his yearlong distrust of Lupin, not to mention the version of events that has been ingrained in his mind for twelve years, Snape might have been able to put two and two together and conclude that Pettigrew was Scabbers from the tidbits of information that he hears. But since he did not hear an outright statement that Pettigrew was a rat Animagus and is in the room with him, and since such a revelation would be much less satisfactory than having Black as the traitorous Secret Keeper out to murder Harry (not to mention that the whole story is so preposterous that DD is sure that Fudge won't believe it), Snape would not have believed it without seeing it confirmed, just as the kids didn't believe it until Lupin and Black transformed Scabbers into Pettigrew before their eyes. (I don't think he fully believed it until he saw Sirius Black transform into a dog in front of him at the end of GoF, and perhaps saw Wormtail at Voldemort's side, at which point, he could retain his hatred of Sirius Black for the so-called Prank but would have had to let go of his precious delusions about Black being the Secret Keeper and Potter being too "arrogant" to suspect him.) I agree that Snape *wants* to believe that Sirius Black is the "murderin' traitor" and that Lupin is his werewolf accomplice. The Confundus Charm nicely supports that view and allows him to continue deluding himself for a little longer, at the same time getting the kids off the hook for attacking a teacher and preventing them from being expelled. So I don't think that Snape is lying, exactly. He's presenting the version of events that he wants to believe. Only when Dumbledore hints to him that Harry and Hermione have been using the Time Turner with his permission does Snape storm out, recognizing defeat. Carol, who thinks that Snape's disappointment had nothing to do with the Order of Merlin and everything to do with being wrong about Black (and Lupin), whom he wanted to see in the worst possible light From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Sun Jun 24 19:33:58 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:33:58 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (1 of 2) (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170719 Before I begin I warn you that this is long and rather pretentious, so unless you happen to have been an English major you may wish to skip it. Nonetheless, I hope someone will enjoy it. Thanks to Zara and Jen for their help. There's a fair bit of discussion about how good a writer J. K. Rowling is, some complimentary, some not. One of the things I hear most frequently in Rowling's favour (although less than I used to) is that she's an excellent plotter. Here's an essay from the Lexicon describing the subplots in PoA: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-plotlines-pa.html Arguments about using foreshadowing and repetition to predict the contents of DH, of course, implicitly support this idea. But I don't think this is plotting, nor that Rowling is a good plotter. This isn't an attack, nor is it meant to make me seem like a rebel. I think what the Lexicon writer and many other HP fans, including me, agree on is that the HP books are well constructed. But I don't think any of the HP books so far has had a plot. This is because in my opinion a plot is neither "a sequence of events in a fictional work", nor is it necessary for a work. My personal and idiosyncratic definition of a plot is "The sequence of events in a work resulting mainly from the protagonist/s's actions, other characters' reactions, and the setting ? as opposed to events programmed by the author, the narrator's choice of what to narrate, and so on ? which are visible to the reader and directed towards reaching the work's most important narrative strand". Let me explain that. It's important that the protagonist tends to be active because this means that her actions are organic; if she tends to be passive, what happens to her is decided by other characters or the author, and can appear or even be arbitrary or schematic. Story is a fundamentally emotional rather than intellectual thing, and it has to be organic. On the other hand, not all fiction has very much Story in it. Setting defines what characters' actions and reactions can be. "Events programmed by the author" are planned and inserted where he wishes, and which the characters have to react to; the opposite of the active protagonist. The caveat about the "most important" narrative strand is crucial ? it's the difference between plot and subplot ? and a plot has narrative, it "wants" to reach its end rather than being discursive. Given that definition, here's why I don't think the books so far have had plots. Although the protagonist is Harry, the main action of the books so far hasn't been due to him. The most important narrative thread in PS/SS is Quirrelmort trying to steal the Stone, but most of the book follows Harry coming to Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and feuding with Draco. Harry gets a flute from Hagrid and the Trio learn where the trapdoor is, what the Stone is, and that Hagrid took it from Gringott's; but those are respectively two instances of other characters' actions being important and two of authorial programming. Although Harry is interested in Snape's attempt to steal the Stone (sic) from Chapter 11, it's not his main interest until the last few chapters. When they decide to sneak through the trapdoor, the plot asserts itself as if a catapult has been wound up and suddenly released. This is the pattern all the books so far follow. In CoS, Harry isn't that interested in the Monster of Slytherin, and in PoA he worries about Sirius' trying to murder him; in neither case does he or could he do much about it. In GoF his main interest is getting to the end of the Triwizard Tournament and the end of the year, in OotP he knows Voldemort is up to something but does nothing about it until he thinks Sirius is in danger, and he has no particular aim in HBP. (More on this next time.) The most important narrative strands don't affect his behaviour very much. For most of the books he goes to lessons, eats, sleeps, and so on, fitting in interesting activities such as Quidditch or the DA around this. Alongside various routine activities, the narrative catapult is wound up all year long as Harry learns spells and information and other forces manoeuvre, but he is fundamentally a passive character until catapulted into the climax. At this point the plot asserts itself retroactively: in OotP, the DA suddenly becomes crucial to Harry personally when before it had no aim beyond defying Umbridge. Fair enough. He's an eleven-to-sixteen year old schoolboy. He can't spend all his time fighting Dark wizards. Most of his energy is taken up with lessons, hating Draco, watching Ron and Hermione fight, and so on, rather than fighting Voldemort. Just as well, really. They'd be pretty dull books if he spent his whole life in the library, learning new spells. The actions and information that set up the climax but are not part of the plot are also revealed in their true importance when the catapult is fired. Lupin's medicine and Boggart, for instance, are not part of the plot but are only revealed for what they are during the first climax of PoA; more importantly, Harry realises that the Philosopher's Stone is hidden in Hogwarts, but I would call this authorial fiat rather than organic action, because it's due to Hermione finding something in the Library. I'd call this "climax construction" rather than plotting, although the word construction covers a multitude of virtues than have nothing necessarily to do with the plot, for instance symbolism. To recap, I have a weird idea of what a plot is, and don't think any of the books so far has one, mainly because Harry's interested in things that aren't that important and prefers Quidditch rather than Quirrel. Tune in soon for Part 2 of this thrilling serial, which will be about what my analysis implies for DH. Ann From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jun 24 19:37:49 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (gardclan2001) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:37:49 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170720 > Anne Squires: > Over at MuggleNet there is a link to "Aint It Cool News." A reporter > from the OotP press conference with the cast and crew is reporting > that JKR strongly suggested that a character from OotP who was > originally written out of the first OotP screenplay should be included > or "their hands would be tied" for the seventh medium-not-to-named: > > Aint It Cool News (quoting Heyman, who is quoting JKR): > In the original draft of the screenplay Order of the Phoenix, they had > decided to remove a character from the story. Rowling read over the > screenplay and said "I wouldn't do that if I were you," that they were > free to do whatever they liked, of course, but "if you make a 7th > movie you'll have tied your hands." snip > Anne Squires now: snip again > I agree that it might be Grawp. The SPEW storyline was cut from the > GoF not-to-be-named-medium. (Gracias a Dios); so I wonder if the Grawp > storyline had originally been cut from the screenplay? There are > other ways to get the Threstrals to come to the rescue, I have always > thought. My thought is because they cut the whole SPEW line, and Winky, that they were just going to continue with that line to cut out Kreacher. However, I think that somehow the house elves will play a line in the final revolt against Voldemort. In canon, we clearly see LV choosing which magical creatures are on his side- Giants, Werewolves, and so forth. So far, we really haven't seen which magical creatures end up on the Good Wizard's side. The thought in the back of my brain says the House Elves, for two reasons. First, we see Hermione's attempt at Spew. It seems like just one weird witch with ideas out of her time, but that idea re-emerges on the latest WOMBAT test! We see a date mentioned where an attempt to get House Elf rights fail, meaning that the time wasn't right before for the transition, but now maybe in the 2nd war, it will be. We see that House Elves have some impressive magic of their own, and getting them to fight with the Wizards would be a powerful asset. Secondly, we also see Kreacher really resisting Harry's ownership, and something makes me think that if he truely got "liberation", he would willingly choose to serve the Dark Witch Bellatrix. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jun 24 20:14:28 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (gardclan2001) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:14:28 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170721 > Dana: > I thought it was already stated that JKR stepped in when they wanted to > cut out Kreacher but that he was essential to something that would > happen in DH. > So I do not know why it would now suddenly involve anyone else being > cut out the script that JKR prevented. > > JMHO > > Dana > Shelley: When/were did you hear about Kreacher? (List elves, sorry for the one liner, but I promise it fits in with my longer post on the same subject!) From YasminOaks at aol.com Sun Jun 24 20:07:14 2007 From: YasminOaks at aol.com (YasminOaks at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:07:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP Memories (Fairly Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170722 I, too, have mixed feelings about the release of book 7. Oh it has been long awaited. I have always felt so lucky that my children and I have been able to be a part of the excitement, suspense, and wonder of what will happen. We have been to the Harry Potter Muggle Parties at Barnes and Noble. We have expressed our own personal opinions on what will happen, who will live, who will become what. We have read and reread all of the books again. (a great pleasure) Today though I am feeling a bit sad. Soon DH will be published and all of the mysteries will be solved. We will know just what will happen. Although we will still be able to discuss and learn from the book, all of the wonderful anticipation will be over. For years we have known there will only be 7 Harry Potter books, but that seemed like it would take forever for them to be written/published. Now it is almost over. The years of waiting, speculating, reading into every hint, all of that joy will be over. I will certainly miss that a lot. I know that the world of Harry Potter will always be here for us for all generations. We will always be able to enter his world at any time. I just am feeling a tad melancholy with the release of DH coming so soon. Of course I can't wait to get my hands on my copy and read it ASAP too. Sincerely, Cathy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jun 24 22:28:07 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:28:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170723 > Lanval: > > DD says that Snape's tale is believable as a whole, but people would > hardly fish for details like what wand Black was using, or whether > Black is capable of nonverbally casting a Confundus charm. The story > that Snape caught Black works with or without the Confundus charm. > > Besides, I was talking about unconscious, bound Sirius on the > stretcher. I see no evidence that Snape ever believes the kids to > *be* Confunded, and thus can't really accept this argument as > support for Snape fearing Black's nonverbal/wandless magical ability > when he stretchers him off. It also makes the point about Sirius > Confunding the kids without a wand moot. > > To me it's still about keeping Sirius quiet. Julie: We've probably debated this out now, and each of us is going to cling to our version of Snape, but I did want to address this point. Snape says he bound and gagged Sirius, and maybe he did, but if so, he couldn't have done it to keep Sirius from spilling his story to the authorities. Snape is only in control of Sirius during the transport back to Hogwarts, and during that period Sirius can only protest his innocence to two unconscious boys, any trees within his sight, or of course to Snape. More on that in a sec... Once Snape arrived at Hogwarts Sirius was under the control of Madame Pomphrey, then Fudge and/or Dumbledore, at which point he can blab his side of the story all he wants. If Snape truly wanted to keep Sirius from saying anything to defend himself, Snape would have had to Imperio Sirius or use some other method to shut him up or alter his memory. Which might have been pointless anyway, since the Trio and Lupin are certain to blab out everything they've heard. So it seems Snape bound and gagged Sirius for the same reason Sirius let Snape's head bang against the ceiling of the tunnel. Because they HATE each other, neither one being any nicer or more mature about it than the other. Certainly he has a valid reason to bind a wanted criminal, innocent protests or not, and no doubt Snape didn't want to listen to those innocent protests should Sirius regain consciousness, but I think it was mostly because he wanted to be able to give Sirius a cold "Who's got the upper hand NOW, Dogbreath?" smirk should Sirius wake up to find himself thusly bound and gagged. Lanval: > The way I see it, Snape has several options here. > > 1. He says nothing about the kids and accepts Fudge's suggestion > that it was Black who caused the injury, because being overcome by > three third years would be embarrassing for Snape, Dueling Master. > > He might thus look more heroic to Fudge -- but he still has to take > into consideration that three underage wizards's testimony *might* > influence Fudge's opinion. Same reason why he gags Sirius IMO. He > can't take any chances. His remark about hoping that DD will not > cause problems would support that as well. > > 2. He tells the truth, hoping the kids get expelled. No added > heroism, plus some embarrassment, but the joyful possibility of > perhaps seeing the last of them. > > 3. He tells the truth, but adds the lie that the kids were > Confunded. It may still not cut out the embarrassment factor > entirely, and he probably won't get them expelled that way, but the > kids being Confunded will weigh heavily in his favor when it comes > to contradicting their story. > > Plus, he can work out some extra punishment for them by stressing > their rule breaking and trying to go after Black. > > He chooses 3. Julie: I think he chose 4. He desperately *wants* to believe the kids were confunded, so he says they were. In his mind they must have been, to believe Sirius's innocence. Embarassment doesn't come into it, it's all about Snape desperately clinging to his long held beliefs about Sirius while it's inexorably being ripped from from his grasp. "No, no, it doesn't matter what he says, he's guilty I tell you, I KNOW!" It's a fine line I know, but similar to Harry knowing deep down that Snape didn't get Sirius killed, but he wants so desperately to blame Snape (who's been a major git to him so many other times) that he decides to ignore his rational mind. And here I'm sure Snape knows in his rational mind that there *is* serious doubt of Sirius's guilt, but he's believed it so long, and he has a history with Sirius (like Harry has with Snape) where Sirius has done so many horrible things to him that he can't bear to give up his belief in Sirius's guilt so easily. That's not excusing Snape, BTW, but explaining his mindset. Just as Harry didn't and doesn't cling to believing the worst of Snape out of thin air, so Snape didn't cling to believing the worst of Sirius out of thin air. Again, not an excuse to ignore the facts, but at least an understandable reason. (I expect Harry to go through a very similar resistance to admitting the truth if it turns out Snape *didn't* murder Dumbledore in cold blood after all. "But I KNOW Snape. I KNOW he's guilty, no matter what new evidence there is! There's a clear and definite parellel between Snape/Sirius and Harry/Snape ;-) Lanval: > Really, to me Snape's actions, be it in the Shack when he screams at > Hermione, or in the Hospital Wing, strongly suggest Snape realizing > that there *is* a case to be made for Sirius, that there *is* > reasonable doubt concerning his guilt -- and Snape cannot let that > happen. Julie: I agree, for the reasons above. And I think this is exactly why Dumbledore says Snape suffered a great disappointment, and why Dumbledore doesn't come down harder on Snape when Snape goes completely over the top trying to deny the new reality of the situation. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 24 22:38:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:38:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170724 > Julie: > We've probably debated this out now, and each of us is going > to cling to our version of Snape, but I did want to address > this point. Snape says he bound and gagged Sirius, and maybe > he did, but if so, he couldn't have done it to keep Sirius > from spilling his story to the authorities. Snape is only in > control of Sirius during the transport back to Hogwarts, and > during that period Sirius can only protest his innocence to > two unconscious boys, any trees within his sight, or of course > to Snape. More on that in a sec... > > Once Snape arrived at Hogwarts Sirius was under the control of > Madame Pomphrey, then Fudge and/or Dumbledore, at which point > he can blab his side of the story all he wants. If Snape truly > wanted to keep Sirius from saying anything to defend himself, > Snape would have had to Imperio Sirius or use some other > method to shut him up or alter his memory. Which might have > been pointless anyway, since the Trio and Lupin are certain > to blab out everything they've heard. > Alla: That's the thing though. I think Snape was pretty sure that the authorities are not the slightest bit interested in listening to Black's story. I mean, who Fudge, who would probably allow Dementors to kiss Black right away? Or Dumbledore, who did not talk to Black for thirteen years? No, I think in Snape's mind he thought that if he gags Black till castle, while in castle, he would have no chance to talk. Thank goodness light went on in Dumbledore head finally. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 24 23:53:56 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:53:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Fall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170725 Pippin: I've been looking for canon that Dumbledore could have survived the fall from the tower, supposing that Snape's AK was a fake, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, I finally found it. There are *two* instances of wandless soft landings in HBP, both performed by Tom Riddle. "Billy Stubbs's rabbit...well, Tom *said* he didn't do it, and I don't see how he could have done, but even so, it didn't hang itself from the rafters, did it?" "I shouldn't think so, no," said Dumbledore quietly. "But I'm jiggered if I know how he got up there to do it." --HBP ch 13 -- A towering cliff stood behind them, a sheer drop, black and faceless. [...] "I imagine that Riddle climbed down; magic would have served him better than ropes. And he brought two children with him, probably for the purpose of terrorizing them. I think the journey alone would have done it, don't you?" Harry looked up at the cliff again and felt goose bumps. --HBP ch 26 --- So Riddle had to get himself not only up but *down* from the rafters without harm, and then, with two small children, he got down the cliff. Of course he had no wand. Dumbledore knew it could be done, and that means, IMO, that he himself could have done it. The whole thing smells of a clue.The cliff doesn't come into the story at all, except to tell us that Riddle had a way to get down it without dying. All the clues are in place now that Dumbledore did not die on the tower but nearly half an hour later, just before Harry found him. Harry's instinct, that if he could have found a way to get Snape and Dumbledore together, events could be reversed, was right. His sensation that someone near him was in pain was right, too. IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been dying, because it would have given away too much. Pippin From colwilrin at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 00:09:17 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:09:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Fall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170726 > Pippin: > All the clues are in place now that Dumbledore did not die on the > tower but nearly half an hour later, just before Harry found him. > Harry's instinct, that if he could have found a way to get Snape > and Dumbledore together, events could be reversed, was right. > His sensation that someone near him was in pain was right, too. > IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But > he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him > to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not > allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed > to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been > dying, because it would have given away too much. Colwilrin: This makes sense. Fake Moody tells the class that you must mean the curses when you say them. Later in OOP, I believe it is Bella that laughs at Harry after he tries the Cruciatus curse because "he has to mean it". If Snape is DDM...he could have said the AK curse, but without meaning it, it would not kill. That leaves DD to fling himself off the tower...and possibly do the soft landing. Then, the poison would have finished him off before he was found. I think that DD was dying from the affects of the hand injury throughout the course of HBP. I think he knew that his time was very limited. It is possible that Snape was helping him prolong his life with a potion until he felt that Harry knew enough for him to allow death to come. The potion in the cave may have been the final blow to a deteriorating man. Perhaps Snape could have saved him, but I think that his death was planned ahead, and he was begging with Snape to allow the plan to proceed. Colwilrin From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 00:29:58 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:29:58 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170727 Geoff: > Yes, but that doesn't fit the events. > > I wonder if you have fallen into the common mistake of treating a Horcrux > as the actual soul fragment. Remember that "a Horcrux is the word used > for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul". > (Slughorn in HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition). > > If Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow with the intent of making Harry > into a Horcrux, he would not be casting an Avada Kedavra curse on > him because a dead Harry could not become a Horcrux. > TKJ: I'm not saying he went with the intent to make Harry the Horcrux. I'm saying he went with the intent to use the killing of Harry to make his last Horcrux. He would hold that killing to be "sentimental" in his twisted mind because this person was supposed to be his downfall. See what I mean? TKJ :-) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 25 01:03:36 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:03:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Fall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170728 Pippin: There are *two* instances of wandless soft landings in HBP, both performed by Tom Riddle. "Billy Stubbs's rabbit...well, Tom *said* he didn't do it, and I don't see how he could have done, but even so, it didn't hang itself from the rafters, did it?" "I shouldn't think so, no," said Dumbledore quietly. "But I'm jiggered if I know how he got up there to do it." --HBP ch 13 Ceridwen: I thought Tommy might have "magicked" the rabbit to the rafters, similar to Harry getting himself to the school roof, but with more conscious control and malice aforethought. By this time, I assume, he was already learning how to control his mysterious powers. The cliff, though, I hadn't thought of. Yes, maybe I can see that. I thought the Riddle stuff was all about showing the extent of LV's evilness, even early on. I'll have to think about that for a while. Pippin: All the clues are in place now that Dumbledore did not die on the tower but nearly half an hour later, just before Harry found him. Harry's instinct, that if he could have found a way to get Snape and Dumbledore together, events could be reversed, was right. His sensation that someone near him was in pain was right, too. Ceridwen: Weren't other people around the body when Harry and Hagrid came up? If you're right, and DD did die shortly before Harry got there, then someone in the crowd might have noticed. IF this is correct, it could provide an interesting revelation in DH. Pippin: IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been dying, because it would have given away too much. Ceridwen: I got the impression that, if DD didn't have to fly to the tower, there would have been time to save him from the poison, but with that distraction, time ran out. By the time Snape appeared, in my opinion, there was nothing he could do to save DD. Another intersting point about the twins. I'll have to think about this. Ceridwen. From bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 01:14:27 2007 From: bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com (bridgetteakabiit) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:14:27 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170729 In Half-Blood-Prince, Dumbledore mumbles an incantation so that him and Harry can fly into Hogwarts. In Chamber of Secrets, how could the flying car get through the barrier? It lands in the Whomping Willow, which is supposed to be on the grounds. Bridgette From windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com Mon Jun 25 01:17:24 2007 From: windmills_woodenshoes at hotmail.com (danielle dassero) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:17:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts' protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170730 >From: "bridgetteakabiit" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts' protection >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:14:27 -0000 > >>Bridgette: >In Half-Blood-Prince, Dumbledore mumbles an incantation so that him >and Harry can fly into Hogwarts. In Chamber of Secrets, how could the >flying car get through the barrier? It lands in the Whomping Willow, >which is supposed to be on the grounds. > Danielle: I think they added extra protection on in Harry's 6th year. > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! http://mobile.msn.com From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 02:12:23 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:12:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > > > Julie: > > > I missed where someone said he was "kind." > > > > Alla: > > > > Um, I often make reply to thread in general, when I reply to > > particular post, sometimes I specify it, sometimes I forget. Sorry > > about that. But it was said that Snape was **kind** in putting > > Sirius and kids on stretchers. I will hunt for this post if needed, > > I am almost positive it was Carol's, just do not remember whichone. > > Carol responds: > Not even I would refer to Snape as "kind," though I did use the word > in a recent Snape post. Possibly this is the paragraph you had in mind: > > "If conjuring stretchers to take unconscious kids, at least one of > them seriously injured, to the hospital wing rather than leaving them > on the grounds when there's even the remotest chance of their being > bitten by a werewolf isn't saving their lives, what is it? It's > certainly an act of mercy of some sort and protecting them from > danger. (That he had no kind feelings for or intentions toward Sirius > Black is beside the point. He thought Black was trying to murder > Harry, remember? He took him to Fudge rather than dispatching him > himself, which, for Snape, is an act of restraint.)" > > So I did call it "an act of mercy of some sort," by which I meant that > he was rescuing helpless people from a sense of duty or > responsibility, not acting out of the kindness of his heart. Snape has > seldom been kind to anyone in the books though he's occasionally civil > or polite. I think the one exception is his treatment of Narcissa in > "spinner's End," and even there he's sometimes firm, sometimes kind, > sometimes noncommital. (Of course, he's not kind, and barely civil, to > Bellatrix and neither kind nor civil to Wormtail.) > > At any rate, I have no delusions about Snape. He's sarcastic, he docks > points unfairly, he's not above petty revenge, and he's done some > regretable things (joining the Death Eaters and revealing the > Prophecy, for which he's expressed remorse and tried, IMO, to atone, > and killing Dumbledore--though that last remains to be explained). > > Carol, under no delusions about Snape's "kindly" feelings toward the > "murderer" Sirius Black or toward Harry, the "mediocre" Chosen One > whose life he has to protect if he wants Voldemort to be defeated (and > I believe that he does) > Snape did the right thing when he transported everybody to the Castle, and I think this moment is very telling. It's the only time we see how Snape acts when he thinks nobody is around, when he doesn't have to put on an act. And in this moment, he is calm, efficient & responsible. Snape is good in a crisis. In this moment, we get a glimpse of "healer" Snape, an aspect of Snape's character that usually remains hidden. What is even more significant, IMO, is the way that he chooses to transports everyone. Snape treats all his "patients" with dignity. He conjures stretchers to carry everyone in a comfortable way, and he moves all the unconscious people w/equal care. This is a big contrast from the way Sirius & Remus treated Snape when he was unconscious. After Snape was knocked out, Sirius treated Snape like a puppet - he levitated him in a careless & undignified way, bumping Snape's head on purpose as he went. Harry thinks that Snape resembles a grotesque puppet. This scene is reminiscent of how the Death Eaters treated the Muggles during the QWC - levitating them like marionettes, depriving them of their dignity & self-determination. Similarly, James' Levicorpus spell also treats Snape like a puppet, humiliating and controlling him. All of these actions are reminiscent of the Imperius curse - a curse that transforms a person into a puppet to do the spellcaster's will. I think that JKR considers "slavery", forcing another to do your own will, as a real evil. By effectively making people into marionettes, the Death Eaters, Remus, James, & Sirius all partake in this evil to varying degrees. But Snape, when confronted w/unconscious enemies, does not. He doesn't use Imperius or Levicorpus against Sirius & the kids. He doesn't treat them like puppets or deprive them of their dignity. He treats them like human beings, not puppets. And he saves both enemy and friend, without distinction. This is a small moment, but I do think it reflects a positive aspect of Snape's character. Snape sees all of them as "real people," Slytherin & Gryfindor, Malfoys & Weasleys. He saves both Harry & Draco, he brews potions for someone he hates (Lupin) and someone he loves (Dumbledore), with equal care. In this, Snape is almost unique in the Potterverse. That's my view of him - Humanist!Snape. LOL. He doesn't save people because he likes them, but because they are human beings in need of care. We don't see this side of Snape often in the books, but IMO it is there in the background. In HBP, Harry finally got a chance to see this side of Snape. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 02:47:14 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:47:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: <380-2200760242447468@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170732 > Alla: > > Okay, maybe you can explain this one to me, after all, even when we > disagree I can often understand your POV. So, how is this scene is > Snape caring for people? >> Magpie: > I think the problem is the word "caring"--and I've been trying to think of > a different one, but I can't. Because Snape is being shown here "caring" > for people in terms of taking care of them--stretchers, hospital wing, etc. > But he doesn't "care for" them in terms of showing affection for them. For > Sirius, in particularly, he's bringing him in to justice, not mothering him. > > There's of course plenty of ways to say that he "had to" do it-- but JKR > didn't have to have him to it, regardless. It's just an image that I think > sticks in the mind a bit. It's just a visual image that goes along with a > lot of consistent images for Snape that go along with the scenes of him > being sarcastic and cruel. He's not being particularly nice here, but he's > not being cruel--even with Sirius, I don't think we can use the fact that > Sirius might be kissed against him. He's taking Sirius to the authorities. > It's not that he *cares* meaning that he's being affectionate, but he's > taking care of people in terms of putting them on stretchers and all. Alla: Oh, you are genuis. This is a great linguistic moment indeed, but that's not quite it for me. I mean, I was using the word *caring* to mean Snape helping people, not exactly that he was being affectionate, you know? Does it make sense? I agree with you, if you are saying that Snape is **taking care of people here** in a same way as **taking care of business**, then sure, I agree with you. Snape is taking care of business or people as he sees fit, LOL. In particulartly he is taking care of Sirius to deliver him to dementors, no? But then you are saying that Snape not being cruel here and I just do not see how, you know? I mean, it just so obvious to me that Snape cannot wait to see Sirius kissed, that I do not see how the fact that he is taking care of Sirius in term of putting him on stretchers shows anything besides Snape's cruelty and hyppocrisy. And, let me say again - if Snape has no doubts in his mind that Sirius is a murderer, traitor, etc, I get his POV, I truly do. But the fact that he gags unconscious Sirius suggests to me what Lanval said - Snape sees that there is a case to be made for Sirius' innocence and he does not want to hear. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 25 03:13:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:13:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: <380-2200761253139968@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170733 Alla: But then you are saying that Snape not being cruel here and I just do not see how, you know? I mean, it just so obvious to me that Snape cannot wait to see Sirius kissed, that I do not see how the fact that he is taking care of Sirius in term of putting him on stretchers shows anything besides Snape's cruelty and hyppocrisy. And, let me say again - if Snape has no doubts in his mind that Sirius is a murderer, traitor, etc, I get his POV, I truly do. Magpie: To an extent, yeah, but he's not killing him himself, is the point. Harry's keeping Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter is Harry showing something more positive, even though Harry, too, is sending Peter to the Dementors. I think when you have a character who is allegedly a criminal who's already guilty (as Snape thinks), bringing him to justice is fine. Though it's not really Sirius I'd be mostly think of here anyway. Snape's being shown lifting people onto stretchers and taking people to the Infirmary. I don't think it matters that one of them he considers a murderer who needs to be put back in jail for punishment and that he's binding and gagging that one. (And I think Snape's got other reasons for wanting Sirius gagged than thinking he's actually innocent.) As long as he's not taking the opportunity to torture or kill Sirius himself, the scene still reads like Snape taking care of people (as in taking care of business) in the scene. And I don't think we have any reason at this point to say that Snape knows he's innocent. It seems like one of the main things about Snape's arc in PoA is that he's focused on bringing Sirius the murderer in, and he's not having any doubts after the Shack. - From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 03:39:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:39:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: <380-2200761253139968@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170734 > Magpie: > To an extent, yeah, but he's not killing him himself, is the point. Harry's > keeping Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter is Harry showing something more > positive, even though Harry, too, is sending Peter to the Dementors. I > think when you have a character who is allegedly a criminal who's already > guilty (as Snape thinks), bringing him to justice is fine. Though it's not > really Sirius I'd be mostly think of here anyway. Snape's being shown > lifting people onto stretchers and taking people to the Infirmary. I don't > think it matters that one of them he considers a murderer who needs to be > put back in jail for punishment and that he's binding and gagging that one. > (And I think Snape's got other reasons for wanting Sirius gagged than > thinking he's actually innocent.) As long as he's not taking the > opportunity to torture or kill Sirius himself, the scene still reads like > Snape taking care of people (as in taking care of business) in the scene. > And I don't think we have any reason at this point to say that Snape knows > he's innocent. It seems like one of the main things about Snape's arc in > PoA is that he's focused on bringing Sirius the murderer in, and he's not > having any doubts after the Shack. Alla: Ah, but you see, sure, if Harry witnessed Snape putting them on stretchers, sure, I would have considered to be a positive moment of Snape character no matter how much I hate him. But the thing is the fact that Snape stands near the Shack and listens to Lupin going on and on and on eradicates any doubt in my mind that kids safety was anywhere close to be Snape primary motivation in acting that night. So, since I proceed under assumption that Snape main motivation was revenge and revenge only (and catching Sirius includes it of course), I see Snape taking care of kids as in putting them on stretchers as after thought, you know? And no, I cannot be sure anymore that Snape's main modus opperandi was to bring murderer to justice. No way, not after HBP. I believe that reread in light of HBP together with the possibility that Snape was standing there and listening a wee bit longer ( yes, yes, I know about the door) than we think and gagging Sirius and Peter being in his house may eventually reveal that he knew or at least had a reason to believe that Sirius was innocent. And again, of course Harry is sending Peter to Dementors as well. Frankly, I do not like that much either. I mean, I consider it to be a great character moment for Harry and know that he is sending him to the punishment that he is aware of, but I just do not like Dementors. I am wondering if Harry would suggest anybody to be send to Dementors at the end of book 7. To give you an idea how much I cannot stand Dementors - I am happy to see any punishment to Snape, I still do not want him to be sent to Dementors or to send him to Azkaban with Dementors as guards. I think they will not be there at the end though, I speculate. JMO, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jun 25 05:02:52 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:02:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170735 > > Alla: > > Ah, but you see, sure, if Harry witnessed Snape putting them on > stretchers, sure, I would have considered to be a positive moment of > Snape character no matter how much I hate him. Julie: I'm confused. Harry *did* witness Snape putting Sirius, Harry, and Hermione on stretchers. POA page 412: As Time-turned Harry and Hermione watch "He [Snape] was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away toward the castle." So do you mean something else? Or do you now think this was a positive moment for Snape? Sidenote: I also just noticed that Harry and Hermione witness no binding and gagging of Sirius. Hmmm. Certainly Harry would not have ignored that if he'd witnessed it. I'm not sure if that means Snape only said he bound and gagged Sirius to placate any fear Fudge might have because of Sirius's still presumed escaped-killer status, or if it was an oversight on JKR's part. (Poor JKR, I'm sure she had no expectation that her books would be picked apart word by word!) Julie From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 05:33:30 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:33:30 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170736 > Lanval: > So he sets out toward the lake, floating Ron along (not exactly a > sign that he expected a werewolf attack at any time either -- if he > had, he could have strapped Ron down, hung the stretcher high enough > to be out of reach, and then checked things out), and finds the kids > and -- hooray! -- Black! alive, which in the case of Black is a bit > of a bummer, but things can still be arranged quite nicely. What an > entrance he will make! Three unconscious kids, and the murderer (and > Snape-torturer) Black. Whom he promptly binds, and *gags*. > > The gagging part I find particularly interesting. He really, really > wanted to shut Black up as long as he could, didn't he? If he > was so absolutely certain of Black's guilt, why bother silencing him? Montavilla47: Maybe he wanted to make sure that the Dementors couldn't kiss Sirius before he was presented to the authorities. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 11:14:53 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:14:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170738 > > Alla: > > > > Ah, but you see, sure, if Harry witnessed Snape putting them on > > stretchers, sure, I would have considered to be a positive moment > of > > Snape character no matter how much I hate him. > > Julie: > I'm confused. Harry *did* witness Snape putting Sirius, Harry, > and Hermione on stretchers. POA page 412: As Time-turned Harry > and Hermione watch "He [Snape] was conjuring stretchers and > lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. > A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating > at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved > them away toward the castle." > > So do you mean something else? Or do you now think this was > a positive moment for Snape? Alla: Yes, I know, I was talking hypothetically and obviously not clearly expressing myself. I was saying that if Snape was only putting kids on stretchers in some sort of hypothetical story, then I would believe that it was a positive character moment. Does it make sense? Right now I do not believe that Snape was concerned about kids and think that he put them on the stretchers as afterthought of the sort and to show off to Dumbledore - just look at me, not only I bring Black to be kissed **on stretchers**, but I also bring little brats back **on stretchers**. JMO, Alla. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 25 13:23:13 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:23:13 -0000 Subject: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170739 Pippin: > IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But > he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him > to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not > allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed > to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been > dying, because it would have given away too much. SSSusan: Erm... Pippin? I know I am only sporadically able to keep up with posting here, so this might be a long-ago expressed position/theory of yours and I've just missed it... but could you say what you're talking about here with the twins? Are you implying they're ESE! as well? What would their having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? Siriusly Snapey Susan From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 25 13:54:20 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:54:20 -0000 Subject: LV's Offence of the Dark Arts - OODA 301 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170740 > Mike: > removing a soul piece from a *designated* someone and encasing that > piece in a *designated* object. Kvapost: I think it's not so much a question of "taking from" and "encasing in", as it really does sound material rather than ethereal. I think you are right and there are two separate spells. But it seems to me that the soul in question would be split only virtually and there are no actual pieces 'to encase'. (This theory works better with the view of all living souls being parts of the universal soul entity that controls whole humanity as well as separate human beings). The spell must be just commanding the entire soul to kind of 'remember not to let the person die' while the last Hx exists. And, I think the Hx objects do not 'contain' soul bits 'in' them, they are more likely to be 'remote controls' for their respective soul bits. When the Hx object is broken/destroyed/deformed, soul bit stays lingering, stays put somewhere, not really dying, waiting for 'commands'. When the last of the pieces gets told 'to get lost' by the Hx destroyer, all the soul bits do get lost to the universe/behind the Veil or wherever else - **together**. Kvapost From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 25 14:05:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:05:10 -0000 Subject: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170741 > Pippin: > > > IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But > > he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him > > to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not > > allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed > > to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been > > dying, because it would have given away too much. > > > SSSusan: > Erm... Pippin? I know I am only sporadically able to keep up with > posting here, so this might be a long-ago expressed position/theory of > yours and I've just missed it... but could you say what you're talking > about here with the twins? Are you implying they're ESE! as well? > What would their having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? > Pippin: LOL! Pippin the ESE!Queen strikes again!....er, sorry, bit of pre-release giddiness there. Note to self: must not giggle madly while staring at screen :) But to answer your question, the twins not being allowed to go to Arthur is not a theory of mine, it's unvarnished canon, from OOP, ch 22. The twins wanted to go to St. Mungo's as soon as they'd found out he'd been injured, and Sirius has to explain that he can't let them. --- "Listen, your dad's been hurt while on duty for the Order and the circumstances are fishy enough without his children knowing about it seconds after it happened, you could seriously damage the Order's--" "We don't care about the dumb Order!" shouted Fred. "It's our dad dying we're talking about" yelled George. "Your father knew what he was getting into, and he won't thank you for messing things up for the Order!" said Sirius angrily in his turn. "This is how it is--this is why you're not in the Order--you don't understand--there are things worth dying for!" --- Sirius's words have an echo of Ron's in SS/PS -- "That's chess. You have to make sacrifcies." If Dumbledore had to die alone and in pain in order not to damage the Order's plans, he would do it, and he wouldn't thank Snape or Harry if they messed it up for him. C'est la guerre. Pippin From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Jun 25 14:09:27 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:09:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182780567.18039.1196920225@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170742 > SSSusan: > What would [the twins] having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? Operational security. Them going to Arthur would have revealed that they had knowledge of his condition, which would have let Voldemort know Harry was, unintentionally or not, able to spy on him somehow. --Random832 From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 14:36:28 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:36:28 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170743 lizzyben04: > > Snape did the right thing when he transported everybody to the Castle, > and I think this moment is very telling. It's the only time we see how > Snape acts when he thinks nobody is around, when he doesn't have to > put on an act. And in this moment, he is calm, efficient & > responsible. Snape is good in a crisis. In this moment, we get a > glimpse of "healer" Snape, an aspect of Snape's character that usually > remains hidden. > > What is even more significant, IMO, is the way that he chooses to > transports everyone. Snape treats all his "patients" with dignity. He > conjures stretchers to carry everyone in a comfortable way, and he > moves all the unconscious people w/equal care. This is a big contrast > from the way Sirius & Remus treated Snape when he was unconscious. Lanval: Oh, where to start... Of course Snape is calm, efficient, and responsible here. He usually is, no? How placing people on stretchers makes anyone a healer, that I don't understand. As I said before, to me it's about being practical. Do tell me what other options Snape had that would *not* have made him look like a complete ass when walking into the castle? Drag them by their hair? Bring them in one by one? It seems to me that floating someone requires some concentration, and that it would be hard to keep the required spell active on more than one person. The stretchers Snape conjures are IMO from the Hospital Wing, and have been pre-treated with a floating charm, meaning all one has to do is make them move along. But that's just my theory, so feel free to ignore that. :) Remus and Sirius had IMO no way to transport Snape any other way, because of the narrow tunnel. About Snape's head scraping against the ceiling.. . as I wrote in another post, not very nice, but remember Snape's actions just prior to that scene. lizzyben04: > After Snape was knocked out, Sirius treated Snape like a puppet - he > levitated him in a careless & undignified way, bumping Snape's head on > purpose as he went. Harry thinks that Snape resembles a grotesque > puppet. This scene is reminiscent of how the Death Eaters treated the > Muggles during the QWC - levitating them like marionettes, depriving > them of their dignity & self-determination. Similarly, James' > Levicorpus spell also treats Snape like a puppet, humiliating and > controlling him. All of these actions are reminiscent of the Imperius > curse - a curse that transforms a person into a puppet to do the > spellcaster's will. I think that JKR considers "slavery", forcing > another to do your own will, as a real evil. By effectively making > people into marionettes, the Death Eaters, Remus, James, & Sirius all > partake in this evil to varying degrees. > Lanval: Funny that it was *Snape* who invented that particular humiliating hex, eh? As to this being reminiscent of the Imperius curse (an Unforgivable!), how do you arrive at that? Imperio is about mind control, Levicorpus is about physical control. Dangling someone upside down has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling someone's mind. lizzyben04: > But Snape, when confronted w/unconscious enemies, does not. He doesn't > use Imperius or Levicorpus against Sirius & the kids.He doesn't treat > them like puppets or deprive them of their dignity. He treats them > like human beings, not puppets. And he saves both enemy and friend, > without distinction. Lanval: Ok, I'll bite. What does he save Sirius from? Mmm. Binding and gagging. Always a sign of treating someone with dignity. He doesn't use Imperius against the kids and Sirius? Are we supposed to admire him for refraining from using an Unforgivable?? lizzyben04: This is a small moment, but I do think it > reflects a positive aspect of Snape's character. Snape sees all of > them as "real people," Slytherin & Gryfindor, Malfoys & Weasleys. > He saves both Harry & Draco, Lanval: Harry? When? At the end, from the DE? According to Snape, that was on the Dark Lord's orders, no? *eg* We'll find out soon enough, I guess, but for now I'll agree that that he saved Harry from being tortured a while longer. Draco? Indeed. He saved Draco from the effects of a Dark Curse that SNAPE HIMSELF invented. I will never understand how peforming the proper countercurse to a nasty, potentially fatal Dark Curse Snape himself invented somehow elevates him to Healer-hood. lizzyben04: he brews potions for someone he hates > (Lupin) and someone he loves (Dumbledore), with equal care. Lanval: May I just point out that at this point, while it seems pretty clear that he does hate Lupin, we have nothing in canon to prove that Snape *loves* DD. lizzyben04: In this, > Snape is almost unique in the Potterverse. That's my view of him - > Humanist!Snape. LOL. He doesn't save people because he likes them, but > because they are human beings in need of care. Lanval: "Almost unique", yes. The Healers (real Healers, not DADA specialists), at St Mungo's. Madam Pomfrey. Surely they don't apply their skills according to how much they may love or hate a patient? lizzyben04: We don't see this side > of Snape often in the books, but IMO it is there in the background. In > HBP, Harry finally got a chance to see this side of Snape. > Lanval: You mean when he killed DD? From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 25 15:04:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:04:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170744 > Alla: > > But the fact that he gags unconscious Sirius suggests to me what > Lanval said - Snape sees that there is a case to be made for Sirius' > innocence and he does not want to hear. IMO of course. Pippin: Actually, there is something that we are all ignoring so far which explains why Snape won't let Sirius and Lupin talk in the shack, and why he gags Sirius when there is no one but Snape and the kids to hear him. According to Fudge, murdering Pettigrew was not the worst thing Black did. The worst thing Black did was betray the secret. And -- this is important-- Harry was **not** to be told about this. Of course Snape doesn't know, no one does, that Harry has already found out. So Snape's hands are tied. He knows that Sirius is guilty of more than Pettigrew's murder, and he can't explain it. The mere fact that Pettigrew is alive does not clear Sirius of betraying the Potters. That's why he bellows at Hermione not to talk about things she doesn't understand. Of course that Lupin must know about the Secret Keeper thing and still seems to be arguing that there's a case to be made for Sirius would not make him look like a friend of the Order in Snape's eyes. It also hints at a possible motive for Sirius and Lupin working to win the kids' trust -- maybe they'd enjoy betraying them the way they betrayed Harry's parents. It is, after all, Snape's job to think the way Dark Wizards do. And thinking that way, he'd want Sirius gagged, because it just might be Sirius's last spiteful act to let Harry know that he was the one who'd betrayed the Potters. Ironically, Snape comes pretty close to blurting it out himself --"too arrogant to believe he might be mistaken in Black" -- but of course he had no way of knowing that Harry would understand what that meant. Do you think Snape had it figured out about the Secret Keeper switch? I don't. Harry himself doesn't know about that until after Snape is knocked out, and even then Harry isn't sure he can believe it. The switch is completely counter-intuitive, it's the sort of Tom Sawyer-ish stunt that only a bold-to-the-point- of-insanity 'never tell me the odds' Gryffindor would think of. Snape wouldn't have imagined it in a million years, IMO, and if Dumbledore had tried to explain it to Fudge without proof, he'd have sounded like he was channeling The Quibbler. Remember Stubby Boardman? I'm sure that wasn't the first WW wacky theory about Sirius ... this would have sounded like another one. The idea that Snape needed to gag Sirius to keep him from talking to Dumbledore doesn't make a whole lot of sense, IMO. Dumbledore doesn't need words, does he? He is a legilimens. And Snape knows that better than anyone. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 25 15:08:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:08:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170745 > Alla: > > Ah, but you see, sure, if Harry witnessed Snape putting them on > stretchers, sure, I would have considered to be a positive moment of > Snape character no matter how much I hate him. > > But the thing is the fact that Snape stands near the Shack and > listens to Lupin going on and on and on eradicates any doubt in my > mind that kids safety was anywhere close to be Snape primary > motivation in acting that night. Magpie: But I'm not making a case for Snape being nice or saying what his motivations are. I'm saying putting people on stretchers=image of someone taking care of people. It's what paramedics do in our world. I know everyone--especially Harry--can come up with a thousand reasons why Snape doesn't really care about any of them and wants them all dead, and I know it's easy enough to have theories about how what Snape wants for Sirius isn't "justice" even on his own terms, but I'm talking about the image the author put in there. This: "He [Snape] was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away toward the castle." Like it or not, is an image of Snape making stretchers and lifting bodies onto them and walking them back to the castle, with Snape associated with the healer role by being the one conjuring stretchers and lifting limp forms onto them and walking them back to the castle. And it's not the only image of Snape in healer positions in canon. To use another example, in GoF Peter is being mothering to Voldemort. Voldemort's a baby that he's taking care of. Of course we know that their relationship is actually weirder and more abusive and everything else, but JKR chose to use that imagery, a parody of mother and child. If she had a problem with Voldemort being associated with the infantile, she wouldn't have used it. Lanval: Oh, where to start... Of course Snape is calm, efficient, and responsible here. He usually is, no? How placing people on stretchers makes anyone a healer, that I don't understand. As I said before, to me it's about being practical. Do tell me what other options Snape had that would *not* have made him look like a complete ass when walking into the castle? Magpie: It's not about being practical--this isn't real life. The author has chosen to show Snape in the role of "healer" (which is not the same as making him a healer in terms of giving him a title or a degree) a lot. I don't think she chooses those images lightly. As in the example with Voldemort, obviously Voldemort isn't a baby, but it's not a coincidence that she's using that imagery. With Snape it seems like she pretty carefully keeps these two sides to him going--she could just as easily have *not* included an image of him putting anybody on stretchers, or made his healing of Draco different, or just had Madam Pomfrey be in charge of healing everybody in HBP. Of course all of these things can be explained away in a sinister way, but I don't think any of them weren't carefully chosen or were just the only thing the author could do. It's just noticing that the author uses this kind of imagery with Snape a lot. Lanval: Draco? Indeed. He saved Draco from the effects of a Dark Curse that SNAPE HIMSELF invented. I will never understand how peforming the proper countercurse to a nasty, potentially fatal Dark Curse Snape himself invented somehow elevates him to Healer-hood. Magpie: But that's the point! It's not unusual to have characters who are associated with dark arts and death also be healers. There's a whole Anubis theory about Snape that points this out as well--the two are often linked with each other. Explicitly in HBP--Snape has to heal all these dark curses because he's familiar with them. "Healer" if we just mean "one who is familiar with healing arts" or "one who we seeing healing people" or whatever and not "the Wizarding World's equivalent of a doctor who works at Saint Mungos" does not mean the person is good or fluffy or not a killer or a bad guy. I don't see how it can be denied that Snape is that given all the healing he does in HBP where Pomfrey can't. His being a Dark Arts expert makes him a better healer for those types of things. Being called a healer because he heals people isn't elevating him anywhere, it's just describing the role he's fulfilling there. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 15:21:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:21:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170746 > Magpie: > But I'm not making a case for Snape being nice or saying what his > motivations are. I'm saying putting people on stretchers=image of > someone taking care of people. It's what paramedics do in our world. > I know everyone--especially Harry--can come up with a thousand > reasons why Snape doesn't really care about any of them and wants > them all dead, and I know it's easy enough to have theories about > how what Snape wants for Sirius isn't "justice" even on his own > terms, but I'm talking about the image the author put in there. > Alla: Yes, I understand that you are talking about the image of Snape as healer in this scene and nothing more. And I am saying that I inprepret this **image** drastically different from you - as image of practical, hypocritical bastard, who is concerned how Dumbledore and authorities would see him when he comes back to the castle with **murderer** on stretchers. I guess I cannot see paramedics association because I know that paramedics deliver wounded, sick people to the hospital, not to the execution. Magpie: > To use another example, in GoF Peter is being mothering to > Voldemort. Voldemort's a baby that he's taking care of. Of course we > know that their relationship is actually weirder and more abusive > and everything else, but JKR chose to use that imagery, a parody of > mother and child. If she had a problem with Voldemort being > associated with the infantile, she wouldn't have used it. Alla: Sure, good example. Here we interpret images in the same way. > Magpie: > It's not about being practical--this isn't real life. The author has > chosen to show Snape in the role of "healer" (which is not the same > as making him a healer in terms of giving him a title or a degree) a > lot. I don't think she chooses those images lightly. Alla: How do you know that this is not about being practical? Maybe the reason why author chose this **image** is to show precisely that - Snape's practical side, no? JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 15:38:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:38:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170747 Alla wrote: > > > Ah, but you see, sure, if Harry witnessed Snape putting them on stretchers, sure, I would have considered to be a positive moment of Snape character no matter how much I hate him. > > Julie: > > I'm confused. Harry *did* witness Snape putting Sirius, Harry, and Hermione on stretchers. POA page 412: As Time-turned Harry > > and Hermione watch "He [Snape] was conjuring stretchers and > > lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. > > A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating > > at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved > > them away toward the castle." > > > > So do you mean something else? Or do you now think this was > > a positive moment for Snape? > > > > Alla: > > Yes, I know, I was talking hypothetically and obviously not clearly > expressing myself. > > I was saying that if Snape was only putting kids on stretchers in > some sort of hypothetical story, then I would believe that it was a > positive character moment. > > Does it make sense? Right now I do not believe that Snape was > concerned about kids and think that he put them on the stretchers as > afterthought of the sort and to show off to Dumbledore - just look > at me, not only I bring Black to be kissed **on stretchers**, but I > also bring little brats back **on stretchers**. > > JMO, > > Alla. > Carol responds: It can't be an afterthought. Ron, who was with Snape outside the Shrieking Shack, is already on a stretcher before Snape reaches the kids. And note the order in which the names are mentioned: Harry, Hermione, and Black. It sounds to me as if he gave his attention to the kids first and then to Black. Also, as Montavilla mentioned, the gag would have had to be removed before the Dementors could suck Black's soul. It sounds to me as if Snape did everything that any responsible teacher, including McGonagall or Dumbledore himself, would have done in his position, assuming that he still truly believed Black to be a murderer. And as Julie pointed out, Harry *did* witness that moment and said nothing. His anger is at Snape for entering the Shack in the first place and picking up the Invisibility Cloak, not for conjuring the stretchers, which even he apparently understands was necessary to their survival. I don't see why you would judge a hypothetical moment when he conjured stretchers as favorable to Snape's character but reverse that judgment because he also conjures a stretcher for Sirius Black (and binds the murderer for safekeeping). Can the gag alone make that much difference in your view? Black would have gagged him had their places been reversed, I'm sure, as indicated by his irresponsible carelessness in letting Snape's head bump the ceiling of the tunnel. Carol, who thinks that had *any* other teacher Snape done what Snape did, that person would have been praised without question for behaving responsibly and putting the kids' safety above all other considerations From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 15:44:22 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:44:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170748 > Julie: > I'm confused. Harry *did* witness Snape putting Sirius, Harry, > and Hermione on stretchers. POA page 412: As Time-turned Harry > and Hermione watch "He [Snape] was conjuring stretchers and > lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. > A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating > at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved > them away toward the castle." > > So do you mean something else? Or do you now think this was > a positive moment for Snape? > > Sidenote: I also just noticed that Harry and Hermione witness > no binding and gagging of Sirius. Hmmm. Certainly Harry would > not have ignored that if he'd witnessed it. I'm not sure if > that means Snape only said he bound and gagged Sirius to > placate any fear Fudge might have because of Sirius's still > presumed escaped-killer status, or if it was an oversight on > JKR's part. (Poor JKR, I'm sure she had no expectation that > her books would be picked apart word by word!) > > Lanval: No, I don't think she did. :) About Snape and the binding and gagging: Harry and Hermione were quite far away, and couldn't even make out Ron on the stretcher, only assumed he was there. It was night, and they had to "peer around a bush". This being Snape, I must assume it only took two extra flicks of his wand to put the ropes and gag into place, which may have escaped the kids' notice. Or Sirius may have showed signs os waking on the way to the castle, and Snape bound and gagged him then. Snape mentions it to Fudge, surely the person in authority to whom Sirius was first delivered, being that he was in charge of the Dementors as well? Why lie to Fudge, who IMO was there when Sirius was brought in? Or am I overlooking something here? Julie: > Once Snape arrived at Hogwarts Sirius was under the control of > Madame Pomphrey, then Fudge and/or Dumbledore, at which point > he can blab his side of the story all he wants. If Snape truly > wanted to keep Sirius from saying anything to defend himself, > Snape would have had to Imperio Sirius or use some other > method to shut him up or alter his memory. Which might have > been pointless anyway, since the Trio and Lupin are certain > to blab out everything they've heard. > Lanval: Sure, but Sirius would be dead by then. Do we know where Sirius was brought? It was always my impression that he was dropped off with Fudge and the other Ministry officials right away, but I could be wrong. I think the reason Snape doesn't use a Confundus Charm on the kids himself, or tries it (or worse, Imperio) on Sirius, is because DD would likely have realized it. Snape knowns he may not be able to fool Dumbledore, which is why he only harps on the kids being Confunded in front of Fudge. Once DD shows up, he merely mentions the "fairy tale Black planted in Potter's mind", which is pretty non-specific and an expression that could even be used in a non-magical context. DD confirms that this is indeed Black's story, all the while "surveying Snape closely". The kids being Confunded is not mentioned again, except when Fudge calls Hermione "disturbed", which is again not very specific. Fudge wants this embarrassing Black affair taken care of, that same night. Snape does too. Yet Snape must be careful. DD makes it clear to H&H that their testimony or Lupin's, or Black's, will not count, but DD has an agenda here (freeing Sirius and Bucky, not delaying their sentences) and urgency's the word. Snape *has* to take the however remote possibility into consideration that Fudge may be open to reason. Julie: > So it seems Snape bound and gagged Sirius for the same reason > Sirius let Snape's head bang against the ceiling of the tunnel. > Because they HATE each other, neither one being any nicer or > more mature about it than the other. Certainly he has a valid > reason to bind a wanted criminal, innocent protests or not, > and no doubt Snape didn't want to listen to those innocent > protests should Sirius regain consciousness, but I think it > was mostly because he wanted to be able to give Sirius a cold > "Who's got the upper hand NOW, Dogbreath?" smirk should Sirius > wake up to find himself thusly bound and gagged. Lanval: Yes, I agree -- as far as this being a pleasant side effect for Snape. On the other hand, wouldn't he have enjoyed watching Black plead and beg some more? :) And I don't blame him for binding Sirius, or at least I don't find it intriguing. It's what Sirius and Lupin did with Peter, after all. > > Julie: >some snippage> > > That's not excusing Snape, BTW, but explaining his mindset. > Just as Harry didn't and doesn't cling to believing the worst > of Snape out of thin air, so Snape didn't cling to believing > the worst of Sirius out of thin air. Again, not an excuse to > ignore the facts, but at least an understandable reason. (I > expect Harry to go through a very similar resistance to > admitting the truth if it turns out Snape *didn't* murder > Dumbledore in cold blood after all. "But I KNOW Snape. I > KNOW he's guilty, no matter what new evidence there is! > There's a clear and definite parellel between Snape/Sirius > and Harry/Snape ;-) > Lanval: We're really not that far apart here -- it seems the only difference is that I see Snape as being a tad more rational and calculating, and that I don't see Snape bringing up the Confundus Charm because that's what he makes himself believe *must have happened*. But I agree on Snape being pretty desperate about not being foiled again so close to his dream coming true. :) > Lanval: > > Really, to me Snape's actions, be it in the Shack when he screams > at > > Hermione, or in the Hospital Wing, strongly suggest Snape realizing > > that there *is* a case to be made for Sirius, that there *is* > > reasonable doubt concerning his guilt -- and Snape cannot let that > > happen. > > Julie: > I agree, for the reasons above. And I think this is exactly > why Dumbledore says Snape suffered a great disappointment, and > why Dumbledore doesn't come down harder on Snape when Snape > goes completely over the top trying to deny the new reality > of the situation. Lanval: Yes, I think so too; DD realizes that Snape truly suffers here, even though he knows Snape is wrong. >Lanval: > The gagging part I find particularly interesting. He really, really > wanted to shut Black up as long as he could, didn't he? If he > was so absolutely certain of Black's guilt, why bother silencing him? Montavilla47: Maybe he wanted to make sure that the Dementors couldn't kiss Sirius before he was presented to the authorities. :) Lanval: Good one. :) More of an audience that way, too. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 15:55:44 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties Message-ID: <496603.26972.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170749 Okay, so I was re-reading SS/PS last night, and something dawned on me. Whenever Harry overhears a conversation between two people, especially out of doors, he always jumps to a conclusion, and it's always the wrong one. In SS/PS, he assumes Snape is bullying/controlling Quirrell, when it's really Snape trying to protect the stone and Harry. I can't think of the specific instances in CoS when it happens, though I am about to re-read that one, so I can double check. In Azkaban, he definitely misunderstands the conversation between Lupin and Sirius. In Goblet, he hears Krum, and misinterprets. And in HBP, he hears Dumbledore and Snape. It seems to be a pattern of hearing two people in a secret conversation, and immediately jumping to the entirely wrong conclusion. So, if JKR sticks to her pattern, then Harry HAS to be wrong about Snape. He HAS to be misinterpreting Snape's motives. Because, the conversation that Harry overhears is always the source of his actions at the end of the book, and although his actions are correct, his motivation is often mistaken. EXCEPT in HBP. In HPB, Harry is RIGHT - or seemingly so. This obvious departure from the pattern in the other books leads me to believing that it ISN'T a departure, but a deliberate misdirection by JKR, one that will be resolved in DH, when we discover that Snape is in fact DDM, and that Harry, as usual, jumped to a mistaken conclusion. What do ya'll think? Katie --------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 25 16:04:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:04:55 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US Message-ID: <19331303.1182787495454.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170750 From: Debi >were. Most of the unfamiliar terms I figured out, I did >have to look up 'Snogging' though. Guess I won't ever >have to look up 'Shagging' thanks to Austin Powers LOL. Bart: No need to learn about "shagging". There is no shagging in the WW. That's why the population is shrinking. Believe it or not, we had this discussion in the group; the conclusion is (I believe it was Charles Dickens who originally said this), "What the characters do in between chapters is their own private business." From this, we MIGHT assume that there are non-career oriented classes given at the school; the equivalent, for example, of home economics, health education, etc., possibly as limited classes (like broom flying). Note that there is nothing in canon to support this. On the other hand, there are numerous references to Harry picking up his wand with no accompanying references to him putting the wand away. And many, many days go by in the novels with no mention of Harry actually eating any meals, yet he does not appear to be starving to death. In other words, there are MANY holes in the story, with the large majority of them being left up to the imagination and simple logic, and, unless a supposition specifically contradicts canon, if it's about something relatively unimportant, fruitful discussion is not really possible. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 16:16:12 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:16:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170751 > Lanval: > Or Sirius may have showed signs os waking on the way to the castle, > and Snape bound and gagged him then. zgirnius: This makes sense, and explains any possible discrepancy between Snape's account and the other. I think it would be one flick of the wand, by the way. I presume he would have used the same spell he employed with Lupin in the Shack. That one bound Lupin's wrists, ankles, and mouth in one fell swoop. Perhaps the gagging was not a separate decision at all. > Lanval: > Do we know where Sirius was brought? It was always my impression > that he was dropped off with Fudge and the other Ministry officials > right away, but I could be wrong. zgirnius: I don't think it is stated. At any rate, Fudge would be with Dumbledore, whom he was visiting on the occasion of Buckbeak's execution. And I presume they would need Dumbledore to provide a room in which Black could be secured once he was brought in by Snape, since there aren't Dementors at the castle to carry out the sentence anyway. From amylpark at comcast.net Mon Jun 25 15:55:09 2007 From: amylpark at comcast.net (rncamy1956) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:55:09 -0000 Subject: Dementors and Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170752 It just came to me the relation of dementors sucking out the souls of people and horcruxes being a piece of someone's soul. Will that mean that the persons who have had their soul sucked out like Barty Crouch Jr. will never die? Also what kind of role will they play in DH where Harry is looking for pieces of LV's soul? It also makes sense why LV would want the dementors on his side. On the aside, I believe that the person JK didn't want eliminated from the movie was Tonks. Up until now she has been a minor character, but her being a metamorphmagis must be foreshadowing something in DH. Amy From bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 16:17:29 2007 From: bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com (bridgetteakabiit) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:17:29 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <496603.26972.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170753 Katie: This obvious departure from the pattern in the other books leads me to believing that it ISN'T a departure, but a deliberate misdirection by JKR, one that will be resolved in DH, when we discover that Snape is in fact DDM, and that Harry, as usual, jumped to a mistaken conclusion. Bridgette: I completely agree. For one, Snape was giving Harry "hints" till the very end. The books had never indicated before that a wizard who was good at Occlumency could use it to determine the spell another wizard would use before they actually said it. So in pointing this out, I think Snape was giving him major clues in how to help defeat Voldemordt. Also, I just can't bear to think that Dumbledore could be so completely wrong about Snape. I feel it was part of DD's plan. Snape made the Unbreakable Vow, and so he really had no option. Also, if Voldemort found out that Snape was a traitor, the Order would no longer have their spy. I think at this point, DD realized that Snape was more valuable than himself. Bridgette From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 16:31:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:31:52 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <496603.26972.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170754 Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Okay, so I was re-reading SS/PS last night, and something dawned on me. > > Whenever Harry overhears a conversation between two people, especially out of doors, he always jumps to a conclusion, and it's always the wrong one. > > In SS/PS, he assumes Snape is bullying/controlling Quirrell, when it's really Snape trying to protect the stone and Harry. > > I can't think of the specific instances in CoS when it happens, though I am about to re-read that one, so I can double check. > > In Azkaban, he definitely misunderstands the conversation between Lupin and Sirius. > > In Goblet, he hears Krum, and misinterprets. > > And in HBP, he hears Dumbledore and Snape. > > It seems to be a pattern of hearing two people in a secret conversation, and immediately jumping to the entirely wrong conclusion. So, if JKR sticks to her pattern, then Harry HAS to be wrong about Snape. He HAS to be misinterpreting Snape's motives. Because, the conversation that Harry overhears is always the source of his actions at the end of the book, and although his actions are correct, his motivation is often mistaken. EXCEPT in HBP. In HPB, Harry is RIGHT - or seemingly so. This obvious departure from the pattern in the other books leads me to believing that it ISN'T a departure, but a deliberate misdirection by JKR, one that will be resolved in DH, when we discover that Snape is in fact DDM, and that Harry, as usual, jumped to a mistaken conclusion. > > What do ya'll think? Katie Carol responds: Small correction: In HBP, he eavesdrops on part of Draco's and Snape's conversation, not Snape's and DD's. He only hears about the argument in the forest between DD and Snape through Hagrid, which makes it incomplete and third-hand (and extra mysterious). Hagrid's interpretation that Snape was overworked is pretty clearly inadequate (however true it might be). I can think of at least one additional example from SS/PS; he hears Quirrell responding fearfully to Voldemort's threats and thinks that it's Snape who's threatening him. And in OoP, when he listens to the conversation between Arthur Weasley and Mad-Eye Moody (among others) in the hospital wing, he interprets it as meaning that he's possessed. He also hears a number of conversations in which the speakers themselves are misinformed, notably the teachers and fudge talking to Rosemerta in the three Broomsticks in PoA, so Harry's misinterpretation is not the only form of misdirection that JKR uses. Nor is Harry the only one who interprets events and characters wrongly. Both he and Hermione are wrong about the reason why Tonks has lost her Metamorphmagus powers in HBP, for example. Misinterpretation is a common motif in all the books. I think you're right, and it's not just conversations in HBP that are at stake here. It's what happened on the tower. Yes, Dumbledore is really dead, and yes, Snape killed him (unless Pippin is right that the spell was not a real AK and DD died from the poison or something else), but there's that exchanged glance between two Legilimens, a possible silent exchange of images and emotions which passed so quickly that Harry only saw its consequence, the expression of (self?)hatred and revulsion, and then, after "Severus, please" (also misinterpreted?), Snape finally raises his wand and speaks the words, resulting in a most unusual AK that sends DD over the wall and allows him to die with closed eyes and a peaceful expression (in marked contrast to Cedric Diggory and the Riddles). Assuming that Harry is wrong and DD was begging (not ordering) Snape to kill him--for the Order, for Harry and Draco, for the WW--we have at least two precedents for a widespread misunderstanding of events involving murder or intent to murder. A large number of Muggles *saw* Sirius Black "murder" twelve Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, and he was sent to Azkaban on their testimony (and DD's that black was Secret Keeper, which he "knew" to be "true"; in CoS, a large number of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, and Slytherins *saw and heard* Harry "egging on" the conjured snake to attack the Muggle-born Justin Finch-Fletchley and conclude that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin. Ernie Macmillan, Justin's fellow Hufflepuff, stubbornly tells Harry that he knows what he saw, but like the Muggle witnesses to the Black-Pettigrew confrontation, what he and the other students think they saw--with their own eyes in clear light--is wrong. Carol, agreeing that what Harry saw and heard on the tower was in some way misinterpreted and believing that, like Ernie Macmillan in CoS and DD in PoA, he will learn the truth in DH From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 25 16:37:29 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:37:29 -0000 Subject: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170755 Pippin: > > > IMO, Snape could have saved Dumbledore from the poison. But > > > he never got the chance, because Dumbledore didn't want him > > > to have it. The mission was more important. Snape was not > > > allowed to help Dumbledore, just as the Twins were not allowed > > > to go to their father in OOP even though he might have been > > > dying, because it would have given away too much. SSSusan: > > Erm... Pippin? I know I am only sporadically able to keep up > > with posting here, so this might be a long-ago expressed > > position/theory of yours and I've just missed it... but could you > > say what you're talking about here with the twins? Are you > > implying they're ESE! as well? What would their having gone to > > Arthur have potentially given away? Pippin: > LOL! Pippin the ESE!Queen strikes again!....er, sorry, bit of pre- > release giddiness there. Note to self: must not giggle madly while > staring at screen :) SSSusan: Yes, yes, that's it exactly -- it's *your* fault, you ESE!Queen you! I'm so ready to expect ESE! theories and down-to-the-minutiae-of- canon-backed hypotheses from you that I thought you were saying 'more' here than you actually were. :) Pippin: > But to answer your question, the twins not being allowed to go to > Arthur is not a theory of mine, it's unvarnished canon, from OOP, > ch 22. The twins wanted to go to St. Mungo's as soon as they'd > found out he'd been injured, and Sirius has to explain that he > can't let them. > --- > --- > If Dumbledore had to die alone and in pain in order > not to damage the Order's plans, he would do it, and he > wouldn't thank Snape or Harry if they messed it up for > him. SSSusan: Yes, Jen reminded me offlist of this segment of OotP (thanks, Jen!). I wasn't sure, still, if that was the parallel you were making or if... hee... you know, like you said, being the ESE! Queen and all... you were really proposing Something Else about F&G. I'm glad that you're not actually. I can take all the questioning of the twins' antics and whether it's as awful as the Black Hat bullies in the series, but I don't think I am quite ready to accept ESE! Greg&Forge, you know? I guess my remaining comment/question, re: making that parallel with DD not allowing Snape to help him, is this: Are you under the impression that there wasn't much left of DD's life to save? I mean, if Snape could truly have saved him -- if DD had a LOT o' living left in him, as opposed to just surviving a little bit longer if he was 'fading' already -- provided Snape just had the opportunity to 'work his magic,' then surely DD wouldn't have decided that his death was less important than the mission, would he have? Ack, I didn't phrase that very well. Let me try again. If the potion was what was causing DD to be so very weak at that time, but a dose of whatever Snape could've done for him would've restored DD to *full* health, then I'd have a hard time believing it was for the best for DD to allow himself to die. If, otoh, and as I do believe, DD was fading throughout the school year -- from whatever caused the blackened hand, especially, and perhaps from the potion and/or lake water as well -- and if he knew his end was drawing nearer and that a Snape Antidote would only buy him a *little* more time, then I could much more readily accept that he'd make the decision that it was better to die right then for the good of the cause. (Why risk revealing too much if it's only buying DD a small additional bit of time?) If DD *would* have been able to have been restored to pretty much normal health by Snape, then I guess I find it hard to believe that DD wouldn't have found *some* way to have 'played' that scene on the Tower to allow that to happen. Or do folks think that would just have been totally impossible to have pulled off under the circumstances, with all those around, and all the DEs knowing Draco's assignment? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who just finished rereading HBP but who's still feeling like she's missing things.... From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jun 25 17:13:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:13:04 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) Message-ID: <4362721.1182791584576.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170756 From: random832 at fastmail.us >> SSSusan: >> What would [the twins] having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? > >Operational security. Them going to Arthur would have revealed that they >had knowledge of his condition, which would have let Voldemort know >Harry was, unintentionally or not, able to spy on him somehow. >--Random832 Bart: Not to mention clueing in the Ministry that there was an active, non-Ministry approved organization to which Arthur belonged. With the cover-up, the Ministry remained clueless (I do hope that translates into British). I think the ESE!Twins theory does not make sense. I like the LOL!Twins theory. Bart Explanation for those who did not understand my two points: A) The term "clueless" means so stupid as to be able to look straight at the evidence, and not come to the correct conclusion. B) LOL means "Laughing Out Loud"; I'm implying that they like to joke about things. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 17:16:51 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:16:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170757 > > Carol responds: > It can't be an afterthought. Ron, who was with Snape outside the > Shrieking Shack, is already on a stretcher before Snape reaches the > kids. And note the order in which the names are mentioned: Harry, > Hermione, and Black. It sounds to me as if he gave his attention to > the kids first and then to Black. > Lanval: Ron was next to him when Snape woke up, naturally he would have been the first one. ;) Carol: > Also, as Montavilla mentioned, the gag would have had to be removed > before the Dementors could suck Black's soul. It sounds to me as if > Snape did everything that any responsible teacher, including > McGonagall or Dumbledore himself, would have done in his position, > assuming that he still truly believed Black to be a murderer. > Lanval: I've been reading about Snape the Responsible Citizen for a while now. But. JKR has long been deconstructing the idea of the WW as a rosy, happy, good place. By now we know of the corruption, the prejudice, the wonky justice system, and that process of deconstruction started early in the books. Here's a society that, granted, in a state resembling martial law, threw one of its citizens in prison (and a very bad sort of prison, where he was expected to die) without a trial. Without a lawyer, without due process. Years later that man escapes. There's s price on his head, and the understanding is that this time there's going to be no second chance for him to escape. He will have his soul sucked from his body, and will be *worse than dead*. Not, as happens in RL, perhaps killed in self defense while resisting arrest, or anything similar. No. It's get him, then execute him. Kill him as he is -- unarmed, helpless. Even though he has not added to his list of crimes (which got him a life sentence last time around), except that he managed to embarrass the authorities by escaping. Again, no trial, no hearing. Does anyone here really believe JKR means for us to approve of this sort of government? So, if Snape is acting in accordance with this government, blindly following their call to *bring Black to justice*... how is that a good thing? How does being a *good citizen* for this sort of justice system work in his moral defense? Carol: > And as Julie pointed out, Harry *did* witness that moment and said > nothing. His anger is at Snape for entering the Shack in the first > place and picking up the Invisibility Cloak, not for conjuring the > stretchers, which even he apparently understands was necessary to > their survival. I don't see why you would judge a hypothetical moment > when he conjured stretchers as favorable to Snape's character but > reverse that judgment because he also conjures a stretcher for Sirius > Black (and binds the murderer for safekeeping). Can the gag alone make > that much difference in your view? Black would have gagged him had > their places been reversed, I'm sure, as indicated by his > irresponsible carelessness in letting Snape's head bump the ceiling of > the tunnel. Lanval: I still can't blame Sirius too much for bumping Snape's head after knowing what Snape had in mind for him, and it's not as if Snape suffered any major damage. Sirius was delivering Snape to the safety of his cosy little dungeon home, letting his head bump against a dirt ceiling a few times. Snape was delivering a potentially innocent Sirius to the executioner, bound and gagged. On a nice comfortable stretcher, to be sure. Then he gloated about it, and then he threw a fit when it didn't happen. > Carol, who thinks that had *any* other teacher Snape done what Snape > did, that person would have been praised without question for behaving > responsibly and putting the kids' safety above all other considerations > Lanval: Hm. People in Potterverse including teachers behave bravely, kindly, responsibly, caringly, compassionately, all the time -- but rarely is a great deal made of it (if that's what you meant, that *this list* would praise them?). From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 17:38:15 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <92938.20708.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170758 justcarol67 wrote: Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Okay, so I was re-reading SS/PS last night, and something dawned on me. > > Whenever Harry overhears a conversation between two people, especially out of doors, he always jumps to a conclusion, and it's always the wrong one. > > In SS/PS, he assumes Snape is bullying/controlling Quirrell, when it's really Snape trying to protect the stone and Harry. > > I can't think of the specific instances in CoS when it happens, though I am about to re-read that one, so I can double check. > > In Azkaban, he definitely misunderstands the conversation between Lupin and Sirius. > > In Goblet, he hears Krum, and misinterprets. > > And in HBP, he hears Dumbledore and Snape. > > It seems to be a pattern of hearing two people in a secret conversation, and immediately jumping to the entirely wrong conclusion. So, if JKR sticks to her pattern, then Harry HAS to be wrong about Snape. He HAS to be misinterpreting Snape's motives. Because, the conversation that Harry overhears is always the source of his actions at the end of the book, and although his actions are correct, his motivation is often mistaken. EXCEPT in HBP. In HPB, Harry is RIGHT - or seemingly so. This obvious departure from the pattern in the other books leads me to believing that it ISN'T a departure, but a deliberate misdirection by JKR, one that will be resolved in DH, when we discover that Snape is in fact DDM, and that Harry, as usual, jumped to a mistaken conclusion. > > What do ya'll think? Katie Carol responds: Small correction: In HBP, he eavesdrops on part of Draco's and Snape's conversation, not Snape's and DD's. He only hears about the argument in the forest between DD and Snape through Hagrid, which makes it incomplete and third-hand (and extra mysterious). Hagrid's interpretation that Snape was overworked is pretty clearly inadequate (however true it might be). I can think of at least one additional example from SS/PS; he hears Quirrell responding fearfully to Voldemort's threats and thinks that it's Snape who's threatening him. And in OoP, when he listens to the conversation between Arthur Weasley and Mad-Eye Moody (among others) in the hospital wing, he interprets it as meaning that he's possessed. He also hears a number of conversations in which the speakers themselves are misinformed, notably the teachers and fudge talking to Rosemerta in the three Broomsticks in PoA, so Harry's misinterpretation is not the only form of misdirection that JKR uses. Nor is Harry the only one who interprets events and characters wrongly. Both he and Hermione are wrong about the reason why Tonks has lost her Metamorphmagus powers in HBP, for example. Misinterpretation is a common motif in all the books. I think you're right, and it's not just conversations in HBP that are at stake here. It's what happened on the tower. Yes, Dumbledore is really dead, and yes, Snape killed him (unless Pippin is right that the spell was not a real AK and DD died from the poison or something else), but there's that exchanged glance between two Legilimens, a possible silent exchange of images and emotions which passed so quickly that Harry only saw its consequence, the expression of (self?)hatred and revulsion, and then, after "Severus, please" (also misinterpreted?), Snape finally raises his wand and speaks the words, resulting in a most unusual AK that sends DD over the wall and allows him to die with closed eyes and a peaceful expression (in marked contrast to Cedric Diggory and the Riddles). Assuming that Harry is wrong and DD was begging (not ordering) Snape to kill him--for the Order, for Harry and Draco, for the WW--we have at least two precedents for a widespread misunderstanding of events involving murder or intent to murder. A large number of Muggles *saw* Sirius Black "murder" twelve Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, and he was sent to Azkaban on their testimony (and DD's that black was Secret Keeper, which he "knew" to be "true"; in CoS, a large number of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, and Slytherins *saw and heard* Harry "egging on" the conjured snake to attack the Muggle-born Justin Finch-Fletchley and conclude that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin. Ernie Macmillan, Justin's fellow Hufflepuff, stubbornly tells Harry that he knows what he saw, but like the Muggle witnesses to the Black-Pettigrew confrontation, what he and the other students think they saw--with their own eyes in clear light--is wrong. Carol, agreeing that what Harry saw and heard on the tower was in some way misinterpreted and believing that, like Ernie Macmillan in CoS and DD in PoA, he will learn the truth in DH Katie Responds: Wow - I hadn't even considered all the other instances of situations, not just conversations, being misinterpreted. There's a really strong precedent for many people, not just Harry, misinterpreting things and getting it all wrong. Even more, I believe that the departure from precedent in HBP means that Snape is really DDM, and Harry is dead wrong about him. Furthermore, and I know this has been brought up before, but when Harry and Hermione disagree about something, Hermione is always right. And Hermione believes Snape is DDM, so I believe she will be right again. And I definitely agree that everything that happens on the tower points to DDM Snape. Only a few more weeks until all the speculation ends! And we'll see who's right...I can't wait! Katie Katie --------------------------------- Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 25 18:06:06 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:06:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170759 Alla: > Snape is taking care of business or people as he > sees fit, LOL. In particulartly he is taking care > of Sirius to deliver him to dementors, no? houyhnhnm: No, not as he sees fit. I think that's the point people are trying to make. He's following some kind of *procedure*. He's being *professional* (a better word than "caring", IMO). As Lizzyben pointed out, this is the only time we have a chance to see Snape alone with himself, with no one to act for. And he goes by the book. As for binding and gagging Sirius, it serves no practical purpose and there may be an element of personal hatred at play, but try to look at it from Snape's point of view. One minute he's being disarmed while holding a werewolf about to transform and an escaped murderer at wand point, the next thing he knows, he's coming to on the grounds, alone except for an unconscious Ron Weasley. He has no idea what has happened. Binding and gagging Sirius is like not only closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, but padlocking it and nailing boards across. He wants to make certain that nothing else goes wrong. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 25 18:25:52 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:25:52 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Ken wrote: > > > >We are not idiots and we don't want our Harry Potter or anything > else in predigested form from a copy editor. Sorry, Carol.... > > > > > Carol: > Now, now, I wouldn't insult your profession. Please don't inult mine. > We just do what the publishers tell us to do, and if that includes > changing british english to American English, we do it. And I , for > one, at least appreciate having double quotes instead of single ones. > I don't think it's an insult to kids to remove the more difficult or > unusual Briticisms. > > > Carol, who wishes you could do my job for a day just to see what it's > really like > Ken: I think perhaps you don't understand how similar our professions are! As an engineer I rarely get to do what I know should be done. Instead I have to do what managers, salesmen, marketing, and company policy say that I must do. If engineers had a free hand in designing products the things you use would be much better and last much longer. Now granted you'd never be able to afford to buy them and no one but another engineer would ever be able to figure out how to operate them (think first generation VCRs) and they'd never actually be offered for sale because there is so much more we could do with just one more design revision ... so I suppose those other professions do have a proper role to play in the design of products. It is only when they overstep their bounds that products suffer. I'm not insulting your profession then. I am saying that I don't agree with the *publisher's* policies in regards to translating English to English. You've already explained the copy editor's role in this process and I wasn't unclear on it. The policy is wrong. The intent was not to demean copy editors for this but to state my feeling about the policy. I addressed you because you seem to defend as well as explain the policy. If I had children I would want them to read what JKR wrote, not the Scholastic Party Line on what she should have written had she been a Proper American Speaker. Now, ok, in a few instances where usage on one side of the Atlantic is G rated but X rated on the other, I can accept substitutes. For the most part, no. If my children had trouble with a passage and had to come to me for help with it isn't that a habit I would like to instill in them? Most Americans have cable or satellite TV if FCC statistics are to be believed. Any American who needs a crash course in British English need only tune in BBCAmerica. I haven't seen anything comparable in quite a while but they did air a rather good version of *Gormenghast* a few years ago so they occasionally have something more worthwhile than the prototype for the next reality show that US networks will imitate. Would you defend this practice if it were common, for example, to Americanize Bach's works with notes and chords and rhythms that sounded more familiar to American ears? The very notion is hideous. I find it just at bad that written language is subjected to this treatment. I read the books to learn about Harry Potter of Little Whinging, not his hillbilly cousin from Kentucky. I love American music too but don't you *dare* mess with Bach. Ken, who proudly comes from good, solid hillbilly stock from near Lexington, so don't think he means anything agin ye if you be a hillbilly or a Kentuckian. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 18:58:30 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:30 -0000 Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170761 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > None of which excuses his actions or reprehensible abusive behavior > in any way, form, or fashion, I'd say. And not of which excuses him > from punishment. > > Alla: > > Blinks. I am with you on this topic, remember? You do not have to > convince me that Snape is a child abuser, I see him as such indeed. Chuckle. Just a statement of general principle to forestall the inevitable (from certain people) "if he is such a deliciously complex character we can't apply simplistic moral analysis" arguments. Obviously, I don't think such statements are true (Snape is complex, but the moral issues involved with his abuse of Harry and Neville are, I think, brutally clear and undeniable), but there you have it. > > Alla: > > That's great. Except I did not say it, so you are convincing somebody > else. I think Toonmili, not 100% sure. I agree with you. Whoopsey. Must have mislabled that one. Sorry about that. > > > > Mike: > > No, no, justice for me and Alla and Sherry and all the other > faithful > > Snape-hating readers. When Snape got the DADA job we had such high > > hopes, for what lay ahead for "Snivellus". > > Alla: > > Yep - that one. > Hmmmm. The saga of "Snivellus" and his relationship to the DADA curse is almost certainly not over -- if there is, indeed, a DADA curse at all. I personally think it would be rather amusing -- unlikely, but amusing -- if the subject were to come up and Voldy were to blink his reptilian eyelids and say "What curse? Do you honestly think that in the midst of taking over the world I had time to craft a jinx for a teaching job? I hated Dumbledore and wanted him dead, but the man's hiring problems were entirely his own trouble!" Lupinlore, who thinks his yard will probably do very well after being mulched around the edge of the porch From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 19:23:54 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:23:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170762 > > What is even more significant, IMO, is the way that he chooses to > > transports everyone. Snape treats all his "patients" with dignity. > He > > conjures stretchers to carry everyone in a comfortable way, and he > > moves all the unconscious people w/equal care. This is a big > contrast > > from the way Sirius & Remus treated Snape when he was unconscious. > > > Lanval: > Oh, where to start... > > Of course Snape is calm, efficient, and responsible here. He usually > is, no? How placing people on stretchers makes anyone a healer, that > I don't understand. > > As I said before, to me it's about being practical. Do tell me what > other options Snape had that would *not* have made him look like a > complete ass when walking into the castle? > > Drag them by their hair? Bring them in one by one? It seems to me > that floating someone requires some concentration, and that it would > be hard to keep the required spell active on more than one person. > The stretchers Snape conjures are IMO from the Hospital Wing, and > have been pre-treated with a floating charm, meaning all one has to > do is make them move along. But that's just my theory, so feel free > to ignore that. :) Well, there's two levels here - the practical level & the symbolic level. This is a literary text, so the imagery & symbolism have meaning. And JKR clearly contrasts the images of how Sirius treated an unconcious Snape (as a grosteque puppet, head lolling) and the image of how Snape treated unconscious people (as patients & human beings,in stretchers, in comfort.) This is the ONLY glimpse we have of the real Snape, and it's quite telling. JKR didn't have to show us this - but she did. It doesn't really matter where the stretchers came from; what matters is how Snape treats vulnerable, injured people. And in this instance, the only time we see the unvarnished Snape, he treats the unconsious people with dignity & care. > Lanval: > Funny that it was *Snape* who invented that particular humiliating > hex, eh? > > As to this being reminiscent of the Imperius curse (an > Unforgivable!), how do you arrive at that? Imperio is about mind > control, Levicorpus is about physical control. Dangling someone > upside down has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling someone's > mind. lizzyben: They're both about control. Imperius takes away someone's mental control, to make them into a mental puppet of the wizard. Mobilcorpus takes away physical control, to make someone's body into a puppet. It's clear that JKR thinks that controlling people, depriving them of choices & free will, is a major evil. That evil is symbolized by the "unforgiveable" Imperius curse & in these other curses. It's not a coincidence that Sirius, Remus & James and the Death Eaters do the same exact thing to their enemies - they all levitate them, control them & humiliate them. There's a direct, intentional parallel between these various spells. And yes, Snape came up w/the Levicorpus spell, but then it was used against him - so Snape became the victim as he was controlled, exposed & humiliated. And I think he learned from that. We NEVER see adult Snape using those kinds of spells, against anyone. That's a significant detail, IMO. Even at his most enraged, Snape didn't use magic during his emotional meltdowns in POA or OOTP. And he hardly ever uses magical spells during his classes. He seems to excercise a lot of restraint in his use of magic. > lizzyben04: > > But Snape, when confronted w/unconscious enemies, does not. He > doesn't > > use Imperius or Levicorpus against Sirius & the kids.He doesn't > treat > > them like puppets or deprive them of their dignity. He treats them > > like human beings, not puppets. And he saves both enemy and friend, > > without distinction. > > Lanval: > Ok, I'll bite. What does he save Sirius from? > > Mmm. Binding and gagging. Always a sign of treating someone with > dignity. > > He doesn't use Imperius against the kids and Sirius? Are we supposed > to admire him for refraining from using an Unforgivable?? lizzyben: Does he bind & gag Sirius? Personally, I don't think he did. Sure, he tells Fudge he did, because he knows that he should have. But when Harry & Hermione observe him, all they see is Snape lifting their bodies onto stretchers, and taking them to the castle. There's no mention at all of Snape binding Sirius. And who is the first person he moves into a stretcher? Not Sirius, but Ron, the boy with a broken leg. I think, in that moment, Snape went into paramedic mode. He evaluated the situation & took care of the most injured person first, then worked to save the others. He didn't see Sirius, a man he loathes, but an unconscious, injured person who needed help. In situations like this, it seems like Snape's healing instinct/training snaps into place. The pettiness & hostility take over later. :) Basically, Snape has a "saving people thing". There's other examples of this throughout the novel. In GOF, when Snape hears someone scream, he leaps out of bed in only his nightshirt to see what happened. In OOTP, Snape & Harry are having a petty fight when they hear a woman scream. Snape stops, drops everything & instantly rushes out to help. So does Harry. It seems like they both do have this need to rush in & try to save people in danger. > lizzyben04: > This is a small moment, but I do think it > > reflects a positive aspect of Snape's character. Snape sees all of > > them as "real people," Slytherin & Gryfindor, Malfoys & Weasleys. > > He saves both Harry & Draco, > > Lanval: > Harry? When? At the end, from the DE? According to Snape, that was > on the Dark Lord's orders, no? *eg* We'll find out soon enough, I > guess, but for now I'll agree that that he saved Harry from being > tortured a while longer. > > Draco? Indeed. He saved Draco from the effects of a Dark Curse that > SNAPE HIMSELF invented. I will never understand how peforming the > proper countercurse to a nasty, potentially fatal Dark Curse Snape > himself invented somehow elevates him to Healer-hood. lizzyben: But you're not really addressing my larger point, which is that Snape does not seem to distinguish in who he saves/heals. He saves Harry in the first novel during the Quidditch match. And yes, he did save Harry from the Crucio curse. He also saves Draco from a curse. He helps protect a child he seems to like (Draco), and a student he can't stand (Harry). And I do think that Snape's countercurse shows a knack for healing. In that chapter, he not only issued the countercurse, but also thinks of a remedy for the scars, wipes Draco's forehead, and reassures Draco that he won't have permenant injuries. He seems to have a good "bedside manner" as a healer (as opposed to his manners in general). Snape has that duality - healer/curser, light/dark, and it's his experience on the "dark side" that gives him the knowledge necessary for the light. His knowledge of the dark arts allows him to excel in DADA, his knowledge of poisons allows him to create antidotes, etc. I don't see any contradiction there. Snape's knowledge of curses helps him to be an effective healer. > Lanval: > May I just point out that at this point, while it seems pretty clear > that he does hate Lupin, we have nothing in canon to prove that > Snape *loves* DD. lizzyben: Oh, I think he does. That's what makes the ending of POA so pathetic & hurtful for Snape. He desperately wants DD's approval & respect, and he resents that Harry, Sirius & co. seem to have DD's love w/o having earned it. At the end, Snape begs, pleads, DD to finally choose him over the golden Gryffindors. Of course, DD does not. He again chooses to protect Sirius over Snape. This, IMO, is what finally drives Snape over the edge into a total tantrum. If he didn't care what DD thought of him, it wouldn't have hurt him so much. It's a dysfunctional kind of relationship, but I do think Snape cares about DD, and wants his approval. > lizzyben04: > In this, > > Snape is almost unique in the Potterverse. > That's my view of him - > > Humanist!Snape. LOL. He doesn't save people because he likes them, > but > > because they are human beings in need of care. > > > Lanval: > "Almost unique", yes. The Healers (real Healers, not DADA > specialists), at St Mungo's. Madam Pomfrey. Surely they don't apply > their skills according to how much they may love or hate a patient? lizzyben: No, they don't, and that's my point. Healers try to save people, not because they love or hate them, but because they value human life. In Snape's treatment of his various "patients", we can see that same attitude. It would not surprise me at all to learn that Snape actually trained at some point to become a Healer. And Snape's stance stands in stark contrast to most of the other main characters. People have talked about the fact that the Trio seem to think that it's OK to hurt people, hex people, or even torture people that they do not like. How they seem to think outsiders or enemies aren't "real people" at all. Snape, in contrast, treats everyone like "real people," real human beings. He'll taunt & insult people he dislikes, but he will not abandon them, hurt them, or use them. He doesn't treat people like puppets. > lizzyben04: > We don't see this side > > of Snape often in the books, but IMO it is there in the > background. In > > HBP, Harry finally got a chance to see this side of Snape. > > > Lanval: > You mean when he killed DD? lizzyben: No, I mean when he saved Dumbledore from dying of his Horcrux injury, healed Katie Bell from the locket curse, healed Ron after the mead poisoning, healed Draco from Harry's curse, etc. The whole book, Snape is running around healing people. At the end of the novel, Harry actually *misses* Snape for a moment, when Madame Pomfrey says that she doesn't know how to heal Bill's injury. Harry remembers how well Snape cured Draco's injuries, and IMO finally realizes Snape's skills as a healer. All through the books, the kids are healed from the worst injuries & curses w/o ill effect. Suddenly, when Snape is gone, nothing can be done to heal Bill Weasely. IMO, this is a sign that Snape often has worked behind the scenes to heal the students in the past. In OOTP, Hermione was gravely injured by an unknown dark curse, and almost dies. To recover, she needs to take ten. potions. A DAY. Who brewed all those potions? Who diagnosed the unknown curse, and the appropriate remedy? Snape. When Hermione & other students are petrified, they are cured by Snape's Mandrake potion. And etc. Snape has always been healing people behind the scenes; in HBP we finally actually observed him doing that. Yes, Snape is a snarky sarcastic bastard, but he also seems devoted to protecting & healing people in need. In this, Snape reminds me a bit of "House, MD," or Dr. Cox from Scrubs. Dr. Cox can unleash a stream of insults that would make Snape proud, but he also genuinely cares about the welfare of his interns & patients. Snape seems to me to have a similar personality. Not a nice person, but a good person. Throughout the novels, Snape acts like a jerk, but he also acts to save & heal people. I feel like I finally "got" Snape once I saw the healer aspect to his character. It's sort of been hiding in plain sight, all along. lizzyben04 From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 19:25:28 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:25:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470706251225ned8459aw4b96fd32a45960cd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170763 Geoff: > Yes, but that doesn't fit the events. > > I wonder if you have fallen into the common mistake of treating a Horcrux > as the actual soul fragment. Remember that "a Horcrux is the word used > for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul". > (Slughorn in HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition). > > If Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow with the intent of making Harry > into a Horcrux, he would not be casting an Avada Kedavra curse on > him because a dead Harry could not become a Horcrux. > TKJ: I'm not saying he went with the intent to make Harry the Horcrux. I'm saying he went with the intent to use the killing of Harry to make his last Horcrux. He would hold that killing to be "sentimental" in his twisted mind because this person was supposed to be his downfall. See what I mean? TKJ :- --------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah: Geoff, TKJ is right. Dumbledore explained in HBP that Harry was supposed to be the murder that would create Voldemort's Horcrux. There was no intention of making Harry a Horcrux becasue, as DD explains, that would be a very bad choice for a horcrux. However, there are people who believe that Harry "accidentally" became a horcrux and I'm not inclined to believe it, but I am ok with being wrong about that. I would think that, seeing as how murder splits the soul and LV has committed many murders, the actual "splitting for a horcrux" murders are to be special but that doesn't mean LV complete the split. It's just a murder and that's all he needs to start the process. I would think it is a whole other process to extract the fragment of sould and move it to another object. I saying that Murder and Horcrix-ing (sprry for that) are not dependent on eachother. LV can kill but not make a horcrux but you have to kill to make a horcrux. The other issue is this: if LV was going to use Harry's murder to make a Horcrux then LV didn't actually make on... he didn't kill Harry. However, he did kill James and Lily... but the only think LV did after that was try and AK Harry... not make a horcrux, so i don't see how Harry is "accidentally" a Horcrux seeing as how it is supposed to be an immensely complicated spell... Just my thoughts on it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 19:35:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:35:08 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170764 > lizzyben: > Does he bind & gag Sirius? Personally, I don't think he did. Sure, > he tells Fudge he did, because he knows that he should have. But > when Harry & Hermione observe him, all they see is Snape lifting > their bodies onto stretchers, and taking them to the castle. Alla: I do not know what to say. Literally. I guess when Snape shows himself in worse light, it is not to be believed? When he says he gagged unconscious Sirius, it really did not happen? Lizzyben: There's > no mention at all of Snape binding Sirius. Alla: Except from his own mouth. Lizzyben04: He didn't see Sirius, > a man he loathes, but an unconscious, injured person who needed > help. In situations like this, it seems like Snape's healing > instinct/training snaps into place. The pettiness & hostility take > over later. :) Alla: What help? How was Snape helping Sirius? I snipped part about Ron, because I see no significance in Snape putting Ron on stretchers first. IMO. Lizzyben04: > Yes, Snape is a snarky sarcastic bastard, but he also seems devoted > to protecting & healing people in need. In this, Snape reminds me a > bit of "House, MD," or Dr. Cox from Scrubs. Dr. Cox can unleash a > stream of insults that would make Snape proud, but he also genuinely > cares about the welfare of his interns & patients. Alla: I love House, but I see House as so much more human than Snape ever be. IMO of course :) > houyhnhnm: > As for binding and gagging Sirius, it serves no > practical purpose and there may be an element of > personal hatred at play, but try to look at it from > Snape's point of view. He wants > to make certain that nothing else goes wrong. > Alla: Yes, I **am** looking at it from Snape POV and really, binding Sirius I understand, if Snape genuinely believes that he delivers a murderer. I do. Gagging though is a different story. What **can** go wrong if Sirius will be talking, binded? No, looks to me that Snape really does not **want** Sirius to talk. > Lanval: > I still can't blame Sirius too much for bumping Snape's head after > knowing what Snape had in mind for him, and it's not as if Snape > suffered any major damage. > > Sirius was delivering Snape to the safety of his cosy little dungeon > home, letting his head bump against a dirt ceiling a few times. > > Snape was delivering a potentially innocent Sirius to the > executioner, bound and gagged. On a nice comfortable stretcher, to > be sure. Then he gloated about it, and then he threw a fit when it > didn't happen. Alla: Well said indeed :) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Jun 25 19:48:05 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:48:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170765 > Alla: > > Yes, I understand that you are talking about the image of Snape as > healer in this scene and nothing more. And I am saying that I > inprepret this **image** drastically different from you - as image of > practical, hypocritical bastard, who is concerned how Dumbledore and > authorities would see him when he comes back to the castle with > **murderer** on stretchers. Magpie: But how can you interpret this "image" differently? The image is totally removed from the context of the story. If Snape was nailed to a cross, for instance, the image would be Christlike. It's the image itself that makes the association, not Snape. Snape's character can add meaning to the image that's negative, just as Voldemort being Voldemort turns the idea of a baby on its head, but the imagery is still infantile. The imagery is based not just on the situation but on what the associations the author or reader can be assumed to have. I have hard time believing that someone shown a picture of three unknown figures, two on stretchers and the third carrying them away, would be able to interpret that image as having anything to do with hypocrisy, and barely that they would say it was about practicality. More like they'd identify the people on the stretchers as injured or dead and the other person carrying them to the hospital or the morgue. Sure when you put it into the scene in canon, as I said, it's easy to come up with reasons why Snape's really just trying to look like a caring or responsible person and really he hates everybody inside. But even in that interpretation you have to admit that the image he's projecting is one of resopnsibility and care. Though Rowling puts no particular twist on it. > Alla: > > How do you know that this is not about being practical? Maybe the > reason why author chose this **image** is to show precisely that - > Snape's practical side, no? Magpie: Snape's healing people seems obviously something more emphasized in the text than Snape being practical in this way (which in this case means Snape coming up with handy ways of carrying things or transporting people etc.). The image of carrying people on stretchers has more associations with the care of injury and sickness than it does with practicality. There's not even anything necessarily practical about them--JKR could have had him just levitate them on their own. Snape's also good at Potions, which both heal and poison (poisons and antidotes being common things he's teaching), and good at Dark Arts, both hurting and reversing curses. It just seems like going to a lot of effort to deny something pretty consistent for Snape because it sounds too positive when I don't even think it needs to be that positive. -m From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jun 25 20:15:19 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:15:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170766 > > lizzyben: > > Does he bind & gag Sirius? Personally, I don't think he did. Sure, > > he tells Fudge he did, because he knows that he should have. But > > when Harry & Hermione observe him, all they see is Snape lifting > > their bodies onto stretchers, and taking them to the castle. > > > > Alla: > > I do not know what to say. Literally. I guess when Snape shows > himself in worse light, it is not to be believed? When he says he > gagged unconscious Sirius, it really did not happen? > colebiancardi: I mentioned this a couple of days ago - I think that Snape embellished this bit. After all, he was explaining the whole adventure to Fudge and he already told the whopper of the kids being under Sirius's Confundus Charm. As I stated before, I think that Snape is making himself look better for Fudge - afterall, it isn't everyday one gets an Order of Merlin, First Class!! > > > houyhnhnm: > > > As for binding and gagging Sirius, it serves no > > practical purpose and there may be an element of > > personal hatred at play, but try to look at it from > > Snape's point of view. He wants > > to make certain that nothing else goes wrong. > > > > Alla: > > Yes, I **am** looking at it from Snape POV and really, binding Sirius > I understand, if Snape genuinely believes that he delivers a > murderer. I do. > > Gagging though is a different story. What **can** go wrong if Sirius > will be talking, binded? > > No, looks to me that Snape really does not **want** Sirius to talk. colebiancardi: ahhh, but Sirius ungagged can do more than "talk". Sirius can do spells if not gagged. And could escape. So, gagging Sirius prevents him from doing any type of magical spells to, lets say, unbind him or knock Severus out. But true be told, I think that a) Sirius was out cold during this time back to the castle and b) Snape told a lie to Fudge. colebiancardi (who also thinks of Snape when she watches House. And if we had some insight to Snape's personal life, like we do with House, we would see another side to him. Instead, we have to grasp at passages like Snape, who thinks he is not being watched, carefully putting HRH and Sirius on stretchers to be transported back to the castle) From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jun 25 20:35:34 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:35:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170767 Alla: > I see no significance in Snape putting Ron on > stretchers first. IMO. houyhnhnm: The significance is that shows that Snape was performing triage by attending to the most severely injured first. It reinforces the image of Snape behaving with the professionalism of a healer rather than being in a personal mode. Alla: > Gagging though is a different story. What **can** > go wrong if Sirius will be talking, binded? houyhnhnm: He wouldn't be talking, gagged or not, if he was unconscious. From that I had concluded that the gagging served no practical pupose whatsoever. It was just Snape *over*compensating for having been unconscious and out of control during an emergency. It was his way of reassuring himself that he was back in control. However, I like Montavilla's idea that the gag may have been intended as protection against any return of the Dementors. Alla: > And I am saying that I inprepret this **image** [...] > as image of practical, hypocritical bastard, who is > concerned how Dumbledore and authorities would see > him when he comes back to the castle with **murderer** > on stretchers. houyhnhnm: If it was only for show, Snape could have arranged Sirius and the kids on stretchers when he got to the door, after visiting whatever indignities on them he wanted during the trek up to the castle. He didn't do that. How you treat an unconscious person when no one is watching: I just can't imagine any situation in which character would be more transparently revealed than that, in fiction or real life. And I speak as someone who has both attended unconscious patients and watched others attend them. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 25 20:38:32 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:38:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170768 lizzyben04: > Well, there's two levels here - the practical level & the symbolic > level. This is a literary text, so the imagery & symbolism have > meaning. And JKR clearly contrasts the images of how Sirius treated > an unconcious Snape (as a grosteque puppet, head lolling) and the > image of how Snape treated unconscious people (as patients & human > beings,in stretchers, in comfort.) This is the ONLY glimpse we have > of the real Snape, and it's quite telling. JKR didn't have to show > us this - but she did. It doesn't really matter where the > stretchers came from; what matters is how Snape treats vulnerable, > injured people. And in this instance, the only time we see the > unvarnished Snape, he treats the unconsious people with dignity & > care. Dana: Right and him preparing to dragg the werewolf (who actually was still Lupin which Snape seemed to have forgotten) through the tunnel is not worse then how Sirius treats the man that just had threatened him to get his soul sucked out, before he ever would have a chance to talk to DD because Snape was totally beyond reason. A man he minutes later actually does safe the life off, before he would have truly ended up as the werewolf's next appetizer. And Snape doesn't even wonder how he managed to survive Lupin's transformation unscratched? Oh yes, of course he already knows because he HEARD Lupin tell Harry how James and Sirius were such large animals that they could keep a werewolf in check. But it is not enough for Snape to even consider that Sirius indeed might be innocent because instead he tries to persuade Fudge to hurry up before anyone can change his or DD's mind or can even intervene. Snape brought everybody up to the castle because for one there where witnesses that could put him on the scene and therefore he did not have a choice. He could not leave them there and go back to the castle pretending nothing ever happened. Of course he doesn't even want too because he captured Sirius Black. Vengeance is sweet ... How I hoped I would be the one to catch you.. (PoA pg 264 UKed PB Chapter "The servant of Lord Voldemort". And now he has and he will not let him get a way and he wants to be rewared for it. He wants to go into history as the one that captured Sirius Black. The one that tried to kill him at age 16. Hope DD will not make difficulties. The kiss will be preformed immediately? Let's get ride of him before the truth comes out or otherwise I will never get a way with it. And let's see oh it does happen. Sirius never get's a chance to live as a free man before he died and Snape did get a way with it at least according to his own claim he did. And I have not seen anything that proves he was lying. Yes, that claim was really treating the death and the innocent with dignity. It remains to be seen if that was the only part of the TRUE Snape we saw in the enite series because I'm pretty sure that the Snape losing it for not getting his way and when he was called a coward comes far closer to the TRUE Snape then you ever would expect. But late's wait and see as we will be put out of our misery soon enough. JMHO Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 25 21:06:03 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:06:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170769 Dana before: > It remains to be seen if that was the > only part of the TRUE Snape we saw in the enite series because I'm > pretty sure that the Snape losing it for not getting his way and when > he was called a coward comes far closer to the TRUE Snape then you > ever would expect. Dana again: I have to correct myself because I actually do not see the scene as having anything to do with Snape being displayed as carrying by JKR but just her giving this scene because she needed everyone relocated to get the time-turning sequence going. If no one was there to relocate everyone then Sirius would not have ended up waiting for a faith worse then death and thus no need for DD to set Hermione and Harry up on this rescue mission. Skipping this would make it unbelievable and the way Snape transports them is actually irrelevant, as long as they are indeed moved from one location to the next. You do not see Snape up close, you can't see his facial expressions. He might be laughing his head off that he will be done before Harry can intervene again. To bad DD thinks otherwise. JMHO Dana From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jun 25 21:13:41 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:13:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170770 > Dana: Oh yes, of course he already knows > because he HEARD Lupin tell Harry how James and Sirius were such > large animals that they could keep a werewolf in check. But it is not > enough for Snape to even consider that Sirius indeed might be > innocent because instead he tries to persuade Fudge to hurry up > before anyone can change his or DD's mind or can even intervene. > colebiancardi: But DOES Snape really know? Did he really HEAR Lupin tell Harry this? We don't know for sure. There is nothing that proves it, one way or the other. > Dana: Snape brought everybody up to the castle because for one there where > witnesses that could put him on the scene and therefore he did not > have a choice. He could not leave them there and go back to the > castle pretending nothing ever happened. colebiancardi: Snape does have a choice. Everybody has choices. The reasons behind the choices differ. Why on earth would he leave 3 students, one with a broken leg and another almost soul-sucked, out there on the grounds? Where has Snape EVER endangered students before? He has never put a student's life in danger - ever. > Of course he doesn't even > want too because he captured Sirius Black. Vengeance is sweet ... colebiancardi: of course. No one is denying any lost love between Black & Snape. And the WHOLE wizarding world believed Sirius to be dangerous - and Snape knew, as did Dumbledore, that Sirius was the LAST known secret-keeper for the Potters. omes out or otherwise I will never get a way with it. > > And let's see oh it does happen. Sirius never get's a chance to live > as a free man before he died and Snape did get a way with it at least > according to his own claim he did. colebiancardi: and that is Snape's fault? Hello - Peter Pettigrew, the ONLY proof they had, escaped - and not on Snape's watch. Snape was out cold at that time. Lupin, who HAD been reminded in front of the Trio & Sirius by Snape about his missed potion, turned into a werewolf once they got outside. How is that Snape's fault? Why would Snape believe the Trio? Even the Trio had issues with it until they saw Scabbers transform into Peter. PoA is not Snape's shining moment - he is a tad one-sided and not open to listening to Lupin - I won't get into Sirius, as there is no way those two will ever listen to one another. And as another member pointed out, in GoF, Snape is taken aback when the black dog transforms into Sirius in the hospital wing. GoF AmEd Hardcover, pg 712 "Snape had not yelled or jumped backward, but the look on his face was of mingled fury and horror. "Him!" he snarled, staring at Sirius, whose face showed equal dislike. "What is he doing here?" "He is here at my invitation," said Dumbledore, looking between them, "as are you, Severus. I trust you both. It is time for you to lay aside your old differences and trust each other." Harry thought Dumbledore was asking for a near miracle. Sirius and Snape were eyeing each other with the utmost loathing. This passage, to me at least, proves that Snape was not aware that Sirius was an animagi. If he had known that Sirius was one, why didn't he remark on the Sirius's animagi form when the dog came into the hospital wing in the first place - why wait until AFTER he transformed? And this passage goes to show that Sirius & Snape never will or never had cared for one another. To say that Snape treated Sirius unfairly without stating that Sirius treated Snape unfairly is not being honest about their relationship. Both of them are gits when it comes to each other and it seems that all they do is try to score points off of each other. To see who will come out on top. colebiancardi From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 21:14:36 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:14:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170771 > Lanval: > Here's a society that, granted, in a state resembling martial law, > threw one of its citizens in prison (and a very bad sort of prison, > where he was expected to die) without a trial. Without a lawyer, > without due process. Years later that man escapes. There's s price > on his head, and the understanding is that this time there's going > to be no second chance for him to escape. He will have his soul > sucked from his body, and will be *worse than dead*. Not, as happens > in RL, perhaps killed in self defense while resisting arrest, or > anything similar. > > No. It's get him, then execute him. Kill him as he is -- unarmed, > helpless. Even though he has not added to his list of crimes (which > got him a life sentence last time around), except that he managed to > embarrass the authorities by escaping. > > Again, no trial, no hearing. > > Does anyone here really believe JKR means for us to approve of this > sort of government? zgirnius: Of course not, but that is beside the point. I have a problem with this argument. Of course Sirius should have had a trial before he received a life sentence in prison. And of course a new trial (or suitably named legal proceeding of which I am unaware) should be held to change that sentence based on his escape and later activities, which do include some crimes: breaking into Hogwarts twice, assaulting a portrait (not quite mere property damage in light of the WW's quirks), and assault on a Hogwarts student (he broke Ron's leg, let us not forget). But if Snape honestly believes Sirius committed the original crimes for which he was imprisoned, what are his options? I mean, I live in the US and am a non-supporter of the death penalty. But if I knew the whereabouts of an escaped Death Row inmate I believed to be violent and dangerous, you can bet I would consider it my duty to report this fact to the authorities (and would admire someone more courageous than I who took more active steps to stop the fugitive, like catching him and turning him in). His later execution would be a thing of which I do not particularly approve, but if my other option is to leave the man free to possibly hurt more innocent people, what else am I supposed to do? The right way to express my views about the law is not to be lenient to a dangerous murderer, but to take actions that support reforms of the legal system to make it more in keeping with my views. Alla: > Gagging though is a different story. What **can** > go wrong if Sirius will be talking, binded? zgirnius: PK, tying Sirius up makes sense if we grant Snape was concerned with the possibility the murderer would escape. But why are we supposing he made an independent choice to gag Sirius? We see him use a single spell on Lupin: > PoA: > BANG! Thin, snakelike cords burst from the end of Snape's wand and twisted themselves around Lupin's mouth, wrists, and ankles; Zgirnius: So it seems to me that Snape knows a tie-up-prisoners spell he is in the habit of using when he needs to, and that spell happens to have the effect of preventing the prisoner from speaking. If he is using the same spell, he would actually need to untie Sirius's mouth separately NOT to gag him. Also, reading several posts on the supposed pointlessness of the gagging has got me thinking. Snape learned in the Shack that Sirius's Animagus form is something that can hope to battle a werewolf and win. The transformation does not require a wand. It seems muzzling such a beast is a reasonable precaution, very much in line with tying the wrists and ankles of a human prisoner. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 25 21:17:34 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:17:34 -0000 Subject: Who seems minor in OotP; but will be crucial in DH? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170772 Shelley: > When/were did you hear about Kreacher? Dana: Sorry to not get back at you sooner but I have been trying to find the source but couldn't. I know I have red about this ages ago but could not remember where. I did see some people state this as well but could not find the actual quote. Well it seems that it is no longer a secret as it now indeed has been revealed that they were talking about Kreacher on both Leaky and Mugglenet. Dana From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 25 21:19:07 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:19:07 -0000 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? In-Reply-To: <948bbb470706251225ned8459aw4b96fd32a45960cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > Geoff: > > If Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow with the intent of making Harry > > into a Horcrux, he would not be casting an Avada Kedavra curse on > > him because a dead Harry could not become a Horcrux. > TKJ: > I'm not saying he went with the intent to make Harry the Horcrux. I'm > saying he went with the intent to use the killing of Harry to make his > last Horcrux. > Jeremiah: > > Geoff, TKJ is right. Dumbledore explained in HBP that Harry was supposed to > be the murder that would create Voldemort's Horcrux. There was no intention > of making Harry a Horcrux becasue, as DD explains, that would be a very bad > choice for a horcrux. However, there are people who believe that Harry > "accidentally" became a horcrux and I'm not inclined to believe it, but I am > ok with being wrong about that. > > I would think that, seeing as how murder splits the soul and LV has > committed many murders, the actual "splitting for a horcrux" murders are to > be special but that doesn't mean LV complete the split. It's just a murder > and that's all he needs to start the process. I would think it is a whole > other process to extract the fragment of sould and move it to another > object. I saying that Murder and Horcrix-ing (sprry for that) are not > dependent on eachother. LV can kill but not make a horcrux but you have to > kill to make a horcrux. > > The other issue is this: if LV was going to use Harry's murder to make a > Horcrux then LV didn't actually make on... he didn't kill Harry. However, he > did kill James and Lily... but the only think LV did after that was try and > AK Harry... not make a horcrux, so i don't see how Harry is "accidentally" a > Horcrux seeing as how it is supposed to be an immensely complicated spell... > > Just my thoughts on it. Geoff: I am therefore led to believe that TKJ worded it rather ambiguously.... Here is the original quote which led to my reply: "He would of wanted to use what was prophesied to be his biggest foe as his last Horcrux. That's the way I see it. Yes, he could of used Lilly or James but seeing as he seems to be all sentimental aboutthings...it makes sense to me that he would of saved the last one for his "biggest" enemy." My interpretation of this was that he wanted to make Harry a Horcrux, and thus not kill him. Which is why I disagreed; I believe that Voldemort wanted to kill Harry - full stop. If he had wanted to make Harry into a Horcrux, he had just split his soul twice again by killing James and Lily. Until and unless JKR proves me wrong at 00:01 on 22/07/07, I hold to my belief that Harry is not a Horcrux and will live. Mark you, I continue to cross my fingers furiously behind my back. ;-) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 25 21:34:59 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:34:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170774 Dana again: > I have to correct myself because I actually do not see the scene > as having anything to do with Snape being displayed as carrying [SSS: I think you meant caring?] > by JKR but just her giving this scene because she needed everyone > relocated to get the time-turning sequence going. If no one was > there to relocate everyone then Sirius would not have ended up > waiting for a faith worse then death and thus no need for DD to > set Hermione and Harry up on this rescue mission. Skipping this > would make it unbelievable and the way Snape transports them is > actually irrelevant, as long as they are indeed moved from one > location to the next. SSSusan: But I think this is rather the *point* that a lot of members have been trying to make. JKR didn't have to SHOW this event at all. A simple remark later on from DD or Fudge, acknowledging Snape's assistance in getting everyone back to the castle, is all it would have taken to have established that Snape got them returned *somehow,* if the how were irrelevant. The fact that JKR elected to *show* the occurrence is what is interesting about it. And as others have pointed out, that she wrote it in such a manner so that Snape is alone (or believes he is, sans TT!Harry&Hermione) as he's handling things. There is no one in that moment for him to be 'performing' for; he's simply taking care of the situation. To me, there is no reason to believe that JKR couldn't have just tossed in some move-along-these-heavy-objects spell, just like the first time we saw the spell to bind someone. Would we have been shocked to have discovered there was some spell designed to help wizards move large objects or bound or unconscious or otherwise incapacitated witches and wizards? I wouldn't have been. Snape flicks his wand and says, "Transporticus!" or some such thing (heh, be nice -- I took no Latin in school ;-)), the bodies zip away to the Hospital Wing, and I'd have thought, "Sure, why not?" But that's not what happened. She wrote the scene where we see Snape, alone, no audience, conjuring stretchers and seeing that all parties are placed on one before transporting them to the castle. I agree with the others who see this as a significant insertion from JKR. I definitely don't see a Humanitarian!Snape here (egads), but I do see a Snape who's being at least professional, and perhaps, yes, acting as one in a healing role would act. (I agree that we see a helluva lot of Snape in this capacity in HBP.) Siriusly Snapey Susan From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 21:41:26 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:41:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170775 huge snippage > > lizzyben04: > In this, > > Snape is almost unique in the Potterverse. > That's my view of him - > > Humanist!Snape. LOL. He doesn't save people because he likes them, > but > > because they are human beings in need of care. > > > Lanval: > "Almost unique", yes. The Healers (real Healers, not DADA > specialists), at St Mungo's. Madam Pomfrey. Surely they don't apply > their skills according to how much they may love or hate a patient? > > lizzyben04: > We don't see this side > > of Snape often in the books, but IMO it is there in the > background. In > > HBP, Harry finally got a chance to see this side of Snape. > > Biff I'm afraid that when I read all of the "caring" things that Snape has done, I don't read them as anything more than a teacher doing what is expected of them. I think that Snape walks a tightrope in a way, being a spy. He's subjected to much more scrutiny, from both sides, and he knows it. It would expected that a teacher would take care of the children and he did. I believe he did it almost mindlessly, his mind compartmentalizing things that needed to be done. I believe he put Sirius on a stretcher because the children were on stretchers and it was just easier to transport everyone in the same way. Perhaps he would have had to perform 2 different types of magic at the same time to bring the children in on stretchers and Sirius, say, bound and gagged, dragged across the ground. His actions were almost mechanical, cold. And yet, he obviously can't help his personal feelings getting in the way of things at times, which I believe explains his gagging Sirius. He had pronounced sentence on Sirius in his own mind- he was "done" with him and didn't want to hear anymore from this person. Personally, I think that Snape has some very tragic points to his life and in many ways, his upbringing made the mold for the man which we see. But he made much of that himself and I simply cannot pity a man who willingly (and yes I believe he was eager) fell in with an incredibly powerful wizard who had a penchant for evil, and betrayed innocents to this evil man. He didn't know who he was betraying at the time, but he knew that he was giving information about a baby who was foretold to be the downfall of his Master and you don't do that without knowing what the results will be. Maybe not right away, but some day Voldemort would use that information and make sure this threat went away. I have been tempted over the years to feel sorry for Snape and to hope that there is something more there, just like I did with Draco (hey I like bad boys, ok?), and in some ways I do. But then I remembered part of an interview with Jo Rowling where she spoke about Draco. She was just amazed to find there were those who thought Draco was "misunderstood". They think he can be changed with love and tenderness. She wrote Draco to be bad. I believe she wrote Snape in the same way. My opinion only, of course. Biff From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jun 25 22:07:05 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:07:05 -0000 Subject: Draco to be bad (was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170776 Biff: > I have been tempted over the years to feel sorry for Snape and to > hope that there is something more there, just like I did with Draco > (hey I like bad boys, ok?), and in some ways I do. But then I > remembered part of an interview with Jo Rowling where she spoke > about Draco. She was just amazed to find there were those who > thought Draco was "misunderstood". They think he can be changed with > love and tenderness. She wrote Draco to be bad. I believe she wrote > Snape in the same way. > My opinion only, of course. SSSusan: Weeeeeeell, I'm not so sure. :) I mean, yes, I know the interview to which you refer, but I also know how JKR wrote HBP. In HBP we encounter a Draco who's crying in a bathroom to Moaning Myrtle, his whole body wracked with emotion (iirc). We encounter a Draco for whom **Harry** now harbors a small bit of pity, not just hatred. Do you not think JKR moved Draco along in Book 6? Turned him into a person somewhat more easy to sympathize, if not quite empathize, with? I know your main point is about Snape and JKR writing him 'to be bad,' but since you made that claim about Draco, too, I just felt compelled to say that I think JKR is not really writing Draco 'to be bad' anymore. We have decidedly encountered a lot less black-and-white in the later books and a lot more grey. I think Draco and what he is, what he faces, what he elicits in Harry, is no longer just 'written to be bad' but is written to be more fully considered, even to be pitied a *little* (even if we still loathe much about him). Siriusly Snapey Susan From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jun 25 22:17:42 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:17:42 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170778 Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Biff wrote: >He didn't know who he was > betraying at the time, but he knew that he was giving information > about a baby who was foretold to be the downfall of his Master and > you don't do that without knowing what the results will be. Maybe > not right away, but some day Voldemort would use that information > and make sure this threat went away. colebiancardi: This also ties in with the other prophecy threads. We seem to take it for granted, after the fact, that Snape *knew* it was a baby that was being targeted in the prophecy, not an adult. If Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, as DD states, Snape doesn't know it is someone who is yet to be born: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies..." I am stopping here, as the rest talks about the Dark Lord marking him, which DD states that Snape (the eavesdropper) only heard this portion(pg 843, OotP Am Edition, hardback) It could be constructed as someone who is already here - approaches is a dodgy term - could be that this wizard is coming into their powers and will battle with LV in the near future. Born to those - doesn't state will be born - that statement could be interpreted as already born as well. As LV has been around a long time as the Dark Lord, the parents could have been people from 20 years prior and their child was born then, not in the 1980's. From reading these two sentences, which was all that Snape heard, it could just mean that the hero is coming to battle LV and is born to those parents who defied him 3 times in the past. That the hero was born in the 7th month. LV interpreted it correctly, as a baby about to be born. But Snape? Did he really know it was a future hero, one yet to be born? He may have felt it was a wizard already here, a powerful one in fact. At that time, Snape doesn't know, at least I think he doesn't, the whole past of LV and who LV battled with. Could it be, that once Snape found out that it was a baby and not an adult wizard who could defend himself/herself, that was Snape's wakeup call? That he could deal with battling against wizards and witches who could strike back, but to kill in cold-blood, a defenseless baby? No matter who the parents were, but the fact that it stepped over the line in the Wizarding War? Hey, people switch sides for lesser reasons, you know. just another thought on the prophecy and trying to debunk the Snape is "a murderin' baby killer" kind of guy. colebiancardi (crow, crow, crow....I have 'em lined up and ready - of course, I hope to set them all FREE by giving them little crow's slippers on July 21st...) From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jun 25 22:22:23 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:22:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170779 colebiancardi: > But DOES Snape really know? Did he really HEAR Lupin tell Harry > this? We don't know for sure. There is nothing that proves it, one > way or the other. Dana: Yes, he does because it is the reason that Lupin comes to the conclusion that he was to cowardly to tell DD about Sirius being an animagus. Lupin starts telling his story about how he came to Hogwarts and how his friends became animagi after he first was interrupted by the loud creak and the door opening by itself (PoA pg 258 UKed PB "chapter Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs"). That is when Snape entered the scene. He hears about their nicknames, about them becoming animagi, about them roaming the grounds, even about them making the map. Yes, he hears the entire very long story Lupin was telling, without ever rushing in and taking the kids who are supposedly in grave danger from a murderous lunatic and his accomplice, who was supposidly was about to transform without taking his potion. colebiancardi: > Snape does have a choice. Everybody has choices. The reasons > behind the choices differ. Why on earth would he leave 3 students, > one with a broken leg and another almost soul-sucked, out there on > the grounds? Where has Snape EVER endangered students before? He > has never put a student's life in danger - ever. Dana: Well I do not think you want me to go into that really and so I will just refer to my previous posts and we just shall to have to agree to disagree on that one. colebiancardi: > of course. No one is denying any lost love between Black & Snape. > And the WHOLE wizarding world believed Sirius to be dangerous - and > Snape knew, as did Dumbledore, that Sirius was the LAST known > secret-keeper for the Potters. Dana: Yes, but the whole wizarding world did not listen in on the conversation for more then 10 minutes and did not see how even after Sirius had chances enough to kill Harry ten times over, still did not. We never see Snape make a point of Sirius being the last known secret-keeper but we do see him make a point of Sirius trying to kill him when Sirius was 16. Besides what is it to Snape if Sirius did or did not betray the Potters? Oh yes, right because now LV could act on the information Snape brought him. Mhhh how ironic isn't it. colebiancardi: > and that is Snape's fault? Hello - Peter Pettigrew, the ONLY proof > they had, escaped - and not on Snape's watch. Snape was out cold at > that time. Lupin, who HAD been reminded in front of the Trio & > Sirius by Snape about his missed potion, turned into a werewolf > once they got outside. How is that Snape's fault? Why would Snape > believe the Trio? Even the Trio had issues with it until they saw > Scabbers transform into Peter. PoA is not Snape's shining moment - > he is a tad one-sided and not open to listening to Lupin - I won't > get into Sirius, as there is no way those two will ever listen to > one another. And as another member pointed out, in GoF, Snape is > taken aback when the black dog transforms into Sirius in the > hospital wing. > This passage, to me at least, proves that Snape was not aware that > Sirius was an animagi. If he had known that Sirius was one, why > didn't he remark on the Sirius's animagi form when the dog came into > the hospital wing in the first place - why wait until AFTER he > transformed? Dana: Yes, but the most interesting part in GoF happened before Snape saw Sirius transform from a big black dog back into his human self. And that is Barty Crouch Jr. telling DD (with Snape being present) that he and Wormtail helped LV back to power. And yes, by that time Snape already knew Peter's nickname (if he didn't already know from there school days) because he heard Lupin tell HRH in the shack. It proves nothing that Snape was taken aback when he saw Sirius; it only proves that Snape did not know Sirius's animagus form because he never saw it before and that he had not expected him there. Barty confirming that Peter was indeed alive proved Sirius was indeed innocent but another chance of him being proven innocent went by when Barty's soul was sucked out. And who went to fetch Fudge and allowed Fudge to bring his Dementor into the castle while DD would never approve? Oh yes, I remember it was Snape. And he merely told Fudge that they caught the Death Eater responsible for that nights events and as I remember correctly wasn't Sirius Black the only believed Death Eater Fudge was after? Coincidence? You decide but it will probably will be the story of Snape's life - he could never have foreseen right? and this while just a year before he not only wanted it being done to an innocent man but he witnessed the Dementors almost trying to kiss Harry. colebiancardi: > And this passage goes to show that Sirius & Snape never will or ? > never had cared for one another. To say that Snape treated Sirius > unfairly without stating that Sirius treated Snape unfairly is not > being honest about their relationship. Both of them are gits when > it comes to each other and it seems that all they do is try to > score points off of each other. To see who will come out on top. Dana: Well the interesting thing is that there is a big difference between caring and behaving in a morally appropriate way. Snape did not have to embrace Sirius like a brother but trying to persuade everyone that Sirius needs to be soul sucked because it is the only appropriate thing to do. While Snape's behavior, in the shack, never points out that he truly believes that Sirius is that much of a danger to anyone as he takes his mighty time to actually act. If Sirius truly had been out there to kill Harry then Harry would have been death before Snape ever had reached the shack because Snape never sees Sirius, Harry, Hermione and Ron go into the tunnel. He only followed Lupin. Sirius did not wait for Lupin when he supposedly killed Peter and 12 muggles with one spell so what would be stopping him to kill three kids? Sirius is not toying with Snape's life while Snape is with his. Sirius does not bump Snape's head against the ceiling he is just doing nothing to prevent it. Sirius and Lupin do not leave Snape in the shack while they pretty much could have. But Snape is suddenly more caring because he brings Sirius in on a strecher. Lupin even checks on Snape to see if he is okay and we never see anything of the sort with Snape he just puts every one on a strecher and that's it. He never once asks Madame Promfrey how Ron is doing because he is to busy making everybody shut up. Sirius on the other hand while he should be rushing off still asks. JMHO Dana From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jun 25 22:47:17 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:47:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170780 Lanval: > As I said before, to me it's about being practical. Do tell me what other options Snape had that would *not* have made him look like a complete ass when walking into the castle? Drag them by their hair? Bring them in one by one? Ceridwen: LOL! I've seen a lot of Snapes over time, but I don't think I'm ready for either Caveman!Snape or WalkerTexas!Snape. Lanval: It seems to me that floating someone requires some concentration, and that it would be hard to keep the required spell active on more than one person. Ceridwen: I hate to open this can of worms again, but with all the ideas on the list for why Snape might gag Sirius, this one took my fancy. "Floating someone requires some concentration"... so, gag the guy who is most likely to break that concentration, especially when you're floating four people, one with a broken leg. We know from canon that Sirius is... talkative... with Snape, to put it mildly. I think you might have hit on at least one good reason why Snape used a gag. Ceridwen. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 22:59:28 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:59:28 -0000 Subject: Alchemy (Was: Re: Okay, Who Dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170781 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Bruce Alan Wilson: > > I think that Hagrid and Fred will die. > > > > Hagrid because of his first name--Rubeus. The third and final stage > > of alchemical transformation is the Rubendo, or Red Stage. The > > first two are the Nigrendo (Black) and the Albendo (White). So far > > we have had Sirius BLACK and ALBUS Dumbledore die. > > > Goddlefrood: > > First, Nigredo - it means blackening, sorry to be pedantic. > > This stage of the alchemical process refers primarily to what > > happens before there can be any progress. All that has been > > formed is broken apart and becomes dark and dead. It would be > > more appropriate to compare the stages to Harry's reactions to > > death rather than to try to make it into a pattern of how the > > deaths roster would proceed. > > > > In other words, Sirius's death leads to a shattering of all > > Harry's beliefs in the inherent underlying goodness in the > > wizarding world. Black's death marks the end of Harry's wonder > > of all things wizarding. From that point on he is focused to > > his task of tracking down and destroying Lord voldemort and > > all his evil works. Montavilla47: Hi. There's something I've been wanting to float as an idea ever since I looked up the seven stages of alchemy (after reading Granger's essays and other ones as well). Something struck me when I read the descriptions of the stages and I've never heard anyone talk about this. Looking at the seven stages, we have: 1. Calcination: Heating the substance until it is reduced to ashes. 2. Dissolution: Dissolving the ashes in water. 3. Separation: Filtering the substance and removing any impure ingredients. 4. Conjunction: Combing the separated elements again into a new substance. 5. Fermentation: A period of rest allowing for the growth of bacteria (which is how cheese and wine is created from milk and grape juice.) 6. Distillation: Boiling and condensation of the fermented solution to increase its purity. 7. Coagulation: The precipitation or sublimation of the purified ferment from the substance. So, looking at the first four or five, it seems to me that not only Harry is moving through an alchemical process. What happened to Voldemort? 1. PS/SS: His host body, Quirrell is burned from touching Harry. (In the movie, he is shown reduced to ashes. In the book, he blisters.) 2. CoS: Voldemort's soul is dissolved into the waters of the chamber. 3. PoA: Voldemort is separated from any human "body" and floating around, spirit-like. 4. GoF: Voldemort is combined with other elements into a new "substance." A human body. This is where it gets tricky for me--partly because I don't quite understand the last three processes. 5. OotP: Voldemort, now substantial, seems to be waiting. He has a lot of plans "fermenting," but not of them are quite ready to execute. 6. HBP: Voldemort is now revealed as evil in pure form. 7: DH: Is it possible to predict Voldemort's fate using alchemy as a guide? So, perhaps while Harry is going through a positive transformation through alchemy, Voldemort is also going through a less psychological and more physical transformation? From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jun 25 23:10:45 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:10:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170782 > colebiancardi: > > But DOES Snape really know? Did he really HEAR Lupin tell Harry > > this? We don't know for sure. There is nothing that proves it, one > > way or the other. > > > Dana: > Yes, he does because it is the reason that Lupin comes to the > conclusion that he was to cowardly to tell DD about Sirius being an > animagus. Lupin starts telling his story about how he came to > Hogwarts and how his friends became animagi after he first was > interrupted by the loud creak and the door opening by itself (PoA pg > 258 UKed PB "chapter Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs"). That is > when Snape entered the scene. He hears about their nicknames, about > them becoming animagi, about them roaming the grounds, even about > them making the map. colebiancardi: Well, you say it is 10 minutes...ok. But in those passages, Lupin just talks about his school days as a werewolf and how James, Peter & Sirius became Animagi for him. It doesn't reveal the secret keeper twist and it doesn't speak to the Potter's demise. There is nothing in that conversation that would be telling of Sirius's innocence. In fact, even Lupin states that he convinced himself "that Sirius was getting into the school using dark arts he learned from Voldemort, that being an Animagus had nothing to do with...so, in a way, Snape's been right about me all along" Lupin also confirms the belief that Snape has a solid reason for holding a grudge against Lupin all year long "He has been telling Dumbledore all year that I am not to be trusted. He has his reasons...you see, Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me" to which Sirius replies with a sneer - "It served him right" from PoA, Am Ed Hardcover, p 356 now, this is what Snape hears. Nothing more. After he is knocked out, even Harry tells Lupin "I'm still not saying I believe you" to then proof that Scabbers is Peter is revealed. Snape doesn't see this. But the fact is that Harry didn't believe Lupin or Sirius UNTIL that moment was revealed. As far as Sirius not hurting or killing the Trio - what about Ron's leg, which is broken, thanks to Sirius? What about the fight between Sirius & Harry, before Lupin arrives, in which Sirius proceeds to choke Harry? Also, Harry had his wand - it was a standoff between them. We were all operating under the impression that Sirius was the murderer at this point. > colebiancardi: > > of course. No one is denying any lost love between Black & Snape. > > And the WHOLE wizarding world believed Sirius to be dangerous - and > > Snape knew, as did Dumbledore, that Sirius was the LAST known > > secret-keeper for the Potters. > > > Dana: > Yes, but the whole wizarding world did not listen in on the > conversation for more then 10 minutes and did not see how even after > Sirius had chances enough to kill Harry ten times over, still did > not. We never see Snape make a point of Sirius being the last known > secret-keeper but we do see him make a point of Sirius trying to kill > him when Sirius was 16. colebiancardi: again, Snape never hears about the secret keeper or anything of that nature. Again, Sirius did harm Ron & did choke Harry. > Dana: > Well the interesting thing is that there is a big difference between > caring and behaving in a morally appropriate way. Snape did not have > to embrace Sirius like a brother but trying to persuade everyone that > Sirius needs to be soul sucked because it is the only appropriate > thing to do. colebiancardi: Like I stated before, Sirius & Snape's relationship will *never* be friendly or even respectful. They both loathe each other - look at the scene in OotP with Harry - Harry has to put himself in between the two to stop them from fighting. Old grudges - again, I find it ironic that Sirius's behavior is brushed over and Snape's is not. I am not excusing either of them - they both act badly towards each other. I do hope that Sirius has reasons outside of the prank,(Regulus, IMHO), but we know Snape's - the prank which almost killed him(everyone agrees on this in canon) and that Sirius was the secret keeper who gave up the Potters (up to this point, this is what everyone believed, even Sirius's friend, Lupin). If the only reasons why Sirius hates Snape is because he exists or some such nonsense, then Sirius's behavior is worse, IMHO > Dana: He never once asks Madame Promfrey how Ron is doing because he is to > busy making everybody shut up. Sirius on the other hand while he > should be rushing off still asks. > colebiancardi: well, maybe Snape didn't *need* to ask, because he can see for himself - he was allowed in the hospital wing. Sirius never sees Ron again in PoA, so he has to ask. colebiancardi. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 25 23:36:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:36:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Fall again was Re: The twins? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170783 SSSusan: > > If DD *would* have been able to have been restored to pretty much > normal health by Snape, then I guess I find it hard to believe that > DD wouldn't have found *some* way to have 'played' that scene on the > Tower to allow that to happen. Or do folks think that would just > have been totally impossible to have pulled off under the > circumstances, with all those around, and all the DEs knowing Draco's > assignment? Pippin: Well, it depends what you mean by normal. A life being constantly hunted by Voldemort, having to cut yourself off from everyone you care about to avoid bringing them into danger, is no life at all. ("Neither can live while the other survives" ) The match at the Ministry proved that Voldemort no longer saw Dumbledore as invulnerable, even before his hand was injured. With that damaged hand, a rematch would be no contest at all. Dumbledore was doomed in any case, unless Harry managed to destroy the horcruxes and eliminate Voldemort very quickly. But the thing is, Dumbledore could have done something to disguise his hand. Instead, he flaunted it in front of the school at the opening feast. It's like he was saying, "Nyah nyah, come and get me!" I think Dumbledore planned all along to fake his death if he could -- as Peter knew, there simply isn't any other way to evade death at Voldie's hands once he's decided to kill you. If Dumbledore *had* faked his death, Snape would have no doubt returned to Voldemort, and he couldn't have come flying back again to help Dumbledore if something like the ring curse caught him. Maybe that's what the argument in the forest was about, Snape not wanting to obey an order like the one DD said he might have to give Harry in the cave, to flee and leave Dumbledore to his fate. Pippin From the_bad_gene at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 22:35:48 2007 From: the_bad_gene at yahoo.com (Tim Cuthbertson) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's Fall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <331938.49080.qm@web50701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170784 I am terribly sorry, but I have been a member here for about three years, and have logged in now, in order to try and find the other member's view points on Dumbledore's last desperate words to Snape. Does anyone else believe that Snape is a good guy, following orders from DD, or can you lead me to an older argument that may suggest this? Tim From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 22:36:16 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:36:16 -0000 Subject: Draco to be bad (was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170785 > SSSusan: > Weeeeeeell, I'm not so sure. :) > > I mean, yes, I know the interview to which you refer, but I also know > how JKR wrote HBP. In HBP we encounter a Draco who's crying in a > bathroom to Moaning Myrtle, his whole body wracked with emotion > (iirc). We encounter a Draco for whom **Harry** now harbors a small > bit of pity, not just hatred. > > Do you not think JKR moved Draco along in Book 6? Turned him into a > person somewhat more easy to sympathize, if not quite empathize, > with? > > I know your main point is about Snape and JKR writing him 'to be bad,' > but since you made that claim about Draco, too, I just felt compelled > to say that I think JKR is not really writing Draco 'to be bad' > anymore. We have decidedly encountered a lot less black-and-white in > the later books and a lot more grey. I think Draco and what he is, > what he faces, what he elicits in Harry, is no longer just 'written to > be bad' but is written to be more fully considered, even to be pitied > a *little* (even if we still loathe much about him). Biff I actually agree with you :), and when I read HBP and saw Draco sobbing in the restroom, and his wavering on the Astronomy Tower in front of Dumbledore, I was thinking, "but but but, you said he was bad, Jo!". But I also realized that she is writing fully-formed characters and neither Snape nor Draco could continue in the series without seeing these other parts of them- they are both too important to the series for them to remain shallow, like Crabbe and Goyle. We have also seen Hermoine go from pious brainiac and terminal do-gooder to thinking up the DA and Ron went from being Harry's best buddy and comic relief to showing his jealousy of his best friend...and mindless face-sucking of Lavendar Brown :). I don't believe that any well-written story can have black and white characters and be successful. I think I would have been very disappointed if we didn't see this. However, it still doesn't change my opinion that JK Rowling wrote the characters initially as she wanted them to be seen. I don't believe that any one of the people in the book are purely black or white. Everything and everyone has shades of grey, which allows us to have these conversations. Biff From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 23:16:03 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:16:03 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170786 > colebiancardi: > > being targeted in the prophecy, not an adult. > > If Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, as DD states, > Snape doesn't know it is someone who is yet to be born: > > This also ties in with the other prophecy threads. We seem to take it > for granted, after the fact, that Snape *knew* it was a baby that was snippage ... it could just mean that the hero is > coming to battle LV and is born to those parents who defied him 3 > times in the past. That the hero was born in the 7th month. > > LV interpreted it correctly, as a baby about to be born. But Snape? > Did he really know it was a future hero, one yet to be born? He may > have felt it was a wizard already here, a powerful one in fact. At > that time, Snape doesn't know, at least I think he doesn't, the whole > past of LV and who LV battled with. > > Could it be, that once Snape found out that it was a baby and not an > adult wizard who could defend himself/herself, that was Snape's wakeup > call? That he could deal with battling against wizards and witches who > could strike back, but to kill in cold-blood, a defenseless baby? No > matter who the parents were, but the fact that it stepped over the > line in the Wizarding War? Hey, people switch sides for lesser > reasons, you know. > > just another thought on the prophecy and trying to debunk the Snape is > "a murderin' baby killer" kind of guy. > Biff I understand your point regarding not knowing, based upon what Snape had heard, who or what the possible threat to Voldemort was and it's a very good point. I also like your thought that perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back for Snape was finding out that the prophecy was about a baby and his Master inteneded to kill it. However, I still have the opinion that Snape didn't go to Voldemort with this information without understanding possible repercussions. I believe he knew what he was doing, he knew someone could die and he did it to please his Master. Perhaps Snape did have huge regrets, I don't doubt that this is possible. But I do believe that what we see in every book is a continuation of that vein of personality in his cold cruelity to Harry and others, which I don't beleive can be explained away. I really do believe that Snape is in it for Snape, not to better wizardkind or even to be Voldemort's right hand man. He is not a black and white character- he is shades of grey....dark grey :) Just my opinion, as always. Biff From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 26 00:08:48 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:08:48 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170787 > > colebiancardi: > > LV interpreted it correctly, as a baby about to be born. But Snape? > > Did he really know it was a future hero, one yet to be born? He may > > have felt it was a wizard already here, a powerful one in fact. At > > that time, Snape doesn't know, at least I think he doesn't, the > whole > > past of LV and who LV battled with. > > > > Could it be, that once Snape found out that it was a baby and not > an > > adult wizard who could defend himself/herself, that was Snape's > wakeup > > call? That he could deal with battling against wizards and witches > who > > could strike back, but to kill in cold-blood, a defenseless baby? > No > > matter who the parents were, > > > Biff > I also like your thought that perhaps the straw > that broke the camel's back for Snape was finding out that the > prophecy was about a baby and his Master inteneded to kill it. > However, I still have the opinion that Snape didn't go to Voldemort > with this information without understanding possible repercussions. > I believe he knew what he was doing, he knew someone could die and > he did it to please his Master. colebiancardi: oh, don't get me wrong. I do think that back in Snape's DE days, he was fully aware of the War that was going on and that people are dying and going to die. I think that Snape had *no* problems with the death of wizard who could defend themselves. It is part of war. However, I think, if what I had proposed is true, that Snape could not stomach the killing of those who were not part of the war - innocent children, civilians - those types. A soldier who fights in a war expects to kill the enemy soldiers; A soldier doesn't not expect nor wishes to kill those who are not engaged in the war. We've never heard or seen Snape actually *kill* anyone(well, with the exception of DD in HBP and that is still open to debate until DH comes out) In fact, Bella mentions that Snape "slithers" out of doing "actions" (Spinner's End), which leads me to believe that Snape *never* has murdered or killed anyone before. He is a spy - not all spies kill; most spies probably do not and his role was gathering intel, not to kill. I am sure, if push came to shove, Snape could kill - in fact, most of us could probably kill someone if our own life was in danger and that was the only way to survive. However, it doesn't seem to be Snape's MO. And to murder a baby - that could have tipped the scales for him. This would be someone who could not defend themselves nor even put up a good fight. I know Snape is a snarky, cruel man - but his cruelty is in his *words* - we don't see him beating any one up for no reason in the series. He may give *harsh* punishment to student's, but no more than other Professors. He is nasty to those outside of his own House, but again, his cruelty is in his *words*. He threatens, he bullies, but again, all talk, no action at this point in time in the series. I don't believe Snape to be a cold-blooded killer, despite the events that happened on the Tower. colebiancardi (I know, I know, there is the other side of the reading on the Tower scene. Don't think I don't know it - LOL) From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 00:41:19 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:41:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170788 > lizzyben: > > Well, there's two levels here - the practical level & the symbolic > level. This is a literary text, so the imagery & symbolism have > meaning. And JKR clearly contrasts the images of how Sirius treated > an unconcious Snape (as a grosteque puppet, head lolling) and the > image of how Snape treated unconscious people (as patients & human > beings,in stretchers, in comfort.) This is the ONLY glimpse we have > of the real Snape, and it's quite telling. JKR didn't have to show > us this - but she did. It doesn't really matter where the stretchers > came from; what matters is how Snape treats vulnerable, injured > people. And in this instance, the only time we see the unvarnished > Snape, he treats the unconsious people with dignity & care. > > Lanval: As I said to Magpie before in a different discussion, on a literary/symbolic level I can absolutely accept that. ANd since I'm not JKR, I have no way of knowing why she wrote what the wrote until she tells us. But I strongly object to the notion that we see the "real Snape" here. It's just Snape, doing what he needs to do. No healing desire required. You may say that she could have shown us Snape kicking Sirius, or dropping Harry, or something along that line. Yet, if she wanted to show us Caring Snape, she could have made it more obvious as well. Have him cover Ron with a blanket, for example. As it is written (and remember that she still considers children her target audience), Snape's behavior is just too subtle and seems to me mostly neutral. Yet knowing what took place just before, and what followed must be taken into context, I think. > lizzyben: > > They're both about control. Imperius takes away someone's mental > control, to make them into a mental puppet of the wizard. > Mobilcorpus takes away physical control, to make someone's body into > a puppet. It's clear that JKR thinks that controlling people, > depriving them of choices & free will, is a major evil. That evil is > symbolized by the "unforgiveable" Imperius curse & in these other > curses. It's not a coincidence that Sirius, Remus & James and the > Death Eaters do the same exact thing to their enemies - they all > levitate them, control them & humiliate them. There's a direct, > intentional parallel between these various spells. > Lanval: You know what? I agree with you that JKR likely means to point out the danger of controlling people, that she dislikes it greatly, and that it *can* start in small, harmless ways. But I'd say we are still meant to understand the huge gap between an Unforgivable like Imperius, and Levicorpus. Besides, Snape is transported along by a different spell altogether; he's not hanging upside down. So, what would have been a good alternative of bringing Snape along? I've already pointed out that the tunnel was narrow, and low. Oh, and remember Snape saying "I'll drag the werewolf"? > lizzyben: > And yes, Snape came up w/the Levicorpus spell, but then it was used > against him - so Snape became the victim as he was controlled, > exposed & humiliated. And I think he learned from that. We NEVER see > adult Snape using those kinds of spells, against anyone. Lanval: The poor lamb, things just don't work out for him. :) Imagine, not being able to hex others in peace, but to have them steal the hex and use it against you... Btw, we never see Sirius or Lupin using Levicorpus as adults either. Levicorpus is a childish prank. The spell Sirius uses is a great way to transport an unconscious person. The only blame I can point at him is not watching Snape's head. Again... "dragging the werewolf". Doesn't sound as if Snapey was worried about giving Lupin a few extra bruises either. > lizzyben: That's a > significant detail, IMO. Even at his most enraged, Snape didn't use > magic during his emotional meltdowns in POA or OOTP. And he hardly > ever uses magical spells during his classes. He seems to excercise a > lot of restraint in his use of magic. > Lanval: Snape's emotional meltdown in PoA takes place with DD in the room. Good choice, Severus, not to throw about angry hexes in front of the Headmaster. :) Which time in OotP? When he throws Harry out of his office? Hm, sometimes Muggle brutality can be enormously gratifying, I'm sure. I don't recall other teachers throwing tantrums and spells around in class either. Nothing special, IMO, that sort of restraint. More like common decent behavior expected of a teacher. > > > lizzyben: > Does he bind & gag Sirius? Personally, I don't think he did.Sure, > he tells Fudge he did, because he knows that he should have. But > when Harry & Hermione observe him, all they see is Snape lifting > their bodies onto stretchers, and taking them to the castle. There's > no mention at all of Snape binding Sirius. Lanval: I've already explained that in another post, so I'll just repeat here that it was night, and H & H were far away. If Snape tells Fudge that he did it, what reason do we have to doubt him? If we can't trust his word here, when can we? > lizzyben: And who is the first > person he moves into a stretcher? Not Sirius, but Ron, the boy with > a broken leg. I think, in that moment, Snape went into paramedic > mode. He evaluated the situation & took care of the most injured > person first, then worked to save the others. He didn't see Sirius, > a man he loathes, but an unconscious, injured person who needed > help. In situations like this, it seems like Snape's healing > instinct/training snaps into place. The pettiness & hostility take > over later. :) Lanval: They sure do. :) Again, he had Ron on the stretcher because Ron was the first victim he came across; that had nothing to do with Ron being injured. How do you *know* he didn't see Black as exactly who he is? Do you believe Snape forgets for one second? Sirius, who needed *help*? With what? And please, WHAT was he saving Sirius from again? Where was Snape's Saving People Thing when Sirius was BEGGING him to hear him out? > lizzyben: > Basically, Snape has a "saving people thing". There's other examples > of this throughout the novel. In GOF, when Snape hears someone > scream, he leaps out of bed in only his nightshirt to see what > happened. In OOTP, Snape & Harry are having a petty fight when they > hear a woman scream. Snape stops, drops everything & instantly > rushes out to help. So does Harry. It seems like they both do > have this need to rush in & try to save people in danger. > Lanval: In GoF, Chapter 25, Snape comes to "investigate" because he heard "banging and wailing". When he confronts Filch, his *only* interest is who broke into his offcie and stole something from the cupboard. Not once does Snape ask if anyone is hurt. We have no proof that he "leapt" from his bed, we have no way of knowing if he just didn't feel like putting on a robe. Nor do we know if he was worried. My guess? He heard a ruckus, he got angry because students were out of bed, and went in search of someone to punish. Filch got there first, btw. Unless you had a different chapter in mind? In Ootp, Snape and Harry hear a woman scream. Snape's head jerks up (they're in the dungeons), and he mutters "What the...?" He then asks Harry, frowning, if he'd noticed anything unusual on his way down. Harry shakes his head. They listen and hear the woman scream again. Snapes strides out of his office, Harry follows. Running is not mentioned. If that's Snape's version of Stop, Drop and Rush to Action, I'd say he needs to work on it a bit. They find Professor Trelawney in hysterics in the entrance hall, which is "packed" with students and teachers, all presumably endowed with a Saving People Thing. > lizzyben: > > But you're not really addressing my larger point, which is that > Snape does not seem to distinguish in who he saves/heals. He saves > Harry in the first novel during the Quidditch match. And yes, he did > save Harry from the Crucio curse. He also saves Draco from a curse. > He helps protect a child he seems to like (Draco), and a student he > can't stand (Harry). Lanval: But last I checked , Snape may well have *attempted* to save Harry in SS/PS in order to be rid of the pesky life debt. At least DD says so. He saves Draco because he MUST, or Draco will die. There's no choice. And if you're trying to tell me that Snape is impartial, and believes all people must be treated equally... oh my. :) > lizzyben: > > And I do think that Snape's countercurse shows a knack for healing. > In that chapter, he not only issued the countercurse, but also > thinks of a remedy for the scars, wipes Draco's forehead, and > reassures Draco that he won't have permenant injuries. He seems to > have a good "bedside manner" as a healer (as opposed to his manners > in general). Snape has that duality - healer/curser, light/dark, and > it's his experience on the "dark side" that gives him the knowledge > necessary for the light. His knowledge of the dark arts allows him > to excel in DADA, his knowledge of poisons allows him to create > antidotes, etc. I don't see any contradiction there. Snape's > knowledge of curses helps him to be an effective healer. Lanval: We see *one* instance of Snape showing some signs of caring and concern for a "patient", and that's Draco, whom he knows and likes. That's not having a good bedside manner just yet. IMO. His knowledge, his LOVE of the Dark Arts seems to have come first, that's what worries me. Then again, he was young at the time and may have changed. Harry doesn't think so. And being a Healer would perhaps involve having to fix all the boring stuff too, you know... walnuts jammed into nostrils and such. Not just the cool DADA stuff. Sometimes teeth must be shrunk back, because a potion has exploded. Where was Snape's desire to heal when Hermione and Goyle were suffering? > lizzyben: > > Oh, I think he does. That's what makes the ending of POA so pathetic > & hurtful for Snape. He desperately wants DD's approval & respect, > and he resents that Harry, Sirius & co. seem to have DD's love w/o > having earned it. At the end, Snape begs, pleads, DD to finally > choose him over the golden Gryffindors. Of course, DD does not. He > again chooses to protect Sirius over Snape. This, IMO, is what > finally drives Snape over the edge into a total tantrum. If he > didn't care what DD thought of him, it wouldn't have hurt him so > much. It's a dysfunctional kind of relationship, but I do think > Snape cares about DD, and wants his approval. Lanval: That's a good theory, but not necessarily true. Though I'm inclined to agree with you. I wonder what this betrayal by DD (which is how Snape must see it) did to him. > lizzyben: > No, they don't, and that's my point. Healers try to save people, not > because they love or hate them, but because they value human life. > In Snape's treatment of his various "patients", we can see that same > attitude. It would not surprise me at all to learn that Snape > actually trained at some point to become a Healer. And Snape's > stance stands in stark contrast to most of the other main > characters. People have talked about the fact that the Trio seem to > think that it's OK to hurt people, hex people, or even torture > people that they do not like. How they seem to think outsiders or > enemies aren't "real people" at all. Snape, in contrast, treats > everyone like "real people," real human beings. He'll taunt & insult > people he dislikes, but he will not abandon them, hurt them, or use > them. He doesn't treat people like puppets. Lanval: Ok, you're talking only about the main characters. But since I don't see Snape healing or saving that many people, I still don't think there's a good point to be made for him to be morally superior. He certainly hurts them, btw. Taunting counts, right? Like when you're called names like Snivellus, or dangled upside down, or made fun of... As to using people, we know far too little of Snape's life to state with certainty that he "doesn't use or abandon people". Er, Wormtail? When do we see the Trio torture anyone? Snape on the other hand *has* hurt and hexed too, and since you compared him with the Trio, the exploits of his youth must count. He may just have tortured, too. *cough*DE membership*cough* > lizzyben: > > No, I mean when he saved Dumbledore from dying of his Horcrux > injury, healed Katie Bell from the locket curse, healed Ron after > the mead poisoning, healed Draco from Harry's curse, etc. The whole > book, Snape is running around healing people. At the end of the > novel, Harry actually *misses* Snape for a moment, when Madame > Pomfrey says that she doesn't know how to heal Bill's injury. Harry > remembers how well Snape cured Draco's injuries, and IMO finally > realizes Snape's skills as a healer. All through the books, the kids > are healed from the worst injuries & curses w/o ill effect. > Suddenly, when Snape is gone, nothing can be done to heal Bill > Weasely. Lanval: All the injuries you quoted are countercourses or antidotes to Dark Magic. So to me that still doesn't make Snape a Healer. It makes him a damn fine DADA specialist. If DADA were synonymous with Healing, why is none of the other five DADA teachers Harry has known a Healer? (Well, hello -- maybe that's how Lupin earned his money, working as a Healer! *eg*). I'll take Umbridge out of the equation here, of course, 'cause she's a Ministry bureaucrat, not even a qualified teacher. Moody? Not a Healer. He could use one, though. Quirrell? Uh, no. Lockheart? :D > lizzyben: IMO, this is a sign that Snape often has worked behind the > scenes to heal the students in the past. In OOTP, Hermione was > gravely injured by an unknown dark curse, and almost dies. To > recover, she needs to take ten. potions. A DAY. Who brewed all those > potions? Lanval: Well, who brews ALL the potions Madam Pomfrey needs? Until we know Snape does, and I don't quite see how that would fit into his schedule, especially in that last year where he was DADA teacher... we can just as well assume that she either brews them herself, or gets them from other sources. But your theory works too, of course. > lizzyben: Who diagnosed the unknown curse, and the appropriate > remedy? Snape. Lanval: Uh, help me out here, but where does it say that Snape diagnosed Hermione and prescribed the remedy? All I can find is DD mentioning that Madam Pomfrey is patching everyone up, and that all but Tonks can be treated by her. Later in the Hospital Wing we see Hermione reading the paper to Harry, and her painful ribs are mentioned. > lizzyben: When Hermione & other students are petrified, they > are cured by Snape's Mandrake potion. And etc. Snape has always been > healing people behind the scenes; in HBP we finally actually > observed him doing that. > Lanval: As I said, at this point Snape "always healing people behind the scenes" is largely conjecture. I can't find anything about Snape brewing up the Mandrakes either. > lizzyben: > Yes, Snape is a snarky sarcastic bastard, but he also seems devoted > to protecting & healing people in need. In this, Snape reminds me a > bit of "House, MD," or Dr. Cox from Scrubs. Dr. Cox can unleash a > stream of insults that would make Snape proud, but he also genuinely > cares about the welfare of his interns & patients. Snape seems to me > to have a similar personality. Not a nice person, but a good person. > Throughout the novels, Snape acts like a jerk, but he also acts to > save & heal people. I feel like I finally "got" Snape once > I saw the healer aspect to his character. It's sort of been hiding > in plain sight, all along. > Lanval: Yes, the House comparison has been made before. I'm not particularly fond of him either, especially in recent shows, which is maybe the show's fault (they do seem to be running out of ideas, and House has to get meaner, more outragous, all the time...), I just adore Hugh Laurie (and have done so since 1999). But House, unlike Snape, HAS his moments where you see the human side of him. His face will show concern, worry, doubt, delight (duh, well, Laurie is a great actor, so that may be unfair to Snape *g*) With Snape it's almost *all* conjecture -- his emotions, his thoughts, his fears, his loyalty. We see what we want to see. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 00:45:03 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:45:03 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170789 > > Ken wrote: > Would you defend this practice if it were common, for example, to > Americanize Bach's works with notes and chords and rhythms that > sounded more familiar to American ears? The very notion is hideous. I > find it just at bad that written language is subjected to this > treatment. I read the books to learn about Harry Potter of Little > Whinging, not his hillbilly cousin from Kentucky. I love American > music too but don't you *dare* mess with Bach. Montavilla47 Well, I don't tend to mind if they translate the German words to American English when they sing it. But you made me think about something I'd heard, which was that "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was written specifically for American audiences, because *someone* (either the Beatles or their manager) thought that their other songs were too British to appeal to the taste of the Yanks. And speaking of Yanks... there's that lovely moment in "Life is Sweet" when Natalie tries to make a pun about Yanks and Yanking and Nichola looks for her aghast and calls her a "racist." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 01:09:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:09:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170790 > Magpie: > But how can you interpret this "image" differently? The image is > totally removed from the context of the story. If Snape was nailed > to a cross, for instance, the image would be Christlike. It's the > image itself that makes the association, not Snape. Snape's > character can add meaning to the image that's negative, just as > Voldemort being Voldemort turns the idea of a baby on its head, but > the imagery is still infantile. The imagery is based not just on the > situation but on what the associations the author or reader can be > assumed to have. I have hard time believing that someone shown a > picture of three unknown figures, two on stretchers and the third > carrying them away, would be able to interpret that image as having > anything to do with hypocrisy, and barely that they would say it was > about practicality. More like they'd identify the people on the > stretchers as injured or dead and the other person carrying them to > the hospital or the morgue. > > Sure when you put it into the scene in canon, as I said, it's easy > to come up with reasons why Snape's really just trying to look like > a caring or responsible person and really he hates everybody inside. > But even in that interpretation you have to admit that the image > he's projecting is one of responsibility and care. Though Rowling > puts no particular twist on it. Alla: I think we nailed at least our disagreement finally or I hope that we did. I cannot remove this image from the story, AT ALL. Of course, if you would say that you are talking about the image of some nameless person putting other people on the stretchers, this image would give me medical associations, no question about it. But you said it - we are **not** talking about any image of any person, or at least I was not doing that. I am talking about image of Snape and in the context of the story it gives me **zero** medical associations, that is why I do not think JKR may necessarily put them in there for that purpose as well. It is not just image of somebody we do not know, we **know** the context in which Snape puts people on the stretchers and it does not give me any healing images. > Magpie: > Snape's healing people seems obviously something more emphasized in > the text than Snape being practical in this way (which in this case > means Snape coming up with handy ways of carrying things or > transporting people etc.). The image of carrying people on > stretchers has more associations with the care of injury and > sickness than it does with practicality. There's not even anything > necessarily practical about them--JKR could have had him just > levitate them on their own. Snape's also good at Potions, which both > heal and poison (poisons and antidotes being common things he's > teaching), and good at Dark Arts, both hurting and reversing curses. > It just seems like going to a lot of effort to deny something pretty > consistent for Snape because it sounds too positive when I don't > even think it needs to be that positive. Alla: Um, I am not going into any effort to deny anything. I am genuinely interpreting this scene as Snape's ultimate hypocrisy and practicality - to look good in front of Fudge and get the reward. This image of Snape putting Sirius on stretchers honestly disgusts me **a lot**. By the way, if you were to ask me about Snape in HBP, I would totally say Snape in HBP can be IMO associated with healing (and killing as well LOL). As you said, I do not think something particularly positive can be said about Snape based on that, since he mainly heals IMO the fruits of his own labor directly or circumstantially, but he **heals** Draco, so how can I not say that he does? In this scene though ? no way, not in my opinion. Something that seems obvious to one person is really NOT that obvious to another. > colebiancardi: > > I mentioned this a couple of days ago - I think that Snape embellished > this bit. After all, he was explaining the whole adventure to Fudge > and he already told the whopper of the kids being under Sirius's > Confundus Charm. As I stated before, I think that Snape is making > himself look better for Fudge - after all, it isn't everyday one gets > an Order of Merlin, First Class!! Alla: Well, this all comes down to how you see Snape, does it not? I mean, why would I think that Snape embellished it if he says it himself? It is not even Snape talking to Bella and Narcissa, where even though I do not believe Snape was lying, I at least see the argument how he can be. He is talking to Fudge, to Fudge of all people. Why would he lie to him? Oh, and as Lanval said (maybe I should just let Lanval speak, LOL we have the same thoughts anyways), Fudge would be the first one to see Snape coming in, no? Didn't he already see gagged Sirius then and if he did not, would he not correct Snape? > Ceridwen: > I hate to open this can of worms again, but with all the ideas on the > list for why Snape might gag Sirius, this one took my > fancy. "Floating someone requires some concentration"... so, gag the > guy who is most likely to break that concentration, especially when > you're floating four people, one with a broken leg. We know from > canon that Sirius is... talkative... with Snape, to put it mildly. I > think you might have hit on at least one good reason why Snape used a > gag. Alla: Oh dear, oh dear. Do you **have to** be so convincing? I do not think we closed **gagging** can of worms yet by the way , so no worries. Sure, if the reason for the gag was not to silence Sirius before being kissed to make sure he is silenced forever, which is still takes my fancy, I at least **can** buy this one. I mean, not quite, because Sirius is unconscious at the time, but I suppose Snape could expect him to wake up eventually, LOL. JMO, Alla. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 01:15:45 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:15:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > Does he bind & gag Sirius? Personally, I don't think he did. Sure, > > he tells Fudge he did, because he knows that he should have. But > > when Harry & Hermione observe him, all they see is Snape lifting > > their bodies onto stretchers, and taking them to the castle. > > > > Alla: > > I do not know what to say. Literally. I guess when Snape shows > himself in worse light, it is not to be believed? When he says he > gagged unconscious Sirius, it really did not happen? > lizzyben: That's what I'm saying. We know that there is often a big difference between what Snape says & what Snape does. In this case, we don't have to rely on what Snape says happened. We have 2 first-hand witnesses of the events: time-turned Harry & Hermione. POA page 301: "'I don't know - Harry, look at Snape!' Together they peered around the bush at the other bank. Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away towards the castle." Harry doesn't see Snape bind or gag Sirius. Instead, he sees Snape first taking care of Ron (the most injured person), before lifting the others into stretchers & walking away. That's a complete rendition of the events. Snape didn't bind Sirius while H&H were watching. Personally, I believe this is because Snape was in "triage mode", and was more worried about the injured students than vengeance on Black. Unconscious, Black was not an immediate threat, but another injured person who needed treatment. Now, I'm willing to believe that Snape bound Sirius later, but there does seem to be a conflict between Snape's version of events & the actual events. Ironically, Snape's own words makes him seem much harsher than the reality. This is par for the course for Snape. > Lizzyben04: > > He didn't see Sirius, > > a man he loathes, but an unconscious, injured person who needed > > help. In situations like this, it seems like Snape's healing > > instinct/training snaps into place. The pettiness & hostility take > > over later. :) > > > > Alla: > > What help? How was Snape helping Sirius? I snipped part about Ron, > because I see no significance in Snape putting Ron on stretchers > first. IMO. lizzyben: He was helping by taking an unconscious Sirius (and children) to the hospital, and away from rampaging Dementors & werewolves. It is significant that he takes care of Ron first, because it shows he was mostly thinking about treating injured people, rather than getting revenge at that point. > Alla: > > I love House, but I see House as so much more human than Snape ever > be. IMO of course :) lizzyben: Oh yeah? Imagine brilliant House, MD after being forced to teach elementary school kids for ten years - Snape looks tame in comparison! There are so many places where Snape acts like a doctor, or a "healer", that I do believe it is an intrinsic part of Snape's character. JKR's husband is a doctor & I think she incorporates some of that into the novels. And, consistently, Snape is the character who heals, mends, and provides medicine to injured or ill people in the Potterverse. Snape, MD. > > Lanval: > > > I still can't blame Sirius too much for bumping Snape's head after > > knowing what Snape had in mind for him, and it's not as if Snape > > suffered any major damage. > > > Sirius was delivering Snape to the safety of his cosy little > dungeon > > home, letting his head bump against a dirt ceiling a few times. > > > > Snape was delivering a potentially innocent Sirius to the > > executioner, bound and gagged. On a nice comfortable stretcher, to > > be sure. Then he gloated about it, and then he threw a fit when it > > didn't happen. > lizzyben: Well, it shows that Sirius wasn't taking care of his patient. Snape was in his care & control at that time & he abused it. Harry thinks that Sirius is bumping Snape's head on purpose - and this is a man who already has a concussion. Snape is much more professional & responsible in how he treats the injured people in his care. And there's one other parallel I want to mention. Both Snape & Harry are confronted with the same choice: should they exact vengeance or wait for justice? Harry knew that Pettigrew had killed twelve people, and betrayed his parents. Yet still, he doesn't allow Lupin & Sirius to kill him, but insists that Pettigrew be brought back to the castle alive - then, he says, the Dementors can have him. Next chapter, Snape wakes up to find Black, who he believes killed 12 people & betrayed the Potters, unconscious at his feet. He could have killed him, or abandoned him, or called the Dementors, and nobody would have blamed him. Instead, Snape decides to take Black back to the castle alive, and conjures stretchers to safely transport him. He does this knowing that the man will most likely be executed later on. But in that moment, Snape chooses justice over vengeance. He chooses to bring Black to the authorities rather than taking the law into his own hands. Harry also decides to take a murderer back to the castle to face justice. DD praises Harry's decision as an act of mercy and compassion; he tells Harry that he has saved Pettigrew's life. By taking Sirius back to the castle, Snape also showed mercy & saved Sirius' life. Both Harry & Snape chose to abide by the law. Neither of them get the justice they were seeking in the end; both "murderers" escape. But that doesn't change the fact that, given the choice, Snape & Harry chose to bring an enemy to justice rather than using violence or murder against them. They both perform an act of mercy. Snape doesn't think he won. But I do. He made the moral choice at a critical juncture. lizzyben From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Jun 26 01:16:32 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:16:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170792 Bridgette: I completely agree. For one, Snape was giving Harry "hints" till the very end. The books had never indicated before that a wizard who was good at Occlumency could use it to determine the spell another wizard would use before they actually said it. So in pointing this out, I think Snape was giving him major clues in how to help defeat Voldemordt. Sherry: But JKR has said in an interview, that Harry will never be good at occlumency, because he can't compartmentalize his emotions. I'm paraphrasing. That tells me that Snape doesn't know a thing about what Harry needs to do, because he doesn't really know Harry at all, even after mind raping him in occlumency lessons. (That's Only my opinion of those lessons, of course.) So, I don't take Snape's supposed advice to mean anything but typical nasty Snape taunts. Bridgette Also, I just can't bear to think that Dumbledore could be so completely wrong about Snape. Sherry: And I can't bear for *Harry* the actual hero of the story to be wrong again. It's time he was right. He was right about Malfoy in HBP, and I want Harry to be right about Snape in the end, even if Snape suffers remorse and does something to try to redeem himself in the last book. Neither Dumbledore nor Snape are the ones the books are about. They are Harry's story. Bridgette I feel it was part of DD's plan. Snape made the Unbreakable Vow, and so he really had no option. Also, if Voldemort found out that Snape was a traitor, the Order would no longer have their spy. I think at this point, DD realized that Snape was more valuable than himself. Sherry: Snape had an option. He had the option to do something brave and save the man who trusted and supported him, instead of betraying him. After all, the order doesn't have a spy now either. They all think Snape is a murderer, so he's useless to them now. not a very smart plan, if there was one. Of course, as always, this is just my opinion. Sherry From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Jun 26 01:59:20 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:59:20 -0400 Subject: Harry an accidental Horcrux?? Message-ID: <421E2E5E-839B-4D30-8E33-6AEA47469E70@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170795 On Jun-25-07, at 8:09 PM, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > Jeremiah: > so i don't see how Harry is "accidentally" a > Horcrux seeing as how it is supposed to be an immensely complicated > spell... doug: Once again there is *NO* canon to suggest anything at all about the relative complexity or simplicity of the spell. ___ __ From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 26 02:20:32 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:20:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape Message-ID: <380-22007622622032718@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170796 Biff I'm afraid that when I read all of the "caring" things that Snape has done, I don't read them as anything more than a teacher doing what is expected of them. I think that Snape walks a tightrope in a way, being a spy. He's subjected to much more scrutiny, from both sides, and he knows it. It would expected that a teacher would take care of the children and he did. I believe he did it almost mindlessly, his mind compartmentalizing things that needed to be done. I believe he put Sirius on a stretcher because the children were on stretchers and it was just easier to transport everyone in the same way. Perhaps he would have had to perform 2 different types of magic at the same time to bring the children in on stretchers and Sirius, say, bound and gagged, dragged across the ground. His actions were almost mechanical, cold. Magpie: You still wind up with Snape needing to be acting as a professional person taking care of people efficiently, being shown lifting the injured onto stretchers in a scene where he's alone. If JKR had just come up with any other way to avoid this scene--and there are many--you wouldn't have to find a negative explanation so that Snape is acting (as another person might think he was "acting" when he's mean to Harry because he's a spy). I think the point of Snape's character is he can do both. He doesn't have to be a "caring" person to be caring for people in this scene--or several times in HBP. Biff: And yet, he obviously can't help his personal feelings getting in the way of things at times, which I believe explains his gagging Sirius. He had pronounced sentence on Sirius in his own mind- he was "done" with him and didn't want to hear anymore from this person. Magpie: Yes...but...so? Sirius is guilty according to everyone in the WW except the few who know the truth. Snape has personal reasons for wanting Sirius to be guilty. Given who Sirius is supposed to be, there's nothing out of the ordinary about Snape using the same spell he used before on a prisoner to bind him. If his carrying people back to the castle is just Snape acting like a professional person, gagging Sirius is the same thing as far as I can see. Certainly I'd expect Snape to do it--usually whenever Sirius has a working mouth he insults him. (I would think Sirius might do the same for Snape for the same reason.) Biff: I have been tempted over the years to feel sorry for Snape and to hope that there is something more there, just like I did with Draco (hey I like bad boys, ok?), and in some ways I do. But then I remembered part of an interview with Jo Rowling where she spoke about Draco. She was just amazed to find there were those who thought Draco was "misunderstood". They think he can be changed with love and tenderness. She wrote Draco to be bad. I believe she wrote Snape in the same way. My opinion only, of course. Magpie: But JKR said she felt sorry for Draco as well in that interview. I don't think that saying his bad qualities were real, precludes the real character being sympathetic. I would be wary of taking JKR's statements about bad boys and making them into character statements that are more revealing that I think she would be about characters. I think she's both sticking up for her characters--who are a lot harsher and darker than the romantic bad boy woobie--and also finding ways of not revealing anything about the character. Statements about not dating Snape or Draco are, imo, shallow and silly diversions from any in-depth discussions of what we might expect from either of them. It's easy to say that nobody should want to date them etc. But the woman's tipped her hand I think--however much she protests the whole thing, it turned out more stuff from fanon turned out to be true than anyone would have imagined. Lanval: If DADA were synonymous with Healing, why is none of the other five DADA teachers Harry has known a Healer? (Well, hello -- maybe that's how Lupin earned his money, working as a Healer! *eg*). I'll take Umbridge out of the equation here, of course, 'cause she's a Ministry bureaucrat, not even a qualified teacher. Moody? Not a Healer. He could use one, though. Quirrell? Uh, no. Lockheart? :D Magpie: I'd say mostly because Snape's on a totally different level (I doubt Hermione would ever say that Lupin sounds like Harry when he talks about DADA). I don't think any of them know the Dark Arts as well as he does--and I don't mean that to elevate Snape above everyone. Lupin has skills as a teacher that Snape doesn't have at all, and everybody doesn't have to be able to heal to teach DADA to be "the best." It just seems like Snape has from the beginning been established as the familiar combination of archetypes of death/healer. He makes poisons and antidotes. He makes up dark curses and can heal dark curses. Lupin's dark illness is taken care of by Snape, not Pomfrey (or Lupin). All Dark Arts teachers are not healers. Snape is. If all he ever did was once lift people onto stretchers I wouldn't say that--I wouldn't be surprised if Lupin or Sirius were ever in a scene where they did the same thing. But yeah, I think Snape's really been established as being about both of those things. The only reason the stretcher strikes me as anything at all is because it seems like part of the pattern. Alla: I am talking about image of Snape and in the context of the story it gives me **zero** medical associations, that is why I do not think JKR may necessarily put them in there for that purpose as well. It is not just image of somebody we do not know, we **know** the context in which Snape puts people on the stretchers and it does not give me any healing images. Magpie: I guess I just have the opposite problem. I can completely understand not thinking that *Snape* putting people on stretchers is about Snape healing, because we know what Snape's like. But it still seems like even to get there you have to recognize that stretchers etc. are associated with hospitals and paramedics etc. It doesn't have to make the person a healer necessarily. As I said, I can imagine Lupin or Sirius doing the same thing, and if they did in that scene I'd think of them acting as a person taking care of the injured, even if the person on the stretcher was Snape and Sirius was the one levitating him. Alla: Um, I am not going into any effort to deny anything. I am genuinely interpreting this scene as Snape's ultimate hypocrisy and practicality - to look good in front of Fudge and get the reward. This image of Snape putting Sirius on stretchers honestly disgusts me **a lot**. Magpie: I understand how you interpret the scene--it just seems like the whole reason it's hypocrisy is because there is healing imagery there. Snape is going through motions of putting him on a stretcher when really he wants to take him to Dementors. Isn't that what twists the knife a bit with it? But I don't think this scene necessarily matters so much in that--I was going to ask if scenes of Snape healing in HBP struck you as being connected to healing, and you said they did and that's fine with me. I still think Snape's intentionally a combination of death and medicine. If it was just an isolated incident without the other stuff where he heals, I wouldn't read the same things into the scene. - From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 02:55:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:55:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape/ some russian history In-Reply-To: <380-22007622622032718@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170797 > Magpie: > I guess I just have the opposite problem. I can completely understand not > thinking that *Snape* putting people on stretchers is about Snape healing, > because we know what Snape's like. But it still seems like even to get > there you have to recognize that stretchers etc. are associated with > hospitals and paramedics etc. It doesn't have to make the person a healer > necessarily. As I said, I can imagine Lupin or Sirius doing the same thing, > and if they did in that scene I'd think of them acting as a person taking > care of the injured, even if the person on the stretcher was Snape and > Sirius was the one levitating him. Alla: Stretchers **by itself** are associated with hospitals and paramedics, most definitely. Stretchers in Snape's hands levitating Sirius to the dementors - are not associated with anything healing in my mind in any way, shape or form. Okay, let me try again to explain my way of thinking and then I will probably bow out, I think I tried more than hard to explain myself. I just had the wierdest idea, which may at first sound completely off topic, but bear with me and I will get back to Potterverse just fine at the end. Please take a look at this link in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy_Uprising. I am not sure how familiar you are with russian history or russian paintings, or both, so I apologise if you know all that. So Streltsy rebelled against Peter the Great and it did not end well for them, poor guys :( A lot of them were executed as article says, so please take a careful at the painting by Surikov in the article, I am pretty sure you can see the better reproduction online somewhere else. Do you see how another soldier supports one of the condemned soldiers and leads him to the execution? Long time ago I remember reading about that painting and the writer was thinking that this projects the image of brotherhood - one soldier supports another wounded soldier. And I remember screaming at the book - WHAT brotherhood? This soldier leads another one to death, that's not how you treat your brother to me. Even though ordinarily one soldier supporting his hurt comrade normally is associated with the brotherhood, sure, to me **not** in this situation at all. Why? Because I know the end result and I cannot separate them at all. This to me is hypocrisy, not brotherhood. Same thing here. I cannot separate in my mind the image of the stretchers and where Snape is taking Sirius, so I cannot have any healing associations in my mind, because I know the end result - horrible death of the soul. Does that make sense to you? Alla. > From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 26 02:56:25 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:56:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170798 > > > lizzyben: > > > > Well, there's two levels here - the practical level & the symbolic > > level. This is a literary text, so the imagery & symbolism have > > meaning. And JKR clearly contrasts the images of how Sirius > treated > > an unconcious Snape (as a grosteque puppet, head lolling) and the > > image of how Snape treated unconscious people (as patients & human > > beings,in stretchers, in comfort.) This is the ONLY glimpse we > have > > of the real Snape, and it's quite telling. JKR didn't have to show > > us this - but she did. It doesn't really matter where the > stretchers > > came from; what matters is how Snape treats vulnerable, injured > > people. And in this instance, the only time we see the unvarnished > > Snape, he treats the unconsious people with dignity & care. > > > > > Lanval: > > > But I strongly object to the notion that we see the "real Snape" > here. It's just Snape, doing what he needs to do. No healing desire > required. > > You may say that she could have shown us Snape kicking Sirius, or > dropping Harry, or something along that line. Yet, if she wanted to > show us Caring Snape, she could have made it more obvious as well. > Have him cover Ron with a blanket, for example. As it is written > (and remember that she still considers children her target > audience), Snape's behavior is just too subtle and seems to me > mostly neutral. Yet knowing what took place just before, and what > followed must be taken into context, I think. Julie: Here's the context I see. Harry, Ron and Hermione all hexed Snape unconscious. Three *thirteen-year-old* students hexed a TEACHER unconscious. And right next to them is Sirius, the escaped prisoner from Azkaban, whose guilt Snape could have some reason to doubt if he looked at it rationally, but only *some* reason, as he still didn't hear anything about the actual switching of Secret-Keepers. But being Snape and hating Sirius, that doubt if it exists is suppressed under an ocean of hatred. As far as Snape is concerned, Sirius IS guilty, if not of one part of the disaster at Godric's Hollow, surely some other part, and absolutely of a multitude of other sins including the attempted murder of Snape himself. I focus on Snape's state of mind not because his perceptions are valid or noble, but because he *is* the one in complete control at the time, of three students who had the unbelievable audacity to hex him, and of a wanted murderer he hates with a fierce vengeance. He's a bitter, vengeful man capable of both great pettiness and meanness. To some he's a good deal worse, a man with few if any redeeming qualities. So what does this man do in this *context*, when those who have recently and not-so-recently wronged him (in his mind) are under his power, and no one is watching? Vent at them, kick them, call the Dementors back to suck out Sirius's soul while he feigns unconsciousness, or transport them back to Hogwarts in some haphazard fashion without regard for their comfort or safety? No, he conjures up stretchers and places each of the victims on them to assure the least jarring transport of their unconscious and injured bodies back to Hogwarts. (Heck, Snape could have at least levitated Sirius a meter or two above his stretcher and then dropped him on it like a sack of potatoes. That would have been good for a cold chuckle or two, all those graceless limbs flapping around!) And Snape did this not because he is tender-hearted, not because he is caring or noble, but because it was the right thing to do. Not the easiest thing, especially in the case of Sirius, but certainly the right thing. That's been the crux of my argument. I strongly suggest the Snape we see in these unguarded moments is the "real" Snape, as he is playing to no audience but himself and his conscience. He is acting from his *own* set of values or standards. And he does what any responsible teacher would have done. It is nothing more or less than that, a mere act of human decency, and that is the point. No sentiment needed, no soppy caring or excessive nobility. Mere decency. That Snape choose to act so on his own accord, without pressure from anyone, says something to me about a character who many here believe has no sense of decency at all. Lanval: > > Oh, and remember Snape saying "I'll drag the werewolf"? Julie: It occurs to me that Snape talks very big. He's going to feed Sirius to the Dementors, he's going to drag the werewolf, he's going to see Harry expelled, he's going to feed Harry Veritaserum, and so on, and so on. So many big threats, so little resulting action. Talk about all bark, no bite. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? Well, makes me wonder anyway ;-) Lanval: > But House, unlike Snape, HAS his moments where you see the human > side of him. His face will show concern, worry, doubt, delight (duh, > well, Laurie is a great actor, so that may be unfair to Snape *g*) Julie: Well, House is the star of his own show. Unfortunately for Snape, Harry is the star of his show. IOW, House's emotions are provided direct from the source, but Snape's all come through Harry. And if you're Snape that has got to hurt (your image anyway ;-) Lanval: > With Snape it's almost *all* conjecture -- his emotions, his > thoughts, his fears, his loyalty. We see what we want to see. > Julie: Absolutely. JKR has kept it that way on purpose. At least until the final pages of DH. We can only hope by then we've learned some truths about Snape's character and motivations. (Yet even if we have, why do I suspect that *still* won't stop the "Is he good or bad?" debate!) Julie From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jun 26 03:22:45 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:22:45 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170799 > > Sherry: > And I can't bear for *Harry* the actual hero of the story to be wrong again. > It's time he was right. He was right about Malfoy in HBP, and I want Harry > to be right about Snape in the end, even if Snape suffers remorse and does > something to try to redeem himself in the last book. Neither Dumbledore nor > Snape are the ones the books are about. They are Harry's story. Julie: Your choice of words brought something to mind. If Harry is wrong about Snape, would he really be wrong "again"? I think he's been wrong about Snape all along. Just as Snape has been wrong about Harry all along. To Snape, Harry is Clone!James. Snape can't abandon his old grudges and misperceptions of Harry's behavior as a mirror of his father's to see who Harry really is. As for Harry, he has never trusted Snape. Even during the periods of grudgingly accepting Snape's status as an Order member he's held fast to his mistrust (suspecting Snape was opening his mind further to Voldemort, for instance). For all the counsel Harry's beloved mentor has given, the one piece Harry has soundly rejected from the beginning is that Snape is trustworthy. So has Harry been right all along? Or has he seen Snape through his own misperceptions, and perhaps on some level through Snape's own misdirections? (Don't freak, I am NOT saying Snape has been faking it, only that he has never disabused Harry of any conclusions Harry has made--"That's your job, isn't it?!" "Yes, Potter, it is.") In any case, I don't think there's any *again* about it. Either Harry and Snape have both been wrong about each other from the beginning, or only Snape has been wrong about Harry. For me, a pairing always makes for a much more interesting story ;-) Julie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 26 04:01:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:01:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape/ some russian history Message-ID: <380-2200762264151812@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170800 Alla: Stretchers **by itself** are associated with hospitals and paramedics, most definitely. Stretchers in Snape's hands levitating Sirius to the dementors - are not associated with anything healing in my mind in any way, shape or form. Magpie: Okay, I don't remember the scene well enough, but isn't he just bringing Sirius in? He's not literally bringing him to a waiting Dementor, he's captured him and is bringing him back to the castle, isn't he? Along with Harry, Ron and Hermione, none of whom are being taken to Dementors? Okay, let me try again to explain my way of thinking and then I will probably bow out, I think I tried more than hard to explain myself. I just had the wierdest idea, which may at first sound completely off topic, but bear with me and I will get back to Potterverse just fine at the end. Please take a look at this link in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy_Uprising. I am not sure how familiar you are with russian history or russian paintings, or both, so I apologise if you know all that. So Streltsy rebelled against Peter the Great and it did not end well for them, poor guys :( A lot of them were executed as article says, so please take a careful at the painting by Surikov in the article, I am pretty sure you can see the better reproduction online somewhere else. Do you see how another soldier supports one of the condemned soldiers and leads him to the execution? Long time ago I remember reading about that painting and the writer was thinking that this projects the image of brotherhood - one soldier supports another wounded soldier. And I remember screaming at the book - WHAT brotherhood? This soldier leads another one to death, that's not how you treat your brother to me. Magpie: Thanks for the link--that was interesting! As for where it fits for Snape, I'm not sure. He's got four people, right? Three of them he's literally taking them to an infirmary to recover. The fourth guy he isn't showing any brotherly affection at all, and the guy isn't a fellow soldier, as far as he knows. He's a murderer who's all year been trying to hurt the kid. He's now also unconscious, and he's bringing him to the castle too.I know it's ironic that he's taking him to a place where he will be captured again. But I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite. That's what happens to escaped criminals in the real world, isn't it? If one were shot, let's say, paramedics would bring him to a hospital and heal him, and if he was then sent back to Death Row. So to me on one hand you've just got Snape handling stretchers and injured people, which makes me think that it's part of a lot of healing stuff for Snape in the books. What he's doing for Sirius specifically doesn't seem all that significant to me at all. I mean, he's not being especially nice to him, nor is he taking the opportunity to do anything particularly bad to him. He's captured the bad guy everybody's been chasing the whole book and taking him in. I imagine Peter would be taken in the same way by Lupin, but I wouldn't much think of it as hypocritical. Alla: Even though ordinarily one soldier supporting his hurt comrade normally is associated with the brotherhood, sure, to me **not** in this situation at all. Why? Because I know the end result and I cannot separate them at all. This to me is hypocrisy, not brotherhood. Magpie: That's interesting, because it seems like you're saying that if you're taking someone to their execution or to jail or whatever, compassion immediately becomes hypocrisy so you're not really showing compassion. But I would suspect that combination appears a lot. In Snape's case, of course, it doesn't seem like he's doing the same thing with Sirius. The Trio he's taking to the infirmary, so there's no problem there. With Sirius I think he's more like the cop bringing somebody to jail and making sure he doesn't hit his head on the door. Yeah, he could decide that since the guy's going to get the chair anyway it doesn't matter, but nobody wants to hit their head on the car door either.:-) Julie: So has Harry been right all along? Or has he seen Snape through his own misperceptions, and perhaps on some level through Snape's own misdirections? (Don't freak, I am NOT saying Snape has been faking it, only that he has never disabused Harry of any conclusions Harry has made--"That's your job, isn't it?!" "Yes, Potter, it is.") In any case, I don't think there's any *again* about it. Either Harry and Snape have both been wrong about each other from the beginning, or only Snape has been wrong about Harry. For me, a pairing always makes for a much more interesting story ;-) Magpie: Yes, the thing is, it's not like Harry has a technical theory about what Snape's doing. He doesn't really claim to understand him any more than Snape understands "how a werewolf's mind works." He doesn't give a lot of thought to Snape's personal strategy in a big picture way--only when it becomes immediately important to what he's doing. In HBP, even with Draco, Harry was right that Draco was up to something, right to think they should check out what he was doing in the RoR. He was right about certain things that he truly understood about Malfoy through his own experience--that he wanted to take his father's place, that Voldemort wouldn't care about his age, that his plan wasn't going well, that the girls were Crabbe & Goyle. But Malfoy's revelation was still a surprise to him. Harry's right about certain things about what Malfoy's doing, but Dumbledore is also very right about Draco. So at the end of the day Harry has actually *changed* his view of Draco to be more like Dumbledore's. (Granted, Dumbledore also must have changed his view to be more like Harry's in terms of realizing he overestimated his ability to control the young.) What's the equivalent with Snape? Well, Harry was right about Snape in PS as well as wrong. He was correct in thinking Snape hated him even when people wouldn't confirm it until the end. He was just wrong about his being the one who was stealing the stone. In HBP...well, Snape did kill Dumbledore as far as I can see. Beyond that Harry's supposed to be right just because he never trusted or liked Snape. Snape was never really remorseful. He was really a DE. At this point everybody already thinks Harry's right--it's just not much of a triumph. It's hard for me to imagine that's the big revelation about Snape. I mean, Harry doesn't claim to have a real understanding of Snape even though he supposedly instinctively gets him more than others. He loved him when he met him as his teenaged self, and continued to defend him until he found out--oops!--it was Snape. For Harry to be right in HBP, he also has to be wrong in HBP--either he was right all along to believe Snape is bad through and through, or he was wrong to believe the Prince was an okay guy. Harry doesn't have any real answer for how Snape could fool Dumbledore--except for the DE story which is that Dumbledore is a moron. Harry doesn't put it in those terms, but that's the idea. Which means that what we'd probably learn in DH, if Harry was right and Snape is ESE, is that Snape did dupe Dumbledore, only Dumbledore's mistake wasn't as lame as it seems now. So Harry would still have to learn things that showed where he was wrong any way you look at it, because Harry just doesn't know stuff. -m From bill at griffeth.name Tue Jun 26 03:01:03 2007 From: bill at griffeth.name (wfgriffeth) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:01:03 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170801 "justcarol67" wrote: > Dumbledore is really dead, and yes, Snape killed him (unless > Pippin is right that the spell was not a real AK and DD died > from the poison or something else), but there's that exchanged > glance between two Legilimens, a possible silent exchange of > images and emotions which passed so quickly that Harry only > saw its consequence, the expression of (self?)hatred and > revulsion, and then, after "Severus, please" (also > misinterpreted?), Snape finally raises his wand and speaks > the words, resulting in a most unusual AK that sends DD over > the wall and allows him to die with closed eyes and a peaceful > expression (in marked contrast to Cedric Diggory and the > Riddles). > Assuming that Harry is wrong and DD was begging (not ordering) > Snape to kill him--for the Order, for Harry and Draco, for the > WW--we have at least two precedents for a widespread > misunderstanding of events involving murder or intent to murder. > A large number of Muggles *saw* Sirius Black "murder" twelve > Muggles and Peter Pettigrew, and he was sent to Azkaban on > their testimony (and DD's that black was Secret Keeper, which > he "knew" to be "true"; in CoS, a large number of Hufflepuffs, > Ravenclaws, and Slytherins *saw and heard* Harry "egging > on" the conjured snake to attack the Muggle-born Justin > Finch-Fletchley and conclude that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin. > Ernie Macmillan, Justin's fellow Hufflepuff, stubbornly tells > Harry that he knows what he saw, but like the Muggle witnesses > to the Black-Pettigrew confrontation, what he and the other > students think they saw--with their own eyes in clear light--is > wrong. > Carol, agreeing that what Harry saw and heard on the tower was > in some way misinterpreted and believing that, like Ernie > Macmillan in CoS and DD in PoA, he will learn the truth in DH It's quite possible that Snape is speaking the Avada Kedavra but actually performing a different, non-verbal spell (one that nevertheless filled him with revulsion). We know from Bellatrix in OP that one must really mean an unforgiveable curse for it to be effective, so Snape may not have even been able to AK Dumbledore. Typically, AK victims lie where they are cursed, with their eyes open. Dumbledore, contrary to this pattern, flew over the parapet and lay with his eyes closed. How can Harry overcome the vivid memory he has of Snape's apparent treachery? Perhaps by experiencing Snape's or Dumbledore's memories of their agreement via the pensieve. Perhaps by building on his admiration for the Half-Blood Prince, who taught him so much. Perhaps by rekindling the understanding of Snape that he developed from seeing Snape's worst memory. After all, Harry's greatest strength is supposed to be his ability to love. If this notion is not simply "great love implies great thirst for revenge", then perhaps Harry will grow to understand Snape and to reconcile with him. Harry might even be able to offer Snape a deep apology for James's treatment of Snape, a sort of truth-and-reconciliation. Finally, Harry can offer Snape a way to complete his dealing with the greatest regret of his life -- setting Voldemort on the path to killing Lilly Potter. Harry manipulated Slughorn by playing on his affection for Lilly. If, as many people think, Snape secretly loved Lily, then he would be even more susceptible to an appeal from the son with her eyes. BillG From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 04:11:35 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:11:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: <380-22007622622032718@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170802 > Magpie: > You still wind up with Snape needing to be acting as a > professional person taking care of people efficiently, > being shown lifting the injured onto stretchers in a scene > where he's alone. If JKR had just come up with any other > way to avoid this scene--and there are many--you wouldn't > have to find a negative explanation so that Snape is acting > (as another person might think he was "acting" when he's > mean to Harry because he's a spy). Biff: I don't disagree with you at all on this, but I think that we perceive different motivations for his actions. I believe that part of what does is almost a reflex, from years of spying and doing what either side expects him to do. I don't necessarily beleive that he is at a point where he acts much differently when he is by himself than when others are present. > Magpie: > But JKR said she felt sorry for Draco as well in that interview. > I don't think that saying his bad qualities were real, precludes > the real character being sympathetic. I would be wary of taking > JKR's statements about bad boys and making them into character > statements that are more revealing that I think she would be > about characters. Biff: I don't believe that I said that JKR's comments about Draco should be meant as character statements, at least I didn't mean it to sound that way. I brought up her comments only because I feel that only she knows exactly what motivates these characters. For this reason, I personally have to give pause when she talks about fans getting the wrong idea about her characters. I see similarities in both Draco and Snape and how they have been shaped for us. I don't believe that Snape is all bad- no one is, and I agree with many of your points. I just don't see his motivations as being good, I see them as being for the profit of Snape, regardless of which side they fall on. Again, just my opinion. Biff From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 04:28:24 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:28:24 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170803 > colebiancardi: > We've never heard or seen Snape actually *kill* anyone(well, > with the exception of DD in HBP and that is still open to > debate until DH comes out) > He may give *harsh* punishment to student's, but no more than > other Professors. He is nasty to those outside of his own > House, but again, his cruelty is in his *words*. He threatens, > he bullies, but again, all talk, no action at this point in > time in the series. > I don't believe Snape to be a cold-blooded killer, despite the > events that happened on the Tower. Biff You could very well be right in that, before HBP, Snape had never killed. I had not considered it, since he seemed to unwavering in his actions on the Tower. I do disagree with you on your point about Snape not giving punishment any more severe than that of the other teachers. Time and time again he has punished Harry, simply because he was James' son. How many times has he jumped to blame Harry when things happen, such as the missing ingredients for olyjuice Potion in GoF? Yes, he knew Harry & Co had used it earlier, but he had no proof- and Harry denied it. Snape empties Harry's cauldron if his potion isn't up to snuff (and it rarely is), but we don't hear that he does that to other students. He has docked Gryffindor points because Hermione answers questions. I agree with ou that Snape can certainly use words for cruelty, but he abuses that as well. For me, Bella's words at Spinner's End confirmed that Snape only did what Snape wanted to do. He found some of the tasks their Master assigned them distasteful, so he found ways around them. He is nothing if not clever and resourceful. I don't think it would have taken much for him to find other ways to please Voldemort, making Snapes nonparticipation a moot point. Just my opinions, of course. Biff From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 05:00:35 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:35 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <92938.20708.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: when Harry and Hermione disagree about something, Hermione is always right. And Hermione believes Snape is DDM, so I believe she will be right again. Charles: I hate to say it, but this statement is wrong on two points. First, Hermione is not always right. She was, to quote just one instance, dead wrong about Draco Malfoy throughout the majority of HBP. Second, by the end of HBP she does not believe Snape is DDM. Nobody in the WW except possibly Snape and the portrait of DD would think so at this point, and I have my doubts about the portrait. On to my own statement on Snape here. We have seen a pattern of clues and red herrings throughout the series. There is one clue to Snape's loyalty that I feel is overlooked. The dream Harry has his first night at Hogwarts: "Perhaps Harry had eaten a bit too much, because he had a very strange dream. He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully ? and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it ? then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold ? there was a burst of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking." (HPSS) We see a prophetic dream spanning six books here. Quirrel's talking turban representing book one, the argument about Slytherin represents book two. Malfoy's laughing spans all six books so far. But ultimately, the end of the dream represents HBP. Malfoy turns into Snape, and a flash of green light- the events on the tower. We have a major red herring that spans the books as well. We keep seeing Snape be exonerated. Over and over again we have Harry and crew suspecting Snape and Malfoy, and Snape and Malfoy being red herrings. But when taken to span a six book stretch, I believe that JKR is using the tactic of distracting us from Snape's real loyalty by using those red herrings as a red herring. I think that it will become clear that Snape was playing the part of DDM for himself and then later for his master. I have read many theories about a setup on the tower where Snape would kill DD to save Draco from the dark side. Or how Snape didn't really AK DD. Both fall at DD's exhortation to "come over to the right side," as Severus Snape was under an unbreakable vow to kill DD. If Draco had decided to become a good guy all of a sudden, Snape could not be involved, nor could he be at the same place as DD without either killing him or losing his life. Whether Snape was DDM or not before the tower is irrelevant, after the tower he is at best OFH. Whether the hatred seen in Snape's face was for himself, DD, Bellatrix, or Narcissa, that one curse destroyed his alliance with DD, by destroying DD. I believe that what Hagrid overheard was Snape trying to tell DD about the UV, and DD refusing to hear it. Snape did not want to be DD's spy anymore, and made a choice at Spinner's End that he was afraid to tell DD about. When he did try to tell DD about it, he was most likely playing his cards very close to the chest and not revealing everything, in case DD would decide to chuck him out of the school and thus cause Snape to have inadvertently broken the vow and die. Like I have said, Snape could very well have been DDM before HBP. When he made that vow to Narcissa, however, he became at the very least OFH. Yes, that hand twitch could have been a moment of doubt, but he still decided to perform the deed. He chose to kill DD in that moment. DD did not choose to have Snape kill him, Snape chose to do so. We do know that an UV can be stopped in the casting from the conversation that Harry and Ron have. But, as Harry said, "passing over Fred's left buttock," we know that Snape did not choose to go that route. It could have been explained. Very smoothly, in fact, if you believe that he was lying to Narcissa and Bellatrix off the cuff for the entire Spinner's End scene. Again, rather than choose another route, Snape chose, in that moment, to make sure that DD died. Whether or not he fully chose Voldemort at that point, or chose to finally play both ends against the middle, or even just showed his true colors to those of us reading the book, he was most certainly no longer an agent of Albus Dumbledore. My personal take on Snape is that he is evil, but not Voldemort's man. I think he is out for himself, to be a powerful dark wizard in his own right. Snape wants to be the final authority on everything. He chose LV as a means to learn and gain power, and DD as a safeguard from Azkaban. In the terror of the time, when everyone connected with LV was getting chucked into prison, he used that safeguard to gain himself a position that would allow him both to study all those restricted dark arts books at Hogwarts he never got to see as a student, and an unlimited number of kids to bully, terrorize and otherwise cow into submission. When LV came back, he had to keep up appearances on both ends again. By the time of the UV, he is sick of burning the candle at both ends. He has to make a choice. He chose to kill DD. It is debatable as to whether or not he is still trying to teach Harry at the end. I personally think that he was. As loath as I am to admit it, in his own way he is trying to get Harry ready for that battle. His pitiful misunderstanding of Harry and what is needed to defeat LV gets in the way, but I do think Snape wants LV dead, so that he can be free. I cannot remember who said it, but I do remember once hearing that "A man who serves two masters will eventually want both of them dead." Whether Snape will live to see the demise of both of his masters will have to wait until 21 July. Charles, who thinks this may well be the longest post he has ever made to this group, and apologizes if any part of it does not make sense, as he has been very ill today. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 26 05:13:51 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:13:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dementors and Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1053556591.20070625221351@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170805 Amy: > It just came to me the relation of dementors sucking out the souls of > people and horcruxes being a piece of someone's soul. Will that mean > that the persons who have had their soul sucked out like Barty Crouch > Jr. will never die? Dave: Maybe I'm wrong, but my interpretation of being kissed by a Dementor resulting in being "Worse Than Dead" has been that the Dementor's "ingestion" of the soul completely annihilates it, so that the existence of that sentient entity totally ceases, and absolutely nothing comes after -- No journeys beyond the Veil. No Next Great Adventure. Just nothing. Worse Than Dead. Of course my conception of what Dementors do has admittedly been influenced by other Worse-Than-the-Death-Penalty issuers of justice, mainly in science fiction. For example, when I first read PoA, pre-Goblet of Fire, when I thought they were inherently law-enforcers, rather than LV's "natural allies", I mentally compared them to the robot Gort in _The Day the Earth Stood Still_: KLAATU: For our policemen, we created a race of robots -- Their function is to patrol the planets ... and preserve the peace... At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. And the penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. Also brought to my mind was the "Total Perspective Vortex" from _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_: "Beeblebrox," he said, ..., "have you any idea what's going to happen to you on the Frogstar?" "They're going to feed me?" hazarded Zaphod hopefully. "They're going to feed you," said Roosta, "into the Total Perspective Vortex ... the most savage psychic torture a sentient being can undergo." "So, no food, huh?" "Listen!" said Roosta urgently, "you can kill a man, destroy his body, break his spirit, but only the Total Perspective Vortex can annihilate a man's soul!" So my natural conclusion was that Dementors are not anything remotely resembling Horcruxes, but instead similar soul-oblivionizers to both Gort and the TPV... But maybe this perception is based too much on other writers' Canons and not Jo's... Any thoughts...? Dave From toonmili at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 08:13:34 2007 From: toonmili at yahoo.com (toonmili) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:13:34 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170806 Charles: > My personal take on Snape is that he is evil, but not Voldemort's > man. I think he is out for himself, to be a powerful dark wizard > in his own right. Toonmili: I really have to disagree with you because JK is not in the habit of using the same characters over and over. I think Voldemort is a loner. Snape, though is always alone, is not a loner. Just by the way he reacts to compliments you can tell he has a desire to be accepted, unlike Voldemort. To me there is only one character that screams evil but is actually good, and that Snape. For the sake of proper storytelling. Snape is now working for himself. Charles: > Snape wants to be the final authority on everything. He chose > LV as a means to learn and gain power, and DD as a safeguard > from Azkaban. Toonmili: You are suggesting that Snape is Seer. Are you forgetting that he joined DD before the knew the outcome of the incident. He told DD about his mistake without knowing that Voldemort would die (or disappear or whatever). So there was really no way he could have known he would be in Azkaban. The DE all thought that Voldemort would win. Charles: > In the terror of the time, when everyone connected with LV > was getting chucked into prison, he used that safeguard to gain > himself a position that would allow him both to study all those > restricted dark arts books at Hogwarts he never got to see as a > student, and an unlimited number of kids to bully, terrorize and > otherwise cow into submission. When LV came back, he had to keep > up appearances on both ends again. By the time of the UV, he is > sick of burning the candle at both ends. He has to make a choice. > He chose to kill DD. Toonmili: Ask yourself. Why would Snape, who knows he is no way near as powerful as DD put his life on killing DD when Voldy himself couldn't do it. Again you are assuming that Snape is a seer. He had no way of knowing that DD was going to drink a Goblet of Potion that would weaken him. Charles > It is debatable as to whether or not he is still trying to teach > Harry at the end. I personally think that he was. As loath as I > am to admit it, in his own way he is trying to get Harry ready > for that battle. His pitiful misunderstanding of Harry and what > is needed to defeat LV gets in the way, but I do think Snape > wants LV dead, so that he can be free. I cannot remember who > said it, but I do remember once hearing that "A man who serves > two masters will eventually want both of them dead." Whether > Snape will live to see the demise of both of his masters will > have to wait until 21 July. Toonmili: I never saw Snape as a leader. He seems very good at taking orders and to me it seems like he is taking them from Dumbledore. From rvink7 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 26 09:47:37 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:47:37 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape > > Biff wrote: > >He didn't know who he was > > betraying at the time, but he knew that he was giving information > > about a baby who was foretold to be the downfall of his Master and > > you don't do that without knowing what the results will be. Maybe > > not right away, but some day Voldemort would use that information > > and make sure this threat went away. > > colebiancardi: > > This also ties in with the other prophecy threads. We seem to take it > for granted, after the fact, that Snape *knew* it was a baby that was > being targeted in the prophecy, not an adult. > > If Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, as DD states, > Snape doesn't know it is someone who is yet to be born: > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...Born to > those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies..." > Renee: As I'm not a native speaker, I could very well be wrong, but wouldn't the wording have been slightly different if the "one" had already been born at the time the prophecy was made? I'd have expected it to be something like: "Born to those who (have) trice defied him, born when the seventh month died..." The way I read what JKR actually wrote, it can only refer to a child as yet unborn. Renee (genuinely curious) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 26 10:18:53 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:18:53 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > > Re: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape > > > > Biff wrote: > > >He didn't know who he was > > > betraying at the time, but he knew that he was giving information > > > about a baby who was foretold to be the downfall of his Master and > > > you don't do that without knowing what the results will be. Maybe > > > not right away, but some day Voldemort would use that information > > > and make sure this threat went away. > > > > colebiancardi: > > > > This also ties in with the other prophecy threads. We seem to take it > > for granted, after the fact, that Snape *knew* it was a baby that was > > being targeted in the prophecy, not an adult. > > > > If Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, as DD states, > > Snape doesn't know it is someone who is yet to be born: > > > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...Born to > > those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies..." > > > > Renee: > > As I'm not a native speaker, I could very well be wrong, but wouldn't > the wording have been slightly different if the "one" had already been > born at the time the prophecy was made? I'd have expected it to be > something like: "Born to those who (have) trice defied him, born when > the seventh month died..." The way I read what JKR actually wrote, it > can only refer to a child as yet unborn. > > Renee > (genuinely curious) > Geoff: In the section of the prophecy which Snape did not apparently hear, JKR confirms your idea... "'...the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord **will be born** as the seventh month dies..." (my emphasis) The slowly revolving Professor Trelawney sank back into the silver mass below and vanished.' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.741 UK edition) From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Tue Jun 26 10:24:51 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:24:51 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (2 of 2) (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170809 I thought I'd leave a few days' gap between parts 1 and 2 in case anyone wanted to argue with part 1. But nobody seems to want to. Part 1 of this is message number 170719. You probably don't have to read it first, but in it I defined what I believe a plot to be and argued that none of the books so far has had a plot. This part is about what I think this means for DH. Although each book has a self-contained storyline, the series can also be seen as one novel with a single Harry vs. Voldemort plotline (arguably excluding CoS) and minor plotlines concerning, for instance, shipping and the Wizarding World's politics. Rowling has even said that she sees the whole series in this way: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm The quotation is almost halfway down, just above the question about eye colour. I call this mega-plotline the "overplot", and the books look rather different when analysed as a group rather than discrete works. The plotlines that run from one book to another, such as shipping or Harry's entering the Wizarding World, mean much more when the books are read as one ? Ron and Hermione's arguing in PoA being a prime example. But if we treat the series as one novel, we agree that it has to have the constituent parts of a novel: beginning, middle, and climax and end. We're now six books of seven through, or by my count about four-fifths of the total word count. Each book has cranked up the tension in the overplot catapult, but when's it going to get fired? Unsurprisingly, I think it has been. At the end of HBP, Harry plans to leave school and spend DH actively hunting down Horcruxes. Another novel cramped into Hogwarts and one or two other locations while Voldemort plots is inconceivable; he's left school and routine behind, and the plot can go anywhere, physically and metaphorically. Harry doesn't know what he's going to do, and neither do we. We have both been launched into the unknown, and we have no idea where we'll land, which theory will be true, or what Rowling will add that we haven't thought of. But it's safe to predict it'll have a plot. Harry is taking the fight to Voldemort, and while he may not be the prime mover of the novel in the end ? Dumbledore the plotter is more likely to fill this role ? he'll almost certainly appear that way. He wants to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes and defeat him, and while scheduled events will almost certainly still occur, their relative importance will be much less. In short, I predict that all my criteria for a plot will have been met. But Rowling's in unknown territory, too. She knows what'll happen, but she's got an entire book of Harry actively fighting Voldemort to write. DH will be the climax of the series, but to sustain an entire novel's worth of action, it'll need a plot, not just construction. You may think she should have ditched Hogwarts' restrictive environment a book back or more. But she's got plenty of experience writing to those specifications, and she's writing the climax in a new and very different style. DH is, in short, unguessable, and it may be wonderful or something of a disappointment, new and exciting or a failed experiment. The only thing we can really be certain about is that the Horcrux hunt will be the most important narrative strand (though Harry may disagree, and spend much of the book looking for Snape.) The book might degenerate into a plot coupon quest: http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html or might be amazing, even despite that. We just don't know. This may sound overly pessimistic, but I'm a natural pessimist, and I'm not going to let my dark suspicions spoil DH for me. I can't wait to see what happens. I have a couple of other notes about the shape of the series. Firstly, the abrupt change from Harry-passive construction to Harry-active plotting is hardly unprecedented. The HP books have always mixed elements of boarding-school stories, childrens' fantasy, mysteries, and recently added political and high-fantasy elements; given the importance of the previous generations' actions, PoA resembles a later instalment of a family epic. The first five books conducted themselves mainly as mysteries, in my opinion, but HBP doesn't have an overriding genre. It reads very much as if the last preparations are being made during the calm before the storm. I think DH will be a fantasy novel above other genres, just as the early books were childrens' adventures above all. This abrupt change of genre is another massive difference I'm expecting between DH and the preceding six books. Finally, and kind of needlessly, while our knowledge of the Wizarding World has expanded with each book, the possible directions the series would take have been shrinking since GoF. Until then the series could have done anything; from OotP on, a new phase of the series has been in progress: the background has been filled out and the Second War has been in place. There is less room for speculation: DH theories which ignore the Department of Mysteries or Horcruxes are unlikely and inconceivable, respectively. This isn't a bad thing. Theorists love canon (unless it slays a beautiful theory, of course), but I suspect there's an optimal ratio of knowledge to ignorance for theorising, which we've long since passed. Anyway, a satisfying ending will almost by definition destroy most of our theories by revealing the last hidden pieces of canon. Okay, I'm finished! Thanks for having got this far; I know it's absurdly long, but I hope you enjoyed it nonetheless. If you haven't or didn't, sorry for spamming your inbox. As for the catapult, well, you may well be seeing in on the meadows just above Theory Bay in the near future. Ann From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jun 26 10:59:18 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:59:18 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170810 Renee: > As I'm not a native speaker, I could very well be wrong, but wouldn't > the wording have been slightly different if the "one" had already been > born at the time the prophecy was made? I'd have expected it to be > something like: "Born to those who (have) trice defied him, born when > the seventh month died..." The way I read what JKR actually wrote, it > can only refer to a child as yet unborn. Ceridwen: JKR wrote the prophecy to sound as ambiguous as real prophecies have always been. She says she chose the words carefully. The word 'born' can be past, present and future. I was born, someone is being born as I write this, someone will be born tomorrow. Without the helping verb 'to be', it could either be past or future. In this case, it could not have been the present, unless it was a very wet July. A person who doesn't hear all of the prophecy can take it as either past or present: "(was, or has been) Born to those who have thrice defied him," or "(will be) Born to those who have thrice defied him". In the books, we know that Harry was born after the prophecy, so we have a tendency to mentally add (will be). We have an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't have this fact. The line before this has no time reference, either. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches" could mean that he will be born as stated, and this is how we take it because we know this is how it worked out; it could also mean that this person is nearing the end of his or her (the prophecy doesn't state sex here either) training. Hearing this line could easily make someone unfamiliar with the story think that the person has learned this power and is now approaching the battle which will vanquish the Dark Lord. A person could also think that the "one with the power" is out of the country and about to re- enter it. Wording is tricky sometimes. Died vs. Dies, as you indicate. Though it isn't often used, it is not improper to say something like "he was born as the seventh month dies". The seventh month dies every year. It's an ongoing thing. For this, you also need to take "poetic license" into consideration. The prophecy as presented in the books sounds both prophetic and poetic, at least to me. The prophecy sounds like it is being given in present tense in the overheard portion, so "dies" fits while "died" would be a harsh note. The rest of the prophecy, beginning with "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal" shows that the birth as well as the marking will take place in the future: "will be born as the seventh month dies." Snape didn't hear that part, according to Dumbledore. Voldemort certainly didn't hear it, or he would not have gotten himself into a position to mark Harry as his equal. The overheard portion, to me, sounds like a poetic preamble to the rest, the announcement that an important prophecy follows and this is what it concerns. It is vague - people have argued that the "seventh month" might mean September, our ninth month, but the name means "seventh month" (actually, if I recall right, "seventh eve"). In any event, Voldemort taking the prophecy seriously caused it to happen. He found someone born at the end of a future July and marked him as his equal. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 26 10:59:16 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:59:16 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170811 > > colebiancardi: > > > > > We've never heard or seen Snape actually *kill* anyone(well, > > with the exception of DD in HBP and that is still open to > > debate until DH comes out) > > > He may give *harsh* punishment to student's, but no more than > > other Professors. He is nasty to those outside of his own > > House, but again, his cruelty is in his *words*. He threatens, > > he bullies, but again, all talk, no action at this point in > > time in the series. > > > I don't believe Snape to be a cold-blooded killer, despite the > > events that happened on the Tower. > > Biff > > I do disagree with you on your point about Snape not giving > punishment any more severe than that of the other teachers. > Time and time again he has punished Harry, simply because he > was James' son. How many times has he jumped to blame Harry > when things happen, such as the missing ingredients for > olyjuice Potion in GoF? Yes, he knew Harry & Co had used it > earlier, but he had no proof- and Harry denied it. Snape > empties Harry's cauldron if his potion isn't up to snuff (and > it rarely is), but we don't hear that he does that to other > students. He has docked Gryffindor points because Hermione > answers questions. I agree with ou that Snape can certainly > use words for cruelty, but he abuses that as well. > colebiancardi: no,no,no,no - LOL You've misunderstood me or I can't write my thoughts very well. Snape doesn't give out *harsher* punishments, meaning that when he DOES give them, he isn't making them better or worse than other Professor's. McGonagall made them go into the Forbidden Forest; Ron had to spend his whole evening cleaning up the trophy room; Harry had to address envelopes for Lockhart. I am not stating that Snape is "fair" when he decides who gets punished for what; just that his punishments aren't worse. Does that make sense? Umbridge, to me at least, is far, far, way & above, worse than Snape could only imagine. There is no love lost between Harry & Snape - I know that one scene where Harry's potion is *broken*, the cauldron was cleaned out by Hermoine, not Snape. Not denying that Snape is cruel or nasty; just that it is all talk, no action. He hasn't physically hurt or killed any students on a whim. colebiancardi (yeah, yeah, but what about the OotP scene, cole? Didn't Snape manhandle Harry about after the Pensive scene? Yes - and considering what Snape CAN do, he was quite restrained in this scene, IMHO. Harry violated his privacy and saw something that Snape did not want him to see. Snape trusted(OMG) Harry not to pry and that was betrayed) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 11:40:43 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:40:43 -0000 Subject: Alchemy - Another Complimentary Interpretation (Was: Re: Okay, Who Dies?) - Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170812 > Montavilla47: > There's something I've been wanting to float as an idea ever > since I looked up the seven stages of alchemy. > 1. Calcination: Heating the substance until it is reduced to > ashes. > 2. Dissolution: Dissolving the ashes in water. > 3. Separation: Filtering the substance and removing any > impure ingredients. > 4. Conjunction: Combing the separated elements again > into a new substance. > 5. Fermentation: A period of rest allowing for the growth of > bacteria (which is how cheese and wine is created from milk > and grape juice.) > 6. Distillation: Boiling and condensation of the fermented > solution to increase its purity. > 7. Coagulation: The precipitation or sublimation of the > purified ferment from the substance. Goddlefrood: As I was able to understand the process, the above refers to the chemical interpretation of the seven stages of alchemy. It is very interesting indeed and I proffer my compliments to you, Montavilla47, for putting forward an explanation of the seven stages in terms of how a link could be made to Lord Voldemort's progress during the books. I would also go a little further and add that there are three, and possibly more, other ways of interpreting the seven stages. They are psychologically, physiologically and societal. It is the latter of these that a look at may be of assistance in development of the idea further. It may just enable you, and others interested, to fit Lord Voldemort's and more importnatly perhaps, Harry's journey into a scheme that tallies with this seven stage process as opposed to the three stage process that has been referred to not only in my earlier post on this thread but also often by those seeking enlightenment over who may die. Like I mentioned in the previous an alternative way of construing the three stage process can lead to a conclusion that it is Harry's development through that that could be a key to understanding how his journey towards his goal would be achieved. Taking the societal method for the seven stage process and transposing that onto the seven stages of Voldemort could lead us somewhere interesting. With no further ado here it is: > Montavilla47: > 1. PS/SS: His host body, Quirrell is burned from touching Harry. Goddlefrood: Calcination in societal interpretation is compared to heroes or revolutionaries who attempt to subvert the status quo. In terms of fitting that to PS/SS it does not really work. However, if we go back to the beginning of Lord Voldemort's first rise it may do so. His goal appears to have been to oust the existing regime and impose his own rule over the wizarding world. > Montavilla47: > 2. CoS: Voldemort's soul is dissolved into the waters of the > chamber. Goddlefrood: Dissolution is the time of purging the Earth of all that is deficient and it seems to me that in his own mind Lord Voldemort wanted to do just that. This is quite easily divined from his spiel towards the end of CoS as well as GoF. His two lengthy speeches in canon to date in fact. The first from his younger self and the latter from his contemporary self after he has regained a body. > Montavilla47: > 3. PoA: Voldemort is separated from any human "body" and > floating around, spirit-like. Goddlefrood: Separation then equates to the formation of a new order. This appears to me to be a reasonable extrapolation of what Lord Voldemort wanted to do. It starts once the process of ridding the wizarding world of its chaff, as he saw it, had been achieved. The ground has been prepared in stage two for stage three to progress. > Montavilla47: > 4. GoF: Voldemort is combined with other elements into a > new "substance." A human body. Goddlefrood: Conjunction is simply where the new society has been created and is moving along the road to its final form. > Montavilla47: > 5. OotP: Voldemort, now substantial, seems to be waiting. > He has a lot of plans "fermenting," but not of them are quite > ready to execute. Goddlefrood: During the fermentation stage the new culture is developing its own ideology in terms of arts, sciences, magic development (as this is tied to the fictional world of Harry Potter). In the typical system espoused comparing the seven stages of societal development this is also the point at which religion becomes established in whatever form that might take. > Montavilla47: > 6. HBP: Voldemort is now revealed as evil in pure form. Goddlefrood: It is at this point where it is no longer reasonable to compare the sixth stage of societal development to what Lord Voldemort had contemplated. This is because the sixth stage is where nirvana is reached through a process of society commingling into one and striving towards a common search for truth. In response to item 6 of Montavilla47's comparison I would say that it is a bit of a stretch to say that HBP is where he is revealed as pure evil as that had occurred long before during his first rise. Momentarily I will attempt for my next trick to fit Harry into the seven stage societal alchemy schemata. It fits Harry rather better than it fits Lord Voldemort, as I hope will become clear. It also somewhat complements the earlier post I made on this matter that had been expanded on by Jen in her response. The difference is that the reading of the societal version can be used to project what Harry has to do from the beginning of Deathly Hallows to one possible ending of it. Thus distillation and coagulation do not easily fit in with comparison to Lord Voldemort's story ark, IMO. > 7: DH: Is it possible to predict Voldemort's fate using > alchemy as a guide? Up to a point it is, yes, but that point using whichever of the interpretations whether chemical, as you had, or societal as I have, falls down after stage 5. It is my view that Lord Voldemort's chosen path this time around is very similar to his previously chosen path. He is repeating his errors and that will ultimately lead to his second and, hopefully, permanent downfall. Unfortunately, while I would like to, I can not offer an explanation as to how alchemy would explain Lord Voldemort's future, a future that could be quite short. Monatvilla47: > So, perhaps while Harry is going through a positive > transformation through alchemy, Voldemort is also > going through a less psychological and more physical > transformation? Goddlefrood: It was certainly interesting and thank you for it. There is, if interested, available a good outline of the seven stage alchemical process from four perspectives, being chemical, psychological, physiological and societal offered at this site: http://groups.msn.com/AncientWisdomNewMillenium/thesevenstagesoftransf ormation.msnw Perhaps someone else might be interested in using that as a basis for a theory on how the process could be at work in the books to date and how one of the methods outlined therein could compare. Back though to Harry. Making some comparisons to the societal method led me to a similar, but distinct, conclusion to my previous. Using the five already outlined above before adding in the final two stages to see where that may lead us, let's go back to stage one. This is all based on the societal version of the seven stages of alchemy: (i) Calcination compares to heroes or revolutionaries who attempt to subvert the status quo. Harry has set out his stall already in terms of not accepting help from the Ministry of Magic, for my purpsoe the established regime. He has his own plan and it will undoubtedly serve him well in his quest in book 7. On that basis he is subverting the method that had been used against Lord Voldemort during his first rise as much as Dumbledore had with the establishment of the Order of the Phoenix. (ii) Dissolution is the time of purging the Earth of all that is deficient. This goes hand in hand with Harry's primary goal in that to achieve that goal he must first overcome many obstacles, which include but are not limited to the destruction of the remaining Horcruxes and various conflicts with others who will be barring his objective. These others are Lord Voldemort's massed forces of darkness currently consisting of the giants, the Dementors, the Inferi, the werewolves and the Death Eaters. If there are any others I've overlooked do feel free to mention this. (iii) Separation then equates to the formation of a new order. This stage goes mostly to what will need to be done once Harry has succeeded in neutralising Lord Voldemort. There will be a process of cleaning up the wizarding world in general that may include a new Minister of Magic or even a new system of Government entirely within the wizarding world. It should also precipitate more equality for less favoured magical beings and improvement in relations between the magical world and the real world in terms of potential co-operation between them, but not in terms of realignment of the two. (iv) Conjunction is simply where the new society has been created and is moving along the road to its final form. This in and of itself is self explanatory and needs little further expansion. (v) The fermentation stage of the new culture is when it develops its own ideology in terms of arts, sciences, magic development. This is also the point at which religion becomes established in whatever form that might take. That also seems clear enough. I would only add that JKR will almost certainly give some expansion of how religion within the wizarding world works, which would put many a disagreement to rest. (vi) Distillation now comes in. This sixth stage is the point at which the society progresses further and justice and truth have taken a firm grip so that the society can finally be realised in its final form in stage seven. (vii) Coagulation is the last stage at which point there is a return to a paradisiacal state and that would be a rather satisfying point to have reached by the end of the story. There is naturally a Caveat on all this, which is that it may not be that JKR advances the story right through the above stages. If it is at least moving towards the final state then that should be reward enough for many, if not all, readers. Goddlefrood, who during the course of looking into all this, and there is a lot more but I'll spare you all any further, came across a quote he rather liked, I'll leave you with it: "Darkness will appear on the face of the Abyss; Night, Saturn and the Antimony of the Sages will appear; blackness, and the raven's head of the alchemists, and all the colours of the world, will appear at the hour of conjunction; the rainbow also, and the peacock's tail. Finally, after the matter has passed from ashen-coloured to white and yellow, you will see the Philosopher's Stone". - Heinrich Khunrath From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 26 11:58:51 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:58:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Fall again was Re: The twins? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170813 SSSusan: > > If DD *would* have been able to have been restored to pretty much > > normal health by Snape, then I guess I find it hard to believe > > that DD wouldn't have found *some* way to have 'played' that > > scene on the Tower to allow that to happen. Or do folks think > > that would just have been totally impossible to have pulled off > > under the circumstances, with all those around, and all the DEs > > knowing Draco's assignment? Pippin: > Well, it depends what you mean by normal. A life being constantly > hunted by Voldemort, having to cut yourself off from everyone > you care about to avoid bringing them into danger, is no life at > all. ("Neither can live while the other survives" ) SSSusan: For me the key in what I was considering was normal *health,* rather than a 'normal life.' DD has always struck me as someone who, while more open and accepting of 'the next great adventure' than many, also accepts that living a 'normal life' sometimes... for some people... entails great difficulty. I believe he has always been willing to take that on, to come to others' aid, to accept burdens others would walk away from. So had there been a chance that Snape's abilities could have restored DD to true good *health,* as opposed to just eliminating the immediate danger DD was in for the sake of extending his life only a tad bit longer, then I would still like to think that DD would have opted to have stuck around. Would life be pleasant and 'normal,' in the sense of lazy days and few obligations or concerns? Not for DD! I doubt it ever was for DD, and it surely would not have been from there on out. But, unless his life was a lost cause healthwise, I can't believe that DD wouldn't have been *willing* to have gone on. He was still in the midst of teaching Harry about Voldemort, helping him understand horcruxes and the mighty task of finding & destroying them. Harry has always been (imho, of course) gifted in some ways, able to do more than he believes he can do, but what happened in the cave surely did reinforce that DD has incredible talents, skills, abilities, intuitions & magical understanding that Harry simply cannot approach. Think of DD's ability to sense the presence of the archway, of what it would take for that archway to reveal itself, of the presence of the boat and how it likely worked. Harry, as would be most wizards his age (or perhaps of any age), is so FAR from being able to do that kind of thing! I understand that if one's position is that DD *faked* his death, this is all a moot point. :) But since I believe the "Severus, please..." was indeed an indication to Snape that he needed to take DD's life right then, I also believe that DD understood his life *was* ending, that any effort to revive him at that point was only going to lengthen his life a small bit. Otherwise, I don't believe he'd have 'instructed' Snape to kill him; otherwise, I believe he *would* have thought of a way to have Snape treat him so he could continue to help Harry & the Order. Or do other DDM!Snapers think I'm nuts? Do you think that DD simply believed Snape's value to the effort outweighed his own from that point forward? That it was truly essential for Snape to be able to demonstrate without doubt to those DEs present that he was on Voldy's side? Or maybe... sigh... no matter whether Snape could have restored DD to full health or not, there just really was no way that DD could envision himself & Snape getting off that tower. So back to Pippin's thoughts. :) > The match at the Ministry proved that Voldemort no longer saw > Dumbledore as invulnerable, even before his hand was injured. > With that damaged hand, a rematch would be no contest at all. > Dumbledore was doomed in any case, unless Harry managed > to destroy the horcruxes and eliminate Voldemort very quickly. > > But the thing is, Dumbledore could have done something to > disguise his hand. Instead, he flaunted it in front of the school > at the opening feast. It's like he was saying, "Nyah nyah, come and > get me!" I think Dumbledore planned all along to fake his death > if he could -- as Peter knew, there simply isn't any other way > to evade death at Voldie's hands once he's decided to kill you. SSSusan: This was the part I was curious about from you earlier -- that you do believe DD was doomed in any case. It's what I have believed as well. OTOH, I can't make myself believe DD faked his death, can't make myself believe he's still alive. It's fascinating, the idea that he's flaunting his damaged hand, though. What else *could* possibly be behind his not only not covering up the damaged hand but seemingly flaunting it about? Could it be he was trying to plant the idea in Harry's (and/or Hermione & Ron's) mind that time was TRULY short, that Harry had better get cracking on this because it was now or never? Siriusly Snapey Susan, unwisely pondering such matters before morning coffee From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 26 12:38:56 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:38:56 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170814 colebiancardi: > > We seem to take it for granted, after the fact, that Snape *knew* > > it was a baby that was being targeted in the prophecy, not an > > adult. > > > > If Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy, as DD states, > > Snape doesn't know it is someone who is yet to be born: > > > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord > > approaches...Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as > > the seventh month dies..." Renee: > As I'm not a native speaker, I could very well be wrong, but > wouldn't the wording have been slightly different if the "one" had > already been born at the time the prophecy was made? I'd have > expected it to be something like: "Born to those who (have) trice > defied him, born when the seventh month died..." The way I read > what JKR actually wrote, it can only refer to a child as yet > unborn. SSSusan: I don't think the wording would have been different if JKR wanted deliberately to be vague and nebulous. >:) In all seriousness, I do think JKR wanted this to be as 'open' to multiple interpretations as possible. But while I believe that, I also think that the wording would not have to be as you propose. You're correct that writing the prophecy the way you've presented it *would* work if it were referring to someone already alive. But what JKR did write, imo, also works that way, just as colebiancardi suggested. It doesn't seem especially *likely* to me that the phrasing would refer to someone already alive, but I do think the wording leaves the possibility open. Just this native speaker's two knuts. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 12:53:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:53:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape/ some russian history In-Reply-To: <380-2200762264151812@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170815 > Magpie: > Thanks for the link--that was interesting! > > As for where it fits for Snape, I'm not sure. Alla: It fits to me in both instances because the images that are normally associated with care, compassion, healing are completely blocked out of my mind. The what is happening in these images and the end result are inseparable to me, that's all. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 26 12:57:17 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:57:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape/ some russian history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170816 Alla: > Please take a look at this link in wikipedia. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streltsy_Uprising. > > So Streltsy rebelled against Peter the Great and it did not end > well for them, poor guys :( A lot of them were executed as article > says, so please take a careful at the painting by Surikov in the > article.... Do you see how another soldier supports one of the > condemned soldiers and leads him to the execution? > > Long time ago I remember reading about that painting and the writer > was thinking that this projects the image of brotherhood - one > soldier supports another wounded soldier. > > And I remember screaming at the book - WHAT brotherhood? > > This soldier leads another one to death, that's not how you treat > your brother to me. > Same thing here. I cannot separate in my mind the image of the > stretchers and where Snape is taking Sirius.... SSSusan: I did *not* get your position at all before this, Alla. I thought, heh, you were being mighty contrary, in fact (hee). But this helped SO MUCH. When I look at that painting, I see the look on the man's face who's holding up the other, and like you said, my first thought is 'care and concern' or 'support for a wounded brother.' But I also understand now exactly what you mean: you KNOW the outcome; you can't ignore where that man was leading the other. Personally, I still think we *don't* know the outcome in this (the HP) case, but I can at least see now why YOU can't dissociate the image in the book from what you believe the outcome will be... or from what you believe Snape was all about in this scene. I'm glad you shared this. I still see things differently than you, but it's good to get a grasp on what it is which is coloring your interpretation. Siriusly Snapey Susan From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 13:00:20 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:00:20 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "toonmili" wrote: > > Charles then: > > My personal take on Snape is that he is evil, but not Voldemort's > > man. I think he is out for himself, to be a powerful dark wizard > > in his own right. > > > Toonmili: I really have to disagree with you because JK is not > in the habit of using the same characters over and over. I > think Voldemort is a loner. Snape, though is always alone, is > not a loner. Just by the way he reacts to compliments you can > tell he has a desire to be accepted, unlike Voldemort. > > To me there is only one character that screams evil but is actually > good, and that Snape. For the sake of proper storytelling. Snape is > now working for himself. > Charles Now: Actually, I don't think Snape wants to be a dark wizard like Voldie, but his own kind of dark wizard. Rather than a means to an end, I think he wants to study the dark arts for the sake of the arts, not for power or immortality. Evil without megalomania, if that makes sense. When I say, as quoted below that he wants to be the final authority on everything, I mean on everything that pertains to Snape, not everything that pertains to anything. > Charles then: > > Snape wants to be the final authority on everything. He chose > > LV as a means to learn and gain power, and DD as a safeguard > > from Azkaban. > > Toonmili: You are suggesting that Snape is Seer. Are you forgetting > that he joined DD before the knew the outcome of the incident. He > told DD about his mistake without knowing that Voldemort would die > (or disappear or whatever). So there was really no way he could > have known he would be in Azkaban. The DE all thought that Voldemort > would win. > Charles now: Actually, I think that Snape went to DD on LV's orders, and being the plotter that he is, saw a chance to rid himself of two masters by using the double agent role that both of them want him to play. > > Charles: > > In the terror of the time, when everyone connected with LV > > was getting chucked into prison, he used that safeguard to gain > > himself a position that would allow him both to study all those > > restricted dark arts books at Hogwarts he never got to see as a > > student, and an unlimited number of kids to bully, terrorize and > > otherwise cow into submission. When LV came back, he had to keep > > up appearances on both ends again. By the time of the UV, he is > > sick of burning the candle at both ends. He has to make a choice. > > He chose to kill DD. > > Toonmili: Ask yourself. Why would Snape, who knows he is no way > near as powerful as DD put his life on killing DD when Voldy > himself couldn't do it. Again you are assuming that Snape is > a seer. He had no way of knowing that DD was going to drink a > Goblet of Potion that would weaken him. > Charles now: No, I think Snape knows that the hand-withering injury has weakened DD to the point where he can be killed. He would obviously prefer Draco to do it, so that his hands are clean of DD's blood. I do believe that Snape had told DD of the original plan to have Draco kill him, but not anything about the UV. I think LV would have ordered him to, just to see what lengths DD would go to to stay alive. > > Charles then: > > > It is debatable as to whether or not he is still trying to teach > > Harry at the end. I personally think that he was. As loath as I > > am to admit it, in his own way he is trying to get Harry ready > > for that battle. His pitiful misunderstanding of Harry and what > > is needed to defeat LV gets in the way, but I do think Snape > > wants LV dead, so that he can be free. I cannot remember who > > said it, but I do remember once hearing that "A man who serves > > two masters will eventually want both of them dead." Whether > > Snape will live to see the demise of both of his masters will > > have to wait until 21 July. > > Toonmili: > I never saw Snape as a leader. He seems very good at taking orders > and to me it seems like he is taking them from Dumbledore. > Charles now: I don't see Snape as a leader either. I see him as a moral weakling, somewhere on the level of Pettigrew, but without the large streak of pure yellow. A great bullying git who wants to do anything he damn well pleases with no consequences, who thought he had found that way, but will be getting his comeuppance in book 7, probably from both sides. (I see anger from LV for not making Draco do the deed on the tower. "I needed a spy in the order longer, Severus. Crucio...") Charles, who has to drag himself off to work now. From zedric_01 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 13:41:59 2007 From: zedric_01 at yahoo.com (Lantis) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:41:59 -0000 Subject: Just want to ask about Horcruxes... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170818 Lantis: I just want to ask (J.K. Rowling, if possible) what would happen if Voldemort somehow confided part of his soul in a phoenix like Fawkes? would he be totally immortal, seeing that one of his Horcruxes won't be destroyed? From mjanetd at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 14:15:23 2007 From: mjanetd at yahoo.com (mjanetd) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:15:23 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170819 I'm a little confused about what Snape heard of the prophecy. Professor Trelawny remembers seeing Snape but she doesn't remember giving the prophecy. I assume this means she had to see him after she came out of her trance. So how could Snape only hear the first half of the prophecy if he's there at the end? Did Trelawny give the prophecy in 2 parts with Snape's interruption in the middle? Or did the barkeep distract Snape so that he only heard part of it? And here's another thought. Does Ginny remind anyone else of Harry's parents? She looks like Lilly (long red hair) and acts like his father (hexing anyone who looks at her in the hallways). mjanetd From bfiw2002 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 15:06:58 2007 From: bfiw2002 at yahoo.com (bfiw2002) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:06:58 -0000 Subject: Prophecy musings...Was: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170821 snippage > colebiancardi: > > no,no,no,no - LOL You've misunderstood me or I can't write my > thoughts very well. Snape doesn't give out *harsher* punishments, > meaning that when he DOES give them, he isn't making them better or > worse than other Professor's. McGonagall made them go into the > Forbidden Forest; Ron had to spend his whole evening cleaning up the > trophy room; Harry had to address envelopes for Lockhart. I am not > stating that Snape is "fair" when he decides who gets punished for > what; just that his punishments aren't worse. Does that make sense? Biff Yes, I do understand what you are trying to say, and thinking about it, I don't disagree with your point. I think that the way that many of the scenes are written, it comes across as Snape doling out harsher punishment because of his motiviations behind them and I think that they may become worse because Snape seems to jump at the chance to punish Harry & Co. snippage > colebiancardi: > There is no love lost between Harry & Snape - I know that one scene > where Harry's potion is *broken*, the cauldron was cleaned out by > Hermoine, not Snape. Biff Actually I seem to remember, littered throughout OoP, scenes where Harry is in Potions class and Snape empties his cauldron, sneering at his efforts. Since his cauldron is empty, Harry gets no marks for his attempt. I remember one of these scenes where Draco is in the backround laughing. Snippage > colebiancardi > > (yeah, yeah, but what about the OotP scene, cole? Didn't Snape > manhandle Harry about after the Pensive scene? Yes - and > considering what Snape CAN do, he was quite restrained in this > scene, IMHO. Harry violated his privacy and saw something that > Snape did not want him to see. Snape trusted(OMG) Harry not to pry > and that was betrayed) Biff Hmm, you seem to argue very well with yourself. No wonder I agree with much of what you say- you present both sides very well:) Biff From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 15:48:41 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:48:41 -0000 Subject: Alchemy - Another Complimentary Interpretation (Was: Re: Okay, Who Dies?) - Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Montavilla47: > > > There's something I've been wanting to float as an idea ever > > since I looked up the seven stages of alchemy. > > > 1. Calcination: Heating the substance until it is reduced to > > ashes. > > 2. Dissolution: Dissolving the ashes in water. > > 3. Separation: Filtering the substance and removing any > > impure ingredients. > > 4. Conjunction: Combing the separated elements again > > into a new substance. > > 5. Fermentation: A period of rest allowing for the growth of > > bacteria (which is how cheese and wine is created from milk > > and grape juice.) > > 6. Distillation: Boiling and condensation of the fermented > > solution to increase its purity. > > 7. Coagulation: The precipitation or sublimation of the > > purified ferment from the substance. > > > Goddlefrood: > > As I was able to understand the process, the above refers to > the chemical interpretation of the seven stages of alchemy. > It is very interesting indeed and I proffer my compliments > to you, Montavilla47, for putting forward an explanation of > the seven stages in terms of how a link could be made to Lord > Voldemort's progress during the books. Montavilla47: > > 7: DH: Is it possible to predict Voldemort's fate using > > alchemy as a guide? > > Goddlefrood: > Up to a point it is, yes, but that point using whichever of > the interpretations whether chemical, as you had, or societal > as I have, falls down after stage 5. It is my view that Lord > Voldemort's chosen path this time around is very similar to > his previously chosen path. He is repeating his errors and > that will ultimately lead to his second and, hopefully, > permanent downfall. > > Unfortunately, while I would like to, I can not offer an > explanation as to how alchemy would explain Lord Voldemort's > future, a future that could be quite short. Montavilla47 (again): Thank you, Goddlefrood. I agree with you, I can't really make it work past stage 5 either, but I was hoping that someone more knowledgable about alchemy and its symbolism might. Thank you also for the link. I found a site very similar to this one, but I must admit that the descriptions of alchemy go right over my head--and I'm left with responding to the clearest, most physical aspect, which is the chemical aspect. Also, it just leapt out at him with the first two steps being calcination and dissolution, because those are strong images from the first two books (although, it's much stronger in the first movie than in the first book.) But, unless Voldemort is sitting in his headquarters growing furry with mold, I'm not sure that "fermentation" suits him physically. On the other hand, in a--what shall I call it?--a *poetic* sense, I can connect that to the idea that he spends most of the book bubbling in the background. As for distillation, again, in a word-associative way, Dumbledore and Harry set about distilling the essense of Tom Riddle through the Pensieve. But I don't know if I'm just stretching or what... What I do like about the idea, is that it gives me a sense of Voldemort progressing--with Harry as a catalyst for change. And also, because I have this suspicion that Dumbledore's goal wasn't to get Harry to kill Voldemort, but to save him. Somehow I can't shake the feeling that Dumbledore's still trying to help that frightened, angry little boy in the orphanage--like he tried to help the frightened, angry teenager on the Tower. Montavilla47 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 26 16:17:55 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:17:55 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170823 > Charles now: > Actually, I think that Snape went to DD on LV's orders, and being the > plotter that he is, saw a chance to rid himself of two masters by > using the double agent role that both of them want him to play. Magpie: I think it's canon that he was sent by LV to work for Dumbledore and spy on him, it's true. But what's the emotional payoff if he just saw a chance to make things easier for himself? Rather than his having a change due to the results of the Prophecy, or always loyal to Voldemort for some reason, he's just been flopping back and forth whichever way it's convenient--even though he sided with Dumbledore and started spying on LV when Voldemort was stronger, and killed Dumbledore when it doesn't seem to have made his position bad instead of good--and this when he didn't have to, as far as we know, because LV wasn't the one who made him take the Vow! The thing about Peter is that he's a great little worm villain, but as a character he's not very compelling because of his weakness. His actions are always explained by the same thing: he was threatened and so did whatever he was told. > > Toonmili: Ask yourself. Why would Snape, who knows he is no way > > near as powerful as DD put his life on killing DD when Voldy > > himself couldn't do it. Again you are assuming that Snape is > > a seer. He had no way of knowing that DD was going to drink a > > Goblet of Potion that would weaken him. > > > Charles now: > No, I think Snape knows that the hand-withering injury has weakened DD > to the point where he can be killed. He would obviously prefer Draco > to do it, so that his hands are clean of DD's blood. I do believe that > Snape had told DD of the original plan to have Draco kill him, but not > anything about the UV. I think LV would have ordered him to, just to > see what lengths DD would go to to stay alive. Magpie: What I don't get is, if Snape would rather Draco kill him, why does he take a UV to kill Dumbledore for him? And why isn't he offering him anything that sounds like supportive encouragement in the scene that Harry overhears? Draco accuses Snape of trying to steal his glory imo incorrectly, but I think Draco's response does show he's correctly getting Snape's attitude, that he's discouraging him. LV has no reason to know about Snape's vow, so I assume you mean LV ordered Snape to tell Dumbledore about Draco trying to kill him-- that makes sense given LV's stated plan, which is that *Draco* should be killed for trying to kill Dumbledore, but I don't think that quite translates into DD going to any great lengths to stay alive. Draco shouldn't be any danger to him. > Charles now: I don't see Snape as a leader either. I see him as a > moral weakling, somewhere on the level of Pettigrew, but without the > large streak of pure yellow. A great bullying git who wants to do > anything he damn well pleases with no consequences, who thought he had > found that way, but will be getting his comeuppance in book 7, > probably from both sides. (I see anger from LV for not making Draco do > the deed on the tower. "I needed a spy in the order longer, Severus. > Crucio...") Magpie: I have to say, this sounds like the opposite of the way Snape's been presented as I've read him, though I don't think Harry would have trouble with it. It seems like Snape doesn't believe in people doing whatever they damn well please with no consequences--on the contrary, he seems to take a lot of responsibility on himself and is stuck with tons of consequences. Certainly he did with the UV--how do you reconcile somebody who's a coward who wants to get out of consequences willingly entering into a suicide pact when he doesn't have to do so? And why doesn't he make Draco do the deed on the Tower? If Snape wants Draco to do the deed, why doesn't he push him to do it? Biff: I don't disagree with you at all on this, but I think that we perceive different motivations for his actions. I believe that part of what does is almost a reflex, from years of spying and doing what either side expects him to do. I don't necessarily beleive that he is at a point where he acts much differently when he is by himself than when others are present. Magpie: I think I understand. Snape is behaving as a professional person bringing people to the infirmary--but it's as a reflex so it should not be taken as saying anything about his character. However, my original point was not that Snape is putting people on stretchers and therefore must be a good guy. I was saying that Snape has throughout been a figure associated with hurting and curing, causing death and protecting life throughout. As to whether I think Snape really is just doing this by instinct from spying, I admit I don't agree with it any more than I agree with other theories where Snape's behavior is all about acting. I think the ultimate description of the character is going to have to incorporate both sides of his character, which means I don't at this point feel comfortable with either "Snape's really a totally good guy who acts bad sometimes because he's a spy" or "Snape's a totally bad guy who acts good sometimes because he's a spy." I think Snape will be revealed as on one side or the other, but both sides of him will remain intact imo. I do agree that Snape acts out of Snape's own motivations and what's good for him--I just don't think that automatically translates into Snape always promoting himself. If a character is haunted by his past he can act in his own best interest by acting for others. If he's truly just motivated on what's best for him and his survival and wants to take actions without consequences, he shouldn't be taking Unbreakable Vows--especially ones where that last clause (that Draco will be unable to complete his task) are easily forseeable and in fact the whole point of LV's plan. Biff Actually I seem to remember, littered throughout OoP, scenes where Harry is in Potions class and Snape empties his cauldron, sneering at his efforts. Since his cauldron is empty, Harry gets no marks for his attempt. I remember one of these scenes where Draco is in the backround laughing. Magpie: I need to see some canon on that one--I really don't think that happens. Snape might sneer at his Potion, but he doesn't zap it away and then give him no marks for not having any. If he did that all the time I can't see how the one scene where Hermione cleans Harry's cauldron would stand out, nor Snape's nastily giving Harry a zero for not having a Potion. -m From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 16:39:02 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:39:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0706260939w29ced674x51321de78d21ddec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170824 SSSusan: > Erm... Pippin? I know I am only sporadically able to keep up with > posting here, so this might be a long-ago expressed position/theory of > yours and I've just missed it... but could you say what you're talking > about here with the twins? Are you implying they're ESE! as well? > What would their having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? Pippin: LOL! Pippin the ESE!Queen strikes again!....er, sorry, bit of pre-release giddiness there. Note to self: must not giggle madly while staring at screen :) Debbie: Hohoho! Is someone requesting an ESE!Twins theory? Susan, I am at your service. The twins are funny. Their joke shop is funny, and the products are even funnier. But lurking in the back room of Weasley's Wizard Wheezes is a dark secret. Very dark. They are already assisting the Dark side, and it's going to get worse. Where's the canon? Remember the Peruvian Darkness Powder that the Twins carried in their shop. Look whose hands it fell into. Draco Malfoy's, that's right, Mr Junior Death Eater himself. And he used it to let a horde of experienced Death Eaters into Hogwarts itself for the express purpose of killing Albus Dumbledore. That none of those Death Eaters actually killed Albus is beside the point. The powder Fred and George sold played an important part in the chain of events that led to his death. And that is only the beginning. Recall that Ron vows to call his brothers on the carpet for selling the powder to untrustworthy characters like Draco. Ron is right; there's a war on and some of their products would do at least as well in the magical armory or cloak and dagger outfitter as in a joke shop. But when do the Twins ever listen to Ickle Ronniekins? You can be sure that in the interim between HBP and DH Ron will deliver his warning to the Twins. However, he cannot use the only threat that might have worked once upon a time -- telling Molly (recall how the Twins reacted to Hermione's threat in OOP) -- they are simply too old for that, and Molly knows, anyway. So they will do what they've always done: shoo the fly away before he gets in the ointment and resume business as usual. Moreover, Draco's little attempted invasion has introduced a small cadre of DEs to the Twins' products, and if they're not really stupid, they know that there is only a very small distinction between Weasley's Wizard Wheezes and Weasley's Wizard Warheads. As a result, Fred and George can expect heightened customer interest in ordering some of their less savory products, which they are certain to oblige. (These are, after all, the Twins who once brushed off blackmail concerns in attempting to recoup galleons they believed to be theirs.) One order will lead to another, and before you can say Imperius!, Weasley's Wizard Warheads will have been appointed Official Purveyor of Armatures to the Dark Lord Himself. Trapped! Fred and George, no dummies, will realize quickly enough where the customers are coming from. But like Regulus, they will also realize that to defy Voldy openly is to ask for death, so they will need to keep filling orders. However, they will begin to fight back; they will become double agents. The Peruvian Darkness Powder will be allowed to get wet. Fireworks will boomerang. And, ::big drum roll:: just before the final battle, an enterprising Fred will steal Voldemort's wand and replace it with one of his own, so that when the Dark Lord finally comes full circle and once again utters "Avada Kedavra" with his wand pointed at Harry Potter, ::bigger drum roll:: the wand will turn into a rubber chicken. Hey, it could happen! (Though it's much more likely that they'd play a trick like this on Percy.) Debbie speculating madly while she still can, with tongue planted firmly in cheek [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 16:56:59 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:56:59 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170825 > Biff: > Actually I seem to remember, littered throughout OoP, scenes where > Harry is in Potions class and Snape empties his cauldron, sneering > at his efforts. Since his cauldron is empty, Harry gets no marks for > his attempt. I remember one of these scenes where Draco is in the > backround laughing. > Magpie: > I need to see some canon on that one--I really don't think that > happens. zgirnius: Biff is right, in a way, though the scene is open to interpretation as to *why* Harry got a zero: > OotP: > At Harry's cauldron, however, Snape stopped, and looked down at it with a horrible smirk on his face. > 'Potter, what is this supposed to be?' > The Slytherins at the front of the class all looked up eagerly; they loved hearing Snape taunt Harry. > The Draught of Peace,' said Harry tensely. > Tell me, Potter,' said Snape softly, 'can you read?' > Draco Malfoy laughed. zgirnius: So here we have Draco laughing, as Biff recalls. > OotP: > 'Yes, I can,' said Harry, his fingers clenched tightly around his wand. > 'Read the third line of the instructions for me, Potter.' > Harry squinted at the blackboard; it was not easy to make out the instructions through the haze of multi-coloured steam now filling the dungeon. > '"Add powdered moonstone, stir three times counter-clockwise, allow to simmer for seven minutes then add two drops of syrup of hellebore."' > His heart sank. He had not added syrup of hellebore, but had proceeded straight to the fourth line of the instructions after allowing his potion to simmer for seven minutes. > 'Did you do everything on the third line, Potter?' > 'No,' said Harry very quietly. > 'I beg your pardon?' 'No,' said Harry, more loudly. 'I forgot the hellebore.' > 'I know you did, Potter, which means that this mess is utterly worthless. Evanesco.' zgirnius: And there goes the potion. On the other hand, Snape has had a good long look at the potion, and knows what was done wrong. In other words, he presumably has gone through the process he would go through in marking a sample of the potion, were Harry to hand one in. Would he give a zero anyway, so that is why he Vanished it? We don't know. *Does* he actually give a zero? We also don't know, though a later scene of the same type suggests he did, see below, this one is from the day Dolores visits the Potions classroom. > OotP: > She turned away, walked over to Pansy Parkinson and began questioning her about the lessons. Snape looked round at Harry and their eyes met for a second. Harry hastily dropped his gaze to his potion, which was now congealing foully and giving off a strong smell of burned rubber. > 'No marks again, then, Potter,' said Snape maliciously, emptying Harry's cauldron with a wave of his wand. 'You will write me an essay on the correct composition of this potion, indicating how and why you went wrong, to be handed in next lesson, do you understand?' zgirnius: (Note the 'again', suggesting Harry received no mark in the first instance I cite). In this instance, the potion is in awful condition - Harry was paying no attention to it, since he was watching the interaction between Snape and Umbridge. But again, is Snape Vanishing it because he wants to give Harry a zero even though he knows it deserves a higher grade if it was handed in? Or is a zero what he would surely give that potion, and so he is Vanishing it, in order to do so in a public, embarassing way so everyone knows Harry got a zero? The final instance is the one Magpie refers to, in which Hermione Vanishes Harry's potion before his flask breaks, so that Harry is not able to turn in a second sample for marking. In this instance, if Snape has seen Harry's potion and formed an opinion (Harry thinks it is good), neither we nor Harry know about it, because this is a post- SWM scene in which Snape is ignoring Harry. It is possible Snape has not, in fact, noticed it. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 16:58:41 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <196929.23084.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170826 Charles Walker Jr wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: when Harry and Hermione disagree about something, Hermione is always right. And Hermione believes Snape is DDM, so I believe she will be right again. >>>Charles: I hate to say it, but this statement is wrong on two points. First, Hermione is not always right. She was, to quote just one instance, dead wrong about Draco Malfoy throughout the majority of HBP. Second, by the end of HBP she does not believe Snape is DDM. Nobody in the WW except possibly Snape and the portrait of DD would think so at this point, and I have my doubts about the portrait. <<<>>> ****Katie responds: Ok, let me rephrase. Hermione HAS believed Snape to be DDM, until the events on the tower. But I will get back to that in a moment. As for her being wrong about Malfoy in HBP, she was. But while she was wrong about Malfoy's actions, she wasn't wrong in assuming that DD knew exactly what was happening. However, as I stated in my previous post, I believe that the departure from the pattern of Harmione being right/Harry being wrong, and Snape being the *good* (if not always nice) guy is a purposeful misdirection by JKR. HBP does not fit the pattern of the previous 5 books - because JKR is deliberately making the reader think that the previous 5 books have been misleading. It's a psuedo-plot twist. As for Hermione now believing that Snape is evil - yes, she does. BUT - I don't believe that the rest of the Order entirely does. I believe that someone else knew about the plan between DD and Snape, and I don't necessarily believe that all the adults are as clueless as Mrs. Weasley or Madame Pomfrey, for example. I'm not sure I buy that none of the adults know Snape's real loyalties - we are seeing this all happen from the POV of teenagers. I think the adults probably know more than they are letting on at this point. Of course, this is all opinion, and I could be entirely wrong. I guess we'll just have to wait a few more weeks and see. Katie, Believing Snape is a good guy until JKR proves me wrong. . --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 26 17:05:03 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:05:03 -0000 Subject: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0706260939w29ced674x51321de78d21ddec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170827 SSSusan: > > Erm... Pippin? Are you implying [the twins are] ESE! as > > well? Pippin: > LOL! Pippin the ESE!Queen strikes again Debbie: > Hohoho! Is someone requesting an ESE!Twins theory? Susan, I am at > your service. > > The twins are funny. Their joke shop is funny, and the products > are even funnier. But lurking in the back room of Weasley's Wizard > Wheezes is a dark secret. Very dark. They are already assisting > the Dark side, and it's going to get worse. > > Where's the canon? > Moreover, Draco's little attempted invasion has introduced a small > cadre of DEs to the Twins' products, and if they're not really > stupid, they know that there is only a very small distinction > between Weasley's Wizard Wheezes and Weasley's Wizard Warheads. As > a result, Fred and George can expect heightened customer interest > in ordering some of their less savory products, which they are > certain to oblige. SSSusan: Criminy!! An ESE!Twins theory *does* surface! Is she (gasp!) serious about this?? Does she truly believe F&G are evil in their hearts of hearts (ya gotta pluralize that, don't you, when you're talking about twins)?? Let's move on... > Fred and George, no dummies, will realize quickly enough where the > customers are coming from. SSSusan: Surely you don't think they're *this* unprincipled, are they? Not so wholly devoted to the almighty galleon that they care nothing about whom they're helping?? Oh, but wait! There's more from Elfundeb: > But like Regulus, they will also > realize that to defy Voldy openly is to ask for death, so they will > need to keep filling orders. However, they will begin to fight > back; they will become double agents. The Peruvian Darkness Powder > will be allowed to get wet. Fireworks will boomerang. And, > > ::big drum roll:: > > just before the final battle, an enterprising Fred will steal > Voldemort's wand and replace it with one of his own, so that when > the Dark Lord finally comes full circle and once again > utters "Avada Kedavra" with his wand pointed at Harry Potter, > > ::bigger drum roll:: > > the wand will turn into a rubber chicken. SSSusan: Whew!! (And 'YAY' too!) An ending truly worthy of our little pranksters. And all's well that ends well, then. Keeps Harry from having to become a murderer, too, so there's that added advantage. ;) (I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really would be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill Moldy without someone intentionally murdering him.) And now, lest you all think Ms. Elfundeb is just bringing this up for grins for the first time, check out this from long, LONG ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35060 Yep, she's been sayin' this for quite some time. >;) SSSusan, who's still wondering if anyone here *truly* thinks the twins (or one of 'em) is ESE! Anyone want to bite? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 18:22:28 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:22:28 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: <27794087.1182444660255.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170828 > Bart: > > Here is the set-up (note the topic is FANTASY casting): A new > computerized filmaking technique has been discovered. You can take > any character played by any actor in film or television (including > cartoons) in history, and it will convert that character > into a character for the new movie, being played more or less the > same way. > Betsy Hp: Aww, I want to play, too! I can still play, right? It's not been too long ago, right? Okay, so my first choice would be, as Barty Crouch, Jr. (and also Fake!Moody), Edward Norton in Primal Fear. (click link only if you're prepared to be spoiled -- and if you haven't seen this movie, I'll take a moment to feel sad for you. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_Fear_%28film%29 The trial scene in GoF would of course be Norton in full on Aaron- mode, and the rest of the time Roy would come out to play. Which means, I guess, that the Archbishop would be Crouch, Sr. (a slightly darker look at the father-son relationship gone wrong ). Richard Gere would totally be Harry Potter and Laura Linney would be Cedric, only with a sadder ending in the final court scene of the movie (at which point I guess Roy would be Voldemort). Oh, and then I thought about Spike from Cowboy Bebop, and his hair, and immediately thought of James. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_Bebop Julia makes a perfect Lily, what with being all angelic and perfect and not around for the most part except for fuzzy memory flash-backs. Which would make Vicious a version of OFH!Snape (despite his looking like a dark fanon!Draco), which would make poor Gren as Regulus, and the Red Dragon syndicate at the end (of the series) as both the Death Eaters, the Ministry and the Order. I guess that'd leave Faye as Harry, Edward as Ron, and Ein as Hermione. Though, if we cast Spike as Harry, then Vicious would be Voldemort, the syndicate would be the WW in general, Julia would be Ginny, Jet would be Snape. Ron's still Edward and Hermione is still the dog, though. Though really, IMO, the best cartoon version of Voldemort is Skeletor from He-Man fame (I'm going by the '80's cartoon) what with the no nose and high pitched laugh and all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He-man Which makes Harry, He-Man. And I guess Snape would be Teela'Na (aka Sorceress of Castle Grayskull) and Dumbledore would be Castle Grayskull (which would be a bit of an acting stretch for the Castle, but I'm betting it could handle it. ) Oh, and I constantly think of Draco whenever "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" comes on and Max Pirkis pops up. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1263986/ (see his midshipman photo -- so very blond and pale and even pointy- ish for that matter) And I cannot help but link Stephen Maturin with Snape. Though more with the book character than the movie character as the movie doesn't touch on Maturin's work as a spy. Which would (I think) make Jack Aubrey as... Sirius, I think? He's too jolly for Harry, IMO. But it does go to show you what a friendship Sirius and Snape could have had if prejudice hadn't gotten in the way. (Too bad the WW isn't much for music, huh?) Ooh, and if we're entering book world: I have to say "The Secret Garden" is so very Slytherin, IMO. Colin Craven is so obviously Draco. And Archibald Craven is like Snape's and Lupin's love-child (which, okay, we've moved away from Slytherin there). I'd say Dickon is the photo-negative of Voldemort and/or Tom Riddle in an almost point by point way. Though I think Mary Lennox is more Dudley Dursley than anything, so that moves it right out of the WW completely. Which probably goes a long way towards explaining why this is one of my favorite children's books. Yay, Muggles! Betsy Hp (I totally recognize the babbling that occurs here, and I apologize for it -- seriously, it was worse in my head.) From jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com Tue Jun 26 17:22:55 2007 From: jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com (jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:22:55 -0400 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <196929.23084.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <196929.23084.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170829 Charles: > I hate to say it, but this statement is wrong on two points. > > First, Hermione is not always right. She was, to quote just one > instance, dead wrong about Draco Malfoy throughout the majority of > HBP. Second, by the end of HBP she does not believe Snape is DDM. > Nobody in the WW except possibly Snape and the portrait of DD would > think so at this point, and I have my doubts about the portrait. > <<<>>> > ****Katie responds: > Ok, let me rephrase. Hermione HAS believed Snape to be DDM, > until the events on the tower. But I will get back to that in a > moment. As for her being wrong about Malfoy in HBP, she was. But > while she was wrong about Malfoy's actions, she wasn't wrong in > assuming that DD knew exactly what was happening. However, as I > stated in my previous post, I believe that the departure from the > pattern of Harmione being right/Harry being wrong, and Snape being > the *good* (if not always nice) guy is a purposeful misdirection > by JKR. HBP does not fit the pattern of the previous 5 books - > because JKR is deliberately making the reader think that the > previous 5 books have been misleading. It's a psuedo-plot twist. jbenne: I feel ya'll are missing the point on this. While depending who does the reading, many things written in the books can be interpreted differently. That is what makes these books so much fun and hard to figure out. Back to my point, to know if Snape is good or bad look at JKR herself. She is DD: she believes in second chances, she sees good in everyone, and she has lead everyone to think of Snape as a bad person. The work she has put into casting him in a bad light and the path she has lead us down...she wants everyone to think of him as bad. She has worked hard at this but always leaving a tiny light that he could be good. Seeing how hard she has worked to paint him as a dark person, he will turn out to be dark but on the correct side. He will help Harry in some way but he will never like Harry and will always have a dark personality about him. But he will support the OOTP in the end. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 18:48:55 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <233286.74352.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170830 jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com wrote: Charles: > I hate to say it, but this statement is wrong on two points. > > First, Hermione is not always right. She was, to quote just one > instance, dead wrong about Draco Malfoy throughout the majority of > HBP. Second, by the end of HBP she does not believe Snape is DDM. > Nobody in the WW except possibly Snape and the portrait of DD would > think so at this point, and I have my doubts about the portrait. > <<<>>> > ****Katie responds: > Ok, let me rephrase. <<>>However, as I > stated in my previous post, I believe that the departure from the > pattern of Harmione being right/Harry being wrong, and Snape being > the *good* (if not always nice) guy is a purposeful misdirection > by JKR. HBP does not fit the pattern of the previous 5 books - > because JKR is deliberately making the reader think that the > previous 5 books have been misleading. It's a psuedo-plot twist. jbenne: I feel ya'll are missing the point on this.<<>>She [JKR]has worked hard at this but always leaving a tiny light that he could be good. Seeing how hard she has worked to paint him as a dark person, he will turn out to be dark but on the correct side. He will help Harry in some way but he will never like Harry and will always have a dark personality about him. But he will support the OOTP in the end. ****Katie responds: Yes, jbenne, that's exactly what I was saying. Snape isn't "nice" - but he is on the right side of the fight. So, I don't think I was missing the point - I think we are agreeing with each other, but phrasing it differently. JKR has been misdirecting us into believing Snape was bad - only here's where I disagree with your interpretation...I never got the idea that Snape was bad until his obvious badness at the end of HBP, which did throw me off-balance when I first read it. I did question Snape briefly, until I reread and looked for clues. But in CoS - OotP, Snape is definitely cast as the dark good guy. I never felt that JKR was trying to tell us he was bad, but rather that good guys don't always seem like good guys and appearances can be deceiving. In SS/PS, he is simply the foil for Quirrell - as Quirrell says, "swooping around like an overgrown bat". But Harry's suspicions of Snape are proven to be quite wrong, and from that point on, I see Snape as the unlikely good guy. Only Sirius and Harry truly distrust him...until the Lightening Struck Tower, of course. I know I'm sort of beating the dead horse a little...but I really believe that Snape is a good guy. Not a nice guy, not a likeable guy, but someone who knows what is at stake if Voldemort wins, and someone who realizes that while he hates Harry, Harry is a smart, capable, and important wizard. Which maybe makes him hate Harry all the more. But Snape has never tried to kill Harry, which of course would definitely make him evil, because he's not a bad guy! One of the things I love about the WW is that good guys don't always seem good, bad guys certainly don't always seem bad, and good people can make bad decisions and sometimes be cruel...much like the real world. No, Snape's not my first choice for teacher of the year - but I really do believe he's on the right side of the fight. Katie . --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From squeaker19450 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 18:40:46 2007 From: squeaker19450 at yahoo.com (barb burke) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's Fall Message-ID: <362913.19981.qm@web36609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170831 There's no doubt in my mind that Snape did what Dumbledore wanted him to do whether or not it was planned for. When Dumbledore saw what was happenning on the tower he was in his right mind and doing his best to convince Drago to come over to the right side{ and doing a good job of convincing him} when the DEs burst on to the tower . At that point Dumbledore knew they were up the creek and then Severus came on the scene and in a silent exchange between the two , we see the final outcome. There was no begging on the part of Dumbledore {that just rings so false that it doesn't ever bare thinking about , knowing what we do of Dumbledore....does anyone even for a second believe that he would beg?} SO,in that silent exchange between the two Severus is made aware of what he must do and , does what Dumbledore wants him to, not do what is "easy" In my opinion,of course. squeaker19450 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 26 19:03:37 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:03:37 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170832 I can't remember the last time this happened, but I'm actually using up my 5th post of the day. I must be getting excited about the release or something. :) Anyway, I've just been chatting with someone offlist and got to wondering about something.... Quite some time ago, "The List" was put together and posted in the Essay section over at the Lexicon. This is a list of all the things that some folks (notably Pippin, AKH and Serenadust) had come up with as Items Which Still Needed to Be Answered by JKR. (To peruse this list, go to: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html ) So I got to wondering about this: Just what do you all believe will go UNANSWERED from among those things which are driving you nuts? These could be Big Mysteries, of course, but I'm thinking especially of those Little Niggling Details. I mean, not SO little niggling things, like "What color socks does Dumbles favor?" but perhaps slightly more significant little niggles such as get debated here amongst those of us who consider ourselves "major fans." Here's an example of something I've just decided is likely to go unanswered: The question of just how much Snape heard of the prophecy at the Hog's Head. We argue and debate whether DD's account of things is accurate (that Snape heard only the first portion of the prophecy before being tossed on his ear by Aberforth), whether Trelawney's version is accurate (that Snape was still there when she *finished* the prophecy), or perhaps even that there's a third option -- that DD *thinks* Snape only heard the first part but perhaps Trelawney is correct and he heard it all (and if that's the case, perhaps he *chose* to tell Voldy only the first portion?). As much as I'd like to know which of these is accurate, I seriously doubt JKR is going to revisit this. So what say ye? What Little Niggling Details do you fear will be left unanswered at the end? Siriusly Snapey Susan From squeaker19450 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 19:05:42 2007 From: squeaker19450 at yahoo.com (barb burke) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Justice to Snape WAS: Re: Werewolves? There Wolves! Message-ID: <602397.49548.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170833 IN my humble opinion, being mean is not being abusive to either Harry or Neville , but some teacher making children carve things into themselves is where this vindictiveness toward Severus should be pointed{as in Umbridge}. squeaker19450 From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 19:16:39 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:16:39 -0000 Subject: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: <4362721.1182791584576.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170834 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: random832 at ... > >> SSSusan: > >> What would [the twins] having gone to Arthur have potentially given away? > > > >Operational security. Them going to Arthur would have revealed that they > >had knowledge of his condition, which would have let Voldemort know > >Harry was, unintentionally or not, able to spy on him somehow. > >--Random832 > > Bart: > Not to mention clueing in the Ministry that there was an active, non-Ministry approved organization to which Arthur belonged. With the cover-up, the Ministry remained clueless (I do hope that translates into British). > Finwitch: Except that they *already* knew. Voldemort knew since the moment - Harry just didn't know he knew .. and, the Ministry 'knew' since GOF, sort of. Rita Skeeter knew (she was right there at the window...) But aside the past. Twins, for themselves - they DO have their hearts in the right place. In HBP they seemed like Q-section to Harry's James Bond to me... in providing lots of stuff that looks like something it's not, that will help in battle. Anyway, they WILL be at Bill&Fleur's wedding. I think that will be in the first -- er, let's say 5 - chapters. I also think that their marriage will produce an offspring so we see christening or naming or whatever the wizards call it, by the end of the book. Finwitch From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 19:31:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:31:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape/ some russian history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170835 > SSSusan: > I did *not* get your position at all before this, Alla. I thought, > heh, you were being mighty contrary, in fact (hee). But this helped > SO MUCH. > > When I look at that painting, I see the look on the man's face > who's holding up the other, and like you said, my first thought > is 'care and concern' or 'support for a wounded brother.' But I also > understand now exactly what you mean: you KNOW the outcome; you > can't ignore where that man was leading the other. > > Personally, I still think we *don't* know the outcome in this (the > HP) case, but I can at least see now why YOU can't dissociate the > image in the book from what you believe the outcome will be... or > from what you believe Snape was all about in this scene. > > I'm glad you shared this. I still see things differently than you, > but it's good to get a grasp on what it is which is coloring your > interpretation. Alla: Weeeee. Can I reach out from my computer and kiss you? I am not stupid, not stupid, I can express myself clearly enough :) Yes, what you said precisely. And of course if one does not accept that Snape was delivering Black to dementors, that would be a different story. Since to me it is a fact, I am thinking exactly what you described I am thinking . In fact, I am thinking now what if the events were unfolding a little bit differently, not much, but still differently in hypothetical way. Say we would not have heard that Sirius would be kissed on the spot, that some sort of trial, some hearing awaits him, I think, not sure, but maybe My mind would have given me different associations. You know? As facts of the story stand now, as I said before **to me and to me only** it is a fact that Snape was delivering Black straight to dementors. No, Dementor was not standing there greeting them, I do not think, but to me it makes no difference, since we know that this is where Sirius would end up ? no other roads for him. And just as on that painting indeed, I see death and death only ? no healing or caring or compassionate images ? they are blocked by what I perceive as inevitable outcome. Wow, I am happy. Thanks dear. And love arguing as I am, I never argue just to be contrary, LOL. Alla. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jun 26 20:13:34 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:13:34 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170837 Last night, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, his number one story was on how DH will turn out. I guess he plays our game as well (and I thought he just was making fun of the Harry Potter series these last couple of years - HA! Closet HP fan, he is) Some of his theories mesh quite nicely with many of our members here - the Horocrux!Harry, DDM!Snape just to name a couple. Here is the link to the transcript of his predictions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19436954/ please note, he does mention that hacker's stuff (briefly), so, if you don't want to know what that hacker said (which IS trite), you may wish to skip over his predictions. I thought it was fascinating read and so on track with what we do here :) For those who have read the link, or even saw his show last night, what do YOU think? Do you think that Olbermann is on the right track? Please - Whether you like Olbermann or not, let's not discuss our personal views on him and let's try to focus on the predictions he's made, ok? just to wet your appetite, here are some snips from his article: "In book number six, "Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince," Rowling already killed off Dumbledore, the popular headmaster at the wizarding school Hogwarts, and got such a bad vibe and so many nightmares out of it that much of those Potty over Potter are almost demanding the headmaster be reincarnated for the finale. So sacrificing more of Harry's pals and heroes would again seem to be just bad business. But one hint, publicly offered in the advertising for the last book, asks the question whether the greasy Professor Snape, Dumbledore's murderer, was a friend to Harry or his worst enemy. Snape has finally, after years of trying, ascended to his dream job, teaching Harry and the others Defense Against the Dark Arts. In Snape, and in Defense Against the Dark Arts, may rest the explanation of how this series ends. The most recent book went into excruciating detail about the concept of a horcrux, perhaps the darkest art in wizardry. In "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," we are told that while in the act of murdering someone, a dark wizard can divide his soul so that he might live on in part, even if his corporeal body expires. He can store the parts of the soul in objects, or, as seen in an earlier book, in a living thing, the big snake in the basement. " colebiancardi From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Jun 26 20:17:57 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:17:57 -0400 Subject: Just want to ask about Horcruxes... Message-ID: <7D0202AE-1491-439F-B6D9-FEAD2A48E4EA@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170838 > Lantis: > I just want to ask (J.K. Rowling, if possible) what would happen if > Voldemort somehow confided part of his soul in a phoenix like Fawkes? > would he be totally immortal, seeing that one of his Horcruxes > won't be > destroyed? Well, in one reading of the Phoenix legend, Fawkes' body is completely destroyed, and Fawkes is reborn from an egg. Not the same 'body'. Another version of the Phoenix has the thing reborn from the ashes and flames. Inherent in either version is the sense that the body, being the container, is destroyed, purified, cleansed, and started again anew. Various religious and psychological systems would read all of this symbolically in different ways. If Fawkes were to contain a horcruxed portion of soul, the precedent in the books is that when body/container is destroyed, the soul portion is also. ___ __ From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jun 26 20:23:12 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:23:12 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170839 lizzyben04: > Yes, Snape is a snarky sarcastic bastard, but he also > seems devoted to protecting & healing people in need. > In this, Snape reminds me a bit of "House, MD," or Dr. > Cox from Scrubs. houyhnhnm: He makes me think a little of Florence Nightengale (mutatis mutandis), the founder of the modern profession of nursing, whose achievements as an activist in sanitation were a major turning point in the history of health care. Celebrated in popular sentimental imagination as The Lady With the Lamp, in actuality she was a hard headed administrator, an ambitious and sometimes abrasive woman who drove other people ruthlessly and didn't suffer fools gladly. Some quotes: "I attribute my success to this - I never gave or took any excuse." "The martyr sacrifices themselves entirely in vain. Or rather not in vain; for they make the selfish more selfish, the lazy more lazy, the narrow narrower." "There is no part of my life, upon which I can look back without pain" Sound like anyone we know? Which house do you think she would have been sorted into? From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Jun 26 20:39:48 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:39:48 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote:> Last night, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, his number one story was on how DH will turn out. I've always been of the opinion that Harry losing his magic is actually worse than him dying. While I don't want to see him die either, living without magic seems worse to me. If he were to stay in the magical world, he'd basically be a useless celebrity--a has been who lives off the good will of others because of something he did as a child. If he flees the wizarding world, he has to live in the muggle world and he is totally unprepared for that considering his muggle education goes to about 5th grade. Personally, I think it will end with Harry destroying Voldemort by doing something instinctual, like the way he drove Voldie out of his mind at the end of OOTP. It won't be something that he trains for or some nifty spell. It will just be something human that Voldemort won't be able to counter because he's given up most of his soul. Then Harry and Luna Lovegood walk off into the sunset and look for obscure animals :) phoenixgod2000 From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jun 26 21:07:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:07:53 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170841 > zgirnius: > And there goes the potion. On the other hand, Snape has had a good > long look at the potion, and knows what was done wrong. In other > words, he presumably has gone through the process he would go through > in marking a sample of the potion, were Harry to hand one in. Would > he give a zero anyway, so that is why he Vanished it? We don't know. > *Does* he actually give a zero? We also don't know, though a later > scene of the same type suggests he did, see below, this one is from > the day Dolores visits the Potions classroom. Magpie: Ah, I see. I had totally forgotten those scenes--though the details don't add up to what they were remembered as. Snape doesn't vanish Harry's Potion and give him a zero for not having it, he fails his Potion because he's done it incorrectly, and tells him why. There's nothing unfair in him zapping the Potion away in that context--he's already graded it. > zgirnius: > (Note the 'again', suggesting Harry received no mark in the first > instance I cite). In this instance, the potion is in awful condition - > Harry was paying no attention to it, since he was watching the > interaction between Snape and Umbridge. But again, is Snape Vanishing > it because he wants to give Harry a zero even though he knows it > deserves a higher grade if it was handed in? Or is a zero what he > would surely give that potion, and so he is Vanishing it, in order to > do so in a public, embarassing way so everyone knows Harry got a zero? Magpie: I think the latter is correct. We've been told the Potion's a mess and Harry knows it. I don't see any reason to believe he'd get a higher grade if it was handed in in a bottle. The humiliation of Harry is no doubt a plus for Snape, though. The later scene is still something different. That's the only one where Harry does the Potion fine and gets a zero. In the other scenes he's just being a jerk, but doesn't seem to be grading him all that unfairly. I guess that's what you can always count on with Snape--he'll always be able to find new and different ways to be a jerk. -m From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 21:18:38 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:38 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > Last night, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, his number > one story was on how DH will turn out. > > I guess he plays our game as well (and I thought he just was making > fun of the Harry Potter series these last couple of years - HA! > Closet HP fan, he is) zanooda: The theory about Harry loosing his magic was discussed here not long ago, but I still don't have a definite opinion :-). It's certainly not how I want the book to end, but I suppose for me it would be better than Harry dying. I also think that even if this Olberman guy read HP books, he was not very attentive, because he believes that Cruciatus is a killing curse. Also, he seems to think that Basilisk was a Horcrux, if I understand him correctly (big snake in the basement?) From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Tue Jun 26 20:42:37 2007 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:42:37 +0100 Subject: Sectus 2007: Registration Closure and Programme Message-ID: <6493bc80706261342t3a60a8b8g6cd2f965594ad5fc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170843 *Registration for Sectus 2007 will close on Saturday June 30th.* This means that in order to be registered, you have just five days left. You can register online at www.sectus.org. Booking for Not the Yule Ball will close on Wednesday July 4th. There will be a limited number of places made available on the day, but for guaranteed entry (and a lower rate) you must register in advance. For reference, the on-the-door rates will be: Thursday: ?20 Friday: ?20 (valid 10am - 6pm) Saturday: ?25 (valid 10pm Friday - 5pm Saturday, to include Reading Party) Sunday: ?15 These rates will only be available on the door: we can only sell four-day registrations in advance, priced at ?65. *Guests and Programme* If you have not done so already, check out the provisional event timetable at www.sectus.org/timetable.php for a taste of what is in store. We are lucky to be joined by the following Guest Speakers: - Steve Vander Ark, aka Lexicon Steve, creator and webmaster of the Harry Potter Lexicon (see www.hp-lexicon.org) - Colin Manlove, author of From Alice to Harry Potter: Children's Fantasy in England - Mary Baumann, author of A Detective's Analysis of Harry Potter and the Mysteries Within - David Langford, author of The End of Harry Potter? - Catherine Driscoll, Chair of Gender and Cultural Studies at the University of Sydney - Michael Bronski, Professor of Women's and Gender Studies and Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College. We also have a variety of scholars and well-known fans presenting their theories and analysis in subjects as diverse as Physics and Politics, as well as a constant stream of fanfiction-related programming. Every taste and interest will be catered for, and throwing in the release of the final Harry Potter book, this will truly be a once-in-a-lifetime event. Full details are available at www.sectus.org. If you have any queries, please contact the Sectus Bookings Office on info [at] sectus.org Best wishes, Elanor Isolda Conference Chair Sectus 2007 -- This conference is not endorsed, sanctioned or in any way supported, directly or indirectly, by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the Harry Potter book publishers or J.K. Rowling and her representatives. Sectus is not connected with the University of Westminser, and this event does not form part of the University's activities. Sectus is a trading name of Sectus Ltd, registered in England and Wales. // Registration number: 6130297 // Registered Office: 11 Murray Street, London NW1 9RE From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 21:57:48 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:57:48 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Susan wrote: > Items Which Still Needed to Be Answered by JKR (To peruse this > list, go to: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html) > > So I got to wondering about this: Just what do you all believe > will go UNANSWERED from among those things which are driving you > nuts? These could be Big Mysteries, of course, but I'm thinking > especially of those Little Niggling Details. > Here's an example of something I've just decided is likely to go > unanswered: The question of just how much Snape heard of the > prophecy at the Hog's Head. Yb now: You think that one won't be covered? Betcha 10 Galleons that it will be clear enough in canon by the end of DH. (See note below on my thoughts on this one...). Such a large glaring discrepancy - I think that Harry will have access to the memory through the Pensieve and between him, Ron, and Hermione, one of them will realize something's fishy there. This is so huge that even a /character/ will notice it. (Like the fact the Scabbers was acting nervous /before/ the cat arrived - Harry picked up on that fact.) I think that she'll leave some of the more subtle things - like did DD expect and even lure Moldy into Hogwarts during Harry's first year. Or who actually beheld LV's wrath about the diary being destroyed (I bet it was Snape). Or did Snape really know what Draco's mission was when Narcissa asked him about it. I also doubt that we'll get much detail on the missing 24 hours at the beginning of PS - suffice to say, DD put some protective charms on Harry (invoking the blood protection through Lily's connection with Petunia) and then he went looking for traces of Moldy. And sorting Seamus Finnegan - he took over a minute to be sorted. He never did say where else the hat considered putting him, did he? Did he argue with the hat, or was the hat just thinking? My two pennies - ~Yblitzka (who can't wait to see where this thread will go). Note on the Snape/Trelawney/DD Prophecy discrepancy: I have two ideas in mind for this situation: 1. Snape heard all of the Prophecy (by luck or design, who knows). DD helped remove the majority of the memory. 2. Snape never heard any of it. DD called him up (Patronus power, maybe), and Snape was at the door with Aberforth when Trelawney snapped out of her trance. DD gave Snape the part of the memory he wanted to release. In either case, Snape is a willing party, wanting to help DD. The only problem I have with Snape having the entire memory in his head is that a) someone could tell if a memory has been modified (ala Slughorn) and b) Moldy Shorts is a powerful Legilimens. If someone would come to him with a prophecy, he would want to see the memory - the whole thing - for himself. (I personally don't put Moldy above catching an informant while he is sleeping and poking through his mind a little, just to make sure). If he thought Snape was holding back, or that the memory had been twiddled with, everyone's favorite professor would be greasy toast before the series even started. While I don't think Moldy knows Snape is an Occlumens (or, as before, greasy toast, a looooong time ago), he couldn't have had any indication that there was more to that memory than what he saw. And either way iot plays out, the truth needs to come out so Harry can see that Snape has been the double agent and he's always been a very greasy white hat. :) ~Yblitzka (felt I needed to sign this one too). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 26 22:13:36 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:13:36 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (2 of 2) (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170845 > >>Ann: > I thought I'd leave a few days' gap between parts 1 and 2 in case > anyone wanted to argue with part 1. But nobody seems to want to. > Part 1 of this is message number 170719. You probably don't have to > read it first, but in it I defined what I believe a plot to be and > argued that none of the books so far has had a plot. > Betsy Hp: I read and admired your first post, Ann. It actually brought to mind Mike Smith's readings of various Potter books http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/ (poke around and you'll find them) and his common end of chapter lament that nothing has happened. Seeing some of the books laid out chapter by chapter it really does become apparent that, yeah, nothing much happened in that chapter there. It's all about the ending. (I remember a blog group that read HBP for the first time, chapter by chapter, and I think most of them, though major Harry Potter fans, were dissappointed.) But yes, I agree that Harry is a remarkably passive hero. Very much like a pinball in a pinball machine. Which is strange because he's last in line of a rather reactionary group. We've got the Founders who take the action of founding a school away from Muggle eyes (foreshadowing the great seperation to come). They get in a great fight of some sort, and the actions of that fight leave a pall over their school that lasts to Harry's time. We've got the very active Tom Riddle, who does all sorts of flitting about, gathering information, hatching plans, putting them into action. Dumbledore is oddly passive when it comes to Voldemort, but we've got hints of him acting somewhere else (taking down that other dark lord, Grindelwald). And obviously the machinations of those two are pretty much what directs Harry from the moment of his birth. The Marauders and Snape end up tangled in Dumbledore's and Voldemort's strings as well, but even they make some choices and take different actions on a level above (IMO) those of the Trio. Even within the realm of school-days, the Marauders and Snape get up to far more than the Trio ever do. It's strange, I think, that the Trio are so much blander than the ones who came before them. (I'll even throw Draco in the mix here. I love the guy, but if he really wanted to take down Harry, I'm sure there's more he could have done. Snape would have done more back in the day, I think.) > >>Ann: > Although each book has a self-contained storyline, the series can > also be seen as one novel with a single Harry vs. Voldemort plotline > (arguably excluding CoS) and minor plotlines concerning, for > instance, shipping and the Wizarding World's politics. > > I call this mega-plotline the "overplot", and the books look rather > different when analysed as a group rather than discrete works. The > plotlines that run from one book to another, such as shipping or > Harry's entering the Wizarding World, mean much more when the books > are read as one ? Ron and Hermione's arguing in PoA being a > prime example. > Betsy Hp: I love this way of looking at it. It makes so much sense to me. And it's interesting, because I'm rather looking forward to a sort of subversive take on the story coming out in the future. The story from Zach Smith's view point, for example. And really, it would take only one book to do so, in the end. IIRC, at one point in his read through, Mike Smith mentions that he'd have hated to been read the books as a bedtime story as an eleven year old, because there are so many chapters where nothing really happens. The plot doesn't move at all. It made sense to me, because I tend to read the books in chunks. If a chapter is meandering, I plow right through it and get to the good stuff (the ending, for the most part). Though, you've mentioned that you're not seeing this as a negative. And I'm not sure I'd label it a negative either. (Though obviously, I'm referencing someone who *does* see this style of story-telling as negative.) I guess it's like JKR is building up this layer-cake she's going to smash through with her plot catapult (love that phrase, by the way) in the end. And her readers recognize that and look forward to the smash up enough that each added layer is something to enjoy. > >>Ann: > DH will be the climax of the series, but to sustain an entire > novel's worth of action, it'll need a plot, not just construction. > You may think she should have ditched Hogwarts' restrictive > environment a book back or more. But she's got plenty of experience > writing to those specifications, and she's writing the climax in a > new and very different style. DH is, in short, unguessable, and it > may be wonderful or something of a disappointment, new and exciting > or a failed experiment. The only thing we can really be certain > about is that the Horcrux hunt will be the most important narrative > strand (though Harry may disagree, and spend much of the book > looking for Snape.) The book might degenerate into a plot coupon > quest: > http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html > or might be amazing, even despite that. We just don't know. This may > sound overly pessimistic, but I'm a natural pessimist, and I'm not > going to let my dark suspicions spoil DH for me. I can't wait to see > what happens. Betsy Hp: Personally, I'm kind of glad that JKR's set up a structure for herself with the horcrux hunt. As you've pointed out in your previous post, she's not much of a plot builder at least in an organic way. But if she's got a structure to hang some of her character things on, she can concentrate on those bits. And since I think it's her characters that are her greatest strength I feel better about DH turning out well if there are plenty of character concentrated scenes. > >>Ann: > > I think DH will be a fantasy novel above other genres, just as the > early books were childrens' adventures above all. This abrupt > change of genre is another massive difference I'm expecting between > DH and the preceding six books. > Betsy Hp: I strongly suspect (based on stuff others, like Sydney, have said over the years ) that DH is going to end with Harry healing the wounds of Hogwarts, and possibly the WW. (Though I imagine that a healed Hogwarts will actually *mean* a healed WW.) And while that can occur within a fantasy genre, I almost wonder if JKR won't steer more towards a family tale? Which may well harken back to the family epic thing you mentioned regarding PoA in the part I snipped. Just because JKR seems to have little interest in the fantasy genre herself, and since the Potter books, despite the magic, don't really seem to go for the fantasy thing either. At least, IMO. Great couple of posts, Ann! I enjoyed them. Betsy Hp From missvassy at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 01:43:31 2007 From: missvassy at yahoo.com (missvassy) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:43:31 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170846 > > Last night, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, his number > > one story was on how DH will turn out. > > > > I guess he plays our game as well (and I thought he just was making > > fun of the Harry Potter series these last couple of years - HA! > > Closet HP fan, he is) > > > zanooda: > > The theory about Harry loosing his magic was discussed here not long > ago, but I still don't have a definite opinion :-). It's certainly > not how I want the book to end, but I suppose for me it would be > better than Harry dying. > > I also think that even if this Olberman guy read HP books, he was not > very attentive, because he believes that Cruciatus is a killing > curse. Also, he seems to think that Basilisk was a Horcrux, if I > understand him correctly (big snake in the basement?) MissVassy: Ever since OotP and the encounter in the ministry, I have thought that the veil was used by the ministry as a form of punishment for wizards. I believe that when you go through the veil, you lose your magical powers and are banished from the magical world forever. You no are no longer recognised by anyone in the magical world, you are invisible to them. The worst part, is that you still keep your memories of what your life was like in the magical world and can truly see what you have lost. Maybe this is what Dumbledore is talking about when he says that there are things worse than death. I think Harry could very well sacrifice himself into a life unmagical in order to save others and destroy Voldemort. And to him, maybe a world without magic, though hard at first, won't be so bad. He isn't the same person that he was before he went to Hogwarts. He knows now that he has worth and that he is a good person, capable of making friends and giving and receiving love. He also can start anew, in a world that doesn't know him as "The Boy Who Lived" or "The Boy Who Destroyed He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." FOr him, it might not be a punishment, it might be a reward and a release. I might be wrong on this, but I think we are definitely going to learn more about the veil and it's purpose. I do think that Keith Olberman is a little off on his Harry Potter knowledge, but then he just might not have read them as thoroughly as all of us. I gotta give him props though for supporting a theory I have had for years. From amis917 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 27 02:20:53 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (amis917) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:20:53 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170847 > > Bart: > > > > Here is the set-up (note the topic is FANTASY casting): A new > > computerized filmaking technique has been discovered. You can take > > any character played by any actor in film or television (including > > cartoons) in history, and it will convert that character > > into a character for the new movie, being played more or less the > > same way. > > > Amis917 The one things that always comes to my mind when I think of Arthur Weasley is a cross between Ariel/Scuttle in Disney's The Little Mermaid. I always think of Ariel's room filled with the human trinkets whenever Arthur talks about his collection of Muggle goods. Their interest in humans/muggals is very similar to me. Now, I'm not sure about a female mermaid playing a male wizzard, but this is fantasy, right?? I also always think of Jayne Meadows as The Queen of Hearts in my favorite 1985 TV version of Alice in Wonerland for Umbridge. The queen may be a bit too evil up front with her constant shouting of "Off with their heads!" (no sugary cover-up) but when she invites Alice to play croquet ever so sweetly, it is very Umbridge. The way she sounds so sweet, but could really snap on you at any moment. I also think that Hallee Hirsh as Daley in the "Flight 19 Down" TV show would make a good Hermonie. I think she has the look described in the books. Also Daley on the show has a similar personality to Hemonie's. Vey know-it-all, but also thoughtfull at times. I doubt many of you have seen this show, so you might have to take my word on that. That's all I have. Amis917 Hoping it's not too late for this because I thought it was fun - and have been out of town :) From darksworld at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 02:35:30 2007 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:35:30 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amis917" wrote: > I also always think of Jayne Meadows as The Queen of Hearts in my > favorite 1985 TV version of Alice in Wonerland for Umbridge. The queen > may be a bit too evil up front with her constant shouting of "Off with > their heads!" (no sugary cover-up) but when she invites Alice to play > croquet ever so sweetly, it is very Umbridge. The way she sounds so > sweet, but could really snap on you at any moment. Charles: OOH OOH OOH! From that same TV version of Alice in Wonderland, Lloyd Bridges' White Knight would make a great Sir Cadogan! Charles, seeing the characters in the book in a brighter light with every post in this thread. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 03:32:39 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:32:39 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170849 jbenne: I feel ya'll are missing the point on this. While depending who does the reading, many things written in the books can be interpreted differently. That is what makes these books so much fun and hard to figure out. Back to my point, to know if Snape is good or bad look at JKR herself. She is DD: she believes in second chances, she sees good in everyone, and she has lead everyone to think of Snape as a bad person. The work she has put into casting him in a bad light and the path she has lead us down...she wants everyone to think of him as bad. She has worked hard at this but always leaving a tiny light that he could be good. Seeing how hard she has worked to paint him as a dark person, he will turn out to be dark but on the correct side. He will help Harry in some way but he will never like Harry and will always have a dark personality about him. But he will support the OOTP in the end. Leslie41: This is what I have felt for a very long time. We have to add to all of this that the perspective is (almost) always Harry's, in all of the books. And Harry hates Snape, and always has. He is not able to look at him rationally, or without bias. Not that he should, because Snape is very nasty to him, but Snape is also not overfond of Hermione. His "I see no difference" to the sight of her overgrown teeth is for some the cruellest remark he makes to any student in the series. And he is constantly calling her a know-it-all. Yet Hermione does not seem to hate Snape. She does not precisely take his side, but she is able to step back. In book 1, she speaks approvingly of Snape's logic, a quality lacking in many wizards. In HBP she responds to Harry's loathing of Snape, and his disgust at Snape's first DADA lesson, with a very intelligent and well-observed commentary on both Snape and Harry. I don't think that Rowling is DD. Rowling is Hermione. She identifies with Hermione more than any other character (or at least so she's said). She's most like Hermione. And Hermione's reaction to Snape has always been very balanced and clear-headed, perhaps far more than he deserves (for who can blame Harry, really, for hating him?). That more than anything makes me believe Snape is on the side of the Order. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jun 27 03:40:03 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:40:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170850 Leslie41: Yet Hermione does not seem to hate Snape. She does not precisely take his side, but she is able to step back. In book 1, she speaks approvingly of Snape's logic, a quality lacking in many wizards. In HBP she responds to Harry's loathing of Snape, and his disgust at Snape's first DADA lesson, with a very intelligent and well-observed commentary on both Snape and Harry. And Hermione's reaction to Snape has always been very balanced and clear-headed, perhaps far more than he deserves (for who can blame Harry, really, for hating him?). That more than anything makes me believe Snape is on the side of the Order. Sherry: I see Hermione's support of Snape in a completely different way. and just to be clear, I felt this before I was convinced of what a horrible person he was, inside and out after he murdered Dumbledore. Hermione strikes me as one of those people who just blithely believes a person in authority is good and is right, just because the person is in authority. I don't get the impression that she actually *thinks* about whether or not Snape is all the things Harry believes him to be. But to her, Snape is a teacher, and therefore, he must be good and he must be right. Maybe Harry's reactions are often emotional and perhaps not always right. but Hermione appears not to think at all for herself in situations like this, but just to accept authority figures on faith because of their position, never really considering if they deserve that or not. Sherry From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 03:55:37 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:55:37 -0000 Subject: My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170851 Sherry: I see Hermione's support of Snape in a completely different way. and just to be clear, I felt this before I was convinced of what a horrible person he was, inside and out after he murdered Dumbledore. Hermione strikes me as one of those people who just blithely believes a person in authority is good and is right, just because the person is in authority. I don't get the impression that she actually *thinks* about whether or not Snape is all the things Harry believes him to be. But to her, Snape is a teacher, and therefore, he must be good and he must be right. Maybe Harry's reactions are often emotional and perhaps not always right. but Hermione appears not to think at all for herself in situations like this, but just to accept authority figures on faith because of their position, never really considering if they deserve that or not. Leslie41: Interesting point. We all know how besotted she was with Lockhart, as well. But I don't see her doing that with Hagrid, who's a teacher. The trio is avoiding him by HPB, and rightly so. And I don't recall her just walking lockstep behind Umbridge because she was the authority figure. Hermione does have an automatic respect for teachers (not necessarily all authority figures--I don't think she's particularly swayed by members of the Ministry, but there I could be wrong), which has to be *un*earned. Which Hagrid does. And Umbridge does. Snape doesn't unearn his. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 27 04:16:32 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:16:32 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (1 of 2) (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170852 Ann: > This is because in my opinion a plot is neither "a sequence of events > in a fictional work", nor is it necessary for a work. My personal and > idiosyncratic definition of a plot is "The sequence of events in a > work resulting mainly from the protagonist/s's actions, other > characters' reactions, and the setting ? as opposed to events > programmed by the author, the narrator's choice of what to narrate, > and so on ? which are visible to the reader and directed towards > reaching the work's most important narrative strand". Pippin: According to your definition, if I understand it correctly, almost no mystery or detective fiction would have a plot. The action is usually driven by the villain. He always controls events and knows more about what is going on than the main character does, at least until the villain is revealed and his plots are foiled. The mystery plots of the Potter books certainly follow this pattern. However, the books are also bildungsroman, and the bildungsroman plot is character driven. Each book begins with Harry feeling some weakness or lack in himself, which he through his actions remedies by the end. For example in PS/SS, Harry thinks he can't be any kind of wizard, much less the great wizard Ollivander reveals he's expected to be. But through his actions he learns the meaning of courage and friendship, and these teach him what greatness truly is. Stated so baldly it sounds trite. Plots usually do. But JKR is never so obvious. Harry never says to himself "What I've got to do is make some really good friends and learn to be brave." But he shows through his actions that making friends and learning to be brave are important to him. Pippin From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Jun 27 03:35:09 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:35:09 -0400 Subject: Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170853 SSSusan: "(I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really would be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill Moldy without someone intentionally murdering him.)" BAW: For at least the ten thousandth time *not all killing is murder*. The vast majority of ethical and legal systems recognize that killing in self-defense or in defense of another is not murder. Killing an enemy combatant in wartime is not murder. If Harry does end up killing Voldemort, the act would come under one or another. It would be justifiable homicide or at the very worst manslaughter. Besides, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." It has been stressed again and again that the farther Tom Riddle traveled on the path he chose, the less HUMAN he became. Hence, to the extent that he is no longer human, killing him is not murder; nor even manslaughter, for he is hardly a 'man' any more. There is also the element of "malice aforethought"; shooting a rabid dog does not involve malice. One does not do so to punish it for having contracted rabies; one shoots it to keep it from biting someone--or, from biting someone whom it has not yet bitten. Voldemort is at least as dangerous as a rabid dog, and putting him down would be as much a public service. Also, as I said before, the Wizarding community seems definitely old fashioned, so the Medieval concept of 'malicide' may apply. Certain persons for their egregious offenses against the community could be declared outside the protection of the law, and any citizen could slay such persons with impunity. If anyone deserves such a contemnation, it is Voldemort. 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 iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 06:18:23 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:18:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706262318x2a3e15d0nf7e2d4ba15cb9ab1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170854 > SSSusan: > > "(I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so > adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really would > be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill Moldy > without someone intentionally murdering him.)" > BAW: > For at least the ten thousandth time *not all killing is murder*. The vast majority of ethical and legal systems recognize that killing in self-defense or in defense of another is not murder. Killing an enemy combatant in wartime is not murder. Kemper now: I don't think the issue with readers who are in the Harry-can't-kill boat are concerned with Harry becoming a murderer. We (I'm in that boat) don't want to see our hero become a killer not because killing is bad because obviously sometimes it's good, but because we want Harry to hold onto his last bit of innocence. Kemper From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 08:40:19 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:40:19 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: snip > So I got to wondering about this: Just what do you all believe will > go UNANSWERED from among those things which are driving you nuts? > These could be Big Mysteries, of course, but I'm thinking especially > of those Little Niggling Details. I mean, not SO little niggling > things, like "What color socks does Dumbles favor?" but perhaps > slightly more significant little niggles such as get debated here > amongst those of us who consider ourselves "major fans." > > Here's an example of something I've just decided is likely to go > unanswered: The question of just how much Snape heard of the > prophecy at the Hog's Head. > > We argue and debate whether DD's account of things is accurate (that > Snape heard only the first portion of the prophecy before being > tossed on his ear by Aberforth), whether Trelawney's version is > accurate (that Snape was still there when she *finished* the > prophecy), or perhaps even that there's a third option -- that DD > *thinks* Snape only heard the first part but perhaps Trelawney is > correct and he heard it all (and if that's the case, perhaps he > *chose* to tell Voldy only the first portion?). > > As much as I'd like to know which of these is accurate, I seriously > doubt JKR is going to revisit this. > > So what say ye? What Little Niggling Details do you fear will be > left unanswered at the end? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > mz_annethrope: Ok, two somewhat larger niggling things: What were the other thoughts Snape put into the pensieve in OotP? What was DD experiencing when he drank the poisoned potion in HBP? I doubt we'll get the answer to either, but I'd love to know. Some smaller niggling things: -How did Harry's grandparents die? -How did Remus Lupin prevent himself from biting people when he transformed after his time at Hogwarts and before the invention of the wolfsbane potion? -How do students get to wizarding schools outside of the U.K.? -Are there female centaurs? Male hags? If not, how do they reproduce? -Come to think of it, how do house elves reproduce given that there doesn't usually seem to be more than one per house? Well, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that. Sounds too grim. mz_annethrope From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Jun 27 08:50:34 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:50:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Little Niggling Details will be left? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170856 In a message dated 6/27/2007 4:41:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mz_annethrope at yahoo.com writes: -Are there female centaurs? =================== Sherrie here: This is the only one I can contribute to. Unless she has changed things significantly from Greek mythology, no, there are no female centaurs. They reproduce with human females - which puts a somewhat different light on the whole Umbridge thing, eh? Sherrie "Accept no one's definition of your life. Define yourself." - Harvey Fierstein ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keltobin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 10:22:43 2007 From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:22:43 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <496603.26972.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170857 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Okay, so I was re-reading SS/PS last night, and something dawned on me. > What do ya'll think? Katie I think you have a point, but it may as easily be an intentionally misleading theme. I was re-reading the books to get ready for next month and something stood out to me that I didn't think of before. In GOF, when Harry is trapped in the office with fake-Moody, Snape's face shows in the foe glass. Now, this may be nothing, but if Snape were really a Death Eater, wouldn't he be friend, not foe, to Barty Jr.? In GOF, they also talk about enchanted objects being hard to fool, so you would think that the foe glass would see Snape's "true self," so to speak. I don't claim to know which way Snape's loyalties lie. Every time I read through the books, I can see a different point of view on the matter. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 27 11:55:12 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:55:12 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170858 SSSusan wrote: > > So I got to wondering about this: Just what do you all believe > > will go UNANSWERED from among those things which are driving you > > nuts? These could be Big Mysteries, of course, but I'm thinking > > especially of those Little Niggling Details. > > > Here's an example of something I've just decided is likely to go > > unanswered: The question of just how much Snape heard of the > > prophecy at the Hog's Head. Yb now: > You think that one won't be covered? Betcha 10 Galleons that it > will be clear enough in canon by the end of DH. SSSusan: Hee. Well, actually, I *hope* you are correct about that. It's just my gut reaction that it won't be covered, but I'd be quite content to be wrong about that. ;-) Yb: > I also doubt that we'll get much detail on the missing 24 hours at > the beginning of PS - suffice to say, DD put some protective charms > on Harry (invoking the blood protection through Lily's connection > with Petunia) and then he went looking for traces of Moldy. SSSusan: Oh dear. I **really** hope you're wrong about this one, Yb. This is probably the one Niggling Detail that I would be most disappointed to not have resolved by Herself. I've spent a fair bit of time thinking about those missing 24 hours.... A group of us started talking about it here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 and christened our ideas about that time DRIBBLE SHADDOWS. I really believe there was Something Significant going on there, re: Snape and why DD trusts him so. Please, Jo, please.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 27 12:06:30 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:06:30 -0000 Subject: Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170859 SSSusan: > "(I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so > adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really > would be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill > Moldy without someone intentionally murdering him.)" BAW: > For at least the ten thousandth time *not all killing is murder*. > The vast majority of ethical and legal systems recognize that > killing in self-defense or in defense of another is not murder. > Killing an enemy combatant in wartime is not murder. If Harry does > end up killing Voldemort, the act would come under one or another. > It would be justifiable homicide or at the very worst > manslaughter. SSSusan: LOL, you're preaching to the choir here, Bruce. "See my published works," to quote ol' Gilderoy. ;-) In all seriousness, your view on this is my view. For instance, I've argued loudly that, assuming Snape did fire off a true AK at DD *and* assuming it was on DD's instruction or command, then it's really not murder. In fact, it's a time of war, DD is Snape's 'commanding officer,' and if Snape followed DD's instructions, I don't believe he qualifies as a murderer. I feel similarly about Harry facing Voldemort. While it would be *preferable* to me that Harry not have to kill the guy [I'd rather like him to self-destruct somehow], if it's inevitable, I can certainly live with it & not lose sleep. Voldy has been trying to kill Harry his whole life. Chances are pretty high it will be self- defense if it happens. So I'm with ya! I included that bit yesterday because there *are* members here who don't agree with us. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Jun 27 12:31:55 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:31:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US References: Message-ID: <007f01c7b8b7$270f2b60$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 170860 > And, confess, when the books started calling pull-over > sweaters "jumpers", how many people flashed to little dresses > made to wear over blouses? Even if you know what the author's > talking about, the mental images can yank you right out of the > story if they're foreign enough. Who wants to stop reading in > the middle of a good part just to check some on-line dictionary? > > Ceridwen. Kimberly: Hosepipes and trainers, jumpers and pudding, snogging and well, you get the idea. All of it was foreign to me. There were a few times that I had a bit of an idea what they meant and a few times I had no idea. Fortunately for the most part I was able to work it out thanks to contextual inferences and my own workable brain. For me, one of the best things about books and literature is the exposure to new worlds, new words, new ideas. As the owner of a dance studio I am in contact with a lot of children. You can almost always tell the "readers" from the "non-readers" from their vocabulary. If you ask, "Where'd you hear that word" quite often they'll say, "In a book..". My children are excellent spellers because of all the reading they/we've done. Learning an unfamiliar American word is no different (for me) than learning an unfamiliar British word. I don't know what every American word means. If I come across a book describing an unfamiliar item based in the 1700's then chances are I'm going to have to look it up. Then guess what, I've learned a new word. I love that about books !! I understand the logistics of why they changed the text but I wish they hadn't. I understand why JKR agreed but again, I wish she hadn't. Kimberly *who would have liked to say to those that changed it in reference to the UK edition - In the words of Dumbledore "Yes,..., blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I understood everything you told me," HBP, Amer. Ed. pg. 358 From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 14:23:29 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:23:29 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170862 Here is what I think about Snape: In my opinion Severus Snape is a bad man. Many say that now he is not bad, but is a double agent. The interesting thing about double agents is that you never really know whose side they are truly on; or even more importantly if they are on any one side at all, preferring to use what they can from both sides until ultimately both sides cancel each other out leaving the double-double-crosser as the true victor. Throughout the novel Snape is repeatedly described as having bat- like and spider-like qualities. Bats are bloodsuckers, and arachnids spin webs to entrap their prey, once caught they are sucked dry of their innards until only a husk remains. These are the perfect descriptions for a man who has laid out webs of deceit all around him and uses those that he ensnares to achieve his goals. Snape can easily lie to the entire Order of the Phoenix. He only had to fool one member. With Dumbledore backing him, the other members blindly accepted Snape and everything he did without question, wrongfully assuming that their all-knowing leader knew best. I think that this is why J. K. Rowling makes a point for Dumbledore to inform Harry that he makes mistakes. To banish the notion that he is somehow more than just a man. Fooling Dumbledore could have been as easy as tugging on his heartstrings ? The Dark Lord, however, is another matter. "The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody 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." (Order of the Phoenix; Occlumency, p531) During this conversation with Harry, it seems obvious that Snape is talking about himself. Never one to pass up an opportunity to "toot his own horn" Snape implies that he has the power to lie to the face of the Dark Lord. This also applies to Dumbledore; if Snape can utter falsehoods to Voldemort you could also argue that he can lie to Dumbledore. Intricate webs wonderfully weaved though they might have a tendency of coming unraveled. I think it no mistake that Snape lives at Spinner's End. The imagery speaks for itself. However, titling the Chapter "Spinner's End" evokes a dual meaning: The end of the Spinner ? The end of the web. It is in this chapter that Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow with Narcissa. "And, should it prove necessary if it seems Draco will fail " whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), "will you carry out the dead that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" There was a moment's silence. Bellatrix watched, her wand upon their clasped hands, her eyes wide. "I will," said Snape. (Half Blood Prince, Spinner's End, p36-37) It is at this point that Snape has been forced off his fence, where he has been happy to sit and watch the world move around him. Snape's hand twitches and he pauses. His hesitancy shows he understands that he may regret this decision. But he was backed into a corner. Showing his intentions to be anything other than for the Dark Lord and the protection of his own, especially in front of Bellatrix would certainly have meant his death. I think Phineas Nigellus puts it best in Order of the Phoenix; "We Slytherin's are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." (p494-495) This notion fits Snape to a "T" in two moments, the reason he makes the promise in the first place, and then when he finally has to kill Dumbledore. Throughout the novel J. K. Rowling makes certain to let you know that Snape has no idea what Draco's task is. I am certain that he did not expect the murder of Dumbledore to be a task that the Dark Lord would have given a child. When it becomes clear that Draco is too much of a child still to make up his mind to commit murder, Snape would rather kill than die himself. It could seem that there is a possibility that Snape was still working with Dumbledore and his death was planned. However, when we hear Slughorn's description of how one makes a horcrux it seems clear that this cannot be. 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 advantage: He would encase the torn portion (Half Blood Prince, Horcruxes, p498) To intentionally kill someone causes so much damage to your soul that it tears apart. It would not be in Dumbledore's character to ask this of Snape. Dumbledore's been trying to keep Snape away from the Defense Against the Dark Arts position for years because of his fear that it would tempt Snape back to the dark side. It doesn't seem very likely that Dumbledore would risk Snape's mortal soul. He trusted and protected a man who kills him in cold blood. "Severus " The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. "Severus please " Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. (Half Blood Prince, The Lightning Struck Tower, p595-596) The sound of his hero and protector pleading is even more frightening to Harry than facing an army of bewitched corpse- puppets. None of this moves Snape in the slightest. No longer able to ride the fence, Snape makes the ultimate decision to ally himself with the seemingly stronger faction. A faction not led by wounded old men. He goes on to toy with and torment Harry as he runs for freedom. Mocking Harry's father as he deflects spell after spell. He shows that even after killing a weak and beaten Dumbledore that he can be as cruel as ever. If this were true then why would he save Harry's life over the course of all the books (i.e. while being jinxed by Quirrell), or more recently during his flee from the school? Was it because he is so loyal to the Dark Lord that he would ensure the boy's survival just so Voldemort could kill him? Or is it because of something more? We know that Harry is a powerful wizard untrained though he might be. There is also no doubt that many in the book see this as something he was born with. This may be true, however, what if his strength came from the events that happened at Godric's Hollow? We know that Harry did not die because his mother sacrificed herself to protect him ? a protection that lives in his blood and his skin still. We also know that Harry has some of the Dark Lord in him, something that was transferred into him when Voldemort's death curse backfired. Voldemort had just committed the act of murder when he attempted to kill Harry. This means that a part of his soul was torn, as Slughorn described. What if because of Lily's sacrifice this torn portion of Voldemort's soul was transferred into Harry? This would make Harry a Horcrux. We know after this last book that a Horcrux does not have to be confined to an object. "The Snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business." (p506) If it is inadvisable could this mean that the soul piece inside a living being can influence its container and be influenced? Couldn't the explanation of why Harry has some of Voldemort's abilities and strengths be because he is being influenced by the soul-shard that is inside him, just like the soul-shard of Tom Riddle in the diary influenced Ginny. The only thing that protects Harry from being consumed is the love and protection that runs in his veins. I believe that Snape sees that this is true, and quite possibly has always suspected that a part of the Dark Lord resides behind Harry's scar. In The Chamber of Secrets Snape tests his theory. He whispers the Serpensortia spell to Draco. When Harry responds to the snake in Parseltongue Snape has the proof. He looks "at Harry in an unexpected way: it was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." (The Dueling Club, p193-194) It seems clear that Snape has a plan for the power inside Harry, and knows and understands more about Harry's gifts than he is willing to let on to anyone. Up to this point Snape's motivations have been fueled by a want to be powerful, respected and feared. The way he treats the children of the school are a clear example. J. K. Rowling has said in an interview that Snape in a way is even more culpable for his actions than Voldemort because Snape was loved. She has also eluded in an interview that Snape may redeem himself in book 7. How can a man who is both culpable and possibly redeemable be innocent? Up to this point he is an evil manipulative horrid man who preys on innocent children and weaves a web of deceit and death where ever he goes. Harry Potter is a Horcrux and Snape is evil. This was originally posted in August 2005: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138754 From jojobinks1983 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 27 14:09:15 2007 From: jojobinks1983 at yahoo.co.uk (jojobinks1983) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:09:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170863 jojobinks1983: Anyone think that in defeating Grindewald Dumbledore may have magicked himself a Fawkes shaped Horcrux? From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 14:39:20 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:39:20 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170864 vmonte: Here is another interesting quote-- Albus Dumbledore HBP p510-511 "By attempting to kill you, Voldemort himself singled out the remarkable person who sits here in front of me, and gave him the tools for the job! It is Voldemort's fault that you were able to see into his thoughts, his ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike language in which he gives orders, and yet, Harry, despite your privileged insight into Voldemort's world (which, incidently, is a gift any Death Eater would kill to have), you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts, never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one of Voldemort's followers!" I think that Snape wants the power that is inside Harry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 27 15:04:56 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:04:56 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170865 vmonte: > Fooling Dumbledore could have been as easy as tugging on his > heartstrings ? The Dark Lord, however, is another matter. Magpie: So Dumbledore's a complete idiot and Voldemort has a better understanding of human nature? I don't think so. It's not so easy to fool Dumbledore. It can be done, of course, but so can fooling Voldemort. vmonte: > It is at this point that Snape has been forced off his fence, where > he has been happy to sit and watch the world move around him. > Snape's hand twitches and he pauses. His hesitancy shows he > understands that he may regret this decision. But he was backed into > a corner. Showing his intentions to be anything other than for the > Dark Lord and the protection of his own, especially in front of > Bellatrix would certainly have meant his death. I think Phineas > Nigellus puts it best in Order of the Phoenix; "We Slytherin's are > brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will > always choose to save our own necks." (p494-495) This notion fits > Snape to a "T" in two moments, the reason he makes the promise in > the first place, and then when he finally has to kill Dumbledore. Magpie: How does it fit Snape to a T there at all? Snape is entering a suicide pact--that hardly saves his own neck. If he wanted to stay on the fence he should have stayed there. Refusing to take a secret UV under the orders of Bellatrix Lestrange is not showing his intentions to be something other than pro-Voldemort. A loyal DE could easily have refused the Vow. I think most of them would have. Perhaps all of them. Snape's choosing to put his neck on the line there, not saving it. And he's not doing it on Voldemort's orders. Voldemort wants Draco to kill Dumbledore (or more accurately, to die trying). vmonte: > Throughout the novel J. K. Rowling makes certain to let you know > that Snape has no idea what Draco's task is. I am certain that he > did not expect the murder of Dumbledore to be a task that the Dark > Lord would have given a child. When it becomes clear that Draco is > too much of a child still to make up his mind to commit murder, > Snape would rather kill than die himself. It could seem that there > is a possibility that Snape was still working with Dumbledore and > his death was planned. However, when we hear Slughorn's description > of how one makes a horcrux it seems clear that this cannot be. Magpie: JKR does not make it clear at all that Snape has no idea what Draco's plan is. He seems to know perfectly well to me all along. Dumbledore knows too. What's more everyone knows that Voldemort is not giving the task of killing Dumbledore to a child. Voldemort's trying to get Draco killed. That he's unqualified is part of the point, as Snape himself knows. Also, although you may not have meant it, you seem to be associating not making up one's mind to be a murderer with being a child--I think Draco realizing he doesn't want to be a murderer or "is not a killer" is a step towards his being an adult, not a step that keeps him a child. vmonte: > To intentionally kill someone causes so much damage to your soul > that it tears apart. It would not be in Dumbledore's character to > ask this of Snape. Magpie: It would seem that way, which is why I have no idea how Snape can be DDM and do that--I'll have to wait for an explanation if it's to come. But it's also not in Snape's character as you've described it here to take a UV. Why would he sit on the fence and play Dumbledore and Voldemort together and then randomly hop off for bit-player baddie Bellatrix Lestrange? vmonte: > "Severus " > The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all > evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. > Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and > hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. > "Severus please " > Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. (Half > Blood Prince, The Lightning Struck Tower, p595-596) > > The sound of his hero and protector pleading is even more > frightening to Harry than facing an army of bewitched corpse- > puppets. None of this moves Snape in the slightest. Magpie: His look of hatred and revulsion seems to show Snape is moved. The question, one which Harry doesn't know the answer to either, is by what. Why is Dumbledore' pleading, exactly? What is he pleading with Snape for? Not to kill him? Why would he think he's going to kill him if he thinks Snape's his ally and he just walked into the room? Pleading to save him--that's an odd change from the cocky Dumbledore we saw a moment ago. Why go to pieces and plead to be saved just because Snape's entered the room? Why not say something like, "Severus, it seems we have guests..." If DD believes Snape's on his side, he doesn't need to plead with him to want to save him. vmonte: No longer able > to ride the fence, Snape makes the ultimate decision to ally himself > with the seemingly stronger faction. A faction not led by wounded > old men. He goes on to toy with and torment Harry as he runs for > freedom. Mocking Harry's father as he deflects spell after spell. He > shows that even after killing a weak and beaten Dumbledore that he > can be as cruel as ever. Magpie: He doesn't seem cruel to Harry at all to me in that scene. He's not mocking Harry about his father, he's furiously spewing out his own anger at Harry's father--Harry's trying to use James' spells against him just like his father did. He also howls like a dog in a burning house. He sounds emotional to me. vmonte: It seems clear that > Snape has a plan for the power inside Harry, and knows and > understands more about Harry's gifts than he is willing to let on to > anyone. Up to this point Snape's motivations have been fueled by a > want to be powerful, respected and feared. Magpie: He seems to want those things, but all his actions don't seem to be motivated by them alone to me. I don't really see where Snape's doing anything to use Harry's gifts or get at any power inside him. In fact, it seems like he's undermined his best chances to do that for six years, if that's what he wanted. He should have taken some lessons from Diary!Tom on how one does that. -m From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 15:28:28 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:28:28 -0000 Subject: Feedback wanted: Final and Ultimate Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170866 Hi folks, I've been working on the compulsory questions section, and I have two questions that assume that Hogwarts reopens as a school, irrespective of whether or not Harry attends as a student. Here's my question: do you guys think Hogwarts will reopen as a school? OOH, there has been a threat that they might close down the school as early as the second book (when the basilisk was loose,) that has been reiterated in several of the books. OTOH, would Hogwarts really close down, leaving Ginny, Colin Creevey, and all the other kids <17 yo uneducated? Should I have two "alternate" questions in the compulsory section JIC Hogwarts does not reopen? I'm planning on finalizing the questions in the next couple days. Power up those crystal balls for the Last and Ultimate Bragging Rights Contest! TK -- TigerPatronus! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 15:37:00 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:37:00 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170867 > vmonte: > The interesting thing about double > agents is that you never really know whose side they are truly on; > or even more importantly if they are on any one side at all, > preferring to use what they can from both sides until ultimately > both sides cancel each other out leaving the double-double-crosser > as the true victor. zgirnius: The people managing said agent can make educated guesses, of course. We know somewhat less than Dumbledore and Voldemort in this case, making it even harder for us to tell, hence the debate. The difficulty of determining the loyalites of a double agent, if any, does not mean that individual double agents do not have them. > vmonte: > Throughout the novel Snape is repeatedly described as having bat- > like and spider-like qualities. zgirnius: Ah, the beauties of symbolism as a tool for literearty analysis... > vmonte: > Bats are bloodsuckers, zgirnius: Actually, the majority of bat species are not bloodsuckers, they eat fruits and insects (like mosquitos, thus making bats beneficial to humans in many cases). > vmonte: > and arachnids spin webs to entrap their prey, once caught they are > sucked dry of their innards until only a husk remains. zgirnius: As a meat-eater myself, I don't find I can object to this activity of spiders. At least they don't then wear the remaining husk. The thing about bat and spider imagery is that, while they do have the association you name with darkness and evil, they are also rather classic examples of misunderstood creatures (the claim that bats are blooksuckers, for example). Which makes them a brilliant choice for Snape - we see the images, but we cannot be sure which way we should take them. Does Rowling use them because Snape is evil, or because Snape's forbidding exterior makes people around him think he is, while he actually serves a beneficial function? The answer (for the next three weeks or so) is in the eye of the beholder. > vmonte: > Fooling Dumbledore could have been as easy as tugging on his > heartstrings ? The Dark Lord, however, is another matter. zgirnius: Young Tom Riddle did not manage, and he seems to have been far more personable and charismatic than Snape is. > vmonte: > During this conversation with Harry, it seems obvious that Snape is > talking about himself. Never one to pass up an opportunity to "toot > his own horn" Snape implies that he has the power to lie to the face > of the Dark Lord. zgirnius: I did rather take it this way. It seems to me that the only way he would know this is if he has actually done so - if he lied to Voldemort and got away with it. > vmonte: > It is at this point that Snape has been forced off his fence, where > he has been happy to sit and watch the world move around him. > Snape's hand twitches and he pauses. His hesitancy shows he > understands that he may regret this decision. But he was backed into > a corner. Showing his intentions to be anything other than for the > Dark Lord and the protection of his own, especially in front of > Bellatrix would certainly have meant his death. zgirnius: If your last statement is true, then DDM!Snape could act no differently. Whatever his loyalties, it implies his taking of the Vow delayed his death. > vmonte: > To intentionally kill someone causes so much damage to your soul > that it tears apart. It would not be in Dumbledore's character to > ask this of Snape. zgirnius: No, it is not intentional killing that does this, it is murder. Whether Snape's action, done at Dumbledore's specific request, is a murder is not at all clear. We may have our different opinions about it. What matters is what this all means in the Potterverse, something that has not been made explicit to date. > vmonte: > Dumbledore's been trying to keep Snape away from > the Defense Against the Dark Arts position for years because of his > fear that it would tempt Snape back to the dark side. zgirnius: There is the small matter of the curse on that teaching position, which might be the explanation as well. > vmonte: > The sound of his hero and protector pleading is even more > frightening to Harry than facing an army of bewitched corpse- > puppets. None of this moves Snape in the slightest. zgirnius: But it does. Snape shows emotion on the Tower, in the very scene you quote. Even more so later, when he is compared to the dog trapped in the burning house. > vmonte: > J. K. Rowling has said in an interview that Snape in a way is even > more culpable for his actions than Voldemort because Snape was > loved. She has also eluded in an interview that Snape may redeem > himself in book 7. How can a man who is both culpable and possibly > redeemable be innocent? zgirnius: The DDM! position is not that he is innocent, but that he is innocent of the murder of Dumbledore, and of working for his own or Voldemort's nefarious ends during the time of Harry's attendance at Hogwarts. He is surely guilty of having been a Death Eater, and ofwhatever crimes he committed as one, including the bringing of the prophecy to Voldemort. > vmonte: > Harry Potter is a Horcrux and Snape is evil. zgirnius: I give the first statement even odds. The second I find unlikely. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 15:39:43 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:39:43 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170868 >I wrote: Fooling Dumbledore could have been as easy as tugging on his heartstrings ? The Dark Lord, however, is another matter. >Magpie wrote: So Dumbledore's a complete idiot and Voldemort has a better understanding of human nature? I don't think so. It's not so easy to fool Dumbledore. It can be done, of course, but so can fooling Voldemort. vmonte: Lol, that's not what I said. Voldemort is not a trusting man like Dumbledore. It's harder to trick someone who trusts no one, right? > I wrote: > It is at this point that Snape has been forced off his fence, where > he has been happy to sit and watch the world move around him. > Snape's hand twitches and he pauses. His hesitancy shows he > understands that he may regret this decision. But he was backed into > a corner. Showing his intentions to be anything other than for the > Dark Lord and the protection of his own, especially in front of > Bellatrix would certainly have meant his death. I think Phineas > Nigellus puts it best in Order of the Phoenix; "We Slytherin's are > brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will > always choose to save our own necks." (p494-495) This notion fits > Snape to a "T" in two moments, the reason he makes the promise in > the first place, and then when he finally has to kill Dumbledore. >Magpie wrote: How does it fit Snape to a T there at all? Snape is entering a suicide pact--that hardly saves his own neck. If he wanted to stay on the fence he should have stayed there. Refusing to take a secret UV under the orders of Bellatrix Lestrange is not showing his intentions to be something other than pro-Voldemort. A loyal DE could easily have refused the Vow. I think most of them would have. Perhaps all of them. Snape's choosing to put his neck on the line there, not saving it. And he's not doing it on Voldemort's orders. Voldemort wants Draco to kill Dumbledore (or more accurately, to die trying). vmonte: He could not refuse the vow because Bella was ready to kill him if he did not. I think Snape had no clue as to what Draco was supposed to do. You really think that Voldemort told Snape of his plans for Draco? Don't you think Snape would have been more involved with Draco's plans at school if he was so trusted by Voldemort? I guess we will soon find out. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jun 27 15:40:11 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:40:11 -0000 Subject: Feedback wanted: Final and Ultimate Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I've been working on the compulsory questions section, and I have > two questions that assume that Hogwarts reopens as a school, > irrespective of whether or not Harry attends as a student. > > Here's my question: do you guys think Hogwarts will reopen as a > school? > > OOH, there has been a threat that they might close down the school > as early as the second book (when the basilisk was loose,) that has > been reiterated in several of the books. > > OTOH, would Hogwarts really close down, leaving Ginny, Colin > Creevey, and all the other kids <17 yo uneducated? > > Should I have two "alternate" questions in the compulsory section > JIC Hogwarts does not reopen? > > I'm planning on finalizing the questions in the next couple days. > Power up those crystal balls for the Last and Ultimate Bragging > Rights Contest! > > TK -- TigerPatronus! > Hickengruendler: I believe Hogwarts will reopen. The ending of HBP just feels that way for me, particularly the scene with the teachers in the Headmaster's office. I just don't think JKR would have included this scene and have the teachers talking about wanting to teach everyone, eho still wnats to come, if she didn't plan to reopen Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 15:55:37 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:55:37 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170871 >zgirnius wrote: Actually, the majority of bat species are not bloodsuckers, they eat fruits and insects (like mosquitos, thus making bats beneficial to humans in many cases). >I wrote: > and arachnids spin webs to entrap their prey, once caught they are > sucked dry of their innards until only a husk remains. >zgirnius wrote: As a meat-eater myself, I don't find I can object to this activity of spiders. At least they don't then wear the remaining husk. The thing about bat and spider imagery is that, while they do have the association you name with darkness and evil, they are also rather classic examples of misunderstood creatures (the claim that bats are blooksuckers, for example). Which makes them a brilliant choice for Snape - we see the images, but we cannot be sure which way we should take them. Does Rowling use them because Snape is evil, or because Snape's forbidding exterior makes people around him think he is, while he actually serves a beneficial function? The answer (for the next three weeks or so) is in the eye of the beholder. vmonte: Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and snuggly. When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone that has similar characteristics. Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe? From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 15:57:49 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] My current opinion of Snape (Longish) / Re: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <994268.35280.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170872 Sherry Gomes wrote: Leslie41: Yet Hermione does not seem to hate Snape. She does not precisely take his side, but she is able to step back. In book 1, she speaks approvingly of Snape's logic, a quality lacking in many wizards. In HBP she responds to Harry's loathing of Snape, and his disgust at Snape's first DADA lesson, with a very intelligent and well-observed commentary on both Snape and Harry. And Hermione's reaction to Snape has always been very balanced and clear-headed, perhaps far more than he deserves (for who can blame Harry, really, for hating him?). That more than anything makes me believe Snape is on the side of the Order. Sherry: <<>> Hermione strikes me as one of those people who just blithely believes a person in authority is good and is right, just because the person is in authority. I don't get the impression that she actually *thinks* about whether or not Snape is all the things Harry believes him to be. But to her, Snape is a teacher, and therefore, he must be good and he must be right. <<>> Sherry KATIE RESPONDS: I don't think Hermione blindly trusts authority figues...she never liked Trelawny, even though she is a teacher. Hermione never, ever trusted Dolores Umbridge, even though she was from the MoM, and she doesn't blindly trust Snape, either. In fact, she was often quite ready to believe Harry, until Harry has been proven wrong about Snape so many times that Harry's blind hatred seems to be the ONLY cause of his distrust of Snape. Only at the end of SS/PS does Hermione begin believing that Snape is good - because before that, she fully believed that Snape was trying to kill Harry. In PoA, she is one of the three who hit Snape with an expelliarmus spell to keep him from attacking Sirius - and while she did have a small meltdown about it, "We attacked a ateacher, we attacked a teacher...", she chooses standing by her friends over trusting a teacher. I do not think Hermione is some sort of sheep who blindly trusts authority figures. She has legitimate reasons for distrusting Harry's opinions about Snape, and she also has reasons that Snape is trustworthy...trying to save Harry from Quirrell, sending for help at the end of OotP, not to mention DD's trust of him, which (while currently debatable), seems to be good enough for all the adults. I just can't wait until we've all read Dh, and found out! ACK, I get so excited. Katie --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 16:09:44 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:09:44 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170873 Ok, this may have been covered already, and if so sorry, feel free not to comment... But basically, do you think the school will open for the next school year? If so, who will have the DADA position? Will Slughorn stay on for potions? Now that McGonagall is headmaster will she still teach, or will there need to be a new teacher for that class as well? I think the school will reopen. There might be limited attendance, but it will reopen. I'm not sure who will take the DADA position. What about Bill? Granted I have no clue if he would be able to teach but who knows. Maybe an Auror will teach the class kinda adjunct? Considering the times it IS time for DA style teaching. Who better than an auror for that? As for Transfiguration...that I'm up in the air about. Does the headmaster have to teach? Can she choose to still tach if she wants to? I think that she would go the latter route. But, if not how about Tonks? Ok just what's running through my head...(sorry if I spelt things wrong) TKJ :-) From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 16:12:31 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:12:31 -0000 Subject: Feedback wanted: Final and Ultimate Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170875 Hi folks, > > I've been working on the compulsory questions section, and I have > two questions that assume that Hogwarts reopens as a school, > irrespective of whether or not Harry attends as a student. > > Here's my question: do you guys think Hogwarts will reopen as a > school? vmonte: Can't we assume that the school will reopen since JKR mentioned in an interview that one of the students would end up teaching there? Lydon, Christopher. J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc2.htm#p24 Kathleen: Anyway, it's very exciting; we just love Harry Potter, so we're curious - well - first of all we can't wait for books four, five, six and seven [JKR: OK], but after that, we're curious as to whether Harry is going to have a life after Hogwarts? Or if maybe Harry might be a Hogwarts teacher? JKR: Erm, well, because all your kids said hello so nicely in the background there, I'm going to give you information I haven't given anyone else, and I will tell you that one of the characters - er - one of - one of Harry's class mates, though it's not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts, but it is not maybe the one you'd think - hint, hint, hint! So, yes one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but - erm ... Lydon: Does the kids want to have a guess at it, Kathleen? Kathleen: Do you like to have a guess at who it is? Class: Ron Kathleen: They say Ron ... JKR: Noooo - it's not Ron ... Kathleen: [to class] it's not Ron ... JKR: ... because I can't see Ron as a teacher, no way. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 27 16:46:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:46:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: <9944201.1182962783054.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170876 From: amis917 >I also always think of Jayne Meadows as The Queen of Hearts in my >favorite 1985 TV version of Alice in Wonerland for Umbridge. The queen >may be a bit too evil up front with her constant shouting of "Off with >their heads!" (no sugary cover-up) but when she invites Alice to play >croquet ever so sweetly, it is very Umbridge. The way she sounds so >sweet, but could really snap on you at any moment. Bart: Betty White, as Sue Ann Nivens in THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, demonstrated how sugar-coated evil could be done, convincingly. The problem with that character as Umbridge is that Umbridge had a certain amount of cluenessness; Umbridge is the kind of person who would react to the Columbine shootings by banning the wearing of trench coats (OT explanation: For those who are not familiar, there were a couple of disaffected students who brought guns to their high school and shot a number of students, and had set up bombs to blow up even more; luckily the bombs didn't go off. The students belonged to a larger group who wore a "uniform", partially consisting of trench coats. A number of high schools reacted to the incident by BANNING TRENCH COATS, which became a symbol of clueless reactions). But there is an actress who can be both motherly AND evil at the same time: Angela Lansbury. I would mix her performances as the villainous, domineering mother in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE with her slightly clueless witch/child caretaker in BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS. Bart From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 16:48:16 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:48:16 -0000 Subject: Predictions... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170877 Confrontation w/Dursleys. Most likely in first 3 chapters IMO. Wedding. Since Bill works at Gringotts, some goblins may attend. And Veelas from Fleur's side. Harry may get some bank-business done, as I think this day is also Harry's Coming Of Age- Day. So just how much is Black-heritage added to Potter-heritage? Harry was rich before, now he's doubly rich. Also, I'd like to see Harry going shopping for a gift... or does he just send Hedwig with the order? I also suspect that this wedding will produce offspring... to be delivered by the end of the book - so Fleur is one of the survivors... As for the "Harry's Scar"... Nothing was left to remind them of Lord Voldemort - not even Harry's Scar. (Or change nothing for only one thing... and take 'not even' off.) Or. The baby touched Harry's Scar. OR, in an Epilogue ... and Ron ended up owning a pub called Harry's Scar. From chnc1024 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 16:53:24 2007 From: chnc1024 at yahoo.com (Chancie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:53:24 -0000 Subject: Feedback wanted: Final and Ultimate Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > I've been working on the compulsory questions section, and I have > two questions that assume that Hogwarts reopens as a school, > irrespective of whether or not Harry attends as a student. > > Here's my question: do you guys think Hogwarts will reopen as a > school? > > OOH, there has been a threat that they might close down the school > as early as the second book (when the basilisk was loose,) that has > been reiterated in several of the books. > > OTOH, would Hogwarts really close down, leaving Ginny, Colin > Creevey, and all the other kids <17 yo uneducated? > > Should I have two "alternate" questions in the compulsory section > JIC Hogwarts does not reopen? > > I'm planning on finalizing the questions in the next couple days. > Power up those crystal balls for the Last and Ultimate Bragging > Rights Contest! > > TK -- TigerPatronus! > Chancie: I definatly think Hogwarts WILL reopen, just as other's have said, JKR told us some one will become a teacher there, but I suppose it is possible that it may be closed at some point durring the year, but it will eventually have to reopen. I think it's completely up to you as to whether or not you want to do alternate questions, but you could do as before, and if the question becomes n/a, just award full points for the test. By the way, I'd be happy to help with the contest again if you can use my help! From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 16:59:43 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:59:43 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170879 "Kelly": > > > I was re-reading the books to get ready for next month and something > stood out to me that I didn't think of before. In GOF, when Harry is > trapped in the office with fake-Moody, Snape's face shows in the foe > glass. Now, this may be nothing, but if Snape were really a Death > Eater, wouldn't he be friend, not foe, to Barty Jr.? Finwitch: That depends on how the "foe glass" works, actually Barty Jr. did not own them, nor the Dark Detectors. As you'll recall, the Dark Detectors were continously going off... because Barty Jr. was REALLY untrustworthy to Alastor Moody (who did own them). Maybe it shows the enemy of the one looking into it - much like the Mirror of Erised... It shows Snape to Harry. Because he thinks Snape as enemy or because Snape IS the enemy? OR who Moody thinks is the enemy? (Alastor doesn't trust Snape, does he?) Maybe the Foe Glass says as little truth of your enemies as Mirror of Erised. Question: Why Did the DA not see Umbridge in a Foe Glass? Finwitch From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 27 17:07:50 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:07:50 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170880 > Finwitch: > > That depends on how the "foe glass" works, actually Barty Jr. did not > own them, nor the Dark Detectors. As you'll recall, the Dark Detectors > were continously going off... because Barty Jr. was REALLY > untrustworthy to Alastor Moody (who did own them). > > Maybe it shows the enemy of the one looking into it - much like the > Mirror of Erised... It shows Snape to Harry. Because he thinks Snape > as enemy or because Snape IS the enemy? > OR who Moody thinks is the enemy? (Alastor doesn't trust Snape, does he?) colebiancardi: as another poster wisely pointed out to me, it not only shows Snape, but Dumbledore & McGonagall. So, why would DD or MM be enemies to Real!Moody? Doesn't make sense.... I asked this same question last week about the foeglass, and I believe it was carol who mentioned all of this. my original post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170605 carol's answer (very nicely done, BTW) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170616 colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 17:11:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:11:59 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170881 > vmonte: > > Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person > that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big > teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and > snuggly. > > When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is > spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone that > has similar characteristics. > > Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe? > Alla: Well, I suppose the answer is that JKR may use those images as red herrings, you know? But I understand what you mean - sort of subconscious reaction, yes? I don't know. I can totally see Zara's argument and I can add to it as well. Sure, images of bats and spiders do not associate in my mind with something nice and sweet, *but* on subconscious level they do not repulse me either, truly they do not. I mean, I am sure there are plenty of people who are repulsed by them, but for me - if you want me to run screaming show me cockroach, lol. That is why I can see how this imagery can be a red herring. Or like for example Lupin, you know? Werewolf, enough said. I have an image of sweet, kind man, nothing more than that. I don't know, images and looks of the characters in Potterverse sometimes give me strange reaction as I mentioned in another thread. So, what I am trying to say is that for the most part my reaction about the characters in Potterverse is not based on what images they are associated with, if that makes sense. Although I guess Voldie's reborned image is very ugly, so that would probably be an exception. Like Sirius' looks would have left me cold and indifferent, LOL, and I adore his character. If you want to see my type of looks, take a look at the new James Bond Nobody in Potterverse really matches it, even my favorite characters, but I love them anyways :) Alla. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 27 17:31:56 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:31:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) Message-ID: <17371420.1182965517022.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170882 From: Kemper >Kemper now: >I don't think the issue with readers who are in the Harry-can't-kill >boat are concerned with Harry becoming a murderer. > >We (I'm in that boat) don't want to see our hero become a killer not >because killing is bad because obviously sometimes it's good, but >because we want Harry to hold onto his last bit of innocence. Bart: Harry's ALREADY killed Morty once, by destroying the diary. This is not being facetious; I can visualize Morty about to die, and Harry offering to save him, but Morty refuses, falsely believing himself to be still protected by one or more of his horcruxes. Unfortunately for Morty, they've all been destroyed. Oops! Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 17:52:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:52:53 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170883 > > vmonte: > > Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person > > that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big > > teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and > > snuggly. zgirnius: Note Rowling writes Snape as a person that is associated with bat and spider imagery. It is *you* who insist that the relevant characteristic of these animals is malice. > > vmonte: > > When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is > > spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone > that > > has similar characteristics. zgirnius: Exactly! Bats are not malicious. They make up 20% of all mammalian species, and are vital to variuous ecosystems. They are primary pollinators of tropical fruit trees, and the biggest consumers of insects in most environments. So why should I conclude that Snape being batlike means Snape is malicious? This could have another meaning. For example, bats are nocturnal, and Snape seems to be too. He is active at night, we can think of tons of instances of this: PS/SS, the meeting with Quirrell in the Forest, PoA, the Shack scenes, GoF, the 'pajama party', HBP "Spinner's End", his argument with Dumbledore in the forest, and probably more. Bats do have an unsavory reputation in Western mythology, being associated with vampires, etc, but this is in contrast to their true natures. (This is not universal, in Chinese culture they are associated with longevity and good fortune). The European bat/vampire link, ironically, is older than European discovery of the three species of bloodsucking bats, which only live in Central and South America. No European species have this characteristic. If Snape is DDM!, this would make bat imagery *perfect* for him: he seems/is believed to be 'evil' but isn't, just like the bats. Or it could be a straightforward reference to evil bats as you suggest, but *it does not have to be*. Bats are an ambiguous symbol, perfect for a character Rowling is workimg hard to keep ambiguous (at least, that is what I am utterly convinced she is doing to date...) > > vmonte: > > Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe? zgirnius: She does not, and I never said she did. Snape swoops about at night like an overgrown bat, going about his DDM! business, as far as I am concerned. Spiders are also an ambiguous symbol. There is a European superstition that one should not kill a spider found in one's house, for example, because they bring good luck. They are associated with weaving (the craft/profession), which is highly useful, seeing as it provides us with warm clothes to wear and blankets to snuggle under. They are also used as an example of patience/persistence (as in the myth that Robert the Bruce was inspired to continue his struggle for Scottish Independence by watching a spider repeatedly failing to weave a web before achieving success). I personally tolerate them because they eat the other creepy crawlies in my house. They do also have negative connotations, as you point out. So again, why must I conclude that it is the negative connotation that applies to Snape? DDM!Snape is patient and persistent and crafty, but if he is trying to deceive Voldemort because helping to defeat him is the right thing to do, I have no problem with that. > Alla: > Well, I suppose the answer is that JKR may use those images as red > herrings, you know? zgirnius: That's not really my point. While I have definite (and oft stated ) views on Snape, it is also my opinion that Rowling has worked to keep him ambiguous, so that no side of the debate has any conclusive evidence at this point. In light of this view, I think she chose the symbols she uses for Snape deliberately with that end in mind - they, like Snape, are ambiguous. When we have DH in our hot little hands, only then will we be able to say (I sincerely hope) 'oh, he is malicious and poisonous and deceitful like a bat/spider' (ESE!/OFH!) or 'oh, he has an off- putting exterior but serves a necessary and beneficial function in the story/has positive traits just like bats/spiders do'. > Alla: > If you want to see my type of looks, take a look at the new James > Bond zgirnius: *swoons* I guess the closest I can think of would be Ludo Bagman (in the first war, and at the height of his Quidditch career, not now). But a much less appealing character, for sure. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jun 27 17:55:21 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:55:21 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Horcrux Message-ID: <26322640.1182966921854.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170884 From: jojobinks1983 >Anyone think that in defeating Grindewald Dumbledore may have magicked >himself a Fawkes shaped Horcrux? Bart: Not no way, not no how. First of all, there is NO evidence that Dumbledore murdered Grindewald. Second of all, creating a horcrux is NOT just a matter of committing a murder. It's a willingness to lose a piece of one's own soul. In general, the only kind of person who could do that is someone who is so out of touch with their own soul that they don't even miss its absence; in other words, a sociopath or psychopath. Dumbledore is neither. Would you become immortal if the price was that you would contract Alzheimers Disease? When you create a horcrux, you may be harder to kill, but you are no longer you, unless you were essentially soulless to begin with. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 18:09:49 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:09:49 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170885 > >>vmonte: > > Fooling Dumbledore could have been as easy as tugging on his > > heartstrings ? The Dark Lord, however, is another matter. > >>Magpie: > > So Dumbledore's a complete idiot and Voldemort has a better > > understanding of human nature? I don't think so. It's not so easy > > to fool Dumbledore. It can be done, of course, but so can fooling > > Voldemort. > >>vmonte: > Lol, that's not what I said. Voldemort is not a trusting man like > Dumbledore. It's harder to trick someone who trusts no one, right? Betsy Hp: Actually, it really is what you said. You claim fooling Dumbledore is easy: just tug on his heart strings. (Which totally ignores that big-eyed orphan, Tom Riddle, who wrapped everyone around his finger *except* for Dumbledore. ) So you *do* seem to be saying that Dumbledore is an easily manipulated fool. And you're saying that Voldemort doesn't trust anyone. Which ignores helpless baby Voldemort in Peter Pettigrew's arms. Even evil lords' of over have to trust sometimes. They just don't do so easily or consistently. So you really do seem to be implying that Voldemort has a deeper understanding of human nature and can better judge who to trust (even if only for short intervals) than Dumbledore. > >>vmonte: He could not refuse the vow because Bella was ready to > kill him if he did not. Betsy Hp: Canon please! > >>vmonte: > I think Snape had no clue as to what Draco was supposed to do. You > really think that Voldemort told Snape of his plans for Draco? > Don't you think Snape would have been more involved with Draco's > plans at school if he was so trusted by Voldemort? > Betsy Hp: I agree with Magpie that Snape knew Voldemort's plan for Draco. I think the scene in Spinner's End makes that clear (though I recognize how others might disagree). Snape *tried* to be more involved with Draco's plans at school. It's *Draco* who mistrusted Snape, not Voldemort. Draco kept Snape out. > >>zgirnius: > > > The thing about bat and spider imagery is that, while they do have > the association you name with darkness and evil, they are also > rather classic examples of misunderstood creatures (the claim that > bats are blooksuckers, for example). Which makes them a brilliant > choice for Snape - we see the images, but we cannot be sure which > way we should take them. Does Rowling use them because Snape is > evil, or because Snape's forbidding exterior makes people around > him think he is, while he actually serves a beneficial function? > > >>vmonte: > Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person > that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big > teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and > snuggly. > When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is > spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone > that has similar characteristics. > Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe? Betsy Hp: Um, who's trying to claim JKR is using descriptors that aren't meant to describe? What zgirnius is saying (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the descriptors *used* are themselves ambiguous. Like snakes, bats and spiders can be used in both positive and negative ways. Yes, no one would think JKR used spider imagry when she was really going for teddy bear. But is she using the spider imagery in a positive or negative fashion? Killer or healer? Evil or good? Which, as zgirnius points out, makes it a perfect image for our dear Snape. > >>Alla: > Well, I suppose the answer is that JKR may use those images as red > herrings, you know? > Betsy Hp: I don't think they'll be red herrings in that they direct you in the wrong way. I think the descriptors will fit, it's just what they're defining will become clearer, if that makes sense. Just as, however Snape is revealed, his actions won't have changed, they'll just be understood differently. Like that hexed broom scene in PS/SS. Betsy Hp (who thinks JKR may be going more for Athena's spider than Tolkien's) From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 18:11:50 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:11:50 -0000 Subject: Feedback wanted: Final and Ultimate Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170886 Thanks for the feedback, y'all. I think Hw will reopen, too. I wrote 2 alternate questions to be used in place of the Hw q's in the event that it doesn't reopen, though they are a bit lame, IMHO. I figure that those alternates could be used as tiebreakers. And Chancie, you bet I'll need Minions! I don't even want to describe my life right now. It would take too long, and I don't have time to even type it. However, I cannot give up participating in HPdom on the advent of the very last HP book. Sometimes, you gotta get your priorities straight. Thanks to all, TK -- TigerPatronus! --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chancie" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I've been working on the compulsory questions section, and I have > > two questions that assume that Hogwarts reopens as a school, > > irrespective of whether or not Harry attends as a student. > > > > Here's my question: do you guys think Hogwarts will reopen as a > > school? > > > > OOH, there has been a threat that they might close down the school > > as early as the second book (when the basilisk was loose,) that has > > been reiterated in several of the books. > > > > OTOH, would Hogwarts really close down, leaving Ginny, Colin > > Creevey, and all the other kids <17 yo uneducated? > > > > Should I have two "alternate" questions in the compulsory section > > JIC Hogwarts does not reopen? > > > > I'm planning on finalizing the questions in the next couple days. > > Power up those crystal balls for the Last and Ultimate Bragging > > Rights Contest! > > > > TK -- TigerPatronus! > > > > > > Chancie: > > I definatly think Hogwarts WILL reopen, just as other's have said, > JKR told us some one will become a teacher there, but I suppose it is > possible that it may be closed at some point durring the year, but it > will eventually have to reopen. I think it's completely up to you as > to whether or not you want to do alternate questions, but you could > do as before, and if the question becomes n/a, just award full points > for the test. > > By the way, I'd be happy to help with the contest again if you can > use my help! > From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 18:12:35 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:12:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470706271112h7fdff22fs24075aabdbe8cafe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170887 I'm a little confused about what Snape heard of the prophecy. Professor Trelawny remembers seeing Snape but she doesn't remember giving the prophecy. I assume this means she had to see him after she came out of her trance. So how could Snape only hear the first half of the prophecy if he's there at the end? Did Trelawny give the prophecy in 2 parts with Snape's interruption in the middle? Or did the barkeep distract Snape so that he only heard part of it? mjanetd ----------------------------------- (Reply) Jeremiah: I was wondering the same thing. However, what we know is Snape told Voldemort that the one who can "vanquish" him will be born at the end of July. So, he heard the first half. That's what is clear. But then he was thrownn out and I would think that it was the barkeep (Aberforth? that's who i think the barkeep is) and possibly others interrupted Snape's evesdropping and ejected him from the building. However, having said that, if Snape was there throughout the entire prophesy then he has a chance to extract the memory, drop it into the Pensive and move into the room to hear the entire prophesy for himself. That would make him dangerous to all the plans Dumbledore may have had, assuming Snape would tell Voldemort everything. Just my thoughts on it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 27 18:50:28 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:50:28 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > > > Ken wrote: > > Would you defend this practice if it were common, for example, to > > Americanize Bach's works with notes and chords and rhythms that > > sounded more familiar to American ears? The very notion is hideous. I > > find it just at bad that written language is subjected to this > > treatment. > > Montavilla47 > Well, I don't tend to mind if they translate the German words > to American English when they sing it. > Ken: Even there I'd rather hear the German songs in German, the Latin in Latin. Those of the Islamic faith say that you cannot appreciate the poetic artistry of the Koran unless you read it in Arabic. I find music to be the same, the sonic artistry the composer put into the lyrics depends on the language they were written in. Changing the language loses something. I don't mind having a program with the English translations and I would suggest to Scholastic and all the others that this is the model they should follow. If they feel that British words need explaining to an American audience, put them in footnotes! Maybe that's unusual in children's books, maybe it shouldn't be. Let me hear what the author wrote. "Lo, How A Rose E'er Blooming" is a fine, fine Christmas Carol. But when Music of the Baroque sing "Es ist ein Ros ent?sprung?en" as one of the two traditional encores at their annual Christmas concert the German lyrics take it to another level. It gives me goosebumps just sitting here remembering it. Of course the Messiah does too and I cannot imagine that it would be improved by singing it in German. I don't know that every word Rowling writes is as finely crafted as all that. I only know that Reader, not Publisher's Policy, should have the opportunity to make that call. Ken From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 27 18:53:51 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:53:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jojobinks1983" wrote: > > jojobinks1983: > Anyone think that in defeating Grindewald Dumbledore may have magicked > himself a Fawkes shaped Horcrux? Geoff: In addition to Bart's argument against this, Dumbledore's own comments should be considered: '"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business."' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.473 UK edition) I don't think, in a situation like that, Dumbledore is into risky... From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 27 18:54:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:54:44 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170890 > >Magpie wrote: > So Dumbledore's a complete idiot and Voldemort has a better > understanding of human nature? I don't think so. It's not so easy to > fool Dumbledore. It can be done, of course, but so can fooling > Voldemort. > > vmonte: > Lol, that's not what I said. Voldemort is not a trusting man like > Dumbledore. It's harder to trick someone who trusts no one, right? Magpie: Not necessarily, no. I don't think so. Tricking someone doesn't have to rely on that person trusting you. You can trick a person by relying on other aspects of their personality--greed, vanity, fear. I'd guess that of the two it would be easier to trick Voldemort because of the idea that evil lacks imagination. But I wouldn't really say Dumbledore is always trusting either. He has no confidantes and often keeps important information to himself. He never trusted Tom Riddle where others have. > vmonte: He could not refuse the vow because Bella was ready to kill > him if he did not. Magpie: Bellatrix wasn't ready to kill him that we saw, and if she tried Snape was probably just as ready to defend himself. Where is there a moment where Snape's shown being forced to take the Vow because otherwise he will die? I think that would change the story quite a bit, thematically. I think Snape's really making a Vow of his own free choice. vmonte: I think Snape had no clue as to what Draco was > supposed to do. You really think that Voldemort told Snape of his > plans for Draco? Don't you think Snape would have been more involved > with Draco's plans at school if he was so trusted by Voldemort? Magpie: However Snape knew (he says Voldemort told him, but we didn't see it), yes, I think Snape knew what Draco was supposed to do. So did Dumbledore. Why would Snape knowing that Draco is supposed to kill Dumbledore mean that Snape would be more involved with Draco's plans at school? It's Draco that keeps him out of his plans personally. Snape isn't part of Lord Voldemort's plans there that we know of. Even if Snape didn't know the task in Spinner's End, which I think he did (and it would be even more silly of him to take the Vow if he didn't know what he was supposed to do), he surely would have to find out quickly enough once he was at school. Dumbledore knows the truth behind all of Draco's actions and Snape reacts to them as if he does too. vmonte: Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and snuggly. When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone that has similar characteristics. Magpie: But Snape can look and move like those creatures without working for Voldemort. Whether or not bats or spiders are malicious, Snape's personality has been shown to be so--that is, we see him being vicious to people, we even know he was a Death Eater, we know he invented a deadly spell. That just doesn't mean he must be working for LV. Barty Crouch was quite nice to Harry and Peter's a sychophant, but they both work for LV. -m (thinking it's interesting how JKR's personal favorite animals are mustelidae, some of whom have negative connotations, yet isn't always sure which way we're meant to take all the mustelidae imagery in the books.) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 19:02:04 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:02:04 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (1 of 2) (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170891 > Ann: > > This is because in my opinion a plot is neither "a sequence of events > > in a fictional work", nor is it necessary for a work. My personal and > > idiosyncratic definition of a plot is "The sequence of events in a > > work resulting mainly from the protagonist/s's actions, other > > characters' reactions, and the setting ? as opposed to events > > programmed by the author, the narrator's choice of what to narrate, > > and so on ? which are visible to the reader and directed towards > > reaching the work's most important narrative strand". > > Pippin: > According to your definition, if I understand it correctly, almost > no mystery or detective fiction would have a plot. The action is > usually driven by the villain. He always controls events > and knows more about what is going on than the main > character does, at least until the villain is revealed and his > plots are foiled. > Neri adds: Not only that, but by the above definition all of Jane Austen's romans, for example, have even less of a plot than the HP series, since all of Austen's heroines are extremely "passive" by Ann's standards, and of course Austen herself is The Master of carefully "programmed" events. Now, many of Austen's haters would probably agree wholeheartedly that she doesn't carry any plots , but at least JKR is in good company here. Neri From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 19:29:51 2007 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:29:51 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties-Response to Magpie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170892 >Magpie wrote: But Snape can look and move like those creatures without working for Voldemort... vmonte: I don't think that Snape is working for Voldemort. I think that Snape is out for himself. >Magpie wrote: Snape's personality has been shown to be so--that is, we see him being vicious to people, we even know he was a Death Eater, we know he invented a deadly spell.... vmonte: Right. Snape is vicious. I agree. Snape creates deadly spells. Yes, that's true. So, how is it that you still think that spider and bat mean something positive? From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 27 19:38:06 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:38:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <442349.32212.qm@web27310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170893 TKJ wrote: "do you think the school will open for the next school year?" Si : The school is about 1000 years old. There has been many bad wizards over time. IMO the school will reopen as usual. Hagrid in PS said about it being one of the 'safest places' From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jun 27 20:01:13 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:01:13 -0000 Subject: Bats (was Clues to Snape's Loyalties) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170894 vmonte: > > When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) > > writes that a person is spider-like and bat-like, > > the images I should get are of someone that has > > similar characteristics. zgirnius: > So why should I conclude that Snape being batlike > means Snape is malicious? This could have another > meaning. For example, bats are nocturnal, and Snape > seems to be too. He is active at night, we can think > of tons of instances of this: PS/SS, the meeting with > Quirrell in the Forest, PoA, the Shack scenes, GoF, > the 'pajama party', HBP "Spinner's End", his argument > with Dumbledore in the forest, and probably more. > Bats do have an unsavory reputation in Western > mythology, being associated with vampires, etc, but > this is in contrast to their true natures. (This is > not universal, in Chinese culture they are associated > with longevity and good fortune). The European bat/ > vampire link, ironically, is older than European > discovery of the three species of bloodsucking bats, > which only live in Central and South America. No > European species have this characteristic. If Snape > is DDM!, this would make bat imagery *perfect* for > him: he seems/is believed to be 'evil' but isn't, > just like the bats. houyhnhnm: Some very superficial research led me to a number of web sites that described the symbolism of the bat in terms of change and transformation, death and rebirth, entering the dark on the way to the light, etc. It struck me that this is similar to some interpretations I've read of the Tower card in Tarot. I don't know anything about Tarot myself, but it seems to me that as Snape is tied to the scene on the Tower, he could also represent long established patterns and assumptions that Harry must finally break through in order to see truly. I also found the following on a commercial site, so I don't know how valid it is, but it did make me think of Legilimency, and therefore of Snape: "Bats as totems represent an ability to discern the hidden messages and implications of other people's words. Listen as much to what is not being said. Trust your instincts. The nose is the organ of discrimination, and with its sonar located in its nose, the bat reflects the ability to discriminate and discern the truth in other people's words." Finally, I found this interesting tidbit at the University of Michigan Fantasy and Science Fiction Dictionary of Symbolism: "It has qualities of both the bird and the mouse, rendering this animal a symbol of ANDROGYNE" Now I don't know much about alchemy, either (at least not the mystical part), but I know the concept of the androgyne is important. I don't really understand the role of the androgyne in alchemy. In fact I get kind of bogged down, trying to read about esoteric mysticism in general, but there is abundant evidence that Rowling is into it, so I would conclude that the bat imagery surrounding Snape has something to do with the impotance of his role in the Great Work. I hope it doesn't mean that Snape is going to turn out to be a literal hermaphrodite. That would be extremely yucky (but it would explain Rowling's insistance that the idea of Snape in love is a horrible one). houyhnhnm, sorry about the rambling and half-baked ideas. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Jun 27 21:03:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:03:49 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties-Response to Magpie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170895 > >Magpie wrote: > Snape's personality has been shown to be so--that is, we see him > being vicious to people, we even know he was a Death Eater, we know > he invented a deadly spell.... > > > vmonte: > Right. Snape is vicious. I agree. Snape creates deadly spells. Yes, > that's true. > > So, how is it that you still think that spider and bat mean > something positive? Magpie: I didn't say they were positive, I just said they didn't mean Snape had to be ESE. In canon we've already been provided with the explicit possibility that Snape can be malicious but also one of the "good guys." Snape's batlike-ness or spider-ness isn't even connected much to his maliciousness in the text. He's at his most spider-like in the Pensieve when he's an awkward teen and an angry teen zapping flies, and at Spinner's End (due to the title) where he's spinning a web for Death Eaters and describing his life as a spy (which can be good or bad). He must spin tales no matter which side he's on. When he's being cruel to Harry and Neville he's usually spitting and snarling and sneering etc. He's a bat more when he swoops around in his cape--and iirc he's called an "overgrown bat" which makes him more funny than malcious, imo. I think he's equally believable as a bat or a spider whether he's DDM, ESE or OFH--the spider would certainly lend itself to the person trying to play everyone and really grab power for himself, but I can't think of anywhere where he really seems to be doing that. Pettigrew is a rat and in retrospect we can make the connection that he's a "dirty rat" and that his animagus form is part of his bad character, but only after the fact. Before that revelation Peter's being a rat seems more about his being small, and Scabbers himself wasn't a negative presentation of that animal. Weasels have similar connotations, but she likes those. If just comparing the guy to a bat or a spider absolutely marks him as evil, I don't think Rowling would have done it. Or if Snape was supposed to be really nice but then had these associations. But it seems like if anything it's his better nature that's hidden. The idea that he can't be malicious and DDM seems to have been presented as definitely possible. -m From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Jun 27 21:18:21 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:18:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12510014389.20070627141821@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170896 Siriusly Snapey Susan: c> I feel similarly about Harry facing Voldemort. While it would be c> *preferable* to me that Harry not have to kill the guy [I'd rather c> like him to self-destruct somehow], if it's inevitable, I can c> certainly live with it & not lose sleep. Dave: I can appreciate that POV and probably agree... The problem is, my reading of Canon indicates that Harry *will* lose sleep, if not be emotionally scarred: He had not told Ron, Hermione or anyone else what the prophecy had contained ... He was not ready to see their expressions when he told them that he must be either murderer or victim, there was no other way . . . (OOtP, Ch. 38) It was sunny, and the grounds around him were full of laughing people, and even though he felt as distant from them as though he belonged to a different race, it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder . . . (Ibid.) So in Harry's mind and conscience, killing LV *would* be murder. Granted, I think he's accepted the necessity of it, but he's not happy about it; and I worry about his future emotional state, even if he survives. Dave From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Jun 27 21:19:37 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:19:37 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170897 > Pippin: > According to your definition, if I understand it correctly, almost > no mystery or detective fiction would have a plot. The action is > usually driven by the villain. He always controls events > and knows more about what is going on than the main > character does, at least until the villain is revealed and his > plots are foiled. > > The mystery plots of the Potter books certainly follow this > pattern. However, the books are also bildungsroman, and > the bildungsroman plot is character driven. Each book > begins with Harry feeling some weakness or lack in > himself, which he through his actions remedies by the end. Ann: Good distinction. While I'm not very knowledgeable about mystery fiction, I do think that any villain-driven novel does not have a plot, and I planned my definition especially to exclude them. Ditto for "one thing happening after another" or character development pure and simple. It's true that the series is a bildungsroman, but I don't think all bildungsromane have plots; some focus on no more than the protagonist growing up, so can be plotless and discursive. Some, including HP, do have a plot, and the growing-up aspects are a means to an end, i.e. Harry defeating Voldemort. Not that that's the only plot in the series. > Pippin: > Stated so baldly it sounds trite. Plots usually do. Ann: I agree completely. Removing a story's "meaning" to analyse it is like dissecting someone to see where her soul was. > Neri adds [to what Pippin wrote above]: > Not only that, but by the above definition all of Jane Austen's > romans, for example, have even less of a plot than the HP series, > since all of Austen's heroines are extremely "passive" by Ann's > standards, and of course Austen herself is The Master of carefully > "programmed" events. Ann: Ooh, even better. I'd completely forgotten. And I do think Austen's heroines are passive, but that comes with writing about women in Regency England. They have to be very constrained, unable to ride off to London at the drop of a hat or see off scoundrels like Wickham. (Or at least without terrible, utterly plot- and life-derailing consequences.) Children are also, by definition, constrained. It's part of the deal when children are part of an adult plot: they're weaker magically and emotionally, have smaller social groups (so have nothing like the Order), don't have great maturity, etc., compared to most adults. On that last point, remember the difficulty Harry had getting anyone to suspect Draco? If Arthur Weasley thought he was worth investigating, the Aurors would be sure to listen. > Betsy Hp: > It actually brought to mind Mike Smith's readings of various Potter > books http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/ Ann: Thanks for the link. I've read these, and I think he makes some good points. On the other hand, I don't think he enjoys reading prose per se, which is fair enough, and you have to bear in mind he prefers comics, where something pretty much has to happen every 22 pages. And in HP, it's not always obvious when something important is happening. (Not to imply that comics are for the subliterate. I like them too.) Regarding the Trio's passivity, I agree totally. They aren't anything special as wizards - Hermione's talented but not outstandingly - and I'm not that fond of them as people. Even given what I said above, I think they're pretty lily-livered compared to the Marauders. And Draco's even wetter than they are. I've *never* understood what people see in him. > Betsy Hp: > I'm rather looking forward to a sort of subversive take on the story > coming out in the future. The story from Zach Smith's view point, > for example. And really, it would take only one book to do so, in > the end. Ann: I'm sure, back when HP was just hitting the mainstream, I read about someone who'd rewritten PS/SS from Neville's point of view. Very astute. But it makes the Voldemort/Dumbledore overplot even harder to see, and for little payoff. Might make an interesting fanfiction, though. > Betsy Hp: > Personally, I'm kind of glad that JKR's set up a structure for > herself with the horcrux hunt. As you've pointed out in your > previous post, she's not much of a plot builder at least in an > organic way. But if she's got a structure to hang some of her > character things on, she can concentrate on those bits. Ann: Well, I just don't want DH to turn into "one Horcrux, another Horcrux, showdown at Godric's Hollow". Which is what plot coupons can do. It's not much of a structure. Anyway, I think JKR is more of an untried plotter than an incompetent one and having large amounts of exciting stuff to put in DH can't hurt. > Ann: > I think DH will be a fantasy novel above other genres Ann: Let me just correct myself here. I meant to say "epic fantasy novel", with Goodies vs. Dark Lord showdown. "Fantasy" is a very broad term. > Betsy Hp: > I strongly suspect (based on stuff others, like Sydney, have said > over the years ) that DH is going to end with Harry healing the > wounds of Hogwarts, and possibly the WW. (Though I imagine that a > healed Hogwarts will actually *mean* a healed WW.) Ann: I think Harry will change the WW for the better - if nothing else, defeating a powerful, ambitious psychopath will do some good. And I think he'll sort out something at Hogwarts involving the House System, and maybe the Sorting Hat, so the Houses come together again at last. But I don't think Harry'll sort everything out; it's far too big a job. And even if he does "heal" Hogwarts, the "healthy" students will still be vulnerable to "infection" from the rest of the WW. > Witherwing wrote in email: > What, in your opinion, is the effect of JKR's plotlessness? She > certainly doesn't seem to need plot to tell a marvelous story! Is > this unique, or does it follow a pattern in other literature? Ann: Here's where I disagree with Mike Smith. I don't think the books need to have something happen all the time. I think they run off a different power source. Not plot, but story. I've said I don't think narration without action, antagonists running the show, or one thing after another are part of a plot, but that doesn't mean they can't be full of Story, hanging around in the subconscious giving us a reason to live. Which HP is. It's set in a huge edifice, both castle and school, with wise old men, Dark Lords, mythological beasts and names, teachers with weird backstories, magic, nation-shattering warfare, and so on everywhere. In a setting like this, JKR doesn't need a mile-a-minute plot. The Mirror of Erised chapter in PS/SS adds nothing to the plot, but it's an amazingly moving scene; for my money, the best in the series. That's the most important reason most of us read HP, in my opinion. I don't think the narrative genre of the series as a whole (by which I mean the genre that governs the plot) is precisely bildungsroman. This may look like nitpicking, but I think it's the Hero's Journey: bildungsroman with a plot to it, and built of Story. Something I think most people inferred is that I think plotlessness is a bad thing. That's not necessarily so. Plot is a surface thing, as far as I'm concerned, and if there's something else going on I'll happily stick around. I've enjoyed plenty of novels without plots (the best example of a novel without a plot is probably "Gulliver's Travels", which I actually hated) but in those cases it tends to be planned. Accidental absence of a good plot is a bad thing. I think it's a shame HP is so climax-driven, but I'll gladly stick around for the story. I should also say that I know my definition of plot is eccentric, and not for everyone, but I hope it's an interesting way of looking at the series. Thanks to everyone who said they liked my posts, by the way. Ann From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 27 21:29:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:29:54 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170898 > > vmonte: > Lol, that's not what I said. Voldemort is not a trusting man like > Dumbledore. It's harder to trick someone who trusts no one, right? Pippin: I'm sure Voldemort would agree with you, but that's where he's wrong. Those who trust no one because they believe that no one can be trusted never learn what real loyalty looks like and they can't recognize it. For example, most of us think that Bella is genuinely devoted to the Dark Lord. But if Bella continues to doubt Snape, IMO Voldemort will think it's self-serving, and he won't realize that he should put trust in her loyalty rather than in his ability to cow and manipulate Snape. Voldemort will never trust Snape, but he'll also never believe that Dumbledore could have been justified in trusting Snape, and that could be DDM!Snape's great advantage. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 21:47:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:47:17 -0000 Subject: Bats (was Clues to Snape's Loyalties) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170899 > >>houyhnhnm: > > Finally, I found this interesting tidbit at the > University of Michigan Fantasy and Science Fiction > Dictionary of Symbolism: > > "It has qualities of both the bird and the mouse, > rendering this animal a symbol of ANDROGYNE" > > I hope it doesn't mean that Snape is going to turn out > to be a literal hermaphrodite. That would be extremely > yucky (but it would explain Rowling's insistance that > the idea of Snape in love is a horrible one). Betsy Hp: Just to add to that: Snape is good with both a wand and a cauldron. Though, yeah, I seriously doubt JKR will have him turn out to be a hermaphrodite (why would it even come up for one thing?). But I wonder if there might be something to his being so comfortable in both male and female arts? Though, I question the bat imagry a bit. Someone (can't recall who, sorry) on this thread mentioned that Snape is described as an overgrown bat swooping around and there's more comedy than anything to that image. While I see consistent spider imagry, is there anything besides the overgrown bat thing to hang the "bat imagery" on? As to positive versus negative animal images: Scrimgeour is strongly connected with lion imagery. I don't think this precludes him from being wrongheaded and sly, despite the kingly and noble connotations of his particular beast. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jun 27 21:58:48 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:58:48 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170900 vmonte: > He could not refuse the vow because Bella was ready to kill him if he did not. Ceridwen: Roll out your canon, please. vmonte: Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a person that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and snuggly. When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone that has similar characteristics. Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe? Ceridwen: Scrimgeour looks like a lion. The Muggle Minister thought that might be the reason the WW chose him to replace Fudge. The connotations of a lion are nobility, strength and bravery. But Scrimgeour acts like any other politician, just with a harder edge. The descriptors JKR uses do describe, physcially. Snape has the physical characteristics of a bat and a spider. That doesn't mean he embodies the negative stereotypes of the bat and the spider. It simply gives a mental image to people reading so they can better "see" Snape in their minds. Just like Scrimgeour and his comforting lion's appearance, or just like Umbridge's toad-like looks. Toads supposedly give warts, and if you kiss them, they turn into princes. Or, is JKR suggesting that someone ought to kiss Umbridge? What you seem to be suggesting, in my opinion, is that the Harry Potter books are allegories, like Pilgrim's Progress. Names have meanings, and so do looks. The bad guys always look like bad guys, the good guys always look like good guys. Someone named "Weasley", in such a book, would "weasel" out of things, and leave their best friends in the lurch. Harry would just be a geeky kid with his finger up his nose. Dumbledore would be a retired boxer because of his crooked nose. McGonagall, the physical embodiment of frustrated spinsterhood, would be the meanest teacher at the school. Scrimgeour would be the hero, due to his kingly appearance. And so on. JKR describes the person's physical form. She doesn't necessarily describe their souls. On bats and spiders as creatures in their own right, bats eat mosquitos. Mosquitos carry diseases like malaria and West Nile. Between bat and mosquito, I choose bat. More on bats: people line up to watch the bats fly out of Carlsbad Caverns every evening. Snape is certainly one of the more fascinating characters in the books - people seem to talk about him a lot, the way they line up to see the bats at sundown. Then, there's The Batman (DC Comics), who uses the bat form as a creature of the night meant to strike fear into the hearts of superstitious criminals. With his interest in the number seven and his belief in a prophecy, Voldemort could very well fall into the "superstitious criminal" category. Spiders eat insects like flies and aphids, insects we don't want in our homes or on our plants. Spiders are models of industry, weaving their webs over and over again even after they're destroyed. I'm speaking as someone who is allergic to spider venom. I would certainly have more reason to think of them as "dark" than people without that allergy, but I don't. Ceridwen. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 22:23:20 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:23:20 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Question: Why Did the DA not see Umbridge in a Foe Glass? zanooda: I guess Umbridge didn't come close enough to the RoR to be seen in the Glass. In GoF Harry was able to see his rescuers' reflections only when they were already at the door, before that he only saw vague outlines, IIRC. Besides, the DA members were really reckless in the RoR, never on their guard. I think they were so sure the Room couldn't be found that they got careless and didn't keep their eyes on the Glass :-). From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jun 27 22:31:06 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:31:06 -0000 Subject: Clues to Snape's Loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170902 vmonte wrote: > > Throughout the novel Snape is repeatedly described as having bat- > like and spider-like qualities. Bats are bloodsuckers, and arachnids > spin webs to entrap their prey, once caught they are sucked dry of > their innards until only a husk remains. These are the perfect > descriptions for a man who has laid out webs of deceit all around > him and uses those that he ensnares to achieve his goals. > > > This was originally posted in August 2005: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138754 > colebiancardi: I THOUGHT this looked familiar!! LOL. My thoughts from back in August 2005 still stand: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138755 cough,cough. I have to now stand up & defend bats & spiders...LOL Bats are NOT bloodsuckers - only the vampire bat is. Most bats are insect eating creatures and they help cut down on the *bad* insects, such as flies & mosquitoes. Spiders are also in the same vein as bats - they catch their prey(insects) and help cut down on the increasing population of said insects. Matter of fact, there is folklore that states it is bad luck to kill a spider. I never kill a spider in my home - I just gently pick it up with paper and put it outside where it belongs. Yes, those descriptions are used to describe Snape - but if you look at it away from the incorrect misconceptions of bats & spiders, well, you could say he isn't evil, but helping out by ridding the WW of insects (DE's). colebiancardi (who thinks that bats are very cute & will not kill a spider) Version 1.1 (June 2007): people in the past may have *feared* bats and spiders, which were then in turned used as symbolism for witches and satan, etc. How fitting is it, in today's enlightened times, that *fear* and *superstition* is now replaced with an appreciation of what these creatures do in ridding the world of the truly unhealthy insects. so, I stand by my statement - that perhaps the comparision is that Snape, if bat or spider he be likened to, is helping to rid the WW of the more *unhealthy* wizards, namely, LV and his nasty DE followers. colebiancardi (don't worry, I haven't released my crow yet. Still in a nice, big cage - hopefully, I will be setting him free in about 3 1/2 weeks time) From jojobinks1983 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 27 22:14:11 2007 From: jojobinks1983 at yahoo.co.uk (jojobinks1983) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:14:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Horcrux In-Reply-To: <26322640.1182966921854.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170903 > Geoff: > In addition to Bart's argument against this, Dumbledore's > own comments should be considered: > > '"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as > Horcruxes?" > "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because > to confide a part of your soul to something that can think > and move for itself is obviously a very risky business."' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.473 UK edition) > > I don't think, in a situation like that, Dumbledore is into > risky... Jo: Geoff, how would he know it was risky? Perhaps from experience... Bart said: > ...creating a horcrux is NOT just a matter of committing a > murder. It's a willingness to lose a piece of one's own soul. > In general, the only kind of person who could do that is someone > who is so out of touch with their own soul that they don't even > miss its absence; in other words, a sociopath or psychopath. > Dumbledore is neither. > > Would you become immortal if the price was that you would > contract Alzheimers Disease? When you create a horcrux, you may > be harder to kill, but you are no longer you, unless you were > essentially soulless to begin with. Jo: Bart, think you're taking this a wee bit too far into the real world. Perhaps Dumbledore, omniscient as he is, invisible hand guiding Harry and his chums, thought he might be needed for the last battle. I think that splitting his own soul out of necessity would be a huge sacrifice, and an unwelcome one, but I think that it is in Dumbledore's character to make that sort of sacrifice if it was necessary in the bigger picture. There are so many examples of his willingness to make sacrifices like this: 1. Employing Trelawney even though students would suffer as she is a bad teacher. 2. Making Snape kill him (controversial, please don't shoot me down!) 3. Making Harry live with the Dursleys 4. Insisting Sirius his at Grimmauld Place 5. Lupin having to spy on the werewolves So many other examples...Dumbledore is responsible for the great unhappiness of many of our favourite characters, he must have made a sacrifice along the way. Maybe the hypothetical Horcrux harnesses the compassionate bit of his soul...(this is a joke by the way but I still think that Dumbledore may have a Horcrux). Jo x From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 27 23:11:55 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:11:55 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170904 > >>Pippin: > > According to your definition, if I understand it correctly, almost > > no mystery or detective fiction would have a plot. The action is > > usually driven by the villain. > > > >>Ann: > Good distinction. While I'm not very knowledgeable about mystery > fiction, I do think that any villain-driven novel does not have a > plot, and I planned my definition especially to exclude them. Ditto > for "one thing happening after another" or character development > pure and simple. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I'm not understanding your definition then. I figured that, for example, the original "Star Wars" trilogy would be considered plot driven, in that Luke moves the plot forward by making choices that cause the "one thing happening after another" to occur. He's not passive. But on the same token, I'd label the Sherlock Holmes mysteries as plot driven in that Holmes makes choices that again create or cause the plot. Yes, the villain may set things in motion, but it's the protaganist that creates the story, I figure. Where have I gone astray? > >>Neri adds [to what Pippin wrote above]: > > Not only that, but by the above definition all of Jane Austen's > > romans, for example, have even less of a plot than the HP series, > > since all of Austen's heroines are extremely "passive" by Ann's > > standards, and of course Austen herself is The Master of carefully > > "programmed" events. > >>Ann: > Ooh, even better. I'd completely forgotten. And I do think Austen's > heroines are passive, but that comes with writing about women in > Regency England. They have to be very constrained, unable to ride > off to London at the drop of a hat or see off scoundrels like > Wickham. (Or at least without terrible, utterly plot- and life- > derailing consequences.) Betsy Hp: Hmm, but see, I *would* say that "Emma" for example is plot driven, in that Emma sets things in motion by doing certain things that start the story and keep it going. Yes, Emma is constrained in some ways, but then the story sticks to the world she's constrained to, so no problem. On the other hand, I can see how "Pride and Prejudice" might not be plot driven because Elizabeth more reacts to other people's plotting rather than causing stuff to happen herself. (Except for how she manages to creep under Mr. Darcy's radar. ) With Harry Potter, he doesn't really do much to figure out the various mysteries. The answers tend to drop into his lap. And there's a lot of Harry moving through his world experiencing things, rather than Harry taking actions to cause stuff. Like Elizabeth, Harry reacts to other people's plots. Am I in a ballpark here? > >>Betsy Hp: > > It actually brought to mind Mike Smith's readings of various > > Potter books http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/ > >>Ann: > Thanks for the link. I've read these, and I think he makes some good > points. On the other hand, I don't think he enjoys reading prose per > se, which is fair enough, and you have to bear in mind he prefers > comics, where something pretty much has to happen every 22 pages. > Betsy Hp: I totally agree. I think much of his reviews are a reaction to having so many people tell him that he'd personally enjoy the books *because* he's into comics and the like. (I'm not sure about the not liking prose though. He compared the Potter books to a classic western he was reading at one point, but I don't know him personally, so I cannot say.) > >>Ann: > Regarding the Trio's passivity, I agree totally. They aren't > anything special as wizards - Hermione's talented but not > outstandingly - and I'm not that fond of them as people. Even given > what I said above, I think they're pretty lily-livered compared to > the Marauders. Betsy Hp: Total agreement here. > >>Ann: > And Draco's even wetter than they are. I've *never* understood > what people see in him. Betsy Hp: For me it's that Draco is a total spaz and he's *seen* as a total spaz. No one ever tries to talk me into agreeing that Draco behaving badly is Draco behaving well. Which happens too often with the Trio, IMO. (An example: I *love* the part in OotP where Draco is randomly taking points from the Trio because Umbridge is crazy and so he can. He doesn't try and pretend he's being fair and moral. He's allowed to misuse his power so he blatently and with obvious relish misuses his power. It's refreshing, IMO, compared to the Trio's shenanigans where they say their wrong-doing is okay because their victims are evil. They can tell. Or so I'm told.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm rather looking forward to a sort of subversive take on the > > story coming out in the future. The story from Zach Smith's view > > point, for example. > >>Ann: > I'm sure, back when HP was just hitting the mainstream, I read about > someone who'd rewritten PS/SS from Neville's point of view. Very > astute. But it makes the Voldemort/Dumbledore overplot even harder > to see, and for little payoff. Might make an interesting > fanfiction, though. Betsy Hp: Oh, I'm positive the fanfic is out there. But I'm thinking more from a view-point of someone *outside* the Voldemort/Dumbledore show. You know, where the protaganist is thinking about the need for a job after Hogwarts, etc., and has little to do with the war. > >>Ann: > > But I don't think Harry'll sort everything out; it's far too big a > job. And even if he does "heal" Hogwarts, the "healthy" students > will still be vulnerable to "infection" from the rest of the WW. Betsy Hp: Oh, I totally agree that we won't be seeing a WW utopia or even a hint thereof. But I do suspect that by bringing Hogwarts together (which I think Harry will have to do) there will be a suggestion that this new generation of wizard will reshape the British WW. Not that we'll *see* it happen, but we'll see that it *will* happen, if that makes sense. IOWs, the "healthy" students will be too healthy for the WW to infect. > >>Witherwing wrote in email: > > What, in your opinion, is the effect of JKR's plotlessness? > > > >>Ann: > > I've said I don't think narration without action, antagonists > running the show, or one thing after another are part of a plot, > but that doesn't mean they can't be full of Story, hanging around > in the subconscious giving us a reason to live. Which HP is. It's > set in a huge edifice, both castle and school, with wise old men, > Dark Lords, mythological beasts and names, teachers with weird > backstories, magic, nation-shattering warfare, and so on > everywhere. In a setting like this, JKR doesn't need a mile-a- > minute plot. The Mirror of Erised chapter in PS/SS adds nothing > to the plot, but it's an amazingly moving scene; for my money, the > best in the series. That's the most important reason most of us read > HP, in my opinion. Betsy Hp: I think this is why I think of JKR as better at character than I think she usually gets credit for. Think about how much information is packed into Snape's worst memory. Or Draco's interaction with his father in CoS. Blaise *springs* to life in the train scene in HBP in a magnificent way especially considering we didn't even know if he were a boy or girl for several books. With one tiny little scene, JKR is able to breath life into characters that seem like they should be stuck in flat caricature or be nameless red-shirts of no significance. (Total needless aside: The Mirror of Erised is one of the few chapters in PS/SS that Mike Smith liked. Just fyi.) But on the flip side, I think JKR is really weak with plotting. (Which is why I love your post, even though I apparently didn't fully understand it. ) Think of all the things you have to ignore for GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide. And then there's PoA which includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with time- travel. I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders (character, again) I'm not a fan of the plot. I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to the mystery genre but it seems to me that JKR isn't too strong in that area either. She's more about the twist (she's *amazing* with the twist, IMO), which I think is something different. Pippin? And I've already joined in with those taking pot-shots at her world- building abilities. (Though honestly, I think it comes down to an issue with details. Broad strokes that give you a quick impression of a rich world is another place JKR shines, IMO. See Diagon Alley versus Knockturn Alley and the type of world their existence suggests.) > >>Ann: > > Something I think most people inferred is that I think plotlessness > is a bad thing. That's not necessarily so. Plot is a surface thing, > as far as I'm concerned, and if there's something else going on I'll > happily stick around. Betsy Hp: In trying to wrap my brain around plot vs. plotlessness I hit on "Star Wars" as example of plot and "Breakfast Club" as an example of not so much plot. I'd say "The Charioteer" by Mary Renault is an example of an excellent non-plot novel. (Generally, Mary Renault isn't much about the plot, I think.) "The Secret Garden" is more plot. Um, does that work with your definition? I love all of the above, plot or no plot. So I agree that lack of plot is not always a bad thing. > >>Ann: > > I should also say that I know my definition of plot is eccentric, > and not for everyone, but I hope it's an interesting way of looking > at the series. > Betsy Hp: Well, I'm certainly enjoying myself! Betsy Hp From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 27 23:27:09 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:27:09 -0000 Subject: Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: <12510014389.20070627141821@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170905 Siriusly Snapey Susan: c> I feel similarly about Harry facing Voldemort. While it would be c> *preferable* to me that Harry not have to kill the guy [I'd rather c> like him to self-destruct somehow], if it's inevitable, I can c> certainly live with it & not lose sleep. Dave: > I can appreciate that POV and probably agree... The problem is, my > reading of Canon indicates that Harry *will* lose sleep, if not be > emotionally scarred: > So in Harry's mind and conscience, killing LV *would* be murder. > Granted, I think he's accepted the necessity of it, but he's not > happy about it; and I worry about his future emotional state, even > if he survives. SSSusan: That is a fair point, Dave... an excellent point. :( I imagine those who argue that Harry 'shouldn't' kill Voldemort are thinking of this as much as (or more than) legal definitions of murder. Yesterday Kemper mentioned something that I appreciated, too -- that Harry having to kill Voldy might be able to be deemed necessary and understandable and all of that, but that he didn't want it to happen because it would be sort of like taking that one last bit of innocence away from Harry. I found that a very poignant statement. Yeah. It's going to be hard if it happens. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dossett at lds.net Thu Jun 28 00:30:50 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:30:50 -0000 Subject: FANTASY casting... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > > Bart: > > Here is the set-up (note the topic is FANTASY casting): A new > computerized filmaking > > technique has been discovered. You can take any character played by > any actor in > > film or television (including cartoons) in history, and it will > convert that character > > into a character for the new movie, being played more or less the > same way. > > Eddie: > > * No offense to Michael Gambon, but it would have been sweet to have > had Richard Harris play Dumbledore for all 7 movies. > > > Eddie > Pat now; I really enjoyed Richard Harris, and agree that it would have been sweet to have him for all seven movies. But instead of Michael Gambon, I have always wished they got Peter O'Toole to take over as DD, he's got that twinkle in the eye thing down so well. Sorry to be behind the times here, last week was busy. Pat From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 01:24:24 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:24:24 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170907 > SSS: > Quite some time ago, "The List" was put together and posted in the > Essay section over at the Lexicon. This is a list of all the things > that some folks (notably Pippin, AKH and Serenadust) had come up with > as Items Which Still Needed to Be Answered by JKR. (To peruse this > list, go to: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the-list.html ) > > So what say ye? What Little Niggling Details do you fear will be > left unanswered at the end? > Siriusly Snapey Susan > JW: Thank you SOOOO much for reminding me about that list!! It has been way too long since I reviewed it, and have only the vaguest recollection of its contents. Now is the time to revisit it! I have a few LNDs to put forth, and don't know if they are on ANYBODY'S list, much less that of the highly distinguished Lexicon: 1. Why is LV repeatedly called the "worst DL in a hundred years" (or words to that effect)? That requires LV to be more noteworthy than GW of the 1930s - 40s, and begs the questions of who the heck was that unnamed bad guy from the 19th century, what he/she did to achieve such notoriety, and what happened to him/her? 2. Why is DD so dedicated to fighting DLs? 3. Why is ol' DD so dedicated to giving second chances? My wild 'n wacky conjectures: 150-year-old DD hisself was the 19th century bad guy. Somehow, he saw the light, did pennance, performed a world-class redemption, and grew into the DD we know and love in the septology. Of course, he can not turn his back on any good cause, or give up on any bad guy. He seeks to spread the grace from which he benefited. Just as few characters understand the relationship between Tom R and LV, nobody knows the relationship between DD and the 19th century bad guy, although Prof. Marchbanks (?), the OWL tester, remembers young DD as a prodigy. And as JW is certain these issues will not be addressed in DH, there is no canonical evidence to dispute these zany concepts, so he sticks his tongue out at all the justifiably skeptical - if not cynical - readers who are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that JW is swimming the deep waters of Crackpot Lagoon. From ladypotentpotions1 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 00:34:43 2007 From: ladypotentpotions1 at yahoo.com (Lady Potions) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape changed places Message-ID: <722481.26999.qm@web56710.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170908 Hello, Here's my 2 cents on the new book of Harry Potter. Remember in the 6th book the cave scene with Dumbledore and Harry? Then Dumbledore and Harry flew to Hogwarts and the death scene? Remember how Harry had a hard time chatting with Dumbledore. Dumbledore seemed distracted. I figured that Dumbledore was not the real Dumbledore when I was reading the cave scene and then the fight scene takes place and it turns out to be Snape who killed Dumbledore. What if Snape and Dumbledore had exchanged what they looked like with each other. Dumbledore always said, he trusts Snape with his life. Perhaps it was Dumbledore who killed Snape. Lady Potions From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 28 02:17:11 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:17:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) Message-ID: <380-22007642821711312@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170909 Ann: Regarding the Trio's passivity, I agree totally. They aren't anything special as wizards - Hermione's talented but not outstandingly - and I'm not that fond of them as people. Even given what I said above, I think they're pretty lily-livered compared to the Marauders. And Draco's even wetter than they are. I've *never* understood what people see in him. Magpie: I admit seeing the Marauders in the Pensieve they come across as immediately a lot cooler than the Trio or any of their classmates at school (I swear it's a generational thing--years ago I was working on a series where we did a flashback to the dead father and he immediately, effortlessly made his 90s son look like a dork just by being 14 in the 70s). But in general, MWPP are not all that great either by adult standards. James was a jock with a big ego who got killed young, Sirius had no adulthood and spent his last year bitter, sniping and Snape, and drinking, Remus as a grown man never got over some of his biggest problems with lily liver, and Peter was the worst of the bunch. Then there's Snape, who's in many ways stuck in his adolescence. I don't think the Trio or Draco stand out as being wet in this universe--the Marauders benefit from the fact we don't see them as teenagers often. Their advantage is that they might not make such bad mistakes in early life that they have mature lives like the past generations. Harry could not have James' worst qualities, Draco might not get trapped in bitterness and pass the point of no return that Snape did. Are they all kind of pathetic? Sure, but all JKR's characters usually are. I can't speak for what everyone sees in Draco as a character, but for me that's part of it, and Snape too. I'm not dating them, so they can be wet. I like watching them struggle to do the right thing once in their life. (Lucius has a veneer of not being wet, but he is too--what a mess he made of his life.) Ann: Here's where I disagree with Mike Smith. I don't think the books need to have something happen all the time. I think they run off a different power source. Not plot, but story. I've said I don't think narration without action, antagonists running the show, or one thing after another are part of a plot, but that doesn't mean they can't be full of Story, hanging around in the subconscious giving us a reason to live. Which HP is. It's set in a huge edifice, both castle and school, with wise old men, Dark Lords, mythological beasts and names, teachers with weird backstories, magic, nation-shattering warfare, and so on everywhere. In a setting like this, JKR doesn't need a mile-a-minute plot. The Mirror of Erised chapter in PS/SS adds nothing to the plot, but it's an amazingly moving scene; for my money, the best in the series. That's the most important reason most of us read HP, in my opinion. Magpie: I'm still confused as to why you want to have this narrow definition of plot so that stories with heroes who react to a crisis (all of what Orson Scott Card would call Event stories) can't have plots, so that JKR's books don't. The Mirror of Erised does add to the plot. Not only does it introduce Harry to it so that he'll know how it works later in the climax, it's helping with Harry's development so that he makes different choices later.Why not just say that JKR's books are plotted--quite tightly so, with characters often pulled into line to give us information and set things up--but that Harry is a passive hero? Recently there was a great essay on lj about The Agents of Desire which, among other things, compares HP to Oliver Twist and Great Expectations--also books about characters drawn into the plots of others--and it makes similar points in a different way. Kayen is I think the author, and he points out how Harry is plotted in GoF and is very passive about it, then in OotP he tries to take control of his own plot, and Voldemort uses that against him, tempting him with an "easy" heroic rescue. Then in HBP Harry becomes addicted to shortcuts for the same reason, not wanting to follow Dumbledore's orders and preferring more exciting things to solve. Ann: Something I think most people inferred is that I think plotlessness is a bad thing. That's not necessarily so. Plot is a surface thing, as far as I'm concerned, and if there's something else going on I'll happily stick around. Magpie: I didn't think you meant it was a bad thing, I just got stuck at saying the HP books have no plot because the plot doesn't come from Harry doing things. There were interesting things in what you were saying that I agreed with, I just wound up wanting to stick to the standard definition of plot which includes stories like Oliver Twist and Jane Austen and mystery novels and Gulliver's Travels. Betsy Hp: For me it's that Draco is a total spaz and he's *seen* as a total spaz. No one ever tries to talk me into agreeing that Draco behaving badly is Draco behaving well. Which happens too often with the Trio, IMO. Magpie: You know I agree.:-) I think JKR is genuinely drawn to people behaving like losers, being petty and mean and stupid and thinking they're great while they do it. BetsyHp: An example: I *love* the part in OotP where Draco is randomly taking points from the Trio because Umbridge is crazy and so he can. Magpie: LOL! Easily one of my favorite scenes in OotP, Draco's such a goof in it. And nobody tries to tell me how he HAD to take points because it's totally war. Betsy Hp: I think this is why I think of JKR as better at character than I think she usually gets credit for. Think about how much information is packed into Snape's worst memory. Or Draco's interaction with his father in CoS. Blaise *springs* to life in the train scene in HBP in a magnificent way especially considering we didn't even know if he were a boy or girl for several books. With one tiny little scene, JKR is able to breath life into characters that seem like they should be stuck in flat caricature or be nameless red-shirts of no significance. Magpie: Oh, she's great at creating characters, I agree--dynamic ones. She doesn't do character *development,* usually, which I think people sometimes think has to be there for a book to be good, but it doesn't. A lot of the most memorable characters aren't in character-driven stories where they have to develop. People talk about Neville "developing" in OotP, but really he does just what he did in PS, just taking it to the next level. The two characters that do develop within canon are I'd say Harry, because he changes, and I think Draco now that she put him through a story where she attacked everything about what the character was about before. Now we don't know what Draco will do, where as before we pretty much did. Other characters probably have changed (Snape) but it was before this story started. BetsyHp: Think of all the things you have to ignore for GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide. And then there's PoA which includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with time- travel. I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders (character, again) I'm not a fan of the plot. Magpie: I think that's why I can't get into the idea that HP doesn't have a plot...where would we put all the plot holes?:-) There is lots of plotting going on in HP, Harry's just the one being plotted and reacting to it. BetsyHp: I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to the mystery genre but it seems to me that JKR isn't too strong in that area either. She's more about the twist (she's *amazing* with the twist, IMO), which I think is something different. Pippin? Magpie: I think it's that she doesn't do classic mysteries because they aren't solved by Harry and they really can't be solved by the reader. They're recognition dramas like Jane Austen, where stuff is happening and then when Harry gets info it all looks different upon re-reading--which is a good thing, because people generally don't re-read mysteries. There's little point once you know who done it. There is reason to re-read this kind of thing. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 02:26:02 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:26:02 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170910 > SSSusan wrote: > > > So I got to wondering about this: Just what do you all believe > > > will go UNANSWERED from among those things which are driving > > > you nuts? These could be Big Mysteries, of course, but I'm > > > thinking especially of those Little Niggling Details. > > > > > Here's an example of something I've just decided is likely to > > > go unanswered: The question of just how much Snape heard of > > > the prophecy at the Hog's Head. > > > Yb now: > > You think that one won't be covered? Betcha 10 Galleons that it > > will be clear enough in canon by the end of DH. > > SSSusan: > Hee. Well, actually, I *hope* you are correct about that. It's > just my gut reaction that it won't be covered, but I'd be quite > content to be wrong about that. ;-) Mike: I think Yb has to be right because the inconsistency between Trelawney's and Dumbledore's stories is problematic, imo. First half of the prophesy versus there after it's over, just doesn't make sense. I gotta believe this was a clue for us readers. And when confronted by Harry with the revelation that Snape was the eavesdropper, Dumbledore falls immediately into the pat cover story. In fact, it's the same cover story that Snape tells Bella almost a year earlier, even if Dumbledore is less antagonistic in his telling than Snape was. But, another eavesdropping Snape incident I don't expect answered is how much did Snape hear in the Shrieking Shack before he slipped into the room? Now for my nigglers. I have lots of Horcrux questions that I don't see getting answered. For instance: 1. When did Tom make his first Horcrux? Before or after his chat with Slughorn. 2. Can a Horcrux be created anytime after a murder, or must the soul encasing be done proximate to the murder? 3. What happens to the extra torn soul pieces that don't get encased in a Horcrux? 4. What happens when a Horcrux is "destroyed"? Is the soul piece killed, released, or what? And if it is released, what happens to it? 5. And just to settle a disagreement between myself and Carol, could Tom have used Myrtle's death to create a Horcrux or does the murder have to be by the murderer's hand? HBP nigglers: Was that potions book originally Eileen Prince's? Was all the writing that of a young Severus or did someone else ::cough,Lily, cough:: make some contributions? Why was this NEWT level book used by Sevie before he got to his OWLS? By the book nigglers: 1. Did Dumbledore get any Elixir of Life before the Philosopher's Stone was destroyed? 2. What happened to the Weasley's Ford Anglia? And one we may or may not get answered, what would have happened had Diary Revenant Tom succeeded in becoming fully realised? 3. Why did Dumbledore tell H&H, "you must not be seen", when Hermione had obviously been seen all year long? 4. Does Voldemort own the Riddle House now? How about the Gaunt hovel? Why didn't the Tri-Wizard committee set up some massive big screen TVs so the spectators could've seen what went on in the lake and inside the maze? Have you ever realised how boring the last two events must have been for everyone who wasn't Fleur, Harry, Cedric or Krum? About a hundred questions on Voldemort's whole graveyard speech, some of which may be answered, many that won't. 5. How did Kreacher know when to injure Buckbeak? Was Voldemort listening in on Dumbledore's wrap-up talk with Harry? 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? When did Wormtail come to live with Snape and when did Snape realise that Sirius wasn't the Potter's Secret Keeper? What did Bella mean by, "his most precious --"? How did RAB get the locket out of the Birdbath of Doom? Or did he swap them out before the real locket even made it to the cave? 7. Why didn't Harry curse Snape when he first had the chance? Oh wait, I can't ask that question yet. :) Mike, who also wants to know why JKR felt it necessary to introduce time travel and hopes that she really needed it at the same time hopes he won't see it again. From ekrdg at verizon.net Thu Jun 28 02:34:50 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:34:50 -0400 Subject: The Riddle House References: Message-ID: <005b01c7b92c$e7abbd00$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> No: HPFGUIDX 170911 Pat said: "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use..." I'm wondering who this "wealthy man" is. Who would have a reason to keep the house all these years? Perhaps Dumbledore? Maybe Lucius Malfoy? Will the house come into play? Is there a horcrux hidden there? Just something that popped into my head while reading. If this has been covered, would someone point me in the right direction? Pat Kimberly here: I've always leaned toward the idea that it was Dumbledore that owned the house. Certainly he did say he found out about Frank's murder from the paper but that was his ONLY source of what happened. He didn't say he exclusively found out about it from the newspaper. He may not have wanted to divulge the information of him owning the house to Harry at the time of GoF so he withheld that from him. Dumbledore seems to do a lot of withholding information for Harry's own good. GoF says that the villagers thought the wealthy man that owned it had it for "tax reasons". Are we aware of Dumbledore's financial position? I don't recall. A bit of timeline regarding the Riddle House. -Frank Bryce came back from the war and began working for the Riddles. -The Riddles are murdered. -Frank stays on to care for the house while the "next" and then the "next" family came and went. (canon says "neither stayed long") -A wealthy man buys the house, keeps Frank on and continues to pay him while not living there or putting it to any use -50 years later Voldemort finds his way back there and murders Frank. We see later in the series that Dumbledore hires on Dobby as well as Winky. It always seemed that he took them on not because there was a shortage of elf-staff at Hogwarts but more for their sake. Dobby and Winky had no other prospects. Keeping Frank Bryce all those years for Frank's sake, because it's the only job he's had since the war, he's old, physically ailing, and probably unable to find work elsewhere at this point, seems to me something that Dumbledore would do. I wonder what happened to The Riddle House after GoF? Maybe Dumbledore did own it? Perhaps he'll bequeath it to Harry and we'll revisit it? As for a Horcrux being there, he could have deposited one there during GoF, not necesssarily created one but just left one there that had been made prior. Not sure about that last bit though. Kimberly, who has always been interested in the ownership, etc. of The Riddle House and hopes this isn't something that goes unanswered by JKR From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 03:26:20 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:26:20 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170912 > Mike: > But, another eavesdropping Snape incident I don't expect answered is > how much did Snape hear in the Shrieking Shack before he slipped into > the room? zgirnius: If this is never addressed again, I would consider it a settled question. The point of having the door creak, as far as I am concerned, is to point out to the curious re-reader of the scene just when Snape entered the picture. It is my opinion that if Rowling imagined Snape sitting around in the hallway for some odd reason, listening, and then deciding for some other odd reason to come into the room, and continue listening, she would have included some other, earlier, clue to his presence. Instead, what I get from the descriptions is Snape coming down the tunnel at speed, and stealthily getting himself into the room to see what is happening (and then listen in). Between being a tad out of breath (he still is when he appears) and trying to be very quiet, I don't think he heard anything until he got into the room. > Mike: > Now for my nigglers. I have lots of Horcrux questions that I don't > see getting answered. For instance: zgirnius: I agree, we are not getting answers to any of those. > Mike: > Was that potions book originally Eileen Prince's? Was all the writing > that of a young Severus or did someone else ::cough,Lily, cough:: > make some contributions? Why was this NEWT level book used by Sevie > before he got to his OWLS? zgirnius: If Lily wrote in that book, we *will* be hearing about it. Otherwise, yes, these are not likely to be addressed. > By the book nigglers: > 2. What happened to the Weasley's Ford Anglia? zgirnius: I thought we would be seeing it again, according to an interview? Or is that Sirius's motorbike I am thinking of... > Mike: > 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? zgirnius: Is that your theory about it? I thought it might be the Snape family home. > Mike: > What did Bella mean by, "his most precious --"? > How did RAB get the locket out of the Birdbath of Doom? Or did he > swap them out before the real locket even made it to the cave? zgirnius: These I am betting we get an answer to. I tend to think they are related. From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 03:28:53 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:28:53 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: <442349.32212.qm@web27310.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170913 Si : > The school is about 1000 years old. There has been many bad wizards over time. IMO the school will reopen as usual. Hagrid in PS said about it being one of the 'safest places' > TKJ: I have no doubt the school will be open. I agree with your statement. But there seems to be a lot of people that think otherwise. I was hoping to spark some debate, but I guess my topic isn't interesting (lol) TKJ ;-) From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 03:55:07 2007 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:55:07 -0000 Subject: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: <007f01c7b8b7$270f2b60$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170914 > Kimberly: > > Hosepipes and trainers, jumpers and pudding, snogging and well, > you get the idea. All of it was foreign to me. There were a few > times that I had a bit of an idea what they meant and a few times > I had no idea. > > Fortunately for the most part I was able to work it out thanks > to contextual inferences and my own workable brain. For me, one > of the best things about books and literature is the exposure to > new worlds, new words, new ideas. Nathaniel: I would like to add my voice to those who dislike the "translating" of English to American. Mercifully this has become less common in each succesive book and Dean Thomas has properly become a fan of the West Ham football team and not the West Ham soccer team. I particularly dislike this translation because no one would suffer if they were under the misapprehension that Dean Thomas is a fan of American-style football. The story makes just as much sense. It took me out of the story the first time I read that because I immediately thought, "No one in Great Britain would call it 'soccer.' What is this bunk?" The most odious example has been mentioned several times; changing the title of the first book was truely a poor decision. Calling it a "Sorcerers Stone" does not make any more sense in American than "Philosophers Stone" so it doesn't add any clarity. Furthermore, it's been referred to in just about every book since, so once again we have this silly translation foisted upon us. I also dislike the changing of "Minister for Magic" to "Minister of Magic." We don't have ministers of or for anything in American so why change a silly preposition every time? Then there's the changing of "sherbet lemon" to "lemon drop." I dislike this one because for the longest time, I had no clue why Dumbledore had lemon drops that were so stuck together. I thought he was buying particularly poor quality lemon drops or something. If it had stayed sherbet lemon, I would have just realized that it's a sweet that I'm not familiar with. To this day I have never tasted or seen "Turkish Delight" but I assure you my understanding of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" had not diminished. And yes I understood that book just fine as a child. As for changing of punctuation and spelling, I find that less objectionable. I would understand the meaning either way, and it doesn't distract me either way. From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 28 04:10:52 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:10:52 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170915 > Tandra: > As for Transfiguration...that I'm up in the air about. Does the > headmaster have to teach? Eddie: Either Lupin or Ollivander will teach Transfiguration. I have no canon to support this idea, but what the heck. Eddie From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 28 04:15:52 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:15:52 -0000 Subject: Predictions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170916 The Weasley's flying car will mate with Sirius' flying motorcycle (Hagrid has had it hidden at Hogwarts all these years) and the two together will produce a brood of flying tricycles. I'm sure I can support this with canon. Hang on a mo'...... Eddie, who, without jest, thinks the car and motorcycle will "meet" in DH. From mermaid_in_sb at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 04:02:13 2007 From: mermaid_in_sb at yahoo.com (SB Mermaid) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Riddle House In-Reply-To: <005b01c7b92c$e7abbd00$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> Message-ID: <660488.98297.qm@web33108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170917 > Pat said: > "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these > days neither lived there nor put it to any use..." > > I'm wondering who this "wealthy man" is. Who would > have a reason to keep the house all these years? SB Mermaid: I always thought it was Tom Riddle Jr/Voldemort that was the "wealthy man" who ended up owning his father's place. That's why he knew it was empty, and a good place to recouperate. Also, he still has a tie with Marvolo's ring horcrux being hidden in the burned down shack nearby. From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 28 04:41:26 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:41:26 -0000 Subject: When will Voldemort discover destroyed Horcruxes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170918 I don't recall having seen this discussed before: At what point in Deathly Hallows will Voldemort realize that some of his Horcruxes have been destroyed? Consider, option 1: Early/Mid-way through DH Voldemort makes the discovery. Then it is a race for most of DH... with Harry trying to find/destroy the remaining Horcruxes before Voldemort can verify which ones are still safe. The OOTP will stake out the known hiding places (the cave (locket), the shack (ring)) hoping to catch Volde there. Also, Voldemort will have time to wonder how his secret was revealed, and who revealed it. This could be bad for Slughorn, who (as far as Voldemort knows) is the only person who knew about Voldemort's interest in Horcruxes. Consider, option 2: At the last moment Voldemort discovers (much to his horror) that the only piece of soul remaining is the one inside of him. It will be one of the last thoughts he has before he is ultimately destroyed. Eddie, who thinks (today, but maybe not tomorrow) that Harry will lure Voldemort into the MOM's "Love Room" wherein Voldemort will be weakened by the forces there (Love) and Harry will be strengthened. In this context Harry will be able to vanquish Voldemort, but Love (and pity) will so fill Harry that he will not be able to destroy Voldemort. This act of Love and Pity will be the last straw and will in and of itself destroy Voldemort. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 04:50:57 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:50:57 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170919 >Tandra: > do you think the school will open for the > next school year? If so, who will have the DADA position? Will > Slughorn stay on for potions? Now that McGonagall is headmaster will > she still teach, or will there need to be a new teacher for that class > as well? > > I think the school will reopen. There might be limited attendance, but > it will reopen. I'm not sure who will take the DADA position. What > about Bill? Granted I have no clue if he would be able to teach but > who knows. Maybe an Auror will teach the class kinda adjunct? > > As for Transfiguration...that I'm up in the air about. JW: I am still trying to sell the following: Potions: Slughorn Head of Slytherin: Slughorn Transfig: Krum (remember his shark in task 2 at TWT!) DADA: Bill W. (cursebreaker experience) Head of Gryffindor: No clue. Don't believe it will be headmistress MM, do not think it appropriate for Hagrid, do not think it would be 1st time teacher Bill... From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 04:51:38 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:51:38 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170920 > zgirnius: > If this is never addressed again, I would consider it a settled > question. The point of having the door creak, as far as I am > concerned, is to point out to the curious re-reader of the scene > just when Snape entered the picture. It is my opinion that if > Rowling imagined Snape sitting around in the hallway for some odd > reason, listening, and then deciding for some other odd reason to > come into the room, and continue listening, she would have included > some other, earlier, clue to his presence. Mike: I think you're right. Can I retract this niggler? :) > > Mike: > > Was all the writing that of a young Severus or did someone > > else ::cough, Lily, cough:: make some contributions? > > zgirnius: > If Lily wrote in that book, we *will* be hearing about it. > Otherwise, yes, these are not likely to be addressed. Mike: I forgot a couple more about the potions book. Are all the notes, spells, wisecracks, etc. from Snape's school days, or did he continue to add to the book well after his NEWTs? IOW, I really wonder if Snape might have continued his potions improvements well into his teaching stint and just found it convenient to continue using that book. Yes, there may be a better potions texts by the time Harry goes to Hogwarts, but maybe in Snape's eyes these newer texts don't equal Snape's improvements to the older recipes. If Lily had a hand in the writing, yes we will hear about it. But if it was someone else, like maybe Eileen, I don't see that one being revisited. And the other obvious question, how did James learn the Levicorpus spell? For that matter, how did Severus invent nonverbal spells before his 5th year when the Trio don't even start getting taught nonverbals until their 6th year? It really seems that Hogwarts has regressed in it's student advancement, compared to Snape and the Marauder's generation. Also, Orphan_Ann has got it right, the Trio have nothing on their preceding generation when it comes to daring and originality. > > By the book nigglers: > > 2. What happened to the Weasley's Ford Anglia? > > zgirnius: > I thought we would be seeing it again, according to an interview? > Or is that Sirius's motorbike I am thinking of... Mike: Yes, it was the motorbike that's suppose to make a curtain call. > > Mike: > > 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? > > zgirnius: > Is that your theory about it? I thought it might be the Snape > family home. Mike: Well, that's why it's on this list. I just think it odd to enter a house into a room completely lined with bookshelves, where all the doors are hidden behind said shelves. Doesn't seem like a Muggle design to me. But I suppose the Snapes could have been eccentric Muggles. > > Mike: > > What did Bella mean by, "his most precious --"? > > How did RAB get the locket out of the Birdbath of Doom? Or did he > > swap them out before the real locket even made it to the cave? > > zgirnius: > These I am betting we get an answer to. I tend to think they are > related. Mike: I too think they are related, as I'm in the camp that believes Reggie swapped the locket on Bella before she put it in the cave. Yet, I don't see it being answered because it's not important to the hunt and/or the destruction of that Horcrux, imo. Water under the bridge and Harry won't care *how* the locket got out, just that the locket *did* get out. From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 28 04:59:28 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:59:28 EDT Subject: Killing != Murder Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170921 Dave: > I can appreciate that POV and probably agree... The problem is, my > reading of Canon indicates that Harry *will* lose sleep, if not be > emotionally scarred: > So in Harry's mind and conscience, killing LV *would* be murder. > Granted, I think he's accepted the necessity of it, but he's not > happy about it; and I worry about his future emotional state, even > if he survives. SSSusan: That is a fair point, Dave... an excellent point. :( I imagine those who argue that Harry 'shouldn't' kill Voldemort are thinking of this as much as (or more than) legal definitions of murder. Yesterday Kemper mentioned something that I appreciated, too -- that Harry having to kill Voldy might be able to be deemed necessary and understandable and all of that, but that he didn't want it to happen because it would be sort of like taking that one last bit of innocence away from Harry. I found that a very poignant statement. Yeah. It's going to be hard if it happens. Julie: I agree, and that's why do I hope Harry doesn't have to kill Voldemort. I also think the greatest favor Snape has done Harry so far is when he saved Draco from the Sectumsempra curse. Harry doesn't see it that way, at least not yet, but I'd like to see him recognize the huge influence Snape's action will have on his future (which he will have post-Voldemort, I tell you!). I know we've debated whether Harry could have claimed self-defense if Draco had died, and I have no doubt whatsoever a good lawyer could make that defense stick with the smallest effort. Draco was about to attempt an Unforgivable Curse, and Harry displayed genuine anguish (at least briefly) over his own miscalculation in using a spell with which he was so unfamiliar. He clearly didn't intend to kill Draco, but was caught up in the moment of defending himself. But... It doesn't only matter what Harry intended. What also matters is the end result. No matter how justified, the end result of killing another person is living with that death, forever. If Draco had died, more than Harry's innocence would be gone. While his soul might remain intact (having killed in self-defense rather than in deliberate murder), I think Harry's heart and his spirit would be forever damaged. I cannot see Harry going on the defeat Voldemort, especially to defeat him with the power Voldemort "knows not" if Draco had died. Harry might still know that power, but he would never be able to harness it with the same untainted heart and unfettered spirit as before. I think Harry will also suffer if he has to kill Voldemort. The difference though is that Voldemort has been and will be trying to kill Harry until the end, while Harry had no reason (nor do we) to believe Draco had any intent to kill him. Killing Voldemort would cost Harry some of his innocence, but I think he could still grow from the experience, and even gain strength from his resolve. He would move on with his life, a little older and wiser, but ultimately at peace with himself. Which doesn't mean that I *want* Harry to kill Voldemort. But if he has to in the end, then he'll find the strength to do it, and I think he will survive it both physically and emotionally intact. And maybe one day he'll have the opportunity to thank Snape for not only protecting his life several times, but for protecting his heart and spirit in the bathroom that day ;-) Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 28 05:02:04 2007 From: kelley_thompson at sbcglobal.net (Kelley) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:02:04 -0000 Subject: Elf Note: Yahoo Groups Beta Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170922 Hi, everyone-- As some of you already know, Yahoo has revamped Groups, and they're now beta testing them. HPfGU was given the opportunity to create a beta group to test it out, see how it works, etc. So, we have created: http://new.groups.yahoo.com/HPFGU-Beta Open membership, non-moderated posting, so please join up, post, try things out, see what y'all think. Thanks, everyone; let us know if you have any troubles joining. --Kelley From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jun 28 05:11:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:11:50 EDT Subject: FANTASY casting... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170923 Pat now; I really enjoyed Richard Harris, and agree that it would have been sweet to have him for all seven movies. But instead of Michael Gambon, I have always wished they got Peter O'Toole to take over as DD, he's got that twinkle in the eye thing down so well. Julie: Me too, me too! I remember seeing a poster for his most recent movie, "Venus," and thinking "THAT'S who should be Dumbledore!" That twinkle in his eye is a wonder to behold. I'd even say it's downright magical ;-) Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jun 28 05:15:11 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:15:11 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170924 colebiancardi: Last night, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, his number one story was on how DH will turn out. I guess he plays our game as well (and I thought he just was making fun of the Harry Potter series these last couple of years - HA! Closet HP fan, he is) Some of his theories mesh quite nicely with many of our members here - the Horocrux!Harry, DDM!Snape just to name a couple. Here is the link to the transcript of his predictions: _http://www.msnbc.http://www.http://ww_ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19436954/) please note, he does mention that hacker's stuff (briefly), so, if you don't want to know what that hacker said (which IS trite), you may wish to skip over his predictions. I thought it was fascinating read and so on track with what we do here :) For those who have read the link, or even saw his show last night, what do YOU think? Do you think that Olbermann is on the right track? Please - Whether you like Olbermann or not, let's not discuss our personal views on him and let's try to focus on the predictions he's made, ok? colebiancardi Sandy: Thanks so much for posting this. I knew it was going to be his lead story but I had to work and missed it. There was also a video of the segment at the above link so I got to watch it. I like Keith so I am thrilled to find out he is a Potter fan. As for his predictions: I, personally, do not believe Harry's scar is a Horcrux, so I obviously can't go along with his prediction completely. However, Harry giving up his magical powers, that mean so much to him, would be a very big sacrifice, and a fit ending rather than having him die. It's a sound theory, but I can't say I like it. I don't want to see Harry give up his powers, although I would rather see that than his death. BTW, did you catch the mistakes? He mentioned Harry being killed by the Cruciatus Curse, which should have been Avada Kedavra. And he said the big snake in the basement was a Horcrux. DD raised that possibility, but it has yet to be proven. If nothing else, the segment was certainly entertaining, and despite the minor mistakes it is obvious he is familiar with and knows the books. Sandy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 06:43:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:43:05 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170925 > Mike: > I forgot a couple more about the potions book. Are all the notes, > spells, wisecracks, etc. from Snape's school days, or did he continue > to add to the book well after his NEWTs? zgirnius: Yes, I agree we won't get an explanation. I would guess Snape stopped using the book to write down new improvements, or he would not have forgotten it. He might still have worked on improving recipes, but probably switched to a more conventional place to record his experiments, once he became a teacher with a salary, an office, etc. > Mike: > Yes, it was the motorbike that's suppose to make a curtain call. zgirnius: Ah, thanks. > > > Mike: > > > 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? > > > > zgirnius: > > Is that your theory about it? I thought it might be the Snape > > family home. > > Mike: > Well, that's why it's on this list. I just think it odd to enter > a house into a room completely lined with bookshelves, where all the > doors are hidden behind said shelves. Doesn't seem like a Muggle > design to me. zgirnius: Oh, I see! I just figured Snape redecorated when he took possession of it. > Mike: > I too think they are related, as I'm in the camp that believes Reggie > swapped the locket on Bella before she put it in the cave. Yet, I > don't see it being answered because it's not important to the hunt > and/or the destruction of that Horcrux, imo. Water under the bridge > and Harry won't care *how* the locket got out, just that the locket > *did* get out. zgirnius: I still think we will learn more about how it was swapped. This could come out in the course of learning THAT it was swapped. It doesn't have to, but it would not take much time or be much or a distraction to introduce this information at that time. Whether this will be because Kreacher witnessed the whole thing and knows, or they find Regulus's diary, or something, I could not say. From lmkos at earthlink.net Thu Jun 28 08:18:25 2007 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:18:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV can self-destruct (was Killing != Murder) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170926 Lenore here, emerging from deep lurkdom to respond to this thread, as I think it may be the most crucial dilemma yet to be resolved. I'm still subject to being monitored by the elfses, so this post may be delayed a bit... >SSSusan: > > "(I'm kidding of course, but there are folks who are so > > adamant that Harry "can't" become a murderer, that this really > > would be a fun way to avoid that little dilemma of how to kill > > Moldy without someone intentionally murdering him.)" > >BAW: > > For at least the ten thousandth time *not all killing is murder*. >[snip] > >SSSusan: >[snip] >I feel similarly about Harry facing Voldemort. While it would be >*preferable* to me that Harry not have to kill the guy [I'd rather >like him to self-destruct somehow], [snip] Lenore: There is definitely a way in which Voldemort could self-destruct, within the confines of the hints we have been given so far, and one in which there is no dilemma whatever about having to kill. I won't go into the so-called morality of killing here, since I cannot see that as being at all relevant to the resolution. We have the hint that love will be the key to ending Voldemort's terror reign. But we'll have to make much greater strides towards understanding what this 'love' is all about (and it has nothing remotely to do with boxes of chocolate et al) !! Obviously, I do not know what JKR has in mind, and I'm looking forward as much as anyone to the denouement. In genuine transformational alchemy, Love is an absolute; it has no opposite in truth. Nothing can oppose it. So what is it that allows so many ills and conflicts in our so-called real world as well as in the wizard world? (Believe me, I am *not* interested in bringing up religious beliefs in this thread. I am speaking purely in terms of how alchemical transformations can result.) If you bring a bright light into a dark closet, there is no "battle" between the light and the dark. They are not true opposites. The light does not kill or murder the darkness. The dark is overcome simply because of what the nature of light IS. The light and the dark cannot coexist in the same place. And that is the crux of it-- what we perceive as opposites must be brought together in the same place. Of course, the power of Love works with precisely the same logic. Perhaps the Room of Love is a "place" where only Love exists, and Harry finally understands how to bring his own greatest fear and hate (Voldemort) into that "place". (I've put that in quotes because the place is really a state of awareness, not a spatial thing.) Bart: Harry's ALREADY killed Morty once, by destroying the diary. Lenore: He killed the memory-- the thought-- left of Morty Tom. As a personal example, in my DADA work in my everyday life, I have done something similar. For many years, I thought my mother was the most 'evil' person I knew... now, all I can think of is appreciation for her courage and strength and the good parts of her example. I'm not saying this is what Harry did with the diary. I am saying it is possible to completely expunge and release memories engendered by fears and hate. SSSusan: [snip] because it would be sort of like taking that one last bit of innocence away from Harry. I found that a very poignant statement. Yeah. It's going to be hard if it happens. Lenore: IMO, there is nothing more powerful than innocence, but in order to use it one has to know one has it. Hopefully, Harry will come to know his innocence; and from there, the use of Love to overcome will be 'a piece of cake'. Up to this point, we have seen Harry stuck in varying degrees of dualistic thinking and projection. He hardly ever distrusts his perceptions, even though they have let him down numerous times (as has been pointed out, thanks Carol and others). Lenore (hoping this approach to Voldemort's defeat will not seem as far-fetched and esoteric to the list as she fears it may) From catlady1949 at comcast.net Thu Jun 28 09:12:50 2007 From: catlady1949 at comcast.net (Phyllis Stevens) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:12:50 -0400 Subject: LV can self-destruct (was Killing != Murder) References: Message-ID: <006001c7b964$82c73530$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> No: HPFGUIDX 170927 Not quoting anyone here because there is a point that no one has mentioned. Many think that the opposite of love is hate, but in truth, it's fear. So I can see where Harry might only need to get Voldy in a position where he is extremely afraid, and his death will be assured. Love always conquers fear so this will mean absolutely no threat to Harry at all. Don't have a clue how this might happen, but this is my view of what will happen. We know that Voldy is afraid of love, so maybe, somehow, Harry makes Voldy fear he must love to survive? catlady1949 at comcast.net add me to your MSN: Catlady1949 at Comcast.net From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au Thu Jun 28 11:05:37 2007 From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:05:37 +1000 (EST) Subject: UK vs US In-Reply-To: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> Message-ID: <212752.64809.qm@web59107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170928 > Brenda: > I am new to the whole chat room, posting stuff, but I was wondering: > How different is the UK version of HP versus the US version? I live > in the US, and only have the US version. I don't even know where to > go to get the UK version. Am I missing a lot by reading the US > version and not the UK version? I've been reading the posting on > this site and notice often how the UK version seems to explain more. > Is that true? Hi All, I too am new to the whole chat room scene and like Brenda, I am interested in the differences in the US and UK versions of the books. I live in Australia and I am glad that we get the British versions here as I imagine they are published the way JK wrote them. I am curious though; if the difference is just word usage and slang, then why are the US versions so much longer than the UK versions? When the publication date for 'Deathly Hallows' was announced, I was so excited to see that the book was almost the same length as 'Phoenix.' Then I discovered that that page count was for the US version and that the UK version is fractionally shorter than 'Goblet.' Of course, the final length of the book depends on the page set up and the size of the print. The print in 'Prince' was quite a bit bigger than the print in 'Phoenix',. Also, the print was more spread out. Therefore 'Prince' at 607 pages was quite significantly shorter than 'Goblet' at 636. More than a mere 29 pages in fact. Nitpicky I know, but if you love the books as much as I do, then it's all relevant. wrappedinharry From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 11:57:31 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:57:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs US In-Reply-To: <212752.64809.qm@web59107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <005101c7b373$a59736b0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> <212752.64809.qm@web59107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40706280457k10faacb9y72b3f0e9307abd60@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170929 wrappedinharry wrote: > I too am new to the whole chat room scene and like Brenda, I am interested > in the differences in the US and UK versions of the books. I live in > Australia and I am glad that we get the British versions here as I imagine > they are published the way JK wrote them. > > I am curious though; if the difference is just word usage and slang, then > why are the US versions so much longer than the UK versions? montims: I am British, living in America, and have only read the English versions, though that will change this year, as I cannot wait for Amazon.uk to deliver my book - I will be queuing at the local shop at midnight to get a book, like everyone else! Anyway, I see from Lexicon that the changes (which bother me enormously) have become less as the series progresses, but I understand the main difference is that US versions have pictures at the beginning of each chapter (the famous GrandPre, if I'm not mistaken) where, of course, the English books do not. Also, I understand that when there is writing - a letter, or note - it is reproduced in that person's handwriting, instead of just being printed, and this also takes up more space. So the difference in length is not necessarily more words (except for that extra, crucial phrase in HBP) but due to spacing - chapter art and layout. If I have understood correctly what people have said... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 13:39:15 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:39:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing != Murder Re: The twins? (was: Dumbledore's Fall) In-Reply-To: <17371420.1182965517022.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <17371420.1182965517022.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <700201d40706280639u706a4e31pf0403fafb8699ad0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170930 > >Kemper earlier: > >[ I ] don't want to see our hero become a killer not > >because killing is bad because obviously sometimes it's good, but > >because [ I ] want Harry to hold onto his last bit of innocence. > > Bart: > Harry's ALREADY killed Morty once, by destroying the diary. This is not being facetious; I can visualize Morty about to die, and Harry offering to save him, but Morty refuses, falsely believing himself to be still protected by one or more of his horcruxes. Unfortunately for Morty, they've all been destroyed. Oops! Kemper now: Harry's NEVER killed Lo Vo. He destroyed a vampiric journal. IT is not the same thing. In the next book, as Harry destroys a horcrux or two, he will not be killing Lo Vo. He may be making killing Lo Vo easier when he eventually faces Lo Vo, but that is not the same as killing Lo Vo. Kemper From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 28 14:31:32 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:31:32 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: <380-22007642821711312@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170931 > > Magpie: > I'm still confused as to why you want to have this narrow definition of > plot so that stories with heroes who react to a crisis (all of what Orson > Scott Card would call Event stories) can't have plots, so that JKR's books > don't. The Mirror of Erised does add to the plot. Not only does it > introduce Harry to it so that he'll know how it works later in the climax, > it's helping with Harry's development so that he makes different choices > later.Why not just say that JKR's books are plotted--quite tightly so, with > characters often pulled into line to give us information and set things > up--but that Harry is a passive hero? Pippin: I have to agree with Magpie. According to the classic example, "The King died and then the Queen died" is a story, "The King died and then the Queen died of grief" is a plot. Connections of any kind are what give a story its plot, and if we're not going to call that plotting, what are we going to call it? "George" is taken. The action of a mystery story is the protagonist trying to figure out how events are connected, something the reader generally doesn't know until the end. In contrast to classic sleuths like Sherlock Holmes, Harry's efforts to solve the mysteries before him are generally sporadic and unsuccessful. But that's what makes re-reading the books such fun: Harry misses or misinterprets almost all the clues, so they're still there for the reader to discover once we know what's supposed to have been going on. > > BetsyHp: > Think of all the things you have to ignore for > GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one > looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need > neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide. And then there's PoA which > includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with time- > travel. I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders (character, > again) I'm not a fan of the plot. Pippin: Alfred Hitchcock used to talk about The Plausibles, that group of people who couldn't take any pleasure in a story that didn't follow its own internal rules. But I think JKR is a Plausible herself, or as plausible as someone a bit maths challenged can be. Logistical plausibility doesn't matter to her, but logical and psychological plausibility do. I think the plot of PoA will make sense (aside from the fact that all theories of time travel have internal contradictions) once the missing pieces of the puzzle are produced. My guess is there are things in DH that will cause us to re-evaluate the plots of all the books. But GoF makes sense now given the character of Voldemort and Barty Jr. You might as well ask why Voldie and Bella didn't just AK Draco on the spot. The psychopath experiences life as a constant series of people who make him feel important and special, and then disappoint him drastically. Voldemort forces others to re-enact this drama for his amusement, over and over again. As for trying to find out who put Harry's name in the goblet, it would be pointless. Anyone who could confund the goblet could confund the investigators too. As we saw in HBP, Dumbledore solves wzarding crimes by asking the old question *cui bono* -- who benefits. Unfortunately for Harry, the answer was not clear until Fake!Moody tried to snatch him away. > > BetsyHp: > I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to the mystery genre but it > seems to me that JKR isn't too strong in that area either. She's > more about the twist (she's *amazing* with the twist, IMO), which I > think is something different. Pippin? Pippin: Mostly, the mysteries aren't "fair" , a term of art which means that the reader can deduce the identity of the villain and the method by which his crime was committed from internal clues. They're almost fair: there are enough clues that you could guess the answer, but not enough to logically eliminate all the other possibilities. But that's not poor plotting, it's just a different style of mystery story. The mysteries that Hermione solves are "fair" -- when she says "Tuh!" or "I've just remembered something" and scurries off to the library, that's like Nero Wolfe pushing his lips in and out. It's your cue that you have enough information to try to solve the puzzle if you wish, using the clues you've been given and perhaps some facts from the (Muggle) library, for example that "skeeter" is North American slang for an insect. Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 14:45:09 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:45:09 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170932 > Mike: > I think Yb has to be right because the inconsistency between > Trelawney's and Dumbledore's stories is problematic, imo. First half > of the prophesy versus there after it's over, just doesn't make > sense. I gotta believe this was a clue for us readers. > Neri: I think the question we should ask ourselves is: assuming for a moment that Snape indeed heard only the first half of the prophecy, and there was never supposed to be any doubt about it, why didn't JKR write the two versions, Dumbledore's and Trelawney's, perfectly consistent? The answer seems quite obvious to me: In OotP JKR had to write Dumbledore's explanation that the eavesdropper heard only the first part without giving the readers too many details or diverting them from the main issue (which in OotP was the fact that Voldemort knew half the prophecy, not *how* he knew it). But comes HBP, Harry had to find out that the eavesdropper was Snape, and he had to find it by chance from someone other than Dumbledore, so it had to be Trelawney (the only other option would be Aberforth, but it appears JKR's plot demands that Harry will only discover Aberforth in DH) and this meant that Trelawney had to see Snape being caught. Thus a slight inconsistency between the two versions resulted. IMO it's a consistency that can easily be resolved in DH (by Aberforth, probably, or by Snape himself) but like SSSusan upthread I won't be surprised if JKR isn't even aware of any niggling doubts regarding the issue, and we won't get any further explanation in DH. Neri From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 15:15:44 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:15:44 -0000 Subject: When will Voldemort discover destroyed Horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > > Eddie, who thinks (today, but maybe not tomorrow) that Harry will lure > Voldemort into the MOM's "Love Room" wherein Voldemort will be > weakened by the forces there (Love) and Harry will be strengthened. > In this context Harry will be able to vanquish Voldemort, but Love > (and pity) will so fill Harry that he will not be able to destroy > Voldemort. This act of Love and Pity will be the last straw and will > in and of itself destroy Voldemort. > Dondee: A thought just popped into my head about the Scholastic book cover as I read this. Forgive me if this idea was already mentioned during the book cover premier discussion frenzy from a while back. What if the cover depicts Harry and Voldie in the Love Room? That would explain why (IMO) Harry looks so calm and in control and Voldie looks rather frantic. The shadowy figures in the background could be some sort of representations of the people who love Harry. Thoughts? Cheers, Dondee From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 28 16:30:12 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:30:12 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170934 Mike: > Now for my nigglers. I have lots of Horcrux questions that I don't > see getting answered. For instance: > 1. When did Tom make his first Horcrux? Before or after his chat > with Slughorn. > 2. Can a Horcrux be created anytime after a murder, or must the > soul encasing be done proximate to the murder? > 3. What happens to the extra torn soul pieces that don't get > encased in a Horcrux? SSSusan: I have a feeling you're right that these won't be answered within DH necessarily (especially #3). However, I think they're the kinds of things JKR is fairly likely to answer in an interview or on her site or in a Q&A where some wise fan thinks to ask important matters like these. :) Mike: > 4. What happens when a Horcrux is "destroyed"? Is the soul piece > killed, released, or what? And if it is released, what happens to > it? SSSusan: This one I'd think is somewhat likely to actually come up in DH. Couldn't you see the Trio talking this one over? Not sure who'd be able to provide the answer for them, but.... Mike: > And one we may or may not get answered, what would have happened > had Diary Revenant Tom succeeded in becoming fully realised? SSSusan: No, I don't think this will get discussed in canon because JKR already did answer it at her website, right? It might not be to the degree which will satisfy, but I know I've read her response. Mike: > 3. Why did Dumbledore tell H&H, "you must not be seen", when > Hermione had obviously been seen all year long? SSSusan: Do you think he meant seen by *anyone* or simply "seen by yourselves"? I've taken it to be the latter. (Movie!Hermione did a nice job of answering why that'd be a problem, but [ack!] don't have canon on hand to double-check that.) Mike: > When did Wormtail come to live with Snape.... SSSusan: ...and WHY! :) Mike: > How did RAB get the locket out of the Birdbath of Doom? Or did he > swap them out before the real locket even made it to the cave? SSSusan: Oh, SURELY this one we will discover, no? One more Niggle from me, too. Will we find out for certain how Dumbledore knew about what happened at Godric's Hollow? I mean, that very evening, how did he get the news? > Mike, who also wants to know why JKR felt it necessary to introduce > time travel and hopes that she really needed it at the same time > hopes he won't see it again. SSSusan: AMEN, Mike! Siriusly Snapey Susan From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 28 16:33:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:33:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Little Niggling Details will be left? Message-ID: <2132111.1183048402464.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170935 From: Mike >Now for my nigglers. I have lots of Horcrux questions that I don't >see getting answered. For instance: >1. When did Tom make his first Horcrux? Before or after his chat with >Slughorn. Bart: The implication I got was after; he wanted to be sure of what he was doing before he started. Mike: >3. What happens to the extra torn soul pieces that don't get encased >in a Horcrux? Bart: They heal (although perhaps with scarring). That's why creating a horcrux is such a horrible thing; it makes the soul damage permanent. Mike: >4. What happens when a Horcrux is "destroyed"? Is the soul piece >killed, released, or what? And if it is released, what happens to it? Bart: See Dementor's Kiss. Mike: >5. And just to settle a disagreement between myself and Carol, could >Tom have used Myrtle's death to create a Horcrux or does the murder >have to be by the murderer's hand? Bart: I think intent has something (everything) to do with it. If Tom ordered the basilisk to kill Myrtle, then it would be a murder; if Myrtle just looked the wrong way at the wrong time, it would not have been murder. In any case, I don't believe that Tom was quite ready for horcruxery at the time of that killing. Mike: >HBP nigglers: >Was that potions book originally Eileen Prince's? Was all the writing >that of a young Severus or did someone else ::cough,Lily, cough:: >make some contributions? Why was this NEWT level book used by Sevie >before he got to his OWLS? Bart: The last: because Snape was much more advanced than other students, and because the Ministry had no idea what to do with advanced students (note that there does not appear to be a mechanism for re-taking one's OWLs should one, for example, be attacked by a dark wizard, or see a favorite teacher being attacked by a bunch of goons, in the middle of taking one). Mike: >By the book nigglers: > >1. Did Dumbledore get any Elixir of Life before the Philosopher's >Stone was destroyed? Bart: Apparently not. Mike: >2. What happened to the Weasley's Ford Anglia? Bart: It flew off in a Vogon spaceship with a Ford Prefect. Either that, or Hagrid's figruing out some way to cross-breed it... Mike: >And one we may or may not get answered, what would have happened had >Diary Revenant Tom succeeded in becoming fully realised? Bart: My best guess is that Morty would have merged and taken over, getting a body back a couple of books earlier. Mike: >3. Why did Dumbledore tell H&H, "you must not be seen", when Hermione >had obviously been seen all year long? Bart: Because they weren't seen. See: Time Paradox. >4. Does Voldemort own the Riddle House now? How about the Gaunt hovel? Bart: Good question. I believe that if there are any other claimants, they could make a good case. There is a definite implication that Morty did NOT own the Riddle House, based on Frank's actions and his reactions. On the one hand, this should be a major clue to something, but, on the other hand, it may be just one of those things that JKR didn't think through all the way (it's REALLY annoying when tiny details are of utmost importance, but the author makes numerous mistakes with tiny details). Mike: >Why didn't the Tri-Wizard committee set up some massive big screen >TVs so the spectators could've seen what went on in the lake and >inside the maze? Have you ever realised how boring the last two >events must have been for everyone who wasn't Fleur, Harry, Cedric or >Krum? Bart: I had the same question, myself. I mean, the WW DOES have a radio equivalent. And viewing devices with replay capability (GOF). Mike: >5. How did Kreacher know when to injure Buckbeak? Bart: When Morty realized that he got through to Harry. Mike: >Was Voldemort listening in on Dumbledore's wrap-up talk with Harry? Bart: It was implied during the Ministry battle that posessing Harry was a painful experience for Morty. Mike: >When did Wormtail come to live with Snape and when did Snape realise >that Sirius wasn't the Potter's Secret Keeper? Bart: As for the latter, I don't think it's "realize"; I'm reasonably sure DD TOLD him. Even on a "need to know" basis, it would be right around the ending of POA, so that Sevvy would drop the matter (I have been in a similar situation myself, where I was getting hit by an injustice, but I was quietly told by the authorities in question as to WHY I was getting hit by it, and if I complained publicly, a greater injustice would result for others, so I kept my mouth shut). >Mike, who also wants to know why JKR felt it necessary to introduce >time travel and hopes that she really needed it at the same time >hopes he won't see it again. Bart: I suspect (hope?) she introduced time travel to give it sufficient limitations that it could only be used in the most limited of circumstances (that you can't change the past, but you CAN change the future). Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jun 28 16:34:44 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:34:44 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Riddle House Message-ID: <27966528.1183048485112.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170936 Kimberly here: >We see later in the series that Dumbledore hires on Dobby as well >as Winky. It always seemed that he took them on not because there >was a shortage of elf-staff at Hogwarts but more for their sake. >Dobby and Winky had no other prospects. At least for them to stay together. It's also perhaps the only paying gig that Dobby wuold get, but there are probably more than a few families (the Weasleys come to mind) who would have been happy to have Winky work for them, and would have treated Winky like family instead of like a slave. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 16:43:37 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:43:37 -0000 Subject: The Riddle House (Dumbledore - In League with Voldemort?) In-Reply-To: <005b01c7b92c$e7abbd00$2e01a8c0@MainComputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170937 Kimberly here: > I've always leaned toward the idea that it was Dumbledore that > owned the house. Certainly he did say he found out about Frank's > murder from the paper but that was his ONLY source of what > happened. He didn't say he exclusively found out about it from > the newspaper. He may not have wanted to divulge the information > of him owning the house to Harry at the time of GoF so he withheld > that from him. Dumbledore seems to do a lot of withholding > information for Harry's own good. > I wonder what happened to The Riddle House after GoF? Maybe > Dumbledore did own it? Perhaps he'll bequeath it to Harry and > we'll revisit it? lizzyben: I agree that DD was the owner of the Riddle house. He knew that Voldemort would return eventually, and that the Riddle house is one of the first places he'd go. As a great wizard, DD also probably knew the magical ritual that VD would use to regain a body - blood of an enemy, bones of the father. So, DD knew that that ritual would most likely take place in the Riddle graveyard. Thinking ahead, he bought the Riddle house cheap & waited. Good thinking, DD. Brilliant plan. Except, after he bought the property, he didn't seem to do ANYTHING to surveil the house, or notify the MOM if VD or his followers returned. Nagini, Wormtail, Crouch, VD go trampling in & out of the house, w/only Frank Bryce noticing. After Bryce died, DD must have known who was responsible. He knew that VD would try to rise again - using the graveyard & the "Blood of an enemy." Whose blood would VD most likely try to use? Harry's, of course. By using Harry's blood, VD could end the "blood protection," & finally feel safe enough to hurt/kill Harry. And Dumbledore KNEW THIS. He KNEW that this would be VD's plan. He also knew that Snape's Dark Mark was burning, which meant that VD would act soon to rise again. Then the Goblet of Fire spits out Harry's name for the Tri-Wizard Competition. DD must have known, or at least suspected, that the Goblet was part of VD's plan. So, if he was interested in protecting "the Chosen One", DD should have done everything possible to make sure Harry didn't compete. DD did not. He also should have done some investigation to see if any DE spies/imposters were at Hogwarts. He did not. Hey, maybe use those Legimency skills to why that old friend Moody is acting strangely. DD did not (or did he?) Maybe station some Aurors or spies at the Riddle House? Come on! I don't see any indication that DD tried to prevent VD's resurrection. And he knew it was coming. Finally, VD's plan succeeds. He uses a Portkey to transport Harry & Cedric to the Riddle graveyard, and also summons the Death Eaters to his side. Snape also received this summons to the Riddle graveyard - and informs DD. DD knows that VD & the Death Eaters are all assembled on his property, at the house he owns. While Harry is missing in a maze for a very suspicious competition. What does DD do? NOTHING! He waits. Two hours later, Harry reappears at Hogwarts. Crying, traumatized, carrying the dead body of Cedric Diggory. DD asks Harry what happened, and when Harry reaches the part when Wormtail cut his arm, DD suddenly gets very interested. Not outraged, interested. He gets up to look at Harry's arm. Harry informs him that VD thought Harry's blood would make him stronger & remove the protection his mother had given. And Dumbledore suddenly has a "gleam of triumph." No mention of compassion for Harry's pain, or worry about Harry's safety. DD is feeling triumphant because he realizes that VD has fallen for his plan. Of course DD has a gleam of triumph. VD fell into the trap he himself had set. From purchasing the Riddle house, to throwing Harry in front of Quirrel-Mort & Tom Riddle, to letting Harry enter the tournament, DD has been in control of VD's resurrection all along. He purchased the Riddle House to have the "bones of the father", and he ensured that VD would try to use Harry for the "blood of the enemy". I haven't seen any indication that DD was actually trying to stop VD's return in GOF, instead, he seems to be ensuring that it DOES happen, on DD's own terms. I think DD has manipulated Voldemort almost as much as he manipulates Harry. It's all part of DD's larger Plan. lizzyben, who wonders if Harry will still want to be Dumbledore's Man by the end of Book Seven. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 16:46:39 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:46:39 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > And the other obvious question, how did James learn the Levicorpus > spell? For that matter, how did Severus invent nonverbal spells > before his 5th year when the Trio don't even start getting taught > nonverbals until their 6th year? Dondee: Severus was chummy with older Slytherines who would know all about nonverbals and he most likely had access to his mum's other advanced school books. As for James learning Levicorpus... Lupin said it had a "great vogue" in his day - I take this to mean that the Marauders were not the first to use this spell openly. I can see Severus inventing this spell to impress his older chums and then the spell was used by them against the other houses. Eventually how the spell worked would get around - the same way that jelly legs and other jinxes would circulate. We don't ever see the Trio learning the common jinxes of today but we see them using them when they face Draco & Co. > It really seems that Hogwarts has regressed in it's student > advancement, compared to Snape and the Marauder's generation. Dondee: Perhaps the MOM *has* had some influence on Hogwarts cirriculum in the past decade or two? ::imitating an evil Umbridge giggle:: Personally, I think that Severus and the Marauders curricular and noncurricular achievements are not indicitave of their fellow classmates abilities. Bookish, half-blood Severus had something to prove to himself and his older Slytherin chums. James and Sirius were super popular, extremely intelligent, and way to sure of themselves - they wanted danger and excitement and for them that meant learning advanced spells. Remus was an intelligent boy with low self-esteem and a terrible secret who just wanted to fit in and belong. Peter, well, he is a bit of a foil for the others and a definite coat-tail-hanger- on-er. All the other student at Hogwarts quite possibly could have had more dramatic lives than our boys but they (excluding Lily of course) are not key characters in an epic 7-part story now are they? ;) Cheers, Dondee From gloworm419 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 16:13:53 2007 From: gloworm419 at yahoo.com (Gloria R. Hernon) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When will Voldemort discover destroyed Horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <808476.63336.qm@web50411.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170939 Eddie, > > who thinks (today, but maybe not tomorrow) > > that Harry will lure Voldemort into the MOM's "Love Room" wherein > > Voldemort will be weakened by the forces there (Love) and Harry > > will be strengthened. Dondee: > A thought just popped into my head about the Scholastic book cover > as I read this. What if the cover depicts Harry and Voldie in > the Love Room? That would explain why (IMO) Harry looks so calm and > in control and Voldie looks rather frantic. The shadowy figures in > the background could be some sort of representations of the people > who love Harry. Gloria: What a fantastic thought, Dondee! I couldn't agree more! Harry and Voldy could indeed be in the Love room at the MOM and the figures around them could be Harry's family & friends, (deceased or alive), giving 'loving' support. Any thoughts on that one? Also, the cover with the Trio & the dragon... Since dragons cannot be tamed, that we surely know, I think the Dragon is an Animagi of Draco or maybe even Snape. What do you lot think? Have a good day! Gloria From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Thu Jun 28 16:20:52 2007 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:20:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch is like an alethiometer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170940 I am currently reading "The Subtle Knife", the second book of Pullman's His Dark Materials, and I've been wondering what if DD's watch worked kind of like the alethiometer. He did check it at Privet Drive when he dropped Harry off. Maybe it was telling him that he needed to do that in order for Voldemort to be defeated. Maybe he's been checking it all along and that's why he knew what he would have to teach Harry for him to be sucessful in SS. I guess I haven't fully thought this idea out but it would seem to explain a lot of DD's actions that seem to put Harry in danger and/or seem manipulative. Just a small thought, Lynn From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 17:41:36 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:41:36 -0000 Subject: Who will be the new head of Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170941 I hadn't thought of this when I did my other post on Hogwarts in the last book. But No one really comes to ming besides Firenze or maybe Hagrid. Granted I think neither is an all too good option. considering a decent number of the students don't respect/like Hagrid and well how would Firenze get up to the common room? lol :-) SO please feel free to chime in I am def interested in this topic and would like to hear what others think. TKJ From thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 28 17:36:23 2007 From: thubanofllanmoel at yahoo.co.uk (simon harris) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:36:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070628173623.60284.qmail@web27302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170942 Eddie: Either Lupin or Ollivander will teach Transfiguration. I have no canon to support this idea, but what the heck. Si: Didn't Ollivander go missing just before HBP? From Brenda.Swift at ahp-dsg.com Thu Jun 28 17:49:26 2007 From: Brenda.Swift at ahp-dsg.com (brendacarlisleswift) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:49:26 -0000 Subject: Who will be the new head of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170943 TKJ: > I hadn't thought of this when I did my other post on Hogwarts in > the last book. But No one really comes to ming besides Firenze or > maybe Hagrid. I think Hagrid would be the choice, for most of the Grif's do like him or at least think he does an OK job. They could possibly bring in an outsider - The "real" Mad Eye Moody. The Grif's would love that. Of course he is too busy for housing, right now. Just some thoughts. I wouldn't mind seeing Hagrid or Hooch. Brenda From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 18:12:10 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:12:10 -0000 Subject: LV can self-destruct (was Killing != Murder) In-Reply-To: <006001c7b964$82c73530$c0fe3e44@user53796g88h2> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis Stevens" wrote: > > Not quoting anyone here because there is a point that no one has mentioned. Many think that the opposite of love is hate, but in truth, it's fear. So I can see where Harry might only need to get Voldy in a position where he is extremely afraid, and his death will be assured. Love always conquers fear so this will mean absolutely no threat to Harry at all. Don't have a clue how this might happen, but this is my view of what will happen. We know that Voldy is afraid of love, so maybe, somehow, Harry makes Voldy fear he must love to survive? > > > catlady1949 at ... Dondee: I must disagree with you Catlady, I believe that love, hate and fear all reside in the human heart and that indiference is the opposite of all three. Voldy is already extremely afraid - he is afraid of death. Just look at the lengths he has gone to try to escape his own mortality. He also fears his minions which is why he is so abusive and controlling of them. He is also filled with hate - he hates and fears the things he has no control over. The power of love is something he criticizes, demeans, and feigns indiference towards but really he fears it as well. Voldy views love as a weakness and a vulnerability and decided long ago as a little boy in an orphanage that he must harden his heart and deny love as a way to strengthen and protect himself. Harry has power that "the Dark Lord knows not" because Voldy rejected love as a boy and has so maligned his poor soul since then that he is now incapable of producing it. Any affection or attention he gives to his DEs is merely for the purpose of manipulation. Harry could have hardened his heart and denied love while growing up in the Dursley household as a way to strengthen and protect himself, yet he remained open and loving (though not always towards the Dursleys ;)). I think this is, in part, because though he didn't know anything about his parents other than that they died in a car crash, he believed that they had loved him and that if they had not died that they would be together. Young Tom Riddle viewed himself as rejected and willingly abandoned by his parents. Sure, his mum died in childbirth but I bet he thinks she could have fought to stay alive for him. Love does strengthen us when we are afraid and can help us to master our fears, I agree with you there. The fact that Harry loves and is loved will give him the strength and courage he needs, as it always has, to defeat Voldemort. Cheers, Dondee From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 18:14:13 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:14:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: <20070628173623.60284.qmail@web27302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170945 > > Si: > > Didn't Ollivander go missing just before HBP? > TKJ: It was stated in HBP that the store was closed, but someone suggested that maybe the Order put him in hiding so the DE wouldn't find him and try to use him. Or, maybe they did get to him who knows. But, if he does end up at Hogwarts then I guess it would confirm "the ORder has him in hiding" idea :-) TKJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 19:23:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:23:33 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann/ Harry giving up his magi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170946 >> Sandy: > I like Keith so I am thrilled to find out he is a Potter fan. As for his > predictions: I, personally, do not believe Harry's scar is a Horcrux, so I > obviously can't go along with his prediction completely. However, Harry giving up > his magical powers, that mean so much to him, would be a very big sacrifice, > and a fit ending rather than having him die. It's a sound theory, but I can't > say I like it. I don't want to see Harry give up his powers, although I would > rather see that than his death. Alla: I was pretty sure I read this quote from JKR, but now I cannot find it, so maybe somebody could help me. I am also pretty sure that this was a 2006 interview, just do not know which one. Unless I am majorly confused, I seem to remember that interviewer asked her about this ending , whether it is likely to happen that Harry will give up his magic at the end, or something to this effect. I also seem to remember that the answer was that this is a good ending, but she does not want to be sued for stealing it from fanfiction or something like that. Again, that is my vague recollection, I can be completely wrong, but I also was thinking that it debunked the "Harry gives up his magic at the end" ending completely in my mind. Alla. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 19:40:36 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:40:36 -0000 Subject: Predictions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > The Weasley's flying car will mate with Sirius' flying motorcycle > (Hagrid has had it hidden at Hogwarts all these years) and the two > together will produce a brood of flying tricycles. I'm sure I can > support this with canon. Hang on a mo'...... > > > Eddie, who, without jest, thinks the car and motorcycle will "meet" in DH. > JW: There's a bit o' difference between "meet" and "mate." IIRC, JKR has already said that both modes of magical transport will return. I believe the bike is still on the rock in the water where Hagrid left it in PS/SS. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 20:06:46 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:06:46 -0000 Subject: Killing != Murder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170948 > Dave: > > So in Harry's mind and conscience, killing LV *would* be murder. > > Granted, I think he's accepted the necessity of it, but he's not > > happy about it; and I worry about his future emotional state, even > > if he survives. > > SSSusan: > That is a fair point, Dave... an excellent point. > Yesterday Kemper mentioned something that I appreciated, too -- that > Harry having to kill Voldy might be able to be deemed necessary and > understandable and all of that, but that he didn't want it to happen > because it would be sort of like taking that one last bit of innocence > away from Harry. I found that a very poignant statement. > > Julie: > I agree, and that's why do I hope Harry doesn't have to kill Voldemort. Harry displayed genuine anguish (at least briefly) over his own > miscalculation > in using a spell with which he was so unfamiliar. He clearly didn't intend > to kill > Draco, but was caught up in the moment of defending himself. But... > > It doesn't only matter what Harry intended. What also matters is the end > result. > No matter how justified, the end result of killing another person is living > with that > death, forever. > I think Harry will also suffer if he has to kill Voldemort. The difference > though is > that Voldemort has been and will be trying to kill Harry until the end, > while Harry > had no reason (nor do we) to believe Draco had any intent to kill him. JW: I believe there is good news for David, SSS and Julie. Just as DD did NOT kill GW in 1945, and just as there is no evidence that the even greater DL of the latter 19th century was killed, there is no reason to believew that HP will kill LV. DLs do not die, they just... suffer worse fates. From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 20:25:26 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:25:26 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170949 Friends, Here are the tentative rules and questions for the Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest. Please read and respond if you think anything is unfair or too speculative, or downright wrong. Yours in HP, TK -- TigerPatronus! RAYOR SPOILER ALERT: THESE RULES INCLUDE ONE VERY SMALL DH SPOILER GLEANED FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID YATES, THE OOTP MOVIE DIRECTOR AND REFERENCES TO THE RELEASED COVERS. Rules: Copy these questions and email your answers *both* to *tigerpatronus* *at* *yahoo* *dot* *com* and to the newsgroup. You must email your entry to TigerPatronus to be entered in the contest. You will receive an email confirmation of your entry. In the event of a dispute, the entry posted to the group will be your back-up. Deadline: Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 11:59 pm (midnight) EDT. (No Friday entries will be accepted.) Any details released by JKR or subsidiaries are worth no credit *after* they are released. Example: if you predict that "The trio will ride a dragon,'" it will be worth 0 points. However, if you make a prediction and email your prediction to the list and to TigerPatronus and *then* the detail is released, you will get full credit. If you are JKR, work at the publishing company, hacked Bloomsbury's computers, or have somehow else have already read the book, don't enter. We will find out, hunt you down, and give you a virtual thermonuclear wedgie. Specificity will be rewarded. Brevity is . . . wit. All decisions of the judges (TigerPatronus and her Minions) are arbitrary, ruthless, and final. (Minion recruitment is now open.) Prizes: Grand Prize (1): Bragging rights in perpetuity. All HPfGU members must address you as "Your Brilliance," "Leader of the Intelligentsia," "The HP-est," or another superlative title of your own choosing. A filk will be composed in your honor. A year's worth of free butterbeer. Honorable Mentions (10): Bragging rights in perpetuity. All HPfGU members must address you as "Pretty Smartie," "A Member of the Intelligentsia," "Quite HP-ish," or a subordinate title of your own choosing. A free case of butterbeer. Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? b. Draco? c. Hermione? d. Luna? e. Ron? f. Neville? g. Ginny? 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? b. Head Girl? c. DADA Instructor? d. Potions Master or Mistress? e. Headmaster or -mistress? 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. Current Off-Limit Spoilers: -- Predictions that describe any the covers are worth 0 points unless they include specific information not obvious in the cover. -- SPOILER: Kreacher will be in DH. (David Yates, interview.) (Note: because we are pretty sure that Kreacher will figure at least somewhat prominently in DH, any predictions about his presence on a cover will also be worth 0 points.) -- The probable identity of "R.A.B." as stumbled around by JKR during Leaky / Mugglenet interview will earn 0 points. -- Predictions based on "Gabriel the Hacker" are allowed but we will laugh at you when they're wrong. -- Anything stupidly obvious (e.g., Harry will turn 17, Ron and Hermione will date, Voldemort is evil, someone will perform magic,) will be worth 0 points, at most. Negative points are possible. -- "Negative" predictions, i.e., "The Centaurs will *not* come skipping into Hogwarts offering free pony rides," will receive no credit. -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be scored. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 20:27:20 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:27:20 -0000 Subject: When will Voldemort discover destroyed Horcruxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170950 > Eddie: > >Harry will lure > > Voldemort into the MOM's "Love Room" wherein Voldemort will be > > weakened by the forces there (Love) and Harry will be strengthened. > > > > Dondee: > > What if the cover depicts Harry and Voldie in the Love Room? That > would explain why (IMO) Harry looks so calm and in control and Voldie > looks rather frantic. The shadowy figures in the background could be > some sort of representations of the people who love Harry. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, Dondee JW: I always thought the Love Room would be furnished with a large circular bed, mirrors on the ceiling, and Barry White playing softly on a surround-sound music system. Shows how little I know! From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 21:06:00 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:06:00 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: <20070628173623.60284.qmail@web27302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170951 > Si: > > Didn't Ollivander go missing just before HBP? > JW: Ollivander is gone. Nobody knows the story. Was he Kidnapped? Perhaps the DL and DE wanted to remove his talents from the WW. Or did he flee? There was "no sign of a struggle." Also gone is Fortescue, owner of the Ice Cream Parlor. He might have been dragged off - we are not given details, but the store may have been ransacked. HP met Fortescue early in PoA, after running away from the Dursleys. "Harry could sit in the bright sunshine outside Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor, finishing all his homework with occasional help from Fortescue himself, who, apart from knowing a great deal about medieval witch burnings, gave Harry free sundaes every half an hour." Ollivander had a wand in a place of honor in his shop's window, and there is speculation about the significance of that wand. What did Fortescue have? Hot fudge sauce embedded with powerful old magic? A Hogwart founder's ice cream scoop? Or is his knowledge of history significant? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 28 21:09:10 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:09:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch is like an alethiometer?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170952 "eyemlynn" wrote: > I am currently reading "The Subtle Knife", > the second book of Pullman's His Dark > Materials, and I've been wondering what > if DD's watch worked kind of like the > alethiometer. That is an interesting idea, first rate!. I'm just a little jealous I didn't have the idea first. I think Pullman's 3 "His Dark Materials" books are the third best fantasy series of all time, the second best is the first 2 books of the 6 part "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" series, the best of course are the 6 (probably 7) Harry Potter books. All are far far better than the Tolkien ring stuff. Eggplant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 21:59:23 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:59:23 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170953 > >>BetsyHp: > > Think of all the things you have to ignore for GoF to make > > sense... > > And then there's PoA which includes both enough exposition to > > choke a horse *and* fun with time-travel. I love PoA for the > > introduction of the Marauders (character, again) I'm not a fan of > > the plot. > >>Pippin: > Alfred Hitchcock used to talk about The Plausibles, that group of > people who couldn't take any pleasure in a story that didn't follow > its own internal rules. Betsy Hp: That's absolutely me. I cannot *stand* it when stories (or writers to be more accurate) suddenly break the rules of their world. It's sloppy, IMO, and shows a massive dearth of imagination. And is usually a sad, pathetic attempt to breathe "excitement" into a dying story. (The tv series "Alias" is a good example, the last season or two of "X-Files" is another. I can't think of any books that go this route. I suppose there are series works that might.) But now I'm curious, is there ever a time when this sort of sloppiness in story telling is a good thing? And if so, could you provide an example? Because I kind of get the sense that "the Plausibles" is being used as an insult, and it's hard for me to understand how that can be. > >>Pippin: > But I think JKR is a Plausible herself, or as > plausible as someone a bit maths challenged can be. Logistical > plausibility doesn't matter to her, but logical and psychological > plausibility do. I think the plot of PoA will make sense (aside > from the fact that all theories of time travel have internal > contradictions) once the missing pieces of the puzzle are > produced. Betsy Hp: But I'm not questioning the plausibility of PoA. I just question the delivery system. Lupin had to make this massive speech to fill the kids in on the Marauder background. It's a boring bit of story- telling. And the time-turners, while perfectly plausible within the WW, are awfully trite. Especially as they're a form of magic we won't be seeing again. I could obviously be wrong about that, time travel may be the lynch-pin of DH. But at this point it just seemed like a way for JKR to force the plot to go her way. > >>Pippin: > My guess is there are things in DH that will cause > us to re-evaluate the plots of all the books. Betsy Hp: I agree. Though I think it will be a change more in how we view different characters rather than plots so much. > >>Pippin: > But GoF makes sense now given the character of Voldemort and > Barty Jr. > Betsy Hp: It can definitely be fanwanked, yes. And you don't have to try too hard to do it. But it's something the reader has to provide pretty much all on their own rather than something that grows organically out of the story being told. I mean, yes it's *plausible* but there's still a sense of something being forced. JKR's plots are plausible but they're also creaky. Which is why I don't think she's all that good at actual plotting. Or at having the plots flow is maybe the better way of putting it. > >>Pippin: > > As for trying to find out who put Harry's name in the goblet, > it would be pointless. Anyone who could confund the goblet > could confund the investigators too. As we saw in HBP, > Dumbledore solves wzarding crimes by asking the old > question *cui bono* -- who benefits. > > Unfortunately for Harry, the answer was not clear until > Fake!Moody tried to snatch him away. Betsy Hp: Yeah, that doesn't work for me. It actually stretches plausability, honestly. Because you're basically saying Dumbledore is all, "yeah, Harry, someone's trying to kill you, but trying to figure who that is... why bother?" It doesn't jell with the sort of character Dumbledore is supposed to be, IMO. Personally I prefer to think Dumbledore is doing all sorts of sleuthing outside of Harry's view, but Fake!Moody is too clever for him. Again, it means a lot of fanwanking, but it's better than Dumbledore suddenly breaking character. But getting back to the topic, I think the above all points to JKR being a bit weak when it comes to managing her plots. I think her strength is more in her character work. So we forgive her the plot holes and feel free to fill them in because we are fairly sure we understand how the characters should be acting there. (We don't *see* Dumbledore sleuthing in GoF, but of *course* he would be.) > >>Pippin: > Mostly, the mysteries aren't "fair" , a term of art which means > that the reader can deduce the identity of the villain and the > method by which his crime was committed from internal clues. > Betsy Hp: I think there's usually enough there for the reader to deduce the "who". But not enough for the "how". For example, I think there's enough to pick up on the fact that Quirrell, not Snape, is the villain in PS/SS. But there's no way a reader could deduce that Voldemort is living in the back of Quirrell's head. However, once the reveal is done, there are things the reader can look back on and say, "Oh, of course! That's why the odd turban, and that's why the bad smell, and that's why no one seemed to be in the room with Quirrell though there were two voices!" It's not what I'd call a mystery, because there's nothing there that would allow the reader to solve it before hand. But I would call it a satisfying twist in that the reader is surprised but not cheated. The reveal is fulfilling rather than rude. > >>Pippin: > The mysteries that Hermione solves are "fair" -- when she says > "Tuh!" or "I've just remembered something" and scurries off to > the library, that's like Nero Wolfe pushing his lips in and out. > Betsy Hp: I disagree there. I'm not sure the reader should have realized the voice Harry was hearing was a basilisk in CoS, for example. But once the facts of the basilisk in JKR's world were shared, it was a twist or reveal that made sense. Honestly, in CoS, I'm not sure there was enough there to suggest Ginny was the actual villain. I don't think there was enough given for the reader to realize that nonconsensual possession could occur in the WW. So CoS doesn't have any elements of a "fair" mystery, IMO. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170909 > >>Magpie: > I think it's that she doesn't do classic mysteries because they > aren't solved by Harry and they really can't be solved by the > reader. They're recognition dramas like Jane Austen, where stuff is > happening and then when Harry gets info it all looks different upon > re-reading--which is a good thing, because people generally don't > re-read mysteries. There's little point once you know who done it. > There is reason to re-read this kind of thing. Betsy Hp: I think that's exactly it. I call it a twist, but "recognition drama" works too. Because it is about suddenly "recognizing" who the real baddie is, and often who the real goodie is. And it's always a reveal about character, isn't it? I'm really becoming more and more convinced that character is JKR's thing. It's certainly what keeps me coming back to the well. So it's not that the Potter books aren't plotty. I mean, yes, it's the plot that turns the page. But I don't think it's JKR's strength. Which is maybe part of the reason she went for such a passive hero? And maybe also why she went with such a judgmental hero? She didn't want someone out there *doing* and *causing* because JKR isn't really into that sort of action tale. But she did want someone making snap decisions about various characters and just really sticking to his guns, because JKR is interested in exploring why those sorts of judgements are made and are they correct and how do you figure out if someone is good or bad. Because in the end, the plot of Harry Potter is pretty straight forward. But the characters, that's where the twists occur. That's where the excitment is. And the characters have to be less than dynamic, because it's taking seven years for Harry to get an accurate read on them. JKR can't afford to have them change all that much. Anyway, all my opinion of course. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 22:19:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:19:26 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170954 > Betsy Hp: > But I'm not questioning the plausibility of PoA. I just question the > delivery system. Lupin had to make this massive speech to fill the > kids in on the Marauder background. It's a boring bit of story- > telling. And the time-turners, while perfectly plausible within the > WW, are awfully trite. Especially as they're a form of magic we won't > be seeing again. I could obviously be wrong about that, time travel > may be the lynch-pin of DH. But at this point it just seemed like a > way for JKR to force the plot to go her way. Alla: Oooooo, I am as sure as I can be sure of any prediction LOL that we **will** see Time travel again in DH. I don't know, if for no other reason that all things like that were introduced twice, you know? And it is so interesting what you say about Lupin's speech. I read it in one breath, almost literally. I could not put the book down so much I loved it. I do know what you mean in general - that **show not tell** is always preferable and more exciting story telling, but I thought in this particular instance JKR pulled it off really well. JMO, Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jun 28 22:27:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:36 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170955 > Betsy Hp: > I think that's exactly it. I call it a twist, but "recognition > drama" works too. Because it is about suddenly "recognizing" who the > real baddie is, and often who the real goodie is. Magpie: And also re-cognizing, going back and re-understanding the scenes differently. BetsyHp: And it's always a > reveal about character, isn't it? I'm really becoming more and more > convinced that character is JKR's thing. It's certainly what keeps > me coming back to the well. > > So it's not that the Potter books aren't plotty. I mean, yes, it's > the plot that turns the page. But I don't think it's JKR's strength. Magpie: I would say it's something a little more specific. She's *great* at creating characters, but she's not into character in terms of making them complex. I'd say what makes it all so dynamic is the way characters and plots meet. For instance, you can say that the plot of GoF is creaky and it certainly is when it comes to the Tournament. Nobody investigates much into who put Harry's name in the Goblet, nobody fights Harry's having to compete, Harry's being in danger just isn't an issue. Plus the Tournament's ridiculous--why have people living in the lake for nine months for three events that nobody can even watch? Etc. But that's not the plot of GoF, really. It's obviously not what's driving things. When nobody gets to work investigating we know that's not what the story's about. So if we think of that as the plot, it's lame. However, when we found out what the story was it's pretty awesome. Barty Crouch's backstory is just *great*. His character only appears for *one scene* and he leaps off the page because he is his backstory, he is what he does. And Winky and Crouch Sr., too, take their places as players in this great story: the cruel, cold father who maybe just can't show his love, the mother making the ultimate sacrifice, the twisted son pledging himself to evil, the crazy person, the loyal servant nursing the psycho, the young man crying for his mother in Azkaban, sons killing their fathers, Crouch Sr. becoming that which he wants to destroy...it's fantastic, and it's a great plot. I think that's what sticks in our minds. The Tournament is more just like a structure for these things to be revealed to us. Same in PoA. The reveal is the real "story" of PoA, I think, the reason it's many people's favorite. Buckbeak isn't Harry's pet. Harry cares about him on the principle of Hagrid being his friend- it's not emotional. (I wonder sometimes if the Medium that Shall Not Be Named seems to unfortunately always hare off after these bits of business and try to make them more central at the expense of the better bits becuase these parts seem more standard kid-story, when the emotion just isn't there to sustain it.) The story of PoA is that great reveal about the man imprisoned unjustly who breaks out to protect his godson, and the tragic Prank gone wrong that Harry's suffering from, and the failure of all the men from the past generation to protect Lily, and the history of Harry's family and Peter Pettigrew's betrayal and Lupin's secrets. Those are great characters but they're great in large part because of the plots they're made from. (No wonder OotP's climax disappointed so many--there's no great reveal at all, what seemed to be happening was happening, and the reason why was unexciting.) I remember JKR said, on releasing that Black family tapestry, something like "there are many stories here." I think that's what the books are full of. It's not that we see most of the greatest stories, we see tantalizing glimpses of them and can just imagine how intense they were. -m From lauren1 at catliness.com Thu Jun 28 12:49:26 2007 From: lauren1 at catliness.com (Lauren Merryfield) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:49:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape changed places References: <722481.26999.qm@web56710.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <08a801c7b9d3$945ab8c0$0200a8c0@laurenye0o5w8x> No: HPFGUIDX 170956 Hello, Here's my 2 cents on the new book of Harry Potter. Remember in the 6th book the cave scene with Dumbledore and Harry? Then Dumbledore and Harry flew to Hogwarts and the death scene? Remember how Harry had a hard time chatting with Dumbledore. Dumbledore seemed distracted. I figured that Dumbledore was not the real Dumbledore when I was reading the cave scene and then the fight scene takes place and it turns out to be Snape who killed Dumbledore. What if Snape and Dumbledore had exchanged what they looked like with each other. Dumbledore always said, he trusts Snape with his life. Perhaps it was Dumbledore who killed Snape. Lady Potions Hi, Why would Dumbledore kill Snape? Thanks Lauren ----- Original Message ----- From: Lady Potions To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:34 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape changed places Hello, Here's my 2 cents on the new book of Harry Potter. Remember in the 6th book the cave scene with Dumbledore and Harry? Then Dumbledore and Harry flew to Hogwarts and the death scene? Remember how Harry had a hard time chatting with Dumbledore. Dumbledore seemed distracted. I figured that Dumbledore was not the real Dumbledore when I was reading the cave scene and then the fight scene takes place and it turns out to be Snape who killed Dumbledore. What if Snape and Dumbledore had exchanged what they looked like with each other. Dumbledore always said, he trusts Snape with his life. Perhaps it was Dumbledore who killed Snape. Lady Potions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/875 - Release Date: 6/27/2007 9:08 PM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jun 28 22:50:34 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:50:34 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170957 TK: > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? SSSusan: This is dreadfully close to needing to be an offlist, but since I'm fairly certain that others might have similar questions about this item, I'm posting it here. :) TK, do you want to qualify this particular question? Since JKR has stated that the end of the final book will contain an **Epilogue,** it's possible that there could be mention of all kinds of couples marrying within that. If you are intending to ask which will be the most prominent couple to marry **during the time frame** of DH, prior to the Epilogue, I think that's rather a different question. Or do you not care whether folks predict from the Epilogue? Grazie, Siriusly Snapey Susan From colwilrin at yahoo.com Thu Jun 28 22:52:27 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:52:27 -0000 Subject: Ollivander's Disappearance/brother wands/other predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170958 Here are three fun theories...they go from the possible to the wild. I'm not sure if anyone has thought of this...or discussed it yet. In Goblet of Fire, after Prior Incantatum happens with the wands, DD explains to Harry that when brother wands meet they may not always be affective against each other. What if Voldy kidnapped Ollivander to have him alter his wand so that it will be more effective against Harry's. I also think it will be very important that these wands are brothers, and that they are both from DD's phoenix. IMO, Fawkes will play an important role to the wand issue which also may explain why (on the new DH cover) Harry and Voldy are wandless. Speaking of the cover. When I first saw the image (US version) it coincided with my mental picture of the room in MOM where Sirius went through the veil. The only problem was that the veil looked white/cream rather than the black as described in canon. That got me thinking. It was mentioned that MOM had a locked room, studied death, and were studying love. So, what if there is a room which mirrors the black veil room... but this one has a white veil. It is opposite to the black veil room. It is where the "love" side of death is studied. This could be the locked room. What if everyone Harry has loved and lost can come from behind the white veil of love, and help him pull an especially evil soul into that beyond area of love. Voldy can't stand Harry's body because of the love within it...imagine the destruction that an area of great love behind a "white" veil will do. The cover shows Harry holding up his hand calling to all those who he has loved and lost...while Voldy cringes at the "love power" Harry can conjure from those Voldy has killed. That is my personal impression of the cover...in a few short weeks...everyone can start serving up the yummy crow. One last wild thought. What if Snape and Lily were related through the muggle side. That is why she stuck up for him, her weird distant cousin. Snape would be upset with Voldy killing his "family". This would also give Harry one very surprising male relative in the end...that he might just look up to when Snape is revealed as DDM. I would really love to see Harry have one remaining live relative at the end...though I not so secretly hope it will be Sirius shooting out from the white veil, as Voldy is sucked in to writhe in the sunshine of eternal love and goodness. Got Crow? Colwilrin From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jun 28 23:21:55 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:21:55 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions In-Reply-To: <20070628173623.60284.qmail@web27302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, simon harris wrote: > > Eddie: > > Either Lupin or Ollivander will teach Transfiguration. I have no > canon to support this idea, but what the heck. > > > Si: > > Didn't Ollivander go missing just before HBP? > Eddie: Yep. I predict he'll be back. Or not. Eddie From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Jun 28 23:26:26 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:26:26 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (long) In-Reply-To: <380-22007642821711312@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170960 Betsy Hp: > >Ann: > >I do think that any villain-driven novel does not have a > >plot, and I planned my definition especially to exclude them. Ditto > >for "one thing happening after another" or character development > >pure and simple. > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I'm not understanding your definition then. I figured that, for > example, the original "Star Wars" trilogy would be considered plot > driven, in that Luke moves the plot forward by making choices that > cause the "one thing happening after another" to occur. He's not > passive. But on the same token, I'd label the Sherlock Holmes > mysteries as plot driven in that Holmes makes choices that again > create or cause the plot. Yes, the villain may set things in motion, > but it's the protaganist that creates the story, I figure. Where > have I gone astray? Ann: I gnash my teeth in frustration at my inarticulacy... I meant that "one thing happening after another" or character development *by themselves* weren't enough to make a plot, by my definition. And I'm afraid I don't remember Sherlock Holmes well enough to argue this particular point, what you say about him looks good to me. (I took Pippin's assumption and ran with it, rather than agreeing as such, because I was too ignorant to do so.) >Betsy Hp: >Hmm, but see, I *would* say that "Emma" for example is plot driven, >in that Emma sets things in motion by doing certain things that start >the story and keep it going. Yes, Emma is constrained in some ways, >but then the story sticks to the world she's constrained to, so no >problem. Ann: Regarding constraint, I was saying that Regency women are to Regency men as children are to adults: if the former mess with the affairs of the latter, it's difficult for the writer because they're so poorly qualified for that milieu. Lizzie Bennet can chat up a captain of horse (as I recall), but not fight at Waterloo. Of course, as long as women stay in their place , all's well. I'm not sure about Emma, though. Her plots aren't that successful: Harriet doesn't get Mr Elton (hooray!), Emma's epiphany at the end isn't really due to her, and characters like Frank Churchill (hiss!), Mrs Elton (even improperly), and Mr Knightley are more important than Emma, in my opinion. But it's been a while since I read that one. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I totally agree that we won't be seeing a WW utopia or even a > hint thereof. But I do suspect that by bringing Hogwarts together > (which I think Harry will have to do) there will be a suggestion > that this new generation of wizard will reshape the British WW. Ann: Maybe - I said I was a pessimist, didn't I? - but I suspect Hogwarts will change for the better thanks to DH. > Betsy Hp: > In trying to wrap my brain around plot vs. plotlessness I hit > on "Star Wars" as example of plot and "Breakfast Club" as an example > of not so much plot. I'd say "The Charioteer" by Mary Renault is an > example of an excellent non-plot novel. (Generally, Mary Renault > isn't much about the plot, I think.) "The Secret Garden" is more > plot. Um, does that work with your definition? Ann: Yes to "Star Wars"; yes, judging by Wikipedia to "The Breakfast Club"; and I haven't read that Mary Renault, but "The Praise Singer", a fictionalised biography of Simonides of Chios, is plotless by my definition, and I think so for "The Secret Garden". I should have given examples myself: "Star Wars" has plot; "Gulliver's Travels" doesn't because it's an excuse for Swift to satirise people; "The Praise Singer" doesn't either because it doesn't have a narrative shape, and neither do most biographies, fictional or not. >Sistermagpie: > But in general, MWPP are not all that great either by adult > standards. I don't think the Trio or Draco stand out as being > wet in this universe--the Marauders benefit from the fact we don't > see them as teenagers often. Their advantage is that they might not > make such bad mistakes in early life that they have mature lives > like the past generations. Ann: Well, the surviving Marauder-era characters aren't much, although they haven't exactly had easy lives. Peter's a minion and a rat, Snape's a minion and a spy, Sirius spends most of his adult life in Azkaban, Lupin has his furry little problem, and Lily and James, well. Their lives have all been blighted by Voldemort's terrorism during their formative years, but the Second War doesn't hit the public until the end of Harry's fifth year and has so far been much lighter. But consider the teenage Marauders, three Animagi who regularly go running around the Forbidden Forest, or Tom Riddle, who also in his fifth year lets the Basilisk out of the Chamber of Secrets. What have the Trio done that's so exciting? I don't think it's that they lack talent, but that they're, well, passive. > Magpie: > I'm still confused as to why you want to have this narrow definition > of plot so that stories with heroes who react to a crisis (all of > what Orson Scott Card would call Event stories) can't have plots, so > that JKR's books don't. I just wound up wanting to stick to > the standard definition of plot which includes stories like Oliver > Twist and Jane Austen and mystery novels and Gulliver's Travels. Ann: Well, I have a confession to make. I'm an amateur writer, so I'm a little more anally-retentive about this kind of structural detail than most people, and I decided you could all benefit from my Great and Profound Introspection on the differences between plots and picaresques and satires and romances and so on, which had, I found, led me to some interesting thoughts about HP. Of course, in my swollen head you would all have cried "How wise you are, Ann!" but stimulating discussion is the next best thing. It's interesting you mention "Gulliver's Travels", though; I think Swift expresses himself in a fundamentally different way to JKR. >> BetsyHp: >> Think of all the things you have to ignore for >> GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one >> looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need >> neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide. And then there's PoA which >> includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with >> time-travel. I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders >>(character, again) I'm not a fan of the plot. > > Magpie: > I think that's why I can't get into the idea that HP doesn't have a > plot...where would we put all the plot holes?:-) Ann: OK, my theory's definitely sunk now... :) My favorite plot hole in GoF is why didn't Harry agree to fail the Tournament, and so not affect anyone else's chances of winning? > Magpie: > I think it's that she doesn't do classic mysteries because they > aren't solved by Harry and they really can't be solved by the > reader. They're recognition dramas like Jane Austen, where stuff is > happening and then when Harry gets info it all looks different upon > re-reading Ann: One could call the series mysteries without a detective, even. That's interesting, and "recognition drama" is a great phrase, btw. (For the record, Pippin agreed with this too.) > Pippin: > Connections of any kind are what give a story its plot, and if we're > not going to call that plotting, what are we going to call it? > "George" is taken. Ann: We'll call it "Fredding" the book together. Fred would actually make a useful TBAY character to discuss this kind of thing with, now I think of it. Anyway, connections give a story its plot, but not all of them. Characters A and B may have little in common plotwise, but still work to, say, define the author's idea of Good and Evil. > Pippin: > Alfred Hitchcock used to talk about The Plausibles, that group of > people who couldn't take any pleasure in a story that didn't follow > its own internal rules. My guess is there are things in DH > that will cause us to re-evaluate the plots of all the books. Ann: I'm pretty Plausible. And I agree with your DH point. The climaxes and/or denouments so far have all involved explanations of what happened. Pippin: > The mysteries that Hermione solves are "fair" -- when she says > "Tuh!" or "I've just remembered something" and scurries off to > the library, that's like Nero Wolfe pushing his lips in and out. > It's your cue that you have enough information to try to solve > the puzzle if you wish, using the clues you've been given and > perhaps some facts from the (Muggle) library, for example > that "skeeter" is North American slang for an insect. Ann: That's it. Never mind translations into US English, I want a translation into *British* English, with Rita Beetle... but seriously, what about Eileen Prince? I'd assumed Snape had a mother, rather than just crawling out from under a rock, but that doesn't explain the phrase "Half-Blood Prince" by itself. Also, in a world where there's magic, predicting what'll happen is inherently difficult, unless there's very strict rules. This reminds me of an archived post I found the other day, number 39054 by Lucky_Kari, with the subject "Can one solve GoF?": >Lucky_Kari: >First of all, I've never heard of anyone doing it. >However, it seems to me, after much thought, that GoF is very >solveable, if one had paid attention to all the details. > >The detail to latch on to and never let go was Snape's accusation >that someone was stealing boomslang from the cupboard. Everything >else could have meant a million different things, but the "boomslang" >was proof that polyjuice was involved. So, how did we breeze over >that? Assumed that for some reason Snape was still ranting over the >CoS incident? No, that clue should have left the reader 100% sure >that someone in the story was polyjuiced. Add that to Sirius' >confirmation that Moody was attacked, Moody's breaking into Snape's >office, and half the puzzle would have been solved. > >As for Moody's true identity, I can't believe how stupid I was to >skip over as a mere unimportant detail the fact that Crouch had a son >with the exact same name. But, oh well.... Ann: Has anyone ever solved GoF ahead of time? I assume there's no such thing as a perfect mystery - I recall more than one man going bankrupt from trying to sell such a thing - but I don't know of anyone who did. Ann, who's noticed that three people have posted while she was writing this, but needs her beauty sleep... From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Jun 28 23:42:08 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:42:08 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Mike: > > > 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? > > > > zgirnius: > > Is that your theory about it? I thought it might be the Snape > > family home. > > Mike: > Well, that's why it's on this list. I just think it odd to enter > a house into a room completely lined with bookshelves, where all the > doors are hidden behind said shelves. Doesn't seem like a Muggle > design to me. But I suppose the Snapes could have been eccentric > Muggles. Ann: Isn't a terraced house with a basement pretty unusual anyway? I suspect he's done some *major* refurbishing, at a guess to hide his Potions lab. But why is he living there at all, when Hogwarts is presumably safer and more convenient? Ann From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jun 28 23:48:41 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:48:41 -0000 Subject: Ollivander's Disappearance/brother wands/other predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170963 > Colwilrin wrote: > One last wild thought. What if Snape and Lily were related > through the muggle side. That is why she stuck up for him, > her weird distant cousin. Snape would be upset with Voldy > killing his "family". This would also give Harry one very > surprising male relative in the end...that he might just > look up to when Snape is revealed as DDM. I would really > love to see Harry have one remaining live relative at the > end... > colebiancardi: a few years ago, I thought of this - that Snape & Lily had a relationship, not as "lovers" or "unrequited" love stuff, but as family relations - that they were distant cousins. However, DD stated that Petunia was Harry's last living relative - in OotP, he tells Harry "I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative" p 836, Am Ed Hardcover So, I don't think, although I love the idea, that Snape is Harry's distant second or third cousin removed....on ***his mother's side*** However, what about James? Did he have any relatives? Could Snape be his cousin, several times removed? I don't remember anything about James' family, other than his parents were "older" and that they weren't living anymore. Could he have had someone in his family tree that branched out and married a muggle? Are we sure that Eileen Prince is a pure-blood? She might be a half-blood, like Snape. Yes, I know that Snape calls himself half-blood Prince, but his mum was a witch and his dad was a muggle - so, in a way, it is still "half-blood". Any thoughts? Any one with a better memory remember the story behind James and relatives? >Colwilrin: > Got Crow? colebiancardi: yep, and I am hoping to release him on July 21st or thereabouts :) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 00:12:21 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:12:21 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Questions - Fortescue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmwcfo" wrote: > Ollivander had a wand in a place of honor in his shop's window, and > there is speculation about the significance of that wand. What did > Fortescue have? Hot fudge sauce embedded with powerful old magic? A > Hogwart founder's ice cream scoop? Or is his knowledge of history > significant? I also would like to know how significant is the fact that apparently one of Fortescue's ancestors used to be Headmaster at Hogwarts? I just can't figure it out :-). It can mean nothing at all, but maybe it's important. zanooda From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 29 00:26:16 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:26:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <765745286.20070628172616@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170965 Susan: c> Since JKR has stated that the end of the final book will contain an c> **Epilogue,** it's possible that there could be mention of all kinds c> of couples marrying within that. If you are intending to ask which c> will be the most prominent couple to marry **during the time frame** c> of DH, prior to the Epilogue, I think that's rather a different c> question. c> Or do you not care whether folks predict from the Epilogue? Dave: Would it make sense to have a separate question on *Epilogue* predictions? Dave From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jun 29 00:40:30 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:40:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's watch is like an alethiometer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170966 eyemlynn: > I am currently reading "The Subtle Knife", the second book of > Pullman's His Dark Materials, and I've been wondering what if DD's > watch worked kind of like the alethiometer. > > He did check it at Privet Drive when he dropped Harry off. Maybe > it was telling him that he needed to do that in order for > Voldemort to be defeated. Maybe he's been checking it all along > and that's why he knew what he would have to teach Harry for him > to be sucessful in SS. > > I guess I haven't fully thought this idea out but it would seem to > explain a lot of DD's actions that seem to put Harry in danger > and/or seem manipulative. Jen: What is an alethiometer? Does it give information about the future, like probabilities? I wondered because you mentioned DD knowing what to teach Harry, and then I remembered the planets on the watch and how the Centaurs divine by looking at planet positions. And do you think Ron's is the same thing even though it looks different? I've wondered if DD's watch has something to do with altering matter, the reason for his ability to become invisible as well as offering a way to be in several places at once. I'm not sure such a watch would be necessary though, given his ability in Transfiguration. Jen From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 03:33:29 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:33:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170967 > houyhnhnm: > > He makes me think a little of Florence Nightengale > (mutatis mutandis), the founder of the modern profession > of nursing, whose achievements as an activist in > sanitation were a major turning point in the history > of health care. Celebrated in popular sentimental > imagination as The Lady With the Lamp, in actuality > she was a hard headed administrator, an ambitious and > sometimes abrasive woman who drove other people > ruthlessly and didn't suffer fools gladly. > > Some quotes: > > "I attribute my success to this - I never gave or took any excuse." > > "The martyr sacrifices themselves entirely in vain. > Or rather not in vain; for they make the selfish more > selfish, the lazy more lazy, the narrow narrower." > > "There is no part of my life, upon which I can look back without pain" > > Sound like anyone we know? Which house do you think > she would have been sorted into? lizzyben: Oh, I love those quotes! Sounds like Snape to me. He has very high standards for both himself and others. It also reminds me a bit of quotes from Mother Teresa, who was devoted to helping the poor & needy, and also became a hard-headed administrator of her charity. (not that Snape is a saint!) But any cause needs someone who can organize & *act* when necessary. I'd never claim that Snape is kind or even compassionate, but IMO compassion isn't a necessity for a healer. I'd feel compassion for Draco after Harry's curse, but I'd also just be screaming along w/Myrtle. Not very helpful. In an emergency situation, you need someone who can keep calm, quickly evaluate the situation, and take immediate action. To find a cure for a disease, you need someone who is both analytical & creative, who has a wealth of medical knowledge & the ability to apply it to a specific situation. Snape has all those qualities - I think he'd be a great Healer. Indeed, it's hard to think of many characters in the Potterverse who could successfully do that job - Healer Ron, anybody? Lily is one of the only characters who seemed to have those abilities, & I have a hunch that was part of what brought those two together. It seems like the image of the "Lady with the Lamp" is echoed in how Snape first appears in HBP - at night, carrying a lamp, taking an injured Harry to safety. It's sort of funny to me how often Snape is placed into these feminine roles. Snape's a brilliant wizard, an accomplished duelist, a Death Eater & a spy. And what does he spend his days doing? Cooking. Teaching. Watching over children. Giving medicine. Healing. Heartless, cruel Snape is continually placed in situations in which he must take care of other people. And he does. IMO, this isn't a coincidence. I think it's central to his character. lizzyben From kamilaa at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 04:31:06 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:31:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who will be the new head of Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170968 I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the new Head (and new DADA teacher) is Bill Weasley. The students should all love him, or at least think he's cool, much as Harry does, and even though he's young he should be able to do a very decent job for the year the DADA curse will give him. If nothing else he should be able to do a bang-up job teaching them how to break dark curses. And in the meantime the new Head (Minerva, I expect) will be able to search for a more suitable, permanent Head. Or, yanno, not. =D Kamil --->23 days ^.^ From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Jun 29 04:59:16 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:59:16 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170969 > TK, TigerPatronus: > Here are the tentative rules and questions for the Ultimate and Last > Bragging Rights Contest. Please read and respond if you think > anything is unfair or too speculative, or downright wrong. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? A: Yes 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? A: Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? A: Ginny 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? A: Death Eater's mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? -- NO b. Draco? -- NO c. Hermione? -- YES d. Luna? -- YES e. Ron? -- YES f. Neville? -- YES g. Ginny? -- YES 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? A: If you mean before the epilogue, Bill & Fleur If you include the epilogue, Ron & Hermione 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" A. Mrs. Figg 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? -- Ron b. Head Girl? -- Hermione c. DADA Instructor? -- The real Moody d. Potions Master or Mistress? -- Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? -- McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? A: With the good guys, against Voldemort 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. a. Diary from COS b. Ring from HBP c. Unopenable locket in 12GP from OOP d. Cup from HBP e. Previously unknown Gryffindor artifact, perhaps found at Godric's Hollow f. Nigini g. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus: Bat Boggert: The Sun Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? A: Love Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Flying Anglia and Flying motorcycle will become friends (at least) 2. Harry will destroy at least one piece of Voldemort's soul by causing it to pass through the Veil at the MoM that Sirius died passing through 3. Hermione will eventually become a Healer, specializing in Elvish Welfare 4. Ron will eventually play professional Quiddich, perhaps for the Chudley Cannons, probably 2nd string. 5. Harry will talk to Dumbledore via portraits, perhaps through chocolate frog cards Eddie From aorta47 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 04:06:10 2007 From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (aorta47) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:06:10 -0000 Subject: DH: Longshot theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170970 Dumbledore did not defeat Grindelwald in 1945, they switched places and Grindelwald had been calling the shots until his untimely death in HBP. He stole a lot (if not all) of the original Dumbledore's memory and they looked enough alike that no one every really questioned it (develop twin theory here). The original Dumbledore is dead. If Harry had asked Dumbledore to produce his scar of the London Underground he would have realized that he was not speaking to the real Dumbledore, as this was a misrecollection on Grindelwald's part. The search for the Horcruxes is a ruse, when all 7 are destroyed it will release a power more sinister than Voldemort. Grindelwald's plan was to release this power. His absorption of Dumbledore's memories backfired and it wasn't until Harry destoryed the diary in COS that the part that Grindelwald started to reemerge. Grindelwald grew stronger after the destruction of the ring, but old age and carelessness caused him to be killed by Snape. Mark From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 07:12:03 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:12:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40706290012y3408e341p85022669e807b413@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170971 Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Arthur Weasley 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? Burkes' shrunken head 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Same day, double wedding of Billuer and Remonks. Epilogue: Ron and Hermione as well as Harry and Ginny ::yawn:: 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Arabella 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Alastor (though it would be nice to see a competent woman) d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? They lie with Dumbledore. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. In Voldemort b. Diary c. Slytherin's Locket d. Hufflepuff Cup e. Ravenclaw's Tiara f. Gryffindor's Sword g. Slytherin's Ring In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus: Occamy Boggart: Lily's death Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? The power and glory of love Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be scored. 1. The prophecy is also about Snape 2. Dumbledore created performed a light spell that is the Horcrux's Opposite 3. Snape will destroy an Horcrux without Harry realizing it 4. Harry will go beyond the veil 5. Antipodean Opaleyes can teleport/apparate to opposite ends of the world From rbaird2001 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 04:18:08 2007 From: rbaird2001 at yahoo.com (rbaird2001) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:18:08 -0000 Subject: My top 10 DH predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170972 For whatever it's worth: My top 10 predictions 1. Harry will get his first Horcrux from Aberforth, the Barman in the Hog's Head 2. The scar will prove useful but will not be a Horcrux 2b. Even though it is not a Horcrux, Harry will think it is one and try to destroy it at the risk of his own life. He will be prevented by Snape who will reveal the truth. 3. Harry's cloak will be a Horcrux 4. The first Weasley to go: Arthur 5. The second Weasley: Fred or George (one will remain and join forces with Percy). 6. Aunt Petunia will be exposed as working with Severus Snape. Her contacts continue to the present time. 7. Harry will use the Patronus to communicate through the veiled arch. 8. Harry will become a leglimens and master silent spells. 9. Yes Snape is good. But he will continue to harass Harry almost till the end. 10. Just before Ginny and Harry are married, Luna will show up to protest it as she will be carrying, Harrys love child. (OK that one will definitely be wrong.) rbaird2001 From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 09:00:18 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Predictions Contest Message-ID: <879518.20061.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170973 Goddlefrood: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Severus Snape 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Death Eater's Dark Mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? No d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Argus Filch 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Justin Finch-Fletchley b. Head Girl? Susan Bones c. DADA Instructor? The Bloody Baron d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With Irma Pince 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. a. Tom Riddle's Diary b. The Peverell Ring c. Salazar Slytherin's Locket d. Helga Hufflepuff's Cup e. Nagini f. The Desk in Dumbledore's Old Office g. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus - A Snake, Boggart - Harry Potter Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? The Love Room (mostly pink) Predictions: 1. The ultimate showdown where Lord Voldemort is defeated will take place at Godric's Hollow. 2. Severus Snape will be shown to have never actually wanted the DADA job. 3. The passage to Honeydukes was made for Horace Slughorn by members of the Slug Club. 4. The 1st Prophecy night will be explained by Aberforth Dumbledore. 5. The spell Dumkbledore attempted in the Ministry will be used by Harry in defeating Lord Voldemort. 6. Goyle Senior will turn out to be another spy. 7. The scar will be cured by application of Dittany. 8. Peter Pettigrew is the ultimate double agent. 9. Lord Voldemort will get a reclining armchair at some point, hence his promised extra legroom. 10. The Dementors will go and live in a dark cupboard and continue to breed like fungus within its confines. Goddlefrood, who says you did promise to ignore any theories after number 5. ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ From adamearthenergy at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 29 10:13:34 2007 From: adamearthenergy at yahoo.co.uk (adamearthenergy) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:13:34 -0000 Subject: I reckon Snape is a Goody Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170974 Hi, I think that Snape will turn out to be a goody. He killed Dumbledore because he had to protect Malfoy, under Dumbledore's instructions that night when the baddies got in through the cabinet. Think about it, Snape had to kill Dumbledore because Dumbledore as a good head master, had to, protect all his pupils including Malfoy. Even though Malfoy was treacherous that did not matter to Dumbledore. When Dumbledore said "please" to Severus Snape, he was not saying "please save my life", he was saying "please kill me to save Malfoy". Get back to let me know what you think. PS In real life, I have owls outside my window. There are two young ones. In the winter it is great to hear the Owls hooting. Adam From anneireann at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 11:16:49 2007 From: anneireann at gmail.com (anne) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:16:49 +0100 Subject: Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape changed places Message-ID: <73bbda5a0706290416g18ce4950r94d02b3dc5b432f5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170975 Lady Potions: I figured that Dumbledore was not the real Dumbledore when I was reading the cave scene and then the fight scene takes place and it turns out to be Snape who killed Dumbledore. What if Snape and Dumbledore had exchanged what they looked like with each other. Dumbledore always said, he trusts Snape with his life. Perhaps it was Dumbledore who killed Snape. --------------------------- Would Snape's unbreakable vow give any problems in this scenario though? Taking Polyjuice Potion to look like Dumbledore, while killing Dumbledore is so strongly connected with the vow, should it not have killed him straight away for breaking the vow ? regards, anne From xellina at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 11:45:45 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:45:45 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: UK vs. US In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40706220431n3a6e0b4ch63197b497b0f2bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463f9ec00706290445u117d0931m9c184128012a29ec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170976 2007/6/22, Ken Hutchinson : > > > Lately I've noticed that TV newscasts > that interview British speakers will more and more often include > subtitles even though there are hardly any British accents that are > impenetrable to American ears. > Cassy: You know, what I find really amazing is that people, for whom English is not first language (myself included) somehow manage to understand BOTH British and American English. (well, not Australian, perhaps ^_~). And being native Russian speaker I can understand Ukrainian, Polish or, say, Belarussian fairly easily, since the languages are quite close. How come that people speaking ONE language have so much difficulties understanding each other? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Jun 29 12:06:22 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:06:22 -0000 Subject: Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape changed places In-Reply-To: <73bbda5a0706290416g18ce4950r94d02b3dc5b432f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170977 anne: > Would Snape's unbreakable vow give any problems in this scenario > though? > > Taking Polyjuice Potion to look like Dumbledore, while killing > Dumbledore is so strongly connected with the vow, should it not > have killed him straight away for breaking the vow ? Dana: The vow would not matter because DD would be Snape and visa versa. So we then have actually a dead Snape and a living DD. Dana From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 12:09:31 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:09:31 -0000 Subject: The HBP's book: unanswered questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170978 Some things still puzzle me about the textbook in the HBP. Why are spells from the book known to Snape and James in their fifth year ("Snape's Worst Memory, OotP), when it's a sixth-year text book? How did Levicorpus become popular with other students when Snape himself was so unpopular ? not to mention too private and proud to give away his creation lightly? If Snape is the HBP, why doesn't Slughorn recognize a similarity between Harry's work and Snape's work as a student? He knows Snape has been teaching Harry for five years. Why not attribute Harry's knowledge to that? Then there's this line from Hermione in HBP, p. 637: "It's just that I was right about Eileen Prince once owning the book. You see . . . she was Snape's mother!" Why does she assume that Eileen once owned the book? I thought she was just the explanation for Snape's nickname. But if Eileen did own the book, and Snape inherited the book from her, it would explain why he had it prior to his sixth year. Perhaps she was dead by then and it was one of the few things she ever gave him, so he cherished it. But it doesn't explain the connection to Lily that Slughorn sees when Harry uses the HBP's book. Or how the spell Levicorpus ended up being all the rage at Hogwarts. Here's a stab at that. Let's say Lily came to be in possession of the book in her fifth year. How would she get it? Well, in "Snape's Worst Memory" one gets the sense that she and Snape have at least spoken before. What if he loaned it to her? Perhaps she needed to brew a potion. Maybe, as many suspect, they were friends or he had feelings for her or wanted to pay her back for sticking up for him. If Lily had the book, she could have passed along the Levicorpus spell to a friend. (Snape could have too ? except that he had no friends.) Maybe Lily even showed it directly to James. Her dislike of James in "Snape's Worst Memory" must be concealing some attraction to him, since they end up falling in love. Regardless of who she shared the spell with, it got out and James learned it. How would it have made Snape feel to discover, after he'd trusted Lily with his precious book, that a spell from it became known to his worst enemy, who then used it to humiliate him in front of Lily? Betrayed certainly. Maybe even hurt enough to lash out at her and call her a "mudblood." And if that moment of anger cost him her friendship, wouldn't that make the memory of it even worse, especially for a boy with so few friends ? not to mention female friends? Wouldn't it all add up to the worst memory Snape had? (JKR has said the title of the chapter is accurate.) And maybe Lily was hurt enough by Snape's remark that she decided not to give the book back. After all, she'd need it the next year. But why did she dazzle Slughorn more than Snape did? If it's Snape's book, he must know what's it in by heart. Slughorn, at his Christmas party, begins to compare Lily's ability at potions with Snape's. "Instinctive, you know ? like his mother! I've only ever taught a few with this kind of ability, I can tell you that, Sybill ? why even Severus ?" p319 of the U.S. hardback edition. And he then interrupts his train of thought to bring Snape over. Was he going to say "even Severus [didn't have her ability]"? It seems possible. Snape accepted the post as potions master reluctantly, after all. His primary interest is the Dark Arts. What if Eileen Prince is the author of the margin notes about potions? The handwriting resembles Snape's, but perhaps it runs in the family. Snape says he created the spells, but he never claims the notes about potions. Would their handwriting be that close, that Harry wouldn't notice two separate hands in the book? Seems a stretch, but it's possible. Our hero is not the most observant fellow. Let's say Snape become so bitter over Lily's betrayal of his trust and her outshining him in class using his own book that he begins to hang out with the Death Eaters on campus. If so, then the HBP's book is the key to Snape's original fall from grace. Until then, he could have been, as he appears to be in "Snape's Worst Memory" merely a loner and an outcast. He's poor and not a pureblood. Nor is he a sycophant like Wormtail. But at some point, we know, he begins to associate with the mostly wealthy, snobbish Death Eaters. The Half-Blood Prince's Advanced Potion-Making text book is still hidden in the Room of Requirement at the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. We know Harry marked its location carefully, and this makes me think he will need to go back for it. (Though perhaps it won't be as easy to find as he hopes.) I expect Harry will need that recipe for a perfect Draught of Living Death in Book 7, and perhaps might want to search the book for clues about Snape. Could this be what he discovers? A lot of plot lines are going to have to come together in the last book. It would be especially tidy if Lily is both the reason Snape became a Death Eater and the reason he stopped being one. Sneeboy2 From verosomm at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 14:11:27 2007 From: verosomm at yahoo.com (verosomm) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:11:27 -0000 Subject: Did Grindelwald create a Horcrux? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170979 I'm much more of a lurker than a poster, so I hope I'm doing this right. And I'm sure this has been covered before, but doing a search of "Grindelwald horcurx" didn't yield exactly the responses I was looking for, and of course, just caused more questions! :) My main question is if there is "canon" to back up some theories that are v.v. old, some of them probably going back to PS/SS. I have no problems with theories and am actually going to be a little sad when DH comes out that there are no more theories! But some of these older theories now seem to be stated as fact, which is where my confusion comes in. I'm wondering if we know (or have a good idea) that Grindelwald created a horcrux... someone mentioned on here that one other wizard has created one... did JKR say that someone other than VD had created one? If so, I think the assumption that it was Grindelwald would be correct. Also, are we to assume that Riddle and Crindy had some sort of connection, as Riddle left Hogwarts in 1945 and DD defeated Grindy that same year? My guess is that Grindy taught Riddle how to perform the horcrux spell before DD defeated him, as Sluggy didn't know the spell itself, and that the reason VD has only ever feared DD is because he's the only wizard VD knows of that knows how to destory a horcrux (although I definitely believe that each horcrux must be destroyed differently). Finally, was there something said by JKR that confirmed that wizards and muggles worked together to end the Muggle WW 2? I read that somewhere on this list as well, I believe, but again, can't find any JKR confirmation on that fact. Thanks! Veronica From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 14:46:03 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:46:03 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170980 As some people are understandably eager to make their predictions known, here we go! Note *minor* question changes. RAYOR SPOILER ALERT: THESE RULES INCLUDE ONE VERY SMALL DH SPOILER GLEANED FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID YATES, THE OOTP MOVIE DIRECTOR AND REFERENCES TO THE RELEASED COVERS. Rules: Copy these questions and email your answers *both* to *tigerpatronus* *at* *yahoo* *dot* *com* and to the newsgroup. You must email your entry to TigerPatronus to be entered in the contest. You will receive an email confirmation of your entry. In the event of a dispute, the entry posted to the group will be your back-up. Deadline: Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 11:59 pm (midnight) EDT. (No Friday entries will be accepted.) Any details released by JKR or subsidiaries are worth no credit *after* they are released. Example: if you predict that "The trio will ride a dragon,'" it will be worth 0 points. However, if you make a prediction *and email your prediction to the list and to TigerPatronus* and *then* the detail is released, you will get full credit. If you are JKR, work at the publishing company, hacked Bloomsbury's computers, or have somehow else have already read the book, don't enter. We will find out, hunt you down, and give you a virtual thermonuclear wedgie. Specificity will be rewarded. Brevity is . . . wit. All decisions of the judges (TigerPatronus and her Minions) are arbitrary, ruthless, and final. (Minion recruitment will begin soon.) Prizes: Grand Prize (1): Bragging rights in perpetuity. All HPfGU members must address you as "Your Brilliance," "Leader of the Intelligentsia," "The HP-est," or another superlative title of your own choosing. A filk will be composed in your honor. A year's worth of free butterbeer. Honorable Mentions (10): Bragging rights in perpetuity. All HPfGU members must address you as "Pretty Smartie," "A Member of the Intelligentsia," "Quite HP-ish," or a subordinate title of your own choosing. A free case of butterbeer. Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? b. Draco? c. Hermione? d. Luna? e. Ron? f. Neville? g. Ginny? 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? b. Head Girl? c. DADA Instructor? d. Potions Master or Mistress? e. Headmaster or -mistress? 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. Current Off-Limit Spoilers: -- Predictions that describe any the covers are worth 0 points unless they include specific information not obvious in the cover. -- SPOILER: Kreacher will be in DH. (David Yates, interview.) (Note: because we are pretty sure that Kreacher will figure at least somewhat prominently in DH, any predictions about his presence on a cover will also be worth 0 points.) -- The probable identity of "R.A.B." as stumbled around by JKR during Leaky / Mugglenet interview will earn 0 points. -- Predictions based on "Gabriel the Hacker" are allowed but we will laugh at you when they're wrong. -- Anything stupidly obvious (e.g., Harry will turn 17, Ron and Hermione will date, Voldemort is evil, someone will perform magic,) will be worth 0 points, at most. Negative points are possible. -- "Negative" predictions, i.e., "The Centaurs will *not* come skipping into Hogwarts offering free pony rides," will receive no credit. -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be scored. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. *STARRED REVIEW* for RABID by TK Kenyon: " debut novelist Kenyon isn't fooling around. What begins as a riff on Peyton Place (salacious small-town intrigue) smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. Kenyon is definitely an author to watch, she juggles all of her story's elements without dropping any of them--and, let's not forget, creates four very subtle and intriguing central characters. [RABID] is a novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre- bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice (think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf)-- that makes us laugh, wince, and reflect all at the same time. Kenyon is definitely a keeper." -- David Pitt, Booklist, December 1, 2006 Subtle HP reference in *RABID*! See if you can find it! --TK From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 15:11:26 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:11:26 -0000 Subject: CORRECTIONS POLICY: U&L Prediction Contest by TigerPatronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170981 If you wish to change your predictions, submit an *entirely new entry* with *all questions answered* to TigerPatronus *and* the List. Make sure that you include "REVISED" on the Subject Line of the email. I will delete your previous email and grade only the revised answers, so make sure that they're *all* on there. Ruthlessly Yours, TK -- TigerPatronus! "RABID is a solid good read by first time novelist TK Kenyon, a gifted writer who has crafted a book of such mystery that you find yourself, at midnight, on the edge of your seat, asking, 'What's next? What's next?'" -- Thom Jones, Award-Winning author of: The Pugilist at Rest, Cold Snap, Sonny Liston was a Friend of Mine From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 15:18:22 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:18:22 -0000 Subject: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights File Uploaded to Files Area In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170982 The Rules and Questions for the Ultimate and Last Predictions Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity have been uploaded as a Word doc to the Files area of HPfGUs. TK -- TigerPatronus --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" wrote: > > As some people are understandably eager to make their predictions > known, here we go! Note *minor* question changes. > > From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Jun 29 15:22:43 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:22:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] I reckon Snape is a Goody Message-ID: <5306332.1183130563842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 170983 From: adamearthenergy >Hi, I think that Snape will turn out to be a goody. He killed >Dumbledore because he had to protect Malfoy, under Dumbledore's >instructions that night when the baddies got in through the cabinet. >Think about it, Snape had to kill Dumbledore because Dumbledore as a >good head master, had to, protect all his pupils including Malfoy. >Even though Malfoy was treacherous that did not matter to Dumbledore. >When Dumbledore said "please" to Severus Snape, he was not >saying "please save my life", he was saying "please kill me to save >Malfoy". Get back to let me know what you think. PS In real life, I >have owls outside my window. There are two young ones. In the winter >it is great to hear the Owls hooting. Bart: I'm in the "Dumbledore had already been killed by the ring" crowd (the theory that destroying the ring horcrux would have killed him already except for the intervention of magic, probably from Snape, which was only delaying the inevitable, that time was running out, and Dumbledore's only luxury was to choose the moment that Snape removed the magic, and did so at the time his death would do the most good). However, that does not mean that Snape is good, any more than Dung is good. Snape can be (and probably is) evil, but nowhere NEAR as evil as Morty. And, as long as we're on the subject, I'm going to give my own interpretation of the Snape reformation timeline: 1) Cooking Sherry makes the prediction. 