From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 00:39:14 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:39:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lying and Cheating & Potions!Genius.... In-Reply-To: <45E5B086.7040505@pacbell.net> References: <45E5B086.7040505@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <000601c75b9a$102a5750$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165559 --Draeconin Wrote-- >>> I have a question on this topic: If the HBP's methods were superior to what was being taught, why didn't Snape teach those methods, and keep using them himself while he was the Potions professor? Plot hole? <<< --Ronin's Comments-- I believe that Snape did teach these methods to a point, which is why he never uses a book. But they are now on NEWTS level potions, and I would assume these teachings are more advanced than OWLs potions lessons. Had Snape not taken over DADA and remained potions teacher, he'd have probably taught this material and wouldn't have used the book at all. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cdayr at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 00:40:57 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:40:57 -0000 Subject: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > I wonder if the reason LV was able to get that fetal body was the > result of some other of his "experiments." Even though, it seems > like there is already too much to deal with in DH without adding that > in. Celia: I just happened to be thinking about this particular issue recently, so I looked up the description of the spell that VM/Wormtail performs to become Fetal!Mort. Here is the canon: "...Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth...a spell or two of my own invention...a little help from my dear Nagini," Voldemort's red eyes fell upon the continually circling snake, "a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided..." (GoF, pg. 656, Am. PB Ed.) If Nagini is in fact a horcrux (Which I am very undecided about) perhaps her venom has some "soul-essence" that allowed for the creation of the fetal body? Possibly these "spells of my own invention" are some of the other "experiments" that you are talking about, Annemehr. I agree that it is unlikely we will find out that VM did much more to become immortal, because it is just too much for one little book, but I do think this is some indication that he has other spells and tricks to help in quest. I also find the combination of a deadly toxin (snake venom) and a life-force (unicorn blood) to be an interesting comment on Voldemort's state- a sort of limbo between life and death. -Celia From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 01:00:48 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:00:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001401c75b9d$1332adf0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165561 --Inge Wrote-- >>> As most other subjects, this has probably been discussed earlier, but I'm wondering if maybe Voldemort already used one of the 6 Horcruxes which he created. What makes me ask is parts of the following speaches from Voldemort in GOF, chap The Death Eaters 1) (p 562): "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to gueard myself against mortal death? They, who had seen proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any wizard living?" and later 2) (p 566): "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know... 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... (my highlights) for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it." Ok, to me it appears that at the time Voldemort was hit by the backfiring AK, he may have "died" and lost the soul-piece inside him, which was at that exact moment replaced by one of the Horcruxes. Too far off? Inge <<< --Ronin's Comments-- It seems that parts of canon are in conflict over this. My understanding of horcruxes from HBP is that only one needs to be created to make the wizard immortal. This had been done by others. Lord VOldemort's idea was that it would be better to have more. 7 is the most powerful number in the WW, so 7 horcruxes would be the best (as a fail safe system). If one was discovered and destroyed, there would be others to take it's place. But, I don't think that the horcux is actually "USED" when Voldemort dies. Rather, it ties the piece of soul that is inside his physical body to earth until a new form can be found. This is why the horcruxes must be destroyed before that last piece of soul is destroyed to kill Voldemort forever. Now we know the diary was destroyed and Marvolo's ring. The conflicting part is that old fool Dumbledore! lol He thought he was the first to discover Voldemorts secret, that nobody else even knew of horcruxes aside from Horace Slughorne. But obviously, Voldemort had mentioned his amazing feat with some of his death eaters, since he refers to them as you've shown with examples from GOF. And somebody had to not only know about the locket, but if Dumbledore was correct and there was no way to retrieve the locket alone, would've had to have an accomplace. (Maybe Regulus Adolphos Black and Severus Snape...IMO) At any rate, the 7th piece of Voldemort's soul is the one that seeks the unicorn's blood and the SS as a temporary fix until it can regain a new for. It is less than a spirit because it is in fact only a fraction of a whole spirit. That's my take on it anyway... Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lsanford at lnls.org Thu Mar 1 00:15:09 2007 From: lsanford at lnls.org (L Sanford) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:15:09 -0600 Subject: Book seven can not be the last book because In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009501c75b96$acb566e0$6801a8c0@hades> No: HPFGUIDX 165562 funkeginger: > I don't think that the Deathly Hallows can be the last book because > there is too much to do. Harry has to find four Horcruxes, then he > has to try and kill Voldemort. It's too much to do in one book. JKR > only makes most of the books max 780 pages. You can't just do that in > that many pages. Sorry Guys, As much as we would all love to see another book after DH, Jo has repeatedly stated that this WILL be the last book. As she's never outright lied to us, I'm afraid we'll have to take her at her word that this will be it. *sniffle* L. Sandford From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 01:18:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:18:10 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hollows (Hallows) In-Reply-To: <701489.89762.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165563 --- Theresa McKee wrote: > > Hello Everyone. > > ...My name is Theresa and like everyone else I enjoy > HP. > > Here is my question. Deathly Hollows = Godric Hollows > ...the location in which James and Lily was murdered, > where it all began. > > Theresa. > bboyminn: Well, as others have already explained, it's hAllows with an 'A'. As to Godrics Hollows, other have already pointed out your error there, but don't feel bad many many of us veterans leapt to the same conclusion; myself included. It is possible that the 'Hallows', whatever they are, will tie back to Godrics Hallows in some indirect way, so don't give up on the theory just yet. The leading theory is based in our recently accumulated knowledge that there are Four Hallows of Ireland and Thirteen Hallows of Britian, which I think may include the Four Hallows of Ireland. First, let's us define 'Hallows'. Yes, it does mean 'holy' and 'sacred' but it also implies 'revered' and 'venerate' or 'respected'. Think of the Hallowed Hall of Academia, or 'hallowed' battlefields. These are scared and vererated grounds, but not necessarily in a religious sense. Don't take 'holy' and 'sacred' too literally. It is doubtful that religion will come into play in the books in any way. But as illustrated by 'hallowed' battlefields, 'things' can be held in great reverence without taking on any aspect of religion. Oddly, the Four Hallows of Ireland are very familiar to readers of Harry Potter. They are (paraphrased) a Sword, a Wand, a Cup, and a medalion (or locket). Sound familiar? It should because there is a possibility that they are indeed the remaining Horcruxes. - Gryffindor Sword - Wand in the honored place in the window of Ollivanders (probably Ravenclaws) - The Hufflepuff Cup - the Slytherin Locket - note: many of us think that Dumbledore was mistaken about Nagini being a Horcrux, even Dumbledore didn't seem that convinced. Because they are Horcruxes, that makes the VERY Hallowed to Voldemort, but in a more general sense, these object were Hallowed before Voldemort got hold of them. They are four objects belonging to the Four Founders of Hogwarts. That gives the strong reverence and veneration, Hallows in otherwords, independant of Voldemort and anything he might have done. My theory is that bringing these four venerated and magically powerful objects together will give Harry additional strength, and will also fulfill the idea of bringing the four Houses together. Joined together the four Houses are more powerful than the sum of their parts. The intense magical power of these four object brought together is only incidental to Voldemort /trying/ to use them as Horcruxes. Based on this theory, while the Horcruxes won't be trivial to the story, they will not carry the weight that the books have implied so far. Of course, not too many other people bought this theory, but I like it. It seems to fit nicely with my mental image of heroic quests. Of course, with so little information, it's hard to get behind any theory other than your own; it's pretty much 'anything goes' at this point. There are several long discussion on this subject in this group, and you will certainly enjoy seeing how the information and our interpretations unfold. Just passing it along, and glad to not have to talk about Snape or potions. Steve/bboyminn From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 01:23:19 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:23:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001f01c75ba0$385d1db0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165564 --Vexie Wrote-- >>>I just thought of this and wished to gather others' opinion. Hermione while appearing to hold rules over all else often breaks them more so than Harry or Ron, herself. I would even say she has out done the twins and rivaled their mischeif-just not seeked the same glory in it. She started in the first book when she followed Ron and Harry and even lied to a teacher about how she became locked in a bathroom with a troll (I never understood the need to lie there). She slapped Malfoy, kidnapped and imprisoned Ms Skeeter, yelled at a teacher and walked out of Divination class, made polyjuice potion and many other instances of rule breaking. Were all these instances just situations she thought she could control without being caught or jepordizing safety? Could that be the reason she did not want anything to do with the HBP's book? She showed concern with Harry's new broom by reporting it to her head of house. Yet she also risked her life to go back in time to save him. Another dichotomy would be when she sent birds she had conjured to attack Ron. Does she use her intellect or emotion to govern her actions? I am also thinking of her spell in OoP when anyone who turned the others in would be marked on the forehead. She's sneakier than Harry or Ron, better at spells but how stable is she?<<< --Ronin's Comments-- Yep! Hermione's crazy but I love her. She really got under my skin with all of her nagging in HBP. She's a total hypocrite and even when Dumbledore is killed, she has to rub it in how she was right about the Prince. Even though, if Harry hadn't figured out about bezoars, Ron would be dead. If Harry hadn't won the Felix Felicis, most or all of the DA members would've been killed. If she hadn't been so convinced that she was right about Malfoy (even though she saw him up to no good, first hand), they may have figured out what he was up to much sooner and prevented the whole incident. Yet, those examples of her own behaviour are justified in her mind. It's insanity. Just as it was when she jinxed McLaggen so that Ron would make the Quiditch team, but threatened to have Harry expelled for faking to slip him a drop of luck potion. That's why one of my favorite parts of HBP was when Ginny told Hermione to shut up and drop it already. Hermione of all people, should not be so concerned with how Harry learned from the HBP's notes. If this was cheating, what was it when she used a time turner all year to get to classes. Wouldn't all students have liked to have had a time turner? Didn't this give her an unfair academic advantage which she never even mentioned to her best friends until the end when it was unavoidable. She's totally mental. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 01:43:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:43:56 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165565 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165535 > > Bart: > > > > 5) Assumption: No sane person would make an Unbreakable Vow if > > they don't clearly understand what it is they are vowing to do. Mike: I'm assuming you are alluding to the possibility that Snape took the Vow without knowing the ramifications of the third clause. Would that make Snape 'not sane' if he didn't fully understand what was being requested of him. My opinion, yes. IOW, I agree with your premise. > > Bart: > > 6) Therefore (: The vow is what the person > > making the vow understands it to be. > > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165538 > zgirnius: > I disagree with 6). A person could make sure they understand what > is being asked before taking a Vow. But I still think it would be > possible for them not to know. > It's the Vower's responsibility to make sure they understand > what they are agreeing to, just as it is the signer's in a RL > contract. Mike: I'm agreeing with Zara on this point. You take the Vow you own it. > Bart: > 7) This would imply that the Unbreakable Vow is only triggered if > the person who had made the vow believes that he or she has broken > it. Mike: Actually, IMHO since you are vowing *to* someone, I think you are agreeing to fulfill the Vow to the satisfaction of that someone. In our case, Snape is agreeing to fulfill the Vow to Narcissa's standard of what constitutes fulfillment. I also think the purpose of the "Bonder" is to invoke the will of the Vow maker on the Vow taker. What if Dumbledore had successfully faked his death well enough to have convinced all present -- and by extension, convinced Narcissa -- that he was well and surely dead? In this case, I think Narcissa would be "satisfied" that Snape fulfilled the third clause. But of course, the follow up question would be: is the Vow now fulfilled and therefore ceasing to bind Snape? I'm gonna say yes, but maybe this is the point where the "Bonder" has to release the bindee from the Vow. > zgirnius: > I think Snape was agreeing that, if Draco's seeming inability to do > it [kill DD] himself placed him in need of protection from > Voldemort's wrath, Snape would kill Dumbledore himself. Mike: You got me thinking here, Zara. The first clause of the Vow was pretty tame; "...watch over my son, Draco,..." Kind of hard to quantify that one. But that second clause; "... protect him from harm?" What if that "harm" was coming from old Voldepants himself? Would the Vow force Snape to protect Draco from Voldie? I'm thinking yes, which presents an interesting dilemna considering the third clause includes, "that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco ..." Upon careful consideration, I think that Snape is bound to protect Draco from anyone and everyone, "...to the best of your ability..." of course. I wonder what LV thought of that clause when Bella told him, assuming that she did. A quick aside here: Why do you think Narcissa added "Draco" to "my son" in the first clause? Does Narcissa really have to qualify "my son"? Or was this possibly a sneaky way of JKR telling us that Cissy has another kid? Intriguing, no? > zgirnius: > I think if a UV becomes unachievable, then the Vower still dies. > This would explain the use of weasel words in phrasing the one Vow > we have seen. For example, in the third clause of the one Vow we > have seen, Snape only promised to kill Dumbledore if it 'proved > necessary'. If DD had a heart attack early in the book and died, it > would not have proved necessary for Snape to act. Without the > qualifiers, though, it would be a problem. Mike: This is another example of what would be satisfactory to Narcissa. And I agree with your first sentence, with the minor point of saying that I don't think a Vow is about "achievable" (Bart's phrasing). The Vow is about satisfying the intent of the Vow maker, not fulfilling an order like a waiter. What Zara is calling "weasel words", I'm thinking are what constitutes proper phasing of a Vow. I'm thinking that putting specific wording that requires specific actions into a Vow would negate the bond. I have no canon to support that position, I'm only making a logic pre-supposition. You don't make or take a Vow to do someone's grocery shopping on a particular day. You could take a Vow to ensuring another doesn't starve by committing yourself to provide that person food enough to survive. Mike, who is reading Eragon right now and really hopes that sometime in DH, Charlie Weasley comes charging in to the rescue with a bunch of his buddies riding a squadron of Dragons. Yess! From shamyn at pacbell.net Thu Mar 1 01:46:29 2007 From: shamyn at pacbell.net (Draeconin) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:46:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lying and Cheating & Potions!Genius.... In-Reply-To: <000601c75b9a$102a5750$7bd02444@TheRonin> References: <45E5B086.7040505@pacbell.net> <000601c75b9a$102a5750$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: <45E63075.9040005@pacbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165566 Ronin_47 wrote: > > --Draeconin Wrote-- >> I have a question on this topic: If the HBP's methods were superior to what was being taught, why didn't Snape teach those methods, and keep >> using them himself while he was the Potions professor? Plot hole? --Ronin's Comments-- > I believe that Snape did teach these methods to a point, which is why he > never uses a book. Draeconin: I'd think Hermione would have noticed that certain techniques Snape was teaching weren't mentioned in their textbook and commented on it if that were the case - and doubly so if the potion wasn't in the book at all. However, if you're referring to the fact that Snape himself never referred to a book, then we could say the same for all the professors at Hogwarts. Few teachers who really know their subject do. But if Harry found the HBP's methods so easy, why did he have so much trouble with Snape's classes, if Snape was using those same methods? (Besides the obvious snarling from Snape.) --Ronin's Comments-- > But they are now on NEWTS level potions, and I would > assume these teachings are more advanced than OWLs potions lessons. Had > Snape not taken over DADA and remained potions teacher, he'd have probably > taught this material and wouldn't have used the book at all. Draeconin: Would have been interesting to see if that had happened. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweetlittleangel113 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 01:24:55 2007 From: sweetlittleangel113 at yahoo.com (Theresa McKee) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:24:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Deathly Hollows (Hallows) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <886915.9109.qm@web62009.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165567 bboyminn: >> Because they are Horcruxes, that makes the VERY Hallowed to Voldemort, but in a more general sense, these object were Hallowed before Voldemort got hold of them. They are four objects belonging to the Four Founders of Hogwarts. That gives the strong reverence and veneration, Hallows in otherwords, independant of Voldemort and anything he might have done. << Theresa: Steve, I think that is the best one I've heard to date and it really gives a lot to think about. Not to mention when you wrote "they are hallowed to Voldemort" it makes more sense than saying they are just 'holy' or 'sacred' - which I understand now because they are both to him. From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 02:00:39 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:00:39 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <22628636.1172679042701.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165568 Bart snipped: 3) Therefore (first conclusion): The Unbreakable Vow is a useful spell. 5) Assumption: No sane person would make an Unbreakable Vow if they don't clearly understand what it is they are vowing to do. 6) Therefore (second conclusion, combining #3 and #5): The vow is what the person making the vow understands it to be. Snow: Are you relating this in the same manner Dumbledore does of the Prophecy; it's all in your perception of the wording? Dumbledore doesn't believe in the Prophecy but he realizes that Voldemort does and it would therefore be what Voldemort would perceive the Prophecy to have said (if he ever learns the entire transcript). I especially like the tidbit from JKR on the Prophecy wording between herself and Madam Trelawney being carefully worded, which should make no difference here nor there except to the person who believes in it. In a likewise manner, if Snape understands the terms agreed to during the Vow to be something other than what was actually meant (a loophole) then he could accept the conditions without detriment. The third stipulation to the Vow allows for such a loophole: "And, should it prove necessary ... if it seems Draco will fail ..." [...] "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" If the Dark Lord has indeed ordered Draco to kill Dumbledore at his own hand from the beginning, why would Narcissa ask "should it prove necessary" and "if it seems Draco would fail"? Does Narcissa blindly think that her son has a half-assed chance of killing Dumbledore of all people or was the deed in question, at the point of securing the Vow, something else? And then we have the final sentence under this stipulation that supplies no information to the actual deed in question. Narcissa and Bella are aware of the deed asked of Draco and through Occlumency I'm certain Snape is also aware of what he discovered but the readers are still in the dark, purposely. We are led to believe that Dumbledore is Draco's main objective and that his death must be at Draco's hand but there is no substantial evidence that any of the parties were aware that Draco was to be the killer at the point of the Vow. If, as I suspect, Draco was under the assumption that he had backup on his mission, then his assignment changed after the Vow had been taken and Snape would not be held liable ... or would he become liable because of Narcissa's vague wording? I smell a setup from the Dark Lord. Dumbledore told Harry that Voldemort knows how fools who love will act. Narcissa was the pawn who hooked Snape by taking the Vow under what Snape read through Occlumency was the deed Draco was to perform. This deed that was set forth would have been in itself a great if not impossible challenge but it was not (to Narcissa's knowledge nor anyone else) the whole quest, so Snape could not access what the Dark Lord had truthfully planned. Why Narcissa worded the last stanza of the condition so vaguely, easy really, was that Narcissa was ordered not to `speak' to anyone of what she had been told. Very cleaver really of the Dark Lord ... didn't think he had it in him. By wording the condition in the vague manner that Narcissa was forced into by Voldemort's decree, Snape not only accepted her conditions, as Snape read them through Occlumency, but he secured the destiny of not only himself and Draco but also Dumbledore. When Snape became aware of the `deed' Draco was now to fulfill, it's no wonder Snape told Dumbledore he wanted out when they had their spat at the edge of the woods. (If I'm not mistaken that event happened very near Draco's breakdown in Myrtle's bathroom ... not page wise but time wise) If Voldemort wanted to be absolutely certain of where Snape's loyalties lie, especially since he has not secured any valuable information from him through Occlumency, this would be a highly ingenious way to go about it. Would Snape actually kill Dumbledore ... didn't matter, either way Voldemort won the big prize. Either Snape died or Dumbledore did either way Voldemort came out on top, as he would see it. Draco and his mother were nothing more than pawns that were sacrificed for the greater playing piece. I initially felt as if Snape's hesitation in agreeing to the third condition of the Vow was his quick assessment that he could accept the proposal because of interpretation. Snape is a logical thinking wizard, considering the task Snape set when protecting the Stone, so it would be comprehensible for Snape to outwit the Black sisters ... but I think he underestimated the Dark Lord and his logic, even though Qurirrell made it past Snape's task in the first book most likely with the help of his parasite. One last thought though, why would Voldemort want to assure Snape's allegiance, unless he needs Snape to take down Harry? Why go to such an effort even with the perks unless you need something? Snow From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 02:53:14 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:53:14 -0000 Subject: /On the trivial and the Profound/Lying & Cheating In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > It feels like there's a lot of having it both ways as well. Potions > is totally unimportant so it doesn't matter if Harry takes the easy > way, yet he's also not taking the easy way at all because learning > stuff--which is the point of the class--is so important to him. Valky: That actually does sound close to what I am saying, except that it is the percieved greatness that Harry is achieving which is not important, not 'Potions' and I don't see it as having it both ways because there is one way Harry can never actually have it at all unless of course he abdicates his prophesied destiny and dang the rest to hell. It is that way which is not of significant importance, because Harry has made his choice - to walk into the arena with head held high. As for not seeing this Harry I say is concerned primarily with dangers and death and defeating LV in the HBP text.. How many examples do you want then? Here are a few more beyond the, at least, two or three which I have already given - -- Christmas Eve Ch 16 --- Feeling disappointed Harry threw the boook back into his trunk, turned off the lamp and rolled over, thinking of werewolves and Snape, Stan Shunpike and the Half-Blood Prince, and finally falling into an uneasy sleep full of creeping shadows and the cries of bitten children... --------------------------- --- Ch 18 -------------- Harry Brooded or the next few days over what to do next about Slughorn. He decided that, for the time being, he would let Slughorn think that he had forgotten all about Horcruxes; it was best to lull him into a false sense of security before returning to the attack. ...... Harry awaited an invitation to one of his little evening parties, determined to accept this time, even if he ahad to reschedule Quidditch practice. ....... "I didn't feel anything," said harry, ignoring this interruption. "But I don't care about that now.. " "what do you mean, you don't care... don't you want to learn to apparate?" said Ron incredulously. .... "Hurry up will you there's something** I want to do." **Tail Malfoy -------------------------- --- Ch 19 ------- It took Harry a few moments to realise what McClaggen was talking about. "Oh.... right... Quidditch" he said putting his wand back in his belt and running his hand wearily through his hair. ...... Harry however had never been less intersted in Quidditch; he was rapidly becoming obsessed with Draco Malfoy. --------------------------- ---- Ch 21 ---- Harry racked his brains over the next week as to how he was to persuade Slughorn to hand over the true memory, but nothing in the nature of a brainwave occurred and he was reduced to doing what he did increasingly these days when at a loss: poring over his poyions book, hoping tha the Prince would have scribbled something useful in a margin, as he had done so many times before. ...... Harry fully expected to recieve low marks on his, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle Dementors, but he did not care: Slughorns memory was the most important thing to him now. ----------------- > > Magpie: > Bezoars aren't a new thing. The practical > solution that Harry learned that day was the one the rest of the > class learned years before. > > Valky: > Clearly not well enough. ;) > > Magpie: > It's another, imo, to try to pretend Harry really was > showing how clever he is compared to the other students and taking > the thing in a more serious way and that he really lives up to how > Slughorn describes him afterwards. That's what reminds me of the > Dursleys with Dudley. Valky: I was only kidding with this answer. And I hardly think Harry was showing how clever he was by doing it. He didn't even know it would work, but it was the one answer he was able to give in what he felt was a desperate situation so he took the chance. It seemed to have paid off too, for a moment, until Slughorn clammed up about the memory, the Harry realised he need a different approach. > Magpie: > Sometimes you do the easy > thing for a good reason, and if you're doing that I don't see why > you wouldn't be upfront about it. Valky: He's as upfront as he believes he can be given the circumstances. He's open with his two best friends about it, just as Dumbledore recommended to him he should be. He isn't going to be open with the rest of the WW, from his POV why should he be? > Magpie: > That doesn't answer what I said. If Harry is so focused on getting > the information out of the book, why is he just using the book in > class for everything Slughorn assigns in class? Valky: We only see some three or four classes detailed in canon, selected because of their plot importance. And even in those few snapshots we see Harry using the book for a variety of reasons. > Valky: > This reminds me of debate that raged hot** pre-HBP about Snape > dropping Harry's potion in OOtP and thereby avoiding giving him the > grade that he *did* deserve - as inconsequential vs unfair : > > Magpie: > And it was unfair, imo. Luckily Harry's ultimate grades would not be > able to faked that way, but that doesn't change that what Snape did > was wrong--significantly so. Valky: I found it amusing to compare these two because of the very fierce argument that Harry's potions reputation with Snape didn't matter coming from the Snape-defenders camp there completely contradicts the Harrys reputation with Slughorn really does matter coming from the same camp in this thread. I think it mattered entirely more in OOtP and before this new direction in Harry's life was taking him away from academic achievement, that he got the marks he deserved and the opportunities and choices that naturally go with that. After the fact, it's pretty obvious to me that neither situation matters. Magpie: > "No, > Harry's not being dishonest or faking at all Valky: When have I said that? Magpie: > because the > consequences are limited and also he because Harry's really doing > what he's supposed to be doing anyway, Valky: Yes I take full credit for that part. Magpie: > although if he's not doing > what he should be it's because he's making a sacfifice for > Voldemort." > > -m > Valky: I'm sure I already denied this part about sacrifice, although Harry certainly is taking big risks to further his cause. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 05:27:26 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:27:26 -0000 Subject: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165571 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165529 > Inge queried: > > > As most other subjects, this has probably been discussed earlier, > > but I'm wondering if maybe Voldemort already used one of the 6 > > Horcruxes which he created. > > > > > > > > 2) (p 566): 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... (my highlights) for I had not been > > killed, though the curse should have done it." > > > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165546 > Carol responds: > If "using" a Horcrux involved providing himself with a new body > like the one he would have had if Diary!Tom had succeeded in > using Ginny's soul to give himself a new body, Voldemort would > not have been vaporozed at Godric's Hollow. > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165547 > Annemehr: > Well, it's my understanding that the soul-piece that was still > inside Voldemort when the AK hit him *was* the vapor that spent > all those years in Albania, because it was tied to Earth by the > pieces in Horcruxes. > > Reading your post, I remembered this bit of the post-HBP > Leaky/Mugglenet interview: > > "The one that I wondered whether I was going to be able to get past > the editors was the physical condition of Voldemort before he went > into the cauldron, do you remember? He was kind of fetal. I felt > an almost visceral distaste for what I had conjured up, but there > was a reason it was in there, and you will see that." Mike: Has anybody else just received a revelation by putting together these three posts? I think I have. So thank you Inge, Carol and Annemehr :) Let's travel with Voldemort chronologically. He loses his body at GH but his mutilated soul survives. He drifts off to Albania? I know it's just a convienently far away place, but what if it is also the place where JKR had LV hiding a Horcrux? LV can possess animals and humans, but he doesn't have his own body. He needs one of those to be able to perform his own magic. In the mean time he is sort of a ghost, but less so. In fact "less than the meanest ghost". Not sure what if any reason JKR had for adding the adjective "meanest". Voldie meets Quirrell in Albania and travels with him back to England, with the hope of using the Philosopher's Stone as a shortcut to getting his body back. While at Hogwarts, he has Quirrell drink Unicorn blood for him, why? Blood was one of the three ingredients he needed for regeneration, was he hoping Unicorn blood might obviate the need for the other two ingredients? Anyway, it didn't work. While LV is back in Albania, we get to see one of his Horcruxes take center stage. That soul piece almost succeeds in regenerating a new body. And what is it using to regenerate? **Ginny's soul!** and nothing else. After Wormtail rejoins Voldemort, LV gets a that "kind of fetal" rudimentary body back. The one that JKR had a reason for giving him despite her "almost visceral distaste" for the concept. Put together what he got in CoS, a 'normal' body regenerated from a whole soul, with that "fetal" body -- regenerated from a piece of soul? JKR had her reason for giving LV that body, that falling quite short of human body. And regenerating from a piece of soul instead of a whole soul seems like a logical reason for her to give it that form. This theory needs help. How does Nagini tie in. He uses her venom as a sort of mother's milk, but is there more? And why snake venom? Anybody want to add on or tear down this one? :-) Mike, thinking Inge found one of the four remaining Horcruxes and it isn't one anymore. Yay! From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 06:23:54 2007 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:23:54 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <22628636.1172679042701.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: > There is not a lot of canon here, so I am basically using logic. I will, however, outline the logic I am using: > > 4) If someone breaks the Unbreakable Vow, it causes death (we only have hearsay for this, but there must be SOME reason why it's called the Unbreakable Vow. We can assume that breaking it is either physically impossible, or has very dire consequences. > CV: My problem with the whole Unbreakable Vow thing is, how is it confirmed that a vow is broken? If the vow is "I will never do x" and the person does x, then the vow is broken. If the vow is "I will do x next Tuesday" and it's Wednesday and I haven't done x, then the vow is broken. But Snape's vow was different. He said that he vowed to protect Draco from harm. If Draco came to harm, the vow would be broken. He took the appropriate action to fulfill the vow. He promised to complete Draco's task should Draco fail. Here is my dilemma. First, it appears that Snape does not have first-hand knowledge of which task it is that Draco is to perform. For that matter, neither do we. Is he supposed to kill Dumbledore? To provide the DE's a way to get into Hogwarts? We assume the task was to kill Dumbledore, but if that were so, then he spent a very great bit of time during the year to get the DE's into Hogwarts. Why would he do that if it weren't the primary task? Does Snape know what he is vowing to do? Secondly, let's assume the task is to kill Dumbledore. There is no time specified here. If it's Tuesday and Dumbledore still lives by Wednesday, has the vow been violated? Snape can always kill him on Thursday, so I think the answer is no. If the school year ends and Dumbledore lives, has the vow been violated? Snape can always kill him at the start of next term, so again, the vow hasn't been violated - yet. If Dumbledore dies of something else, has the vow been violated? That we can't answer because we don't know the rules of UV's. But my point is that the proof of execution of this vow is very vague. I think that Snapey wasn't vowing to anything that could be concretely held up as having been violated. The magical bond of the vow as it was stated can be stalled indefinitely. Now, had Snape allowed Draco to come to harm, it would have been curtains for Severus, so that part he took well in hand. Whether he actually killed Dumbledore, we can't say for certain yet. Dumbledore appears to be dead (although what he is doing causing JKR trouble from beyond is a mystery), but did Snape kill him, did he die in the fall or was he poisoned. (Sounds a lot like the demise of Rasputin, come to think of it - who was poisoned, stabbed, shot and his body thrown in a frozen river. When pulled out of the river, it was determined he died of drowning.) CV From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 15:31:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:31:29 -0000 Subject: Lying and Cheating & Potions!Genius.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165573 Carol earlier: > > he just wants to finish his potions without losing his unearned reputation for brilliance, which is why he switches the covers and gives Slughorn the new book > > Valky: > And Magpie was just telling me how nobody was trying to say this at all. Carol: All you need to do to see that I'm right is to look at the text. Harry unwraps the new book from "Flourish and Blotts: "'Oh, good!" said Hermione, delighted. Now you can give that graffitied copy back.' "'Are you mad?' said Harry. 'I'm keeping it. Look. I've thought it out--' "He pulled the old copy of 'Advanced Potion-Making' out of his bag and tapped the cover with his wand. . . . There sat the Prince's copy, disguised as a brand-new book, and there sat the fresh copy from Flourish and Blotts, looking thoroughly secondhand" (HBP Am. ed. 220). It's obvious that he wants to keep the book. The question is why. One reason is clearly that it's the Potions text he's been using to get better results from Hermione and unmerited praise from Slughorn. If he used the new book, he'd get the same results as everyone else and lose his reputation as a potions genius. Why else deceive Slughorn? "I'll give him the new one. He can't complain. It's worth nine galleons" (220). Harry is, of course, rationalizing. Money can't buy the HBP's brilliant hints and improvements. Note that this incident occurs *before* he has tried out any of the spells, though he has noticed "*what looked like spells* that the Prince had made up himself" (195). Harry has only, in his own words, "tried out a few tips written in the margins" (192), and "for the rest of the week's Potions lessons." he continues to follow the Prince's instructions, "with the result that by their fourth lesson, Slughorn was raving about Harrry's abilities, saying that he had rarely taught anyone so talented" (194). As far as Harry is concerned, the HBP's book is what won him the bottle of Felix Felicis, and for that reason alone, he doesn't want to give it up (193). It's "halfway through October"--eighteen pages after Harry changes the book covers, before we learn that he's actually tried out a few of the spells, at the point when he's about to try out Levicorpus: "Harry felt, however, that the Half-Blood Prince's copy of 'Advanced Potion-Making' hardly qualified as a textbook. The more Harry pored over the book, the more he realized how much was there, *not only the handy hints and shortcuts that wer4e earning him such a glowing reputation with Slughorn*, but also the imaginative little jinxes and hexes scribbled in the margins, which Harry was sure, judging by the crossings-out and revisions, that the Prince had invented himself" (238). At this point, eighteen pages after he changes the book covers, he has only tried out a few of the Prince's spells, including the toenail hex, Langlock, and Muffliato, but the spells can't be the *primary* reason that he wants to continue using the book, deceiving Slughorn by changing the book covers. He hasn't even discovered Levicorpus yet. He tries out the spells *after* he's changed the book covers, which he does to prevent Slughorn from knowing that he's blindly following the HBP's instructions instead of acting on his own natural Potions instinct. And *all this comes long before the "Sluggish Memory."* That chapter begins on page 349. Carol earlier: > > Look how desperate he is when he doesn't understand Golpalott's Law, > Valky: > He's about to make his first attempt to ask Slughorn about the Horcruxes. > > "this was a moment for desperate measures" (377). Carol responds: You're taking this phrase out of the detailed context I provided upthread, which I'll quote again in part: "It took Harry only five minutes to realize that his reputation as the best potion-maker in the class was crashing around his ears. Slughorn had peered hopefully into his cauldron on the first circuit of the dungeon, preparing to exclaim in delight as he usually did, and instead had withdrawn his head hastily, coughing, as the smell of bad eggs overwhelmed him" (376). Granted, Harry is vaguely planning to ask Slughorn about the memory after class, the memory he makes one feeble attempt to request at the end of the chapter and then forgets about for six weeks or so, but Harry's desperation has to do with his *reputation*, not with the memory. Once he asks about it, Slughorn's expression is no longer genial, and he looks shocked and terrified (379). Harry's being a "Potions genius" has not helped him. Slughorn continues to think of Harry as a Potions natural after this point, and Harry continues to hide the source of his knowledge from him: "'I really don't know where you get your brainwaves . . . Unless--' "Harry pushed the Half-Blood Prince's book deeper into his bag with his foot" (475). Now, granted, Harry is still hoping to soften Slughorn up enough to get the memory from him, but that's hardly the only reason he's still using the book and hiding it from Slughorn. Even after he gets the memory, he wants to keep the book because it's useful. He even uses it for its real purpose once, looking up the formula for Felix Felicis, which turns out to be too complicated to be concocted quickly (518). Shortly afterwards, he uses Sectumsempra on Draco and hides his book so that Snape won't confiscate it and not only discover the true source of the spell but reveal the secret of his Potions brilliance to Slughorn: "[W]hat had the Prince een thinking to copy such a spell into his book? And what would happen when Snape saw it? Would he tell Slughorn--Harry's stomach churned--how Harry had been achieving such good results in Potins all year?" (525) > Valky: > Again the thing that 'nobody is trying to say'... > What does Harry want with a reputation Carol? I'm talking HP series > Harry, here. The Boy who Lived, The Chosen One, DADA juggernaut, > School Quidditch Star... He's got enough reputations already, and he > doesn't want any of them, already, what's yet another reputation going > to mean to this boy, honestly? Carol responds: I don't know what he wants with the reputation. I'm just quoting canon, which you snippped. Regarding the confrontation with Voldemort as Harry's primary motive, he doesn't even think about it, as far as we know, between the conversation in the Weasleys' shed and the revelation of the eavesdropper's identity, except in terms of the Horcrux lessons. He realizes that he'll have to find and destroy them eventually, but that realization has no more effect on his everyday life than the thought that he would be facing three tasks in GoF. He always puts off thinking about these things until he has no choice. He's much more concerned throughout HBP with the book itself, Ginny, Quidditch, and, near the end of the book, snape's detentions. He loses sleep over Ginny and Quidditch. I don't think he loses a moment of sleep worrying about Voldemort--until, of course, Snape kills Voldemort (Sorry. Dumbledore, I mean. I *wish* he'd killed Voldemort!). And even then, as JKR says, Harry vs. Snape is more "personal" (and consequently occupies more of his thoughts and emotions) than Harry vs. Voldemort. The Slughorn memory is one reason why Harry wants to use and keep the book. It is by no means his primary motivation, considering how late it occurs in the book and his continued desire to use the book (for both spells and potions hints) and keep his reputation for Potions brilliance after he's obtained the memory. Long before that, he has come to regard the book as his friend. And really, IMO, that's what's important. Harry has made friends with and learned from the teenage Snape, all the while hating and mistrusting the adult Snape. It's deliciously ironic, especially when he's unknowingly hiding snape's own book from Snape, who knows full well where both the Potions improvements and the Sectumsempra spell came from. Carol, who thinks that the upcoming confrontation with Voldemort is far from being Harry's primary motivation for using and hiding the HBP's book From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 1 15:58:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:58:33 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows Message-ID: <30774719.1172764713505.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165574 From: Constance Vigilance >CV: My problem with the whole Unbreakable Vow thing is, how is it >confirmed that a vow is broken? Bart: As nearly as I can tell, the only one who can confirm it is the person who made it. Nothing else makes sense. And that fits in well with the concept that the definition of the vow is the way the person making it understands it. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 16:01:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:01:21 -0000 Subject: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165575 Celia wrote: > I just happened to be thinking about this particular issue > recently, so I looked up the description of the spell that > VM/Wormtail performs to become Fetal!Mort. Here is the canon: > > "...Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth...a spell or two of my own invention...a little help from my dear Nagini," Voldemort's red eyes fell upon the continually circling snake, "a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided..." (GoF, pg. 656, Am. PB Ed.) > > If Nagini is in fact a horcrux (Which I am very undecided about) perhaps her venom has some "soul-essence" that allowed for the creation of the fetal body? Possibly these "spells of my own invention" are some of the other "experiments" that you are talking about, Annemehr. I agree that it is unlikely we will find out that VM did much more to become immortal, because it is just too much for one little book, but I do think this is some indication that he has other spells and tricks to help in quest. > > I also find the combination of a deadly toxin (snake venom) and a life-force (unicorn blood) to be an interesting comment on Voldemort's state- a sort of limbo between life and death. Carol responds: I like that last observation. And I've noted that, Horcrux or not, Nagini is a grotesque parody of the mother-love theme that pervades the books: her venom helps to create the fetal form that houses Voldemort's fragmented soul until he can actually be "reborn," and her "milk" (venom) nourishes him. (Evidently, Wormtail feeds it to him in a bottle, much as a father might feed a bottle-fed baby.) But I wonder if Voldemort's experiments included a search for *bodily* immortality. The Horcruxes protect his soul and keep it earthbound, but what good is an immortal soul in a frail and aging body? Even wizards get old, unless, like Nicholas Flamel, they have a Philosopher's Stone and can keep taking the Elixir of Life. I keep thinking of the myth of Tithonus, a mortal who was granted eternal life but not eternal youth. He ended up so feeble that he begged for death but, no longer being mortal, was turned to a grasshopper instead. (Would that work, Harry? Turn LV into a grasshopper and let someone who hates him, say, Wormtail, step on him?) At any rate, if Voldie wants to "live" as opposed to surviving, he's going to need an immortal body to go with his immortal soul. I wonder whether he took small doses of Nagini's venom to make himself immune to poison. He would also need to protect himself against disease and especially old age. Possibly, that's where young Severus Snape came in. Was he "putting a stopper in death" for Voldemort, not by helping him with the Horcruxes, of course, but by brewing potions that would help to sustain Voldie's body long beyond its natural life? And, to return to Nagini, there's the whole question of why Voldie becomes more snakelike. The Horcruxes blur his features, making him appear less human as he loses what shreds of humanity he ever had, but do they also make him more snakelike? The Voldemort who applies for the DADA position is much less snakelike than the one who pops out of Quirrell's head in SS/PS or the restored Voldemort who appears in the graveyard, looking exactly as he did when he killed the Potters, as far as I can tell. (The Death Eaters are surprised that he's resurrected, but not by his snakelike appearance.) Yes, Voldemort has always had an affinity for snakes and can talk to them in Parseltongue, but why Nagini? Where did she come from, and why is she his "dear" Nagini when he cares for no other living creature? Carol, who thinks that Harry will slay Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor whether or not she's a Horcrux From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 1 16:55:04 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:55:04 -0000 Subject: /On the trivial and the Profound/Lying & Cheating In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165576 Magpie: > > It feels like there's a lot of having it both ways as well. Potions > > is totally unimportant so it doesn't matter if Harry takes the easy > > way, yet he's also not taking the easy way at all because learning > > stuff--which is the point of the class--is so important to him. > > > Valky: > That actually does sound close to what I am saying, except that it is > the percieved greatness that Harry is achieving which is not > important, not 'Potions' and I don't see it as having it both ways > because there is one way Harry can never actually have it at all > unless of course he abdicates his prophesied destiny and dang the rest > to hell. It is that way which is not of significant importance, > because Harry has made his choice - to walk into the arena with head > held high. Magpie: Harry's perceived greatness might not be important in the general scheme of things, I agree, but that doesn't take away from the importance it does have. Harry himself has certainly noted this sort of thing as being wrong when he's not the one benefitting from it. Maybe he gets over it, as he should, and doesn't become obsessed with it, but it's not like he's above noting unfairness himself. There are a lot of things people do in these books that have limited importance in the general sense but are very important for their character. Valky: > As for not seeing this Harry I say is concerned primarily with dangers and > death and defeating LV in the HBP text.. How many examples do you want > then? > > Here are a few more beyond the, at least, two or three which I have > already given - Magpie: I don't think the examples you've already given have been convincing at all of what you seem to be claiming. Of course there are places in the text where Harry is concerned with these things. When he is, he says so. But one of the characteristics of HBP is the way Harry is juggling a number of different concerns and flips from one to the other. When you step back and look at the whole thing, imo, you do not get a Harry who's based around thinking he's going to die and that he must prepare for the fight against Voldemort as much as possible. He's more like the Harry in previous books, like the one who worries greatly about the TWT and then puts off breaking the riddle of the egg. -- Christmas Eve Ch 16 --- > > Feeling disappointed Harry threw the boook back into his trunk, turned > off the lamp and rolled over, thinking of werewolves and Snape, Stan > Shunpike and the Half-Blood Prince, and finally falling into an uneasy > sleep full of creeping shadows and the cries of bitten children... Magpie: "Harry lay awake for a long time . . . trying to convince himself that his feelings for Ginny were entirely elder-brotherly" Harry often falls asleep thinking of whatever he's just been focused on. > --- Ch 18 -------------- > > Harry Brooded or the next few days over what to do next about > Slughorn. He decided that, for the time being, he would let Slughorn > think that he had forgotten all about Horcruxes; it was best to lull > him into a false sense of security before returning to the attack. > ...... > > Harry awaited an invitation to one of his little evening parties, > determined to accept this time, even if he ahad to reschedule > Quidditch practice. Magpie: Harry has just been given a task of getting the memory from Slughorn. He asks Slughorn for the memory and he gets upset. Harry figures he'll lay off it for a while and vaguely plans to "attack" him at some point in the future. Time goes by. Harry's considering going to one of Slughorn's parties, "even if he had to reschedule Quidditch practice." As if Quidditch practice has importance too. Harry is thinking about getting the memory, but he doesn't sound that harried about it to me. He's deciding to do nothing for a while. As to the bezoar scene itself, I would also point out that the way the scene is written, Harry connects the bezoar to "softening Slughorn up" only afterwards, in response to Ron's complaints about not sharing the tip--just as, iirc, he pulls out "Maybe there's something in there that will help me with Voldemort" in response to Hermione's scoldings. The entire scene leading up to the use of the bezoar is focused not on Harry worrying about not getting the memory but "annoyed" and "irritated" at Hermione's smugness at watching him struggle without the Prince. In fact, when Harry finds the bezoar note, it's not out of desperation, but irritation: "[Hermione] was now decanting and mysterious separated ingredients....More to avoid watching this irritating sight than anyting else, Harry ent over the Half-Blood Prince's bok and turned a few pages with unneccesary force. And there it was, scrawled right across a long list of antidotes." It's understandable, imo, that many of us see Harry as being a normal student in Potions. I honestly think he's written that way. It's just that rather than being driven by an ambition to be the best in class, Harry is driven to avoid the embarassment and annoyance of being found out. ....... > > "I didn't feel anything," said harry, ignoring this interruption. "But > I don't care about that now.. " > "what do you mean, you don't care... don't you want to learn to > apparate?" said Ron incredulously. > .... "Hurry up will you there's something** I want to do." > > **Tail Malfoy Magpie: Apparition isn't something Harry's desperate to learn--which I think goes a bit against the idea that Harry's desperately trying to learn skills to use against Voldemort. I'd think Apparition would be very important there, but Harry is "not fussed" about it taking a while to learn because he "prefers flying." Sounds pretty normal. Right now he's focused on tailing Malfoy. His own obsession. He wants to catch him out. Malfoy is certainly connected to Voldemort in his own way, but he's not directly connected to Harry's upcoming doom in Harry's mind. > -------------------------- > > --- Ch 19 ------- > > It took Harry a few moments to realise what McClaggen was talking about. > "Oh.... right... Quidditch" he said putting his wand back in his belt > and running his hand wearily through his hair. Magpie: Harry is thinking about one of his concerns, and it takes him a moment to flip back to a different concern. I'm not seeing how this proves that all year he's mostly focused on his impending death and preparing to fight Voldemort. In another scene:"Harry lay awake for a long time in the darkness. He did not want to lose the upcoming match; not only was it his first as Captain, but he was determined to beat Draco Malfoy at Quidditch even if he could not prove his suspicions about him" He's not thinking about Quidditch in this scene, but he is in the earlier scene. ...... > > Harry however had never been less intersted in Quidditch; he was > rapidly becoming obsessed with Draco Malfoy. Magpie: Harry's pet obsession with finding out what Draco is doing sometimes distracts him from both Quidditch and Dumbledore's lessons about how to fight Voldemort. In the following chapter: "Dumbledore heaved a deep sigh, then said, 'But never mind my staff problems. We have much more important matters to discuss. Firstly-- have you managed the task I set you at the end of our previous lesson?' 'Ah,' said Harry, brought up short. What with Apparition lessons and Quidditch and Ron being poisoned and getting his skull cracked and his determination to find out what Draco Malfoy was up to, Harry had almost forgotten about the memory Dumbledore had asked him to extract from Professor Slughorn." I don't see how that could be clearer. Harry has just listed Apparition lessons and Quidditch along with his private interest in Draco along with Ron's poisoning for reasons to "almost forget" about the task that's supposed to be so important to him in your earlier quotes. He's brought up short when Dumbledore asks about it. And Dumbledore responds that although he would have expected Harry to forget about it while Ron was in danger he would have *hoped* that when that was not the case Harry would set his mind to it. (Dumbledore doesn't hear Harry's listing Apparition and Quidditch and Draco in there along with Ron as a distraction.) Dumbledore *reminds* him how important to the Voldemort issue he said it was and Harry feels shamed because he hasn't been giving it the importance Dumbledore expects him too. > --------------------------- > > > ---- Ch 21 ---- > > Harry racked his brains over the next week as to how he was to > persuade Slughorn to hand over the true memory, but nothing in the > nature of a brainwave occurred and he was reduced to doing what he did > increasingly these days when at a loss: poring over his poyions book, > hoping tha the Prince would have scribbled something useful in a > margin, as he had done so many times before. Magpie: So now that Harry has been shamed to get back to the task he tries to put his mind to it again. (Dumbledore has now stopped their private lessons until Harry gets the memory, an added incentive.) He uses the Prince's book, but in a way that I think backs up Carol's point, which I thought was mischaracterized earlier. What I said "nobody was trying to say" was that Harry's Potions reputation was not a primary goal he set out to gain himself using the book. He's never particularly wanted to be known as a Potions genius. I still think nobody's claiming that. I did not think Carol was saying this either. What Carol was saying, I thought, was simply that once Harry had this reputation as a result of the book he acted to keep it because it was convenient to him. She was showing that Harry in class was not focused on learning as much as he could from Slughorn or the book, but just doing well on the class assignments and getting out of there. Although the Prince teaches Harry a lot of spells that he practices himself, his effect on Harry's thinking is not always to make him more curious and bright. On the contrary, he's often just a sign of laziness. Harry can't think of what to do, so pages through the book hoping the Prince will give him an answer--I almost wrote an easy answer. In this very scene you've quoted, Harry is paging through the book. Hermione says he won't find anything in there. Harry points out that without the book Ron would be dead. And then his eye is caught by a spell, Sectumsempra, that says it's "for enemies." He is immediately "itching to try it out" and folds down the corner of the page to do it later. He sounds like a pretty ordinary, distracted kid there, despite his destiny. A reader could certainly make connections between "enemies" and Voldemort, but I don't think it's accurate to say the scene or Harry is doing that. > ...... > > > Harry fully expected to recieve low marks on his, because he had > disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle Dementors, but he did > not care: Slughorns memory was the most important thing to him now. Magpie: No more of that being distracted by Quidditch and Apparition lessons and Malfoy then. Now he's really going to get down to it. Next class with Slugorn, definitely. And now that he's decided that, he can spend an entire chapter focused on Malfoy. If Harry were single- minded he'd have never lasted as the protagonist of this particular book. It seems to me the whole point is different things being thrown at him for him to react to and juggle. So, for instance, on the very night he goes to get the memory he hopefully notes friction between Ginny and Dean. > > Magpie: > > Bezoars aren't a new thing. The practical > > solution that Harry learned that day was the one the rest of the > > class learned years before. > > > > Valky: > > Clearly not well enough. ;) > > > > Magpie: > > It's another, imo, to try to pretend Harry really was > > showing how clever he is compared to the other students and taking > > the thing in a more serious way and that he really lives up to how > > Slughorn describes him afterwards. That's what reminds me of the > > Dursleys with Dudley. > > > Valky: > I was only kidding with this answer. And I hardly think Harry was > showing how clever he was by doing it. He didn't even know it would > work, but it was the one answer he was able to give in what he felt > was a desperate situation so he took the chance. It seemed to have > paid off too, for a moment, until Slughorn clammed up about the > memory, the Harry realised he need a different approach. Magpie: I thought you might be kidding--but Harry has been seriously defended as the one getting the right answer there, with the other kids not being as correct. It does pay off in that it shuts Slughorn up. The Prince does usually come through. But as I quoted above, when Harry is floundering on his own he thinks not of being unprepared for Voldemort or the loss of the memory or the loss of Slughorn's goodwill (never dependent on his false reputation), but Hermione's smug face. > > Magpie: > > Sometimes you do the easy > > thing for a good reason, and if you're doing that I don't see why > > you wouldn't be upfront about it. > > > Valky: > He's as upfront as he believes he can be given the circumstances. He's > open with his two best friends about it, just as Dumbledore > recommended to him he should be. He isn't going to be open with the > rest of the WW, from his POV why should he be? Magpie: Sorry, I wasn't referring to Harry himself there, but his defense. Harry himself is upfront about it, from my pov. He doesn't tell it to everyone, but he's not lying to himself, I don't think. As I said, it seems like the only time he claims he's doing it for good reasons is when he's defending himself to Ron and Hermione and wants them off his back. > > Magpie: > > That doesn't answer what I said. If Harry is so focused on getting > > the information out of the book, why is he just using the book in > > class for everything Slughorn assigns in class? > > > Valky: > We only see some three or four classes detailed in canon, selected > because of their plot importance. And even in those few snapshots we > see Harry using the book for a variety of reasons. Magpie: None that show the Harry that you're describing as I understand him. > > Valky: > > This reminds me of debate that raged hot** pre-HBP about Snape > > dropping Harry's potion in OOtP and thereby avoiding giving him the > > grade that he *did* deserve - as inconsequential vs unfair : > > > > Magpie: > > And it was unfair, imo. Luckily Harry's ultimate grades would not be > > able to faked that way, but that doesn't change that what Snape did > > was wrong--significantly so. > > > Valky: > I found it amusing to compare these two because of the very fierce > argument that Harry's potions reputation with Snape didn't matter > coming from the Snape-defenders camp there completely contradicts the > Harrys reputation with Slughorn really does matter coming from the > same camp in this thread. > > I think it mattered entirely more in OOtP and before this new > direction in Harry's life was taking him away from academic > achievement, that he got the marks he deserved and the opportunities > and choices that naturally go with that. After the fact, it's pretty > obvious to me that neither situation matters. Magpie: Right, neither situation matters more than it matters. But within the context that it does matter they both have similar meaning. Harry himself has certainly thought it mattered when he wasn't the one benefitting from this sort of thing. He's angry in the moment when Snape is unfair to him. He doesn't obsess over it, but it still happened. It matters in a small way. Snape might not be doing something so terrible in that scene, but he's doing something. Magpie: > > "No, > > Harry's not being dishonest or faking at all > > > Valky: > When have I said that? Magpie: Sorry, I think I was referring to defenses where Harry's faking is really about real learning in ways I don't think it is. > Magpie: > > because the > > consequences are limited and also he because Harry's really doing > > what he's supposed to be doing anyway, > > Valky: > Yes I take full credit for that part. Magpie: I assume you mean you're just saying the consequences are small (and not as I said there, that because they are small Harry is not faking). As to Harry doing what he's supposed to be doing, I assume you mean Harry is focused on Voldemort over schoolwork, which I would agree is something he is "supposed to be doing." There, though, I think I was more referring to the idea that something like Harry's trick with the bezoar isn't a way of getting out of the assignment, but getting the better answer. And having gone through the book again looking for this stuff, and reading Carol's posts on it showing the chronology (and providing some of the quotes above--thanks Carol!) I think the HBP's textbook is even more shown to be part of a regular "student temptation" storyline than I'd thought. Harry does start protecting the book and his reputation before it becomes associated with neat spells and things. Harry's desire to keep the textbook is certainly understandable--who on earth would want to give it back? But he does in the beginning just seem to be a student wanting to hold onto and hide an advantage in class that has fallen into his lap. Harry might usually say he wants to be known for things he's actually done (as opposed to being TBWL), but I really think one of the themes in the HBP's storyline is temptation. Harry has never coveted a great reputation in Potions but once he's got one, and has gotten advantages from it, he doesn't want to deal with the humiliation of being found out. That seems to be the main thing behind his lying to Slughorn as I read it. That is the main point I keep trying to make about the story. The fact that Harry did not originally set out to gain himself this false reputation, and has never particularly wanted it, does not mean that he can't want to keep it. Another big theme of it, imo, is of course the "friendship" between teen!Harry and teen!Snape. It's important that Harry instinctively feels a connection to this character and wants to keep the book for that reason too. But I actually think it's kind of neat to be able to draw the temptation parallel as well. Young!Snape would not have been tempted in this way, since all indications show he really was a curious student. But he obviously fell to his own temptations, and perhaps they started as innocently as Harry's do. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 1 17:44:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:44:13 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165577 > >Eggplant: > > That is the mother load! If you can find a RATIONAL reason a good > > Snape would make that vow you will instantly turn me from being a > > Snape hater into a Snape lover. > > Neri: > Agreed. However, the vow doesn't seem much more rational from the POV > of ESE!Snape. True, ESE!Snape wouldn't mind killing Dumbledore, but as > he says himself he's going against the Dark Lord's orders in making > the vow. Pippin: Not quite. Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape not to kill Dumbledore, he's ordered him to let Draco try first. It's only in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, according to Snape, that Voldemort will be able to let Snape continue at Hogwarts as a spy. Once Draco's failure is inevitable, there's nothing in ESE!Snape's way. Of course it all depends on what Eggplant means by rational. If 'rational' means 'rational self-interest' then neither ESE!Snape nor DDM!Snape need apply, because both are serving causes for which they would sacrifice their lives. Neri: And moreover, he also puts himself in a big risk, because if > Draco tries killing Dumbledore on his own and fails or gets hurt > before Snape can reach them, then Snape is dead. So it looks like > Snape has reasons of his own to make the vow, which by definition > means OFH. Pippin: Huh? If Snape doesn't take the vow, why should Draco's failure mean his death? Or are you referring to the first two portions? They require Snape to watch over Draco, and protect him *to the best of his ability. * Neri: > > While I frequently sound like I'm joking when promoting ACID POPS, I > must say that I don't know of any other theory that is even close to > explaining why did Snape make the vow. And as a nice bonus ACID POPS > also explains another unsolved mystery: what did Draco suddenly have > against Snape in HBP, after liking him so much for five books. > > Pippin: Oh, LOLLIPOPS works just as well. Lollipops!Snape sees himself in Narcissa. Her loyalty to the Dark Lord has endangered her dearest blood, and Snape pities her. She's begging for his help to save Draco, as once, perhaps, Snape begged Dumbledore's help to save Lily. But unlike Dumbledore, who trusted Snape, Narcissa does not, and asks for the vow. What can Snape do? If he refuses, that's as good as saying she's right not to trust him. Who knows what she'll do then? Also, let's say Snape knows about the plan and not about the cabinets, but unlike Dumbledore, he doesn't think that smuggling DE's into Hogwarts is impossible. And then Bella and Narcissa, show up on his doorstep. It might be his big chance to find out what Draco is really up to without tipping off Voldemort or putting Draco at risk. Then we must distinguish between the vow and the magic that binds it. DDM!Snape is not a man of his word. He has foresworn his vows to Voldemort, and I don't suppose it would bother him to make a false promise to Narcissa. He can give his word to carry out a task with no intention of doing so, and the vow will not strike him down. It will only get him if he fails to perform the task under the set conditions. If Dumbledore is right and it's impossible for DE's to enter the castle, then the set conditions will never arise because Draco will never get close enough to Dumbledore to make his failure inevitable. You have to try before you can fail. On the other hand if Dumbledore is wrong, and there is a viable plan to get the DE's inside, that is information that DDM!Snape would certainly risk dying for. If he refuses the third portion of the vow, then he's on his knees with his wand hand bound, and an armed killer standing over him. Bella shouldn't be underestimated; she was the last DE standing at the Ministry. Even if she doesn't kill him outright, he's in an impossible position; what if she asks him to swear, right then, that he's been faithful to the Dark Lord since his return? Pippin noticing that if Snape sent the Order to the Ministry and didn't believe that Harry was there, he did more than leave his fellow DE's in danger. He set them up. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 18:05:12 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:05:12 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165578 > Snow: > > In a likewise manner, if Snape understands the terms agreed to during > the Vow to be something other than what was actually meant (a > loophole) then he could accept the conditions without detriment. > > The third stipulation to the Vow allows for such a loophole: > > "And, should it prove necessary ... if it seems Draco will fail ..." > [...] > > "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to > perform?" > Neri: I personally don't like this looking for loopholes. The Vow scene is a very dramatic one, and would be cheapened by this or that loophole. Moreover, if it was the only loophole required to save Snape from the blame of killing Dumbledore, it might have been worth it. But for that you also need several additional loopholes on the tower, and the combined effect would IMO amount to poor writing on JKR's side. Especially since she give us very little information on the UV magic. > Snow: > If the Dark Lord has indeed ordered Draco to kill Dumbledore at his > own hand from the beginning, why would Narcissa ask "should it prove > necessary" and "if it seems Draco would fail"? > Neri: Because Snape has just made it very clear to her that he will not take the task *instead* of Draco. The Dark Lord gave the task to Draco and Snape will not go against the Dark Lord's orders. So the whole third clause is only made possible by Snape's detailed estimation that the Dark Lord does not believe Draco will manage the task and actually means for Snape to do it in the end, but he's determined that Draco must try first. Therefore Narcissa stresses that Snape is required to step in only "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco would fail". Draco must have the first shot, or it's going directly against the Dark Lord's orders and Snape would refuse it. BTW, this wording also implies that Snape is quite free to refuse the third clause even after he had already accepted the previous two. Otherwise Narcissa would have taken advantage of that to make him promise doing the deed without Draco attempting it first. > Snow: > We are led to believe that Dumbledore is Draco's main objective and > that his death must be at Draco's hand but there is no substantial > evidence that any of the parties were aware that Draco was to be the > killer at the point of the Vow. > > If, as I suspect, Draco was under the assumption that he had backup > on his mission, then his assignment changed after the Vow had been > taken and Snape would not be held liable ... or would he become > liable because of Narcissa's vague wording? Neri: So what was the task to be in the beginning? Narcissa says that Draco doesn't stand a chance because even the Dark Lord has never succeeded. But if the task was infiltrating Hogwarts, Voldemort has already done that (in SS/PS). If the mission is smuggling DEs into Hogwarts, Voldemort has done that too (Crouch Jr. in GoF, and of course Snape himself). And Narcissa adds that not only the Dark Lord, but *nobody* has ever succeeded before. This limits options considerably. Neri From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 1 18:26:53 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:26:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows Message-ID: <717521.1172773613228.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165579 Neri: >I personally don't like this looking for loopholes. The Vow scene is a >very dramatic one, and would be cheapened by this or that loophole. >Moreover, if it was the only loophole required to save Snape from the >blame of killing Dumbledore, it might have been worth it. But for that >you also need several additional loopholes on the tower, and the >combined effect would IMO amount to poor writing on JKR's side. >Especially since she give us very little information on the UV magic. Bart: In order for the UV to be useful, it has to be a two-way street. It has to be what the person making the vow understands it to be, not what he or she is pretending they can twist it into. You can lie to others, but you can't lie to yourself. Meaning that Snape has agreed to do what he believes Cissy is asking for. In general, one would only make a UV if the person was willing, ready, or even planning to do so without the UV. Since Snape is no fool, then he should know that he has agreed to finish the job in killing Dumbledore. Which means that it was his intent, at the time of makng the vow, to kill Dumbledore. Therefore, assuming that JKR is "playing fair" with the reader, the ONLY explanation that fits DDM!Snape is that Dumbledore was only being kept temporarily alive (once again, the major clue is the unhealable arm). Note there was no time constraint, and it is not necessary to kill a man who has already been killed (unless you're a passenger on the Orient Express, that is). Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 18:40:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:40:31 -0000 Subject: Book seven can not be the last book because In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165580 --- , "funkeginger" wrote: > > I dont think that the Deathly Hallows can be the last > book because there is too much to do. Harry has to > find four Horcruxes, then he has to try and kill > Voldemort. It's too much to do in one book . JKR only > makes most of the books max 780 pages . You can't just > do that in that many pages. ... > > funkeginger > bboyminn: I think a lot of things are going to happen off-page and only be referred to in-passing in the books. That will move the stor forward and save a lot of time. We know, without a doubt, that there are a lot of subplots that need resolving, or at least that we certainly /want/ resolved. It is possible that their resolution will only be by implication, rather that drawn out in detail, and other time and space saver. For example, we can be reasonably certain that at some point Harry will ask Bill, the professional cursebreaker, for help learning what he needs to know to safely get at and break open the Horcruxes when he finds them. Now we can further imagine many long lessons in which Bill transfers the necessary information. However, JKR could just as easily set up the Curse Breaking Lesson, and from their forward only refer to how they are progressing as a secondary aspect of another coversation or in the narrative. That way we imagine them going on in the background, but don't waste a lot of page time on them. This background-occurring story could be used for a lot of the various aspects of the secondary plots. We see Harry moving through a central theme in which subplots are set up, but from then on are only referenced in passing. That would certainl save a lot of page-time. Also, it is entirely possible that some of what we consider central themes will turn out to be red herrings or McGuffins. That is, they either aren't as significant as they now seem to appear, or they are simply character distraction to move the plot forward but have not real significants. For example, I have a few theories that speculate that the Horcruxes are indeed McGuffins. Harry will spend all his time concentrating on them, and failing to get them all, but some other aspect will rear it's head and make the Horcruxes irrelevant or insignificant. So, there are ways to touch on the various aspects of the next book that still make for compact writing. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 19:21:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:21:08 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <717521.1172773613228.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165581 Bart wrote: > In general, one would only make a UV if the person was willing, ready, or even planning to do so without the UV. Since Snape is no fool, then he should know that he has agreed to finish the job in killing Dumbledore. Which means that it was his intent, at the time of makng the vow, to kill Dumbledore. Therefore, assuming that JKR is "playing fair" with the reader, the ONLY explanation that fits DDM!Snape is that Dumbledore was only being kept temporarily alive (once again, the major clue is the unhealable arm). Note there was no time constraint, and it is not necessary to kill a man who has already been killed (unless you're a passenger on the Orient Express, that is). Carol responds: I don't think we can say what JKR's options are. Only she knows that. Other possibilities exist for a DDM!Snape who does not foolishly agree to do an unknown task if it seems that Draco will fail. It's possible, for example, that Dumbledore had ordered to do whatever was necessary to prevent Draco from killing or being killed. If he knew that Voldemort expecte Snape to do it "in the end," then whatever was necessary would include both risking his own life by taking an Unbreakable Vow (as OFH!Snape certainly would not do) and even killing DD himself in the end. It appears that Dumbledore expects to die before the year is out even before Snape takes the UV. He seems to be preparing for his own inevitable death by telling the Dursleys to allow Harry to call 4 Privet Drive "home" for another year and by telling them, or mentioning in their presence, that 12 GP is the HQ of the Order of the Phoenix. Moreover, since he's trying to hire Slughorn to teach Potions, he must already be planning to give Snape the DADA position if Slughorn accepts. (Conveniently, Slughorn can step in as HoH of Slytherin at the end of the year when Snape is inevitably driven out by the DADA curse.) This step, hiring Snape as DADA instructor, may be the result, not so much of the need to bring Slughorn to Hogwarts as of the information provided by Snape that LV has assigned Draco to kill him. (I don't know, of course. I'm just providing a possible explanation that makes sense to me.) It's clear from the hand twitch that Snape does *not* want to be bound to "do the deed" if Draco should appear to fail, but Snape surely realizes that DD would rather have Snape, his undercover supposed DE who will be returning to LV at the end of the year in any case kill him than have Draco kill or be killed. The whole point of the UV, after all, from both Narcissa's standpoint and Snape's, is to protect Draco. And we know that Dumbledore shares that perspective. Snape clearly doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan, but he may well realize that Draco, not known for his courage, will need DE backup to kill Dumbledore. And Snape seems to have warned Dumbledore of this circumstance, considering the huge number of increased protections DD has placed on the castle. Quite possibly, Snape hopes that the UV will never be activated if DD stays away from Draco and DEs are kept out of the castle. And Snape has certainly told DD about the UV, as DD's lack of surprise and dismay when Harry tells him about the overheard conversation between Snape and Draco indicates. ("Perhaps I know more about this matter than you do, Harry.") But "you take too much for granted, Dumbledore" (the argument in the forest) seems to indicate that Snape doesn't quite have DD's faith in those anti-DE measures, especially after the necklace incident, and, having failed to find out what Draco is up to with the Vanishing Cabinets or to gain his confidence, Snape wants out. Unfortunately for him, DD won't let him break his promise. There is, of course, the possibility that Snape didn't actually kill Dumbledore--that DD died from the poison, not the AK (as the strange description of the AK seems to suggest), or that Snape "unstoppered" the death he had "stoppered" when he saved DD from the ring Horcrux-- but I think that Snape really did kill DD, very much against his (Snape's) will, not only because the UV had fallen into place despite his and DD's efforts to prevent it from doing so but because there really was no other option--he couldn't save DD, who was going to die regardless, and the only way to save Harry and Draco and get the DEs out of Hogwarts was for Snape to kill DD himself, as DD. I think, anticipated all along. "Severus, please" surely means, "Severus, please keep your promise." Or at least that reading ties together the UV, the argument in the forest, and the tower as no other reading does, IMO. Now, of course, Snape has gained what passes for Voldemort's trust, and he's in a position to undermine him, possibly by diverting his attention from his real danger, Harry the Horcrux Hunter. Whether he's still bound by the provision requiring him to protect Draco, now a "man" by WW standards, is unclear. Draco won't like it much, I suspect, but he already owes Snape his life. (No, I don't mean a life debt, just the plain facts.) Carol, confident that JKR will reveal a thoroughly DDM!Snape without any unfair play on her own part, but not necessarily in ways that we can predict From funkeginger at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 10:23:22 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 02:23:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Book seven can not be the last book because In-Reply-To: <004a01c75b83$88c406a0$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <614480.55527.qm@web37005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165582 vexingconfection: > I didn't think JKR would kill HP off either, then I read that after > this book she had a rendezvous with her close friend Stephen King. > This is not only something King would do but it's something his > famed author did in Misery to rid himself of a reoccuring > character. King's author killed off his heroine in hopes of > never going back -I think there is the possibility that JKR will do > the same. Some call it burning bridges others call it scorched earth. > Harry can't live-it would be anti-climactic for the characters to > live happily ever after. This all started as a children's book-then > it grew with its readers. I think it's totally possible Harry dies. > The question is will there be spin-offs. Does JKR kill him off or > write the new Tom Sawyer and Huck Fin? Funkeginger I get what you're saying, she has to kill him off to end the story and that her writing is a lot like Stephen King ( I did not know they were friends). But what do you mean by a spin at the end? Do you think this is the last book? I don't think so. What do you mean by do a Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn twist? Do you mean to say she will write about HP at another end? I hope so, I really think it is too soon to say goodbye to HP. You said you like Stephen King, are his books any good? The only thing I read that I like is HP and Eragon and Eldest (I forgot the name of the author). But they made the movie of Eragon this Dec. if HP is to end and I need something new to read. **Elf reminder: If anyone wants to discuss the other books mentioned in this thread without tying them back to the HP series, please move the discussion to OTChatter at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ Thanks! From sweetlittleangel113 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 15:49:50 2007 From: sweetlittleangel113 at yahoo.com (Theresa McKee) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:49:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Unbreakable Vows and Dumbledore's connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <300127.11251.qm@web62010.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165583 CV: > Now, had Snape allowed Draco to come to harm, it would have been > curtains for Severus, so that part he took well in hand. Whether he > actually killed Dumbledore, we can't say for certain yet. > Dumbledore appears to be dead (although what he is doing causing > JKR trouble from beyond is a mystery), but did Snape kill him, did > he die in the fall or was he poisoned. (Sounds a lot like the > demise of Rasputin, come to think of it - who was poisoned, > stabbed, shot and his body thrown in a frozen river. When pulled > out of the river, it was determined he died of drowning.) Theresa: If Dumbledore is dead why did JK go through enough trouble to change how he died? Everyone else in the books who was killed by this curse was dead before hitting the ground but in Dumbledore's case, he was surprised and flew backwards. Much like a similiar situation where Snape taught Lockhart a lesson during the duel class. Which this goes on to make me wonder if Snape said the words but did not mean them (Bellatrix did once tell Harry you have to mean it for the curse to work) and instead said another curse in his mind (much like Dumbledore did to freeze Harry). However Snape did know in a way what was going on. He is a skilled Occlumens and even if Voldemort had not told him his plan he could have easily read Narcissa's and Draco's thought. I think in this case the only vow he promised was to protect Draco even at the risk of doing the task himself. If Draco failed to kill Dumbledore that would have left Snape no other choice but to do it - as in the vow he gave. Now to give more thought - Hagrid mentioned to Harry in the book that he overheard Dumbledore and Snape arguing with Snape telling Dumbledore he wouldn't do it. Do what? Dumbledore is a powerful wizard, can we honestly believe he did not know what was going on? If he did not, why did he promise Draco his protection which would be extended to his father and mother, going so far as to say they could fake their deaths. Is it possible Snape was working on Dumbledore's orders? And is it possible they faked Dumbledore's own death? I believe Dumbledore is dead, especially since he always saw it as a long rest but I do not believe that Snape was working for Voldemort at the time but instead following Dumbledore's order. Theresa From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 20:49:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:49:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165584 I'm re-re-re-re-reading GoF, and I'm curious about what other posters think of the point of view in the two dream chapters. In OoP, when Harry's dreaming or hallucinating, he always sees from Voldemort's pov (or Nagini's, when LV is possessing her). It makes sense that the scar link, which has always enabled him to sense Voldemort's presence or emotions, and even, in OoP, to understand intuitively *why* LV is angry or happy, would enable him to share Voldie's dreams and experiences from inside Voldie's head--as if the thoughts and sensations and even the pale, long-fingered hands were his own. But in GoF, the first dream is from the pov of an unknown Muggle, Frank Bryce, who dies at the end of the dream, not from Voldemort's pov. Voldie certainly isn't possessing him, as he possesses Nagini in OoP; he doesn't even know that Frank is there until Nagini tells him. We know Frank's thoughts and sensations until he's killed, and we see LV from the outside--at first, only the back of his chair and then the undescribed fetal form that fills Frank with such horror. In the second dream, Harry is riding on the back of the eagle owl that Fake!Moody has sent to inform Voldemort that he's murdered his father, Mr. Crouch. (We're not told this information, but it can be deduced from the content of the message. We've seen this same eagle owl, presumably sent by Voldemort to Fake!Moody to inform him of Mr. Crouch's escape, circling the tower as Hagrid buries the Leprechaun gold in his garden.) At any rate, the owl is not possessed--it's merely delivering a message, which causes LV to grant Wormtail a reprieve (merely Crucioing him rather than feeding him to Nagini) because Wormtail's blunder (which we later learn is letting Crouch escape) has been rectified by the murder (obviously Crouch's). The owl drops the message into Voldemort's chair and then disappears from the dream. Harry is no longer on its back but mysteriously standing in the room, as himself, much as he does in the Pensieve memories, fearful of being discovered. But this is a dream, not a memory, And Voldemort is far away in Little Hangleton, as he was in the other dream. Again, Harry sees him from the outside, or rather, sees his chair but not his face. In neither case is he inside Voldemort's mind. >From a plot standpoint, these two dreams work beautifully, giving Harry and the reader pieces of information that will be useful later (of course, Harry forgets the first dream, or he'd have been able to tell DD what happened to Bertha Jorkins and DD might have figured out who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire a bit sooner). But in terms of narrative strategy, they make no sense. The opening chapter of GoF uses a third-person dramatic narrator similar to the one who narrates "Spinner's End," with no pov character (everyone is seen from the outside), until the pov switches to Frank's and blends into the scene which coincides with Harry's dream (probably starting when Frank wakes with a pain in his leg). Usually, there's a reason for a point of view other than Harry's. In the first chapter of SS/PS Harry is absent and/or too young to understand what's happening, as when Baby Harry is placed on the Dursleys' porch, fast asleep. And he's also absent in "The Other Minister" and "Spinner's End," one told from the Muggle Prime Minister's pov and the other using a third-person dramatic narrator, who conceals the characters' thoughts from the reader. But the dreams are different. Harry experiences them, one as Frank Bryce, a complete stranger who ends up getting killed, and one as himself, riding the back of an eagle owl and then shifting to the floor of the room where Voldemort is sitting with Wormtail and Nagini (who also appear in the first dream). How can *Harry* as opposed to the narrator, who can be any place JKR wants him to be, be inside Frank Bryce's mind or on the back of that owl? Voldemort, to whom he's mentally linked by the scar, is in neither place. He's not possessing Frank or the owl. Is JKR cheating just to provide information that Harry couldn't otherwise know, or is there a logical explanation for Harry to see from a point of view other than Voldemort's in his Voldie dreams? Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 1 21:21:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:21:28 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165585 Carol: > Is JKR cheating just to provide information that Harry couldn't > otherwise know, or is there a logical explanation for Harry to see > from a point of view other than Voldemort's in his Voldie dreams? > > Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW Magpie: I feel very guilty snipping all of this because I think it's a really good question--one that I also wondered about in GoF. Is it just the JKR thought it was a neat way to segue into Harry after that opening chapter? Not exactly, since Harry wakes up knowing something is wrong and remembering part of the dream. But why is he dreaming about Frank and not Voldemort? And why does he later dream of those events also not from Voldemort's pov? It feels like these dreams are almost more...what's the word? They're more like prophesies, almost, in that it's like Harry's almost having a vision of something important to him, or important to his story. One could say that JKR just couldn't figure out a good way to get those scenes in and she wanted to, but it's a bit much to give Harry some kind of psychic power just for that, especially since it's not something that continues. It's not like the mind link they have in OotP that's explained and part of the plot. Could it be sort of a precursor to it? Doesn't seem so, because again, it goes back to the problem of it not being Voldemort's pov. Could JKR have almost been experimenting with a device that she evenentually moved away from, an almost mythological one where something "beyond" Harry gave him visions? The main reason I felt guilty about snipping, btw, is that I was completely distracted by your sig. I had made that connection too, I think, perhaps only because we hear about Malfoy's eagle owl, and then this is the only other eagle owl I remember hearing about. It could be just the same breed, of course, but it sort of seems to stand out as meaning something since usually owls aren't identified by breed. (Hedwig, of course, is special.) It mostly interests me because, of course, I wonder about the significance of it. Is Barty knowingly using the Malfoy's owl as the sign of some private obsession? Is there something about the Malfoy's owl that would make it a better choice? I had always vaguely wondered if it were Draco's owl or the Malfoy family owl (which didn't actually live at Hogwarts), but checking back to PS I see the owl is described as Draco's own. I could certainly imagine Crouch wanting to use that one with thoughts of getting Lucius punished once Voldemort returned, taking a risk by using a specific students' owl. I don't know why I've always found that interesting, but I do. I think I've filed it away as something that might be subtly symbolic at the end of the series, if nothing else. Or perhaps something that could be used later as an animal Harry would recognize. -m From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 21:32:41 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:32:41 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165586 > > Neri: > > Agreed. However, the vow doesn't seem much more rational from the POV > > of ESE!Snape. True, ESE!Snape wouldn't mind killing Dumbledore, but as > > he says himself he's going against the Dark Lord's orders in making > > the vow. > > Pippin: > Not quite. Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape not to kill Dumbledore, he's > ordered him to let Draco try first. Neri: Not quite . Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape to let Draco try *first*. He has ordered Draco to do it, period. Snape (at least according to what he says in Spinner's End) is only guessing that Voldemort means him to do it in the end, and guessing what Voldemort would like is risky, a risk that ESE!Snape doesn't need to take. Snape taking this risk suggests he has an agenda of his own here. > Neri: > And moreover, he also puts himself in a big risk, because if > > Draco tries killing Dumbledore on his own and fails or gets hurt > > before Snape can reach them, then Snape is dead. So it looks like > > Snape has reasons of his own to make the vow, which by definition > > means OFH. > > Pippin: > Huh? If Snape doesn't take the vow, why should Draco's failure > mean his death? Or are you referring to the first two portions? They > require Snape to watch over Draco, and protect him *to the best of > his ability. * > Neri: I'm referring to the third part. The third part implies that if Draco tries to kill Dumbledore and fails, and Snape isn't present to step in and do the deed instead (say, because he's teaching or sleeping at the time) then he has broken the UV and he's dead, and there are no "to the best of your abilities" excuses in this part. Moreover, even if Draco merely manages to kill himself or blow his cover, *not* while actually attempting to kill Dumbledore, but for example killed by Harry during the bathroom scene, it could logically be argued that he has failed in his task. So again, if Snape wasn't present to do it instead, then he has broken the third part of the UV, "best abilities" or no, and he's dead. Yes, maybe the UV wouldn't consider Draco getting killed as a failure of his task, but does Snape want to make this experiment? Not unless he has good reasons to take this risk. > Neri: > > > > While I frequently sound like I'm joking when promoting ACID POPS, I > > must say that I don't know of any other theory that is even close to > > explaining why did Snape make the vow. And as a nice bonus ACID POPS > > also explains another unsolved mystery: what did Draco suddenly have > > against Snape in HBP, after liking him so much for five books. > > > > > Pippin: > Oh, LOLLIPOPS works just as well. Lollipops!Snape sees himself > in Narcissa. Her loyalty to the Dark Lord has endangered her > dearest blood, and Snape pities her. She's begging > for his help to save Draco, as once, perhaps, Snape begged > Dumbledore's help to save Lily. > > But unlike Dumbledore, who trusted Snape, Narcissa does not, > and asks for the vow. What can Snape do? If he refuses, that's as > good as saying she's right not to trust him. Who knows what > she'll do then? Neri: Sorry, not buying this stuff . DDM!Snape pities Narcissa, so his solution is to take a magical Vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself must end up dead? I reminds you we were looking for *rational* reasons. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 21:37:12 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:37:12 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <717521.1172773613228.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165587 > Bart: > Since Snape is no fool, then he should know that he has agreed to finish the job in killing Dumbledore. Which means that it was his intent, at the time of makng the vow, to kill Dumbledore. Therefore, assuming that JKR is "playing fair" with the reader, the ONLY explanation that fits DDM!Snape is that Dumbledore was only being kept temporarily alive (once again, the major clue is the unhealable arm). Note there was no time constraint, and it is not necessary to kill a man who has already been killed (unless you're a passenger on the Orient Express, that is). Neri: I think you need to make up your mind whether Dumbledore was "temporarily alive" or "already been killed". These are not a same thing at all, you know. Killing a man who has yet one month to live (or a day or an hour) is still murder. I don't see JKR justifying murder in her books because the victim was just temporarily alive. We are all just temporarily alive. So are you saying DDM!Snape made the Vow because he thought Dumbledore would die anyway before there will be need to kill him, but when the moment had finally arrived, it turned out that Dumbledore was not quite dead yet, so Snape had to help him a bit along his way? Sounds like lots of loopholes to me, and they're not required at all other than to get DDM!Snape out of the mess that JKR has put him in to begin with. I sincerely hope she can end the series and solve the Snape mystery in a more convincing way. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 21:44:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:44:57 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows/ DD death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165588 > Neri: > I think you need to make up your mind whether Dumbledore was > "temporarily alive" or "already been killed". These are not a same > thing at all, you know. Killing a man who has yet one month to live > (or a day or an hour) is still murder. I don't see JKR justifying > murder in her books because the victim was just temporarily alive. We > are all just temporarily alive. > > So are you saying DDM!Snape made the Vow because he thought Dumbledore > would die anyway before there will be need to kill him, but when the > moment had finally arrived, it turned out that Dumbledore was not > quite dead yet, so Snape had to help him a bit along his way? Alla: Heee, yes, I agree. That is also why in a way I also believe that she would not make DD die only from poison, if that makes sense. Sure, it would make for compelling story as well ( DD dying from poison that Harry fed him - DD orders or not), but unless we will be presented with fake AK, which I am not buying at all, at the moment that Snape fires AK, DD is still **alive**, temporarily or not. So, I do not see JKR reliving Snape of responsibility for making sure that DD is not alive anymore, whether cave drink was deadly poison or not. At the most, I can see her DD dying from both reasons, but I sure hope not of course. JMO, Alla From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 21:02:52 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:02:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <717521.1172773613228.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <717521.1172773613228.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001501c75c45$00d0c810$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165589 --Ronin's Comments-- My take on the UV is that Snape was backed into a corner. With Wormtail listening in and Bella already suspicious of him, he didn't have much choice but to accept the UV at the moment and hope to find a way out before the time came to follow through. He didn't seem to know the details of what Draco was ordered to do, but I'm sure he'd have known it was something drastic. If he had known the specifics of Draco's orders, he probably wouldn't have been interrogating Draco and telling him to let him help. He was very persistent, which is why Draco was accusing Snape of trying to steal his glory. None-the-less, Snape had to do something immediate and had to also consider that if he didn't accept Draco's life could be in jeopardy as well. There was no way that Dumbledore was going to walk away from that tower. Draco had plenty of time to kill him, but was obviously scared to death. With Fenrir Greyback and the others there (and Dumbledore weakened and wandless), someone was going to do it eventually. Snape had to be the one to do it in order to save Draco and satisfy the vow. If he'd seen the TWO broomsticks, he was probably saving Harry as well. How long would it have been before Greyback had caught the scent of Harry's blood? (His injured arm) I've just finished reading HBP again and several things struck me as curious. Snape knew that Harry had been using the book. I bet he knew it all along. There's a reason that Severus Snape was Harry's potions teacher for the past 5 years and there was something left to teach him which he learned from the book. I think the book was planted for Harry. I believe that Snape and Dumbledore knew that whatever the UV was, it was unavoidable and would make it impossible for Snape to stay at Hogwarts after it was satisfied. This is probably the reason that Dumbledore promoted Snape to DADA Teacher, KNOWING that the position was cursed by Voldemort. Most curious of all is how after killing Dumbledore, Snape doesn't duel with anyone. He doesn't kill Flitwick to keep him out of the way, but merely stuns him. As he's fleeing, he tries to get all the Death Eaters to stop fighting and follow him immediately out of the castle. He has the perfect opportunity to kill Harry, but doesn't even use any unforgivable or even aggressive curses on him. (He could've hurt Harry permanently or at least weakened him substantially without killing him if he was in fact worried that Voldemort wanted to do it himself.) Instead, he tells Harry that he WILL NOT use unforgivable curses on him, he will not use his own curses against him (Dark Arts). He even goes so far as to stop the Death Eaters behind Harry from harming him when they try to use Crucio on him. Then, in the midst of all of this, Snape is giving Harry final instructions; "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, (1st American Hard Cover Edition, pg. 603) In other words, Practice nonverbal spells and occlumency if you are to have a chance at defeating the Dark Lord. Never let yourself be tempted to use the dark arts against him. (This would also go with what Dumbledore was telling Harry was his greatest power. Never being seduced by the dark arts) If Snape REALLY WANTED to kill Dumbledore, he had plenty of opportunity. He knew that Dumbledore was after the horcruxes because he was the only one Dumbledore trusted to help him with his cursed injuries. So, if Severus were truly a Death Eater, he'd have stopped Dumbledore then by simply delaying his treatment or giving him the wrong treatment. (Saving his master's remaining horcruxes in the process and drawing less attention to himself) Just as if he'd REALLY hated Harry, he could've just let him be jinxed off his broom in the first year instead of working a counter-jinx. Or he could've been rid of the lot rather than throwing himself between the kids and the werewolf/Lupin. This gets me thinking that Snape was Harry's most important teacher all along. His job was to teach him the practical things, things that would save Harry's life and prepare him for the final duel with Lord Voldemort. And in doing this, he had to become as vile, loathed and hated by Harry as Lord Voldemort was, to teach Harry to use his emotions and to keep his head rather than attacking stupidly out of anger. Snape's job was the most important and dangerous of all of the Order members as well as the most thankless work. This is probably why he goes into a rage when Harry calls him a coward. (This was also why it had to be Severus, who taught Occlumency to Harry) Another thing that struck me is "Snape's Worst Memory". I don't think it's his worst memory because of how he was treated by that lot (although that doesn't add pleasantness to the incident). I'm thinking that it's his worst memory because he insults Lily and calls her a "Mudblood". He loses control of himself because of James Potter and says something so disgusting to someone I believe is very dear to him (and the only one who stood for him in the situation). At some point during their 6th year at Hogwarts, or even at the end of year 5, I believe that Severus and Lily became close. Maybe they became lab partners in potions class and collaborate on the notes together. She doesn't get any credit in the book (Unless it was altered), but there are some obvious clues to this collaboration in canon. Slughorn's praises for Lily's potions mastery, Hermione insisting that the Prince could've been a girl, etc. It also strikes me as odd that Harry didn't recognize the handwriting in the book when he's spent the past 5 years, seeing Snape's handwriting on the board in each potions class. Dumbledore trusted Snape without a doubt. He knew something that nobody else was aware of. Harry thinks he knows that it was because of the regret Snape felt when Voldemort used his information to go and kill James and Lily. But, I doubt Dumbledore would've trusted Snape based on that, without something MAJOR to back it up. It's my belief that we will find this out somehow in book 7, as this is a carrot that has been dangled in front of us for too long now for it not to be significant. (I also think that Lupin knows something he's not sharing. He acted very peculiar when Harry was going over the details of Dumbledore's murder, IMO.) Lastly, I don't think the news that Severus killed Dumbledore is going to go over too well with the Dark Lord. Snape makes Voldemort look like an incompetent fool. Lord Voldemort has feared Dumbledore for so long, only to have him killed by a servant. Not to mention the Death Eaters seeing the Dark Lord fail repeatedly against Harry Potter, a mere student of a wizard who isn't even licensed to apparate yet! It amazes me that they still fear him, let alone follow him. So, if I were Severus, I'd watch my back. To sum up my feelings of the Half Blood Prince; "What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger". I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on these ideas. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 21:57:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:57:10 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <001501c75c45$00d0c810$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165590 > --Ronin's Comments-- > My take on the UV is that Snape was backed into a corner. With Wormtail > listening in and Bella already suspicious of him, he didn't have much choice > but to accept the UV at the moment and hope to find a way out before the > time came to follow through. Alla: I have never understood this argument, frankly. He did not have much choice? When Bella is clearly IMO unhappy with Cissy telling her lord secrets? I thought at that moment Snape had a choice to tell her **no** and that would have been it. Again JMO. Ronin: > There was no way that Dumbledore was going to walk away from that tower. > Draco had plenty of time to kill him, but was obviously scared to death. > With Fenrir Greyback and the others there (and Dumbledore weakened and > wandless), someone was going to do it eventually. Snape had to be the one to > do it in order to save Draco and satisfy the vow. If he'd seen the TWO > broomsticks, he was probably saving Harry as well. How long would it have > been before Greyback had caught the scent of Harry's blood? (His injured > arm) Alla: IMO, we really really don't know that Dumbledore was doomed. For all we know, DD was hoping that Snape would cure him. And here we go, ooops. Ronin: He has the perfect > opportunity to kill Harry, but doesn't even use any unforgivable or even > aggressive curses on him. (He could've hurt Harry permanently or at least > weakened him substantially without killing him if he was in fact worried > that Voldemort wanted to do it himself.) Instead, he tells Harry that he > WILL NOT use unforgivable curses on him, he will not use his own curses > against him (Dark Arts). He even goes so far as to stop the Death Eaters > behind Harry from harming him when they try to use Crucio on him. Alla: That is of course also can be because he is saving Harry for Voldemort as instructed, or as OFH!Snape he is worried about his life debt, no? And I thought that he hurt Harry with that whiplashed curse, which did the job quite nicely - not killing Harry, but hurting him enough IMO. Ronin: > Then, in the midst of all of this, Snape is giving Harry final instructions; > "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut > and your mind closed, Potter!" - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, > (1st American Hard Cover Edition, pg. 603) > Alla: Sure, it is possible OR he gloats that Harry is unable to use Unforgivables, unable to beat him. Ronin: > If Snape REALLY WANTED to kill Dumbledore, he had plenty of opportunity. He > knew that Dumbledore was after the horcruxes because he was the only one > Dumbledore trusted to help him with his cursed injuries. So, if Severus were > truly a Death Eater, he'd have stopped Dumbledore then by simply delaying > his treatment or giving him the wrong treatment. (Saving his master's > remaining horcruxes in the process and drawing less attention to himself) Alla: Do we know that he did not give him wrong treatment I wonder? DD's arm was hurting, was it not? DD!M Snape theorists may say that it was impossible to heal completely, but for all I know that was exactly the story that Snape told DD and while just delaying his death all along. Ronin: > Just as if he'd REALLY hated Harry, he could've just let him be jinxed off > his broom in the first year instead of working a counter-jinx. Alla: Life debt. Ronin: Or he > could've been rid of the lot rather than throwing himself between the kids > and the werewolf/Lupin. Alla: I think that was in the movie, not in the book. Can be wrong. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 1 22:01:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:01:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows Message-ID: <21421630.1172786472264.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165591 Neri: >I think you need to make up your mind whether Dumbledore was >"temporarily alive" or "already been killed". These are not a same >thing at all, you know. Killing a man who has yet one month to live >(or a day or an hour) is still murder. I don't see JKR justifying >murder in her books because the victim was just temporarily alive. We >are all just temporarily alive. You aren't thinking about magic, here. In a world with Inferi, the line between life and death is not quite that fine. Consider, for example, a patient in a hospital whose system has pretty much shut down; they will stay alive only as long as CPR is maintained. The medical staff can't keep the CPR up forever, but, sometimes, if there is a strong reason for the paitent to stay alive for a bit longer (especially if the patient is conscious, such as saying goodbye to his/her loved ones), the medical staff will work to keep the patient alive. In other words, the patient is only alive because of extraordinary efforts by others. Given this, consider that Dumbledore was about to die from the ring, is only being kept alive by the extraordinary efforts of Prof. Snape. Prof. Snape cannot keep this up forever, and therefore Dumbledore, with Snape's reluctant cooperation, has decided to stall his actual death until it would do the most good. According to this theory, Snape is as responsible for killing Dumbledore as a doctor who ceases to give CPR to a patient with no prognosis of recovery is of killing his or her patient. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 22:07:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:07:25 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165592 > >>Bart: > > Since Snape is no fool, then he should know that he has > > agreed to finish the job in killing Dumbledore. Which means that > > it was his intent, at the time of makng the vow, to kill > > Dumbledore. Therefore, assuming that JKR is "playing fair" with > > the reader, the ONLY explanation that fits DDM!Snape is that > > Dumbledore was only being kept temporarily alive (once again, the > > major clue is the unhealable arm). Note there was no time > > constraint, and it is not necessary to kill a man who has already > > been killed (unless you're a passenger on the Orient Express, > > that is). > >>Neri: > I think you need to make up your mind whether Dumbledore was > "temporarily alive" or "already been killed". These are not a same > thing at all, you know. Killing a man who has yet one month to live > (or a day or an hour) is still murder. I don't see JKR justifying > murder in her books because the victim was just temporarily alive. > We are all just temporarily alive. Betsy Hp: You're forgetting the very important word "kept", I think. If Snape is artifically extending Dumbledore's life, through a spell or a potion or a combination of both, he would in effect "kill" Dumbledore by removing that support. Or, if the support is no longer viable (i.e. the strength of the curse finally overcomes the barrier set up by the spell/potion) and Dumbledore dies, the Vow is null and voided, because there is Dumbledore is not alive to kill. > >>Neri: > So are you saying DDM!Snape made the Vow because he thought > Dumbledore would die anyway before there will be need to kill him, > but when the moment had finally arrived, it turned out that > Dumbledore was not quite dead yet, so Snape had to help him a bit > along his way? Betsy Hp: Or the moment had arrived and Snape had to turn the death of his friend and mentor into a grisly play act. Or the moment had arrived, along with a great deal of pain, and Snape acted mercifully while pretending to be cruel. Or the moment had arrived and Snape honored Dumbledore's last wish and made sure Dumbledore's death had meaning. > Neri: > Sounds like lots of loopholes to me, and they're not required at all > other than to get DDM!Snape out of the mess that JKR has put him in > to begin with. I sincerely hope she can end the series and solve the > Snape mystery in a more convincing way. Betsy Hp: I don't know. I think the messier the better. We're looking for a rollicking good read after all. That's what all the impossible connections and loopholes (when Quirrell shook Harry's hand he *wasn't* wearing a turban!) help bring about, IMO. Betsy Hp From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 22:50:50 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:50:50 -0000 Subject: Lying and Cheating & Potions!Genius.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > All you need to do to see that I'm right is to look at the text. > Harry unwraps the new book from "Flourish and Blotts: > > "'Oh, good!" said Hermione, delighted. Now you can give that > graffitied copy back.' > > "'Are you mad?' said Harry. 'I'm keeping it. >snip< > > > Harry is, of course, rationalizing. Money can't buy the HBP's > brilliant hints and improvements. Note that this incident occurs > *before* he has tried out any of the spells, though he has noticed > "*what looked like spells* that the Prince had made up himself" (195). Valky Now: Yes, why shouldn't it be before he has tried out the spells. He *wants* to try out the spells, and for that he'll have to keep the book, No? Carol: > As far as > Harry is concerned, the HBP's book is what won him the bottle of > Felix Felicis, and for that reason alone, he doesn't want to give it > up (193). 'For that reason alone' is a bit loaded isn't it Carol. He'd just got the book that day, everyone wanted to check it out after he won the Felix so surprisingly, Hermione, Ron, even Ginny, were all curious about the mysterious book and wanted a closer look. Harry getting tetchy with them is more to do with the idea of everyone worrying about him and making a public scene of it. He is *required* to keep the book at that time, it is his prescribed text book. Nothing else really enters into that. Carol: > At this point, eighteen pages after he changes the book covers, he > has only tried out a few of the Prince's spells, including the > toenail hex, Langlock, and Muffliato, but the spells can't be the > *primary* reason that he wants to continue using the book, Valky: Why can't they be, when he knows they are there and he hasn't had time to read or try them yet? Why can't they at least be an equal reason. He wants to try and read everything in the book, the spells the hints and tips and the explanatory notes. And, yes, there are explanatory notes and he is studying the book, notes and all. --- Ch 15 --- He (Harry) bent a little lower over Advanced Potion-Making and continued to make notes on Everlasting Elixirs, occassionally pausing to decipher the Prince's useful additions to Libatius Borage's text. ------------ > > Carol earlier: > > > Look how desperate he is when he doesn't understand Golpalott's Law, > > > Valky: > > He's about to make his first attempt to ask Slughorn about the > Horcruxes. > > > > "this was a moment for desperate measures" (377). > > Carol responds: > You're taking this phrase out of the detailed context I provided > upthread, which I'll quote again in part: > > "It took Harry only five minutes to realize that his reputation as > the best potion-maker in the class was crashing around his ears. > Slughorn had peered hopefully into his cauldron on the first circuit > of the dungeon, preparing to exclaim in delight as he usually did, > and instead had withdrawn his head hastily, coughing, as the smell > of bad eggs overwhelmed him" (376). Valky: It's too much to quote but read the context surrounding that earlier in the day of this class. He tells Ron Dumbledore's request for him to ask Slughorn for the memory. Ron replies that it should be easy for Harry because of his reputation, and suggests he just stay back after class to ask. Harry then asks Hermione, who attempts to be helpful right up until the mention of Ron's name. At that point she snaps at Harry to just do what 'Won Won' says and gives Harry the cold shoulder. He tried to plan this out. His desperation was due to the only plan he had turning into a disaster. > Carol: > Granted, Harry is vaguely planning to ask Slughorn about the memory > after class, It's not vague, it's specific. He asks his friends for suggestions and ends up following Rons suggestion because Hermione refuses to talk to him or Ron, and even goes as far as moving over next to Ernie to avoid them. Carol: > the memory he makes one feeble attempt to request at the > end of the chapter and then forgets about for six weeks or so, Valky: He gets distracted when his best friend is very nearly the unintended victim of an assassin, that he is sure is Draco. And he is right about that, but unfortunately becomes obsessed with proving it. > Once he asks about it, Slughorn's expression is no longer > genial, and he looks shocked and terrified (379). Harry's being a > "Potions genius" has not helped him. Valky: I said that. But Harry didn't know before he asked that it wouldn't work. > Carol: > Slughorn continues to think of Harry as a Potions natural after this > point, and Harry continues to hide the source of his knowledge from > him: > > "'I really don't know where you get your brainwaves . . . Unless--' > > "Harry pushed the Half-Blood Prince's book deeper into his bag with > his foot" (475). > > Now, granted, Harry is still hoping to soften Slughorn up enough to > get the memory from him, but that's hardly the only reason he's > still using the book and hiding it from Slughorn. Valky: No it's not the only reason he's using it and hiding it, No, but reputation is not even nearly the main reason. He is trying to prevent Slughorn finding out to avoid the inevitable strife and loss of the book and revealing of his secrets he faces if a teacher does find out what is in it. > Even after he gets the > memory, he wants to keep the book because it's useful. He even uses > it for its real purpose once, looking up the formula for Felix > Felicis, which turns out to be too complicated to be concocted > quickly (518). > Shortly afterwards, he uses Sectumsempra on Draco and hides his book > so that Snape won't confiscate it and not only discover the true > source of the spell but reveal the secret of his Potions brilliance > to Slughorn: > > "[W]hat had the Prince een thinking to copy such a spell into his > book? And what would happen when Snape saw it? Would he tell > Slughorn--Harry's stomach churned--how Harry had been achieving such > good results in Potins all year?" (525) Valky: Yes, having your lie blown wide open is a scary thought. But Harry is frequently inaccurate in his assumptions of how people will react to situations. He doesn't know what Slughorn will do if he finds out the notes in the book were behind it all, but he does know how high this tower of lies has been built and doesn't want the consequences of it falling. Carol: > Regarding the confrontation with Voldemort as Harry's primary > motive, he doesn't even think about it, as far as we know, between > the conversation in the Weasleys' shed and the revelation of the > eavesdropper's identity, except in terms of the Horcrux lessons. Valky: Becoming obsessed with the idea that Draco Malfoy is a Death Eater, roaming Hogwarts and trying to kill someone isn't worrying about the situation with Voldemort? As for not thinking about it between Horcrux lessons, that's a bit harsh, considering he has a huge school workload that he is trying to juggle with being captain of the Quidditch team (which is an honour that he loves but doesn't have much energy for) and still he's making incredible progress in understanding Voldemort's history and psychology. It's not even fair to bring his feelings for Ginny into this, Love doesn't ask if you're too busy, and it doesn't wait if you are. Throughout the book Harry gradually blows off one thing after the other that lacks importance in the greater scheme of his life. Including Quidditch eventually and ultimately Ginny in the last Chapter. It starts with using inferior notes to learn from, when he clearly does not have to. > Carol, who thinks that the upcoming confrontation with Voldemort is > far from being Harry's primary motivation for using and hiding the > HBP's book > Valky: The primary motivation I see, as I said before, is that the book is valuable. His primary motivation for keeping things which are useful, although they may be dangerous and pose a threat to his good standing, instead of choosing those things that are less useful by virtue of following some law which is arbitrary in the scheme of his life, is that he has a very short time before he confronts Voldemort. This is not an easy choice to make. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 22:50:26 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:50:26 -0000 Subject: On lying and cheating (was:Lying vs Murder (was:Re: On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165594 > >>Mike: > Playing the Advocate can cloud your meaning. What I meant was that > this supposed connection re potions causes *Harry* to realize how > much Slughorn loved Lily. I.E. it allowed Harry to figure out to > use his mom as the leverage point with Slughorn. > > This is where Harry's potions rep is used to advance his cause. And > had he not got the potions rep, Sluggy wouldn't have been > constantly comparing him to his mom. It's not a matter of Sluggy > being won over, it's a matter of Harry learning of Sluggy's soft > spot for Lily. > Betsy Hp: But it's another unintended consequence. So again, Harry does something stupid (lies) but luckily it turns out to give him a brain storm on how to get in good with Slughorn? Is that supposed to reflect well on him? Moving away from the comparison with Snape ('cause I think that's been played out, personally ) I don't see anything to admire Harry for here. It's like he left a rake lying around, stepped on it, got hit in the head, and happened to notice a bag of money stuck up in a tree while he was flat on his back on the ground. Lucky for Harry and all, but nothing to point at and say "well played", etc. > >>Mike: > > Harry neither seeks nor really wants this potions rep with > Slughorn, therefore I don't see it as something that Harry should > be held accountable for. > Betsy Hp: Of course Harry should be held accountable! It's *Harry's* actions that got the whole ball rolling. Whether or not Slughorn was predisposed to love whatever Harry got up to is of no consequence. Harry cannot control that. But Harry *can* control himself, so of course he should be held accountable for his own actions. I went back and looked at the scene where the lie first starts. And I will say JKR made it very hard on Harry. He starts off innocently enough (if you can term his overwhelming obsession with Draco innocent ) attempting to beat (or maybe even just match at this point) Draco's Draught of Living Death. (I'll point out that not once do any thoughts of beating Voldemort enter Harry's head.) Harry runs into some difficulty and tries one of the Prince's suggestions and it works beautifully. He follows a few more tips and is "elated" to find that his potion is the best. At this point I'd even give Harry credit for his willingness to experiment a bit. Enter Slughorn. "The clear winner!" he cried to the dungeon. "Excellent, excellent, Harry! Good lord, it's clear you've inherited your mother's talent. She was a dab hand at Potions, Lily was! Here you are, then, here you are -- one bottle of Felix Felicis, as promised, and use it well!" [HBP scholastic p.191] And here's where JKR makes it hard. Slughorn doesn't question Harry at all about how he figured out the best way to make the potion. So there's no *easy* moment where Harry could have said, "Oh there are some hand-written notes here that I followed." Harry had to take the initiative, and he passively chose not to. (Though he does lie to Ron in order to keep the Slytherins' from finding out. It's then that the Prince officially becomes Harry's secret. Something only his closest friends know about.) But this was the time to stop the lie (natural talent on Harry's part) and Harry says nothing. So badly done Harry, IMO. A lesson yet to be learned (unfortunate for Harry, but probably good for us readers ). Slughorn makes an assumption, but Harry allows it to grow. And that's what I hold Harry accountable for. > >>Mike: > More and more I'm convinced that the proper perspective is the > Grand Scheme of things that Valky is espousing, and that Steve and > Geoff (and myself) have added onto. Harry's focus with Dumbledore > and his lesson's is so far beyond his desire for his potion's rep > that it doesn't register as a concern. > Betsy Hp: The proper perspective if you desire neverbadneverwrong!Harry (tm Kemper). But this perspective does mean the boy's an a**hole who could care less for his friends. Both Hermione and Ron are totally unamused by his fake "potion's genius" rep. With both Ron and Hermione scowling at him from the sidelines Harry would need to be pretty self-absorbed to not register that he's lying. (Probably why he spends so much time crying in the boys' bathroom... oh, wait... ) Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 23:57:40 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:57:40 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165595 Betsy Hp: > You're forgetting the very important word "kept", I think. If Snape is artifically extending Dumbledore's life, through a spell or a potion or a combination of both, he would in effect "kill" Dumbledore by removing that support. Or, if the support is no longer viable (i.e. the strength of the curse finally overcomes the barrier set up by the spell/potion) and Dumbledore dies, the Vow is null and voided, because there is Dumbledore is not alive to kill. Ceridwen: Could some ingredient in the potion acted as a caustic agent on whatever spell or potion Snape used to prevent the spread of Dumbledore's curse injury? That is, if Snape wasn't able to actually *cure* the damage, but instead, contain the damaging magic, in the hand which was already damaged beyond repair? I've been thinking about this, and keep coming back to a couple of different possibilities. One, which would come under what I just suggested, is that the potion re-activated the curse from the ring because (in this idea) Voldemort's curses are sympathetic to each other. If they "detect" (not consciously, of course, but are influenced in some way by) the presence of another Voldemort curse, they may be designed to work in concert with one another. Another idea, which I've seen mentioned by other posters, is that the potion was part of a mixture to create Inferi. Alone, it would kill the drinker, but it also created a monumental thirst. The water, on the skin or ingested (I like the skin contact theory that someone mentioned earlier, was that zgirnius?) would act as a catalyst for the potion and the two together would create an Inferus. And as the blended potion begins to work, the new "recruit" is pulled under the water by the other Inferi and so joins them. The reason I wondered about the last one, that of the potion or potion and water combination creating an Inferus, is because of the Inferus that leaped out of the water at Harry's "Accio". That was an eye-catching event, and I'm wondering if it was put in just for atmosphere and foreshadowing of what's in the lake, or if it had some other significance. Ceridwen. From krazylil_kittykat at msn.com Thu Mar 1 22:42:29 2007 From: krazylil_kittykat at msn.com (damned_ugly4life) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:42:29 -0000 Subject: The Note signed only R. A. B. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165596 Hey guys, I'm slightly new. By that I mean I'm new to this group but not to Yahoo groups and I hope this hasn't been discussed yet. I have been dying to know if any of it makes sense or even if I'm on to something. Page 609 in the book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: Harry found and figured out that the locket that he and Dumbledore had risked their lives for hours before Dumbledore's death was a fake locket with a message inside signed only with R.A.B. Which is my first clue: obviously this Person's intials are R.A.B. There are other clues within the short note when he pronounced himself a man by calling himself HE. Second clue: this Person was a Man. And that he knew he would be dead before the Dark Lord read the note. Third clue: he is dead obviously before or during the time that Voldemort was creating or had finished splitting his soul. Notice how he called him Dark Lord not Tom Riddle, not He Who Must Not Be Named, and not Lord Voldemort, meaning he himself was a Death Eater because they are the only ones who call him by that name. Fourth clue: he is a Death Eater. After thinking for a short time of how many Death Eaters were traitors obviously dead way before the most recent book I thought about the Blacks and Sirius' Brother Regulus. The book didn't really say what he did to become a traitor to the Death Eaters but seeing how Dumbledore knew and he had said to Harry that he has known about these Horcruxes for years makes me think that maybe Sirius or Regulus had told him about these Horcruxes before one of them died. In the end of the note it said he'd faced death in hope that Voldemort would be MORTAL once more so if he had gotten the locket and Dumbledore had gotten the Family's Ring and Harry the diary from his second year, could Regulus have gotten to the Cup or Something related to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor and of course that would only leave The Snake, Nagini? damned_ugly4life From bluzcat2 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 23:10:20 2007 From: bluzcat2 at yahoo.com (bluzcat2) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:10:20 -0000 Subject: The four Deathly Hallows Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165597 The Cup ( seen in OotP), The Stone (The Necklace), The Sword ( Gryffindors), and The Spear ( a wand most likely and the last to be revealed). I don't believe Harry is a Horcrux - more likely Voldemort's wand became one. Just a simple Theory. bluzcat2 From bgrugin at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 23:42:11 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:42:11 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <001501c75c45$00d0c810$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165598 > --Ronin's Comments-- > It also strikes me as odd that Harry didn't recognize the > handwriting in the book when he's spent the past 5 years, seeing > Snape's handwriting on the board in each potions class. MusicalBetsy here: Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! When you've had a teacher for a long amount of time, you KNOW what their handwriting looks like, and I don't think an older high school kid's handwriting is going to look a lot different 20 years or so later. So why doesn't Harry recognize it? Is it to just to make the plot move along, or is it something more significant, like it was someone else's, Snape's collaborator possibly (Lily? - although I can't see her doing a spell for her enemies!). Ronin: > Dumbledore trusted Snape without a doubt. He knew something that > nobody else was aware of. Harry thinks he knows that it was because > of the regret Snape felt when Voldemort used his information to go > and kill James and Lily. But, I doubt Dumbledore would've trusted > Snape based on that, without something MAJOR to back it up. It's my > belief that we will find this out somehow in book 7, as this is a > carrot that has been dangled in front of us for too long now for it > not to be significant. (I also think that Lupin knows something > he's not sharing. He acted very peculiar when Harry was going over > the details of Dumbledore's murder, IMO.) MusicalBetsy again: I've also always felt that way about why Dumbledore trusts Snape - when Harry tells everyone Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape, it seemed so...stupid. Like it just wasn't enough...and I don't think it is; in fact, I'm SURE there's got to be more to it that we don't know yet. As for the Lupin connection, I'll have to reread that - I didn't notice that at all. Thanks for the good comments, Ronin! MusicalBetsy, who is beginning to get very anxious for July to come around. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 2 00:44:43 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:44:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Arsenius Jigger Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165599 Re: Discussions of whether or not Snape used a potions textbook and, also, whether or not he participated in DE atrocities directly or "slithered out of action". I've started re-reading the series from the beginning. I recently came across Harry's list of course books again in chapter 5, and I enjoyed the humorous names of textbook authors. My favorite: _Magical Theory_ by Adalbert Waffling (She oughta know!) Emeric Switch (_A Beginner's Guide to Transfiguration_) and Phyllida Spore (_One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi_) are obvious plays on the subject matter. But when I got to _The Dark Forces: A Guide to Self-Protection_ by Quentin Trimble, I thought that the author's name seemed to point to Quirrel as much as it did to the subject of DADA, so I decided to take another look at Arsenius Jigger. I know the conventional wisdom is that "Arsenius" sounds like arsenicum-arsenic and a jigger is a measuring glass for liquor, but I wanted to see if there were other possibilities. http://www.answers.com/topic/jigger (in addition to shot glass) One who jigs, as in a dancer or worker on a sailing ship Slang for a person who acts as a lookout while a crime or other forbidden act (e.g., adultery) takes place >From Wikipedia: Saint Arsenius-tutor to the sons of Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I the Great. He lived in great pomp in Constantinople, but all the time felt a growing inclination to renounce the world. After praying long to be enlightened as to what he should do, he allegedly heard a voice saying "Arsenius, flee the company of men, and thou shalt be saved." Thereupon he embarked secretly for Alexandria, and hasted to adopt the life of a hermit in the deserts of Libya at Scetis. During the fifty-five years of his solitary life he was always the most meanly clad of all, thus punishing himself for his former seeming vanity in the world. At all times copious tears of devotion fell from his eyes. [Dare I mention the forbidden medium. Every time I've seen GoF The Movie, the rain spattered stained glass window behind Neville has made me think of Snape.] He lived to be a hundred. Arsenius Autorianus--He received his education in Nicaea at a monastery of which he later became the abbot, though not in orders. Subsequently he gave himself up to a life of solitary asceticism in a Bithynian monastery, and is said, probably wrongly, to have remained some time in a monastery on Mount Athos. Interesting that both Arseniuses were ascetics. I believe someone on the list (Sorry, I can't remember who) made a point about Snape's monk-like qualities. houyhnhnm From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 2 00:53:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:53:42 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165600 MusicalBetsy here: > Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! > When you've had a teacher for a long amount of time, > you KNOW what their handwriting looks like, and I don't > think an older high school kid's handwriting is going > to look a lot different 20 years or so later. So why > doesn't Harry recognize it? Is it to just to make the > plot move along, or is it something more significant, > like it was someone else's, Snape's collaborator > possibly (Lily? - although I can't see her doing a > spell for her enemies!). houyhnhnm: Harry is sometimes a little slow on the uptake, as when it took him a year to figure out it Dumbledore's voice he heard in Petunia's howler. On the other hand, I still suspect that Snape may *not* be the HBP. I don't think it's Lily, though, because she's dead. > MusicalBetsy, who is beginning to get very anxious for July to come > around. houyhnhnm: I can't wait. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Mar 2 00:56:14 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:56:14 -0000 Subject: /On the trivial and the Profound/Lying & Cheating In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: Hi Magpie. I think you and I are finding more and more level ground between us a we go along here. > > Magpie: > Harry's perceived greatness might not be important in the general > scheme of things, I agree, but that doesn't take away from the > importance it does have. Valky: Yes, I agree with you. It takes nothing away from the importance it does have, it's just that importance registers rather more as a dot than a blot on the blueprint of all in Harry Potter's life. That's not to say Harry doesn't create himself a big ugly blot in the picture, because he does indeed. Hermione warned him of what he was doing wrong often enough, but that was one of his major faults in what he was doing, if he had just countered with a little more respect, compassion and most of all trust in the feelings of his friends, he would have taken Hermiones advice and acted more cautiously as Hermione suggested. "Be careful", she said over, and over again. This was the advice he needed, but failed to really take on. And it was that, not the undeserved reputation, which was really the big blot in his thinking. Instead of being cautious, in his assumptions, in how far he was willing to take an advantage and run with it, in how deeply he was going to delve into the unknown; he sprinted head on into it, and that was his mistake. The rest that he did, the basis of what he did, as far as I can see, was all well justified, to a point, a point which he did overstep. Magpie: > Harry himself has certainly noted this sort > of thing as being wrong when he's not the one benefitting from it. > Maybe he gets over it, as he should, and doesn't become obsessed > with it, but it's not like he's above noting unfairness himself. Valky: Yes he is noticing the unfairness, and he's feeling some guilt about it too. And there's no doubt, if someone else was doing it, not to his benefit, it would bother him, with Snape's potions class as a good example of that. He does get over it, and ultimately with Snape, it's the death of Sirius coupled with the invasiveness and distressing events of the Occlumency lessons, that produces the unbridgeable rift between them, not the petty things in class which are a bother and an irritation, but are never all that deeply cutting in Harry's mind. Magpie: > There are a lot of things people do in these books that have limited > importance in the general sense but are very important for their > character. Valky: Absolutely. The only part where I disagree here is the part where following the academic rules to the letter would have been better for Harry's character, it wouldn't have been. But taking a few cues from his guilt would have lead him to balance Hermione's reminders of reason with his appetite for progress that Ron was backing so strongly in him. I'm saying the appetite was a good thing, but he really did indulge it in an unbalanced way. While Hermione on the other hand, alone with her reason, seemed to get too involved with that as well, and a lot of what was to offer in the textbook either did, or very nearly did, go begging. A little caution and a little less jumping the gun, would have been good for Harry's character here. And as you said further down in your post, Harry did buckle under the temptations that were offered by the book - an easier time in a difficult class, mentions of his mother, rewards he might otherwise not have gained like the Felix Felicis (which was nothing short of a fluke incident). He was tempted to try to make these histories repeat themselves beyond the point where it was reasonable to go. Keeping the book, was reasonable, learning from it to an advantage in magic class, also reasonable given the circumstances, but losing himself in it to the point where he expected it to perform daily miracles for him, that crossed the line as far as I am concerned. Notice where I draw the line though, it's not at the point where any, technical or otherwise, definition of cheating or plagarism exists, it's beyond that point by a fair margin. > Magpie: > I don't think the examples you've already given have been convincing > at all of what you seem to be claiming. Of course there are places > in the text where Harry is concerned with these things. Valky: Yes, that was my point. That there are places in the text where he is thinking about these things. Just as there are places where he is thinking about other things. I'm sorry, I thought I was countering the notion that he wasn't thinking about them at all. Magpie: > When he is, > he says so. But one of the characteristics of HBP is the way Harry > is juggling a number of different concerns and flips from one to the > other. Valky: I agree with that. His focus is erratic and haphazard. He's not clear on what he needs to focus on. This I think is a very strong indication that he is troubled throughout HBP by the calling of his future with Voldemort. Up until the last few chapters (until Ch 23) what that calling is, is a complete mystery to him. It makes perfect sense that he'd be just feeling around for something and acting pretty lost before that. Magpie: > When you step back and look at the whole thing, imo, you do > not get a Harry who's based around thinking he's going to die and > that he must prepare for the fight against Voldemort as much as > possible. Valky: Hmmm I disagree somewhat. If you take into account as I said, that he is dealing with a mystery future that he doesn't know how to prepare for, it does start to look that way. In his first lesson with Dumbledore he asks what DD is going to teach him, and he asks, will it help me to.. survive? It's never that he doesn't care or has a relaxed attitude about all of that which he faces, but what can he do when he doesn't know what he is facing. Make the same mistakes that he did in OOtP over again? > Magpie: > Harry has just been given a task of getting the memory from > Slughorn. He asks Slughorn for the memory and he gets upset. Harry > figures he'll lay off it for a while and vaguely plans to "attack" > him at some point in the future. Valky: It's not really all that vaguely here either. He plans to lull Slughorn into a false sense of security. He hangs upon the next invitation coming so he can ask, and when it doesn't come, and Slughorn continues to seem to be avoiding him he reviews that plan thinking that perhaps Slughorn hasn't so easily forgotten the situation despite appearances. Hermione tries to look it up for him and finds nothing... and then almost immediately after in the first apparition lesson Harry is distracted by a clue about what Draco is up to, and that is when he begins to neglect the asking about the memory spending the whole rest of the month spying on Draco's movements. Magpie: > Harry's considering > going to one of Slughorn's parties, "even if he had to reschedule > Quidditch practice." As if Quidditch practice has importance too. Valky: LOL, yes I get your point. But he loves Quidditch, and Slughorn is so creepy and his parties are just so smarmy, it's a thought so distasteful to him, much like the idea of blowing off Ron to have a cuppa with Snape, that he notes it as a serious consideration. He has his priorities mixed up, yes, but I get the feeling it is at least somewhat in this way, as opposed to the importance of the memory compared to Quidditch. Magpie: > Harry is thinking about getting the memory, but he doesn't sound > that harried about it to me. He's deciding to do nothing for a > while. Valky: Yes, not a good decision, and he does review it. But overall, it is indicative of a half-hearted effort, I agree. Magpie: > As to the bezoar scene itself, I would also point out that the way > the scene is written, Harry connects the bezoar to "softening > Slughorn up" only afterwards, in response to Ron's complaints about > not sharing the tip--just as, iirc, he pulls out "Maybe there's > something in there that will help me with Voldemort" in response to > Hermione's scoldings. The entire scene leading up to the use of the > bezoar is focused not on Harry worrying about not getting the memory > but "annoyed" and "irritated" at Hermione's smugness at watching him > struggle without the Prince. In fact, when Harry finds the bezoar > note, it's not out of desperation, but irritation: "[Hermione] was > now decanting and mysterious separated ingredients....More to avoid > watching this irritating sight than anyting else, Harry ent over the > Half-Blood Prince's bok and turned a few pages with unneccesary > force. And there it was, scrawled right across a long list of > antidotes." > > It's understandable, imo, that many of us see Harry as being a > normal student in Potions. I honestly think he's written that way. > It's just that rather than being driven by an ambition to be the > best in class, Harry is driven to avoid the embarassment and > annoyance of being found out. Valky: Yes, I will concede that element is strong in the text. I think it's more a case of him confusing the two ideas than coldly covering up a guilty purpose with a non-existent idealistic purpose. The idealistic purpose exists, he planned to hold to it prior to the class. It is somewhere in the moment in class where he gets the wires crossed and begins to go down the ego road rather than the one he intended to go down. Indicative here is him buckling under the temptations of the book, as you said. I don't believe that is why he keeps and hides the book, though. It's definitely an element of why he crosses the line of whats reasonable and what's greedy or corrupt, after having kept the book for fairly benevolent reasons. Valky. From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 01:09:47 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:09:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: References: <001501c75c45$00d0c810$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: <001401c75c67$98a670a0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165602 --MusicalBetsy Wrote-- >>> Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! When you've had a teacher for a long amount of time, you KNOW what their handwriting looks like, and I don't think an older high school kid's handwriting is going to look a lot different 20 years or so later. So why doesn't Harry recognize it? Is it to just to make the plot move along, or is it something more significant, like it was someone else's, Snape's collaborator possibly (Lily? - although I can't see her doing a spell for her enemies!). <<< --Ronin's Comments-- Actually, looking at this a little more carefully that's a good point about Lily not writing a spell for enemies. But, maybe if the notes were by both of them it would also explain why Harry doesn't recognize the handwriting. He's thinking that it's one person and the writing keeps changing so that it's hard to tell who's it is. Although, he does see Snape's tiny handwriting when he sees him taking his OWLs. Another thing I've just thought of is in that scene (Flight of the Prince), Harry tries to use levicorpus on Snape and Snape tells him that he will not use his own spells like his filthy father did. It was Snape's 5th year when James was seen using levicorpus on Snape. So, either Snape was in an advanced potions class for his age or they used the same book for OWLs as they are now using for NEWTs, 20 some years later. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 01:05:01 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:05:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's accio in the cave Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165603 Reading Ceridwen's recent post re:Unbreakable Vows made me think about something... Harry and DD assumed that a real horcrux was at the center of the lake in the cave. When Harry's summoning charm did not work was it because the potion in the basin would not allow the removal of the locket or because the locket was not a real horcrux? If a real horcrux had been there would Accio have worked? It doesn't really matter now that it's all and done with but it's an interesting thought. Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 02:26:04 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:26:04 -0000 Subject: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165604 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: LV can possess animals and > humans, but he doesn't have his own body. He needs one of those to be > able to perform his own magic. In the mean time he is sort of a > ghost, but less so. In fact "less than the meanest ghost". Not sure > what if any reason JKR had for adding the adjective "meanest". Dondee comments: In my good old Merriam-Webster, mean is defined as humble, or lacking in power. Also ordinary, shabby, and contemptable. LV was therefore less than the humblest and least powerful ghost. Pretty pathetic considering that about all ghosts can do is appear suddenly out of chalkboards, make you cold when they pass through you and, lest we forget, moan and groan ;) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 2 02:34:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:34:18 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165605 > > Pippin: > > Not quite. Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape not to kill Dumbledore, he's > > ordered him to let Draco try first. > > Neri: > Not quite . Voldemort hasn't ordered Snape to let Draco try > *first*. Pippin: "He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco should try first. You see, in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy." --HBP ch 2 > Neri: > I'm referring to the third part. The third part implies that if Draco > tries to kill Dumbledore and fails, and Snape isn't present to step in > and do the deed instead (say, because he's teaching or sleeping at the > time) then he has broken the UV and he's dead, and there are no "to > the best of your abilities" excuses in this part. Pippin: But there's nothing about instantaneous action, either. Draco fails with the necklace and the poison, fails to fix the cabinet for months on end, Dumbledore continues to live, yet Snape doesn't fall dead on the spot. The vow puts no time limit on Snape's performance, which makes it a poor contract. Narcissa needs a better lawyer Snape, OTOH, is a DADA specialist -- he probably knows a whole lot more about the Unbreakable Vow and its operations than Narcissa does, and certainly more than we do. Narcissa herself put a loophole in it, as you say, to keep Snape from having to kill Dumbledore at once. And if there's one, there may be others that Snape thought of and she didn't. You don't like loopholes, because Snape being forced to do the deed makes a better story. But only if the story is about Snape. If the story is about Harry, then it's better if there is a loophole and Harry refuses to see it. In a bildungsroman, the hero's chief antagonist is not the villain, though villains there may be. The chief antagonist is the hero's immature self. > > Neri: > Sorry, not buying this stuff . DDM!Snape pities Narcissa, so his > solution is to take a magical Vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself > must end up dead? I reminds you we were looking for *rational* reasons. Pippin: What's so rational about "Snape has the hots for Narcissa, so he takes a vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself must wind up dead"? Either way, he has an emotional bias towards helping her, which he can rationalize by telling himself that Narcissa must have information vital to the Order. Once he's convinced himself of that, the rest follows. Ask yourself, would Harry have risked his life to convince Dumbledore that Draco had discovered a viable method of smuggling Death Eaters into the school? If Harry promised to kill Dumbledore or die, would he have any intention of killing Dumbledore rather than dying? That's the DDM! mindset. Pippin From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 02:03:19 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:03:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >> I'm re-re-re-re-reading GoF, and I'm curious about what other posters think of the point of view in the two dream chapters. In OoP, when Harry's dreaming or hallucinating, he always sees from Voldemort's pov (or Nagini's, when LV is possessing her). << >> >> But in GoF, the first dream is from the pov of an unknown Muggle, Frank Bryce, who dies at the end of the dream, not from Voldemort's pov. << Dondee responds: We are dealing with two perspectives here, Frank's real time experiences and Harry's dream. We don't know when Harry started dreaming or, more to the point, where he started dreaming. I think that Harry's dream started in the room with LV and Wormtail and then they were joined by Nagini and shortly after by Frank. Harry doesn't know Frank is there until LV does IMO, but we, the readers, are introduced to him and the story about the Riddles beforehand. Carol continues: >> In the second dream, Harry is riding on the back of the eagle owl that Fake!Moody has sent to inform Voldemort that he's murdered his father, Mr. Crouch. << Dondee responds: This one is harder to explain away. Here is my admittedly flimsy reasoning... Harry is in Trelawney's room - a place predisposed to psychic phenomina (however questionable)and full of whatever the heck is in those perfumed fumes. He is overtired and preoccupied from the whole Crouch thing, he falls asleep. Could it be that due to his preoccuped thoughts and psychic vulnerability due to lack of sleep and the fumes that he sort of astral projects? He is preoccupied with Crouch, LV is preoccupied with Crouch, the eagle is sending word about Crouch. Is the part of Harry's mind thats tuned into LV zooming to where LV is along side, or astride, the eagle thats zooming along to LV with an important message? Flimsy ::sigh:: But, I do think I'm right about the first dream. Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 02:53:10 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:53:10 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <21421630.1172786472264.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165607 > Bart: > You aren't thinking about magic, here. In a world with Inferi, the line between life and death is not quite that fine. Consider, for example, a patient in a hospital whose system has pretty much shut down; they will stay alive only as long as CPR is maintained. The medical staff can't keep the CPR up forever, but, sometimes, if there is a strong reason for the paitent to stay alive for a bit longer (especially if the patient is conscious, such as saying goodbye to his/her loved ones), the medical staff will work to keep the patient alive. In other words, the patient is only alive because of extraordinary efforts by others. Given this, consider that Dumbledore was about to die from the ring, is only being kept alive by the extraordinary efforts of Prof. Snape. Prof. Snape cannot keep this up forever, and therefore Dumbledore, with Snape's reluctant cooperation, has decided to stall his actual death until it would do the most good. > > According to this theory, Snape is as responsible for killing Dumbledore as a doctor who ceases to give CPR to a patient with no prognosis of recovery is of killing his or her patient. Neri: Hmmm, an interesting analogy, although I'm not sure how accurate. I think the situation you describe is mainly relevant to unconscious patients who are not expected to regain consciousness before they die. I believe that in most western states a doctor who deliberately stops CPR to a fully conscious patient would be accused of something, possibly murder. But lets work with this analogy a bit, try to make it more relevant. Suppose that the patient receiving CPR is the supreme commander during a war, and that commander knows critical war secrets that nobody else knows, and he's engaged in a critical war operation. Now, should we stop CPR to such a patient while he's still fully conscious, and capable of making critical decisions and contributing important information? The issue now is much more than the life of that patient alone. Maintaining him alive may save many other lives. Now add another detail: That doctor who decided to stop CPR to the above patient, several months previously he signed a contract to kill him, with the understanding that if he doesn't, he'd die himself. The doctor's reasons for signing this contract are very unclear. Perhaps he was making the calculation that the patient is going to die anyway so the murder wouldn't be necessary to save the doctor's life. However, at the moment when the doctor actually decided to stop CPR, the patient was still fully conscious and potentially helpful to the war effort, yet because of that contract the doctor had to stop CPR in order to stay alive himself. Now the doctor's decision to stop CPR starts looking really problematic from the ethical point of view. Can you say conflicting interests? And to another complicating factor: it appears that the timing of the doctor's decision to stop CPR was very dependent on the unpredictable actions of a certain teenager who was connected with a certain terror organization. Whenever that teenager would decide to call in the members of the terror organization, the doctor would have to stop CPR if he wants to save his own life, regardless of the status of the patient and the war situation. The doctor's decision appears more and more problematic. Now to an interesting background detail (are you still with me?): the distinguished doctor himself was a member in that terror organization, and he's currently a double agent with somewhat questionable loyalties. And he has decided to stop CPR without consulting any other doctor and without any apparent examination of the patient. Oh yes, and before I forget, the doctor's method of stopping CPR was, ahem, somewhat unconventional: he shot his patient in the chest and threw him off a high building. (There were a few additional ethical complications but I think this should be quite enough for the moment). Now, if the doctor in this analogy is prosecuted, I really have no clue if he'd be found guilty of murder, manslaughter, unethical conduct, sheer irresponsibility, or just giving the jury a terrible headache. But this isn't the point. We're not in court here, and this isn't a university philosophy course discussing medical ethics. This is a story, the last book in an adventure series, and it requires a solution to a big mystery: is the "doctor" one of the good guys or one of the bad guys? And the solution should be presented in a surprising and engaging way, feel believable in the frame of the Potterverse, make for a good story, shouldn't be too problematic morally, preferably take less than three chapters to explain, shouldn't require the reader to have a 150 IQ to comprehend, and hopefully answer some other mysteries of the series. But it seems to me that the only real achievement of the above theory is to (more or less) acquit Snape of the guilt of killing Dumbledore. If I had the impression that JKR really really likes Snape I might actually consider that she would go to such length just to acquit him, but unfortunately I don't get that impression from her at all. So, unless someone can come up with a *much* less problematic DDM!Snape theory, I'm looking for the solution in more profitable directions. Neri From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 02:57:00 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:57:00 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165608 Snow: > > In a likewise manner, if Snape understands the terms agreed to during > the Vow to be something other than what was actually meant (a > loophole) then he could accept the conditions without detriment. > > The third stipulation to the Vow allows for such a loophole: > > "And, should it prove necessary ... if it seems Draco will fail ..." > [...] > > "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to > perform?" Neri: I personally don't like this looking for loopholes. The Vow scene is a very dramatic one, and would be cheapened by this or that loophole. Moreover, if it was the only loophole required to save Snape from the blame of killing Dumbledore, it might have been worth it. But for that you also need several additional loopholes on the tower, and the combined effect would IMO amount to poor writing on JKR's side. Especially since she give us very little information on the UV magic. Snow: I'm not actually looking for loopholes; they just seem to appear to me like huge question marks. I can not get my head around the fact that Draco seems to be so very confident that he can kill Dumbledore at the beginning, when (as you say yourself further down) Voldemort has never succeeded in doing so. What would make Draco feel so confident in the deed assigned to him if in fact it was to kill Dumbledore at his own hand? As others have noticed, as well as me, Draco seemed to be quite pre- occupied with the cabinets if his main objective was to kill Dumbledore "himself" from the get go. Granted, attempts were made on Dumbledore's life but they were quite feeble attempts, like his heart really wasn't in it, if Dumbledore was `his' main objective. Then we have Draco's meltdown where he was allowing himself to be consoled by a muggleborn ghost, what changed, where's mister-cocky- attitude now? After this we have Draco's whoops in the Room of Requirement as if he just felt he had won the big prize and yet he is no closer to killing Dumbledore (himself) than he was before. Was Draco just under some delusional concept all along that he would never have to kill Dumbledore at all, that the Deatheaters would be there to help fulfill his assignment? That wouldn't be cocky that would be stupid. As far as the Vow itself, concerning loopholes, JKR has already established that fact when the stipulations to the Vow were so vague in content compounded by out of character responses from a youngster who has presumably been assigned the task of killing the greatest wizard of his time. This is the biggest question mark of all. It just doesn't fit well for me. Here's a question for you though, if any part of the Vow has been fulfilled would that fulfill the entire Vow? The second stipulation to the Vow has already been procured when Snape saved Draco from Harry's sectemsempra spell. We don't really know because the writer also left this information vague. It may all tie in at the end, somehow she always seems to do it, but for now I have to follow my suspicions because of all the blank information. Snow: > If the Dark Lord has indeed ordered Draco to kill Dumbledore at his > own hand from the beginning, why would Narcissa ask "should it prove > necessary" and "if it seems Draco would fail"? > Neri: Because Snape has just made it very clear to her that he will not take the task *instead* of Draco. The Dark Lord gave the task to Draco and Snape will not go against the Dark Lord's orders. So the whole third clause is only made possible by Snape's detailed estimation that the Dark Lord does not believe Draco will manage the task and actually means for Snape to do it in the end, but he's determined that Draco must try first. Therefore Narcissa stresses that Snape is required to step in only "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco would fail". Draco must have the first shot, or it's going directly against the Dark Lord's orders and Snape would refuse it. BTW, this wording also implies that Snape is quite free to refuse the third clause even after he had already accepted the previous two. Otherwise Narcissa would have taken advantage of that to make him promise doing the deed without Draco attempting it first. Snow: That makes perfect sense when you look at the picture only from the cut scene of the Vow. Narcissa's phraseology still leaves a doubt in my mind because I don't give her that much credit to be brilliant enough to entrap Snape the way you propose. > Snow: > We are led to believe that Dumbledore is Draco's main objective and > that his death must be at Draco's hand but there is no substantial > evidence that any of the parties were aware that Draco was to be the > killer at the point of the Vow. > > If, as I suspect, Draco was under the assumption that he had backup > on his mission, then his assignment changed after the Vow had been > taken and Snape would not be held liable ... or would he become > liable because of Narcissa's vague wording? Neri: So what was the task to be in the beginning? Narcissa says that Draco doesn't stand a chance because even the Dark Lord has never succeeded. But if the task was infiltrating Hogwarts, Voldemort has already done that (in SS/PS). If the mission is smuggling DEs into Hogwarts, Voldemort has done that too (Crouch Jr. in GoF, and of course Snape himself). And Narcissa adds that not only the Dark Lord, but *nobody* has ever succeeded before. This limits options considerably. Snow: Very good reply! Of course now I have to nitpick a few points; Voldemort has never infiltrated Hogwarts as himself (a parasite wouldn't really count would it); Crouch Jr. would not be counted as a group of DE's. This was not exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement that I did. I agree that Dumbledore was always the target, I just don't think Draco or his mother were aware that he was the only one destined to do the deed of the actual killing. If the assignment were to just kill Dumbledore by any means with all necessary help at your disposal (like Draco's remark about Fenrir to Borgins or was it Burk?), then I could see Draco acting cocky as he did at the beginning, and I could see Narcissa being as worried as she was. This doesn't make that much appearing difference to the storyline but it does explain character response. I simply don't agree that Draco nor anyone else (except Voldemort), was aware at the time of the Vow, that Draco had to be the lone killer. It doesn't appear to make much of a difference on the surface until you take into consideration Snape's hesitation in making the Vow and his spat with Dumbledore much later. Snape felt that he was protecting a child from making a way to Dumbledore's demise (which is bad enough) only to find out that he was protecting the child that would ultimatly be his demise and if Draco couldn't do it then Snape was held accountable. This fits for me. Snow From muellem at bc.edu Fri Mar 2 02:59:16 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:59:16 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165609 > > MusicalBetsy here: > > > Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! > > When you've had a teacher for a long amount of time, > > you KNOW what their handwriting looks like, and I don't > > think an older high school kid's handwriting is going > > to look a lot different 20 years or so later. So why > > doesn't Harry recognize it? Is it to just to make the > > plot move along, or is it something more significant, > > like it was someone else's, Snape's collaborator > > possibly (Lily? - although I can't see her doing a > > spell for her enemies!). > > houyhnhnm: > > Harry is sometimes a little slow on the uptake, as > when it took him a year to figure out it Dumbledore's > voice he heard in Petunia's howler. > > On the other hand, I still suspect that Snape may *not* > be the HBP. I don't think it's Lily, though, because she's dead. colebiancardi: true about the uptake - but also, Harry has a major mental block when it comes to Snape. So, even though it is pointed out that the handwriting is small & cramped - shades of teen!Snape's handwriting in OotP - minuscule & cramped - and also Adult!Snape's handwriting - spikey handwriting - it seems to have passed by Harry. I don't think that Harry would even consider that the HBP could be Snape - the shock & horror of it all - the book that has been giving him such helpful advice all year-long turns out to be his bete noir. I do believe the HBP is Snape & the writing in the book is all his own. I have no reason to doubt it, based on Snape's mastery of Potions. But, as an aside, my handwriting as a young adult, even in my 20's, doesn't look at thing my handwriting now. I had much neater handwriting then. No one can read my writing now - sometimes even me!! colebiancardi (who was probably a doctor in a previous life, if her handwriting is any indication!) From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 02:55:43 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:55:43 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <001401c75c67$98a670a0$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: > Another thing I've just thought of is in that scene (Flight of the Prince), > Harry tries to use levicorpus on Snape and Snape tells him that he will not > use his own spells like his filthy father did. It was Snape's 5th year when > James was seen using levicorpus on Snape. So, either Snape was in an > advanced potions class for his age or they used the same book for OWLs as > they are now using for NEWTs, 20 some years later. Dondee responds: We know Snape is a bibliophile because we see his extensive book collection at Spinner's End. We know the book was published 50 years or so ago and can therefore surmise that it origionaly belonged to Eileen, Snape's mum. It is very easy for me to believe that Snape came across this book at home and started studying and annotating it way before 6th year NEWT lessons. I have books of my mother's from her college English courses days that I discovered packed away in storage when I was in my early teens and I enjoyed reading them then even though they were considered above my academic level. It is also very easy for me to believe that young Snape would have found refuge in books to escape from a troubled home life. Often times I have used books as a temporary escape. It is easy to take it a step further and assume that Snape threw himself into his studies - self guided studies outside of school- because of Blacks comment in GoF "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year..."(p.531). Where do you think he learned such advanced spells? Probably from his mum's old schoolbooks and any other books he could get his hands on. Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 2 03:34:39 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:34:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows References: Message-ID: <00b201c75c7b$b8cd17d0$6c9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165611 > Snow: > > I'm not actually looking for loopholes; they just seem to appear to > me like huge question marks. > > I can not get my head around the fact that Draco seems to be so very > confident that he can kill Dumbledore at the beginning, when (as you > say yourself further down) Voldemort has never succeeded in doing so. > > What would make Draco feel so confident in the deed assigned to him > if in fact it was to kill Dumbledore at his own hand? Magpie: Where does he seem so very confident? He's pleased with himself early on, but having never killed anyone before he's just clueless. I think to him Dumbledore's an old man and he's got this task and he hasn't really faced the reality yet. Snow: > As others have noticed, as well as me, Draco seemed to be quite pre- > occupied with the cabinets if his main objective was to kill > Dumbledore "himself" from the get go. Granted, attempts were made on > Dumbledore's life but they were quite feeble attempts, like his heart > really wasn't in it, if Dumbledore was `his' main objective. Magpie: The Cabinets *are* Draco's method of killing Dumbledore himself. He gets backup to get himself to Dumbledore, and then he has to do it. The Cabinets are a way of working on killing DD, but also something putting it off, because the Cabinets aren't the killing part. Snow: > Then we have Draco's meltdown where he was allowing himself to be > consoled by a muggleborn ghost, what changed, where's mister-cocky- > attitude now? Magpie: He's tasted some of the reality of death with Katie and Ron and is beginning to realize how hard his task is. The Cabinet isn't getting fixed and Voldemort has started threatening him. So he's beginning to understand how hard this is, how he quite possibly is not going to be able to do it, and Voldemort threatening him and his family with death. Snow: > After this we have Draco's whoops in the Room of Requirement as if he > just felt he had won the big prize and yet he is no closer to killing > Dumbledore (himself) than he was before. Magpie: Yes, he sort of is closer to killing Dumbledore. The Cabinets bring the DEs in, and that's supposed to pave his way. (Plus, he's done something right. He is, imo, genuinely pleased to have actually completed something he's been trying to do for so long.) Snow: > Was Draco just under some delusional concept all along that he would > never have to kill Dumbledore at all, that the Deatheaters would be > there to help fulfill his assignment? That wouldn't be cocky that > would be stupid. Magpie: The Deatheaters *are* there to help fulfill his assignment. They are his backup who will make it so that all he has to do is point his wand and do the curse. The delusional concept is that killing is as easy as pointing a wand and saying the words. It is somewhat stupid, but despite Malfoy not being one of the world's great thinkers, it's not all that dumb for a naive adolescent. He doesn't have all that many choices from his pov, so he pretty much has to go forward as far as he can. Snow:> > As far as the Vow itself, concerning loopholes, JKR has already > established that fact when the stipulations to the Vow were so vague > in content compounded by out of character responses from a youngster > who has presumably been assigned the task of killing the greatest > wizard of his time. This is the biggest question mark of all. It just > doesn't fit well for me. Magpie: I tend to think it's one of those things like the Life Debt. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny but it makes sense on the face of it. It's just "promise to do this or else you die." As for Draco, there I have no problem. He seems to be acting perfectly in character for me throughout the story. > Neri: > > Because Snape has just made it very clear to her that he will not take > the task *instead* of Draco. The Dark Lord gave the task to Draco and > Snape will not go against the Dark Lord's orders. So the whole third > clause is only made possible by Snape's detailed estimation that the > Dark Lord does not believe Draco will manage the task and actually > means for Snape to do it in the end, but he's determined that Draco > must try first. Therefore Narcissa stresses that Snape is required to > step in only "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco would > fail". Draco must have the first shot, or it's going directly against > the Dark Lord's orders and Snape would refuse it. BTW, this wording > also implies that Snape is quite free to refuse the third clause even > after he had already accepted the previous two. Otherwise Narcissa > would have taken advantage of that to make him promise doing the deed > without Draco attempting it first. > > Snow: > > That makes perfect sense when you look at the picture only from the > cut scene of the Vow. > > Narcissa's phraseology still leaves a doubt in my mind because I > don't give her that much credit to be brilliant enough to entrap > Snape the way you propose. Magpie: I'm not following that--where is she trapping him? It seems like she's just asking him what she's been hinting at all along, and he knows it. > Neri: > > So what was the task to be in the beginning? Narcissa says that Draco > doesn't stand a chance because even the Dark Lord has never succeeded. > But if the task was infiltrating Hogwarts, Voldemort has already done > that (in SS/PS). If the mission is smuggling DEs into Hogwarts, > Voldemort has done that too (Crouch Jr. in GoF, and of course Snape > himself). And Narcissa adds that not only the Dark Lord, but *nobody* > has ever succeeded before. This limits options considerably. > > > Snow: > > Very good reply! Of course now I have to nitpick a few points; > Voldemort has never infiltrated Hogwarts as himself (a parasite > wouldn't really count would it); Crouch Jr. would not be counted as a > group of DE's. Magpie: Why wouldn't a parasite count? He's acting as himself, being himself. At one point he was able to walk in and request a job. It's only this year Hogwarts even has this much security. I don't think a group of DEs would be a big deal compared to one DE--one that's a teacher and has the run of the place all year! Obviously security has been breached. I think it's obvious what they're referring to is the thing that's been stressed as something Voldemort can't do, which is kill Dumbledore. Other suggestions, to me, are lame by comparison, storywise. Killing Dumbledore's got just the right drama. Snow: > This was not exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement > that I did. I agree that Dumbledore was always the target, I just > don't think Draco or his mother were aware that he was the only one > destined to do the deed of the actual killing. Magpie: They don't? But isn't that the subject of all their early conversations? That's why Narcissa comes to Snape, because it's Draco who's got to do it. Snape says yes, he has to do it. Draco talks about how there's something he's got to do. Snow: > If the assignment were to just kill Dumbledore by any means with all > necessary help at your disposal (like Draco's remark about Fenrir to > Borgins or was it Burk?), then I could see Draco acting cocky as he > did at the beginning, and I could see Narcissa being as worried as > she was. > > This doesn't make that much appearing difference to the storyline but > it does explain character response. I simply don't agree that Draco > nor anyone else (except Voldemort), was aware at the time of the Vow, > that Draco had to be the lone killer. Magpie: One of the major themes of Draco's story is the difference between reality and fantasy killing. Draco can be cocky because it's not real. He doesn't get it yet. Though I'd also add Draco's not *that* cocky. He's very pleased with being chosen and having this important task, but he's never particularly arrogant about doing it. He seems a lot more quietly focused on the actual doing of it. He thinks he can do it, which is rather arrogant I suppose, but it's not amazingly arrogant. It's a challenge and he's determined to do it. I don't think he ever really suggests he thinks it's going to be that easy, even when he's getting pleasure out of dropping hints about it. Snow: > It doesn't appear to make much of a difference on the surface until > you take into consideration Snape's hesitation in making the Vow and > his spat with Dumbledore much later. > > Snape felt that he was protecting a child from making a way to > Dumbledore's demise (which is bad enough) only to find out that he > was protecting the child that would ultimatly be his demise and if > Draco couldn't do it then Snape was held accountable. Magpie: So you mean Snape didn't know he was vowing to kill Dumbledore because he thought Draco was just trying to get the DEs into Hogwarts? That doesn't support the drama I'm seeing throughout the story, or any of the characters reactions. I also don't think it fits the way JKR writes. She writes bold, clear, tragic things. It all fits together beautifully if you take the straightforward stuff that's there and fit it together simply. Imo, when we start complicating things with offscreen mistakes and mind-changes, and confusion...it turns to mush for me. There's absolutely nothing preventing it from being straightforward: Draco's given the task of killing Dumbledore. Narcissa goes to Snape and asks him to intercede so Draco doesn't have to kill Dumbledore. Snape vows to protect Draco and kill Dumbledore if it seems Draco won't be able to do it, since they all know he won't. (God knows why he vows this, but he does.) Meanwhile, Draco is eager to prove himself by killing Dumbledore. He has a special plan to do so, due to his knowing about Montague. He will fix the Cabinet so that he can get a whole team of DEs into the castle to do the fighting and give him his clear shot at Dumbledore, which he will then take. When the Cabinets aren't easily fixed he tries other ways of killing. The pressure gets worse, everything gets more real, and we get the end we get. -m From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Mar 2 03:39:14 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:39:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165612 In a message dated 3/1/2007 7:40:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bgrugin at yahoo.com writes: Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! When you've had a teacher for a long amount of time, you KNOW what their handwriting looks like, and I don't think an older high school kid's handwriting is going to look a lot different 20 years or so later. ---------------------- Erm - mine does. My handwriting from high school is very nearly completely different than it is now (or has been for some time). I've changed the style of my uppercase letters (they used to be "textbook" - now they're closer to printed); I've dropped some of the affectations like Greek "e's"; & I've dropped most of the Cyrillic influences, while picking up influences from both calligraphy & 19th century-style writing. In addition, I've had CT surgery, so my wrist moves a little differently that it did at 16 or 17. I'll grant that the handwriting should at least have a familiarity - IF he was looking closely enough at Snape's OWL DADA paper during his visit to the Penseive...but it may not resemble the adult Snape's writing closely enough to be identifiable on that basis. Sherrie


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 04:22:42 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:22:42 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <001501c75c45$00d0c810$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: > It also strikes me as odd that Harry didn't recognize the > handwriting in the book when he's spent the past 5 years, seeing > Snape's handwriting on the board in each potions class. zanooda: Harry is not very attentive to detail, is he? Besides, Snape never writes on the blackboard himself, he makes words appear by the flick of his wand. I'm not saying that the handwriting on the board is not Snape's, I just think that the "flick of the wand" can at least in part explain the difference. The words that appear on the board by magic would be written in some kind of "ideal" handwriting. The words that someone writes by hand trying to fit them on the narrow margins of a book would look different, even if it's basically the same handwriting. I never doubted that the notes were Snape's, and I'm sure he didn't "steal" Lily's ideas. There was a time when I thought it was the other way around, but then I abandoned this idea as invalid. I like to think that there is something in this Snape-Lily-HBP book triangle though... In your other post you ask about Snape using the NEWT level book in his 5th year (sorry that I don't quote you properly). I think that, the book being his mother's, Snape had it at home all his life. When he became interested in potion-making, he read all potion books he could get his hands on. He started using this book and experiment with it much earlier than his 6th year, IMO. I used to do this myself, when the level of teaching was not high enough in a subject I was interested in (we didn't have any advanced classes, like here). > Just as if he'd REALLY hated Harry, he could've just let him be > jinxed off his broom in the first year instead of working a counter- > jinx. Or he could've been rid of the lot rather than throwing > himself between the kids and the werewolf/Lupin. zanooda: You watched HP movies too much again, Ronin :-)! Snape never did any such thing in the book, he was unconscious the entire time. I always wondered if JKR knew about this scene (Snape shielding the kids from the werewolf) before the movie came out. If she knew and didn't say anything, it could mean that we (DDM!Snapers) are right and Snape will turn out to be a good guy (never a nice guy, that's for sure). From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 03:38:50 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:38:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101c75c7c$4ba47e40$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165614 --Dondee Wrote-- >>>Harry and DD assumed that a real horcrux was at the center of the lake in the cave. When Harry's summoning charm did not work was it because the potion in the basin would not allow the removal of the locket or because the locket was not a real horcrux? If a real horcrux had been there would Accio have worked? <<< --Ronin's Comments-- This is an interesting question. The inferi in the lake certainly seemed to think it would've worked. None of them tried to do anything until they thought the horcrux was crossing the lake (aka, Harry touched the water). It may be relevant in future attempts to get his hands on a horcrux. It may also explain how R.A.B. was able to get to the actual horcrux unaided. (If he was alone) I was wondering why they didn't apparate across the lake, but I suppose the cave could've been enchanted like Hogwarts. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 04:04:01 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:04:01 -0000 Subject: Olivander and an Uber-wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165615 My sister today told me of her new theory as to why Ollivander disappeared and I thought I'd share it with you... We know that LV will have trouble using his wand against Harry's in the future because they share Fawkes' feathers. We know Ollivander is the "best" wand maker acording to Arthur Weasley and that he only works with phoenix feathers, unicorn hairs, and dragon heart strings. JKR has stated that Harry, Ron and Hermionie's wands make a triumvirate of power because they each contain one of the three cores. My sis wonders if Ollivander was taken for the purpose of creating a new wand for LV that would contain all three cores as a kind of Uber- wand. Comments? Dondee >^,,^< p.s. My sis also told me to tell you all that "An Uber-wand is not a wand dipped in chocolate." :P From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 05:15:28 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:15:28 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <00b201c75c7b$b8cd17d0$6c9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165616 > Snow: > > I'm not actually looking for loopholes; they just seem to appear to > me like huge question marks. > > I can not get my head around the fact that Draco seems to be so very > confident that he can kill Dumbledore at the beginning, when (as you > say yourself further down) Voldemort has never succeeded in doing so. > > What would make Draco feel so confident in the deed assigned to him > if in fact it was to kill Dumbledore at his own hand? Magpie: Where does he seem so very confident? He's pleased with himself early on, but having never killed anyone before he's just clueless. I think to him Dumbledore's an old man and he's got this task and he hasn't really faced the reality yet. Snow: Where has Dumbledore ever been presented to anyone as simply an old man? Dumbledore may be the most powerful wizard that ever lived seeing as Voldemort himself feared Dumbledore. Draco's most cocky moment to me appeared on the train to Hogwarts when he was boasting that he didn't really feel the need to be bothered with education since the Dark Lord has him destined...to do what? Kill someone that the Dark Lord himself can't do and is afraid of? Snow: > As others have noticed, as well as me, Draco seemed to be quite pre- > occupied with the cabinets if his main objective was to kill > Dumbledore "himself" from the get go. Granted, attempts were made on > Dumbledore's life but they were quite feeble attempts, like his heart > really wasn't in it, if Dumbledore was `his' main objective. Magpie: The Cabinets *are* Draco's method of killing Dumbledore himself. He gets backup to get himself to Dumbledore, and then he has to do it. The Cabinets are a way of working on killing DD, but also something putting it off, because the Cabinets aren't the killing part. Snow: The Cabinets are essential if Draco feels that he is in total need of backup. Why would Draco cry to Myrtle if it were not for his failure in procuring the entranceway through the cabinets? Snow: > Then we have Draco's meltdown where he was allowing himself to be > consoled by a muggleborn ghost, what changed, where's mister-cocky- > attitude now? Magpie: He's tasted some of the reality of death with Katie and Ron and is beginning to realize how hard his task is. The Cabinet isn't getting fixed and Voldemort has started threatening him. So he's beginning to understand how hard this is, how he quite possibly is not going to be able to do it, and Voldemort threatening him and his family with death. Snow: Katie and Ron would mean very little if not nothing at all to the boy who is supposedly destined to kill the greatest wizard... Snow: > After this we have Draco's whoops in the Room of Requirement as if he > just felt he had won the big prize and yet he is no closer to killing > Dumbledore (himself) than he was before. Magpie: Yes, he sort of is closer to killing Dumbledore. The Cabinets bring the DEs in, and that's supposed to pave his way. (Plus, he's done something right. He is, imo, genuinely pleased to have actually completed something he's been trying to do for so long.) Snow: Yes, Draco is pleased with himself but the question still remains as to why he would be. Draco is no closer to his objective of securing Dumbledore's fate than he was before, why the celebration? Snow: > Was Draco just under some delusional concept all along that he would > never have to kill Dumbledore at all, that the Deatheaters would be > there to help fulfill his assignment? That wouldn't be cocky that > would be stupid. Magpie: The Deatheaters *are* there to help fulfill his assignment. They are his backup who will make it so that all he has to do is point his wand and do the curse. The delusional concept is that killing is as easy as pointing a wand and saying the words. It is somewhat stupid, but despite Malfoy not being one of the world's great thinkers, it's not all that dumb for a naive adolescent. He doesn't have all that many choices from his pov, so he pretty much has to go forward as far as he can. Snow: You have acknowledged yourself that Draco is a na?ve adolescent. Can you honestly think that such a person could possibly feel he had a half-a-chance-in-hell of killing the most powerful wizard that may have ever lived? Snow:> > As far as the Vow itself, concerning loopholes, JKR has already > established that fact when the stipulations to the Vow were so vague > in content compounded by out of character responses from a youngster > who has presumably been assigned the task of killing the greatest > wizard of his time. This is the biggest question mark of all. It just > doesn't fit well for me. Magpie: I tend to think it's one of those things like the Life Debt. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny but it makes sense on the face of it. It's just "promise to do this or else you die." As for Draco, there I have no problem. He seems to be acting perfectly in character for me throughout the story. Snow: If a life debt acted the way in which you are proposing, Pettigrew would be dead right now. A life debt is not a promise it is more of a responsibility with no time limit. You owe someone your life. >snipped response to Neri< >Snow: > Very good reply! Of course now I have to nitpick a few points; > Voldemort has never infiltrated Hogwarts as himself (a parasite > wouldn't really count would it); Crouch Jr. would not be counted as a > group of DE's. Magpie: Why wouldn't a parasite count? He's acting as himself, being himself. At one point he was able to walk in and request a job. It's only this year Hogwarts even has this much security. I don't think a group of DEs would be a big deal compared to one DE--one that's a teacher and has the run of the place all year! Obviously security has been breached. I think it's obvious what they're referring to is the thing that's been stressed as something Voldemort can't do, which is kill Dumbledore. Other suggestions, to me, are lame by comparison, storywise. Killing Dumbledore's got just the right drama. Snow: A parasite is not Voldemort himself breaching security; Voldemort was denied his breach of Hogwarts when Tom applied for a teaching position. As for a group of Deatheaters being the same as or equal to a single member (the member in question is still under scrutiny, at least to me), I would have to disagree. Snow: > This was not exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement > that I did. I agree that Dumbledore was always the target, I just > don't think Draco or his mother were aware that he was the only one > destined to do the deed of the actual killing. Magpie: They don't? But isn't that the subject of all their early conversations? That's why Narcissa comes to Snape, because it's Draco who's got to do it. Snape says yes, he has to do it. Draco talks about how there's something he's got to do. Snow: No, I don't think they do. What is it that Draco has to do at that point, is exactly my controversy. Me previously: > If the assignment were to just kill Dumbledore by any means with all > necessary help at your disposal (like Draco's remark about Fenrir to > Borgins or was it Burk?), then I could see Draco acting cocky as he > did at the beginning, and I could see Narcissa being as worried as > she was. > > This doesn't make that much appearing difference to the storyline but > it does explain character response. I simply don't agree that Draco > nor anyone else (except Voldemort), was aware at the time of the Vow, > that Draco had to be the lone killer. Magpie: One of the major themes of Draco's story is the difference between reality and fantasy killing. Draco can be cocky because it's not real. He doesn't get it yet. Though I'd also add Draco's not *that* cocky. He's very pleased with being chosen and having this important task, but he's never particularly arrogant about doing it. He seems a lot more quietly focused on the actual doing of it. He thinks he can do it, which is rather arrogant I suppose, but it's not amazingly arrogant. It's a challenge and he's determined to do it. I don't think he ever really suggests he thinks it's going to be that easy, even when he's getting pleasure out of dropping hints about it. Snow: It could be that I am a lone survivor and am the only person who reads the text this way but when I couple this scene, with all its innuendo, to all the other scenes with all their innuendo's, it just feels like one too many innuendo's for me. Snow: > It doesn't appear to make much of a difference on the surface until > you take into consideration Snape's hesitation in making the Vow and > his spat with Dumbledore much later. > > Snape felt that he was protecting a child from making a way to > Dumbledore's demise (which is bad enough) only to find out that he > was protecting the child that would ultimatly be his demise and if > Draco couldn't do it then Snape was held accountable. Magpie: So you mean Snape didn't know he was vowing to kill Dumbledore because he thought Draco was just trying to get the DEs into Hogwarts? That doesn't support the drama I'm seeing throughout the story, or any of the characters reactions. I also don't think it fits the way JKR writes. She writes bold, clear, tragic things. It all fits together beautifully if you take the straightforward stuff that's there and fit it together simply. Imo, when we start complicating things with offscreen mistakes and mind-changes, and confusion...it turns to mush for me. Snow: No disrespect meant but are we reading the same writing? JKR is anything but clear or bold in her cleverness, which is why she is so awesome. Magpie continued: There's absolutely nothing preventing it from being straightforward: Draco's given the task of killing Dumbledore. Narcissa goes to Snape and asks him to intercede so Draco doesn't have to kill Dumbledore. Snape vows to protect Draco and kill Dumbledore if it seems Draco won't be able to do it, since they all know he won't. (God knows why he vows this, but he does.) Snow: First off, your end quotation is why I question this in the first place. Secondly, your first sentence I have to rebuttal with; JKR is anything but straightforward. Magpie continuing: Meanwhile, Draco is eager to prove himself by killing Dumbledore. He has a special plan to do so, due to his knowing about Montague. He will fix the Cabinet so that he can get a whole team of DEs into the castle to do the fighting and give him his clear shot at Dumbledore, which he will then take. When the Cabinets aren't easily fixed he tries other ways of killing. The pressure gets worse, everything gets more real, and we get the end we get. Snow: JKR has proven herself to be deceptive throughout the series so why would I doubt her strategy on any point? From erikog at one.net Fri Mar 2 05:18:12 2007 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:18:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165617 Carol writes: > I'm re-re-re-re-reading GoF, and I'm curious about what other posters > think of the point of view in the two dream chapters.... > > But in GoF, the first dream is from the pov of an unknown Muggle, > Frank Bryce...> > In the second dream, Harry is riding on the back of the eagle owl that > Fake!Moody has sent to inform Voldemort that he's murdered his father, > Mr. Crouch.... > From a plot standpoint, these two dreams work beautifully, giving > Harry and the reader pieces of information that will be useful later... But in terms > of narrative strategy, they make no sense. ... > Is JKR cheating just to provide information that Harry couldn't > otherwise know, or is there a logical explanation for Harry to see > from a point of view other than Voldemort's in his Voldie dreams? I think the dream sequences have specific jobs to carry out. They convey useful information, as Carol mentioned. They also serve to prepare the reader for the two alterating elements in Order of the Phoenix, Harry's dream-link with Voldemort, and the ways in which Harry's efforts to seek help from the adults around him fail misserably. Here, for example, after each dream, Harry tries to get an adult to help him: He writes Sirius after the first dream, and goes to Dumbledore after the second. (This allows him to interrupt Dumbledore in his office and to peek in the pensieve, too.) Dumbledore shows signs of the chief problems in OotP by acknowledging Harry's information but not sharing fully his own knowledge of it--he just says it means Voldie is growing stronger, but not what to do about these dreams. The dreams work in the book in other ways than to set the grounds for OotP: they very effectively convey the horror of Voldemort's return by having the reader slowly catch glimpses of him--glimpses in which it is made clear he is unspeakably evil and monstrous--before the reveal at the end of "Goblet." When he shows up fully in the graveyard in GoF, and when Harry begins to see through Voldie's eyes in OotP, we therefore don't identify with him or humanize him. We haven't just written him off as a less stylish Luicius, for example. Even before Voldemort walks onto the HP stage as a full-bodied adult, we are therefore primed to be terrified of him, thanks to seeing bits of him in these dreams. In terms of why we see a third person point of view within the context of the actual stories, not JKR's literary needs, I'd suggest that the sense in both dreams is of a person (Harry) being drawn to Voldemort unknowingly. According to Dumbledore in OotP, Harry's sleeping mind was trying to forge a link between the two, a link Voldie would want to exploit. Maybe, when Harry slept, his mind was already beginning this process and trying to "find" Voldemort? And because Harry is good, and perhaps because he was likely to identify with an old muggle, or an owl, rather than Wormtail or Voldie, he was initially able to see through/alongside these "innocent" perspectives, rather than being able to instantly comprehend V's evil enough to enter his brain? Krista From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 05:38:31 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:38:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > Reading Ceridwen's recent post re:Unbreakable Vows made me think about > something... > > Harry and DD assumed that a real horcrux was at the center of the lake > in the cave. When Harry's summoning charm did not work was it because > the potion in the basin would not allow the removal of the locket or > because the locket was not a real horcrux? If a real horcrux had been > there would Accio have worked? > > It doesn't really matter now that it's all and done with but it's an > interesting thought. > > Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< Snow: I'm going with a very quick response here but didn't Dumbledore have an ability to acknowledge traces of magic? We know that Dumbledore has come into contact, quite recently in fact, with one of Voldemort's Horcruxes...so wouldn't it stand to reason that Dumbledore knew that the Locket in the potion held a Voldy Horcrux? Dumbledore isn't easily outfoxed is he? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 06:03:11 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:03:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165619 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > Reading Ceridwen's recent post re:Unbreakable Vows made me think > about something... > > Harry and DD assumed that a real horcrux was at the center of the > lake in the cave. When Harry's summoning charm did not work was it > because the potion in the basin would not allow the removal of the > locket or because the locket was not a real horcrux? If a real > horcrux had been there would Accio have worked? > > It doesn't really matter now that it's all and done with but it's > an interesting thought. > > Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< > Mike: If you're willing to entertain an even more convoluted theory, try this one. When Harry tried Accio, the inferius that *leaps* out of the water wasn't really leaping. It was pulled out of the water because there was a Horcrux in his pocket. That particular inferius was none other than the now departed but not gone Regulus Arcturus Black. We know that a difficult summoning charm can be successful if the caster concentrates very hard. Learned that from Hermione in GoF. Well, first off, I don't think Harry was concentrating particularly hard for this attempt. Second, as soon as Reggie broke the water, whatever amount of concentration Harry had put into the charm was gone. I don't believe this theory myself, but thought I would pass it along. If you like it, it's yours. :-) Mike, who believes that the Locket Horcrux never made it into that Birdbath of Doom in the first place. I think Reggie pulled the old switcheroo on cousin Bella when she came over to the house bragging, 'Look what the Dark Lord gave me. And you'll never guess what it is and what I'm suppose to do with it.' My preciousss From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri Mar 2 07:18:10 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:18:10 -0000 Subject: Metamorphmagus-twist in DH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165620 Wondering if we will have a twist in DH similar to the twists in PS, CoS, PoA and GoF. Im referring to Quirrel = Voldemort (well, sort of), Diaryboy = Voldemort, (plus introduction to polyjuice to play out in GoF) Scabbers = Pettigrew, Moody = Barty Crouch All of these seemed to be someone other than who they really were. We didnt have that twist of mix-up in OotP but we were introduced to the Metamorphmagus, Tonks. Seems strange to me that Tonks' abilities didn't make much difference to the plot of OotP or HBP, and my guess is, she was introduced for a reason much like polyjuice in CoS; and that Metamorpmagus will play it's real role in DH much like polyjuice came to play that larger role in GoF. So, what about Metamorphmagus in DH? Will it turn out that Tonks is not only Tonks but also someone else? Someone already known to the readers. If so, who? Logically this other person, whom Tonks changes into, must be someone who is never seen in the same scenes as Tonks. And if the Metamorphmagus-twist in DH isn't about Tonks, then who else might turn out to be a Metamorphmagus, who through the entire series has also acted as someone else, using these abilities? Again, logically we'll have to look for two persons who are never seen together. Inge From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 08:21:47 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:21:47 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165621 > > > --Ronin's Comments-- > > It also strikes me as odd that Harry didn't recognize the > > handwriting in the book when he's spent the past 5 years, seeing > > Snape's handwriting on the board in each potions class. > > MusicalBetsy here: > Finally, someone noticed the same thing that I did! When you've had > a teacher for a long amount of time, you KNOW what their handwriting > looks like, and I don't think an older high school kid's handwriting > is going to look a lot different 20 years or so later. So why > doesn't Harry recognize it? Is it to just to make the plot move > along, or is it something more significant, like it was someone > else's, Snape's collaborator possibly (Lily? - although I can't see > her doing a spell for her enemies!). > Snape's Witch replies: Since JKR used similiar adjectives for Snape's handwriting in SWM and the handwriting in the HBP book, it seems to me she intended us to believe that Severus Snape did indeed make the notations in the book. Nor do I believe that Lily Evans was the potions genius behind the HBP book. As to why Harry didn't recognize Snape's handwriting as the HBP's, handwriting does change. My handwriting at 38 was totally different from mine at 16 and I see no reason why Snape's wouldn't have changed too! From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Mar 2 15:33:26 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:33:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165622 --- "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > If you're willing to entertain an even more convoluted theory, try > this one. When Harry tried Accio, the inferius that *leaps* out of > the water wasn't really leaping. It was pulled out of the water > because there was a Horcrux in his pocket. That particular > inferius was none other than the now departed but not gone Regulus > Arcturus Black. > > We know that a difficult summoning charm can be successful if the > caster concentrates very hard. Learned that from Hermione in GoF. > ... as soon as Reggie broke the water, whatever amount > of concentration Harry had put into the charm was gone. > > > I don't believe this theory myself, but thought I would pass it > along. If you like it, it's yours. :-) > > Mike, who believes that the Locket Horcrux never made it into that > Birdbath of Doom in the first place. I think Reggie pulled the old > switcheroo on cousin Bella when she came over to the house > bragging, 'Look what the Dark Lord gave me. And you'll never guess > what it is and what I'm suppose to do with it.' My preciousss > aussie: I see merit in both of these, Mike. How does Regulus know where to find the locket if he goes to the cave? From Bella (according to your second theory) We know from the note in the fake locket that Regulus may have gotten to the middle of the lake, but there is no proof he got away from there. He may well have been dragged into the lake, locket and all, after switching those lockets ... If Harry wants some help going back, Bill, the curse breaker, may be handy. Aussie (who was quite content with the locket being in Kretcher's closet or sold by Mundungus to the Hog's Head barman) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 17:22:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:22:14 -0000 Subject: The Half Blood Prince (WAS Re: Unbreakable Vows) In-Reply-To: <001401c75c67$98a670a0$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165623 Ronin wrote: > Actually, looking at this a little more carefully that's a good point about Lily not writing a spell for enemies. But, maybe if the notes were by both of them it would also explain why Harry doesn't recognize the handwriting. He's thinking that it's one person and the writing keeps changing so that it's hard to tell who's it is. Although, he does see Snape's tiny handwriting when he sees him taking his OWLs. Carol responds: All of the notes in the HBP's Potions book, both spells (which we *know* to be Snape's) and the potions hints (which, given his reaction to Harry as "Potions natural" at Slughorn's party and what we know throughout the books of his skill at Potions) are likely to be his, are in the same handwriting as "This book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince." Therefore, they are all written by the Half-Blood Prince, whom we know to be Snape from his "I, the Half-Blood Prince" speech at the end of the book. As you say, teen!Severus's hand writing has already been described for us in OoP. In that scene, the handwriting establishes that young Snape knows a great deal about DADA--his answers are pages longer than anyone else's--and he's trying to squeeze everything he knows onto his parchment, just as he's trying to squeeze his notes into the margins of his textbook. Setting aside the possibility that his handwriting may have changed in twenty years and that Harry is not very observant or he'd have remembered the DADA exam and noticed the similarity, anyone who's ever been a teacher knows that the handwriting you use to write on the board, which you're trying to make as large and legible as possible for the benefit of the students in the back of the class, is different from the cramped writing you have to use to squeeze comments into the margins of a student's essay. Snape casts the spells onto the board so that the students can see them and follow directions. Obviously, his magical writing will be both large and legible. If he wrote in his usual cramped handwriting, the students would be unable to read it. Since the chief characteristic of the writing in the books and the exam that unobservant Harry notices is its size, he's unlikely to notice resemblances in the shapes of the letters (like spiky D's) or other distinguishing qualities. There's also the plain fact that Harry hates Snape but likes the HBP, and is even willing to set aside his father's pureblood status in the hope that he might be the Prince. He wants the HBP to be someone he knows and likes, or at least someone he would like if he knew him, not his least favorite teacher. Harry understands from the personality of the writer and the content of the notes (and I still say that the Hogwarts boys are more interested than the girls are in hexing people in the hallways, except for tomboy Ginny), as well as the masculine "Prince," that the writer is a boy, but he never considers the one Potions genius he actually knows as a possibility, even though he's been told that that same genius knew more curses--meaning hexes and jinxes--than most seventh years at age eleven. If Harry could put two and two together, he would have come up with Snape, as most of us did by the time of Slughorn's party. But emotion, not logic, is Harry's strong point. At any rate, the only example of Snape's adult writing that we get in the books is "a big, spiky D" on one of Harry's pre-OWL Potions assignments OoP Am. ed. 309)--no comments explaining the mark--so it's actually possible that Harry isn't all that familiar with Snape's handwriting, at least not the handwriting he uses when he's trying to squeeze as much information as possible into a small space. It's interesting that, when another student delivers the message about Snape's detentions to Harry, it's an oral message, not a written one. (JKR can't have Harry seeing a handwritten message and either making or not making the connection. She has to save the revelation for later and have a reason why Harry didn't see the handwriting.) We know that JKR sets up motifs, spells, names, etc., that will be important later, the first instance being "young Sirius Black" in SS/PS, preparing for his appearance in PoA. She does the same thing with Polyjuice Potion in CoS, preparing for its crucial role in GoF. (I'm waiting for an appearance by Ragnok the goblin, mentioned in OoP, in DH.) So let's look closely at the description of Teen!Snape's handwriting and compare it with the HBP's. First, Severus in the DADA exam: "His hand was flying across the parchment; he had written at least a foot more than his closest neighbors, and yet his handwriting was minuscule and cramped" (OoP 641). Now, the HBP's: "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, now safely hidden inside inside a pair of socks in this trunk upstairs. 'This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince.'" No one but the HBP himself, Severus Snape, would write that note. The instructions for improving the Draught of Living Death, the potion hints that won the Felix Felicis for Harry, are in the same handwriting, Teen!Snape's. Conclusion: The HBP, Snape, wrote the Potions hints as well as his own invented spells. (No one, I hope, is claiming that Lily wrote "Sectumsempra (For Enemies)" in the margins of the HBP's book, or that the spells are hers.) The similarity between the "minuscule and cramped handwriting" of the exam and the "small, cramped handwriting of the inscription is too marked to be accidental, especially the word "cramped." No one else's handwriting is described, only Snape's. There has to be a reason, and the logical reason is that JKR is setting up both Snape's heretofore barely suspected DADA expertise (we've always known he was brilliant at Potions) and describing his handwriting to us as a clue. Hermione's jealous contention that the writing looks like a girls' is a red herring, clearly disproved not only by Snape's identification of himself as the HBP but by the virtually identical descriptions of the handwriting. Slughorn's contention that Lily was a Potions natural makes it probable that she and Severus were both in NEWT Potions, but to leap from that probablility to her writing his notes or their being Potions partners is not supported by canon. Hermione and Draco both got Es in Potions, but we never see them working together. Nor is there such a concept as "Potions partners" that I can see. Hermione works alone in HBP, as do Harry, Ron, Ernie, and presumabley Draco and the others. Severus and Lily were in different Houses. They'd already had their "Mdublood"/"Snivellus" spat. I can't see them working together for any reason, particularly outside of class, where the research had to be conducted. The only reason to bring in Lily is to give Slughorn a reason for believing that the "brilliance" is Harry's own and to give Harry a means of acquiring the memory from Slughorn, the old Potion Master's rose-colored view of a girl for whose death he feels partially responsible. To suggest that Snape is not responsible for the Potions hints is to rob him of credit where credit is due just as Harry is doing by allowing Slughorn to think that the improvements are his. Harry is learning from Snape without realizing that he's learning from Snape and identifying with Teen!Severus without realizing that he's identifying with Teen!Severus. That's the whole poing. Carol, who still does not understand the compulsion on the part of so many posters to rob Severus Snape of credit for the Potions hints when we've known since Book 1 that he's brilliant in the subject From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 18:12:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:12:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165624 Carol earlier: > >> I'm re-re-re-re-reading GoF, and I'm curious about what other > posters think of the point of view in the two dream chapters. In OoP, when Harry's dreaming or hallucinating, he always sees from Voldemort's pov (or Nagini's, when LV is possessing her). << > >> > >> But in GoF, the first dream is from the pov of an unknown Muggle, Frank Bryce, who dies at the end of the dream, not from Voldemort's pov. > Dondee responded: > We are dealing with two perspectives here, Frank's real time experiences and Harry's dream. We don't know when Harry started dreaming or, more to the point, where he started dreaming. I think that Harry's dream started in the room with LV and Wormtail and then they were joined by Nagini and shortly after by Frank. Harry doesn't know Frank is there until LV does IMO, but we, the readers, are introduced to him and the story about the Riddles beforehand. Carol again: Yes, I understand what JKR is doing in terms of narrative technique in "The Riddle House" (a shift from third-person dramatic to third-person limited omniscient, with a pov character other than Harry. The white space in mid-chapter marks the shift in narrative strategy). But my question is, why, if the mind link is to Voldemort, would *Harry* see from Frank Bryce's pov--or from his own in the second dream, when he's not even there? Why not from Voldemort's pov, as he does in OoP? (And what do you mane by "where he started dreaming"? He's in bed at home in 4 Privet Drive.) I think it's *interesting* for the *reader* to see from Frank's pov, as it is to see from the Muggle Prime Minister's in "The Other Minister," but how can *Harry* see into the mind of a Muggle who dies, a Muggle whose mind LV has not entered and whose presence LV is not even aware of until Nagini tells him that there's an old Muggle on the stairs. > Carol earlier: > > In the second dream, Harry is riding on the back of the eagle owl that Fake!Moody has sent to inform Voldemort that he's murdered his father, Mr. Crouch. > Dondee responded: > This one is harder to explain away. Here is my admittedly flimsy reasoning... Harry is in Trelawney's room - a place predisposed to psychic phenomina (however questionable)and full of whatever the heck is in those perfumed fumes. He is overtired and preoccupied from the whole Crouch thing, he falls asleep. Could it be that due to his preoccuped thoughts and psychic vulnerability due to lack of sleep and the fumes that he sort of astral projects? He is preoccupied with Crouch, LV is preoccupied with Crouch, the eagle [owl] is sending word about Crouch. Is the part of Harry's mind thats tuned into LV zooming to where LV is along side, or astride, the eagle [owl] thats zooming along to LV with an important message? Carol again: I agree that the dream is partially induced by the fumes in Trelawney's classroom and Harry's state of mind (we learn in OoP that he needs to empty his mind to block the dream of the corridor in the MoM), but that doesn't explain Harry's perspective. LV is not possessing Harry, and he's not riding on the eagle owl's back; he's sitting in the chair that the owl plops into to deliver the message. Harry, of course, is not there at all--he's in Trelawney's classroom, yet he's seeing from his own perspective, not Voldemort's. Why is Harry, who is linked by the scar to Voldemort's thoughts and emotions, not seeing from LV's point of view as he does in OoP? Logically, he should see the eagle owl arrive and read the message as LV reads it. He should be in Voldemort's mind, not his own (or Frank Bryce's in the earlier dream). Carol, hoping that she's not the only one interested in or bothered by such violations of narrative logic From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 2 18:11:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:11:28 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165627 > Neri: > Hmmm, an interesting analogy, although I'm not sure how accurate. I > think the situation you describe is mainly relevant to unconscious > patients who are not expected to regain consciousness before they die. > I believe that in most western states a doctor who deliberately stops > CPR to a fully conscious patient would be accused of something, > possibly murder. > Pippin: If the patient is conscious and capable of issuing a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, I believe the doctor would be guilty of malpractice if he didn't honor it. If Dumbledore, as commander or patient, ordered Snape not to try to save his life, it would be Snape's duty as subordinate and/or doctor, to obey. Neri: If I had the impression that JKR > really really likes Snape I might actually consider that she would go > to such length just to acquit him, but unfortunately I don't get that > impression from her at all. Pippin: If JKR wants to torture Snape on screen, she'd do better to make him one of the good guys. She's much more graphic about their suffering than anyone else's, IMO. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 19:17:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:17:57 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: <00b201c75c7b$b8cd17d0$6c9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165628 Snow wrote: > > As others have noticed, as well as me, Draco seemed to be quite pre-occupied with the cabinets if his main objective was to kill Dumbledore "himself" from the get go. Granted, attempts were made on Dumbledore's life but they were quite feeble attempts, like his heart really wasn't in it, if Dumbledore was `his' main objective. > > Magpie: > The Cabinets *are* Draco's method of killing Dumbledore himself. He gets backup to get himself to Dumbledore, and then he has to do it. The Cabinets are a way of working on killing DD, but also something putting it off, because the Cabinets aren't the killing part. Carol responds: Right. The "job" Draco has been given, the part that Snape and DD know about, is to kill Dumbledore. Draco also has a "plan" (known to Voldemort, who is lending him DEs to intimidate Borgin and eventually infiltrate Hogwarts) that Snape *doesn't* know about, fixing the Vanishing Cabinet. When Snape agrees to "do the deed" if it appears that Draco will fail, he's agreeing (against his will but evidently seeing no alternative) to kill Dumbledore, not to fix the cabinets or get DEs into Hogwarts. Draco's attempts to kill Dumbledore using the cursed necklace and poisoned mead are desperation measures that he resorts to because his "plan" is taking longer than he expected (how hard can it be to fix a Vanishing Cabinet) and he's starting to feel the pressure. Snape, who IMO doesn't want Draco to kill Dumbledore or anyone else, successfully discourages such "amateurish" tactics but fails to find out how Draco expects to get his backup ("better help" than Crabbe and Goyle) into Hogwarts. It's clear, however, that Draco *does* need DE back up. He can't just run up to the staff table and murder Dumbledore in front of the whole school; he's unlikely to encounter him alone in the corridors; and he doesn't know the password to Dumbledore's office. So if Draco is going to kill Dumbledore, he's going to need DEs behind him to make sure that there's no interference and that the powerful Dumbledore doesn't blow Draco off the map the moment draco starts to lift his wand. No one--not Snape, not Dumbledore, not Narcissa, not Voldemort, not Draco himself--expects Draco to AK the greatest wizard in the WW, and a Legilimens at that--without the help and support of experienced Death Eaters. And Dumbledore, thanks to Snape's information, has put extensive new protections on Hogwarts to keep them out. Unfortunately for him and for Snape, neither of them figures out what Draco is up to in the RoR with his polyjuiced cronies standing guard, though I'd bet money they know where he's going and who the "little girls" are. Snow: > > Was Draco just under some delusional concept all along that he would never have to kill Dumbledore at all, that the Deatheaters would be there to help fulfill his assignment? That wouldn't be cocky that would be stupid. > Magpie: > The Deatheaters *are* there to help fulfill his assignment. They are his backup who will make it so that all he has to do is point his wand and do the curse. The delusional concept is that killing is as easy as pointing a wand and saying the words. It is somewhat stupid, but despite Malfoy not being one of the world's great thinkers, it's not all that dumb for a naive adolescent. He doesn't have all that many choices from his pov, so he pretty much has to go forward as far as he can. > Carol responds: Exactly. "Killing isn't as easy as the inocent believe." Not that Draco is innocent; he's certainly guilty of trying twice to kill Dumbledore and of recklessly endangering fellow students with the mead and necklace, not to mention endangering the whole school by bringing in the DEs and making the murder of Dumbledore not only possible but inevitable, but actually casting an AK on a helpless old man who's standing there talking to him is harder than he expected (just as it's harder than Harry expected when he points his wand at Sirius Black, though Draco has the advantage of knowing the spell), and it gets harder with every moment as Dumbledore expertly manipulates him into talking about it, explaining his situation and almost bragging about the coins and the cabinet and how he's succeeded in spite of all the adults who expected him to fail. Unlike Magpie, I don't see any remorse on Draco's part for almost killing Ron and Katie, but he's had a recent brush with death himself, Harry's Sectumsempra curse, and when it comes time, he can't make himself commit murder, even when the DE backup arrives. He just stands there "irresolute," not putting down his wand and refusing to do the "job" now that the "plan" has succeeded, but unable to go through with the actual killing. He's not cocky now. He's just a kid on the verge of realizing that being Voldemort's man is neither glorious nor exciting. It's just doing the dirty work of a vicious dictator who's as cruel to his own supporters, his *servants*, as he is to his enemies. Snow: > > Narcissa's phraseology still leaves a doubt in my mind because I don't give her that much credit to be brilliant enough to entrap Snape the way you propose. > > Magpie: > I'm not following that--where is she trapping him? It seems like she's just asking him what she's been hinting at all along, and he knows it. > Carol: I'm not quite sure that I agree. Narcissa clearly didn't plan to trap Snape with an Unbreakable Vow when she first went to beg him for his help, or she would have invited Bellatrix to come with her. Bella only follows her because she doesn't trust Snape. If she hadn't done so, there would have been no Bonder to perform the UV. Narcissa gets her brainstorm for the UV after she's asked Snape to protect Draco, and her "phraseology" suggests that he will only be binding himself to "help" and "protect" Draco. ("Help," as we know, can be interpreted rather loosely. Snape doesn't help Draco work on the Vanishing Cabinets. His idea of "help" is trying to talk Draco into confiding in him and putting his helpers in detention.) And the first two provisions require him to do what he would have done in any case, "watch over" and "protect" Draco. But that third provision, to "do the deed" if it should appear that Draco will fail, wasn't part of Narcissa's request. He wasn't agreeing to *that* when he agreed to take the vow. She sneaks it in after he's already kneeling on the floor in front of Bellatrix, his wand hand bound to Narcissa's by ropes of fire. My own view is that Snape had become, at that very moment, the DADA teacher because at that very moment Slughorn had accepted the Potions position, and Narcissa's inspiration in presenting the third provision is the stroke of doom for Snape, the DADA curse falling into place. The hellish imagery emphasizes his mistake in agreeing to the vow. He is *bound* by the vow to perform a terrible deed that he doesn't want to perform (as indicated by the twitch) or die. He is already, I think, in his own private hell, which by the time Harry calls him a coward is scarcely endurable. Magpie: > There's absolutely nothing preventing it from being straightforward: Draco's given the task of killing Dumbledore. Narcissa goes to Snape and asks him to intercede so Draco doesn't have to kill Dumbledore. Snape vows to protect Draco and kill Dumbledore if it seems Draco won't be able to do it, since they all know he won't. (God knows why he vows this, but he does.) Meanwhile, Draco is eager to prove himself by killing Dumbledore. He has a special plan to do so, due to his knowing about Montague. He will fix the Cabinet so that he can get a whole team of DEs into the castle to do the fighting and give him his clear shot at Dumbledore, which he will then take. When the Cabinets aren't easily fixed he tries other ways of killing. The pressure gets worse, everything gets more real, and we get the end we get. Carol: That's pretty much the way I see it, too, only I think I understand why Snape took the UV (it's only the third provision that prsents a problem, in any case). His whole motive, IMO, was to protect Draco at whatever cost. But I think he thought the cost would be to himself, not Dumbledore, who was still, despite the injury to his hand, the most powerful wizard in the WW at that time. Carol, who finds it interesting that DDM!Snapers disagree with each other about the UV as much as we disagree with the ESE!OFH! faction From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 2 18:57:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:57:09 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165629 > Snow: > > Where has Dumbledore ever been presented to anyone as simply an old > man? > Dumbledore may be the most powerful wizard that ever lived seeing as > Voldemort himself feared Dumbledore. Magpie: Draco Malfoy isn't Voldemort, though. He speaks of Dumbledore disrespectfully as early as CoS--and continues to in HBP. He's just his headmaster. He's ignorant of how difficult this task is on all counts. Snow:> > Draco's most cocky moment to me appeared on the train to Hogwarts > when he was boasting that he didn't really feel the need to be > bothered with education since the Dark Lord has him destined...to do > what? Kill someone that the Dark Lord himself can't do and is afraid > of? Magpie: Draco is bragging about having been given a job, an opportunity, to prove himself the Dark Lord and so enter the real world. Draco has not yet met the reality of just how difficult his task is. He knows it's a big challenge, but at this point he's determined to meet that challenge. He's got no idea just how difficult what he's being asked to do is and in how many ways. He just knows he's been Chosen. > Magpie: > The Cabinets *are* Draco's method of killing Dumbledore himself. He > gets > backup to get himself to Dumbledore, and then he has to do it. The > Cabinets > are a way of working on killing DD, but also something putting it > off, > because the Cabinets aren't the killing part. > > Snow: > > The Cabinets are essential if Draco feels that he is in total need of > backup. Why would Draco cry to Myrtle if it were not for his failure > in procuring the entranceway through the cabinets? Magpie: I'm not sure how this relates. Draco *does* want back up. That's what his whole plan is about. With back up, he will be able to kill Dumbledore (or he hopes he will, because he must). > > Magpie: > He's tasted some of the reality of death with Katie and Ron and is > beginning > to realize how hard his task is. The Cabinet isn't getting fixed and > Voldemort has started threatening him. So he's beginning to > understand how > hard this is, how he quite possibly is not going to be able to do it, > and > Voldemort threatening him and his family with death. > > Snow: > > Katie and Ron would mean very little if not nothing at all to the boy > who is supposedly destined to kill the greatest wizard... Magpie: That's your interpretation of what Katie and Ron would mean and I don't think it's accurate. Why should Katie and Ron mean nothing at all to him? They might mean nothing to his father, but his father has the temperament to be a Death Eater and a murderer. Draco does not necessarily have that. If they meant nothing to him, I think he'd be more able to kill at the end. This is the first time Draco's ever been in this kind of situation. If he's not acting the way we think he should act in the situation, it's possible we're wrong about him and not the situation. Regardless, even if you don't think Katie and Ron have begun to make murder more real to him, he's still got plenty of reasons to cry in the bathroom later in the year than he did in the beginning when he didn't know how hard this all would be, and how threatening Voldemort would be. > > Magpie: > Yes, he sort of is closer to killing Dumbledore. The Cabinets bring > the DEs > in, and that's supposed to pave his way. (Plus, he's done something > right. > He is, imo, genuinely pleased to have actually completed something > he's been > trying to do for so long.) > > Snow: > > Yes, Draco is pleased with himself but the question still remains as > to why he would be. Draco is no closer to his objective of securing > Dumbledore's fate than he was before, why the celebration? Magpie: Because he is closer to his objective. He's fixed the Vanishing Cabinets to get backup into the school, and with the backup he's supposedly going to be able to kill Dumbledore. He's celebrating the completion of this step in his plan, one that he's been working on for a long time. As long as the Cabinets couldn't be fixed he didn't know what to do. Now he thinks things will begin to go his way. > Magpie: > The Deatheaters *are* there to help fulfill his assignment. They are > his > backup who will make it so that all he has to do is point his wand > and do > the curse. The delusional concept is that killing is as easy as > pointing a > wand and saying the words. It is somewhat stupid, but despite Malfoy > not > being one of the world's great thinkers, it's not all that dumb for a > naive > adolescent. He doesn't have all that many choices from his pov, so he > pretty > much has to go forward as far as he can. > > Snow: > > You have acknowledged yourself that Draco is a na?ve adolescent. Can > you honestly think that such a person could possibly feel he had a > half-a-chance-in-hell of killing the most powerful wizard that may > have ever lived? Magpie: Yes! Of course! He's naive and adolescent. He doesn't understand the difficulty. There's not even really a reason why he should, he's that naive. Snape, who is not na?ve, is the one who knows how impossible it is. (At the end Draco reveals that he knows everyone thought he would die; he was, it seems, determined to prove them wrong.) > Magpie: > I tend to think it's one of those things like the Life Debt. It > doesn't hold > up to scrutiny but it makes sense on the face of it. It's > just "promise to > do this or else you die." As for Draco, there I have no problem. He > seems to > be acting perfectly in character for me throughout the story. > > Snow: > > If a life debt acted the way in which you are proposing, Pettigrew > would be dead right now. A life debt is not a promise it is more of a > responsibility with no time limit. You owe someone your life. Magpie: Sorry, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean that the Life Debt killed you--I don't think it does. My point was that some of these things JKR has created are like adding magical touches to the kind of ideas kids instinctively get. So a Life Debt is just a situation where you feel like you really owe somebody something. An Unbreakable Vow is where you've really promised to do something for somebody. It doesn't hold up to loopholes and scrutiny, imo, and it's not supposed to. I'd also add the TriWizard tournament to that. Why doesn't anyone find a loophole in Harry's participation? He could show up at the events but not compete, or immediately take last place. But he doesn't. It's just covered in "Ancient magic-- once your name comes out you've got to compete" and it's understood he's just got to compete to the best of his ability. > Snow: > > A parasite is not Voldemort himself breaching security; Voldemort was > denied his breach of Hogwarts when Tom applied for a teaching > position. > > As for a group of Deatheaters being the same as or equal to a single > member (the member in question is still under scrutiny, at least to > me), I would have to disagree. Magpie: Voldemort has been in Hogwarts, a Death Eater has been in Hogwarts. (I was referring to Barty Crouch the teacher there, not Snape. There's no doubt of his loyalties.) That's pretty close to what we're talking about, with only technical distinctions that don't seem to me to carry much weight. It seems like we're just raising the bar so that it fits Snape's line about Voldemort never having done this thing. But why do that when we know for a fact that Draco was supposed to kill Dumbledore and that was what Snape was referring to--something that had also been built up as a known issue with Voldemort? > Snow: > > This was not exactly what I had in mind when I made the statement > > that I did. I agree that Dumbledore was always the target, I just > > don't think Draco or his mother were aware that he was the only one > > destined to do the deed of the actual killing. > > Magpie: > They don't? But isn't that the subject of all their early > conversations? > That's why Narcissa comes to Snape, because it's Draco who's got to > do it. > Snape says yes, he has to do it. Draco talks about how there's > something > he's got to do. > > Snow: > > No, I don't think they do. What is it that Draco has to do at that > point, is exactly my controversy. Magpie: But it's put forth perfectly straightforwardly in the story, which all revolves around Draco's committing this murder. That's what Draco is trying to do, that's what Draco can not do, that is what Snape does for him. > Magpie: > So you mean Snape didn't know he was vowing to kill Dumbledore > because he > thought Draco was just trying to get the DEs into Hogwarts? That > doesn't > support the drama I'm seeing throughout the story, or any of the > characters > reactions. I also don't think it fits the way JKR writes. She writes > bold, > clear, tragic things. It all fits together beautifully if you take > the > straightforward stuff that's there and fit it together simply. Imo, > when we > start complicating things with offscreen mistakes and mind- changes, > and > confusion...it turns to mush for me. > > Snow: > > No disrespect meant but are we reading the same writing? JKR is > anything but clear or bold in her cleverness, which is why she is so > awesome. Magpie: Yes, we are. JKR is very clear and bold in her cleverness. If she wasn't the cleverness would be lost in confusion, which I think is happening here. The book is over. Most of these shoes are dropped. Scabbers was Peter Pettigrew. Moody was Barty Crouch. Ginny opened the Chamber. Voldemort wanted to get Harry to the MoM for the Prophecy. Draco was trying to kill Dumbledore and Snape did it instead. Quirrel had Voldemort on his head. Clear and bold and clever. Everything fitting together. With my view that it's clear, the book holds together and comes to a satisfying conclusion. With your feeling that it can't be clear, we're still puzzling over what happened in a book we all read over a year ago. That's not awesome, imo. > > Magpie continued: > There's absolutely nothing preventing it from being straightforward: > Draco's > given the task of killing Dumbledore. Narcissa goes to Snape and asks > him to > intercede so Draco doesn't have to kill Dumbledore. Snape vows to > protect > Draco and kill Dumbledore if it seems Draco won't be able to do it, > since > they all know he won't. (God knows why he vows this, but he does.) > > Snow: > > First off, your end quotation is why I question this in the first > place. > Secondly, your first sentence I have to rebuttal with; JKR is > anything but straightforward. Magpie: I think she really is straightforward. She misdirects, but ultimately she is fair about how she plays with readers, eventually giving them the answers they need. We enjoy being misdirected because it pays off when we're told the truth. As to why Snape takes the vow, that is a big honkin' mystery hanging out there, but one (according to how JKR plays fair, imo) that will need to be solved fitting all the things we already know. The answer for why Snape took the Vow can not, imo, un-write HBP. It has to incorporate answers revealed in that book. > Magpie continuing: > Meanwhile, Draco is eager to prove himself by killing Dumbledore. He > has a > special plan to do so, due to his knowing about Montague. He will fix > the > Cabinet so that he can get a whole team of DEs into the castle to do > the > fighting and give him his clear shot at Dumbledore, which he will > then take. > When the Cabinets aren't easily fixed he tries other ways of killing. > The > pressure gets worse, everything gets more real, and we get the end we > get. > > Snow: > > JKR has proven herself to be deceptive throughout the series so why > would I doubt her strategy on any point? Magpie: How do you mean she is deceptive here? I'm saying she's straightforward in that she finishes a book that reveals certain answers and then moves on. There's not several shifting answers to questions, because that would, imo, not allow the books to be fun recognition mysteries that improve on re-reading. Further answers, imo, need to add to the revelations of earlier books without destroying them. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 19:37:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:37:25 -0000 Subject: Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165630 > Neri: > > If I had the impression that JKR > > really really likes Snape I might actually consider that she would go > > to such length just to acquit him, but unfortunately I don't get that > > impression from her at all. > > Pippin: > > If JKR wants to torture Snape on screen, she'd do better to make him > one of the good guys. She's much more graphic about their suffering than > anyone else's, IMO. Alla: Where was she **graphic** in describing suffering? At the top of my head, I can only qualify Harry in Graveyard, more or less. IMO of course. Now, I agree that she is **good** in dropping hints and showing details that make us sympathise with good guys suffering, that is true. Sirius hunted eyes for example, Lupin's appearance, etc. But I am not sure what does the sentence **If JKR wants to torture Snape on screen, she better make him one of good guys** means. Do you mean she cannot torture bad guys or do you mean something else? After all she specifically said that Umbridge is around because it is fun to torture her, no? And I doubt that anybody would call her a good guy. JMO. Alla, hoping that maybe Snape will be tortured for the same reasons as Umbridge. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 20:16:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:16:56 -0000 Subject: Olivander and an Uber-wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165631 Dondee wrote: > My sister today told me of her new theory as to why Ollivander > disappeared and I thought I'd share it with you... > > We know that LV will have trouble using his wand against Harry's in the future because they share Fawkes' feathers. We know Ollivander is the "best" wand maker acording to Arthur Weasley and that he only works with phoenix feathers, unicorn hairs, and dragon heart strings. JKR has stated that Harry, Ron and Hermionie's wands make a triumvirate of power because they each contain one of the three cores. > > My sis wonders if Ollivander was taken for the purpose of creating a > new wand for LV that would contain all three cores as a kind of Uber-wand. > Carol responds: I've never heard the "uberwand" theory before, but others have suggested that Ollivander was kidnapped to force him to create a new wand for LV to prevent the Priori Incantatem/brother wand effect. I disagree for multiple reasons. For one thing, all Voldemort has to do is disarm Harry or have a DE disarm him and the whole brother-wand effect is a moot point. He had no trouble Crucioing Harry in the graveyard. The only thing he couldn't do was Imperio him (not a result of the wand he was using, any more than being unable to possess him in OoP relates to the wand). Also, the wands JKR has chosen for Harry and Voldie are highly symbolic, as I noted in my Christmas FILK, "The Holly and the Yew Wood." Harry's wand is holly (associated with Christmas and symbolizing the resurrection of Christ) and Phoenix feather (symbolizing immortality, rebirth, and renewal) and Voldemort's is yew (symbolizing immortality, transformation, and rebirth) and the same Phoenix feather core. The wand is the emblem of Voldemort's quest for earthly immortality (as opposed to the eternal spiritual life beyond the Veil, which he fears above all things, viewing death as the end of everything rather than "the next great adventure"). The chief difference between these two wands, both symbolizing immortality and eternal life, is that Harry's is associated with Christianity and therefore with the eternal life of the soul, whereas Voldemort's is, ironically, made of a wood so poisonous that the breathing the dust from sanding or cutting the wood can poison the woodworker (Ollivander must have had to take magical precautions in preparing this particular wand. Why he would make it at all since a wand associated with both death and rebirth would surely choose only a Dark wizard obsessed with immortality is beyond me, especially if Ollivander is an ally of Dumbledore's as he seems to be.) Although Harry's wand appears to be quite powerful, Voldemort's seems even more so (thirteen-and-a-half inches as opposed to eleven inches, if size matters). He is, next to Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard in the WW--and the most powerful *Dark* wizard for a century (more so than Grindelwald, apparently). The yew-and-Phoenix-feather wand *chose* Tom Riddle, presumably sensing both his power and his obsession with immortality, just as its "brother" chose Harry (apparently sensing some connection with Voldemort, whether his powers or, heaven forfend, a soul bit, or merely his destiny as Voldemort's nemesis, we don't know). The conflict between the brother wands is, IMO, symbolic of the conflict between their owners. Ollivander expects "great things" from Harry based on the wand that chose him, noting that "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things--terrible, yes, but great" (SS Am. ed. 85) with its brother. (Does Ollivander know about the Horcruxes? What else would qualify as "terrible but great"?) It seems likely that Voldemort would want to keep the wand that helped him achieve "greatness." Just as Harry is fond of his own wand, thinking that it's not the wand's fault that it's related to Voldemort's any more than he can help being related to Aunt Petunia, Voldemort also appears to be fond of his wand, as he is of "dear Nagini": "Voldemort slipped one of those unaturally long-fingered hands into a deep pocket and drew out a wand. He caressed it gently too" (he has just finished examining his hands with a "rapt and exultant" expression) GoF Am. ed. (644). The wand he's caressing is the same one that he used to kill Harry's parents and the other victims who later come out of it (including Cedric--though how the wand got into Voldemort's pocket after Wormtail used it on Cedric is unclear. Did he use a different wand, his own, to summon the bits of bone for the potion? He ran off without a wand in PoA.) Voldemort's wand is also, clearly, the same one that killed his parents earlier, the same wand that created the Horcruxes, the brother to Harry's wand, as we see in the Priori Incantatem effect. Would Voldemort give up the powerful wand that helped him rise to power and (apparently) helped resurrect him, the wand with the powerful symbolism of yew and Phoenix feather, just because it's the "brother" to Harry's wand? I doubt it seriously. He'll just find a way to get around that effect, preferably disarming Harry, giving him another taste of the Cruciatus Curse that the wand performs so effectively before killing him. Carol, who thinks that all this symbolism would be thrown away if Voldemort were to replace the powerful yew-and-phoenix-feather wand with which he has done so many great but terrible things From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 17:45:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:45:40 -0000 Subject: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165632 Mike wrote: > In the mean time he is sort of a ghost, but less so. In fact "less than the meanest ghost". Not sure what if any reason JKR had for adding the adjective "meanest". > > > Dondee comments: > In my good old Merriam-Webster, mean is defined as humble, or lacking in power. Also ordinary, shabby, and contemptable. LV was therefore less than the humblest and least powerful ghost. Pretty pathetic considering that about all ghosts can do is appear suddenly out of chalkboards, make you cold when they pass through you and, lest we forget, moan and groan ;) > Carol responds: With regard to the first part of your post, you're correct. "Mean" in British English means (among other things) low and contemptible. LV is emphasizing his weakness and feebleness. I think this might be one instance when the American editor might have been justified in altering an adjective so that it made sense to young American readers, who would naturally read "mean" as vaguely synonymous with "cruel in a small or petty way" ("Mommy, that boy was mean to me!") On a sidenote, words shift in meaning, sometimes retaining a meaning in British English that is lost in American English or vice versa. Look at "nice" (formerly meaning "finicky" or "exacting," as in "a nice distinction," but at one time meaning "wanton or dissolute"). Other examples off the top of my head include words that have lost their power (both "awful" and "awesome" used to mean "inspiring awe"). But with regard to ghosts, they do a bit more than moan and clank on the astronomy tower. The Bloody Baron is somehow able to control Peeves. NHN helps Harry cope with Sirius Black's death by explaining that "he will have gone on." Moaning Myrtle helps Harry with his golden egg in GoF, and her screams bring Snape running to save Draco in HBP. And Professor Binns, bless his dull, departed soul, is still teaching History of Magic, exactly as he did in life. Carol, who hopes that the Hogwarts ghosts, immune as they are to death, will somehow join the fight against Voldemort in DH From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 2 21:52:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:52:39 -0000 Subject: Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165633 > Alla: > > Where was she **graphic** in describing suffering? At the top of my > head, I can only qualify Harry in Graveyard, more or less. IMO of > course. Pippin: Off the top of my head in no particular order, Harry hears Lily screaming in his dementor memories, screams himself in the graveyard, sees Molly screaming over the boggart memory, Ron screaming about spiders in the FF, Sirius being tortured by Voldemort (okay it's not "real" , but it's still a torture scene) Neville tortured by Bella, Ron getting attacked by brains, suffering for at least an hour with a broken leg, and so on. The bad guys tend to suffer more permanent damage, but it's usually off screen. Whatever happened to Umbridge, we didn't see it. Ditto Crouch Jr, Quirrell, Karkaroff, Bella, Lucius, Kreacher, need I go on? Pippin From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 16:42:18 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:42:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001901c75ce9$c3d65f10$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165634 --Snow Wrote-- >>>I'm going with a very quick response here but didn't Dumbledore have an >ability to acknowledge traces of magic? >We know that Dumbledore has come into contact, quite recently in fact, >with one of Voldemort's Horcruxes...so wouldn't it stand to reason that >Dumbledore knew that the Locket in the potion held a Voldy Horcrux? >Dumbledore isn't easily outfoxed is he? <<< --Ronin's Comments-- I guess that because of his weakened condition and having to concentrate on keeping the inferi at bay, he wasn't able to sense traces of magic on the locket. He also wasn't looking for traces because he probably assumed it was the locket he had been after. With all of the trouble to get it, he wouldn't have expected it to be a fake until there was more time to examine it and destroy the horcrux. At least, that would be my guess. Assuming that Dumbledore has to concentrate to feel the traces of magic and it's not just something he senses naturally. I wonder about Dumbledore's mad ramblings while drinking the potion. It seemed like odd hallucinations to Harry, but maybe it was actually Dumbledore being forced to relive his worst memories. Like one of his big mistakes had placed someone else into harm's way. I wonder if this was the case and if so, if it had something to do with Harry's parents and why he trusts Snape without question. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 22:32:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:32:13 -0000 Subject: Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165635 > > Alla: > > > > Where was she **graphic** in describing suffering? At the top of my > > head, I can only qualify Harry in Graveyard, more or less. IMO of > > course. > > Pippin: > Off the top of my head in no particular order, Harry hears Lily > screaming in his dementor memories, screams > himself in the graveyard, sees Molly screaming over the boggart > memory, Ron screaming about spiders in the FF, Sirius being > tortured by Voldemort (okay it's not "real" , but it's still a torture > scene) Neville tortured by Bella, Ron getting attacked by brains, > suffering for at least an hour with a broken leg, and so on. Alla: Hee, definitely top of your head is better than mine. I do not count couple of them as real suffering, hurt-comfort, etc ( like Ron screaming about spiders and Ron attacked by brains), and I am still not sure how graphic they are in general, but certainly every other example I accept is at least of the same level as Harry in graveyard. But again, that does not really answer my question. What did you mean by that sentence? Does it mean that Rowling *has to** make Snape a good guy if she wants to torture him? Pippin: > The bad guys tend to suffer more permanent damage, but it's > usually off screen. Whatever happened to Umbridge, we didn't > see it. Ditto Crouch Jr, Quirrell, Karkaroff, Bella, Lucius, Kreacher, > need I go on? Alla: Okay, but who says that Snape **has to** be tortured on screen? I don't think that was Neri's original point, was it? Say we learn that his head was cut off of screen - would certainly be plenty enough to satisfy me for example. :) From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 01:24:35 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:24:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: <001901c75ce9$c3d65f10$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165636 --Snow Wrote-- >>>I'm going with a very quick response here but didn't Dumbledore have an >ability to acknowledge traces of magic? >We know that Dumbledore has come into contact, quite recently in fact, >with one of Voldemort's Horcruxes...so wouldn't it stand to reason that >Dumbledore knew that the Locket in the potion held a Voldy Horcrux? >Dumbledore isn't easily outfoxed is he? --Ronin's Comments-- I guess that because of his weakened condition and having to concentrate on keeping the inferi at bay, he wasn't able to sense traces of magic on the locket. He also wasn't looking for traces because he probably assumed it was the locket he had been after. With all of the trouble to get it, he wouldn't have expected it to be a fake until there was more time to examine it and destroy the horcrux. At least, that would be my guess. Assuming that Dumbledore has to concentrate to feel the traces of magic and it's not just something he senses naturally. Snow again: Before Dumbledore had taken any of the potion to cause his weakened condition, Harry asked: "You think the Horcrux is in there, sir?" "Oh yes." Dumbledore peered more closely into the basin. HBP pg. 568 U.S. Dumbledore acts, I would say the majority of the times, very evasively like `I believe it to be' but on this specific occasion Dumbledore answers with an emphatic yes. Dumbledore appears to be absolutely certain that the Horcrux is in the basin. I'm going to agree that the Horcrux locket was definitely in this basin. Harry had momentarily caught a glimpse of it: "...He barely registered the golden locket lying curled beneath it" HBP pg. 574 The next time Harry had come into contact with the locket he recognized "there was something wrong": "This was neither as large as the locket he remembered seeing in the Pensieve, nor were there any markings upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark." HBP pg. 609 There was a note inside this false locket that fell out of Dumbledore's pocket which of course was signed RAB. Ok now for my dramatic conclusion...drum roll please...The locket that had the note in it belonged to Albus Dumbledore who was going to leave it in place of the real locket that had been taken but being in such distress at the time he procured the Horcrux locket, he failed to leave this fake locket in its place. The only thing I truly find missing in this scenario is that Dumbledore is missing the first initial used when signing the note. The man had five names and none of them begin with R. Oh yeah, where is the real locket...with the only possible person who could have it...Madam Rosmerta. She was the only person who came into contact with Dumbledore close enough for him to have given it to. She may not even know it...but I'll bet his brother somehow does! When Dumbledore became aware of the Dark Mark over Hogwarts and all it could entail, he left the locket with the only person he could incase something happened at Hogwarts to Harry or himself and the locket may fall into the wrong hands...Voldemort's. This would alert Voldemort to the plan of breaching his immortality measures. Ronin: I wonder about Dumbledore's mad ramblings while drinking the potion. It seemed like odd hallucinations to Harry, but maybe it was actually Dumbledore being forced to relive his worst memories. Like one of his big mistakes had placed someone else into harm's way. I wonder if this was the case and if so, if it had something to do with Harry's parents and why he trusts Snape without question. Snow: This one is totally up for grabs! Dumbledore does have a hidden past with very few clues to it. The man has five first names; he has a brother who Albus is not sure whether or not can read; we know he feels strongly about making uninfluenced choices; when he took his NEWT's, he had done things that the examiner was astounded by and we also know he gives people, that no one else would, the benefit of doubt...the second chance. Something happened in Dumbledore's past to allow for such behavior I would think. Dumbledore could have been reliving his own memory. Something in Dumbledore's life experience allows him to view people differently than most would and give them that second chance. Maybe someone influenced young Albus into making a bad decision the first time round and maybe someone gave Dumbledore a second chance to get it right. This could be Dumbledore's ramblings from a past he never wanted to relive. I'm sure we will find out very soon Snow From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 2 23:29:39 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:29:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165637 Carol: > But the dreams are different. Harry experiences > them, one as Frank Bryce, a complete stranger who > ends up getting killed, and one as himself, riding > the back of an eagle owl and then shifting to the > floor of the room where Voldemort is sitting with > Wormtail and Nagini(who also appear in the first > dream). How can *Harry* as opposed to the narrator, > who can be any place JKR wants him to be, be inside > Frank Bryce's mind or on the back of that owl? Voldemort, > to whom he's mentally linked by the scar, is in neither > place. He's not possessing Frank or the owl. > Is JKR cheating just to provide information that > Harry couldn't otherwise know, or is there a logical > explanation for Harry to see from a point of view > other than Voldemort's in his Voldie dreams? > Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW houyhnhnm: I don't have an explanation for why Harry's scar connection to Voldemort allowed him to dream about Voldemort from another's point of view in GoF. But what changed between GoF and OotP was Voldemort's use of Harry's blood to restore himself to a body, so I would guess that the change in Harry's dreams has something to do with the blood connection. I, too, thought the eagle owl belonged to the Malfoys. That dream puzzled me when I first read it and it still does. I have the feeling that there is something important in it that I am not getting. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 2 22:30:20 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:30:20 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165638 > Carol responds: > Exactly. "Killing isn't as easy as the inocent believe." Not that > Draco is innocent; he's certainly guilty of trying twice to kill > Dumbledore and of recklessly endangering fellow students with the mead > and necklace, not to mention endangering the whole school by bringing > in the DEs and making the murder of Dumbledore not only possible but > inevitable, but actually casting an AK on a helpless old man who's > standing there talking to him is harder than he expected (just as it's > harder than Harry expected when he points his wand at Sirius Black, > though Draco has the advantage of knowing the spell), and it gets > harder with every moment as Dumbledore expertly manipulates him into > talking about it, explaining his situation and almost bragging about > the coins and the cabinet and how he's succeeded in spite of all the > adults who expected him to fail. > > Unlike Magpie, I don't see any remorse on Draco's part for almost > killing Ron and Katie, but he's had a recent brush with death himself, > Harry's Sectumsempra curse, and when it comes time, he can't make > himself commit murder, even when the DE backup arrives. He just stands > there "irresolute," not putting down his wand and refusing to do the > "job" now that the "plan" has succeeded, but unable to go through with > the actual killing. He's not cocky now. He's just a kid on the verge > of realizing that being Voldemort's man is neither glorious nor > exciting. It's just doing the dirty work of a vicious dictator who's > as cruel to his own supporters, his *servants*, as he is to his enemies. Magpie: Right--just wanted to clarify that I don't think this is dependent on what I might personally imagine what's going on in Draco's head. We're not in that pov, so there's rooms for a lot of shades of interpretations as long as they fit with what we see him doing. But just to make my own clear, I feel like sometimes it comes across too much like I'm saying that after Katie and Ron get hurt Draco is stricken with remorse and starts "turning good" on some level, and that's not quite what I think it has to mean. He could be horrified in that way--as I said in my other post I don't think we can say that Draco *must* not be effected by Katie and Ron that way because that's what a Death Eater would be and they're blood-traitors etc., because the point is Draco's discovering he's not what he's always presented himself as being. But for me part of the importance for Draco (along with the way it alerts others to what he's doing) is just that the murder becomes more real throughout the year. What happens to Katie and Ron is one more step out of the fantasy--he's sent these things into the school with, I think, the vague idea that this is how one commits a murder, and then something real happens as a result. Draco's entering the world of the real, even if he's not ready for it. I don't think it has to be about remorse on his part, like the way someone like, say, Ron might feel remorse, but it's part of the nudge towards Draco having to take a stand one way or the other. I, uh, sort of have a much longer thought on that but it's going in a paper so I won't get on a tear now.:-) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 3 02:50:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:50:37 -0000 Subject: Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165639 Alla: > Does it mean that Rowling *has to** make Snape a good guy if she > wants to torture him? > > > Pippin: > > The bad guys tend to suffer more permanent damage, but it's > > usually off screen. Whatever happened to Umbridge, we didn't > > see it. Ditto Crouch Jr, Quirrell, Karkaroff, Bella, Lucius, > Kreacher, > > need I go on? > > Alla: > > Okay, but who says that Snape **has to** be tortured on screen? I > don't think that was Neri's original point, was it? > > Say we learn that his head was cut off of screen - would certainly be > plenty enough to satisfy me for example. :) Pippin: How would Rowling manage that? It would be anticlimactic if someone other than Harry sends Snape to his final reward, seeing as how Harry has pretty much vowed to kill Snape if he gets the chance. Neri's point, if I understood it, was that Rowling doesn't like Snape, so we shouldn't expect her to take a lot of trouble to redeem him. My point was that those who don't like Snape and really want to see him suffer should hope that he's a good guy, because the good guys get tortured on screen more than the bad guys do. We've seen Snape tortured already. I don't know if that hints at his true allegiance, but it certainly did create sympathy for him. To judge by her interviews, JKR doesn't want us to feel too sorry for the bad guys, so my guess is she won't show them suffering very much even in DH. If semi-humorous scenes don't count as torture, then I guess the Dursleys and Umbridge haven't been tortured on screen at all. If that's the case then I have to say I can't think of any cases where baddies have been tortured except for Draco in the bathroom, Wormtail and Avery. And they're characters who may well be redeemed. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 00:28:07 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:28:07 -0000 Subject: Who suffers better in Potterverse - good guys or bad guys? WAS : Unbreakable vo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165640 > Neri: > > If I had the impression that JKR really really likes Snape I might actually consider that she would go to such length just to acquit him, but unfortunately I don't get that impression from her at all. Goddlefrood: Isn't it rather the point of the discussion regarding Snape that he is and remains an enormously ambiguous charcter. Each action he has taken throughout the series can be subject to argument as to whether it was serving Dumbledore's purpose or Voldemort's purpose or his own purpose. The point is it is difficult to get a handle on Severus and JKR has quite deliberately left the point inconclusive. As she says all will be tied up in a neat little bow in DH, which presumably includes Snape's motives. Personally I expect at least three or four chapters on Snape, whether with Harry present or otherwise. > Pippin: > > If JKR wants to torture Snape on screen, she'd do better to make him one of the good guys. She's much more graphic about their suffering than anyone else's. Goddlefrood: There are instances of bad guys being torured "on screen" as it is put. One that springs to mind is the instance of the baby headed Death Eater (who for reasons expanded on elsewhere is Crabbe senior). That was certainly unpleasant and actually kind of offensive on JKR's part. What it brought to my mind was the old insult "pinhead", with which JKR would be more than familiar being of a similar vintage to this writer and of a similar background. Another instance is Quirrell whose suffering was made quite plain during the course of the Man With Two Faces and he was IMHO rather misguided than an actual bad guy. If the implication is, Pippin, that Snape is a bad guy as we have not seen him suffer "on screen" then I would beg to differ and say that it is no proof one way or another. > Pippin: > Off the top of my head in no particular order, Harry hears Lily screaming in his dementor memories, screams himself in the graveyard, sees Molly screaming over the boggart memory, Ron screaming about spiders in the FF, Sirius being tortured by Voldemort (okay it's not "real" , but it's still a torture scene) Neville tortured by Bella, Ron getting attacked by brains, suffering for at least an hour with a broken leg, and so on. Goddlefrood: Allow me to add to this list the case of Hagrid being beaen up by his half brother throughout HBP, Lockhart having his memory blasted by a backfiring wand (even though Gilderoy is really neither good nor bad and insignificant in terms of the wider story ark), Katie Bell being cursed by a necklace, Madam Rosmerta labouring under an Imperius curse, Tonks pining for love and Lupin being compelled to hang out with werewolves. > > Pippin: > > The bad guys tend to suffer more permanent damage, but it's usually off screen. Whatever happened to Umbridge, we didn't see it. Ditto Crouch Jr, Quirrell, Karkaroff, Bella, Lucius, Kreacher, need I go on? Goddlefrood: Response to first comment of Pippin's as above, there are examples of bad guys suffering before our eyes, or rather Harry's. One of these days I must write a long planned piece regarding Snape that compliments my theory (way uplist) that Snape never wanted the DADA job. Whether this will convince anyone or just give me personal satisfaction for having finally put it together is another matter. Goddlefrood with a small two penn'orth FWIW. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 03:43:07 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 03:43:07 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165641 > Pippin: > "He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is > determined that Draco should try first. You see, in the unlikely > event that Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts > a little longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy." --HBP ch 2 > Neri: Thanks, this was precisely my distinction. Snape is sure that Voldemort is determined that Draco should try first, apparently because Voldemort has told him that, but he only "thinks" that Voldemort intends him to do it in the end. > > > Neri: > > I'm referring to the third part. The third part implies that if Draco > > tries to kill Dumbledore and fails, and Snape isn't present to step in > > and do the deed instead (say, because he's teaching or sleeping at the > > time) then he has broken the UV and he's dead, and there are no "to > > the best of your abilities" excuses in this part. > > Pippin: > But there's nothing about instantaneous action, either. Draco > fails with the necklace and the poison, fails to fix the cabinet for > months on end, Dumbledore continues to live, yet Snape doesn't > fall dead on the spot. The vow puts no time > limit on Snape's performance, which makes it a poor > contract. Narcissa needs a better lawyer > Neri: This isn't law. It's magic, and a very dangerous one. Draco doesn't fail with the necklace and the poison, because he has not been caught, and thus he's still free to make another try. For the same reason, as long as Draco hasn't fixed the cabinet but still has a fair chance to do so, he hasn't failed yet. But if he gets killed, then he certainly has failed. If he's locked in Azkaban or even just expelled from Hogwarts he doesn't have another chance at Dumbledore's life and so he's failed. Voldemort isn't going to wait until Draco is 150 years old for him to kill Dumbledore, and the UV isn't either. No time limits would make the whole UV magic worthless. > Pippin: > Snape, OTOH, is a DADA specialist -- he probably knows a whole lot > more about the Unbreakable Vow and its operations than Narcissa > does, and certainly more than we do. > Neri: You can be very good at DADA and yet you won't be able to cheat the UV if it's not cheatable. Just like you can't cheat the Fidelius no matter how good you are at Charms, and you can't cheat Felix Felicis no matter how good you are at Potions (or Slughorn would have surely used it much more than twice in a lifetime). The whole UV thing would be rather pointless if anyone good at DADA could fool it. Bellatrix knows something about these things too, and she's generally very suspicious of Snape, and yet she doesn't accuse him of slithering out of the UV terms. In her amazement you see that she believes this time Snape has committed himself totally. It never even crosses her mind that the UV can be fooled. > Pippin: > Narcissa herself put a loophole in it, as you say, to keep Snape > from having to kill Dumbledore at once. And if there's one, there > may be others that Snape thought of and she didn't. > Neri: No, this isn't a loophole. It's a simple condition, and one that Snape and Narcissa have discussed openly just a few pages before. > Pippin: > You don't like loopholes, because Snape being forced to do > the deed makes a better story. But only if the story is about Snape. > If the story is about Harry, then it's better if there is a loophole > and Harry refuses to see it. In a bildungsroman, the hero's > chief antagonist is not the villain, though villains there may be. > The chief antagonist is the hero's immature self. > Neri: No, you completely miss the reason I dislike loopholes. In fact I don't even dislike loopholes, exactly. It depends on the situation. When we receive from JKR almost zero background information, as with the UV, the "loopholes" are much larger then the walls. You could fly a flock of dragons through those "loopholes". We know so little that there's no fun at all playing the loophole game, because almost anything would be possible. In such cases I believe we have to accept the little information we did receive from JKR as reliable and binding. So for example, if no time limit was specified in the UV it means that no such limit is required. OTOH there are other cases in which we receive a lot of background information from JKR, and in these cases it's indeed fun to play the loophole game. For example, Harry and Hermione discuss in detail the Hogwarts security arrangements, so there it's a fair and fun challenge to try and discover how can Draco find a loophole in these arrangements. But even in such cases the most interesting solution would usually *not* be a loophole, but something completely original. This is why Draco's final solution with the Vanishing Cabinets has nothing to do with the security arrangements discussed by Harry and Hermione. It is not a loophole but something completely innovative. You need to think "outside the box" to discover it. I'd predict that *if* DDM!Snape indeed managed to fool the UV, the solution would be something outside the box and not a loophole. > > > > Neri: > > Sorry, not buying this stuff . DDM!Snape pities Narcissa, so his > > solution is to take a magical Vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself > > must end up dead? I reminds you we were looking for *rational* reasons. > > Pippin: > What's so rational about "Snape has the hots for Narcissa, so he takes a > vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself must wind up dead"? Either > way, he has an emotional bias towards helping her, which he can > rationalize by telling himself that Narcissa must have information > vital to the Order. Once he's convinced himself of that, the rest > follows. Neri: It's rational because if Snape isn't DDM, he doesn't care about what happens to Dumbledore. So if he estimates that he can gain more than he risks, then making the UV is rational. But if he's DDM, then choosing a course that must lead to either his own death or Dumbledore's isn't rational. It's stupid, as indeed the final result of HBP shows. If Snape was DDM than making the UV was really stupid of him. > Pippin: > Ask yourself, would Harry have risked his life to convince Dumbledore > that Draco had discovered a viable method of smuggling Death > Eaters into the school? If Harry promised to kill Dumbledore or die, > would he have any intention of killing Dumbledore rather than dying? > That's the DDM! mindset. Neri: In Harry's case we are told what's going on inside his head, so we'd know that he has always meant to die himself, not to kill Dumbledore. Although even in Harry's case there would always be an ugly suspicion that subconsciously Harry has chosen his own life over Dumbledore's, say because he was angry with him. This is probably why JKR has never made Harry promise such a thing. But with Snape we don't even get to look into his head, so we'd never know for certain that he has intended to die himself. Neri From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 03:43:07 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 03:43:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165642 Dondee wrote: We don't know when Harry started dreaming or, more to the point, where he started dreaming. Carol responded: (And what do you mane by "where he started dreaming"? He's in bed at home in 4 Privet Drive.) Dondee explains: Sorry, I should have been more plain. What I mean by 'where' is where in the sequence of events did dreaming Harry tune in to the conversation. I get the feeling from reading Harry's recollection at the beginning of chpt 2 that Harry diddn't tune in until LV was talking about murdering him. If you look back at the conversation LV gets mad at Wormtail for lying about wishing to leave him (pg. 9). We know Harry is better able to tune into LV when he is feeling hate or anger - this could have been the moment when Harry tuned in. Immediately following this LV and Worm tail talk about the murder of Bertha and about plans to get ahold of Harry and a moment later are joined by Nagini. Carol again: I agree that the dream is partially induced by the fumes in Trelawney's classroom and Harry's state of mind (we learn in OoP that he needs to empty his mind to block the dream of the corridor in the MoM), but that doesn't explain Harry's perspective. Why is Harry, who is linked by the scar to Voldemort's thoughts and emotions, not seeing from LV's point of view as he does in OoP? Logically, he should see the eagle owl arrive and read the message as LV reads it. He should be in Voldemort's mind, not his own (or Frank Bryce's in the earlier dream). Carol, hoping that she's not the only one interested in or bothered by such violations of narrative logic Dondee's reply: I admit I was reaching for an explaination for the second dream. I too am bothered by the confused logic here and hope that JKR may one day clear this up a bit. Cheers From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 03:52:31 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 03:52:31 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Neri: > > Hmmm, an interesting analogy, although I'm not sure how accurate. I > > think the situation you describe is mainly relevant to unconscious > > patients who are not expected to regain consciousness before they die. > > I believe that in most western states a doctor who deliberately stops > > CPR to a fully conscious patient would be accused of something, > > possibly murder. > > > > Pippin: > If the patient is conscious and capable of issuing a DNR (Do Not > Resuscitate) order, I believe the doctor would be guilty of malpractice > if he didn't honor it. If Dumbledore, as commander or patient, ordered > Snape not to try to save his life, it would be Snape's duty as subordinate > and/or doctor, to obey. > Neri: OK, lets be more exact. First, I think someone who needs CPR would be by default unconscious, so what I wrote before was rather stupid. DNR is not a direction to stop CPR, it is a direction not to begin CPR at all. The assumption is that the patient's heart has stopped, meaning he'd certain to die within seconds without CPR. So, I think the whole CPR analogy is rather inappropriate here. We've seen Dumbledore living and functioning quite well for almost a whole year since the ring incident. He drinks, eats and, erm... visits the toilet. He doesn't appear to be suffering pain, except occasionally when he uses his injured hand. His mental faculties seem intact. It doesn't look like Snape is actively performing any active constant magical/medical procedure on him (that is, Snape teaches, sleeps and so on throughout this year without any apparent effect on Dumbledore). So, if Snape is artificially keeping Dumbledore alive in any way throughout this year, it should be something more equivalent to patients who live normal life once they receive a certain medication regularly, but might die quickly if they do not receive it, say serious diabetes patients requiring insulin (there's probably a better example but I can't think of it at the moment). I suspect that a doctor would not be allowed to let a diabetes patient die by withholding insulin from him (even if that patient asks the doctor to do so) and I'm sure the doctor shooting that patient would be regarded as murder even if the doctor was supplying that patient with insulin throughout the previous year. Neri From tctrppr at netscape.net Sat Mar 3 02:06:33 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:06:33 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165644 Hello, all, Paul From WV. here. One thing puzzles me, and I apologize in advance if it has already been discussed. Reference HBP, when Harry and DD travel to the cave on the seashore to retrieve the horcrux. I am curious about the green liquid in the basin in the middle of the lake that contained the horcrux. How did the basin get refilled? If the basin had been emptied before, by who ever took the horcrux, it should have still been empty. Is the basin enchanted, so that it refills it's self when emptied? If not, who refilled it? Food for thought. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 04:27:29 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:27:29 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165645 > Paul > How did the basin get refilled? If the basin had been emptied before, by whoever took the horcrux, it should have still been empty. Is the basin enchanted, so that it refills itself when emptied? If not, who refilled it? Food for thought. Goddlefrood: Welcome Paul. Ask yourself this - if the original locket Horcrux was removed from the basin, do you not think it likely that as well as place a dummy locket therein that person would have refilled the basin? What I find most interesting relative to the potion in the basin is to wonder whether or not the potion that was there when Dumbledore and Harry arrived on the scene was the same as what was there when the original protection of the Horcrux was set up. OTOH it could be possible that the basin refills itself as suggested, but I like the idea that R. A. B. actually refilled the basin with a different potion altogether. Humbly submitted Goddlefrood, who hopes Yahoo!Mort won't take three hours to put this message through like my previous and also that it does not get reformatted ditto. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 04:30:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:30:13 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165646 > > Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW > > Magpie: > > > The main reason I felt guilty about snipping, btw, is that I was > completely distracted by your sig. I had made that connection too, > I think, perhaps only because we hear about Malfoy's eagle owl, and > then this is the only other eagle owl I remember hearing about. It > could be just the same breed, of course, but it sort of seems to > stand out as meaning something since usually owls aren't > identified by breed.(Hedwig, of course, is special.) > > It mostly interests me because, of course, I wonder about the > significance of it. Is Barty knowingly using the Malfoy's owl as > the sign of some private obsession? Mike: I made that same connection, Magpie and Carol. But then I got to thinking. Didn't we first see the owl making the delivery *from* Voldemort *to* Crouch Jr? And if that's the case, how did Voldemort or Wormtail get the Malfoy owl? They are still in hiding, at the Riddle mansion, I had assumed. They supposedly hadn't made contact with any other DEs besides Barty Jr. And Lucius certainly didn't show any sign, in the Graveyard scene, that he already knew LV was on his way back. I'm guessing that this could only be the symbology thing that Magpie spoke of. I don't see how it could've been the Malfoy's owl, FWIW. Mike From melissajhf at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 05:12:47 2007 From: melissajhf at yahoo.com (Melissa F) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:12:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <651650.5102.qm@web50814.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165647 --Snow Wrote-- >>>I'm going with a very quick response here but didn't Dumbledore have an >ability to acknowledge traces of magic? >We know that Dumbledore has come into contact, quite recently in fact, >with one of Voldemort's Horcruxes...so wouldn't it stand to reason that >Dumbledore knew that the Locket in the potion held a Voldy Horcrux? >Dumbledore isn't easily outfoxed is he? Okay... here's a theory. DD knew that the horcrux wasn't in the basin in the lake. He deliberately took Harry off Hogwarts grounds in order to let Draco get on with his assigned task from LV. He knew that Madame Rosmerta saw him and, IMO, knew that she was already under the Imperius Curse. By taking Harry and himself out, he was basically opening the door for the DEs to enter Hogwarts. I am sure that DD knew that his staff (and DD's Army) would provide adequate protection for the school -- this was proven since none of the "good guys" died, partly due to the Felix. Anyway, DD went to the tower, under the Dark Mark, knowing this was where the action would be happening. Draco came in, wavered in his execution, allowing Snape to come in and satisfy his end of the Unbreakable Vow. This ties in many threads going on right now-- DD was asking Snape to kill him, how was Snape going to get out of his end of the UV, and/or DD was already "partly" dead. My hypothesis is just that... however, I think that Book 7 will show that DD will be of use to Harry in his current, picturesque form. Maybe Harry will keep a DD Frog card in his pocket for later help... I don't know... but thought I would offer a theory! Feel free to tear it apart! Melissa, who is still holding out hope that DDM!Snape is really DDM! From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 06:42:28 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:42:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470703022242i2584d4c2n6e4679797798141b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165648 Carol: > Is JKR cheating just to provide information that Harry couldn't > otherwise know, or is there a logical explanation for Harry to see > from a point of view other than Voldemort's in his Voldie dreams? > > Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW Magpie: I feel very guilty snipping all of this because I think it's a really good question--one that I also wondered about in GoF. Is it just the JKR thought it was a neat way to segue into Harry after that opening chapter? Not exactly, since Harry wakes up knowing something is wrong and remembering part of the dream. But why is he dreaming about Frank and not Voldemort? And why does he later dream of those events also not from Voldemort's pov? ==================== Jeremiah: First, Carol, I know how you feel about snipping. lol. But I see it as the "Nature of the Beast" if you will... Ok, I agree with you, Carol. Harry has a lot of thinking to do and a lot of info needs to get to us as readers that Harry has to forget... so the dreams work beautifully. I'm re-reading the series and I was amazed at how many dreams Harry has and how many are recounted to us that Harry "forgot" after ha had them. I see it as significant to his psychological journey. As the series move forward we see less of the ones he forgets and as he begins remembering them we have another Harry on out hands that is different from the first. He also has a lot of instincts that I think are relevant to the dreams he has had. As his instincs grow the recounting of the dreams diminish... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 07:02:50 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:02:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's accio in the cave In-Reply-To: <651650.5102.qm@web50814.mail.yahoo.com> References: <651650.5102.qm@web50814.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470703022302y4a983178l43e0c7f5f86f5fe2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165649 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com , "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > Reading Ceridwen's recent post re:Unbreakable Vows made me think > about something... > > Harry and DD assumed that a real horcrux was at the center of the > lake in the cave. When Harry's summoning charm did not work was it > because the potion in the basin would not allow the removal of the > locket or because the locket was not a real horcrux? If a real > horcrux had been there would Accio have worked? > > It doesn't really matter now that it's all and done with but it's > an interesting thought. > > Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< > Mike: If you're willing to entertain an even more convoluted theory, try this one. When Harry tried Accio, the inferius that *leaps* out of the water wasn't really leaping. It was pulled out of the water because there was a Horcrux in his pocket. That particular inferius was none other than the now departed but not gone Regulus Arcturus Black. We know that a difficult summoning charm can be successful if the caster concentrates very hard. Learned that from Hermione in GoF. Well, first off, I don't think Harry was concentrating particularly hard for this attempt. Second, as soon as Reggie broke the water, whatever amount of concentration Harry had put into the charm was gone. \ \=================================== Jeremiah (very intrigued by this...) Well, where do I being with my response... Ok, Yes, I think that the Accio spell/charm didn't work because it was not a Horcrux and it was, indeed a locket, and that was not known to Harry or DD at the time. I think DD could not discern what was in the center of the lake (precicelsy, mind you... I'm sure he "figured" it was "supposed" to be there...) and that is why he let Harry do what he did. Not only that, I think DD was going to show Harry that sometimes the "easiest" of moves are not the right ones. :) Clever JKR.... Now, Mike. While I respect you idea I think it's very far fetched. However... well. no. I can't buy it. LOL. Sorry, man. I love thinking out of the box, though. But, as a guy just said to me... it might be that the lake has a spell on it that prevents such a thing from happening and it wouldn't have worked on anything on the island. (LOL. bird bath... LOL)... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 07:13:17 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:13:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: References: <45E397BB.3060802@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470703022313y70a4068bq84bde2ffd48994fc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165650 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > There is one major piece of information > which I have yet to hear ANY > ESE!Snape explanation for: > Why did Snape tip off the OOP about > the raid on the Ministry Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when Snape showed up Harry was already caught by Umbrage so Snape figured the plan had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage to escape and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan canceled anyway it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix what Harry said, in fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy for Voldemort. Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and about a dozen other people heard Harry talk to Snape about Padfoot, and sooner or later the Order would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell them immediately. Eggplant _----------------------------------------- Jeremiah: Well...what would Snape gain by not tipping off the Order? Harry's death? Voldemort hearing a prophesy that may or may not bring him to power... or his downfall? DD's respect? Snape has a funny way about him. Though I don't think he's out for himslef, I do think he has his own ideas on how LV should be "dealt" with. Sure, Snape might know what is going on with the DE's looking for the prophesy but I think that Snape is acknowledging DD's expertise in the matter of "dealing" with LV and when DD dies Snape can do things his own way. But, as we all know... we can never truly trust what Snape is thinking. He claims to see Tonks' Patronus but never says what it is... did he see it? He also makes claims to know what's going on between Draco and LV but never really speaks about what that is with Narcissa and Bellatrix. He's sneaky, that Snape. ESS!Snape? (Ever so Sneaky?) I think that Snape's motives change regarding the climate. Umbridge must go, Harry needs to fight LV... So, Umbridge would get in trouble for her behavior, but ig LV is to be destroyed then Harry has to do it. I'm sure Snape is smart enough to figure out that one... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 07:49:08 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:49:08 -0000 Subject: On lying and cheating (was:Lying vs Murder (was:Re: On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > But it's another unintended consequence. So again, Harry does > something stupid (lies) but luckily it turns out to give him a > brain storm on how to get in good with Slughorn? Is that supposed > to reflect well on him? Mike: Not admiring Harry here. As the DA, I was only responding to the question of what good did Harry's unearned potion rep do to advance the Order's cause. Just because it was unintended does not mean that it wasn't a valued result. I was deliberately limiting the scope to what good did having the rep do. > Betsy Hp: > It's like he left a rake lying around, stepped on it, got hit in > the head, and happened to notice a bag of money stuck up in a > tree while he was flat on his back on the ground. Lucky for Harry > and all, but nothing to point at and say "well played", etc. Mike: I think you and I are in agreement that the potions brilliance wasn't well played at all. Still, Harry did get that bag of money -- in this case, the Felix and the memory -- out of it. An old saw comes to mind: I'd rather be lucky than good! > > Mike previously: > > > > Harry neither seeks nor really wants this potions rep with > > Slughorn, therefore I don't see it as something that Harry > > should be held accountable for. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Of course Harry should be held accountable! It's *Harry's* actions > that got the whole ball rolling. Whether or not Slughorn was > predisposed to love whatever Harry got up to is of no consequence. > Harry cannot control that. But Harry *can* control himself, so of > course he should be held accountable for his own actions. Mike: Slughorn slaps that rep on Harry, as you pointed out, on day one. Also, as you pointed out, it was a rather chancy and by no means the obvious thing to follow the Princes hints on the DoLD potion. And even the folks that call the whole episodic journey with the Prince's book cheating, admit that on day one it's not fair to call Harry on it yet. So, yeah, I don't think it's fair to blame Harry for *getting* the rep. Whether we like it or not, Slughorn made this first class a competition. That being the case, Harry still made the attempt to clue Hermione in. > Betsy Hp: > And here's where JKR makes it hard. Slughorn doesn't question > Harry at all about how he figured out the best way to make the > potion. So there's no *easy* moment where Harry could have > said, "Oh there are some hand-written notes here that I followed." > Harry had to take the initiative, and he passively chose not to. Mike: Don't you think we would be holding Harry to a ridiculously high standard to expect him to speak up here? Had I had the good fortune to get that book I would feel no obligation to speak up on the first day. I would probably try sharing it with my friends, like Harry did. But, I would certainly wait to see if the first time was an abberation or the real deal. In any case, I would never feel an obligation to share with Draco, the enemy, who Harry already expects is up to no good this year. > Betsy Hp: > (Though he does lie to Ron in order to keep the Slytherins' from > finding out. It's then that the Prince officially becomes Harry's > secret. Something only his closest friends know about.) Mike: Yes, and he corrects that lie as soon as he's out of earshot of the Slytherins. I'd call it a tactical or tactful response, instead of a lie. To each her own. ;-) > Betsy Hp: > But this was the time to stop the lie (natural talent on Harry's > part) and Harry says nothing. So badly done Harry, IMO. A lesson > yet to be learned (unfortunate for Harry, but probably good for us > readers ). Slughorn makes an assumption, but Harry allows it to > grow. And that's what I hold Harry accountable for. Mike: As I have previously acceeded, letting the lie of potions champ continue was not one of Harry's shining moments. I wouldn't have expected him to set Slughorn straight on day one, but from there on out he must have had some oppurtunity to come clean. I'm still not sure it would have mattered with Slughorn, but that's Slughorn's problem. > Betsy Hp: > The proper perspective if you desire neverbadneverwrong!Harry (tm > Kemper). But this perspective does mean the boy's an a**hole > who couldn't care less for his friends. Both Hermione and Ron are > totally unamused by his fake "potion's genius" rep. With both Ron > and Hermione scowling at him from the sidelines Harry would need to > be pretty self-absorbed to not register that he's lying. (Probably > why he spends so much time crying in the boys' bathroom... oh, > wait... ) Mike: OOhh, not fair. Harry did try to share with both Ron and Hermione. I think he would have been perfectly happy to have three brilliant potioneers in the class. Not that Slughorn would have noticed Ron anyway. On a different issue, same topic; I noticed that one out of every three chapters from school's start til the cave expedition are spent on DD lessons. If we add in the time spent discussing those lessons with R & H in the remaining interim chapters, I think it's unfounded to say that Harry really isn't concentrating on his biggest problem, ole Snakeface, during the year. Magpie's assessment of Harry juggling various priorities thru-out the year, strikes me as the most fair take on the matter. I would like to emphasize that Harry does spend a large portion of the year contemplating his coming trials by virtue of the fact that the DD lessons force him to. Mike From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 3 15:51:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:51:27 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165652 Neri: . I suspect that a > doctor would not be allowed to let a diabetes patient die by > withholding insulin from him (even if that patient asks the doctor to > do so) Pippin: Not in Britain. In fact your hypothetical doctor might be charged with assault if he administered treatment against the patient's will or refused to discontinue it. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/ nhs_patients_rights.htm#Righttorefusetreatment (You may have to cut and paste this link into your browser) If it was some spell of Snape's keeping Dumbledore alive, he might be not only within his rights to lift it if requested, but obligated to do so. In which case Dumbledore might well have died before the AK hit him. That's not my favorite solution because it leaves the blood unexplained, but it could work if the blood's not important. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Mar 3 16:02:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:02:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: <948bbb470703022313y70a4068bq84bde2ffd48994fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <45E397BB.3060802@sprynet.com> <948bbb470703022313y70a4068bq84bde2ffd48994fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45E99C15.2080406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165653 Jeremiah LaFleur wrote: >>There is one major piece of information >>which I have yet to hear ANY >>ESE!Snape explanation for: >>Why did Snape tip off the OOP about >>the raid on the Ministry > > Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when > Snape showed up Harry was already caught by Umbrage so Snape figured > the plan had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage > to escape and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan > canceled anyway it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix > what Harry said, in fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy for > Voldemort. Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and about a dozen other people > heard Harry talk to Snape about Padfoot, and sooner or later the Order > would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell them immediately. And why didn't he tip off the DE's that Harry wasn't coming? Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 3 16:46:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:46:48 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165654 > Neri: > This isn't law. It's magic, and a very dangerous one. Draco doesn't > fail with the necklace and the poison, because he has not been caught, > and thus he's still free to make another try. For the same reason, as > long as Draco hasn't fixed the cabinet but still has a fair chance to > do so, he hasn't failed yet. Pippin: Okay. Then by your own reasoning, if Dumbledore fakes his death and Draco walks free (though hidden by the order), then as far as the magic is concerned Draco still has a reasonable chance of killing Dumbledore, and Snape should not be felled by the vow. No cheating required. Also, if Dumbledore should die of some other cause, then the magic won't think it's necessary for Draco to kill him, and once again Snape will be free of the vow. It's not cheating, it's just taking advantage of the rules JKR has shown us. If Snape knows all this, he should know that he has a reasonable chance of evading the vow. It's not foolproof, hence the twitch. But the odds are much better than Bella thinks because a) she doesn't know the Order has been faking deaths b) she doesn't know that Dumbledore has undertaken the highly dangerous task of horcrux removal and may soon be dead in any case > Neri: > In Harry's case we are told what's going on inside his head, so we'd > know that he has always meant to die himself, not to kill Dumbledore. > Although even in Harry's case there would always be an ugly suspicion > that subconsciously Harry has chosen his own life over Dumbledore's, > say because he was angry with him. This is probably why JKR has never > made Harry promise such a thing. But with Snape we don't even get to > look into his head, so we'd never know for certain that he has > intended to die himself. > Pippin: We can know the same way we know that Sirius didn't subconciously mean to fail the Potters. He raises that ugly suspicion himself, "I as good as killed them" but in the end Harry is sure that he would have died for them if he could. That his plan ended in bringing the Potters' doom upon them all the sooner was not Sirius's fault but the fault of the traitor. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 3 17:04:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:04:18 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165655 > Magpie: > I feel very guilty snipping all of this because I think it's a really > good question--one that I also wondered about in GoF. Is it just the > JKR thought it was a neat way to segue into Harry after that opening > chapter? Not exactly, since Harry wakes up knowing something is wrong > and remembering part of the dream. But why is he dreaming about Frank > and not Voldemort? And why does he later dream of those events also > not from Voldemort's pov? Pippin: The false dream Harry has at the end of OOP is also not from Voldemort's point of view, so it's not a device that JKR experimented with and then abandoned. Voldemort seems to have the ability to project his awareness. Dumbledore explains that Harry dreamed of the ministry because that's where Voldemort's thoughts were at the moment. IMO, Harry enters that awareness the way he can enter memories in the pensieve -- he observes independently, not from inside the rememberer. If Voldemort focuses his awareness on himself, however, then Harry naturally observes from inside Voldemort, because that's where Voldemort's thoughts are at that time. Does that make sense? The GoF dream is a little different. What we're told can't be what Harry was dreaming about exactly, because our version of the story starts fifty years before and tells us who Frank Bryce is and all about his history. Instead, we seem to be getting a third person account of events, some of which, when Harry awakes, we discover he's been dreaming about. Pippin From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 3 16:48:11 2007 From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:48:11 -0000 Subject: Ollivander and an Uber-wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165656 Dondee: > My sis wonders if Ollivander was taken for the purpose of creating a > new wand for LV that would contain all three cores as a kind of > Uber-wand. > Carol responds: > I've never heard the "uberwand" theory before, but others have > suggested that Ollivander was kidnapped to force him to create a new > wand for LV to prevent the Priori Incantatem/brother wand effect. > > I disagree for multiple reasons. Friends and I have discussed many times about Ollivander. We all think that Ollivander is in hiding. There were thousands of wands on the shelves of his shop. When he left he would have taken all of them with him. He could have done it over hours or days. Yes the same could have been said if he was kidnapped. But we tend to think that he is in hiding to keep powerful wands out of the hands of old and new Deatheater's hands. davep747 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 3 18:42:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:42:34 -0000 Subject: Ollivander and an Uber-wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165657 Carol: > Ollivander expects "great things" from Harry based on the wand that > chose him, noting that "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great > things--terrible, yes, but great" (SS Am. ed. 85) with its brother. > (Does Ollivander know about the Horcruxes? What else would qualify > as "terrible but great"?) Jen: Ollivander speaks of Voldemort in the past tense. Like many in the WW he appears to believe Voldemort is dead after 10 years even if he hears the whispers about LV wandering in Albania. My thought is 'great' refers to remarkably skillful magic of any kind using one of Ollivander's wands. From the perspective of a craftsman LV is a perfect example of a powerful wizard choosing the correct wand and '[pushing] the boundaries of magic further'. I don't think Ollivander necessarily thought of Horcruxes in that instant, rather all of Voldemort's deeds combined. Another question though: Did Ollivander expect Harry to do 'great' things magically because a powerful wand chose him or because it's the brother wand to Voldemort's? If he believed Voldemort dead, he wouldn't be expecting the two wands to ever battle so my guess is he expected great magic from Harry because a wand equal in power to Voldemort's was now in the hands of the Boy Who Lived. dave747: > Friends and I have discussed many times about Ollivander. We all > think that Ollivander is in hiding. There were thousands of wands on > the shelves of his shop. When he left he would have taken all of > them with him. He could have done it over hours or days. Yes the > same could have been said if he was kidnapped. But we tend to think > that he is in hiding to keep powerful wands out of the hands of old > and new Deatheater's hands. Jen: Ollivander in hiding fits the story better, especially after Dumbledore offered a similar proposal to Draco and we know DD has a history of safeguarding people and beasts/beings at Hogwarts. My opinion is Dumbledore urged Ollivander into hiding not because he thought LV would force him to make a new wand but because Ollivander made the choice to allow Harry to have the brother wand in the first place (and then informed Dumbledore about it). Voldemort would want to kill Ollivander for such a betrayal or at least punish him by destroying his store. So Dumbledore would want Ollivander, as well as all the wands in the UK wizard world, to be hidden away for future generations. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 19:11:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:11:54 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165658 Paul wrote: > > > How did the basin get refilled? If the basin had been emptied before, by whoever took the horcrux, it should have still been empty. Is the basin enchanted, so that it refills itself when emptied? If not, who refilled it? Food for thought. > > Goddlefrood: > > Welcome Paul. Ask yourself this - if the original locket Horcrux was removed from the basin, do you not think it likely that as well as place a dummy locket therein that person would have refilled the basin? > > What I find most interesting relative to the potion in the basin is to wonder whether or not the potion that was there when Dumbledore and Harry arrived on the scene was the same as what was there when the original protection of the Horcrux was set up. > > OTOH it could be possible that the basin refills itself as suggested, but I like the idea that R. A. B. actually refilled the basin with a different potion altogether. Carol responds: If RAB refilled the basin with a different potion altogether, then he must be a powerful Dark wizard himself, intent on torturing and killing anyone who retrieved the fake Horcrux--not to mention that drinking the horrible potion not only made the drinker suffer, later to weaken and possibly die, but also caused a terrible thirst that forced the drinker to drink the water in the lake, releasing the Inferi. The whole diabolical chain reaction has to be Voldemort's plan, not RAB's--unless RAB is as murderous and powerful as Voldemort. I'm pretty sure that RAB is Regulus, who would have been about nineteen years old at the time, and he was clearly opposed to Voldemort's evil reign. It's unlikely that he would have employed similar tactics. All he wanted to do, according to the note, is to steal the real Horcrux and destroy it, making Voldemort mortal (or so he thought). So either he used a spell to refill the basin simply to trick Voldemort into thinking no one had entered the cave, which seems rather pointless since if he went to check on the Horcrux, he would know how to get past the potion without drinking it and would quickly discover that it was fake in any case, or the basin was enchanted to fill itself with that potion the moment a Horcrux or any other object was put into it. (The basin wouldn't know a fake Horcrux from a real one.) It doesn't refill itself when it's emptied, or it would have done so when DD scooped up the fake Horcrux. I think it only covers over an object placed in it so that the object is irretrievable unless the seeker, or a companion, drinks the potion. I'm convinced that JKR has already provided all the hints we need as to what happened. Bellatrix must have hidden the Horcrux and known what it was (but not about the others). She says that the Dark Lord has trusted her with his most precious (presumably secrets or treasures), and she knew that LV wasn't dead or she wouldn't have tortured the Longbottoms for information. Quite possibly, she took the devoted Kreacher along to help her. (He would obey any Black other than renegade Sirius and he adores "Miss Bellatrix.") Regulus would somehow have got wind of Bellatrix's mission, possibly by questioning Kreacher, whom he could have ordered to show him the cave and help him get to the island. Not being quite a perfect hero with a sense for the rights of house-elves, he would have ordered Kreacher to drink the potion (as Slughorn had a house-elf drink test his mead for poison). Kreacher's brains could have been addled in the process (not that he's completely crazy--he's still quite cunning--but "he is what wizards have made him"--not a normal house-elf). We almost certainly saw the real locket, unopenable and intact, in 12 GP when the Weaselys, HRH, and Sirius Black were house-cleaning. Either Kreacher retrieved it or Mundungus stole it when he stole the silver goblets. Possibly, he sold it to Aberforth. At any rate, Regulus was killed before he could figure out how to destroy the Horcrux, but it will certainly be the easiest of the remaining four (unless we count Nagini) to find and destroy. Carol, who is more interested in whose memory Dumbledore was forced to relive and hopes it was not his own From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 19:43:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:43:11 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165659 Carol, who thinks that the eagle owl is Draco Malfoy's, FWIW > > > > Magpie: > > > > The main reason I felt guilty about snipping, btw, is that I was completely distracted by your sig. I had made that connection too, I think, perhaps only because we hear about Malfoy's eagle owl, and then this is the only other eagle owl I remember hearing about. It could be just the same breed, of course, but it sort of seems to stand out as meaning something since usually owls aren't identified by breed.(Hedwig, of course, is special.) > > > > It mostly interests me because, of course, I wonder about the significance of it. Is Barty knowingly using the Malfoy's owl as the sign of some private obsession? > > Mike: > I made that same connection, Magpie and Carol. But then I got to thinking. Didn't we first see the owl making the delivery *from* Voldemort *to* Crouch Jr? And if that's the case, how did Voldemort or Wormtail get the Malfoy owl? They are still in hiding, at the Riddle mansion, I had assumed. They supposedly hadn't made contact with any other DEs besides Barty Jr. And Lucius certainly didn't show any sign, in the Graveyard scene, that he already knew LV was on his way back. > > I'm guessing that this could only be the symbology thing that Magpie > spoke of. I don't see how it could've been the Malfoy's owl, FWIW. Carol responds: We have, IIRC, three references to an eagle owl in GoF. The first time is when an eagle owl delivers sweets to Draco and Harry (or the narrator, seeing from his pov) assumes that it's Draco's own owl. It could, however, be the Malfoy family owl. At any rate, it would almost certainly remain at Hogwarts until Draco decided to send a letter home, and I doubt that he's the letter-writing type. Even if it belonged to the Malfoy family, it wouldn't return home like a homing pigeon unless it had a message to deliver. (We don't see him receiving sweets again in GoF or any other book that I recall. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) And if it's Draco's, it would naturally stay at Hogwarts as Hedwig does unless it had a delivery to make. Fake!Moody would have seen that owl, the only eagle owl we know of at Hogwarts, delivering sweets to Draco, and I can see him deliberately choosing that owl because it's distinctive and Voldemort would recognize it instantly, at least after the first use. (If the owl is old enough, Voldie might even recognize it as the Malfoy's owl. Could Voldie have told him to use that particular owl? Would an ordinary owl have been afraid to deliver a message to the Dark Lord?) I'm pretty sure that Voldie and his loyal Death Eater corresponded back and forth, so when Harry sees the owl arrive, it would be returning to Hogwarts with one of many messages. (How else would Voldemort have obtained an owl unless it was the one Moody was using? He couldn't send Wormtail to Eeylops Owl Emporium to buy one.)) Moody was probably sending progress reports and may even have mentioned Snape, suspecting him of loyalty to Dumbledore--which would help to explain LV's belief that Snape had left him forever in the graveyard scene. (And, yes, that line does refer to Snape and not the cowardly Karkaroff, as Snape himself makes clear in "Spinner's End." The only reason that Snape wasn't killed is that he persuaded Voldemort of his loyalties--or, more likely, his usefulness.) At any rate, it's clear that the owl Harry sees has been sent from Voldemort to Barty Jr. (using Moody's name as an alias? would the owl know that "Moody" is Crouch as Hedwig understands that Padfoot is Sirius Black?) to inform him that Wormtail has allowed Barty Sr. to escape and that Crouch is probably heading for Hogwarts and must be prevented from reaching Dumbledore. The owl in Harry's dream has to be the same owl returning to Voldemort, reporting that Barty Sr. is dead and the problem is solved. (Someone is dead and Wormtail's blunder won't cause him to be fed to Nagini after all.) I'm assuming that Barty Jr. also reported that he'd turned the cup into a portkey and the trap was sprung. Otherwise, Voldemort couldn't be certain that the time had come for Wormtail to make the potion. Suppose that Harry hadn't arrived to provide the blood? Carol, not certain that the owl is Draco's/the Malfoys' but seeing no other reason why the narrator would identify Draco's owl as the same species that Fake!Moody was using From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 3 20:01:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:01:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF References: Message-ID: <00b001c75dce$cfbacb00$359e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165660 > Carol responds: > We have, IIRC, three references to an eagle owl in GoF. The first time > is when an eagle owl delivers sweets to Draco and Harry (or the > narrator, seeing from his pov) assumes that it's Draco's own owl. It > could, however, be the Malfoy family owl. At any rate, it would almost > certainly remain at Hogwarts until Draco decided to send a letter > home, and I doubt that he's the letter-writing type. Even if it > belonged to the Malfoy family, it wouldn't return home like a homing > pigeon unless it had a message to deliver. (We don't see him receiving > sweets again in GoF or any other book that I recall. Please correct me > if I'm wrong.) And if it's Draco's, it would naturally stay at > Hogwarts as Hedwig does unless it had a delivery to make. Magpie: I don't know about GoF, but the eagle owl is introduced in PS/SS. That's where Harry says it brings Draco sweets from home (he may see it again in GoF delivering to Draco, I don't remember). I had always wondered if it were Draco's or just the family's owl, but when I went back and looked at the passage it appeared that the narrator was saying it was "Malfoy's eagle owl"--Malfoy being what Draco is usually called in the narrative--and not a family owl. That made it seem like the narrator was telling us that as Harry had an owl called Hedwig, Draco had an eagle owl. None of the kids seem to send letters that we hear about much unless it's important to the plot. We do hear about Lucius sending Draco articles about Arthur in CoS. Back in PS/SS the Malfoys hadn't been established the way they are in CoS so one might say it was easier to say it was Draco's owl, but it also seems a logical deduction. We know kids at Hogwarts are allowed a familiar/pet, Ron, Hermione and Harry all have one by PoA. Why wouldn't rich boy Draco have one? It being an eagle owl may make it stand out from the school owls, just as Hedwig, Pig and even Errol rather stand out. Of course, one might ask whether, if this were Malfoy's owl, Harry wouldn't recognize it as such, but if Draco's owl was only mentioned back in PS/SS and Harry makes a point of not caring about Draco, he might not recognize it. The eagle owl breed could be something JKR didn't mind if only astute readers connected as being Draco's owl. It's also possible, I suppose, that she personally connects eagle owls with something shady, considering them ostentatious or fierce or something so she just used it for both, but that seems a bit unfair to eagle owls.:-) It does seem just natural to think that you've got these three bad guys, one of whom has the easiest access to owls since he's at Hogwarts. It might have been safer to use a school owl that wouldn't stand out as much as this one does, but it would certainly fit Barty's personality to possibly choose this one specifically as Malfoy's owl, even if there's of course a slight risk that Malfoy might want to use his owl for something and find someone else has sent it out. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 20:15:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:15:09 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: <45E99C15.2080406@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165661 Bart asked: > And why didn't he tip off the DE's that Harry wasn't coming? > Carol responds: I think you're forgetting the mind link. Voldemort knew that Harry was coming. To tell the DEs that he wasn't would be an easily detectable, easily traceable lie, and fatal to Snape. Better to let the DEs come and send the Order after them. And, of course, Snape knew that Dumbledore was going to 12 GP, and had told Sirius Black to stay behind and inform him of the situation. So Snape "slithers out of action" again, not joining the DEs on the pretense that he was ordered not to do so (he would tell LV that he didn't want to blow his cover). Besides, if he'd told the DEs that Harry wasn't coming, they wouldn't have been arrested. Carol, thinking that it's a very good thing for Snape that Narcissa and Bella don't know who tipped off the Order of the Phoenix and wondering if Voldie suspects From shmantzel at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 22:50:35 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (shmantzel) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:50:35 -0000 Subject: The wand in Ollivander's shop Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165662 In all the time that I have spent lurking on this website (occasionally making comments and fully expecting them to be shot down) I haven't seen any comments on the wand in Ollivander's shop in Book One. I have obsessed over it. I have thought about this for at least a month now - I kid you not - and I have grown more and more positive that it (the wand) is significant. I don't have the book in front of me to describe it, but Harry notices it as soon as he walks into the shop, and it is never mentioned again. What if that was the wand of one of the Four Founders? Or the wand of someone else significant? For a time I thought it might be Voldemort's, but I dismissed that idea as probably not likely (about two weeks ago lol). Does anyone else agree? Do you disagree? Dantzel, who considers the wand to perhaps be a Horcrux and can't stop thinking about the stupid topic. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 23:49:37 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:49:37 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165663 > > Goddlefrood earlier: > > What I find most interesting relative to the potion in the basin is to wonder whether or not the potion that was there when Dumbledore and Harry arrived on the scene was the same as what was there when the original protection of the Horcrux was set up. > Carol responded: > If RAB refilled the basin with a different potion altogether, then he must be a powerful Dark wizard himself, intent on torturing and killing anyone who retrieved the fake Horcrux--not to mention that drinking the horrible potion not only made the drinker suffer, later to weaken and possibly die, but also caused a terrible thirst that forced the drinker to drink the water in the lake, releasing the Inferi. The whole diabolical chain reaction has to be Voldemort's plan, not RAB's--unless RAB is as murderous and powerful as Voldemort. balance for length Goddlefrood now: Que? What would lead to the conclusion that if R. A. B. refilled the basin (and we have all been assuming that he put the fake lcket in the basin himself) he must have been a powerful dark wizard? There is not enough to go on to conclude that the potion Dumbledore drank was fatal or intended to be so by whoever placed it there. Indeed if it were intended to be fatal to whomsoever might drink it then wouldn't it be more likely that it would be fairly instant and not give the drinker the time to consume a dozen or more goblets of the stuff? Over to you Goddlefrood From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 23:54:00 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:54:00 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165665 Illegal Top posting to add my welcome to Paul and commend him for his good topic with an excellent post, one of you first, no? > > Carol responds: > If RAB refilled the basin with a different potion altogether, then > he must be a powerful Dark wizard himself, intent on torturing and > killing anyone who retrieved the fake Horcrux--not to mention that > drinking the horrible potion not only made the drinker suffer, later > to weaken and possibly die, but also caused a terrible thirst that > forced the drinker to drink the water in the lake, releasing the > Inferi. The whole diabolical chain reaction has to be Voldemort's > plan, not RAB's--unless RAB is as murderous and powerful as > Voldemort. Mike: A big me too on the quality and bent of wizard capable of doing all that stuff. > Carol: > I'm pretty sure that RAB is Regulus, who would have been about > nineteen years old at the time, and he was clearly opposed to > Voldemort's evil reign. It's unlikely that he would have employed > similar tactics. Mike: I'm not yet certain that we can credit Reggie with anything other than being opposed to Voldemort, for whatever reason. His note said, "... that it was I who discovered your secret...", but we don't know which "secret" inflamed Reggie enough to spark this rebelious act. Was *the* secret that Voldemort wasn't pureblood? Don't know, but if that was it, then Reggie wouldn't exactly be rebelling for a more noble reason, would he? My point is that Reggie could be alive and in hiding and DDM, all that, while still having a temperment and personality to rival Snape's. > Carol: > All he wanted to do, according to the note, is to steal the real > Horcrux and destroy it, making Voldemort mortal (or so he thought). > So either he used a spell to refill the basin simply to trick > Voldemort into thinking no one had entered the cave, which seems > rather pointless since if he went to check on the Horcrux, he would > know how to get past the potion without drinking it and would > quickly discover that it was fake in any case, or the basin was > enchanted to fill itself with that potion the moment a Horcrux or > any other object was put into it. (The basin wouldn't know a fake > Horcrux from a real one.) It doesn't refill itself when it's > emptied, or it would have done so when DD scooped up the fake > Horcrux. I think it only covers over an object placed in it so that > the object is irretrievable unless the seeker, or a companion, > drinks the potion. Mike: I didn't know where to snip, so I left this paragraph intact. :) This seems like a good place to air my whole objection with the logic surrounding that Birdbath of Doom and how JKR wrote it. Or how JKR had Dumbledore treat it which leads me to a red herring interpretation of the whole cave storyline. One can't even touch the potion in the basin, right? But put a glass in your hand and you have no problem dipping into the stuff. So why doesn't DD put a glass into his hand and when he gets into the potion simply reach to the bottom and grab the locket? Sheesh, do I have to tell him how to do everything? ;) Next, DD says "... this potion is supposed to be drunk." Huh? How does the potion know that it's being taken out a cupfull at a time and being drunk? Conjure a pail and pour it into that! Don't drink the stuff! Where's the logic that DD "can only conclude" that drinking is the solution? And what about the "He [LV] would want to keep them alive long enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his defenses,..." It sounds like a *likely story* for Dumbledore to tell Harry. Until, of course, you read it again. Then you're left with another big 'Huh?'. How about, wouldn't Voldemort prefer a fast acting potent poison that kills the drinker so fast there would have to be a hundred of them to get to the bottom? He wants to question them? Not the Voldemort I've been reading. He wants his Horcrux safe and the intruder or intruders *Dead, dead, dead!* He wouldn't give a damn *why* they were there, he would only care that they didn't leave there with his Horcrux. So did Voldemort have anything to do with that potion in the basin? Was it always there, or did somebody else (Bellatrix) turn it into the potion that acts like a liquid Dementor, forcing you to relive your worst memories? For me, it's the difference between making it work for the storyline and writing a storyline that works. For some reason JKR needed Dumbledore to drink that potion (and have Harry force him to drink the last 7 or 8 glasses). Was it to pressage the parallel to Snape on the tower? Was it to weaken Dumbledore to make Draco disarming him seem plausible? Was it to have Dumbledore utter all those incoherant pleadings; that is, are there clues in Dumbledore's pleading to "... don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead..." and the like? > Carol: > I'm convinced that JKR has already provided all the hints we need as > to what happened. Bellatrix must have hidden the Horcrux and known > what it was (but not about the others). She says that the Dark Lord > has trusted her with his most precious (presumably secrets or > treasures), and she knew that LV wasn't dead or she wouldn't have > tortured the Longbottoms for information. Quite possibly, she took > the devoted Kreacher along to help her. (He would obey any Black > other than renegade Sirius and he adores "Miss Bellatrix.") Mike: My conviction on the Locket Horcrux runs counter to yours, as I've previously posted in my sig line on the "Harry's accio in the cave" thread. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165619 Which is why I consider the whole cave adventure to be a red herring. There was nothing there, and if Reggie is still alive and hidden by Dumbledore, then Dumbledore knew the locket Horcrux was not in that cave. So why did Dumbledore take Harry there? I have speculations, but that's for a different thread. Besides, I'm not convinced that one can borrow somebody elses house elf. Sirius says that Kreacher is "supposed to do whatever anyone in the family asks him ...", but it seems to me that taking someone's house elf out on an adventure goes beyond the normal obeying requirement when in a family member's presents. JMO :) > Carol: > Regulus would somehow have got wind of Bellatrix's mission, possibly > by questioning Kreacher, whom he could have ordered to show him the > cave and help him get to the island. Not being quite a perfect hero > with a sense for the rights of house-elves, he would have ordered > Kreacher to drink the potion (as Slughorn had a house-elf drink test > his mead for poison). Kreacher's brains could have been addled in > the process (not that he's completely crazy--he's still quite > cunning--but "he is what wizards have made him"--not a normal house- > elf). Mike: If I'm wrong on how the locket came to be in 12 GP, then this explanation of Kreacher and Reggie retreiving the locket together seems the most reasonable to me. It does answer a few questions regarding Kreacher and could easily be the reason how the locket got back to 12 GP. > Carol: > We almost certainly saw the real locket, unopenable and intact, in > 12 GP when the Weaselys, HRH, and Sirius Black were house-cleaning. Mike: Yep :) > Carol, who is more interested in whose memory Dumbledore was forced > to relive and hopes it was not his own Mike, on the same wavelength as Carol on this one BTW: That theory I posted on the other thread -- where Reggie is sleeping with the inferi, with a locket in his pocket -- I don't know if I made it clear that I was only passing it on. It wasn't my theory and I was not a proponent of it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 00:17:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:17:28 -0000 Subject: The wand in Ollivander's shop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165666 Dantzel wrote: > > In all the time that I have spent lurking on this website (occasionally making comments and fully expecting them to be shot down) I haven't seen any comments on the wand in Ollivander's shop in Book One. > > I don't have the book in front of me to describe it, but Harry notices it as soon as he walks into the shop, and it is never mentioned again. What if that was the wand of one of the Four Founders? Or the wand of someone else significant? > > For a time I thought it might be Voldemort's, but I dismissed that idea as probably not likely (about two weeks ago lol). > > Does anyone else agree? Do you disagree? > > Dantzel, who considers the wand to perhaps be a Horcrux and can't stop thinking about the stupid topic. > Carol responds: I wouldn't call it a "stupid topic." A number of people have speculated that the single wand on a faded purple cushion in Ollivander's window could be Ravenclaw's wand and quite possibly the Ravenclaw Horcrux. (Just do a site search with Ollivander, wand, cushion, window as your search terms and you'll find quite a few posts on the topic.) Just why the Ravenclaw Horcrux would be so visible and easily accessible, I don't know, given the protections on the ring Horcrux and the (fake) locket Horcrux, both of which were magically concealed as well as protected by either a curse or a poisoned potion and Inferi (and maybe a curse as well), but still, it's possible. (An alternate theory is that the Ravenclaw Horcrux is the tiara in the Room of Requirement.) Support for the wand theory comes mainly from the apparent correspondence between the Founder's objects (Hufflepuff's cup and Gryffindor's sword, which, of course, escaped becoming a Horcrux) and the tarot deck: cup, pentacle, sword, and staff, the last of which is interpreted by advocates of the theory to be equivalent to wand. Slytherin's locket somehow becomes equivalent to a pentacle (or coin or disk). Supposedly, cups are associated with water, swords with air or fire, wands or staffs with air or fire, and pentacles with earth. The problem with these associations, besides forcing a locket to equal a pentacle, is that the cup belongs to Hufflepuff, which JKR has said is associated with earth and the "pentacle"/locket to Slytherin, which JKR has said is associated with water. (If, however, swords are associated with fire, the Gryffindor element, and wands/staffs with air, the Ravenclaw element, those two would fit.) People have even argued, based on similar thinking, that the four Horcruxes are the Deathly Hallows, reading "Hallows" as corresponding to the Irish Hallows of Tuatha de Danaan: sword, spear, cup or cauldron, and stone. (I personally don't like the theory, preferring to think that evil objects can't be hallows. I prefer the idea that the Hogwarts Hallows are burial grounds or catacombs of some sort related to the Four Founders, or at least, three of the four.) Tarot experts please have at me since my sole source of information on these matters is the Internet. Supposing that the wand is the Ravenclaw Horcrux and Ollivander knows about or suspects the existence of Horcruxes ("He-Who-Must-Not-Be- Named has done great things--terrible, but great"), he could have gone into hiding along with the wand, or Dumbledore could have warned him that he was in danger and that Voldemort was after the wand. At any rate, the fact that the shop is empty and there were no signs of a struggle suggests that he went into in hiding voluntarily, taking the wands with him, rather than being kidnapped. (IIRC, Harry sees thousands of wand boxes in SS/PS. That's a lot of wands to hide. Ollivander must have Vanished them and then Summoned them to his hiding place. Or that seems reasonable to me.) As someone pointed out upthread, many of the Death Eaters would want new wands. I've always wondered where the DEs in the MoM, at least the ten or so who had escaped from Azkaban, got the wands they were using. Surely, their own wands had been confiscated and destroyed (as Sirius Black's apparently was) when they were arrested. The MoM was even ready to destroy Harry's wand when he was about to be expelled from Hogwarts for violating the Statute of Secrecy and the Restriction of Underage Sorcery (or whatever it's called). I would think that the crimes Antonin Dolohov and the others are known to have committed would be much stronger grounds for destroying their old wands. Carol, half-expecting to see Ollivander, wand boxes and all, in 12 Grimmaauld Place when Harry returns there From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 01:10:04 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:10:04 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, not certain that the owl is Draco's/the Malfoys' but seeing > no other reason why the narrator would identify Draco's owl as the > same species that Fake!Moody was using zanooda: I don't know if the eagle owl was Malfoy's, but I have a related question to you guys. Do you think then that it's possible to use anyone's owl without the owner's permission? Are they bound to obey any human who needs a message delivered? If Crouch/Moody could send letters with Malfoy's personal owl, does this mean that anybody can come to the Owlery, take, say, Hedwig and send her out to deliver a letter without Harry even knowing? It doesn't feel right somehow. I think that Harry and any other owl owner would want to know whose letters his owl delivers. > Carol: > I'm pretty sure that Voldie and his loyal Death Eater corresponded > back and forth, so when Harry sees the owl arrive, it would be > returning to Hogwarts with one of many messages. (How else would > Voldemort have obtained an owl unless it was the one Moody was > using? He couldn't send Wormtail to Eeylops Owl Emporium to buy > one.)) zanooda: OK, that's funny! But, you know, Moody and Baby!Mort could have used Crouch's family owl. We don't know for sure Crouches had one, but it's a possibility. We know at least that Imperiused Crouch Sr. sent instructions to Percy by owl (when LV decided it was unsafe to let him out of the house anymore). Baby!Mort and Wormtail were staying at Crouch's house, at least until he managed to escape. And the owl (if it existed, of course) would obey Crouch/Moody as a member of the family. It seems logical to me that a chief of a department at the Ministry would have his personal (or family) owl. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 03:03:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:03:36 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165670 Carol earlier: > > If RAB refilled the basin with a different potion altogether, then he must be a powerful Dark wizard himself, intent on torturing and killing anyone who retrieved the fake Horcrux--not to mention that drinking the horrible potion not only made the drinker suffer, later to weaken and possibly die, but also caused a terrible thirst that forced the drinker to drink the water in the lake, releasing the Inferi. The whole diabolical chain reaction has to be Voldemort's plan, not RAB's--unless RAB is as murderous and powerful as Voldemort. > > Mike: > A big me too on the quality and bent of wizard capable of doing all that stuff. Carol again: Hooray! Thanks, Mike. Goddlefrood in response to the same paragraph: Que? What would lead to the conclusion that if R. A. B. refilled the basin (and we have all been assuming that he put the fake lcket in the basin himself) he must have been a powerful dark wizard? Carol again: If he refilled the basin with *that* potion, the one that causes Dementor-like memories and physical agony and terrible thirst, the one that's "no health drink" and causes Dumbledore to come close to death more than once, and it was *not* the original potion but his own creation, then he was a sadistic and evil little Dark wizard. Good wizards don't create such potions. It's an instrument of torture whether it's fatal or not. I can see him possibly refilling the basin with the same potion that was already there, not of his own creation, but as I stated earlier, there's really no point in doing so. Why subject anyone else to torment and possible death? Voldie himself wouldn't need to drink it. He'd know how to get to the (fake) Horcrux without doing so. The only point in having the potion there is to deter anyone from stealing the Horcrux and force them to drink the water so that the Inferi would attack them. And, of course, RAB would *want* Voldemort to find his note. It was, after all, addressed to him. The only explanation that makes sense to me is for the basin to refill itself magically when an object is placed in it. Goddlefrood: There is not enough to go on to conclude that the potion Dumbledore drank was fatal or intended to be so by whoever placed it there. Indeed if it were intended to be fatal to whomsoever might drink it then wouldn't it be more likely that it would be fairly instant and not give the drinker the time to consume a dozen or more goblets of the stuff? Carol: That sounds like Dumbledore's logic. He says that Voldemort wouldn't want the drinker to die *immediately*. He doesn't say that LV wouldn't want the drinker to die at all. Of course, he would--after a great deal of suffering. But DD is trying to get Harry to forcefeed him the poison, and he can't very well tell Harry that he's likely to die on the spot if Harry does so. But DD's argument makes no sense at all. How can Voldemort know that someone is there in the cave stealing the Horcrux? Clearly, he can't, or he'd be there at that moment--not to mention that RAB, nowhere near as powerful a wizard as DD even if he's not Reggie, would never have succeeded in taking the real Horcrux. Again, the whole point of the potion is to weaken and torture the drinker, who certainly couldn't drink the entire basinful without an assistant forcing him to do so. If by some miracle the drinker survives, the torment will drive him to drink the water (not obtainable from any source but the lake) and the Inferi will finish him off. That the potion is a horrendous instrument of torture isn't even open to question. After drinking several gobletsful (and experiencing terrible memories that might or might not be his own), Dumbledore *screams* in *anguish*, "I want to die! I want to die!" and then "KILL ME!" (HBP Am. ed. 573) At least once, Harry thinks that Dumbledore is dead or nearly dead from the potion alone: "Dumbledore gulped at the goblet, drained every last drop, and then, with a great rattling gasp, rolled over onto his face. "'No!' shouted Harry, who . . . flung himself down beside Dumbledore and heaved him over onto his back; Dumbledore's glasses were askew, his mouth agape, his eyes closed. 'No', said Harry, shaking Dumbledore. 'You're not dead, you said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up! *Renervate*'" (574) The "rattling gasp" is like a death rattle; Dumbledore looks more like a dead man in that description than he does after his fall from the tower, where he looks like he's asleep. Note that DD never said that the drink wasn't poison, and that when Harry wanted to drink it himself, DD responded, "I am much older, much cleverer, and much less valuable" (570). IOW, if one of us has to die, better me than you. Afterwards, DD is extremely weak and pale, on the verge of collapes more than once. If it weren't for Harry's repeated Renervate and perhaps for the sprinkle of water, DD would not have made it out of the cave, nor could he have Apparated back to Hogsmeade without Harry. "One alone could not have done it" (577). Whether the potion is fatal in itself of a means of weakening the victim so he can be killed by other means, it's clearly poison, a horrible poison that causes both physical and mental anguish. If RAB concocted that potion, he's a monster. And he would have had to include unbearable thirst designed to force the drinker to drink the water and arouse the Inferi as one of the elements of the poison, along with mental anguish aroused by memories that may or may not be the drinker's own and physical agony so intense that the drinker wants to die. RAB concoct a poison like that to replace the potion in the basin when it's drunk? Why? > Mike: > This seems like a good place to air my whole objection with the logic surrounding that Birdbath of Doom and how JKR wrote it. > > One can't even touch the potion in the basin, right? But put a glass in your hand and you have no problem dipping into the stuff. So why doesn't DD put a glass into his hand and when he gets into the potion simply reach to the bottom and grab the locket? > Next, DD says "... this potion is supposed to be drunk." Huh? How does the potion know that it's being taken out a cupfull at a time and being drunk? Conjure a pail and pour it into that! Don't drink the stuff! Where's the logic that DD "can only conclude" that drinking is the solution? Carol: Excellent questions. I wondered the same thing. Maybe the goblet won't reach to the bottom unless the entire potion is gone. But still, why drink the potion? Why not just pour it on the ground? Especially the last glass, when the locket would be completely exposed. Why not just snatch it up? DD must have some reason for thinking as he does that we can't see (he knows how Tom Riddle thinks, for one). Still, you'd think he'd at least *try* to do something with the potion rather than drink it, such as pouring it on the ground, just as he tried to Vanish it and Transfigure it into something else. Maybe the basin would just refill if the potion were scooped up and poured out, but shouldn't he at least try it. And I don't know what would happen if you scooped up the fake Horcrux without drinking the potion. Would that somehow trigger the Inferi? Dumping the potion in the water almost certainly would. Mike: > And what about the "He [LV] would want to keep them alive long enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his defenses,..." It sounds like a *likely story* for Dumbledore to tell Harry. Until, of course, you read it again. Then you're left with another big 'Huh?'. How about, wouldn't Voldemort prefer a fast acting potent poison that kills the drinker so fast there would have to be a hundred of them to get to the bottom? He wants to question them? Not the Voldemort I've been reading. He wants his Horcrux safe and the intruder or intruders *Dead, dead, dead!* He wouldn't give a damn *why* they were there, he would only care that they didn't leave there with his Horcrux. Carol: I *never* thought it was a likely story. To me, it sounds like something DD invented on the spot to make sure that Harry, who wouldn't be thinking logically at this point even if logic were his strong point, would accept as a reason for making him drink what he knew was going to be a horrible potion, whatever its effects. But I agree absolutely with this part of your post. All the protections are designed to deter the seeker from getting to the Horcrux and to punish him horribly if he succeeds. Voldemort has no intention whatever of interrogating the drinker. He wouldn't even know he was in the cave. If being in the cave set off an alarm bell, Voldie would have been summoned and neither Harry nor DD would have gotten out alive, nor would Regulus, if he's RAB have lived to be killed later by Death Eaters (assuming that's what happened). Mike: > For me, it's the difference between making it work for the storyline and writing a storyline that works. For some reason JKR needed Dumbledore to drink that potion (and have Harry force him to drink the last 7 or 8 glasses). Was it to pressage the parallel to Snape on the tower? Was it to weaken Dumbledore to make Draco disarming him seem plausible? Was it to have Dumbledore utter all those incoherant pleadings; that is, are there clues in Dumbledore's pleading to "... don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead..." and the like? > Carol: All of these, I think. Not to mention that she had to make Dumbledore's death inevitable, wheterh from the poison or the DEs or Draco or Snape, and she had to force Snape into the position he'd tried (IMO) to avoid all year, triggering the Unbreakable Vow. He had to be forced to kill Dumbledore not only so that Harry wouldn't have a mentor in DH but to bring all the animosity between Harry and Snape to fever pitch before they meet again. It's a moving and terrible chapter (I don't mean badly written but terrible in the sense of agonizing for the reader), and yet it does seem in some respects like an elaborately constructed plot device. I'm with you on this one, Mike. Someone please give me a plausible explanation for "I can only conclude that this potion is supposed to be drunk." Once DD has conjured the goblet and dipped it in, how can the potion know whether it's being drunk or otherwise disposed of? Mike: > Besides, I'm not convinced that one can borrow somebody elses house elf. Sirius says that Kreacher is "supposed to do whatever anyone in the family asks him ...", but it seems to me that taking someone's house elf out on an adventure goes beyond the normal obeying requirement when in a family member's presents. JMO :) Carol: I think that Walburga would have been more than happy to lend Kreacher to her niece Bellatrix, who had made a perfectly respectable pureblood marriage, unlike her "blood traitor" sister, Andromeda. Bella must have been a frequent visitor to their house and a family favorite or they wouldn't have had a framed portrait of her. Not to mention that "Miss Bellatrix" Kreacher's favorite family member. he adores her. He would do anything she requested. He might even beg to be allowed to serve her. In any case, if his mistress ordered him to go with Miss Bellatrix and do whatever she ordered, he would have had to obey even if he didn't want to. And he most definitely would have wanted to. After all, he keeps her photo in his lair along with those of other family members. (Or is the only photo hers? I can't find the reference.) Carol, happy to see mostly eye to eye with Mike on this topic From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 03:24:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:24:42 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165671 Carol: > I'm with you on this one, Mike. Someone please give me a plausible > explanation for "I can only conclude that this potion is supposed to > be drunk." Once he's conjured the goblet and dipped it in, how can the > potion know whether it's being drunk or otherwise disposed of? zgirnius: Sure. It's magic! More seriously, Dumbledore does some magic, involving wand-waving and perhaps other elements I do not recall (did not bring my books on vacation), that Harry does not recognize. He summarizes for Harry his findings by saying it can't be Vanished, Transfigured, etc. You seem to be assuming that Dumbledore knows this because he tried those things. But perhaps what he did was a spell or spells along the lines of "Specialis Revelio" which tell him the magically induced properties of the potion (and/or the bowl), one of which could be that the potion returns to the bowl instantly if spilled rather than drunk. The idea you had for the last goblet might still work - but Harry was in no condition to think of it, and it is not clear that drinking eleven cups of the stuff was significantly less harmful than drinking all twelve. --zgirnius, who is finding all kinds of time for HP in sunny Florida while minding a sick two-year-old. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 03:37:59 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:37:59 EST Subject: The Continuing Tragedy of Severus Snape: Reflections on Books 1- Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165672 > Cassy: >POA: Well, the result of Snape *totally* losing it in the Shrieking Shack is that the real culprit, Wormtail, escaped... to rejoin Voldemort. Sirius Black is (still) the Most Wanted, Remus Lupin is a disgraced werewolf and Fudge thinks that Dumbledore employs deranged staff. Nice one, Severus... still it's good to know you're (supposed to be) on our side! > Nikkalmati: This statement really has me puzzled. Lupin and Sirius are about to tell their story, Snape comes in and some things about their past and his character are revealed, Snape is knocked out, the Marauders continue their story, convince the Trio, and all leave the Shack. Snape's arrival interrupts the flow of the story, but nothing happened in the Shack or afterwards that would not have happened, if Snape had not come out after Lupin, except that Snape rescues unconscious Harry, Sirius and Hermione. > Cassy: With apologies to Severus Snape, whom I agree did the right thing in conjuring the stretchers to save Harry, Ron and Hermione (and Black!) from the Dementors; my point is that if Snape had played it differently in the Shack, he could have captured Wormtail that night ... and he knows it. IMHO, it's terribly tragic that Snape, Lupin & Black were unable to understand one another sooner ... a cornered rat (even one so catastrophically underestimated as Pettigrew) should have been no match for three powerful members of the Order of the Phoenix, even without the (not inconsiderable) talents of the teenage trio. Yet they failed ... (as the Marauders had failed before) ... and this time, Snape was in a large measure responsible for the failure. . Pettigrew's escape made Voldemort's return possible and Pettigrew's escape was only possible because Snape failed to listen to Sirius & Lupin and to unite with them at this moment. If he had done so then (even with the added complications of lycanthropy and the Dementors), I have little doubt that Wormtail would now be in Azkaban. >Of course, there are some major justifications for Snape's behaviour in POA19. One could ask: why should he listen to Lupin & Sirius? He is rightly concerned for the students' safety, 'out of bounds , in the company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf'; he blames Sirius for the Potters' deaths with an intensity of feeling matched only by Harry in the last-but-one chapter (thus supporting the hypothesis that he loved Harry's mother); and he believes Sirius to be capable of murder for the very good reason that (as Snape says) "he [Sirius] once tried to kill *me*". (To add to which: he apparently believes that HRH have been the victim of a Confundus Charm.) >However, I would argue that JKR also points to Snape's culpability in this scene. There is evidence that he is too strongly motivated by a desire for revenge (and for personal vindication from Dumbledore), which leads him to take maverick action without reasonable precautions (why oh why did he not send a Patronus to DD before rushing to the Shack?): "I've told the Headmaster again and again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle ... I shall be quite interested to see how Dumbledore takes this ... Vengeance is sweet ... How I hoped I would be the one to catch you ...". In a shocking moment, Snape even threatens to "call the Dementors once we get out of the Willow" though thankfully (after being knocked out) his sense of justice reasserts itself. We know that Harry, Ron & Hermione were starting to come round to Black & Lupin's version of events before Snape appeared, but the evidence suggests that Snape could not even begin to make the necessary mental adjustments. >I think he would have been appalled. And for all the extenuating circumstances, he would have blamed himself. >Sometimes, IMHO, Snape is not well served by his apologists ... in this case, I think we need to acknowledge his level of responsibility, not to blame Snape, but in order to understand the resultant anguish which drives his actions in subsequent books. If Snape had ever hesitated on that memorable night in GOF36 when he set out to rejoin & deceive Voldemort, then the shame & humiliation of Wormtail's escape would have strengthened his resolve, IMHO. And now he has to live with Wormtail in Spinner's End, as a permanent reminder of what should have been ... Nikkalmati Sorry to take so long about replying. I see your point about Snape possibly blaming himself, but only because he does always want to be right. I don't think his tirade had much to do with Wormtail's escape. The primary instigators of that disaster are Lupin, who gave Wormtail the opportunity by transforming, and, sad to say, Harry, who spared Wormtail's worthless life. If Snape had listened to SB and RL, the most likely outcome would have been Wormtail's death. I think hSS + would have weighed in on the side of getting rid of the vermin. In any case, if Snape listened and believed and Harry was given the final choice ( a very unlikely result IMHO) Lupin would still have transformed and in all likelihood Wormtail would have taken advantage of the distraction to escape. Nikkalmati


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 04:00:53 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:00:53 EST Subject: Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower: A Defense of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165673 zgirnius: If that spell was an AK, Dumbledore was dead the instant that green jet hit him. SO why was Harry "forced" to watch the final, dramatic movements of Dumbledore's dead body? Surely he could have reflexively closed his eyes, at least. Harry does not actually nove until the Death Eaters leave the Tower a few seconds later. He attributes the delay to shock. Fair enough - but if he was that shocked, can we really trust that he is able to distinguish still being frozen by the spell, and being frozen with shock? The way the scene is written leaves the door open for an interpretation that Dumbledore did not die instantly (and thus, whatever it was Snape did was not a true and successful Killing Curse.) Nikkalmati No one we have seen killed by an AK has been lifted up into the air and sent flying into space. Either Snape killed him with an AK and levitated DD over the wall and down, or SS hit DD with some other curse which levitated him over the Tower. I cannot think of a reason why ESE!Snape would trouble to lift up DD's body and send it over the wall. A DDM Snape, however, could have used an AK for reasons that are still a matter of discussion. When Harry found DD's body, it was lying at the foot of the Tower. I have no idea how far it would have fallen (150 feet?), but the locket had fallen out of his pocket and his glasses were askew. Harry straightened them. Now, if DD was killed by the fall, as opposed to having been floated to the ground, his glasses would be more than askew, it seem to me. Then why the blood trickling out of DD's mouth? If he did not hit the ground hard, the bleeding would not be from internal injuries. An AK does not produce bleeding. I suppose a poison could produce internal bleeding, which means DD died at the foot of the Tower from poison. If Harry ever discovers this, he will be devastated. It is bad enough that he will eventually reflect that he is responsible for DD's weakened condition and DD's consequent inability to defend himself. The alternative explanation is that JKR has not given these details much thought and included the blood and the glasses as touching moments without considering their implications. Still, I keep thinking of Harry's belief as he was chasing Snape down that if he could bring Snape and DD together, he could reverse the events. Why was that thought of Harry's reported? If DD was dying from the potion, certainly SS could have tried to reverse that, but he could not have reversed an AK or death from a 150 foot fall. DD had believed that Snape could overcome the poison because he repeatedly asked Harry to bring him Snape when they returned from the Cave. I would almost rather that DD died from the poison than that he conspired with Snape in his own death. Nikkalmati (who doesn't believe that Snape murdered DD out of self-interest or malice or loyalty to LV either).