2) Snape tells Morty the first part. 3) Harry is born. 4) For reasons still not quite revealed, Snape decides he screwed up and goes to DD. 5) The Potters go into hiding, being warned that Morty is after them. 6) PP the rat tells Morty. 7) Morty kills James, Lily, and, very nearly, himself. The key here is that James and Lily went into hiding because they knew Morty was after them. It is reasonable to assume that DD knew that Morty was after them because of the info he received from Snape. This would also explain Snape's continuing animosity towards Sirius; not only did Snape believe, for years, that Sirius had screwed up his plan to save the Potters, but that in reality, through his inaction, he kept the real culprit from being caught. Bart From helena4pink at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 13:35:32 2007 From: helena4pink at yahoo.com (helena4pink) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:35:32 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Re: Single Adults in HP - Dumbledore and McGonagall In-Reply-To: <9d5a64+n3i9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170984 > Rain: > OK, I'm new in organized HP fandom, so this is probably a stupid > question, but am I the only one who gets a serious vibe between > Dumbledore and McGonagall? I've thought they were sleeping together > since the beginning of the first book. I was so disappointed when > they didn't dance together at the ball... but then I rationalized that > they were trying to hide their relationship from the students. :) helena4pink: Hi, Excuse me but what gave that idea that McG and Dumbledore are sleeping together in the first book HP? I mean it's in the book or somethink? I didn't notice.....please write j.vrtelova at seznam.cz bye From chnc1024 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 15:49:19 2007 From: chnc1024 at yahoo.com (Chancie) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <570962.11303.qm@web55701.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170985 > Compulsory Questions (50 points total): > > > 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Absolutly NOT!!! If Harry DOES die it will be a sacrificial death (like Aslan in Narnia) and he will be raised back up in some way. > 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Absolutly YES!! > 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent > character to die and stay dead? Confused by "most prominent", but I believe Snape, Bella, and Draco are likely to die. > 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio > were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin >thatscared him? I think that I'll give Harry a vote of confindence and say "Dark Mark".... > 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a > student (answer yes or no for each): > a. Harry? Not as a full time student. I believe he will use the school as a cover, and will just as Dumbledore did) leave periodicly to search/destroy Horcruxes. > b. Draco? NO > c. Hermione? Yes(it is Hermione after all), but she will take time off to help Harry in the search. > d. Luna? Yes > e. Ron? Yes (because of Molly)but will follow Harry when he leaves > f. Neville? Yes > g. Ginny? Yes > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? I believe Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny will get married at the end. Also Bill/Fleur and Remus/Tonks. > 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first > time "very late in life?" Hmm....no idea... I'll say a Squib. > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: > a. Head Boy? Harry (as part of his cover) > b. Head Girl? Hermione > c. DADA Instructor? Kingsley Shacklebolt > d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn will stay on > e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall > > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? He is DDM!Snape, but this will not be revealed until a crucial moment... > 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or > less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. > Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes > must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul > pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the > bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) > a. In Voldemort > b. The Locket that Mungdungus stole from Grimauld Place > c. The Gaunt ring Dumbledore destroyed > d. The Golden cup Riddle stole from Hezibah > e. The diary Harry destroyed in the chamber > f. The "most precious" whatever it is that Bella refered to in Spinners End > g. Nagini > In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have > sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two > alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 > and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions > will be used as tiebreakers. > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus BAT and boggert? The true reason he turned from Voldy, and why DD trusted him. > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of > Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? "Love" Also where Lily learned of how to protect Harry from Voldy. > Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): > > Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. > > Current Off-Limit Spoilers: > -- Predictions that describe any the covers -- The probable identity of "R.A.B." Anything stupidly obvious -- "Negative" predictions will receive no credit. > -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in > your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be > scored. > 1. Ginny will not "give up" on Harry. She will find out about Horcruxes, and the fact that the diary was one. She will also try to help Harry in his search and destruction dispite his pushing her away. > 2. Snape has/had access to at least one Horcrux, as does/did Bella. (Much in the way that Lucius had the diary) > 3. Rufus Scrimegour will continue to "recruit" Harry for public relations, and will continue to use Percy in this way. Look for him to make an apperence at Bill and Fleur's wedding. Once again Molly will embrace him, while the others (especially Fred and George) cause a seen due to the hurt he has caused. > 4. We will find that Dumbledore was unusually prepared for his death. He will have left Harry some type of information to help him on the search and destruction of Horcruxes. This will be some evidence that Dumbledore KNEW he was going to die soon. > 5. When Harry meets up with Voldy in the end, there will be one extra Horcrux left to destroy. Durring the struggle Voldy will discover this fact, possibly laughing at Harry because he still can not die. Shortly after, Snape will arive with his hidden Horcrux and distroy it. Voldemort being both enraged at being betrayed, and terrified of death will send an AK toward Snape. Harry takes this opportunity to gain advantage over Voldy and defeats him. src="'>http://lilypie.com"> src="http://lilypie.com/pic/070627/lpQp.jpg" alt="Lilypie 4th Birthday Pic" width="77" height="80" border="0" />http://b4.lilypie.com/2FWdm5.png" alt="Lilypie 4th Birthday Ticker" border="0" width="400" height="80" /> http://lilypie.com"> src="http://lilypie.com/pic/070627/RpCw.jpg" alt="Lilypie 1st Birthday Pic" width="89" height="80" border="0" />http://b1.lilypie.com/iptVm5.png" alt="Lilypie 1st Birthday Ticker" border="0" width="400" height="80" /> --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 16:12:20 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:12:20 -0000 Subject: What Little Niggling Details will be left? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170986 > Mike: > > 6. Is that house in Spinner's End the Prince family home? TKJ: I think the house has to be the Snape family home because doesn't Narcissa claim the "none of our kind has been here." or "we must be the first of our kind in this place." I don't have my book in front of me but that leads me to believe that it is the Snape family house and not his mother's (Prince) family house. (I didn't explain that all too well. I hope you understand what I was trying to get across) TKJ :-) From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Fri Jun 29 16:23:30 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:23:30 -0400 Subject: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Message-ID: <8C98880F70CAA35-11BC-79A1@mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170987 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH?? Yes 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH?? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Hagrid 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Diary 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes b. Draco? Um...a world of no! c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna??Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Tonks and Lupin 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" As much as I want it to be Dudley, I think it'll be Filch. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron Weasley (Mirror of Erised anyone?) b. Head Girl? Hermione Granger (seriously...are there any other girls in this series?) c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Sluggy e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? DDM! 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Ring b. Slytherin's locket c. Diary (It was a crazy Horcrux, but a Horcrux nonetheless!) d. Gryffindor's Sword e. Hufflepuff Cup f. Tom Riddle's award for "Special Services" g. In Voldy In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus: I don't think he can...I don't think he has a happy enough memory to make a Patronus... Boggart: Lily Potter Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love -- a magic so powerful it shouldn't be messed with Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Percy will die. 2. Harry will find out how Wormtail came into contact with Voldy in the first place. 3. Harry's parents will appear to him -- most likely in a GH flashback, Pensieve Style. 4. Ron will sacrifice himself (a la chess game), but he will not die from this. 5. A big battle will happen with the students from all the Houses fighting (Graduation, Part 2 from Buffy the Vampire Slayer style). 6. I will cry and drink heavily once I finish it (not so much a prediction as a truth :-P ) ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From keltobin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 16:42:31 2007 From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:42:31 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170988 I was in a chatty mood so I qualified many of my answers The first lines are my actual answers :D 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Harry will die, but will not stay dead. I think Harry has to die, but I don't think he will be dead for good. I believe that he may go through the veil, but have a lifeline of sorts that will pull him back (I think they do this in the DOM as a way to study the phenomenon). I believe this will be a crucial point in killing LV. Perhaps it is the means of destroying the horcrux in Harry (see answer to 10). I also think this will add to a death/rebirth theme that will make Harry stronger for the final battle and strengthens the phoenix imagery in the series. Voldemort is the evil phoenix who never really dies yet is constantly reborn. By doing this, he is not completing the cycle of life and rebirth which adds to him being never truly whole or natural. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes, I think he will be finally dead and his horcruxes will be gone. I say this tentatively, as DD always made of point of things worse than death. Perhaps one of his worst fears will come true and he will be truly human prior to death. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? I believe that Snape will die in a final act of redemption. This does not mean that I think Snape has always been on the good side, however. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark on his arm. He showed Borgin the proof that he was backed by LV and the Death Eaters. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes. b. Draco? No. c. Hermione? Yes. d. Luna? Yes. e. Ron? Yes. f. Neville? Yes. g. Ginny? Yes. 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur, outside of the epilogue. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch's magic classes will work finally. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Harry (to make up for him not being a prefect) b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley (my second guess was Eldred Worple couldn`t sleep last night thinking about this one ) d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonegall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Snape's loyalties lie with himself. Ultimately, I think he will be a good character who will not be redeemed until he faces his own downfall. I don't think he is a good character for many reasons, but an interview answer from JKR sealed it for me.** **In reply to Snape ever being loved, JKR said: "Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has." Culpable is defined as deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. I have a hard time with this word being used to describe the misunderstood hero of the book. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. The diary b. The Ring c. The Locket d. Nagini e. Cup f. Harry's eyes or scar (I'm voting for eyes) g. Voldemort In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? His patronus is a bat and his boggart is James Potter :D Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Human emotion (This included, but is not limited to, love. I always thought it is all human emotions and since LV makes a big fuss about being much more than human this is his downfall). Note: I think that each room represents one of life`s great unknowns: Space/ the Universe, time, emotion, intelligence, death, the future (Which is a combination of time, the future, and intelligence, the ability to make a prediction, as per its position in the DOM with doors leading from the brain room and the time room). By mapping the department, there are rooms we haven't seen; I'm hoping one of them connects time with dimension and we find the TARDIS there - Dr. Who saves Harry from the veil* - kidding. * If any sequels entitled "Harry Potter and the Time and Relative Dimensions in Space" are published, I demand royalties! Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. The Potter family is a descended from Bowman Wright, the inventor of the golden snitch. Evidence: A. James is obsessed with snitch's in Snape's Worst Memory, yet he isn't a seeker. I think he does the snitch thing because it is a symbol of his family wealth. B. Snitch's were invented in Godric's Hollow (QTTA, 14-15) C. Bowman's mother was a witch and his father was a muggle; which fits nicely into the theme of the books and would fit for him to be an ancestor of Harry. 2. The horcruxes are easier to find if you have them in order. This possibly is not by design or, more likely, only partially by design of LV since I think that the diary leading to acquiring the sword was not LV`s intent, but will be part of the chain of events. However, I think LV did understand that the cup will have properties to neutralize the poison is the basin. I think the sword, locket and ring will help Harry to overcome obstacles to retrieve another horcrux. It may be that DD had an inkling of this and kept wearing the ring for that reason. 3. Umbridge's pen is the same or similar to the object used to create the dark mark on the Death Eaters. I also think the mark is created as they sign a contract pledging loyalty which gives LV dominion over them and provides the magic which calls them to LV. I think a decent foreshadowing of this is the contract that Hermione had the DA sign. 4. Fred and George will develop their "headless hats" to cover the full body and they will be used by Harry or the OOTP. 5. Harry will find he has skill as a legilimens. From mpachuta at hotmail.com Fri Jun 29 16:31:10 2007 From: mpachuta at hotmail.com (Mike Pachuta) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:31:10 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170989 TK: "We will find out, hunt you down, and give you a virtual thermonuclear wedgie." Mike: ....at least it's virtual. Compulsory Questions (50 points total): 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Absolutely not, but it will be a close call. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes. Undeniably. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Former Professor Severus Snape 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark of course 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): > a. Harry? Yes > b. Draco? No > c. Hermione? Yes > d. Luna? Yes > e. Ron? Yes > f. Neville? Yes > g. Ginny? Yes > >6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the >time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fluer 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" I'm gonna go with Filch 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: > a. Head Boy? Harry > b. Head Girl? Hermione > c. DADA Instructor? It will be team-taught by Order members > d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn > e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonnagal > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Dumbledore 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. > a. Diary > b. Ring > c. Nagini the snake > d. Slytherins locket stolen by RAB > e. The Hufflepuff cup > f. In Voldemort > g. A Ravenclaw Relic - I'm guessing a small statue or trophy Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus - an owl Boggart - Dumbledore, disappointed Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? That's where they study the Power of Love, by Huey Lewis and the News. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Wormtail will unwillingly, begrudgingly and whimperingly pay his life debt to Harry 2. Muggles will be aware of Voldemort and Muggle killings will occur 3. Harry will return to Grimmauld Place and find something Sirius left for him 4. Centaurs will get over themselves and help wizards 5. Grawp will help in the defeat of Voldemort - Mike From darcyinks at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 16:40:28 2007 From: darcyinks at yahoo.com (Darcy Woodham) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <651904.75042.qm@web53212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 170990 darcyinks predicts: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? no 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Snape 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? no b. Draco? no c. Hermione?yes d. Luna? yes e. Ron? yes f. Neville? yes g. Ginny? yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Tonks & Lupin 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Arabella Fig 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Aberforth Dumbledore d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? DD 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Voldemort b. Diary c. Hufflepuff Cup d. Ring e. Slitherin Locket f. Nagini g. Something at Godric's Hollow In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggart? Patronus/Bat Boggart/James Potter Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Room of Love Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be scored. 1. Draco will save Hermione's life. 2. Snape will die "saving" Harry. 3. Neville will turn out to have great powers supressed by a charm by his mother to save him from Voldy and Death Eaters. His powers return on his birthday but it may take him a while to figure that out. 4. Dumbledore has left his pensive memories to Harry. 5. Petunia loved her sister and blamed Harry and the WW for her death. -darcyinks From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 17:14:57 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:14:57 -0000 Subject: Predictions Contest: ENTRIES MUST BE EMAILED TO TIGERPATRONUS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170991 All entries must be BOTH emailed to tigerpatronus at yahoo.com AND posted to the group. Emailed entries will be graded. If it's not emailed, you're not entered. Posted entries will be used as a back-up in case of dispute or hard drive failure. TK -- TigerPatronus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LIKE ROBIN COOK ON STEROIDS "RABID by TK Kenyon is one of those reads that hits the ground at full speed and picks up momentum from there. Either T.K. Kenyon doesn't care where the brake pedal is or decided she didn't need one and frankly, she's right. This is a full blown scorcher of a novel. Dual themes; out-of-control scientific research, and Pedophilia make hot-as-the-devil premises and great material for Kenyon's fascinating scientific and philosophical tirades. Science and religion. Rabid gives no quarter. The characters are flawed. You feel their pain, their fear. They sear their way into your subconscious. Still, you root for them. The American priesthood is infested with pedophiles. The reasons have never been explained better, made more exciting, or offered as much hope for the future. Get yourself a copy, strap yourself into your favorite chair, and find out what's really been going on behind closed doors." ?Art Tirrell, author of The Secret Ever Keeps. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 17:25:52 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:25:52 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170992 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Severus Snape 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? Draco showed Borgin the DE mark that is on his arm. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? yes b. Draco? no c. Hermione? yes d. Luna? yes e. Ron? yes f. Neville? yes g. Ginny? yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Flur and Bill 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch - and he will be more surprised by it than anyone else! 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie Macmillan b. Head Girl? Harmione c. DADA Instructor? The Auror who keeps getting knocked out by DD - Dawlish d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With Dumbledore. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. In Voldy b. Riddle's Diary c. Marvolo's ring d. Slytherin's locket e. Huffelpuff's cup f. The wand that was in the window display at Ollivander's g. Riddle's award for special services Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus - Phoenix Boggart - Tobias Snape Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? A space that looks much like the Scholastic DH cover art with Harry and Voldy - The Love Room Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Snape will die protecting Harry. 2. One of the Weasley twins will die. 3. The final fight between Harry and Voldy will take place in the Love Room in the DOM. 4. We will find out that Lily Potter was an Unspeakable working in the DOM. 5. Voldy's minions will invade Hogwarts and students from all four houses will work together with the teachers and Order members to fight them off. From keltobin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 17:26:07 2007 From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:26:07 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170993 Just a question: Should we have posted in the other thread instead? If we should have, should we re-post there? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jun 29 17:33:51 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:33:51 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170994 > Compulsory Questions (50 points total): > > If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, > write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters > or characteristics of new character for full credit. > > > 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Hickengruendler: No, he will survive. > 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes > 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent > character to die and stay dead? Snape > 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio > were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that > scared him? The Dark Mark, as Harry correctly guessed in HBP. > > 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a > student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend > the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? No d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? No f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during > the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur > 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first > time "very late in life?" Argus Filch > > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie Macmillan b. Head Girl? No idea, maybe Susan Bones. c. DADA Instructor? Remus Lupin, and he will stay, since Voldie's death will break the curse. d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With Dumbledore and the Order. > 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or > less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. > Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes > must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul > pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the > bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. In Voldemort b. Tom Riddle's diary c. The Ring of the Gaunts d. Slytherin's locket e. Helga Hufflepuff's Cup f. Something of Ravenclaw's. My guess is the Tiara in the Room of Requirement g. Nagini > > In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have > sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two > alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 > and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will > be used as tiebreakers. > > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? His patronus is a Phoenix and his boggart is dead Lily! > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of > Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? The power of love. > > Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): > > Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. > > Current Off-Limit Spoilers: > -- Predictions that describe any the covers are worth 0 points > unless they include specific information not obvious in the cover. > -- SPOILER: Kreacher will be in DH. (David Yates, interview.) (Note: > because we are pretty sure that Kreacher will figure at least > somewhat prominently in DH, any predictions about his presence on a > cover will also be worth 0 points.) > -- The probable identity of "R.A.B." as stumbled around by JKR > during Leaky / Mugglenet interview will earn 0 points. > -- Predictions based on "Gabriel the Hacker" are allowed but we will > laugh at you when they're wrong. > -- Anything stupidly obvious (e.g., Harry will turn 17, Ron and > Hermione will date, Voldemort is evil, someone will perform magic,) > will be worth 0 points, at most. Negative points are possible. > -- "Negative" predictions, i.e., "The Centaurs will *not* come > skipping into Hogwarts offering free pony rides," will receive no > credit. > -- Only your first 5 predictions will be evaluated and included in > your score. Extra predictions may be marveled at but will not be > scored. > 1. The locket is currently in Aberforth Dumbledore's posession. It was indeed the one seen in 12 Grimmauld Place in book 5, and Kreacher smuggled it back into the house, when the other wanted to throw it out. But he did not take it back to Hogwarts, and Mundungus stole it and sold it to Aberforth. At one point, the Trio will visit Azkaban to ask Mundungus about the locket. Lucius Malfoy will overhear their conversation. He later will break out of Azkaban and tell Voldemort, that the Trio are trying to detsroy the Horcruxes. This will lead to him being back in Voldie's good graces again. 2. Even if the Tiara mentioned above isn't a Horcrux, at least one Horcrux will be hidden in Hogwarts, probably in the Room of Requirement. Voldemort, who can't stop the Trio destroying his other Horcruxes, decides to attack the castle, both, because he wants to protect the Horcrux hidden there, and because he wants to take over the castle anyway. The final battle will be on Hogwarts' grounds, with most characters we know getting involved. 3. Trelawney will make a third genuine prophecy. This prophecy will make it seem, that Harry will die during his confrontation with Voldie. Harry, trying to protect his friends, decides to act on it anyway, even if it means his death. He will however survive, and it turns out, that something about the prophecy will have been misinterpreted. 4. Dumbledore will make an actual appereance, and I don't mean as a portrait or in his pensieve. It will rather be somewhat similar to the Priori Incantatem effect, where some short of shadow/essence/whatever of Dumbledore, and possibly some other dead characters, will return to help Harry. 5. Scrimgeour is a secret Death Eater. The fact, that there's a spy in the ministry will become clear comparatively early in the book. At one point in the book, the Trio will suspect Umbridge of being in league with Voldemort, while the text leads some suspicion towards Percy. Scrimgeour himself will turn out to be the baddest egg, though. From muellem at bc.edu Fri Jun 29 17:43:46 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:43:46 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170995 Kelly wrote: > > Just a question: Should we have posted in the other thread instead? > If we should have, should we re-post there? > colebiancardi: It looks like if you wish to be in the contest, you must email to tigerpatronus @ yahoo.com AND post to this HPfGU's group(as a backup). You *don't* have to post here, but it is for backup purposes only. But to be entered, you must post to tiger's email addy. colebiancardi From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 17:40:24 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:40:24 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann/ Harry giving up his magi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > I was pretty sure I read this quote from JKR, but now I cannot find > it, so maybe somebody could help me. > > > Unless I am majorly confused, I seem to remember that interviewer > asked her about this ending , whether it is likely to happen that > Harry will give up his magic at the end, or something to this effect. > > I also seem to remember that the answer was that this is a good > ending, but she does not want to be sued for stealing it from > fanfiction or something like that. > Yes, I remember something like that as well. I don't know if she said it would be a "good" ending or not. I seem to recall her saying that it would be a "dramatic" ending. Regardless, I also remember some statement to the effect that, dramatic or not, that wasn't the way things were likely to go. I think it goes along with her statement that one is either magical or not, decided at birth (although that seems to cut against someone using magic late in life, doesn't it)? Anyway, I also recall JKR reacting with surprise in an interview that people were taking her statement about Harry maybe not surviving seriously. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean much of anything -- she may have been caught out in a double bluff. Anyway, I'm with Phoenixgod that Harry losing his powers would be in lots of ways more of a downer than Harry dieing. We will see. Lupinlore From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 19:37:07 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:37:07 -0000 Subject: Who Loved Snape? WAS: Re: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170997 > Kelly: > Snape's loyalties lie with himself. Ultimately, I think he will be a > good character who will not be redeemed until he faces his own > downfall. I don't think he is a good character for many reasons, but > an interview answer from JKR sealed it for me.** > > **In reply to Snape ever being loved, JKR said: "Yes, he has, which > in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never > has." Culpable is defined as deserving of blame or censure as being > wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. I have a hard time with this > word being used to describe the misunderstood hero of the book. zgirnius: I've seen the interview comment, and remain a committed DDM!Snaper. I'm glad you brought it up, though, because thinking about it again caused me to have a (to me, anyway) novel thought. Snape is, as you (and Rowling) say, "deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious". *More so* than Voldemort, even. This is a bit of a problem - the most wrong, evil, improper, and injurious things we see and hear about Snape doing, are done at Voldemort's behest. He too is cuplable for those actions (not to mention, Voldemort is culpable for a larger number of similar actions, committed over a greater span of years both by himself and many followers). The one evil act by Snape most central to the story (the prophecy business) is one ion which Voldemort is at least as culpable, since he personally murdered the two victims. So why is Snape culpable more than Voldemort? "Because he has been loved." Aha! Why is this the important distinction? It struck me that this might be because while both Snape and Voldemort have done serious harm to all sorts of others, only Snape has done serious harm to someone who loved him. Poor old Voldemort has never harmed someone who loved him, because noone ever loved him. And who, you ask, might this person be who loved Snape, and whom Snape harmed through his actions? Well, let's take a quick look at the people Snape has harmed, and see who among them might have loved Snape. 1) (included for sake of completeness, I do not agree) Assorted students he has abused as a teacher. Certainly none we have met love him. 2) Harry, (in the matter of the Prophecy). No love there. 3) James Potter. (Assorted hexes, one Prophecy). No love either. 4) Sirius and Peter. (Arguably the prophecy thing put both in additional jeopardy; in addition Snape delights me with his nastiness to both of them.) But neither of them harbor any fondness for Snape. 5) Remus. Nope, he is perfectly neutral about Snape, and there is a suggestion this reflects an *improved* opinion of our Severus. 6) Albus. I suppose it is debatable, I have certainly encountered arguments in favor of the idea that Albus loved Snape (I am not talking SHIPs here - close friendship, or some sort of family-like feeling). Personally, I don't think Snape's actions at the end of HBP were culpable anyway. Pippin may or may not be right, the 'stopper death' theory may or may not be right, but I am convinced that Dumbledore died secure in the knowledge that Snape did as he asked. 7) Nameless possible victims of Death Eater crimes - again, no love. 8) Assorted Death Eaters he may have betrayed to the Order/ proper authorities. Possibly they might have included friends, but the action in question was not evil, deserving of blame, etc., as it brought evildoers to justice. Which brings me to the final person on my list (I hope I am not forgetting some supposed crime or other of the former Potions master): 9) Lily Evans Potter (one nasty insult, one Prophecy). Lily's friends, alas, are absent from the pages of those books already available to us, so we cannot hear their views on what, if anything, she thought of Snape. But if my idea about the reason for Snape's greater culpability is correct, she must have harbored a fondness bu process of elimination. Childhood friends? Potions partners? I doubt romantic feelings on her part; young Snape seems an unlikely target for an early school crush, and by 5th year Lily's romantic interests seem engaged elsewhere. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jun 29 19:42:21 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:42:21 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170998 Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Horace Slughorn and Luna Lovegood will die, among the good guys. I'm not sure which would be considered the more prominent. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? His Dark Mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Mrs. Figg 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With Dumbledore 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. [...] a. In Voldemort b. Tom Riddle's diary c. Slytherin's locket d. The Gaunt ring e. Helga Hufflepuff's cup f. A Ravenclaw relic we have not seen yet (not the wand or the tiara). g. Harry's scar In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus?spider Boggart?dead Harry Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? It is the room in which Love is studied. There will be a device or object/s of some kind in keeping with the pattern of the other rooms in the Department of Mysteries. It/they will be blood red like the Philosopher's Stone. (I really, really hope it is not a tank full of human hearts.) Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. [ ] 1. Oh, what the heck. Gopher baroque! I'm going to have the courage of my convictions and make my # 1 prediction be that Severus Snape is not the Half Blood Prince. 2. Harry's recognition of Snape's true character will play a critical role in the defeat of Voldemort. It will be what causes the door to the locked room in the DoM to open. 3. Dumbledore has impersonated Snape several times, both before Voldemort's downfall and after his return. 4. The Lupin who stayed with the Weasleys during a very frosty Christmas was not the real Lupin. 5. Albus Dumbledore was not killed by an AK on the astronomy tower. 6. The real Lupin's negligence contributed in some way to the assault on Hogwarts. That is to say that I believe Lupin's character flaws will be shown to have evil consequences, but not that Lupin himself was evil from the beginning. 7. Madam Pince's long black veil will turn out to be significant either because it was hiding someone else on the day of DD's funeral or because she herself is not who she appears to be. (I'll stop with lucky seven.) houyhnhnm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 20:00:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:00:39 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 170999 > Compulsory Questions (50 points total): > > If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, > write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters > or characteristics of new character for full credit. > > > 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Alla: NO. > 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes. > > 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent > character to die and stay dead? Hagrid. > > 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio > were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that > scared him? Dark Mark. His I mean :) > > 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a > student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend > the classes (answer yes or no for each): > a. Harry? No > b. Draco? No > c. Hermione? No > d. Luna? yes > e. Ron? No > f. Neville? Yes > g. Ginny? Yes. > > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during > the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur > > 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first > time "very late in life?" Already was Merope. > > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: > a. Head Boy? Neville > b. Head Girl? Ron > c. DADA Instructor? Bill > d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace > e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva. > > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With himself and whoever he is loyal too :) > > 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or > less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. > Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes > must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul > pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the > bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) > a. > b. > c. > d. > e. > f. > g. > Don't really care, Founders objects are among them, but Harry or his scar is either a horcrux or he will believe that he is one, but will just have a soul piece. > In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have > sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two > alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 > and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will > be used as tiebreakers. > > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggart? Patronus probably Lily. Boggart - him dying alone without glory he thinks he deserves. > > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of > Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love, love, love - it will help Harry in some symbolic form of spell or object, agree with Houyhnnnmmm's prediction ( sorry, I know I did not spell it right :)) > > > > Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): 1. No matter what was behind events on the Tower, Dumbledore **did not** ask Snape to kill him, it was Snape's decision and nobody else for whatever reasons. 2. No matter what was behind events on the Tower, the AK Snape hit Dumbledore with was real. 3. Lupin is not evil, was not evill, will not be evil. 4. Trio will survive at the end. 5. Luna will die. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 20:15:33 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:15:33 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171000 Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. He will seem to die but will reappear before the end. He will either go through the veil and come back out, or he will take the Draft of Living Death. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes. Dead and gone. No Vapormort. Not even a ghost. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Hagrid. Snape, too, but everybody will guess that. I'm guessing Hagrid. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? A Dark mark. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No. b. Draco? No. c. Hermione? Yes. d. Luna? Yes. e. Ron? Yes. Can you imagine Molly's rage if he didn't? f. Neville? Yes. He has to pass his N.E.W.T. that gives him the cred to teach at Hogwarts. g. Ginny? Yes. 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Hagrid and Olympe. Because Bill and Fleur is a gimme and Lupin and Tonks is trite. Oh, and if all three couples wed, then I want extra credit because fewer people will vote for the Hagrid/Olympe ship. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Dudley. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron. b. Head Girl? Hermione. c. DADA Instructor? Madame Pomfrey. d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn. e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagle. 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With the good guys. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Diary. b. Ring. c. Locket. d. Cup. e. Ravenclaw's wand. f. Intended to be the house at Godric's Hollow. Because the horcrux failed (causing the house to fall), it was transferred to some unknown object. g. In Voldemort. In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggart? Patronus: Fox. (Crafty guy) Boggart: Someone laughing at him. (Humiliation) Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love. (The Pillar of Storge) Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. A character everybody believes is dead will re-appear. In the flesh. Not Dumbledore. 2. Peeves will have an important function. He may go through the veil, since not being alive, he should have no problem coming back out. 3. Lupin will duel to the death with Fenrir Greyback. 4. The elves of Hogwarts will free themselves using Hermione's hats and become another Army of Dumbledore. 5. Peter Pettigrew will lose another body part. 6. The blond death eater in the Battle of Hogwarts is a good guy. 7. Dolores Umbridge will do something nefariously evil to further her own purposes. 8. The students of Durmstrang will become a force in the Final Battle, fighting under General Krum. 9. The Final Battle will be timed so that any werewolf who is involved will transform right in the middle of it. 10. There is at least one Time Turner still in existence. 11. The fact that the pipes lead to the lake will be put to use. 12. The houses will unite permanently, putting the Sorting Hat out of business. 13. There is something special about Gryffindor's sword. Like Excalibur, pulling it from a stone, I mean *hat*, makes you a king. 14. The Mirror of Erised will make a return appearance. 15. First Ron, then Arthur will find themselves in charge of the grail, I mean the Goblet of Fire. (They represent the Father and Son Fisher Kings who, both injured, guarded the grail in Arthurian legend) 16. ESE!Pigwidgeon will prove not to be such a ridiculous theory. I invented it, I like it. So there. 17 - and FINALLY!!! That we will see Quirrell again. The Man with Two Faces, Quirinus Janus, The God of Beginnings and Endings. From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 20:05:41 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:05:41 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mjanetd" wrote: > > I'm a little confused about what Snape heard of the prophecy. > Professor Trelawny remembers seeing Snape but she doesn't remember > giving the prophecy. I assume this means she had to see him after she > came out of her trance. So how could Snape only hear the first half of > the prophecy if he's there at the end? Did Trelawny give the prophecy > in 2 parts with Snape's interruption in the middle? Or did the barkeep > distract Snape so that he only heard part of it? This is a confusing detail. I believe that JKR overlooked it, because she needed Trelawney to tell Harry about Snape's presence. It could be explained away by saying that Snape was nabbed halfway through the prophecy and, in the ensuing scuffle, didn't hear the end of it. I'm usually not one for explaining things away, but the other alternative is that Dumbledore lied to Harry, and that seems to violate their relationship. He conceals many things from Harry, but he doesn't outright lie. Sneeboy2 From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 20:22:38 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (sneeboy2) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:22:38 -0000 Subject: McGonagall's name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171002 Here's something I haven't seen mentioned yet in the "McGonagall is evil" posts: Her name combines the name of the Greek goddess of poetry -- among other things -- and the surname of the acknowledged worst poet in the English language, William McGonagall. http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ Could it be a hint that someone who appears good is actually bad? Or perhaps she's a little of both. William McGonagall's horrible poetry was also thought by some to put a put on or a satire, though he acted entirely serious about it. sneeboy2 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 20:42:02 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:42:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions Contest In-Reply-To: <879518.20061.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <879518.20061.qm@web50407.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0706291342s1fcac43bm78465f9a948f8c79@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171003 Lynda: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Ron Weasley 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Death Eater's Dark Mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes. b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Aunt Marge 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Harry Potter b. Head Girl? Hermione Granger c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With himself, of course. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. a. Tom Riddle's Diary b. The Peverell Ring c. Salazar Slytherin's Locket d. Helga Hufflepuff's Cup e. Nagini f. TR's Award for special services g. NA Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus - A bat, Boggart - James Potter Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? The Love Room. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 21:03:45 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:03:45 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sneeboy2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mjanetd" wrote: > > > > I'm a little confused about what Snape heard of the prophecy. > > Professor Trelawny remembers seeing Snape but she doesn't remember > > giving the prophecy. I assume this means she had to see him after she > > came out of her trance. So how could Snape only hear the first half of > > the prophecy if he's there at the end? Did Trelawny give the prophecy > > in 2 parts with Snape's interruption in the middle? Or did the barkeep > > distract Snape so that he only heard part of it? lizzyben: Snape heard the entire prophecy; he only reported part of it to Voldemort. And he did this w/DD's full approval. In DD's pensieve, Trelawney gives the entire prophecy w/o interruption. Trelawney isn't aware of her surroundings when she prophecies - therefore, if she heard a scuffle & then saw Snape at the door, this occured *after* the prophecy was already given. While it's possible that Snape missed the last part, it's most likely that he heard the whole thing. Now, DD has an independent witness to the prophecy of VD's defeat - Snape, a Slytherin, a guy who was "up to his ears" in the Dark Arts as a student. Even if DD didn't know Snape was a Death Eater, he should know that it was possible that Snape had connections with VD supporters. And he was most likely listening at the door. If he wanted to keep the prophecy a secret, DD should have used a memory charm to remove Snape's memory of the prophecy. DD certainly was willing to use a memory charm against Marietta Edgecomb, when the consequences of her memory were much less dire. Plus, DD is a gifted Legimens, & should have been able to acertain Snape's intentions. But DD lets Snape go free, & lets Snape report the first half of the prophecy to VD. The circumstances of that prophecy are so sketchy - everyone in that room had a personal connection to DD. It's almost like the whole thing was set up by DD. DD made sure that Snape would be able to report the first half to VD (though I'm not sure if Snape knew DD's intentions, or was simply working on VD's behalf.) But I'm certain that DD deliberately leaked the prophecy to VD for reasons of his own. DD knew that the prophecy could be a "weapon"; not because of its intrinsic value, but because he knew how it would affect VD. VD is obsessed w/having immortality & avoiding death - therefore, any prophecy of his own death & defeat would be terrifying to him. DD knew that VD would become obsessed w/preventing the prophecy, and it would distract him from the random massacres he'd been doing thus far. And it worked - VD drops his other efforts, and focuses on the prophecy instead. DD used the same scheme in OOTP, when he basically uses the prophecy to lure VD to the MOM. VD again falls for it, because he is obsessed w/hearing the second half of the prophecy. It becomes a very valuable weapon, because it allows DD to predict, & to some extent control, VD's actions. lizzyben04 From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 21:02:27 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (Andrew Snee) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <609905.74814.qm@web45306.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171005 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes, but Harry won't kill him. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Hagrid. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? Dark mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? yes b. Draco? yes c. Hermione? yes d. Luna? yes e. Ron? yes f. Neville? no, he's dead g. Ginny? yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Mrs. Figg, 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Lupin d. Potions Master or Mistress? previously unknown e. Headmaster or -mistress? Snape 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With DD, OotP 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Diary b. Ring c. Locket d. Cup e. Ravenclaw's wand f. Harry's scar g. in Voldemort In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Spider. Himself teaching potions naked. Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Broom closet. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. McGonagall is evil 2. Snape is the "awful boy" Petunia heard talking to Lily 3. Kreacher will confirm identity of R.A.B. because he was with him when he stole the horcrux 4. The sorting hat will be destroyed, thus ending the house system at Hogwarts 5. One of the horcruxes is in the Forbidden Forest 6. Ollivander sold Ravenclaw's wand to Neville Sneeboy2 From jmestacio at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 21:17:57 2007 From: jmestacio at yahoo.com (-jme-) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: <609905.74814.qm@web45306.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <262842.52822.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171006 argentumangela: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Ron 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark on his arm 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes. b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Harry Potter b. Head Girl? Hermione Granger c. DADA Instructor? Nymphadora Tonks d. Potions Master or Mistress? Someone new - not Slughorn. e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Severus Snape 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. a. Tom Riddle's Diary b. the Gaunt's Ring c. Salazar Slytherin's Locket d. Helga Hufflepuff's Cup e. Nagini f. Ravenclaw's wand [that one in front of Ollivander's shop is my guess] g. voldy's moldy a** Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus -raven Boggart - the potions classroom. [fear: spending the rest of his life as a teacher to brats/for him a symbol of a life of mediocrity] Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love. - either that or that theater setting we see in the cover. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): 1. Dumbledore is dead. And Snape did kill him of his own free will. 2. Snape will be relevant in winning the war. Either by information or betraying Voldy at the last minute. 3. Petunia is an Order member. 4. Harry's scar is relevant but not a horcrux. Maybe his way of overpowering Voldy at the final battle would be through the scar link before he curses his a**. 5. The house elves will fight. As will Grawp. 6. Dudley will have a magical child [okay so this isnt exactly a prediction. more like my idea of sweet revenge on him] "Fairytales are are more than real. Not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that they can be defeated." [GK Chesterton] From abbey at selectivehouse.com Fri Jun 29 20:14:02 2007 From: abbey at selectivehouse.com (abbey) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:14:02 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171007 Is Harry Potter the Son of God? The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final book. abbey From kamilaa at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 22:13:46 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:13:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171008 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes, err, maybe. I keep thinking that he might discover one of those things worse than death instead . . . nevermind. Yes. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Hagrid or Snape, depending on who is felt to be the most "prominent" character 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him?A Dark Mark on his (Draco's) arm. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? yes b. Draco? no c. Hermione? yes d. Luna? yes e. Ron? yes f. Neville? yes g. Ginny? yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Ginny and Harry 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Figgy herself, much to her astonishment 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Professor Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? Professor McGonnagal 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With himself; he no longer whole-heartedly supports Lord Thingy, but his loyalties left Dumbledore once it became clear that Dumbledore would die of the ring curse and would no longer be able to protect him. He may well try and flip back to Harry's side late in the book if it starts to look like Harry will defeat Lord Thingy (ie, if Snape discovers just how many horcruxes have been destroyed), although I'm sure he'll try and sell it as having been deep undercover and on Harry's side all along. I doubt Harry will buy it. =D 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Diary/destroyed b. Ring/destroyed c. Locket at 10GP d. Nagini e. Hufflepuff's cup, wherever it may be f. The Ravenclaw Tiara, which I believe is in the RoR g. Harry's scar; not realizing this was Dumbledore's biggest failure, and it happened because he could not face what Harry being a horcrux would mean. He cared too much. In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus=weasel - Boggert=Harry, grown and looking exactly like an enraged James Potter Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love in its purest form 1. The Dursleys will find themselves being forced to shelter in Harry's house at 10GP after Number 4PD is destroyed when Death Eaters attack in force on the night of Harry's 17th birthday. They will not enjoy the experience at all. Harry will, however. 2. The final battle between Voldemort and Harry will occur behind the Veil. Harry will take both of them through. 3. Wormtail will pay his life debt by saving Harry from being killed by Voldemort and will pay for this action with his own life when Voldemort or Snape kills him for his trouble. 4. In the epilogue we will discover that Ginny has had Harry's son. 5. Harry will communicate with both Sirius and Dumbledore using either his half of the two mirrors and/or his Patronus. Sirius, by virtue of having his corporeal body with him, still has his half of the mirror, which he kept in his pocket at all times lest he miss an attempt by Harry to communicate. This will prove handy. ^^ From keltobin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 22:25:15 2007 From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:25:15 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann/ Harry giving up his magi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Anyway, > I'm with Phoenixgod that Harry losing his powers would be in lots of > ways more of a downer than Harry dieing. > > We will see. > > > Lupinlore For the record, I couldn't agree more! I was discussing this with my husband and kids in the car this afternoon and they all (kids especially) were horrified at the thought that Harry would lose his power. My son seemed to think that this would be such a punitive outcome that death would be preferable (to Harry) as the magical community is so important to him because he doesn't have anything else. Repeatedly, Harry has put everything on the line to keep his ability to use magic and remain within Hogwarts. Harry also doesn't seem to fear death; he reminisces at one point that at least he would be with Sirius. Losing your identity is a fate worse than death to many people. Harry doesn't deserve that at all. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 22:27:51 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:27:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40706291527h5819305ala65cb96a2058a154@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171010 abbey wrote: > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the > Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from > the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic > intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final book. montims: Well, to be quite candid, if the Potter series IS "an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic intention", that will destroy it for me and I will feel manipulated, and never read any of the books again. I cannot believe that JKR is so evangelistic, and find the idea quite disturbing. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 29 22:56:32 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:56:32 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706291527h5819305ala65cb96a2058a154@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > abbey wrote: > > > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in > > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the > > Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from > > the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story > > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic > > intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final book. > > > montims: > Well, to be quite candid, if the Potter series IS "an intentional Gospel > allegory written with evangelistic intention", that will destroy it for me > and I will feel manipulated, and never read any of the books again. > > I cannot believe that JKR is so evangelistic, and find the idea quite > disturbing. Geoff: This raises the question, have you read JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis? The Narnia books were written with the Christian gospel in mind and LOTR, although set in a mythical pre-Christian era, contains a great deal of Christian pointers. I think there are many people who read the Harry Potter books, enjoy them as stories and manage to avoid the Christian content - either deliberately or by default - so, if this theory proves to be correct, maybe you can still read them and tune out what JKR, and many group members, consider to be an important aspect of these stories. From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 22:17:19 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:19 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171012 Colwilrin predicts: > 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No. > 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No, he will go beyond the white veil into pure love to cringe in it for all eternity. DD said there were "worse things than death". > 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent > character to die and stay dead? Hagrid. > 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio > were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin > that scared him? The Death Eaters Mark on his arm > 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a > student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend > the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? YEs > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during > the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur > 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first > time "very late in life?" Filtch > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron b. Head Girl? Herminone c. DADA Instructor? Rufus Scrimgeour d. Potions Master or Mistress? Horace Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? Minerva McGonagall > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? With Dumbledore and Harry because of his prior relationship with Lily. > 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. a. Diary b. The destroyed ring c. The Slytherin Locket d. Voldemort e. Hufflepuff Cup f. Griffindor's Sword g. Ravenclaw's Wand, which is now Neville's new one. > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus is a "Lily". His Boggert is seeing his own vulnerable, self doubting teenage self. > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of > Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? The room where they study love, and the "white veil" > Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): 1. The centaurs will join the OOP at a crucial moment, thereby recreating the members of good forces as depicted in the brethern fountain at MOM 2. Sirius, James, Lily and DD are behind the "white" veil pictured in the US cover. They will use their position from there, combined with the power of love to defeat Voldy. 3. Trevor will be shown to be more than just a toad. 4. Peter Pettigrew will repay his debt to Harry by being instrumental in saving Harry and crew at an important moment...but not at the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. 5. Neville's parents will come out of their stupor in time to see their son do incredibly brave feats of magic, and to possibly join the fight. Colwilrin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 23:10:51 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:10:51 -0000 Subject: Ollivander's Disappearance/brother wands/other predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171013 > > Colwilrin wrote: > > > > One last wild thought. What if Snape and Lily were related > > through the muggle side. > > > > > > colebiancardi: > > a few years ago, I thought of this - that Snape & Lily had a > relationship, not as "lovers" or "unrequited" love stuff, but as > family relations - that they were distant cousins. Mike: I too hate the LOLLIPOPS stuff and sincerely hope JKR doesn't go there. OTOH, I don't buy the relation without the SHIP part either. But read on. ;) > colebiancardi: > However, DD stated that Petunia was Harry's last living relative - > in OotP, he tells Harry "I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's > blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative" > p 836, Am Ed Hardcover > > So, I don't think, although I love the idea, that Snape is Harry's > distant second or third cousin removed....on **his mother's side** Mike: You don't have to give up your theory so easily, imo. Even Lily's and Petunia's blood is not the exact same, there is going to be some differences. But obviously Petunia will be the closest possible to Lily, even closer than one of their parents. Now, if Snape is a 2nd cousin that means one set of the same great-grandparents. That's only 1/4 same blood. Third cousins would be 1/8th. Not counting the dilution that occurs between siblings. This might explain the choice not to place Harry with Snape. Like not *enough* of "your mother's blood" to seal the blood charm Dumbledore used. Plus, the obvious second reason. Placing Harry with Snape would be a death sentence to Snape if and when Voldemort returns. So, even though I don't buy it, I don't think you have to abandon your theory on this account. :) > > Colwilrin: > > Got Crow? > > colebiancardi: > yep, and I am hoping to release him on July 21st or thereabouts :) Mike: Don't put that recipe away just yet. ;) From colwilrin at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 22:46:20 2007 From: colwilrin at yahoo.com (colwilrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:46:20 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706291527h5819305ala65cb96a2058a154@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171014 > montims: > Well, to be quite candid, if the Potter series IS "an intentional > Gospel allegory written with evangelistic intention", that will > destroy it for me and I will feel manipulated, and never read any of > the books again. > > I cannot believe that JKR is so evangelistic, and find the idea > quite disturbing. > I agree that an "intentional Gospel allegory written with intention" would be a bit of a turn off to me. Though using fantasy to convey religious teachings to children worked wonderfully in the Narnia Chronicles. However, it would be absolutely hysterical to see what the reaction of all the religious right would be. Those who fought to ban the books because of "satanic teachings" would be eating crow as Harry is shown to be a vehicle for teaching scripture! LOL Colwilrin From whiggrrl at erols.com Fri Jun 29 23:45:37 2007 From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:45:37 -0400 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights Contest by Tig In-Reply-To: <1183115020.3117.74448.m41@yahoogroups.com> References: <1183115020.3117.74448.m41@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <468599A1.6020400@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171015 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Draco 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? -- No b. Draco? -- No c. Hermione? -- No d. Luna? -- Yes e. Ron? -- No f. Neville? -- Yes g. Ginny? -- Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Assuming you mean during the narrative, Bill & Fleur. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? -- Either Neville or Ernie Macmillan b. Head Girl? -- Pansy c. DADA Instructor? -- Either Moody or Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? -- Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? -- McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Fundamentally for himself, but anti-Voldemort 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. a. Diary from COS b. Ring from HBP c. Unopenable locket in 12GP from OOP d. Cup from HBP e. Ravenclaw's wand, currently being carried by Neville f. Harry's scar g. In Voldemort (Voldemort took a Gryffindor relic to Godric's Hollow, intending to make a Horcrux of it in association with Harry's death, but the process backfired, destroying him physically and creating an accidental Horcrux in Harry's scar.) Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggart? Patronus: Thestral Boggart: A werewolf at the full moon Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. a. Neville (with support from Ginny and Luna) will publicly (re)start the DA. b. One of Lily and Petunia's parents or grandparents was a Squib who left the Wizarding world and lived as a Muggle; when Lily got a Hogwarts letter, s/he confessed to this and explained the Wizarding world to the girls. c. Trelawney faked the big prophecy because she realized her job interview was going so badly. (Dumbledore either took it seriously, or recognized the fraud but thought putting the story out there would tempt Voldemort into doing something foolish.) Although it has to some degree come true, because of actions taken by both Dumbledore and Voldemort. d. Irma Pince is Snape's maternal grandmother, and Filch is actually Tobias Snape, under a cover story of being a Squib. Both are being kept at Hogwarts for their own protection, and as a security for Snape's good behavior. e. After identifying and destroying what the Trio believes to be the Horcruxes, Harry will kill the reincorporated Voldemort. Then Harry's scar will reveal itself to be the actual last Horcrux, and attempt to possess him. In his last autonomous act, Harry will insist on submitting to a Dementor's kiss, knowing that it will take his soul along with the last fraction of Voldemort's. j.lutz (aka j_lunatic) From wrexx at hotmail.com Sat Jun 30 00:13:12 2007 From: wrexx at hotmail.com (wrexx1) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:13:12 -0000 Subject: ultimate and last bragging rights challenge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171016 Wrexx wrote: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Harry will be alive at the end. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes, unless JKR invents something worse than death. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Snape. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark-- at least the apprentice version of it. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes. b. Draco? No. c. Hermione? Yes. d. Luna? Yes. e. Ron? Yes. f. Neville? Yes. g. Ginny? Yes. 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch, with the help of that miserable cat and his honey, Madam Pince. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Harry, to give him more freedom to search the castle. b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Madam Pince d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonegall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Snape's unshakably loyal to Dumbledore, but hates most of the rest of humanity. 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. The diary b. The Ring c. The Locket d. Nagini e. Cup f. Something Aberforth took from Mundungus' looting of Sirius' house. g. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus = a bat; boggart = the sun. Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Panel of eminent wizards/witches diligently working on a way to tie up all the loose ends in this series. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Madam Pince is Snape's mother, who's been living under Dumbledore's protection ever since Voldemort thought she had been killed by Snape, to prove his loyalty to the dark lord. Her rescue is the reason for Snape's unbending obedience to Dumbledore. 2. Hagrid's dragon, Norbert, will return with a hoard of his relatives to turn the tide in a critical battle in the last book, possibly neutralizing the edge that Voldemort enjoys since winning over the giants. 3. Wormtail will use his silver hand to kill the werewolf Greyback when he is about to chew on Harry's neck. 4. Aberforth was instructed by Dumbledore to buy anything that Mundungus tried to fence from Sirius' house. He has one of the Horcruxes. 5. Mister Borgin was taken from his shop by Dumbledore so Voldemort couldn't capture him and find out that he was feeding info to the Order about Draco's plot. Dumbledore couldn't let Voldy find out that the Order knew all about the unbreakable vow. From lisathelibrarian at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 01:21:15 2007 From: lisathelibrarian at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:21:15 -0000 Subject: Canon hunt declared (please help) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171017 Hi, My website, Accio Quote, was recently notified that in 2000 Jo told a group of children at a reading approximately where Durmstrang and Beauxbatons are located. We don't have a full transcript, but would love to get our hands on it to confirm what she said. I can confirm that the reading took place, but cannot find the transcript. Report of the reading: http://the-pensieve.org/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=10&t=712 from the HPfGU archives. Confirmation of the reading from Maggies Centre website: http://www.maggiescentres.co.uk/maggies/files/newsletter_2001.pdf --Lisa From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 30 02:10:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:10:47 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171018 > Geoff: > This raises the question, have you read JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis? > > The Narnia books were written with the Christian gospel in mind > and LOTR, although set in a mythical pre-Christian era, contains > a great deal of Christian pointers. > > I think there are many people who read the Harry Potter books, > enjoy them as stories and manage to avoid the Christian content > - either deliberately or by default - so, if this theory proves to > be correct, maybe you can still read them and tune out what JKR, > and many group members, consider to be an important aspect > of these stories. Magpie: I suspect one could fnd "Christian pointers" in lots and lots of stories that aren't allegories. I would say that Christianity is important in understanding both of those authors. Aslan *is* Jesus in another world, and while people can read it and never get that, that is something in the text, a question raised that readers are supposed to answer. I find in LOTR things that Tolkien understands in Christian terms can be understood in other terms--but still, yeah, I think there are some things about his world that are best understood through Christian teaching. It's not necessary for understanding the story--some people might think it adds anything that important--but it's there. But I think Harry being Jesus being a "solution" to HP would be understandably unsatisfying. JRRT was very much a Christian, and he seems to have understood Frodo as having earned grace and helped by Eru at the end of LOTR, but he was wise enough not to suddenly have a hand come out of the side and give Gollum a push. And he despised allegory. By contrast, I found this essay completely unconvincing and not really leading anywhere. I think one could make probably an even better case for Harry being an "allegorical" King Arthur--though I wouldn't do that either. The two stories (life of Christ and life of Harry) are tossed together and many of the connections unfortunately just get less sensical the more they're pushed. They wind up being a collection of things that don't really seem to go together and made me rather long for the better story in the books. In an allegory it would be more obvious, and understanding the Biblical story would bring deeper meaning to HP. Instead it just seems like stuff that could probably be found in plenty of other places--for instance, Harry faces an absurd trial in OotP (absurd trials occurring in many works, and also being a comment on the justice system and beaurocracy of the WW), and that's connected to Christ's trial. Only of course, Christ is sentenced to death and Harry goes free--and Harry's trial is part of a totally different and fictional political context. And since Harry has no Judas, Peter has to fill in...only he betrayed James (Harry's quite human father). And he's named Peter, which is ironic since the essay starts out talking about the importance of Biblical names to the point where "Potter" means Harry is Christ because there's an OT passage where God is referred to as a Potter. (And the whole "Voldemort's servant is in your debt" kind of falls away.) Harry is naturally made too Christlike, while I think his mother winds up being Petunia Dursley at one point. There are definitely times in HP where I think of what Christ would teach in guessing which interpretation is correct, but I thought this essay made a great case for Harry not being Christ, and the stories not being an allegory of Christ's life. If that wasn't already kind of clear. Any reader could probably pick out a dozen different genres and outside things that Rowling's playing with. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 02:17:35 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:17:35 -0000 Subject: A Night at the Prophesy and the Niggling Details Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171019 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170932 > > Neri: > The answer seems quite obvious to me: In OotP JKR had to write > Dumbledore's explanation that the eavesdropper heard only the first > part without giving the readers too many details or diverting them > from the main issue (which in OotP was the fact that Voldemort knew > half the prophecy, not *how* he knew it). Mike: Right, this is the same situation that you wrote of concerning Snape's usage of the Sectumsempra curse in the course of SWM. JKR does not want us concentrating on the "why" only the first half was heard and she has Dumbledore move on quickly. As you say, at this point we don't care about the "why", we are too busy digesting the "what". We don't have a reason to ask "who" or "why", yet. "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building." "So he only heard...?" "He heard only the first part, the part fortelling ..." (OotP p. 843, US) We, and Harry, are concentrating on what part of the prophesy was heard. Dumbledore has good reason for passing over the identity of the eavesdropper, we know that now. And we have no problem picturing Abe as the type of bartender to physically eject someone from his bar. After all, we learned earlier in the same book that Dung was ejected and banned for life from the same bar. But now, in the course of HBP, we learn that Abe wasn't the only one to see the eavesdropper. So I naturally ask, where is the indication of Albus having the type of temperament that would allow him to be a party to ejecting someone from a bar? Because those are the words JKR had Albus use; "thrown from the building". < reorganizing your post here, sorry 'bout that chief ;) > > Neri: > I think the question we should ask ourselves is: assuming for a > moment that Snape indeed heard only the first half of the prophecy, > and there was never supposed to be any doubt about it, why didn't > JKR write the two versions, Dumbledore's and Trelawney's, perfectly > consistent? Mike: To see how easy it would have been to make the two stories consistent, simply substitute "prevented from hearing any more" in place of "thrown from the building". Less dramatic than "thrown", sure, but would it really have detracted from the scene? I think not. Besides, didn't JKR's version have you picturing the eavesdropper being hauled away before Dumbledore even opened the door? I certainly felt justified in having this opinion. So why did JKR choose to lead us to this false conclusion? (Assuming you came to the same conclusion about the ejection that I did) Was JKR simply negligent in maintaining the consistency of the versions, or was she deliberately setting up the inconsistency? Also, ask yourself, would JKR have been lackidaisical in her writing of the prophesy reveal chapter? Doesn't the whole plot of the series hinge on the prophesy? Now, I'm not convinced Snape was even ejected - if he was still a loyal DE at this time - or was ejected for show - if he was working for Albus at this time. > Neri: > IMO it's a consistency that can easily be resolved in DH (by > Aberforth, probably, or by Snape himself) but like SSSusan > upthread I won't be surprised if JKR isn't even aware of any > niggling doubts regarding the issue, and we won't get any > further explanation in DH. Mike: Why do I insist on this inconsistency? It goes to my belief of when Snape "returned" to the good side. At this point in time, Harry believes Dumbledore was an old fool for believing in Snape. But Harry can live with that failing, even if Dumbledore didn't. ;) For Dumbledore to be consistent in his belief of second chances does not hurt all that much. It speaks of a higher calling for Harry's mentor and the epitome of goodness. Ever since Dumbledore's famous pronouncement in PS/SS that he won't lie, I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Where would Dumbledore lie to Harry? Because when Harry finds out that Dumbledore lied to him, the set will be complete. Every one of Harry's adult "good guys" will be shown to have a major flaw, and not an endearing flaw either. (Lily excluded of course. Saint Lily is still an unexplored phenomenom, and may or may not change in DH) What better place for Dumbledore to have lied than in the defence of Snape? All of these other "good guys" flaws have been exposed by some kind of interaction with Snape. And if Dumbledore "allowed" the release of the prophesy, by Snape, in pursuit of the lofty goal of Voldemort's permanent downfall, in the grand scheme of things, will that be so bad. "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future,..." as long as "one day, amongst their [tyrants] victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back! Voldemort is no different! Always he was on the lookoutfor the one who would challenge him. He heard the prophesy and he leapt into action, with the result that he not only handpicked the man most likely to finish him, he handed him uniquely deadly weapons!" (OotP & HBP quotes combined) I don't believe Dumbledore had just then (in HBP) came to that conclusion about tyrants. By the looks of things, Dumbledore had for many years before the prophesy night been on the lookout for clues on defeating Voldemort. The Horcrux angle being only one of the things he was looking for information on. But this conviction about tyrants and their weaknesses seems to be a guiding principle rather than just an easy explanation to Harry. And Dumbledore seems to have had a pretty good idea how Voldemort would react to hearing a prophesy that foretold of his downfall. Again, this doesn't seem like Dumbledore just then came to this revelation. Rather, Dumbledore lumps Voldemort in with "All of them [tyrants]", he is sure that Voldemort would react the same way. This is a truism that guides Dumbledore's beliefs. And Dumbledore seemed bent on exploiting this tyranical weakness. Sure, Dumbledore had his own weaknesses that got in the way of his plan. He admitted to coming to care about Harry, something that wasn't in the plan. "I cared about you too much. ... I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan,..." (OotP) But that entire, chapter long, exposition at the end of OotP reads more like Dumbledore realizing his mistakes and getting back to the business at hand than as an explanation for and comforting of a distraught Harry. And the business at hand is the training and preparation of Harry to be Voldemort's Achille's Heel. By the time we reach HBP, there is no longer a twinkle in Dumbledore's eye. Has anybody else noticed that? Dumbledore may still be touched by Harry's kindness (Dumbledore's Man, through and through), but he quickly gets back to business. So Dumbledore lied to Harry, when he told him how the prophesy got released. Dumbledore knew not only how Voldemort would react, he knew that would cause the prophesy to become true. He, like Snape, didn't know who the unfortunate family would be, but he knew he would get the "chosen one" out of the deal. And this chosen one would have "the power to vanquish the Dark Lord", exactly what Dumbledore needed. JMHO Mike From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 02:36:21 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (Andrew Snee) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <921594.39991.qm@web45304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171020 lizzyben: Snape heard the entire prophecy; he only reported part of it to Voldemort. And he did this w/DD's full approval. In DD's pensieve, Trelawney gives the entire prophecy w/o interruption. Trelawney isn't aware of her surroundings when she prophecies - therefore, if she heard a scuffle & then saw Snape at the door, this occured *after* the prophecy was already given. While it's possible that Snape missed the last part, it's most likely that he heard the whole thing. The circumstances of that prophecy are so sketchy - everyone in that room had a personal connection to DD. It's almost like the whole thing was set up by DD. DD made sure that Snape would be able to report the first half to VD (though I'm not sure if Snape knew DD's intentions, or was simply working on VD's behalf.) Sneeboy2: The main problem with the "all part of DD's plan" theory (above) is that if DD is behind the prophecy being leaked to LV, then he is even more responsible than Snape for the death of Lily and James. And he would have done it as part of a coldly calculated plan, not a bitter, misguided act. It would also means that DD told Harry several lies, not just about the night of the prophecy, but about Snape's remorse. And he doesn't so much care about Harry as value him as a weapon against LV. I just don't think JKR is going to have dear departed DD turn out to be a cold-hearted "general" willing to sacrifce the troops in the fight against LV. The pensieve memory ends at the end of the prophecy. Trelawny's account of Snape's capture begins after she's recited the prophecy and come out of the trance. The two don't overlap. When she says they were "interrupted," she means the interview, not the prophecy. There's no actual contradiction of what DD said to Harry; just a seeming inconsistency. Keep in mind that DD had no way of knowing at the time how much Snape heard. (Occlumency is Snape's strong point.) So he only found out later, when Snape came over the good side and confessed everything, exactly how much Snape heard. The simplest explanation for the inconsistency is that when the barman caught Snape, Snape tried to get away and missed the second part of the prophecy. After he was was caught, the barman brought him to DD, who let him go. Snape was 's a former Hogwarts student, and he offered an excuse, which DD accepted. He does trust people. He also doesn't place much stake in prophecies, many of which go unfulfilled. And there's no indication that he knew Snape was a Death Eater at the time. It was in some sense a mistake for DD to let Snape go -- plenty of instances in canon of DD making mistakes; none of him lying -- but ironically his mistake ended up bringing down LV. Or perhaps better to say that LV brought himself down. Sneeboy2 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 03:17:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:17:46 -0000 Subject: A Night at the Prophesy and the Niggling Details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171021 > Mike: > To see how easy it would have been to make the two stories > consistent, simply substitute "prevented from hearing any more" in > place of "thrown from the building". Less dramatic than "thrown", > sure, but would it really have detracted from the scene? I think not. zgirnius: It seems to me that the wording served Dumbledore's purpose, suggesting (without saying it outright) that noone else saw the eavesdropper, a typical Dumbledorean way to mislead without telling an untruth. And it worked, too, that is what you thought, and likley Harry as well, is it not? I think it could certainly be true based on what we have been told about the character of the barman. I can see the argument that Dumbledore would not order someone thrown out, but then he did not say Snape was thrown out on his orders. If the barman was inclined to throw Snape from the building, would Dumbledore necessarily interfere? It seems to me letting the barman handle it in the way he prefers is consistent with Dumbledore's character in the books. Mike: > Besides, didn't JKR's version have you picturing the eavesdropper > being hauled away before Dumbledore even opened the door? I certainly > felt justified in having this opinion. zgirnius: So did I, causing me a delightful moment of admiration for that sly old fox Albus (not to mention one JKR) as I mulled over the new revelation. > Mike: > Also, ask > yourself, would JKR have been lackidaisical in her writing of the > prophesy reveal chapter? Doesn't the whole plot of the series hinge > on the prophesy? zgirnius: If Dumbledore's account is true, there was nothing lackadaisical oin the choice of words by Rowling or Dumbledore. There *was* a mystery, the wording helped to preserve it without yet another 'why does Harry never ask questions?' moment, and we got our answer in HBP. > Mike: > So Dumbledore lied to Harry, when he told him how the prophesy got > released. Dumbledore knew not only how Voldemort would react, he knew > that would cause the prophesy to become true. He, like Snape, didn't > know who the unfortunate family would be, but he knew he would get > the "chosen one" out of the deal. And this chosen one would have "the > power to vanquish the Dark Lord", exactly what Dumbledore needed. zgirnius: My gut feeling is that a man once described by his creatrix as 'the epitome of good' would not be behind such a plan. As a way Death Eater Snape might have thought about delivering the prophecy (minus any idea this was bad for LV, I mean merely that he did not care about the danger he was causing to some nameless people) this makes perfect sense, but it is positioned as the very awful bad thing he did in the story, that (at least I and Dumbledore believe) he now regrets. From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Jun 30 03:21:39 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:21:39 -0000 Subject: Who Loved Snape? WAS: Re: FOR DISCUSSION: Ultimate and Last In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171022 > zgirnius: > Well, let's take a quick look at > the people Snape has harmed, and see who among them might have loved > Snape. > > 1) ... Assorted students he has abused as a teacher. ... > 2) Harry ... > 3) James Potter. ... > 4) Sirius and Peter. ... > 5) Remus. ... > 6) Albus. ... > 7) Nameless possible victims of Death Eater crimes ... > 8) Assorted Death Eaters he may have betrayed ... > > Which brings me to the final person on my list (I hope I am not > forgetting some supposed crime or other of the former Potions master): > > 9) Lily Evans Potter ... Eddie: Let's not forget Snape's mother. Remember the memory that Harry saw in OOTP, Chapter 26 "Seen and Unforeseen": the "hooknosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small darkhaired boy cried in a corner " This is presumably Snape and his mother (who presumably loved him). Eddie, who maybe should have predicted Snape's boggart was the hook-nosed man. Darn. From sneeboy2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 02:52:33 2007 From: sneeboy2 at yahoo.com (Andrew Snee) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A Night at the Prophesy and the Niggling Details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <487440.33428.qm@web45308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171023 > Mike: > So Dumbledore lied to Harry, when he told him how the prophesy got released. Dumbledore knew not only how Voldemort would react, he knew that would cause the prophesy to become true. He, like Snape, didn't know who the unfortunate family would be, but he knew he would get the "chosen one" out of the deal. And this chosen one would have "the > power to vanquish the Dark Lord", exactly what Dumbledore needed. Sneeboy2 I just posted a response to a similar theory, so I won't repeat the whole thing here. I will point out again that if it was all DD's plan, then he's more responsible than Snape for James and Lily's deaths. I just don't think that's a plot twist that furthers the JKR's intentions. It goes beyond giving Dumbledore a character flaw. Sneeboy2 From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Jun 30 03:32:46 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:32:46 -0700 Subject: HPfGUs: DH Final and Ultimate Predictions Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: <394061.47700.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <394061.47700.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1406919830.20070629203246@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171024 Predictions Contest Compulsory Questions (50 points total): If you believe the answer to a question is a new character, write "new character" *and* describe relationships to old characters or characteristics of new character for full credit. 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No, he will live to a ripe old age. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? YES! 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Luna. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? YES b. Draco? NO (He's in hiding with Snape) c. Hermione? YES d. Luna? YES e. Ron? YES f. Neville? YES g. Ginny? NO (Mrs. W will go into "over-protective" mode, but Ginny will eventually rebel.) 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Bill and Fleur. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time very late in life? Arabella Figg. (When the DEs descend on Privet Drive at 12:00:00.00000000001 AM on July 31.) 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? (Remains vacant -- You're on your own, kids!) d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonnegal 9. Where do Snapes ultimate loyalties lie? Lily Potter, and by extension, Dumbledore (But he still hates everyone else...) 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write n/a or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write In Voldemort for one of the answers.) a. In Voldemort b. The Diary c. The Ring d. Slytherin's Locket e. Hufflepuff's Cup f. Great Auntie Muriel's Tiara (Ravenclaw) g. Nagini / Gryffindor's Sword (I think it will change during the book, but it's the same soul bit -- see Predictions...) In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. Alternate 1. What are Snapes patronus and boggert? Patronus: Unicorn (Symbolizes Lily) Boggart: James Potter (!!) Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Books and Magical devices representing years of research into love, much of the work done or initiated by Lily Potter. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Regardless of whether Hogwarts "officially" reopens, McGonnegall will insist that Harry finish his education... She will give the Trio a Time-Turner to use to attend classes and hunt Horcruxes in the same "Year 7" time frame. 2. Lily Potter is somehow connected with Unicorns. 3. One of the Horcruxes is guarded by one or more Lethifolds. 4. Wormtail will kill Greyback. 5. Nagini is either not a Horcrux or is only an "interim" Horcrux -- LV is still hoping to procure "something of Gryffindor's" (probably the sword) in order to complete his Four Founders' collection. Dave From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Jun 30 03:43:20 2007 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:43:20 -0000 Subject: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights In-Reply-To: <8C98880F70CAA35-11BC-79A1@mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171025 > SnapesSlytherin: > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? > Patronus: I don't think he can...I don't think he has a happy enough memory to make a Patronus... Eddie: Maybe this is why he prefers a different way of fighting off Dementors than Harry. Eddie From lindakfr at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 30 03:32:30 2007 From: lindakfr at sbcglobal.net (Linda) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:32:30 -0000 Subject: Question on Percy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171026 I read your posts and am amazed at the trivia knowledge. Here is my simple but curious question: Percy was such a nudge in the HP books. What do you think will become of him or is he a red herring? Where does he fit into the story? Thanks Linda From dkrasnansky at hotmail.com Sat Jun 30 03:44:51 2007 From: dkrasnansky at hotmail.com (david_krasnansky) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:44:51 -0000 Subject: ultimate and last bragging rights challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171027 Dave wrote: 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Harry will be alive at the end. 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes, a killing curse will once again rebound, but this time stick. 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Dumbledore. 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? The Dark Mark. 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? Yes. b. Draco? No. c. Hermione? Yes. d. Luna? Yes. e. Ron? Yes. f. Neville? Yes. g. Ginny? Yes. 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Harry and Ginny. 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Harry, to give him more freedom to search the castle. b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Snape's Dumbledore's man 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. The diary b. The Ring c. The Locket d. Nagini e. Cup f. Dumbledore. g. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus = a cockroach; boggart = the sun. Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love, loyalty and sacrifice. Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. Dumbledore is the heir of Gryfindore. 2. Dobby will pass information to Harry as to where to look for Horcruxes. 3. Wormtail will jump in front of a killing curse meant for Harry. 4. Snape will almost be killed by Harry while saving Harry's life, but will be saved by Hermione. 5. Luna will make a prediction central to their success and Harry will be the only one to believe her. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 04:30:54 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:30:54 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: <921594.39991.qm@web45304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171028 > Sneeboy2: > > The main problem with the "all part of DD's plan" theory (above) > is that if DD is behind the prophecy being leaked to LV, then he > is even more responsible than Snape for the death of Lily and > James. And he would have done it as part of a coldly calculated > plan, not a bitter, misguided act. It would also means that DD > told Harry several lies, not just about the night of the prophecy, > but about Snape's remorse. zgirnius: I really need to catch up before I post...well put! Howeverm his statements about Snape's remorse could still be true. Snape does retain some responsibility for obeying that order, and it is certainly a decision he could have come to regret. The business about his 'return' after learning Voldemort's choice would be false, of course, if he was already acting on Dumbeldore's orders before Voldemort had heard of the prophecy. Sneeboy2: > And he doesn't so much care about Harry > as value him as a weapon against LV. zgirnius: I think, in the unlikely event the theory we are arguing against is true, we must remember that Dumbledore made that cold, calculating decision before Harry was born. It would be entirely possible that he has since come to love Harry, and is very regretful for his role in causing Harry to grow up a miserable, unloved orphan. His decision to have Snape kill him on the Tower, in part to keep Harry safe, would be his final axpiation of that sin. Rather analogous to the way many posters call for Snape's death in DH because nothing less would redeem him. Sneeboy2: > The simplest explanation for the inconsistency is that when > the barman caught Snape, Snape tried to get away and missed > the second part of the prophecy. After he was was caught, > the barman brought him to DD, who let him go. zgirnius: And then the barman tossed him out on his ear, because he does not care why, he does not like people eavesdropping on his customers. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 30 04:30:32 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:30:32 -0400 Subject: McGonagall's name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171029 The only poem I've heard attributed to anyone of that name goes: On yonder hill there stands a cow. Of she's not there, she's gone away now. If that's a fair sample, I concur. Although I don't believe in ESE!Minerva, I do think that this is a good clue. It is certainly the sort of thing that JKR does go for. (Like the fact that a British psychologist of the mid-20th C. who did work on the nature of memory was a Dr. Lockhart.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 04:42:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:42:49 -0000 Subject: Who Loved Snape?/Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171030 > Eddie: > Let's not forget Snape's mother. Remember the memory that Harry saw > in OOTP, Chapter 26 "Seen and Unforeseen": the "hooknosed man was > shouting at a cowering woman, while a small darkhaired boy cried in a > corner " This is presumably Snape and his mother (who presumably > loved him). zgirnius: I have not forgotten the former Ms. Prince. She may have loved Snape, but do we have reason to believe that she was one of his victims? The idea I got from the quote was that the reason Snape was more culpable is that, while he did not commit more, or more heinous, crimes than Voldemort, some of Snape's crimes may have been crimes against people who loved him. >> SnapesSlytherin: >> Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? >> Patronus: I don't think he can...I don't think he has a happy enough memory to make a Patronus... > Eddie: > Maybe this is why he prefers a different way of fighting off Dementors > than Harry. Zgirnius: Then how did he communicate with the Order and Sirius in OotP? Dumbledore refers to the better ways the Order have to communicate ? I presumed that meant a Patronus. Also, if Snape did not have one, I don't think he would denigrate Tonks for having a `weak' one. She could turn around and point out that's still better than he can do. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 30 04:35:10 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:35:10 -0400 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171031 The problem with this theory is that a lot of people use "allegory" very loosely. Some people call any story with symbolism, or reference to anything outside the story itself 'allegory.' That isn't what allegory means at all. Now, to really describe what the term means--strictly defined--I haven't either the time or learning to fully explicate, but your public library probably has lots of books on the subject. 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 bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jun 30 04:39:12 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:39:12 -0400 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann/ Harry giving Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171032 Harry loosing his powers and having to live out his life as a Muggle? Ursula K. LeGuin did this in the "Earthsea Trilogy", and I have always found that most unsatisfactory. I love UKLeG, but I feel that this is a major flaw in her work. JKR knows better, I think. (UKLeG, I think, has come to take herself too seriously lately.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From sdeepthi at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 05:21:06 2007 From: sdeepthi at yahoo.com (sdeepthi) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:21:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (Was Re: Ollivander's Disappearance/brother wands/other predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171033 > colebiancardi wrote: > So, I don't think, although I love the idea, that Snape is > Harry's distant second or third cousin removed....on ***his > mother's side*** > However, what about James? Did he have any relatives? Could > Snape be his cousin, several times removed? > Are we sure that Eileen Prince is a pure-blood? > Any thoughts? Any one with a better memory remember the story > behind James and relatives? deepthi: I found this theory very interesting, so I went and hunted up the JKR interview that TLC and Mugglenet did in 2005. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm (search for Petunia or James on the page) Unfortunately, JKR seems to state quite clearly that she got rid of Harry's entire family other than Petunia. But it would have been interesting if James was related to Eileen Prince, since all the pure-blood families are supposed to be inter-related. JKR could have even left the Princes off the Black family tree on purpose :) - Deepthi From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jun 30 05:58:14 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:58:14 -0000 Subject: Who Loved Snape?/Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171034 > > > Eddie: > > Let's not forget Snape's mother. Remember the memory that Harry saw > > in OOTP, Chapter 26 "Seen and Unforeseen": the "hook8;nosed > man was > > shouting at a cowering woman, while a small darkR08;haired boy > cried in a > > corner " This is presumably Snape and his mother (who presumably > > loved him). > > zgirnius: > I have not forgotten the former Ms. Prince. She may have loved Snape, > but do we have reason to believe that she was one of his victims? The > idea I got from the quote was that the reason Snape was more culpable > is that, while he did not commit more, or more heinous, crimes than > Voldemort, some of Snape's crimes may have been crimes against people > who loved him. Julie: That wasn't my interpretation. I assumed JKR meant Snape was more culpable for his crimes because he'd experienced love and thus its underpinnings of affection, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Voldemort, having never experienced love, cannot comprehend these concepts in any internal sense. I don't think Snape being more culpable than Voldemort gives us any direct clue to the type or severity of Snape's crimes, nor does it indicate that he is evil. Conversely, it allows for Snape's redemption, since his culpability allows for remorse. In the basic meaning of the word the way JKR used it (IMO), *Ron Weasley* is more culpable than Voldemort, even if his "crimes" are no more than occasional insensitivity to the feelings of others. Still, Voldemort's lesser culpability in no way excuses his actions, nor negates the need to permanently lock him away or destroy him to keep him from harming others. Julie From sdeepthi at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 06:18:12 2007 From: sdeepthi at yahoo.com (sdeepthi) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:18:12 -0000 Subject: Okay, Who Dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171035 Shelley wrote: > It was just a dream, but my pick would be Ron. deepthi: JKR actually said that she wouldn't kill Ron, because he is Harry's best friend. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-time-staff.htm She also seems to imply here that Hermione is safe too. Since Harry has already lost his parents, Sirius and DD, it would be too cruel to kill off either of his best friends. I don't think JKR would want to inflict that either on Harry or his fans. Deepthi From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 07:48:11 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:48:11 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: <921594.39991.qm@web45304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171036 > Sneeboy2: > > The main problem with the "all part of DD's plan" theory (above) > is that if DD is behind the prophecy being leaked to LV, then he > is even more responsible than Snape for the death of Lily and > James. And he would have done it as part of a coldly calculated > plan, not a bitter, misguided act. lizzyben: Agreed. DD is a war leader; war leaders have to make hard decisions. In this case, DD made a decision that endangered 3 people, and saved the lives of thousands. He might consider that a worthy justification, though it would pain him to sacrifice anybody. DD has already shown a willingness to sacrifice Order members (Arthur Weasely, Bode), to sacrifice Harry's happiness (Dursely's), and even his own life. Why should this be any different? At the end of OOTP, DD berates himself, not for hurting Harry, but for NOT wanting to hurt Harry. He admitsthat he would rather see Harry happy than save thousands of "nameless,faceless" people from harm - and he sees this as a flaw. Those "nameless, faceless" people have people who love them too & just as much right to live. His speech suggests that in the past, he was able to sacrifice the few to save the many - and is bothered by his inability to do so with Harry. IMO, he never intended to love Harry; Harry was just supposed to be a weapon against VD. But DD does love Harry, so he suffers with him. Sneeboy2: >It would also means that DD > told Harry several lies, not just about the night of the prophecy, > but about Snape's remorse. And he doesn't so much care about Harry > as value him as a weapon against LV. I just don't think JKR is > going to have dear departed DD turn out to be a cold-hearted > "general" willing to sacrifce the troops in the fight against > LV. lizzyben: Why not? Thank you for arguing this w/me, because I'm really, really ready to be convinced. I also hope that DD wouldn't do something like this - but I can't deny that the evidence points in one direction. And I'm looking for evidence that this isn't true; but simply saying that "DD wouldn't do that" doesn't seem like real evidence. If there's anything we've learned in the HP novels, it's that you can't trust first impressions, or reputation, or even how nice or warm-hearted someone seems - because the truth is likely to be quite different. Almost every novel sets up a false original impression of a character, followed by a total reversal. Fake!Moody was a cool teacher who liked Harry, Lockhart was just a harmless airhead, Sirius was a mass murderer who wanted to kill Harry, etc. In each case, Harry learns the truth about this character in the climax, and that truth reverses his initial false impression. And in each case, there were clues all along about that person's real character. I think it would be fitting if Harry finally learned a "truth" about DD that reversed his false impression. And IMO, there have been many hints all along that DD is in fact a cold-hearted, calculating war leader. Sneeboy2: > The pensieve memory ends at the end of the prophecy. Trelawny's > account of Snape's capture begins after she's recited the > prophecy and come out of the trance. The two don't overlap. > When she says they were "interrupted," she means the interview, > not the prophecy. There's no actual contradiction of what DD > said to Harry; just a seeming inconsistency. Keep in mind that > DD had no way of knowing at the time how much Snape heard. > (Occlumency is Snape's strong point.) So he only found out > later, when Snape came over the good side and confessed > everything, exactly how much Snape heard. lizzyben: So, you're agreeing that Trewlawney had already finished the prophecy when Snape was found? If Snape heard the full prophecy, why didn't he report the whole thing to VD? If Snape was using Occlumency, wouldn't he have pretended not to have heard any of the prophecy, instead of admitting to hearing the first half? Even if 20-year-old Snape managed to out-Occlude DD, that still doesn't explain why DD allowed Snape to leave w/the first half of the prophecy. And there is another contradiction - Trelawney states that Snape interrupted during the middle of the interview, while DD says that prophecy occurred after the interview was already over, & doesn't mention any interruption at all. Even under this explanation, DD is still lying when he tells Harry that Snape had only heard the beginning of the prophecy, because DD now knows the truth. Sneeboy2: > The simplest explanation for the inconsistency is that when > the barman caught Snape, Snape tried to get away and missed > the second part of the prophecy. After he was was caught, > the barman brought him to DD, who let him go. Snape was 's > a former Hogwarts student, and he offered an excuse, which > DD accepted. He does trust people. He also doesn't place > much stake in prophecies, many of which go unfulfilled. > And there's no indication that he knew Snape was a Death > Eater at the time. lizzyben: How does this explain the inconsistency? Trelawney describes hearing a scuffle & then seeing Snape & the barmen a moment later. This means that the barman's discovery & exposure of Snape happened after T had finished delivering the full prophecy. DD made it sound like the eavesdropper was "tossed from the building" w/o even entering the room, before he could even hear the whole prophecy, but that wasn't what happened. Snape was in front of that door the entire time. DD only finds him after the prophecy is finished. DD knows what goes on at Hogwarts - he must have noticed that Snape's "gang" all became Death Eaters. He's a Slytherin, famous for Dark Arts, and is *obviously* spying on the interview (even Trelawney realizes this). DD should be able to put 2 & 2 together here. In a war, both sides use spies to glean information. Snape's spying should have at least create suspicion, enough suspicion to use Legimens or a memory charm. But DD lets Snape leave w/a vital prophecy about VD's defeat, no problem. Either he let that prophecy go on purpose, or DD is a stupid, unobservant man. I don't think he's stupid. There's an interesting verbal slip that DD makes about this prophecy - he says it was: "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building... Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you. So Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you." DD first says it was "his" good fortune that VD only heard the first half of the prophecy, then swiftly changes that to "our". But really, how was that Harry's good fortune? Because VD didn't know the whole prophecy, he wasn't aware of the danger of "marking" the baby as he equal, & he tried to kill Harry immediately. DD is saying that the events of Godric's Hollow were a stroke of good fortune for him *cough* us. Because VD didn't know the full prophecy, he tried to kill Harry at once, & he was actually destroyed at that time. This was exactly what DD hoped would happen - a stroke of good fortune. Sneeboy2: It was in some sense a mistake for DD > to let Snape go -- plenty of instances in canon of DD > making mistakes; none of him lying -- but ironically his > mistake ended up bringing down LV. Or perhaps better to > say that LV brought himself down. > > Sneeboy2 lizzyben: I think the title of this chapter offers a clue about what really happened - it's called "the lost prophecy." Well, it's not really lost, is it? DD has a perfect copy, & a perfect memory of the prophecy. It was actually "lost" many years ago, when DD let the prophecy loose to reach VD's ears. Regarding lies, there are many examples of DD lying throughout the novels. He lies to Fudge about creating the DA, lies to Snape about how Sirius escaped ("Sirius must have apparated from the castle, Severus"), & probably lies about what he sees in the Mirror of Erised. (Socks? Doubtful). He's also good at half-truths & lies of omission (ex: not telling Harry that Snape was the eavesdropper.) DD might SAY that he never lies, but the truth is quite the opposite. So DD made yet another huge mistake by letting Snape leave w/the prophecy? I have no trouble w/a falliable character, but DD's many mistakes totally belie his image as a "brilliant", "genius" wizard - if they truly are mistakes. I don't like thinking that DD is actually manipulating events & sacrificing people as part of some greater plan, but it's the only way I can make any sense of his character. If DD is in fact meant to be a kindly man who cares only about Harry's best interests, he becomes nothing more than a series of plot holes & deus ex machinas. His actions make no sense at all. But if you think of DD a calculating man who deliberately let the prophecy loose to create an "equal" capable of defeating VD, who deliberately allowed that person to confront VD on multiple occasions as training, who then actually began to love this person, his actions do start to make sense. And his many "mistakes" make sense as deliberate choices he made to further a larger goal. It isn't "ironic" that DD's decision to let the prophecy go brought VD down; that was DD's plan all along. lizzyben From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 30 10:45:07 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:45:07 +0100 Subject: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) Message-ID: <0F8BEFFD-30EB-41D5-A260-7AC58C35838F@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 171037 Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned into his arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would be so 'very frightened'? If not a death eater himself, he's been supplying them for years. His shop is full of dark artefacts, too dangerous for even Lucius Malfoy to keep. IMO it would take something more ... unusual to frighten Borgin (a personal signed note from Voldy?). In addition, why would Draco be anxious Borgin not tell anybody? If (a) Borgin is a death eater: he'd know/only tell other death eaters, which would give Draco standing, not land him in Azkaban; (b) if Borgin is not a death eater but consorts happily with them: he'd probably not be taken very seriously by the Ministry. The only situation in which I can see him telling the Ministry is if he's already suspected for something and wants to make a deal, but (Borgin thinks): *would the Ministry think Draco a threat? *no-one's fond of traitors *best to keep a low profile in these dangerous times *LV has risen and I keep a dark magic shop! How can I help, your DarkLordship? What Draco _did_ show Borgin I don't know (something relevant to Borgin's own safety?/showing Draco's doing dark magic himself and is dangerous?/revealing some alliance symbol of Borgin's own, previously thought to be secret?). I admit the Dark Mark is probably the best guess based on HBP, but if the incident turns out to be significant, I think it's something we don't know about yet. Jadon From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 11:47:36 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:36 -0000 Subject: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) In-Reply-To: <0F8BEFFD-30EB-41D5-A260-7AC58C35838F@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171038 > Jadon: > Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned > into his arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would > be so 'very frightened'? If not a death eater himself, he's > been supplying them for years. Goddlefrood: I'll give you my reasoning as you asked. First Draco is probably a Death Eater already by the beginning of HBP. It's a pity to think this as I'd like to see a DE induction ceremony and Draco would be the prime candidate for that. However, there will be plenty going on in DH without a chapter or part of a chapter being devoted to this. In the Mugglenet / Leaky Cauldron Combined Interview of 16th July 2005 JKR said: "But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion - how else would you become a Death Eater?" That strongly suggest Draco *is* a Death Eater and so I conclude he is one already and no rite of intitiation will be shown. That is probably a good thing as it may or may not resemble either a satanic mass or the induction ceremony alleged against the Knights Templar that led to their disbanding. We will not go there, IOW. Why then would Borgin be frightened of the Dark Mark. Not because he may have thought about the consequences of reporting anything to the MoM but more likely because of the perceived threat of LV. LV, remember, worked at Borgin and Burke's after finishing school. He obtained the locket and the ring through that work by killing one of B&B's oldest and seemingly most lucrative sources of items to sell. LV is once again a dark presence on the wizarding world, and because he had set Draco his task it is unlikely that LV would be too pleased if someone came to know anything about it or interfere with it in any way. Borgin would probably be as scared of LV as anyone else and possibly with better reason than others having at one time employed Tom Riddle. I think it unlikely that Borgin himself is a Death Eater and there's nothing, other than the fact that he owns a shop known to sell dark magic items, to suggest he is even a sympathiser with LV. Durmstrang school teaches the dark arts and there is nothing of which we are aware to say that the dark arts are actually illegal. The Black family having been known as dark wizards and witches would go some way to reinforce that view. Borgin also might know Narcissa who comes across as a very worried mother, one who would try any means she could to protect Draco. If Narcissa knew that Borgin was involved in any way with Draco's scheme then she might try to persuade him not to be involved at all. Her whole motive in making the UV could be that she wanted Snape rather than Draco to do the latter's task. To summarise, business may be business for Borgin, who would then just want to make his living and perhaps even live as quiet a life as possible. So why do anything to affect that by not being intimidated by what was probably the Dark Mark on Draco's left arm? Would that work for you, Jadon, or do you need more? Goddlefrood From josturgess at eircom.net Sat Jun 30 12:12:52 2007 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:12:52 -0000 Subject: Storytelling in Harry Potter (2 of 2) (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "or.phan_ann" wrote: > >unless you happen to have been an English major you may wish to skip >it. No not an English major! To be fair your distinctions between plot, construction, authorial intent etc went straight over my head, but I've never let little things like complete cluelessness stop me! I've taken up two points, one from each of your posts, for brevity I've snipped everything else. Apologies if this isn't helpful! >The most important narrative >thread in PS/SS is Quirrelmort trying to steal the Stone, but most >of >the book follows Harry coming to Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and >feuding with Draco. >But Rowling's in unknown territory, too. She knows what'll happen, >but >she's got an entire book of Harry actively fighting Voldemort to >write. DH will be the climax of the series, but to sustain an entire >novel's worth of action, it'll need a plot, not just construction. PS/SS is a good place to start, especially if one considers it in the light of HBP and DH. PS can be seen as a two part book. The first half up to the chapter on the Hogwart's express is essentially set up. At the time of my first reading it seemed excessively long, in retrospect that's because JK was setting up the whole series. >From "The Journey From Platform 9 ?" onwards the book becomes more of an adventure with an active hero. Harry is active within the scope of his experience and age. He makes a series of critical decisions and undertakes a number of self elected tasks. He chooses Ron over Draco, he chooses to go into Gryffendor rather than Slytherin, he confronts Snape (in a very low level way but a significant rebellion for an 11 year old in their first class in a new school), he takes an active interest into the break-in at Gringott's, he defends Neville, he accepts Draco's challenge to dual, he confronts a troll etc, etc. I think its easy to overlook the importance of all this activity because in light of the over plot it `appears' inconsequential but to me its simply starting off small. JK has stated that HBP and DH can be viewed as two halves of the same book, compare that to the two halves of PS and HBP would equate to the set up phase and DH to the adventure commencing. In PS Harry makes a series of decisions and undertakes a number of activities often with unexpected or portentous results, he's not simply flailing around because as each challenge arises what he does impacts what happens next in an unforeseeable way (from Harry`s perspective). In PS Harry doesn't know he's up against Voldemort, or why Voldy wants the philosopher's stone, or why this is important to Harry. In DH he does. Will this make a difference? Mostly not. He's still flying blind, or at least on some fairly dodgy instruments. He doesn't know the technicalities of how HRX are made or how they can be destroyed, he doesn't know precisely what they are or how to recognise one, he doesn't know where they are, he doesn't know much about magical concealment or curse breaking. He's lost his best and most reliable (???) source of information. Returning to the second half of PS as Harry moves around in his world and makes those oh-so-important choices a little bit more of the WW is revealed. We learn about Quid ditch *because* Harry fought for Neville's Remembrall. So in DH it seems likely that we will learn about HRX/Lily's eyes/Snape's childhood trauma along the way, and that's what will make the HRX hunt interesting. Regards Jo From maidne at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 12:45:51 2007 From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:45:51 -0000 Subject: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) In-Reply-To: <0F8BEFFD-30EB-41D5-A260-7AC58C35838F@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171040 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dracojadon at ... wrote: > > Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned into his > arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would be so 'very > frightened'? If not a death eater himself, he's been supplying them > for years. His shop is full of dark artefacts, too dangerous for even > Lucius Malfoy to keep. IMO it would take something more ... unusual > to frighten Borgin (a personal signed note from Voldy?). > Here's my simple take on it: A Dark Mark *is* a "personal signed note from Voldy". For any who are still not completely convinced that VM is back, what better proof than a very young person with a fresh Dark Mark? Susan From nobradors at hotmail.com Sat Jun 30 13:00:24 2007 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (Nuria Obradors) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:00:24 +0000 Subject: HPfGUs: DH Ultimate and Final Predictions Contest for Bragging Rights in Perpetuity In-Reply-To: <573995.24611.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171041 >1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? NO >2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? YES >3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character >to die and stay dead? HAGRID >4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were >listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? DEATH MARK >5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student, >which means enrolled in classes whether or not they attend the classes >(answer yes or no for each): > a. Harry? NO > b. Draco? NO > c. Hermione? YES > d. Luna? YES > e. Ron? NO > f. Neville? YES > g. Ginny? YES > >6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, during the >time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? BILL-FLEUR > >7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time >very late in life? FILCH > > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: > a. Head Boy? SOME RAVENCLAW STUDENT > b. Head Girl? HERMIONE > c. DADA Instructor? DAWLISH > d. Potions Master or Mistress? SLUGHORN > e. Headmaster or -mistress? MCGONAGALL > >9. Where do Snapes ultimate loyalties lie? WITH THE GOOD GUYS > >10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than >seven, write n/a or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous >books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full >credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are >six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write In Voldemort >for one of the answers.) > a. DIARY > b. MARVOLO'S RING > c. SLYTHERIN'S LOCKET > d. HUFFLEPUFF'S CUP > e. NAGINI > f. IN VOLDEMORT > g. IT DOES NO LONGER EXIST: WHEN AK BACKFIRED AND VOLDEMORT WAS >KILLED, THE PIECE OF SOUL CONTAINED IN THE 6TH HORCRUX WAS "LIBERATRED" TO >FORM THE FETUS!VOLDEMORT > In case Hogwarts does not reopen, or in case we do not have sufficient >information to answer #5 and #8 above, these two alternate questions will >used in place of #5 and #8, above. If #5 and #8 are sufficiently answered >in DH, the alternate questions will be used as tiebreakers. > Alternate 1. What are Snapes patronus and boggert? PATRONUS: WE WON'T NKOW BOGGART: KID/S LAUGHING AT HIM > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of >Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? LOVE >Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): > >Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1. We will learn the true reasons for AD to trust SS 2. Ron and Hermione will kiss! 3. we won't -regrettably- see any slash 4. Percy will make peace with his family 5. We'll find out what happened to Ollivander Will there be a prize for the worst seer? Nuri _________________________________________________________________ S uno de los primeros a testar el Windows Live Messenger beta. http://imagine-msn.com/minisites/messenger/default.aspx?locale=es-ar From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jun 30 13:46:53 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:46:53 -0000 Subject: A Night at the Prophesy and the Niggling Details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171042 Mike: To see how easy it would have been to make the two stories consistent, simply substitute "prevented from hearing any more" in place of "thrown from the building". Less dramatic than "thrown", sure, but would it really have detracted from the scene? I think not. Besides, didn't JKR's version have you picturing the eavesdropper being hauled away before Dumbledore even opened the door? I certainly felt justified in having this opinion. Ceridwen: I had the same opinion. I thought that DD was informed of the eavesdropper by the barman who ejected him (Aberforth), not from any first-hand knowledge of the incident. I did suggest somewhere in the fandom, a part that was sure Snape was the eavesdropper, that maybe he was just prevented from hearing the entire thing as he tried to explain himself to Aberforth, but it was all, "Oh, no, can't be, that's not what DD said, and he's the Epitome of Goodness, and what you're saying is that he manipulated the whole thing, which makes him Puppetmaster!DD, a horrible character, and after all, DD is JKR's mouthpiece, why would JKR lie to us?" and so on. I forget now why I thought the eavesdropper wasn't ejected right away. Darn it! I'd look so cool if I remembered! There are plenty of reason for DD to hide things from Harry in OotP. Harry's got LV riding behind his eyeballs through most of the book. I do not believe that LV stopped doing this all at once. There were times in OotP when Harry's scar didn't hurt but he was still, apparently, channeling LV. If DD had just assumed that LV stopped listening in after the MoM, I think that would have been out of character and incautious of him. In fact, I think DD's been playing close to the vest, with Harry in particular throughout the series, in part because this might happen. I think he loosened up a little during HBP, but when he considered saying more but didn't after Harry dropped his bombshell, he was again protecting classified information in case LV dropped into Harry's thoughts. Harry is still vulnerable to LV's incursions, moreso than LV is to Harry's. LV might use Occlumency to keep Harry out of his head; that doesn't automatically mean he's using it to keep out of Harry's head. If LV can manage to keep his feelings under control, it seems to me that Harry's scar won't hurt when he's dropping in to glean information. Yes, I do think this connection will come into play in DH. Mike: And if Dumbledore "allowed" the release of the prophesy, by Snape, in pursuit of the lofty goal of Voldemort's permanent downfall, in the grand scheme of things, will that be so bad. Ceridwen: Yes, for the people we've come to know. No, for the "grand scheme of things". The Good Guys were losing, from what we've been told. LV was a maniac who needed to be stopped. I can certainly see DD grasping for anything after eleven years of defeats. He made a mistake already in not revealing what he knew of young Tom Riddle to people who mattered, like Slughorn, who networks promising people with influential people. DD can't say that telling Slughorn and others of Riddle's tendencies would have made a difference in LV's chances at WW Domination, but he can't say that telling would not have made a difference. Good intentions gone wrong, and the impulse to fix what went wrong, is as risky as believing a prophecy. For most people, accidentally saying something that sounds bad only gets worse as the person tries to explain what he or she meant while at the same time trying to distance himself or herself from the implications of the original statement. We've all done that on one level or another. It ends up just compounding the mistake; it never clears it up. I think that DD's good intention was to give young Tom a chance to change his ways. His mistake was in keeping what he knew to himself. This set up years of conflict in the WW, and DD scrambling to rectify this misjudgement by any means possible. And by the time the prophecy came his way, the situation was desperate enough to use it as bait. This is all my own opinion, of course. Others may not agree. But, things could have been different if the Potters hadn't used PP as their SK, if Sirius hadn't suggested that plan, if DD had been let in on things from the beginning, if, if, if. If DD let the partial prophecy loose with the intention of drawing LV into a trap, he may have fooled himself into believing that the best-case scenario would play out - LV tries to find the Potters, hopefully through someone favorable to the Order, someone who would tip the Order off to where LV would be, and the Order could make short work of him - that is, if LV decided to act immediately or nearly so. LV might have waited to see the threat grown, instead of going after a baby. He might have interpreted the potential threat as someone already old enough to do him damage in that present. So many things might have been different, but they weren't. And Harry's left picking up the pieces. Not because DD is a puppetmaster, but because he tried to rectify a mistake. The plan to manipulate LV to his downfall was certainly a lofty goal. But, like prophecies, plans can "gang awry". Ceridwen, more opinionated than canonated this morning. From dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 30 13:30:15 2007 From: dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk (dracojadon at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:30:15 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171043 > Goddlefrood: > > Durmstrang school teaches the dark arts and there is > nothing of which we are aware to say that the dark arts are > actually illegal. Jadon: The more dangerous ones (e.g. Unforgivables) are. Spells to kill, to take away freedom or autonomy - the use of these is illegal because killing, etc., is [presumably in the WW] illegal. There's no great divide between 'good' spells and 'bad' spells that we know of, so I agree that most minor spells which can be used with malicious intent are not illegal. I think what we call the 'dark arts' are those magics which are only, or almost only used for evil - in the case of Durmstrang perhaps even taught with the intent of doing evil (though Durmstrang wouldn't consider it evil, just as Molly, Ginny, and Hermione don't see anything wrong with love potions). The effects of those spells are illegal, hence so is their use - there doesn't have to be a specific law saying 'you may not torture people into insanity with the cruciatus curse' if there's already a law saying 'you may not torture.' Very dark magics (horcruxes) are probably technically legal, but those who use them tend to beyond submitting to the law whatever it said. > Goddlefrood: > > To summarise, business may be business for Borgin, who would then > just want to make his living and perhaps even live as quiet a life > as possible. So why do anything to affect that by not being > intimidated by what was probably the Dark Mark on Draco's left > arm? Jadon: Do you mean deliberately making a show of being intimidated? Draco might be a fully-fledged death eater with a dark mark on his arm, but I don't think that showing that dark mark would be enough to frighten Borgin. He must be better acquainted with the dark mark, and other dark symbols from previously dark regimes than anyone else not a death eater/auror/Order member. If he was shown something deliberately and personally threatening ('Borgin - you were a useless master. Draco is now my trusted minion. Prepare to die') he would be frightened, but an undifferentiated dark mark on Draco's arm? I think he'd be more scared of Lucius (pre-Azkaban) backing Draco than LV. *thinks and comes up with another scenario* It could be that if Borgin had some specific reason to fear LV (connected to Tom leaving his shop - a point I had, uh, completely forgotten about till you pointed it out :o ), the fact that the dark mark was _new_ (signalling: LV is back and actively employing whiny teenage boys) could have been enough to frighten him. But really, do we know that Draco showed Borgin _anything_? ""No?" said Malfoy, and Harry knew, just by his tone, that Malfoy was sneering. "Perhaps this will make you more confident." "He moved toward Borgin and was blocked from view by the cabinet. Harry, Ron, and Hermione shuffled sideways to try and keep him in sight, but all they could see was Borgin, looking very frightened." He could have demonstrated his ability at dark magic, making Draco the threat, not the shadow of LV. Jadon From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 14:13:34 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:13:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) In-Reply-To: <0F8BEFFD-30EB-41D5-A260-7AC58C35838F@yahoo.co.uk> References: <0F8BEFFD-30EB-41D5-A260-7AC58C35838F@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: <700201d40706300713x7d36e125i2048505fd3b22ad3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171044 > Jadon wrote: > Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned into his > arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would be so 'very > frightened'? If not a death eater himself, he's been supplying them > for years. His shop is full of dark artefacts, too dangerous for even > Lucius Malfoy to keep. IMO it would take something more ... unusual > to frighten Borgin (a personal signed note from Voldy?). > ... > What Draco _did_ show Borgin I don't know (something relevant to > Borgin's own safety?/showing Draco's doing dark magic himself and is > dangerous?/revealing some alliance symbol of Borgin's own, previously > thought to be secret?). I admit the Dark Mark is probably the best > guess based on HBP, but if the incident turns out to be significant, > I think it's something we don't know about yet. Kemper now: I, too, think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark. But his reaction does seem out of sorts for someone familiar with Dark Objects, the Dark Arts, their practioners. So... in reply to TK's question, I answered; Burkes' shrunken head. I find it difficult to believe that Tom Riddle would not kill Burkes at some point (could have been years) after his chat with Hepzibah Smith. Perhaps when Draco told Voldemort of his plan, Voldie pulled out a trinket and said, "Hey, show this to Borgin... you won't have any problems." Kemper, who can believe that he still has the head even after he was vapor From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jun 30 14:15:42 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:15:42 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171045 lizzyben: > Agreed. DD is a war leader; war leaders have to make hard decisions. Dana: DD is not a war leader, he is the leader of an underground fraction that works to *oppose* LV not to eradicate him and his DEs. They work against LV so he can't reach his goals but that does not automatically mean that DD ever used deathly force in his fight against the Dark Lord. And canon actually proofs the contrary. We, in the battles between DEs and the Order members, never see the Order members use unforgivable curses like the AK to win the battle. LV in his fight against the Order seems to only ever have lost 3 DEs and he did not loose them to the Order but to aurors and one he killed or let him be killed himself. No where in canon can you find one person that was killed at the hand of a Order Member (working as an Order Member). That should be enough proof that DD did not believe in fighting fire with fire and sacrificing innocent lives would still fall in the category. Sirius in GoF in his remarks about Barty Sr. specifically indicates that Barty giving his aurors the authority to use unforgivables, in their fight against the DEs, was not the way the Order fought their battle against LV and that this decision made Barty as bad as the DEs themselves. That was not what the Order was/ is about. lizzyben: > In this case, DD made a decision that endangered 3 people, and saved > the lives of thousands. He might consider that a worthy > justification, though it would pain him to sacrifice anybody. DD > has already shown a willingness to sacrifice Order members (Arthur > Weasely, Bode), to sacrifice Harry's happiness (Dursely's), and > even his own life. Why should this be any different? At the end of > OOTP, DD berates himself, not for hurting Harry, but for NOT > wanting to hurt Harry. He admitsthat he would rather see Harry > happy than save thousands of "nameless,faceless" people from harm - > and he sees this as a flaw. Those "nameless, faceless" people have > people who love them too & just as much right to live. His speech > suggests that in the past, he was able to sacrifice the few to save > the many - and is bothered by his inability to do so with Harry. > IMO, he never intended to love Harry; Harry was just supposed to be > a weapon against VD. But DD does love Harry, so he suffers with > him. Dana: I disagree with you that DD made the decision to endanger 3 people to save the lives of thousands because with this you want to imply that DD was insincere about wanting to protect the Potters once he learned that LV was after them. So his suggestion to James about him wanting to be the Potters SK was actually to make it easier to betray the Potters? I do not think so. DD would never sacrifice the lives of other people without them having a choice in the matter and him giving Snape the order to bring a part of the prophecy to LV would have taken away that choice, for the simple fact that he would not know beforehand who LV was going to handpick as his next worst enemy. DD also would never have been able to predict the outcome, not in relation to how LV was going to strike but also not in Lily's sacrifice which made Harry's survival possible. If LV had given the assignment to one of his DEs to kill every boy that was born at the end of July instead of going after the boy himself, then the second part of the prophecy would not have been fulfilled in these attacks but baby boys would still have died as a result. DD knowing what LV was about does not mean that he could predict with absolute certainty how LV was going to act. And to me that would be an awful big gamble with human lives just on a mere expectation on what LV might be going to do next. You might really believe that JKR meant her epitome of goodness to be such a cold- hearted baby killer on the mere premises it might mean the end of an evil wizard's reign but I do not. DD did not sacrifice Order members for the cause as the only one that did not know what LV was after in OotP was Harry. Arthur as Sirius tells his own sons made a choice to work for the Order and that they did not understand that some things are worth dying for. The sacrifices made are by the members own choices not DD's. DD did not withhold information on why they needed to guard the door to the DoM. DD does not hold Order members at gun point and state you do as I say or else die. Bode did not die because DD sacrificed his life but he was murdered because the DEs were afraid that he could implicate them in what happened at the DoM. Everyone working for the Order does so at great personal risk, it never was up to DD to sacrifice any of their lives and they could walk a way at any time they had chosen to do so. What, in my opinion, DD was talking about to Harry at the end of OotP was what DD did AFTER LV had chosen to follow up on the prophecy and AFTER his attack at GH. Only then was Harry the one that would have the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, never before. DD made the choice to protect Harry not because he cared for the boy personally at that time but because the boy was too young to face LV and therefore needed to be kept away until he was ready and DD put his trust in Lily's blood as a sufficient way to protect Harry. But then, when Harry came to school, DD came to care for him deeply, he did not want that boy, once thought to be the only one to be able to defeat LV, to ever have to face him. He did not want the boy to be trained as a weapon against LV. He wanted to keep him from harm and let the adults do what they could to hold off LV. DD did not make the choice for Harry being the one but he also no longer whished it to be Harry, the prophecy was talking about. To me there is a big difference and DD specifically states to Harry that Harry has to do nothing if he chooses to walk away but that LV will never let it rest until Harry is death. This doesn't mean that DD ever thought about sacrificing Harry but only that he had a plan to not get emotionally involved and just train the boy till he was ready to fulfill the prophecy. A prophecy LV chose to act on and in doing so made the prophecy a true one. DD did not see his love for Harry as a flaw but that his love for Harry kept him from telling Harry about what he had a right to know. That it was a flaw to think he could protect Harry from hurt if he did not tell him the truth about why his parents died and why LV was after him all his life. lizzyben: > Why not? Thank you for arguing this w/me, because I'm really, really > ready to be convinced. I also hope that DD wouldn't do something > like this - but I can't deny that the evidence points in one > direction. And I'm looking for evidence that this isn't true; but > simply saying that "DD wouldn't do that" doesn't seem like real > evidence. If there's anything we've learned in the HP novels, it's > that you can't trust first impressions, or reputation, or even how > nice or warm-hearted someone seems - because the truth is likely to > be quite different. Dana: What evidence? That DD had a plan to train Harry until he was ready to face LV? Because that was DD's plan, never did canon ever indicate that DD let the prophecy leak so the Order or the WW would have a ready weapon to defeat the Dark Lord. That is just mere interpretation of canon by some readers that DD would be capable of doing so. But it would actually make the whole story about Peter's betrayal, LV's choice, Snape (to me still so-called) remorse, Lily's sacrifice and DD's own promise to never lie become mere story fillers because actually it had been planned from the beginning and DD lied through all 6 books until he saw green in the face. And the remarks DD makes about it being our choices that make us who we are, would just be an empty gimmick because essentially he took away the choices of everyone involved in the story. To think that JKR wrote her epitome of goodness to be a cold-hearted calculated controller that did not care how many innocent people died to reach his goal, is to me missing the essence of the story in the fight between good and evil. Because wouldn't DD's fight be exactly the same as that of LV's? Would it then not only be all about power? Why did DD then not take the job as MoM? He could have all the power he ever wanted and even have more people at his disposal. DD never sacrificed anyone in canon and him asking Snape to kill him on the tower is not canon either but just a theory of why Snape killed the only man that trusted him and the same goes for Snape taking the vow. It is also not canon that DD was dying anyway and therefore Snape killing him was actually not really an act of evil on Snape's part. Canon never states anywhere that DD approved of having people killed for the cause. He might accept other people acting in this way because they were allowed to use deathly force by their employer but that doesn't mean that he accepted, the people working under him to act in the same way and testimonies of people working under him actually contradicts this view. I saw someone mention that DD accepted Moody's killings of people but Moody did not kill as an Order member but as an auror under MoM jurisdiction and always brought in DEs alive if he could help it. What you are referring to with things not seeming to be as they seem at first glance does not mean that all the books in their entire will be turned upside down in DH and that DD will be the one that betrayed everyone in his evil plan to take out LV. If DD as a character can't be believed through out the entire books and not merely him making one crucial mistake in believing someone to be trustworthy while that person did not live up to that trust as canon stands now, then nothing you have red in the books can be taken as truth. Peter is probably a spy for the Order too and he tricked Sirius in giving him the SK job so he could on DD's orders betray the secret to LV. So James, Lily died not because some evil overlord killed them but it was all part of DD's plans to have them killed so LV would meet his match some day with their only son. Lily's sacrifice was not something that happened by chance but was a premeditated act and so was Peter's betrayal. James and Sirius lives were both ruined for the cause without them knowing they were going to be sacrificed. Makes Snape's actions in the shack and later in the hospital wing even more nauseating then it already was because everything was planned from the start and he brought the prophecy to LV on purpose to have LV hunt down a baby boy so that baby boy could one day defeat him and protecting the Potters had all been an act to make sure LV chose them. Peter's betrayal was not an act of evil to safe his own sorry ass but actually part of the plan to have LV mark the baby boy as his equal. Sorry but if this will be the resolution of the series then I for one will be very sorry to have financially supported a psychopathic author. Luckily I am very sure that this will never be. Harry will not learn that DD set it all up so he would be marked as LV's equal and end up as an orphan, who could have had a great godfather but sorry for him he needed to be taken care of as well or else he would have messed up the plan. lizzyben: > So, you're agreeing that Trewlawney had already finished the > prophecy when Snape was found? If Snape heard the full prophecy, > why didn't he report the whole thing to VD? If Snape was using > Occlumency, wouldn't he have pretended not to have heard any of the > prophecy, instead of admitting to hearing the first half? Even if > 20-year-old Snape managed to out-Occlude DD, that still doesn't > explain why DD allowed Snape to leave w/the first half of the > prophecy. And there is another contradiction Dana: It is canon that DD states he would never lie to Harry and that should be enough evidence that DD did not tell a lie to Harry about Snape and what DD believed Snape heard. Also why would Snape only tell LV about the prophecy in part? Would that make Snape look better? I think not because then he kept LV from the part that would have prevented LV from waiting and learning more about why this boy would become the one who could defeat him. It might actually have prevented LV from ever acting on this prophecy because knowing it all would probably have caused LV never to act on it at all because not acting would have prevented this kid to be marked as his equal and thus the kid never becoming the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. So in other words if Snape made the active choice to not tell LV all that he heard because he wanted LV to meet his end then he was willingly sacrificing the lives of the people LV would pick. That again just like I stated above could never be considered an act of good but falls under the same category as LV himself likes to fight to reach his goals and thus would be an act of evil. To me believing that Snape would have done a good thing for the WW by bringing only part of the prophecy so it was a sure thing LV was going to act on it, as in Snape planning to get rid of LV in this way, is having a serious mix up in moral values. You cannot use innocent people's lives just so you yourself can sleep better at night. Who died and made you god to decide that their lives are meaningless in light of the bigger picture? You can only decide this about your own life if it is worth giving it up for the greater good but you can never ever make a decision for someone else to do so. In RL Presidents might make these decisions every day and not lose one night sleep over who dies and who lives but that does not make it okay. The people fighting for their cause are still human beings that have to live with themselves killing other human beings and most of them never recover from this. For some it is easier because their canon meat never came close enough to actually be recognized as human beings but this still does not make it okay. And to me it is therefore not okay that Snape only got remorse about what he had done when the people it involved suddenly got faces and names he knew because no one should only have these moral values when their personal emotions come into play they should always be there regardless if you know them personally or not. To me Snape's actions and his so-called remorse are therefore totally false because he himself could after 20 years still not let bygone be bygones because he was tricked in doing something that could have gotten him killed and yet he expects everyone to forgive him instantly because he got remorse about knowing the people LV was planning to kill and actually did kill and if he told only part of what he actually heard then he tricked LV in to doing something that could have gotten him killed at the coast of a young boy and his family and their friends. Don't do to others what you do not want other to do upon you. JMHO Dana From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Jun 30 14:41:51 2007 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (brwneil) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:41:51 -0000 Subject: Humiliate yourself in public Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171046 Predicting what will take place in the final pages of the Harry Potter series is like asking to humiliate yourself in public. The odds are certainly against you being correct. I even tried entering one of those surveys where you predict the outcome, but honestly I found most of the questions stupid and off point. For what its worth, here are my predictions; some based on actual things said in canon and others just pure guesses. 1. I'd bet money on this one. The series will end with Ron's dad being made Minister of Magic. Arthur is a very popular man, knows a lot of people and most importantly likes Muggles. This possibility has been hinted at numerous times, but most importantly by Ron when he says that they have as much chance of winning the Quidditch Cup as his dad does of being made Minister of Magic. Unlike Hermione and Dumbledore, Ron is usually wrong. They won the Cup and I feel his dad will become Minister of Magic. 2. JKR loves to tell us things ahead of time without really telling us. Read the first few books over and note how many times Harry has the impression that Snape can read minds which we find out in book five he actually can. It would seem impossible that a family as large as the Weasleys could make it through the war without loses; I mean deaths, not just injuries. In HBP Mrs. Weasley upon seeing the sign in the joke shop window says that Fred and George will be murdered in their sleep. Ron quickly says that they won't. Once again I feel that Ron will be proved wrong. 3. Dumbledore told Voldemort that there are things worse than death. I can't see JKR having Harry do an unforgivable curse to kill Voldemort. Would it be worse for a person like Voldemort to lose all his magical powers and rot away in prison? Perhaps receive the kiss. I see Hermione having a large part in Voldemort's downfall because she is Muggle born and Death Eaters are so anti Muggle. It would be like giving a Jewish person the chance to destroy Hitler. 4. The trio will all live to see another day. None of the three will die nor will any of them go on to teach at Hogwarts; Neville, however, will become Herbology professor. 5. The school will reopen in the fall. Think about it! Hogwarts is the gathering point for all the students and professors. Without Hogwarts we lose the opportunity to see a lot of characters. Besides, a Horcruxe is hidden in the Room of Requirement near Harry's potion book. 6. I guess I have to touch on relationships as much as I hate to. JKR seems determined to couple Ron and Hermione. I've seen all the hints, but I still shake my head and ask why? What makes them want to be a couple? What attracts them to each other? Must be Ron's flawless table manners. Anyway, much to my displeasure, I expect them to get together. I don't expect this to happen, but I can always pray that they break up. I think JKR might have a surprise for us when it comes to Ginny. The H/G relationship was never referred to as love; also, how much time elapsed between Ginny's previous boyfriends? I don't think Ginny will wait for Harry. She will return to school and start dating again. My pick as her next boyfriend is Neville. What about Harry? Well, Luna and him seem to really understand each other. There they are, just some of my fearless forecasts. They're probably all wrong, but just in case I had to post them otherwise I'd have no proof. Now you can all go have a good laugh. Neil From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 15:25:35 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:25:35 -0000 Subject: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) In-Reply-To: <700201d40706300713x7d36e125i2048505fd3b22ad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171047 > >>Jadon wrote: > > Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned into his > > arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would be so 'very > > frightened'? > > > >>Kemper now: > I, too, think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark. But his reaction > does seem out of sorts for someone familiar with Dark Objects, the > Dark Arts, their practioners. > So... in reply to TK's question, I answered; Burkes' shrunken head. > Betsy Hp: Ooh! Points for creativity! That would be creepy enough, I'm just not sure if it's tight enough story-wise since we're coming to the end. Especially since there aren't any hints in HBP (IIRC) that Burkes died unnaturally. Honestly, I can see the Dark Mark working since I doubt it's flashed around all that much. So I can see the threat being that if a Death Eater feels free to actually *show* his mark to an unmarked person, he's doing so at Voldemort's behest. I think the idea of capturing Voldemort's attention would be scary, despite personal political leanings. BUT! I don't think Draco is actually marked. I've a number of reasons for thinking this, not the least of which is the fact that his having a mark is carefully left an open question. Not being marked would be more of a surprise to Harry and the average reader, I think. So, I think the mark Draco showed Borgin was a fake. He just slapped one of the Weasley twins' fake Dark Marks on his arm and carefully exposed it when Borgin needed an extra nudge. Then he ate it on the way home. That's my theory anyway. Betsy Hp From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Jun 30 15:31:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:31:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Borgin and Draco's supposed Dark Mark (was Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights) Message-ID: <380-220076630153154812@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 171048 Jadon: > Those who think Draco showed Borgin the Dark Mark burned > into his arm: why, particularly, do you think Borgin would > be so 'very frightened'? If not a death eater himself, he's > been supplying them for years. Goddlefrood: I'll give you my reasoning as you asked. First Draco is probably a Death Eater already by the beginning of HBP. It's a pity to think this as I'd like to see a DE induction ceremony and Draco would be the prime candidate for that. However, there will be plenty going on in DH without a chapter or part of a chapter being devoted to this. In the Mugglenet / Leaky Cauldron Combined Interview of 16th July 2005 JKR said: "But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion - how else would you become a Death Eater?" That strongly suggest Draco *is* a Death Eater and so I conclude he is one already and no rite of intitiation will be shown. That is probably a good thing as it may or may not resemble either a satanic mass or the induction ceremony alleged against the Knights Templar that led to their disbanding. We will not go there, IOW. Magpie: You could be right, but I've never understood why that quote is always taken to say that Draco is marked one way or the other. She's talking about Draco's entire life of compartmentalizing. I take that sentence to be her saying that of course Draco always knew to do that because he knows this is what one must do to become a DE and that has always been his goal. So the quote, for me, doesn't make me imagine Draco going to some intitiation and repressing compassion while he does it--I don't think he'd need to there. For me it calls up Draco in second year actively repressing his compassion because he's following in his father's foosteps always. It would like saying, "Draco has always taken care of his looks--how else would one become a movie star?" The "someday" was implied for me. Draco "is" a DE in HBP whether he's marked or not, I think. There's no induction ceremony needed to say that Draco is acting as a DE in trying to kill Dumbledore. He's also supposed to be dead by the end of the year, so from that pov he's never really a DE as far as Voldemort is concerned. He's the child of a DE whom he's manipulating into getting killed. If he was inducted in any official way, it was just part of the Prank, for the most part, since he wasn't expected to survive. I admit I can't think of anything else at this point that Draco could have shown Borgin, but I'm unsatisfied with it being the Mark. While I can see good reason for Borgin to be intimidated by Voldemort even as someone who presumably deals with DEs a lot, if I assume that Draco is showing him a Dark Mark, I'm not sure looking "very frightened" rings so true to me for Borgin, who's known Draco from childhood. So I'm hoping it's an open question, since for some reason we never *see* the mark in HBP even after the question of whether or not he has one has been raised in the text itself. I'd expect it to be answered to prove Harry was right once again, probably on the Tower. (Harry's claim that Draco pulled his arm away because Malkin touched his mark I thought sounded completely false--Draco said twice she was sticking him with pins, he doesn't ever look like his arm hurts generally, and we've never seen Dark Marks hurt from people touching them. I think Harry implies Draco just doesn't want Malking to see the mark, but his reaction doesn't seem to show that to me. He even rips off the robe right afterwards, showing us what's underneath. Nor does he seem like he'd be nervous about it being seen that way.) Goddlefrood: Her whole motive in making the UV could be that she wanted Snape rather than Draco to do the latter's task. Magpie: I basically consider that canon. BetsyHp: Then he ate it on the way home. Magpie: Perfect. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 15:32:01 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:32:01 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40706291527h5819305ala65cb96a2058a154@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > abbey wrote: > > > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in > > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the > > Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from > > the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story > > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic > > intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final book. > > > montims: > Well, to be quite candid, if the Potter series IS "an intentional Gospel > allegory written with evangelistic intention", that will destroy it for me > and I will feel manipulated, and never read any of the books again. > > I cannot believe that JKR is so evangelistic, and find the idea quite > disturbing. > > KATIE REPLIES: I find this idea disturbing, and quite honestly, almost revolting. First of all, in terms of comparing HP to LotR and Narnia, HP is based much more in the reality of the here and now. It is much less pure fantasy in that aspect. Secondly, in both LotR and Narnia, the Christian elements are there from the beginning, and, at least in LotR's case, Tolkien was not TRYING to make a Christian story, per se. He was writing a story as a Christian, and that is very different than writing a "Christian story". Also, may I beg to point out that Evangelical Christianity is incredibly different from mainstream Christian religions, and quite disturbing to a lot of us (Catholic here). I was unaware that JKR WAS an Evangelical Christian...where is this public knowledge? I would really be disappointed if 6 wonderful and creative books turned out to be a vehicle for some kind of religious message. YUCK. For real, though, has JKR ever said she is an Evangelical Christian? That doesn't seem to suit her personality to me...Blah. No offense meant to any Evangelical Christians out there, but I just really hate the whole relating Harry to religion stuff. Why can't the books just be great stories and that's all?? Katie, feeling frustrated that people tend to bring the discussion round to religion every few months. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 15:36:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:36:20 -0000 Subject: Question on Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171050 > >>Linda: > I read your posts and am amazed at the trivia knowledge. Here > is my simple but curious question: Percy was such a nudge in > the HP books. What do you think will become of him or is he a > red herring? Where does he fit into the story? Thanks Betsy Hp: What I *hope* will happen: Percy is a spy for the Order, keeping them (or more specifically Dumbledore) abreast of what all the Ministry is up to. When his family realize his personal sacrifice they feel like crap that they judged him so easily and welcome him home with open arms. And, while I'm not a fan of the Weasley clan, I'd love for Percy to go to them, since they are his family and all. Oh, and then Percy becomes Minister of Magic, ushering in a golden era of government and (with Muggleborn wife at his side) negotiates the reintergration of the WW with the Muggle. Final scene: Percy takes Arthur to an aeronautics museum. Eh, it's a dream. My nightmare is that Percy does something stupidly bad and the twins "teach him a lesson" and he has to crawl back to his family on bended knee and he becomes the nasty old uncle locked in the attic. Final scene: A grandniece trips Percy as he totters to the dinner table, the entire family laughs as Percy bleeds from the head and congratulate the grandniece on her spunk. I suspect it'll be something inbetween? Betsy Hp From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 15:47:10 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:47:10 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abbey" wrote: > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the > Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from > the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic > intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final book. > > abbey > KATIE REPLIES: I already posted my opinion of this whole idea, but then I went searching for evidence that JKR was or was not an Evangelical Christian. I found at least one article: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=3&id=46632006 This article says she's "Episcopalian" which is definitely NOT the same as Evangelical. Could someone have gotten these two "E" words mixed up? Because Episcopalians are quite mainstream - as they are Anglicans in the UK, and that's the official church of the UK...so I don't see where she's evangelical. Most British people are Anglican, even if they are lapsed or non-practicing. So... Anyway, again, please don't take offense, i am not trying to be confrontational. I just want to have some proof that these are just great books, not some story about Christianity...which would totally ruin them for me. (And which, by the way, I see no evidence for. It's not like Narnia, where the symbolism is barely symbolism. It's pretty obvious. I see NONE of that in HP. They're just great books.) Katie, having been an Anglophile and a history scholar for more than 10 years, and having gone twelve years to Catholic school, and thus feeling like I may have a leg to stand on here. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 15:56:02 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:56:02 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171052 > lizzyben: > > And there is another > contradiction - Trelawney states that Snape interrupted during the > middle of the interview, while DD says that prophecy occurred after > the interview was already over, & doesn't mention any interruption at > all. Even under this explanation, DD is still lying when he tells > Harry that Snape had only heard the beginning of the prophecy, because > DD now knows the truth. > zgirnius: Here, in gory detail and chronological order, is a series of events as they *might* have happened, that contradict neither account. 1) Snape starts to listen at the door to the conversation of Dumbledore and Trelawney. 2) Dumbledore feels around for a way to tell Trelawney he has decided not to hire her. (1 and 2 might be switched, only Snape really knows when he started listening, and we do not have his version). 3) Trelawney begins the prophecy. 4) The barman sees Snape and pulls him away from the door before the prophecy is complete, so Snape does not hear the rest. 5) Snape offers his lame excuse of being lost, the barman scoffs at it, as Trelawney wraps up her Prophecy and begins to come out of her trance. 6) The volume of the discussion/struggle between the barman and Snape intensifies, to the point where it can now be heard by Dumbledore and Trelawney (this is the 'scuffle' she refers to) 7) The barman drags Snape in to show to Dumbledore. 8) Snape is thrown from the building. Dumbledore's account covers 2)(the interview was over), 3), 4) and 8) without mentioning the important detail 7), but also without denying it might have happened. His choice of language is misleading, but what he says is true under my scenario. His motive for using this language is to attempt to deflect the possible question 'so who was it?' from Harry. Trelawney's account vaguely implies 2) (she noted how much more receptive Dumbledore is after her 'funny spell', but attributes this to the poor impression left by Snape). She mentions 3) (though she does not know it, this is when she feels funny), 6) and 7). She neither saw nor heard 5) both because she was in a prophetic trance, and because it was not loud enough to be heard through the door while sitting across the room from it, so her failure to mention it is not odd. She did not mention 8) because she does not know it either - Snape and the barman left, she stayed to continue her interview. DD knows 8) because the barman told him later. Not a particularly odd circumstance, if we believe the barman is Aberforth Dumbledore, Albus's brother. Of course if you find the idea Dumbledore lied to Harry more convincing, that's fine. But there is a way the events could have played out that is consistent with both accounts. To me, the account above, which leaves all deliberate evil intentions squarely with Snape, is the hands-down favorite. > lizzyben: > DD knows what goes on at Hogwarts - he must have noticed that Snape's > "gang" all became Death Eaters. He's a Slytherin, famous for Dark > Arts, and is *obviously* spying on the interview (even Trelawney > realizes this). zgirnius: I find it more sensible to believe that the Marauders and Dumbledore formed different impressions of young Snape. We lack any accounts from a neutral third party about their schooldays. (I am not denying Snape may have seemed friendly with older Slytherins as a first/second year, or that he may have been a top student in DADA, I am proposing that the Marauders may have put a different construction on these disparate facts than Dumbledore did). I also find my view supported by canon - if Dumbledore thought student Snape was a lost cause Dark Arts lover/DE sympathizer, why does he refer to Snape's defection as a 'return'? >lizzyben: > Snape's spying should > have at least create suspicion, enough suspicion to use Legimens or a > memory charm. But DD lets Snape leave w/a vital prophecy about VD's > defeat, no problem. Either he let that prophecy go on purpose, or DD > is a stupid, unobservant man. zgirnius: Even Sirius was not sure Snape had ever been a Death Eater. I just don't see the evidence that someone not 'unobservant' and 'stupid' had to think Snape was very bad news. Supposing Dumbledore did not have reason to think Snape was a Death Eater (like, a good relationship with his blood-traitor mother, or a friendship with a Muggleborn girl in his class), and some other positive impression of him as a person (perhaps he kept the secret of a school-day enemy). How much force would he be justified in using against such a person? Perhaps he did try Legilimency, and found no indication Snape was a Death Eater, or that he was being lied to. Snape is, after all, a gifted Occlumens, something I presume Dumbledore would not have known at that point in time. > lizzyben: > "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was > detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the > building... > DD first says it was "his" good fortune that VD only heard the first > half of the prophecy, then swiftly changes that to "our". zgirnius: I don't understand. You think Dumbledore deliberately let a likely Death Eater who may have heard the whole prophecy go to Voldemort, right? And he learned later which part Snape had actually heard. If he thought it was undesirable for Voldemort to know the whole thing, why would he let Snape go? That could make it worse, I presume. If it could not, then why is this a stroke of good fortune? On the other hand, if I am misunderstanding and the puppetmaster idea you support is that Snape heard it all and Dumbledore *told* him to tell only the first part, how is this a telling slip up? The whole statament is a bold-faced lie, regardless of what pronoun one uses in the subject. > lizzyben: > DD is saying that the > events of Godric's Hollow were a stroke of good fortune for him > *cough* us. Because VD didn't know the full prophecy, he tried to kill > Harry at once, & he was actually destroyed at that time. This was > exactly what DD hoped would happen - a stroke of good fortune. zgirnius: If he wanted the Potters to actually be attacked, as it seems you propose above, why did he offer to be the Secret Keeper? Are you suggesting he planned to Owl Voldemort with the location once the charm was cast? > lizzyben: > I think the title of this chapter offers a clue about what really > happened - it's called "the lost prophecy." Well, it's not really > lost, is it? DD has a perfect copy, & a perfect memory of the > prophecy. It was actually "lost" many years ago, when DD let the > prophecy loose to reach VD's ears. zgirnius: It is not lost, as we, with Harry, learn in the chapter. Harry considers his loss of that prophecy one of his failures as the chapter begins. I think this is an example of a chapter title which encapsulates a view held by the Harry-centric narrator. Like "The Letters from Noone", PS/SS, which were actually from Professor McGonagall. And, a propos of nothing, "Snape's Worst Memory". > lizzyben: > Regarding lies, there are many examples of DD lying throughout the > novels. zgirnius: I can speak for noone else, but to me the vital distinction is that, if one accepts my version of the prophecy events, Dumbledore has never, since making his promise at the end of PS/SS, made false statements to Harry. He assuredly lies to others, for reasons I generally find good and sufficient. > lizzyben: > He lies to Fudge about creating the DA, zgirnius: And good for him too, he is protecting Harry, who needs it at this point! > lizzyben: > lies to Snape about how Sirius escaped ("Sirius must have > apparated from the castle, Severus") zgirnius: He is not speaking privately to Snape - Fudge is also present, and it is Fudge he is deceiving. (Again, bravo DD, Harry does not need to be tried for assisting a fugitive from justice!) It is my opinion Dumbledore does accurately convey to Snape what happened, in that scene, he is simply limited by the need to do so without Fudge knowing it. ("Unless you are suggesting Harry could be in two places at once", at which Snape stalks off in a huff, having, in my view, understood who was behind the rescue of Sirius - DD himself). > lizzyben: > & probably lies about what he sees in the Mirror of Erised. > (Socks? Doubtful). zgirnius: I thought the point of that was that Dumbledore would not see much of interest in the Mirror. He does not ardently desire anything he does not already have, though on a chilly day he might wish for a warm pair of socks. > zgirnius: > He's also good at half-truths & lies of omission > (ex: not telling Harry that Snape was the eavesdropper.) DD might SAY > that he never lies, but the truth is quite the opposite. zgirnius: Dumbledore does not say he never lies, he promises to Harry he will never lie *to him*, though he is quite open about his feeling that there are things he does not want Harry to know. Had Harry asked, in OOtP, who the eavesdropper was, I would expect that Dumbledore would either tell him, or tell him he was not willing to part with that information, as he has done on other occasions. Until I get canon that can be interpreted in no other way, I will continue to believe he was true to his word. > lizzyben: > If DD is in fact meant to be a kindly man who cares only about Harry's > best interests, zgirnius: This is certainly *not* how I see him. But I think there are things he is "too noble" to do to win, and I think what you propose is one of them. It goes well beyond a lack of kindness. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jun 30 16:44:53 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:44:53 -0000 Subject: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171053 SnapesSlytherin: > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? > Patronus: I don't think he can...I don't think he > has a happy enough memory to make a Patronus... Eddie: > Maybe this is why he prefers a different way of > fighting off Dementors than Harry. houyhnhnm: I don't think you need to have a *nice* happy memory to conjure a Patronus. When Harry produced one for extra credit during his Transfiguration OWL practical, he used the mental image of Umbridge getting sacked. If all it takes is the thought of something bad happening to someone you don't like, I would expect Snape to be a Patronus champ. I think there is some other relevance to the fact that Harry disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle Dementors, than that Snape has trouble producing a Patronus. For one thing, Harry made a prediction that Snape was going to grade him down for disagreeing, but we never found out what he got on the essay. We're still waiting for that penny to drop. The purpose of the passage could be only to show the tenacity of Harry's distrust of Snape. It could also be intended to show Harry's growing maturity and self-confidence in his expertise as a DADA practitioner. He is not afraid to disagree with a professor, even one with whom he has had an adversarial relationship. Or it could be laying the groundwork for something that is going to happen in DH (I hope). Going just by all the mist on both the US deluxe and UK book covers, I think Dementors are going to play an important part in the action of DH. Soul bits and soul suckers; there's got to be a connection. Since I'm a kinda sorta believer that Harry's scar contains a Voldemort soul bit (and an adamant DDM!Snaper), I'm hoping that Snape's method of dealing with Dementors will come into play to liberate Harry from the little Dark Lord in his head without destroying Just!Harry. From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 17:06:21 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another bad McGonagall poem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <36157.84271.qm@web35005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171054 Here's another by McGonagall, which ties in Rufus Scrimgeour (though personally I believe his character's name is a nod to a Stevenson character called Mr. Scrymgeour, who is caught between following the law and his own morals.) To Mr James Scrymgeour, Dundee Success to James Scrymgeour, He's a very good man, And to gainsay it, There's few people can; Because he makes the hearts Of the poor o'erjoyed By trying to find work for them When they're unemployed. And to their complaints He has always an attentive ear, And ever ready to help them When unto him they draw near. And no matter what your occupation is. Or what is your creed. He will try to help you In the time of need; Because he has the fear Of God within his heart, And the man that fears God Always takes the poor's part. And blessed is the man That is kind to the poor; For his reward in heaven, 'Tis said in the Scripture, is sure. And I hope heaven will be Mr James Scrymgeour's reward; For his struggles on behalf of the poor Are really vexatious and hard. For he is to be seen daily Walking along our streets, With a Christian-looking countenance, And a kind word to all he meets. Besides, he is void of all pride, And wouldn't feel ashamed To be seen with a beggar Or a tinker walking by his side. Fellow-citizens of Dundee, Isn't it really very nice To think of James Scrymgeour trying To rescue fallen creatures from the paths of vice? And in the winter he tries to provide Hot dinners for the poor children of Dundee, Who are starving with hunger no doubt, And in the most abject poverty. He is a little deaf, no doubt, But not deaf to the cries of hungry men, No! he always tries to do his best To procure bread for them. And at the Sabbath-morning free-breakfasts He is often seen there, Administering to the wants of the hungry, And joining in prayer. He is a man of noble principles, As far as I can think, And the noblest principle he has got Is, he abhors the demon drink. And, in my opinion, he is right As far as I can see, And I hereby proclaim that such a man Is an honour to Dundee: Because he is always working For the poor people's good. Kind soul, trying hard To procure for them clothing and food Success to him and his family. And may God them defend: Why? fellow citizens of Dundee, Because he is the poor man's friend. Deborah, who agrees with the assessment that McGonagall is, in fact, a very bad poet --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 17:15:00 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The importance of titles in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <109467.3297.qm@web35015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171055 Has anyone thought of the "royal" titles that occur throughout the Harry Potter books? We have seen knights, ladies, a friar, a baron, a prince, a lord, and a king title attributed to different characters. Does anyone think this could play out in some way in HBP? Is the symbolism of Ron as king, just the carried out chess metaphor that runs through the books, or does this put him higher than the self-named Half-Blood Prince and Lord Voldemort? Any thoughts or ideas? If there is not any importance to having titled characters, why put them in the books? Is this just background detail to make the world more exciting or real? Deborah --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bamf505 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 17:29:58 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <832079.58504.qm@web31515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 171056 bamf: JKR has said to be a member of the church of scotland, according to mugglenet.com Also from mugglenet.com: "And unlike Lewis, whose books are drenched in theology, Rowling refuses to view herself as a moral educator to the millions of children who read her books. "I don't think that it's at all healthy for the work for me to think in those terms. So I don't," she says. "I never think in terms of What am I going to teach them? Or, What would it be good for them to find out here?"" So, no. I think she's just writing works of fiction that entertain her. bamf505 Katie wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette > wrote: > > > > abbey wrote: > > > > > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > > > > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" > is available to > read in > > > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > > > > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh > and final book of > the > > > Harry Potter series, this article presents > persuasive evidence > from > > > the books and from interviews with Rowling that > the Harry Potter > story > > > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory > written with > evangelistic > > > intention, and that this will become abundantly > clear in the > final book. > > > > > > montims: > > Well, to be quite candid, if the Potter series IS > "an intentional > Gospel > > allegory written with evangelistic intention", > that will destroy it > for me > > and I will feel manipulated, and never read any of > the books again. > > > > I cannot believe that JKR is so evangelistic, and > find the idea > quite > > disturbing. > > > > > > KATIE REPLIES: I find this idea disturbing, and > quite honestly, > almost revolting. First of all, in terms of > comparing HP to LotR and > Narnia, HP is based much more in the reality of the > here and now. It > is much less pure fantasy in that aspect. Secondly, > in both LotR and > Narnia, the Christian elements are there from the > beginning, and, at > least in LotR's case, Tolkien was not TRYING to make > a Christian > story, per se. He was writing a story as a > Christian, and that is > very different than writing a "Christian story". > > Also, may I beg to point out that Evangelical > Christianity is > incredibly different from mainstream Christian > religions, and quite > disturbing to a lot of us (Catholic here). I was > unaware that JKR WAS > an Evangelical Christian...where is this public > knowledge? I would > really be disappointed if 6 wonderful and creative > books turned out > to be a vehicle for some kind of religious message. > YUCK. > > For real, though, has JKR ever said she is an > Evangelical Christian? > That doesn't seem to suit her personality to > me...Blah. No offense > meant to any Evangelical Christians out there, but I > just really hate > the whole relating Harry to religion stuff. Why > can't the books just > be great stories and that's all?? Katie, feeling > frustrated that > people tend to bring the discussion round to > religion every few > months. > > There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC From josturgess at eircom.net Sat Jun 30 17:50:04 2007 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:50:04 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171057 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Snape 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? Death Eater mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? Yes d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? Yes f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Filch protecting Mrs Norris. 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ron b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Bill Weasley d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? DDM! 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Diary b. Gaunt Ring c. Hufflepuff Cup d. Slytherin locket e. Ravenclaw Wand f. Harry g. Nagini h. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Mongoose = patronus ESE!Snape = boggert Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? We will never know as it is `unknowable' Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. Phoenix song, tears and flame will all be important. Harry's blood connection with Voldy will be pivotal (no, I don't know how!) Harry will spend some time at the Hog's Head. Harry will drink the Draught of Living Death. The DADA teaching curse will end when Voldy dies. Dragon's blood destroys HRX. Snape will communicate with Harry via anonymous messages. Mimbulus mimbletonia will aid in HRX identification. The Hufflepuff cup is in or near Durmstrang. Harry will look at himself in the mirror of erised and see himself just as he is - the happiest man alive. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 17:58:44 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:58:44 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171058 Abby wrote: > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of the > > Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence from > > the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry Potter story > > is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with evangelistic > > intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the final > book. > > > > abbey > KATIE REPLIES: > > I already posted my opinion of this whole idea, but then I went > searching for evidence that JKR was or was not an Evangelical > Christian. I found at least one article: > http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=3&id=46632006 > > This article says she's "Episcopalian" which is definitely NOT the same > as Evangelical. Annemehr: First of all, I don't think Abby was calling JKR an Evangelical Christian (proper noun) per se, but saying her intent is to evangelize. Be that as it may however, I agree with you that "Christian allegory" is not an accurate description of the HP series. Just for the sake of...er...lack of clarity though, I don't know why the Scotsman calls her Episcopalian. According to whatever I've read (somewhere), while she did grow up in the Anglican Church, nowdays she belongs to the Church of Scotland (which corresponds to Presbyterian in the US). I went to Accio Quote for sources. Here is one you might be interested to read: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm It gives you a little of the flavor of what she's doing (she's not giving much away yet), and notes she wan't actually a fan of either Tolkein or Lewis. And here's a quote I like from another article: "Witchcraft is just a metaphor for this other world of possibilities, beyond convention, that the mind can reach." -- JK Rowling, from http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-atlanta-hulbert.htm "Beyond convention." Yeah, I like that. Annemehr P.S. These sources I found at Accio Quote by typing "Church of Scotland" (quotation marks included) into the search box. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 18:09:07 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:09:07 -0000 Subject: How Will It End - Predictions from Keith Olbermann/ Harry giving up his magi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > >> Sandy: > > > However, > Harry giving up > > his magical powers, that mean so much to him, would be a very big > sacrifice, > > and a fit ending rather than having him die. > > Alla: > > Unless I am majorly confused, I seem to remember that interviewer > asked her about this ending , whether it is likely to happen that > Harry will give up his magic at the end, or something to this effect. > > I also seem to remember that the answer was that this is a good > ending, but she does not want to be sued for stealing it from > fanfiction or something like that. > > Again, that is my vague recollection, I can be completely wrong, but > I also was thinking that it debunked the "Harry gives up his magic at > the end" ending completely in my mind. Annemehr: I found it by accident -- the 2005 Stephen Fry interview: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html =================================================================== SF: [...] I think that one of the current front-running endings - I'm not sure if you're aware of this - as far as the betting goes, is that Harry will finally defeat Voldemort at the expense of all his own powers, and he will end by going into the world as an ordinary Muggle. [JKR gasps theatrically] Which is an extraordinary idea. JKR: It's a good ending. SF: It is a good ending! You can borrow it if you like. JKR: And be sued for plagiarism by about 13 million children. SF: This is your problem, isn't it? You're not allowed to read anything... JKR [chuckling]: No, I'm not. ==================================================================== It's a long interview, but this section is maybe about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down. I'm also not sure it's quite as I remember it, though (I thought I remember her saying "ooooh" or something of the sort) -- maybe the idea was brought up again in another article? Annemehr From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 30 20:02:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:02:27 -0000 Subject: Is Harry Potter the Son of God? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: Abbey: > > > Is Harry Potter the Son of God? > > > The article, "Is Harry Potter the Son of God?" is available to read in > > > the essays section of HP for GrownUPs. > > > Timed for the release of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final book of > > > the Harry Potter series, this article presents persuasive evidence > > > from the books and from interviews with Rowling that the Harry > > > Potter story is, in fact, an intentional Gospel allegory written with > > > evangelistic intention, and that this will become abundantly clear in the > > >final book. Katie: > I find this idea disturbing, and quite honestly, almost revolting. > First of all, in terms of comparing HP to LotR and Narnia, HP is > based much more in the reality of the here and now. Itis much > less pure fantasy in that aspect. Secondly, in both LotR and > Narnia, the Christian elements are there from the beginning, and, > at least in LotR's case, Tolkien was not TRYING to make a Christian > story, per se. He was writing a story as a Christian, and that is > very different than writing a "Christian story". Geoff: I feel that there is am element of misunderstanding ? possibly springing from cultural differences - in the present discussion and would like to try to clarify the matter ? at least as I see it. In a somewhat similar vein to what I wrote in message 171011, long ago in post 112276 which was in a thread about Christianity, I wrote: "Jo Rowling worships at a Church of Scotland church and is on record as saying she is a Christian so this is going have some influence on her approach. However, like Tolkien, who was also a Christian, her world is not overtly Christian but is you look around you, there are evidences of subliminal Christian influence. Both she and Tolkien have written books in which Christian values and ideals can be seen if you look for them in contrast to C.S.Lewis whose "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" is openly intended to introduce children to the ideas of Christianity." I agree with you in totally disagreeing with the theory which has caused this thread. Even further back, in message 84881, Ivan Vablatsky (who also posted more recently as Hans Andrea) wrote: "A few months ago there was a big debate in this group about whether Harry Potter is everyman or Christ. I say he is both!" I replied to this in 84552 by writing: "I feel that I can only disagree with your view on Harry Potter. He cannot be an everyman or Christ. No person can be a Christ figure except Christ himself, God in human form. We can be Christ-like; we are enjoined to imitate Christ ? read Philippians 2 for example." Katie: Also, may I beg to point out that Evangelical Christianity is incredibly different from mainstream Christian religions, and quite disturbing to a lot of us (Catholic here). I was unaware that JKR WAS an Evangelical Christian...where is this public knowledge? I would really be disappointed if 6 wonderful and creative books turned out to be a vehicle for some kind of religious message. YUCK. For real, though, has JKR ever said she is an Evangelical Christian? That doesn't seem to suit her personality to me...Blah. No offense meant to any Evangelical Christians out there, but I just really hate the whole relating Harry to religion stuff. Why can't the books just be great stories and that's all?? Geoff: Now this I where I believe misunderstanding arises because it seems that there is a different interpretation placed on the word "evangelical" in the US than in the UK. There is no difference in the UK between "evangelical Christianity" and "mainstream religion" ? although the word "faith" would have been the better word. Most of the Protestant churches consider themselves to be evangelical and counter to your comment I worked some years ago with evangelical Catholics. I wonder whether, in the US, the word has come to be associated specifically with the so-called "Christian right" who do not actually have the monopoly of the use of the word. :-) My dictionary defines "evangelical" as: 1 of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion. 2 relating to a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasising Biblical authority and personal conversion." I cannot see any "real" UK Christian of any denomination arguing with the first and certainly many Anglican churches would also sign up to the second. Again, I wrote many moons ago that I thought it unlikely that anyone with a strong faith would not consciously or subconsciously allow that to reflect in some way in the way in which their "hero" ? for want of a better term ? went through life. To that end, I wrote in message 111636: "I have said in the past, probably to the point of boredom to fellow posters, that Harry is representative of a Christian on life's journey. He shows many of the aspects of the fruit of the Spirit in his life, but not all; some need to develop. That is true of us all. Harry, like a true Christian or someone aspiring to follow Christ's teaching, wants deep down to help people around him. He has been toldthat the choices he makes will determine the sort of guy he will grow up to be (JKR permitting!)." Katie, feeling frustrated that people tend to bring the discussion round to religion every few months. Geoff: That is strange. I would have thought that as a Catholic, prepared to express your views as you did above, you would have wanted to see faith expressed in discussion. I speak as an evangelical Christian and member of a mainstream Baptist church although I do not expect other people to necessarily accept my point of view. I think that JKR is to be commended that she has used ideas in the books which could prompt readers to give thought to, as Douglas Adams put it, "Life, the Universe and Everything", even if we do not all reach the same answers. From tab1669 at comcast.net Sat Jun 30 20:30:32 2007 From: tab1669 at comcast.net (flyingmonkeypurple) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:30:32 -0000 Subject: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171061 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? No 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? Yes 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent character to die and stay dead? Percy 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin that scared him? Death Eater mark 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a student (answer yes or no for each): a. Harry? No b. Draco? No c. Hermione? No d. Luna? Yes e. Ron? No f. Neville? Yes g. Ginny? Yes 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry in DH, if any? Bill and Fleur 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first time "very late in life?" Mrs Figg 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: a. Head Boy? Ernie Macmillan b. Head Girl? Hermione c. DADA Instructor? Moody d. Potions Master or Mistress? Slughorn e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGonagall 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? DDM! 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. (If you think there are more or less than seven, write "n/a" or add extra letters as necessary. Horcruxes in previous books and previously inactivated Horcruxes must be identified for full credit. If you think one of the soul pieces is in Voldemort so there are six external Horcruxes plus the bit still in him, then write "In Voldemort" for one of the answers.) a. Diary b. Gaunt Ring c. Hufflepuff Cup d. Slytherin locket e. Ravenclaw Wand f. Nagini g. In Voldemort Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Bat = patronus being nice to Harry = boggert Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? love Make 5 predictions not covered in the Compulsory Question section. 1Ginny is going to have a huge fight with Harry. 2 Draco will come over to the good side 3 Ron will tell Hermione how he feels about her. 4 Hary will talk to Dumbledore's portrait. 5 find out more about Lily. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jun 30 20:49:06 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:49:06 -0000 Subject: Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171062 > Dana: > If LV had given the assignment to one of his DEs to kill every boy > that was born at the end of July instead of going after the boy > himself, then the second part of the prophecy would not have been > fulfilled in these attacks but baby boys would still have died as a > result. zgirnius: Interesting point, I had not thought of it. Though I suppose Dumbledore might not believe the 'right' baby could die at the hands of a DE ('either must die at the hand of the other'). > Dana: > Everyone working for the Order does so at great personal risk, it > never was up to DD to sacrifice any of their lives and they could > walk a way at any time they had chosen to do so. > Dana: > DD never sacrificed anyone in canon and him asking Snape to kill him > on the tower is not canon either but just a theory of why Snape > killed the only man that trusted him and the same goes for Snape > taking the vow. zgirnius: Just stepping in here, to point out that *if* Dumbledore chose to sacrifice his own life on the Tower by *asking* Snape to kill him (he did say please ) rather than attempt a rescue, this was surely not a cold, calculating, evil decision, but a noble act of self- sacrifice. And Snape could have walked away if he wanted to, like any other Order member. In other words, the Tower scene meaning what *I* believe it means in no way makes lizzyben's view of the prophecy events more likely. > Dana: > It is canon that DD states he would never lie to Harry and that > should be enough evidence that DD did not tell a lie to Harry about > Snape and what DD believed Snape heard. zgirnius: I disagree, it is canon that Dumbledore said so, but not that it was the truth. I *believe* it was, just as you do, but there is no "proof" that we are right (for the next three weeks). If a poster believes Dumbledore would set Voldemort on the Potters for the greater good, surely she can also believe that the same Dumbledore would lie to Harry for that same greater good. > Dana: > Also why would Snape only > tell LV about the prophecy in part? Would that make Snape look > better? zgirnius: Only to someone that thinks this would have been a justifiable decision by Dumbledore. > Dana: >And to me it is therefore not okay that Snape only got remorse > about what he had done when the people it involved suddenly got > faces and names he knew because no one should only have these > moral values when their personal emotions come into play they > should always be there regardless if you know them personally > or not. zgirnius: Surely what matters most is not why Snape changed, but *that* he did (assuming he did, naturally)? If Snape truly ceased to serve Voldemort for whatever reason lo these 20 years ago, and switched to helping the Order 'at great personal risk', those actions/choices of Snape's are good rather than evil. One can disapprove of his reasons and think it preferable for him to have more noble ones, but if he is risking discovery and death to help the good guys, that's 'good' enough for me. >Dana: > To me Snape's actions and his so-called remorse are therefore > totally false because he himself could after 20 years still > not let bygone be bygones because he was tricked in doing > something that could have gotten him killed and yet he expects > everyone to forgive him instantly because he got remorse about > knowing the people LV was planning to kill and actually did > kill and if he told only part of what he actually heard then > he tricked LV in to doing something that could have gotten him > killed at the coast of a young boy and his family and their > friends. zgirnius: I really wish the above paragraph were not a single sentence; it would make it easier to address your points individually. - Where does Snape say that he expects anyone to forgive him? - There is an important difference between Dumbledore's story of Snape's remorse and Dumbledore's acceptance of it, and Snape's actions regarding Sirius. Snape regretted his action and tried to make amends, or at least, so Dumbledore believes. Sirius, the same twenty years after the fact, still has no regrets, so far as Snape knows. (Snape overhears the conversation in which Sirius states he 'deserved it'). - Regarding the point that there is little virtue in doing something because you don't want to hurt 'people you know': Do you believe that a person who has done evil things can ever make a choice to change? I find this hard to believe in light of your eloquent exposition on the theme of choice in the series (snipped, as I agree). If you do grant the theoretical possibility of such a change in a hypothetical person who has knowingly acted in an evil manner in the past, in practical terms, how do you think this happens? It seems to me there has to be a catalyst, an event which motivates him to change. I suppose it is possible for a person to have a moment of insight on a purely theoretical level that all men are brothers, morality is important, yadda yadda, but I find that psychologically unconvincing. I find it far more likely that the catalyst for such a change is likely to be more personal in nature - something happens that forces the wrongdoer to face the fact that they have acted badly, and suddenly makes it matter to them. I have no problem with the idea that learning the identity of a victim could be such a catalyst. In Snape's case, he knew all along what he was doing was wrong, I would assume, he just told himself he did not care. Also, after a certain point, he probably told himself he could not help his choices anymore, because one cannot quit the DEs - it is a lifetime of service or death. Then, one day, he could no longer tell himself he did not care, because he really did, very much, care about what he had done to the Potters (for whatever reason, I know what I think the reason was ). Enough that the risk to his life choosing to change entailed was suddenly worth it to him. Or not, if Dumbledore was fooled. But I find the above story quite plausible. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 30 22:08:30 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:08:30 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171063 > Compulsory Questions (50 points total): > 1. Will Harry die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? NO > 2. Will Voldemort die and stay dead at the end of HPDH? YES > 3. Excluding Harry and Voldemort, who will be the most prominent > character to die and stay dead? SNAPE > 4. From HBP (p125, American Hardcover), in the shop while the trio > were listening with Extendable Ears, what did Draco show Borgin > that scared him? HIS DARK MARK > 5. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will return as a > student, which means enrolled in classes whether or not they > attend the classes (answer yes or no for each): > a. Harry? NO > b. Draco? NO > c. Hermione? YES > d. Luna? YES > e. Ron? YES > f. Neville? YES > g. Ginny? YES > 6. Which will be the most prominent couple to marry, if any, > during the time period covered in DH, excluding any epilogue? Everyone is going to say Bill & Fleur, so I'll go with Hagrid & Olympe. > 7. Who will be the unusual person who performs magic for the first > time "very late in life?" Arabella Figg > 8. Assuming Hogwarts reopens as a school, who will be the: > a. Head Boy? ERNIE MacMILLAN > b. Head Girl? HERMIONE > c. DADA Instructor? BILL WEASLEY > d. Potions Master or Mistress? SLUGHORN > e. Headmaster or -mistress? McGONAGALL > 9. Where do Snape's ultimate loyalties lie? Why, with DD, of course. They might not be in total alliance with most of the other members of the Order, but they lie with DD... and with ridding the WW of Voldemort ? and NOT so that he himself can become the next Evil Overlord, but because Snape truly wants to remove that evil. > 10. Identify the seven Horcruxes. > a. TR's diary (destroyed) > b. Marvolo's ring (destroyed) > c. Slytherin's locket (possibly already destroyed) > d. Hufflepuff's cup > e. The tarnished tiara in the Room of Requirement > f. Rowena Ravenclaw's wand (which is likely in Ollivander's possession) > g. n/a -- this is the bit still within Voldemort > Alternate 1. What are Snape's patronus and boggert? Patronus: a phoenix Boggart: a bat! Hahaha, just kidding. No, it's Lily Evans. > Alternate 2. What is behind the locked door at the Department of > Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic? Love > Predictions (10 points each / 50 points total): 1. It was James & Sirius' two-way mirrors which allowed DD to know that Voldemort was attacking at Godric's Hollow that night. 2. Charlie Weasley will die in a battle which involves the dragons he has trained to be helpful to the Order. 3. We will discover what happened during the Missing 24 Hours, and it will involve Snape doing something which cemented DD's trust in him, probably involving protection of Harry and possibly involving dragon's blood (see: DRIBBLE SHADOWS). 4. The reason DD did not tell the Wizarding World that the true identify of Lord Voldemort is Tom Riddle is that he's protecting someone, possibly Minerva McGonagall. 5. Harry will believe he has to sacrifice himself for those he loves, he will be prepared to do so, he will in fact believe he is in the processing of doing so... but he will end up not having to do so. Siriusly Snapey Susan, doubtful she'll be a repeat Top Tenner with these ;-) From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jun 30 22:12:33 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:12:33 EDT Subject: Snape's Patronus-producing capabilities (wasRe: Ultimate and Last Bragging Right Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171064 houyhnhnm: I don't think you need to have a *nice* happy memory to conjure a Patronus. When Harry produced one for extra credit during his Transfiguration OWL practical, he used the mental image of Umbridge getting sacked. If all it takes is the thought of something bad happening to someone you don't like, I would expect Snape to be a Patronus champ. Julie: LOL! Snape must be churning those Patroni out so quickly they're tripping all over each other! Egad--now I've got this picture in my head of Harry and Snape having a Patronus-conjuring contest where each one is imagining horrid thing after horrid thing befalling the other as they shoot clouds of Patroni into the air. I'm not sure who would eventually outlast the other, I just know they could both go on for a long while! houyhnhnm: I think there is some other relevance to the fact that Harry disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle Dementors, than that Snape has trouble producing a Patronus. For one thing, Harry made a prediction that Snape was going to grade him down for disagreeing, but we never found out what he got on the essay. We're still waiting for that penny to drop. The purpose of the passage could be only to show the tenacity of Harry's distrust of Snape. It could also be intended to show Harry's growing maturity and self-confidence in his expertise as a DADA practitioner. He is not afraid to disagree with a professor, even one with whom he has had an adversarial relationship. Julie: I've wondered before how Harry would react if he got his final marks from his sixth year, and it turned out Snape had given him an "O" on that essay. I can't imagine it would really change Harry's opinion of Snape at this point (Harry would probably think Snape gave him an "O" as some parting sarcastic jab), though it could be one of the things he ponders later if it turns out Snape is DDM. houyhnhnm: Or it could be laying the groundwork for something that is going to happen in DH (I hope). Going just by all the mist on both the US deluxe and UK book covers, I think Dementors are going to play an important part in the action of DH. Soul bits and soul suckers; there's got to be a connection. Since I'm a kinda sorta believer that Harry's scar contains a Voldemort soul bit (and an adamant DDM!Snaper), I'm hoping that Snape's method of dealing with Dementors will come into play to liberate Harry from the little Dark Lord in his head without destroying Just!Harry. Julie: I'm hoping with you. Like Tonks's changed Patronus, the passing mention of this specific essay seems very much like JKR's typical method of foreshadowing a concept that will come into full play in a later book. And since there's only one book left... Julie ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 30 23:04:58 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:04:58 -0000 Subject: OPEN: Ultimate and Last Bragging Rights by TigerPatronus (CV's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 171065 CV: > 2. Peeves will have an important function. He may go through the > veil, since not being alive, he should have no problem coming back > out. SSSusan: I love this idea! CV: > 3. Lupin will duel to the death with Fenrir Greyback. SSSusan: Oooh, oooh! To which one's death?? CV: > 17 - and FINALLY!!! That we will see Quirrell again. The Man with > Two Faces, Quirinus Janus, The God of Beginnings and Endings. SSSusan: I was getting worried! All the way to #17 with no mention of the Q- man. (Even if this doesn't happen, I think you should get props from JKR herself for your creativity with this theory... just as Pippin should for ESE!Lupin, which I also don't think is gonna pan out. ;-)) Siriusly Snapey Susan