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 04:34:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:34:45 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165674 > Goddlefrood earlier: > What would lead to the conclusion that if R. A. B. refilled the basin (and we have all been assuming that he put the fake locket in the basin himself) he must have been a powerful dark wizard? > > Carol responded: > > If he refilled the basin with *that* potion, the one that causes Dementor-like memories and physical agony and terrible thirst, the one that's "no health drink" Godlefrood Interjects: Only the description of what Dumbledore was going through leads to the *assumptions* of what the potion caused. When Dumbledore needed to actually do anything he did not seem incapacitated at all, even with his blackened wand hand. He managed to conjure fire to get rid of the Inferi, undo protections on the Hogwarts grounds and hold coherent conversations with both harry and Draco. Granted that he was not in fantastic shape, but then who's to say that this was not due to the lingering effects of the curses he broke on the ring rather than the potion. Is it not possible, however unlikely, that the whole Cave episode was staged for Harry's benefit? > > Carol again: > > and it was *not* the original potion but his own > creation, then he was a sadistic and evil little Dark wizard. Good > wizards don't create such potions. It's an instrument of torture > whether it's fatal or not. (balance of paragraph) Goddlefrood: Reference the above comment again. If it was all a set up for Harry's benefit then we can not make too many assumptions about the potion in the basin. Slughorn was brewing some decidedly nasty little potions in his classes, and whoever R.A.B. is (and I'm inclined to agree it was Reggie, even if I still have a fondness for my Mrs. Black theory {since shot down by the release of her full name}) was presumably taught Potions at Hogwarts under Uncle Horace. Either one of these taught potions could have footed the bill or another that R.A.B. came across in the Advanced Potions book. I do not propose to argue here as to the function of the potion vis a vis the Inferi and whether the two are perhaps linked, as has been speculated, and which Carol takes as a matter of course to be the case. > Goddlefrood earlier: > There is not enough to go on to conclude that the potion Dumbledore > drank was fatal or intended to be so by whoever placed it there. > Indeed if it were intended to be fatal to whomsoever might drink it > then wouldn't it be more likely that it would be fairly instant and > not give the drinker the time to consume a dozen or more goblets of > the stuff? > > To which Carol responded (in part): > > That sounds like Dumbledore's logic. He says that Voldemort wouldn't want the drinker to die *immediately*. He doesn't say that LV wouldn't want the drinker to die at all. Of course, he would-- after a great deal of suffering. Goddlefrood now: Well, thank you for the compliment of comparison to Dumbledore, widely acknowledged as the greatest wizard of his age. My view is that Voldemort would certainly not have wanted anyone to potentially find the Horcrux at all and if they had got so far as the basin then it makes sense to me that LV would want anyone trying to drink the potion, if there were no other way, to die pretty quickly albeit perhaps not immediately. > > Carol again (after a little snipping): > > That the potion is a horrendous instrument of torture isn't even open to question. After drinking several gobletsful (and experiencing terrible memories that might or might not be his own), Dumbledore *screams* in *anguish*, "I want to die! I want to die!" and then "KILL ME!" (HBP Am. ed. 573) Goddlefrood: With you so far, but why does this exclude debate exactly... > > Carol: > > At least once, Harry thinks that Dumbledore is dead or nearly dead from the potion alone: "Dumbledore gulped at the goblet, drained every last drop, and then, with a great rattling gasp, rolled over onto his face. Goddlefrood again: Harry's POV and he's the expert... > > Carol: > > Afterwards, DD is extremely weak and pale, on the verge of collapes more than once. If it weren't for Harry's repeated Renervate and perhaps for the sprinkle of water, DD would not have made it out of the cave, nor could he have Apparated back to Hogsmeade without Harry. Goddlefrood: Granted, but again it's all from Harry's POV and we really don't know how affected DD was. He managed some pretty fancy wandwork when required. Not that I'm saying the potion in the basin is something I would happily consume but my point was really we don't know and as was pointed out the basin may simply refill itself and the liquid in it pre-dates any of the characters in the books. Goddlefrood just trying to move the debate along... From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sun Mar 4 04:38:29 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:38:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs Message-ID: <45EA4D44.000003.01312@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 165675 It's late and I'm tired and my mind is wandering so Why would Hagrid be buying flesh eating slug repellant for slugs eating the school's cabbages? Are the slugs in the UK that different from the slugs in the US? I believe the slugs in the US eat plants and not flesh and, iirc, cabbages are plants. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 05:00:28 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 00:00:28 EST Subject: On the trivial and the profound. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165676 > Pippin: > What's so rational about "Snape has the hots for Narcissa, so he takes a > vow meaning either Dumbledore or himself must wind up dead"? Either > way, he has an emotional bias towards helping her, which he can > rationalize by telling himself that Narcissa must have information > vital to the Order. Once he's convinced himself of that, the rest > follows. >Neri: >It's rational because if Snape isn't DDM, he doesn't care about what >happens to Dumbledore. So if he estimates that he can gain more than >he risks, then making the UV is rational. But if he's DDM, then choosing a course that must lead to either his own death or Dumbledore's isn't rational. It's stupid, as indeed the final result of HBP shows. If Snape was DDM than making the UV was really stupid of him. Nikkalmati Even if he doesn't care about DD, he has to care about himself. As I have argued before, SS needs a very good reason to take the UV, even parts 1 and 2. I can't see that impressing Bella or getting in good with Narcissa is enough of a reason to risk his life. Yes, he plans to protect Draco anyway, so superficially he might as well swear to do so, but what if something unexpected happens i.e. Secumsempra? He doesn't need to bind his life to protect Draco. He is doing exactly what he has always been doing, risking his life to gather important information for DD. That is why he promises to protect Draco, so he can find out more about what Draco is planning. It is a risk, but SS believes it is worth it. Then comes part 3. The request to do Draco's task came as a surprise, I think everyone agrees. Carol has argued that SS was too far along to back out - that the UV won't let you. We know so little about the UV that it may be possible that once you start, you can't back out. That may be why Mr. Weasley was so upset when he found Ron and the Twins just about to cast the spell. I personally think SS had grave doubts, but went ahead without knowing exactly what the task was. Others think he intended to die rather than carry out the task or that he thought he and DD could avoid the consequences (but of course they couldn't). If he is DDM choosing a course which may lead to his death or DD's, is rational if it contributes enough to LV's demise. The UV does not cause SS to kill DD in HBP, unless you think SS's motive on the Tower was only self-preservation and not the protection of Draco, Harry and the school. If SS had not "killed" DD, DD would have died at the hand of Draco or the DE's, and Harry would have died to boot (I don't believe in John Wayne!Snape killing all of the DE's before they can kill any of the good guys DD, Harry or SS). It is perfectly possible to imagine the Tower happening without the UV having any part in it at all. Nikkalmati (who thinks SS may not have killed DD afterall)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irenetsui at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 03:47:08 2007 From: irenetsui at yahoo.com (irenetsui) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:47:08 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165677 > Carol: > > I'm with you on this one, Mike. Someone please give me a plausible > > explanation for "I can only conclude that this potion is supposed to > > be drunk." Once he's conjured the goblet and dipped it in, how can > the > > potion know whether it's being drunk or otherwise disposed of? > > zgirnius: > Sure. It's magic! > > More seriously, Dumbledore does some magic, involving wand-waving and > perhaps other elements I do not recall (did not bring my books on > vacation), that Harry does not recognize. He summarizes for Harry his > findings by saying it can't be Vanished, Transfigured, etc. You seem > to be assuming that Dumbledore knows this because he tried those > things. But perhaps what he did was a spell or spells along the lines > of "Specialis Revelio" which tell him the magically induced > properties of the potion (and/or the bowl), one of which could be > that the potion returns to the bowl instantly if spilled rather than > drunk. Irene: I have another question regarding this scene. When DD begged for water, why didn't Harry try to direct the Aguamenti charm to DD's mouth or face before he concluded that the water must be taken from the lake? Water did appear for a few brief seconds in the goblet before it vanished afterall, so he knew the charm could work to a certain degree on that island. Irene From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 04:57:38 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:57:38 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: <45EA4D44.000003.01312@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165678 > Donna asked: > It's late and I'm tired and my mind is wandering so Why would Hagrid be buying flesh eating slug repellant for slugs eating the school's cabbages? balance Goddlefrood answers: The flesh eating slugs, despite not being in FBWTFT (is this right?), must be peculiar to Mandrakes. It was at the beginning of book 2 they were being purchased, ergo, Madam Sprout must have been having trouble with them, the slugs that is. Nothing more nothing less. Goddlefrood who wouldn't like to hazard an opinion as to whether molluscidae are different in the US from those in the UK From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 4 05:48:20 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:48:20 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165679 > Mike: > > And what about the "He [LV] would want to keep them alive long > enough to find out how they managed to penetrate so far through his > defenses,..." He wants to question them? Not the Voldemort > I've been reading. He wants his Horcrux safe and the intruder or > intruders *Dead, dead, dead!* He wouldn't give a damn *why* they > were there, he would only care that they didn't leave there with > his Horcrux. Jen: I don't know about that, the Voldemort I've been reading can't seem to pass up a chance to toy with others at the expense of having his plans go awry. Giving Harry his wand back in the graveyard and attempting to possess Harry in the DOM to taunt Dumbledore led to the greatest defeats of his life. No matter that Voldemort can't personally enjoy the suffering in the cave, he would still arrogantly assume the Horcrux was perfectly safe and relish the idea of a totured soul acknowleding in his last moments before death that Lord Voldemort had outsmarted him. > Carol: > I *never* thought it was a likely story. To me, it sounds like > something DD invented on the spot to make sure that Harry, who > wouldn't be thinking logically at this point even if logic were his > strong point, would accept as a reason for making him drink what he > knew was going to be a horrible potion, whatever its effects. But I > agree absolutely with this part of your post. All the protections > are designed to deter the seeker from getting to the Horcrux and to > punish him horribly if he succeeds. Voldemort has no intention' > whatever of interrogating the drinker. He wouldn't even know he was > in the cave. If being in the cave set off an alarm bell, Voldie > would have been summoned and neither Harry nor DD would have gotten > out alive... Jen: I don't see the problem with what Dumbledore said. If you take it perfectly literally, yes, Voldemort wouldn't be lurking in the cave at that moment or have magical alarm bells ringing. But Harry does learn that magic leaves calling cards, you can't perform magic without leaving information about yourself behind. In Voldemort's mind only the most clever and powerful of wizards would even make it to the cave to begin with, let alone get near the Horcrux, so he fully expected to have a posthumous record revealed by the magic used (which is the only information Voldemort would care about). Carol: > I'm with you on this one, Mike. Someone please give me a plausible > explanation for "I can only conclude that this potion is supposed to > be drunk." Once DD has conjured the goblet and dipped it in, how can > the potion know whether it's being drunk or otherwise disposed of? Jen: I can only speculate since we can't know what would have happened if DD poured out the potion. I would imagine something similar to what happened when Harry attempted to conjure water by means other than the lake would occur, i.e., throwing out the potion would have a safeguard on it such as the potion level never dropping in the bowl or rousing the Inferi. There's magic going on in the cave that Harry can't explain like locating the exact location of the entrance to the cave, or finding and raising the boat and drinking the potion fits in here, Voldemort believed he'd created only a terminal means to get to the Horcrux--I think it's meant to be ingenious and not a plot device! If I jump outside the story I understand what you two are saying, that drinking the potion was only a means to an end. To me that's assuming we know what the end *is*, that you can draw a straight narrative line from the potion to Dumbledore's death and conclude the first had to happen in order for the second to take place. I'm not ready to draw that line and say there is no C factor out there to mess up this nice equation. There's plenty of information left, including Dumbledore's past and Harry's link to Voldemort, that could shed new light on the cave and the tower and bring them together in a new way. Jen R. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 05:20:47 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:20:47 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: <45EA4D44.000003.01312@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > It's late and I'm tired and my mind is wandering so Why would Hagrid be buying flesh eating slug repellant for slugs eating the school's cabbages? Are the slugs in the UK that different from the slugs in the US? I believe the slugs in the US eat plants and not flesh and, iirc, cabbages are plants. Dondee's reply: I may be wrong, but I always thought that the repellent ate the flesh of the slugs - not that the slugs eat flesh themselves. Kind of like using chili powder to keep ants away because it burns them. From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 4 09:40:58 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:40:58 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165681 Forgive me if this has been mentioned (I've had a look through the messages and haven't managed to find anything), but I...sort of recall that Harry WAS seeing things through VM's POV at the end of one of the GoF dreams mentioned. It's been a while since I last read book 4, but I do remember wondering about that owl and that strange POV, too... however, I also remember Harry looking down on a pair of white, long-fingered hands resting on an armchair, his own hands (in the dream), something happens with Wormtail... then Harry looks into a dirty old mirror across the room into a flat, snakelike face with gleaming red eyes...that's when he woke up in a cold sweat, isn't it? So that owl dream way have started from another strange vantage point, but it ended with Harry-as-Voldemort. Or have I gone completely mad and mixed up scenes from different years? Help! From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 4 09:53:51 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:53:51 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grouchymedic_26149" wrote: > > Hello, all, > > Paul From WV. here. One thing puzzles me, and I apologize in advance if > it has already been discussed. Reference HBP, when Harry and DD travel > to the cave on the seashore to retrieve the horcrux. I am curious about > the green liquid in the basin in the middle of the lake that contained > the horcrux. How did the basin get refilled? If the basin had been > emptied before, by who ever took the horcrux, it should have still been > empty. Is the basin enchanted, so that it refills it's self when > emptied? If not, who refilled it? Food for thought. > Shaunette has a teeny-tiny theory: If the Birdbath!potion is indeed something like pensieve stuff, and if it does force the drinker to relive horrible memories, how do one's memories get siphoned out automatically into the basin...before the drinker arrives? It would make more sense if those Worst Memories are the memories of the *previous* drinker. Maybe Voldemort filled the basin with his own worst memories, intending the potential horcrux-theif to shoulder his strange sufferings before dying. RAB drank VM's worst memories, then the basin refilled with RAB's worst memories... DD subsequently drank RAB's worst memories, as the basin refilled with DD's... if Harry returns to the cave to look for the real locket (provided that Inferi-pocket-locket theory pans out) someone (kreacher's been suggested quite a bit, the poor thing) might have to drink DD's worst memories and maybe DD's worst will shed light on certain enigmas...certain greasy-haired, hook-nosed enigmas... -Shaunette From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 4 09:56:41 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:56:41 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" wrote: > > Forgive me if this has been mentioned (I've had a look through the > messages and haven't managed to find anything), but I...sort of recall > that Harry WAS seeing things through VM's POV at the end of one of the > GoF dreams mentioned. It's been a while since I last read book 4, but > I do remember wondering about that owl and that strange POV, too... > however, I also remember Harry looking down on a pair of white, > long-fingered hands resting on an armchair, his own hands (in the > dream), something happens with Wormtail... then Harry looks into a > dirty old mirror across the room into a flat, snakelike face with > gleaming red eyes...that's when he woke up in a cold sweat, isn't it? > So that owl dream way have started from another strange vantage point, > but it ended with Harry-as-Voldemort. > > Or have I gone completely mad and mixed up scenes from different > years? Help! > OOPS, forgot to leave a signature that was me, Shaunette (sorry, List Elves! I'm a professional lurker at this point) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 13:45:49 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:45:49 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165684 Nikkalmati: > Then comes part 3. The request to do Draco's task came as a surprise, I think everyone agrees. Carol has argued that SS was too far along to back out - that the UV won't let you. We know so little about the UV that it may be possible that once you start, you can't back out. That may be why Mr. Weasley was so upset when he found Ron and the Twins just about to cast the spell. Ceridwen: We don't know enough about the UV, that's true. And Arthur's reaction can definitely be read this way. In fact, I might like this better, since I'm not at all convinced that the UV kills a person who doesn't comply with its stipulations despite what Ron said. Arthur's response there might have been to the particulars of that UV. Maybe the twins wanted Ron to do something "or die trying", a typical sort of childhood binding clause, along with "cross my heart and hope to die". Arthur, of course, would have heard the twins proposing the wording to Ron. He must have overheard them talking, or he wouldn't have been able to step in. Or, he might have wanted to frighten Young!Ron by saying that it kills you. I think that the name says what it does. It's Unbreakable. You cannot break your promise and must go through with it: you are compelled by the Vow itself. I hadn't thought about it quite this way despite Carol's suggestion that Snape may not have been able to back out at this point. I guess my brain gets kicked by particular phrasing, too. But, if the Vow is Unbreakable from the moment you lock hands, then no, Snape couldn't have backed out, even though Narcissa threw in an extra clause. In my opinion, the only way out of the Vow is if the promised outcome happens anyway, that is, if Dumbledore dies on his own or from some other source. Tangent: What if that wouldn't matter to the Vow? What if the person who made the Vow would die (given that Arthur told Ron a universal truth about the UV) if it wasn't his hand (or, in this case, Draco's and then Snape's) that did the deed? What if that was what DD was pleading, that Snape look at him and see that the conditions of the Vow was about to become null and void, that DD was dying and that if this happened, Snape would be dead as well? This doesn't presage an agreement between them to kill DD. It builds on the realities of the moment alone. But, I've only just thought of this. I may forget about it, or I may refine it. And as long as I'm mentioning ideas I've had, I think Snape lost whatever edge the open-ended wording of the Vow gave him when the DEs told him that Draco couldn't perform his task. "if it seems he might fail" in my opinion became binding to the Tower once someone voiced to Snape that Draco couldn't do it. Nikkalmati: > I personally think SS had grave doubts, but went ahead without knowing exactly what the task was. Others think he intended to die rather than carry out the task or that he thought he and DD could avoid the consequences (but of course they couldn't). If he is DDM choosing a course which may lead to his death or DD's, is rational if it contributes enough to LV's demise. Ceridwen: I agree with the last sentence. The overall mission is to get rid of Voldemort and his organization, not to preserve the life of individual Good Guy combatants. That would be nice, but in a war, it isn't feasable. I go back and forth on whether Snape knew what Draco's task was. He was very mysterious in Spinner's End, never mentioning what the task was. But, Narcissa, who clearly knew, didn't mention it either, and neither did Bellatrix. So I go back and forth between Snape's actions and words, and JKR's necessity to hide the information as long as possible from her target audience. Nikkalmati: > The UV does not cause SS to kill DD in HBP, unless you think SS's motive on the Tower was only self-preservation and not the protection of Draco, Harry and the school. If SS had not "killed" DD, DD would have died at the hand of Draco or the DE's, and Harry would have died to boot (I don't believe in John Wayne!Snape killing all of the DE's before they can kill any of the good guys DD, Harry or SS). It is perfectly possible to imagine the Tower happening without the UV having any part in it at all. Ceridwen: I had to read this over a couple of times to get it. It's early for me. *g* So, you're saying that, if Snape hadn't taken any UV and events on the Tower lined up exactly the same anyway, then Snape would still have killed DD because of the situation? Since I've always thought of Snape's role on the Tower in terms of the UV, I'll have to think that over. But I do agree that JohnWayne!Snape is pretty over-the-top. We've all seen movies where the protagonist, and even the antagonist, can perform amazing feats like taking down a platoon of Death Eaters single-handedly. In real life, this just doesn't happen all that often. When it does, it's notable because it is so rare. I can't imagine DD wanting even JohnWayne!Snape to take on all of the DEs, because there is more of a chance it won't work than that it will. > Nikkalmati (who thinks SS may not have killed DD afterall) Ceridwen: I go back and forth on that one, too. Did DD die before Snape killed him? Was he beyond the point of help by this time? One idea I've thought about, and I'm not sure who thought of this one first, is that Dumbledore was dead all year, and merely reanimated somehow. I think it's creepy, but all of this speculation can certainly give rise to Undead!Dumbledore ideas! The one thing that snags at me for an AlreadyDead!Dumbledore, no matter when his death occurred, is that the body flew off the tower. Inanimate objects react like this to spells, as we saw at the MoM. I do think there's more to the Tower. I just can't imagine what it will be. Ceridwen. From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Sun Mar 4 14:17:13 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:17:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003601c75e67$d52ff1c0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165685 --Shaunette Wrote-- >>> If the Birdbath!potion is indeed something like pensieve stuff, and if > it does force the drinker to relive horrible memories, how do one's > memories get siphoned out automatically into the basin...before the > drinker arrives? It would make more sense if those Worst Memories are > the memories of the *previous* drinker. <<< --Ronin's Comments-- I was thinking that the potion itself or one of it's side effects, was that it caused the drinker to relive his/her own worst memories. More on the lines of a magical drug, rather than the memories being in the basin like a pensieve. Therefore, the memories are already inside the drinker's own mind and the potion merely acts as a stimulant or a instigator of sorts. I don't think that Voldemort would ever place his own memories out there in the open for someone else to view, however bad they might be. He trusts no-one and lets nobody know his true intentions. Even if he was 99% certain that the drinker would die, I don't think he would share such an insight into his psyche with anyone. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 14:40:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:40:47 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165686 > Ceridwen: >> Tangent: What if that wouldn't matter to the Vow? What if the > person who made the Vow would die (given that Arthur told Ron a > universal truth about the UV) if it wasn't his hand (or, in this > case, Draco's and then Snape's) that did the deed? What if that was > what DD was pleading, that Snape look at him and see that the > conditions of the Vow was about to become null and void, that DD was > dying and that if this happened, Snape would be dead as well? This > doesn't presage an agreement between them to kill DD. It builds on > the realities of the moment alone. But, I've only just thought of > this. I may forget about it, or I may refine it. Alla: Mmmmmmm, you mean that as long as Somebody not even Snape necessarily makes UV to kill DD and DD dies for whatever reason and not from the hands of that person, that person would be dead anyways as soon as that happened? Ceridwen: > And as long as I'm mentioning ideas I've had, I think Snape lost > whatever edge the open-ended wording of the Vow gave him when the DEs > told him that Draco couldn't perform his task. "if it seems he might > fail" in my opinion became binding to the Tower once someone voiced > to Snape that Draco couldn't do it. Alla: Yes, I think I can agree with this one. > Nikkalmati: > > I personally think SS had grave doubts, but went ahead without > knowing exactly what the task was. Others think he intended to die > rather than carry out the task or that he thought he and DD could > avoid the consequences (but of course they couldn't). If he is DDM > choosing a course which may lead to his death or DD's, is rational if > it contributes enough to LV's demise. > > Ceridwen: > I agree with the last sentence. The overall mission is to get rid of > Voldemort and his organization, not to preserve the life of > individual Good Guy combatants. That would be nice, but in a war, it > isn't feasable. I go back and forth on whether Snape knew what > Draco's task was. He was very mysterious in Spinner's End, never > mentioning what the task was. But, Narcissa, who clearly knew, > didn't mention it either, and neither did Bellatrix. So I go back > and forth between Snape's actions and words, and JKR's necessity to > hide the information as long as possible from her target audience. Alla: Wait Ceridwen, wait one second. I guess I am arguing with you both, but how is it rational in any way, shape or form if Snape knows what he is pleading to do, and that would lead to the death of Dumbledore? You mean, Snape makes a determination that perfectly alive at that moment (no ring curse, no cave drink, no nothing) the greatest wizard of all time, the **only** one Voldemort ever feared, um, is not necessary for war efforts anymore and whatever consequences Snape is thinking after UV would serve war efforts better, than alive Dumbledore? May I strongly disagree with you if that is so? Dumbledore seemed to lead war efforts quite nicely to me ( well, okay making many mistakes, but still :) so far and who the heck gave Snape the right to decide that he should do away with Dumbledore, because then they have a better chance to win? And of course here I am only talking about war related calculations, not the ethics of the situation, which seemed to me very questionable at best? > Nikkalmati: > > The UV does not cause SS to kill DD in HBP, unless you think SS's > motive on the Tower was only self-preservation and not the protection > of Draco, Harry and the school. If SS had not "killed" DD, DD would > have died at the hand of Draco or the DE's, and Harry would have died > to boot (I don't believe in John Wayne!Snape killing all of the DE's > before they can kill any of the good guys DD, Harry or SS). It is > perfectly possible to imagine the Tower happening without the UV > having any part in it at all. Alla: Possible? Of course it is possible. It is also possible to imagine entirely different story - such as Draco lowering his wand **before** Snape rushing in, Dumbledore fighting some DE and Snape helping him, Snape breaking the barrier, Snape bringing people from the Order with him, because I see Snape deliberately not bringing order fighters with him there, frankly. But of course since that "kill or die"" is on his mind, could he do so? Not IMO. JMO of course, but oh man, I think in case nobody knows yet that UV was either the stupidiest act Snape committed or the most evil one. Alla. From kennclark at btinternet.com Sun Mar 4 11:06:52 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:06:52 -0000 Subject: The wand in Ollivander's shop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: "An alternate theory is that the Ravenclaw Horcrux is the tiara in the Room of Requirement." Ken says: More likely the claw footed Mirror of Erised! Ken From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Sun Mar 4 14:25:39 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:25:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003b01c75e69$020f90a0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165688 --Shaunette Wrote-- >>>Forgive me if this has been mentioned (I've had a look through the > messages and haven't managed to find anything), but I...sort of recall > that Harry WAS seeing things through VM's POV at the end of one of the > GoF dreams mentioned.<<< --Ronin's Comments-- I haven't really been following this thread, but to me I don't pay much attention to Harry's POV in his dreams. The reason is two fold. a. They are dreams and anything is possible in dreams. b.We already know that he sees through Voldemorts eyes in some of his dreams and that Voldemort has the ability to (possess) see through the eyes of Nagini and possibly others. So POV could be from just about anywhere. Forgive me if I'm saying something that doesn't apply or is being repeated. It's just my opinion. I'm currently reading GOF again, but I have not reached the scene in question yet. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 15:32:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:32:46 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165689 Donna asked: > > Why would Hagrid be buying flesh eating slug repellant for slugs eating the school's cabbages? Are the slugs in the UK that different from the slugs in the US? I believe the slugs in the US eat plants and not flesh and, iirc, cabbages are plants. > Dondee's replied: > I may be wrong, but I always thought that the repellent ate the flesh of the slugs - not that the slugs eat flesh themselves. Kind of like using chili powder to keep ants away because it burns them. > Carol responds: I don't think so. "Flesh-eating" as an adjective refers to "Slug" in this phrase, just as "man-eating" in "man-eating tiger" refers to "tiger." So, like Donna, I was struck (and am struck each time I read it) by the strangeness of flesh-eating--i.e., carnivorous--slugs eating cabbages, a vegetable. Goddlefrood's suggestion that they eat Mandrakes is interesting, but Mandrakes, despite being anthropomorphic as JKR depicts them, are still plants, so their "flesh" is no more flesh in a literal sense than the "flesh" of a tomato. Flesh-Eating Slugs, gruesome as it sounds, would be more likely to snack on Fang or even Hagrid himself than on the school cabbages, or even the Mandrakes. Besides, Hagrid has no idea at this point that anyone is going to be petrified and that the Mandrakes that the second-years will be growing as (presumably) part of the normal course of study will prove important. (Professor Sprout also has no idea that a Basilisk is about to be released--not even Dumbledore knows it at this point. It's a lucky coincidence, like the Felix Felicis in HBP, that the Mandrakes are available.) It's also odd that Hagrid would attempt to buy Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant, whatever he really needs it for, in Knockturn Alley, which sells Dark magic artifacts. I can see a Knockturn Alley merchant selling the slugs themselves, or a product to *attract* them, but why would they sell repellant to deter a Dark creature, however minor? Also, Hagrid says that he was looking for *a* Flesh-Eating Slug repellant" (CoS Am. ed. 55), apparently meaning *anything* that will repel them rather than a specific product. (If he really wants a potion that will repel them, why not ask Snape to concoct one? Surely, he, if anyone, could manage that feat.) In the film, Hagrid holds up a container of repellant. He does no such thing in the book. IOW, he doesn't buy what he says he went to Knockturn alley to buy. The whole line strikes me as an excuse rather than a plausible reason for being in Knockturn Alley. Harry, of course, doesn't question it, but I immediately reacted to it as illogical and implausible. What can Hagrid's real reason be? I seriously doubt that he wants any product or artifact that's sold in that revolting place. IMO, he can only be looking for Harry. How he knew Harry was there, I don't know, unless Dumbledore is monitoring the Weasleys' fireplace. Carol, beginning to think that JKR's weak points include logic, as well as "maths" and consistency From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 16:10:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:10:01 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165690 Alla: > Mmmmmmm, you mean that as long as Somebody not even Snape necessarily makes UV to kill DD and DD dies for whatever reason and not from the hands of that person, that person would be dead anyways as soon as that happened? Ceridwen: Just something that struck me as I was responding. I try to see all sides of things when I'm not absolutely married to them, so it just struck me that maybe the UV has a lot more control than we think. I'm not even entirely sure the UV kills someone who doesn't fulfill it. As I mentioned, I think "Unbreakable" means that the person *cannot* break it. The UV killing if the person does not fulfill it would mean that it's possible for someone to not fulfill the vow. So, I'm less inclined to believe what I wrote there. Just off on a tangent. :) Alla: > Wait Ceridwen, wait one second. I guess I am arguing with you both, but how is it rational in any way, shape or form if Snape knows what he is pleading to do, and that would lead to the death of Dumbledore? Ceridwen: I was only focusing on the Tower scene, not on the UV. But, in a war effort, everyone is expendable to the mission. Some people, like Dumbledore and DDM!Spy!Snape, are less expendable than others, but we're not talking about a cult-type cause which may be merely personality-driven. LV poses a threat to the WW, and to the Muggle world both. The only person who is not expendable is Harry, and Dumbledore went to great lengths to say this at the Sea-Cave. The mission is a primary thing in a war. Cult figures should not apply to positions as military or paramilitary leaders. Alla: > You mean, Snape makes a determination that perfectly alive at that moment (no ring curse, no cave drink, no nothing) the greatest wizard of all time, the **only** one Voldemort ever feared, um, is not necessary for war efforts anymore and whatever consequences Snape is thinking after UV would serve war efforts better, than alive Dumbledore? Ceridwen: Oh, I'm so glad you put in those parentheses! Because I do think DD had already been hit by the ring curse. Snape mentions that Dumbledore is not at the top of his game, and suggests that his decline was caused by the fight with LV at the Ministry. However, since I think the first four chapters of HBP take place on the same night, then DD will already have tackled the ring, and Snape has already saved him, something Snape conveniently doesn't mention to the Black sisters. Dumbledore himself is behaving as if he's on borrowed time. It could well be that DADA expert Snape knows, or believes, that Dumbledore will die before the end of the school year at this point in the story. They would have discussed the injury, even if DD didn't tell Snape how he got it, when Snape fixed him up. Alla: > May I strongly disagree with you if that is so? Dumbledore seemed to lead war efforts quite nicely to me ( well, okay making many mistakes, but still :) so far and who the heck gave Snape the right to decide that he should do away with Dumbledore, because then they have a better chance to win? Ceridwen: When Snape agrees to take the UV, Narcissa has only iterated two points, neither of which has anything to do with killing Dumbledore except in the most remote way. Tangent: Watching over and protecting Draco, and helping him, doesn't necessarily mean what Narcissa thinks it means. That's a problem with all this mystical stuff. You can pray for a promotion at work, meaning no harm to anyone, only good things. Maybe retirement, or even promotions all around. You do get the promotion, but because the person who held that position unexpectedly died. This wasn't your intention at all, but it's the way your prayer was fulfilled. Back on track: Snape agrees to the first two clauses before joining hands with Narcissa. IF the UV is binding from that point on, then Narcissa played a dirty trick on Snape by throwing in that last clause. He could not have gotten out of it at that point, IF the UV takes charge from the joining of hands onward. A mother afraid for her son's life would understandably do whatever it takes to save her son, so I can completely see Sneaky!Narcissa's reasoning here. But she played Snape unfairly after invoking such long-term friendship, being Draco's favorite teacher, and so on. So, it's possible, given a certain interpretation of the UV, that Snape would not have thought a bit about Dumbledore actually dying by his or Draco's hand at this point, since Narcissa didn't tell him about a third clause. Dumbledore's death and the war effort wouldn't have come into his thoughts at all. Now, given a different interpretation of the UV, that Snape could have refused the third clause, then yes, I can agree with you that it was not Snape's place to decide Dumbledore's importance in the overall scheme of things. I'm just talking from my own idea of the UV. Alla: > And of course here I am only talking about war related calculations, not the ethics of the situation, which seemed to me very questionable at best? Ceridwen: I think that most of what the DEs think is standard fare, is questionable. Unbreakable Vows, hidden clauses, prejudice, violence to achieve their ends, are not the sorts of things decent people usually do. When Snape deals with DEs, he is, in effect, one of them, whether he actually is LVM!Snape, or playing the part for the war effort. So I do think he has done questionable things in the past, while still "slithering out" of other things according to Bellatrix. Now, about the part where the UV didn't need to have anything to do with the Tower scene. I can't speak for Nikkalmati, of course, but my interpretation of what she said is that, under those exact circumstances, then Snape didn't have much of a choice anyway. Some people who say that the UV will kill you if you break its clauses, have said that, under the Tower's circumstances, Snape couldn't happily sacrifice his life even though he may have intended to. This can be spread out to mean that there was no other way up there, whether or not there was a UV in place. With Dumbledore's original injury, which was not healing; with Dumbledore's behavior seeming to mean he thinks his time is short; with the potion that he drank making him so weak he passes out a couple of times before even reaching the Tower, and making him turning paler as the minutes ticked by, and making him so weak that he's sliding down as he's talking to Draco; with the presence of the other DE's, including or in addition to Fenrir Greyback; with Harry frozen to the castle wall under his Invisibility Cloak, since Harry is the only person in the war who is not expendable, then whether Snape took a UV to protect Draco or not, the only thing he could have done to save *Harry* (not even worried about Draco here, since we're shoving the UV aside), may have been to kill DD to convince the DEs to leave before Harry came out fighting. A DDM!Snape would need Harry to live. Dumbledore himself had mentioned that he is expendable while Harry isn't, just pages before this scene. LV has made the prophecy relevant by acting on it, I imagine in some way like a magical contract is made. LV's actions created his own worst enemy. He may fear Dumbledore, but he should more fear Harry. By his actions, he has ensured that Harry is the means of his destruction, not Dumbledore, not Snape, not R.A.B. So I guess this paragraph all comes down to whether you believe Snape is DDM or LVM. I hope I've explaned myself well! I don't always, and I think this may be one of those times. Ugh! Ceridwen. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Mar 4 16:46:54 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:46:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165691 Ceridwen: I was only focusing on the Tower scene, not on the UV. But, in a war effort, everyone is expendable to the mission. Some people, like Dumbledore and DDM!Spy!Snape, are less expendable than others, but we're not talking about a cult-type cause which may be merely personality-driven. LV poses a threat to the WW, and to the Muggle world both. The only person who is not expendable is Harry, and Dumbledore went to great lengths to say this at the Sea-Cave. The mission is a primary thing in a war. Cult figures should not apply to positions as military or paramilitary leaders. Sherry: But in a War, a real war, you don't go and kill your top general, just so you can look good and get in good with the other side. Imagine someone killing the top Allied generals, or even Churchill or Roosevelt during WWII. It would have been a calamity, and whoever it was would not have been a hero. He or she would have been a criminal, hunted down and if caught tried and probably executed. It's truly an argument I just don't understand . No matter Snape's motives, it's likely he will be hated and reviled for that one deed forever--unless somehow, he did not really kill Dumbledore, such as Dumbledore being dead already or something. Harry thought Dumbledore was sounding stronger, didn't he? I have to admit, I haven't read HBP in over a year and can't remember exactly. But I am not in any way convinced that murdering Dumbledore was the only way to get the death eaters out of Hogwarts. I know. I've expressed all of this before, and we're not all going to convince the other side of our point of view. But it does truly baffle me to consider that a truly supposedly good guy could ever have a legitimate reason for murdering his leader, just to stay close to Voldemort. I'd think it could actually make his position with Voldemort more precarious, because double agents are never really trusted very much. Sherry, thankful there are only 138 days to go till we get some answers! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 17:00:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:00:30 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: <003601c75e67$d52ff1c0$7bd02444@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165692 Shaunette Wrote-- > >>> If the Birdbath!potion is indeed something like pensieve stuff, and if it does force the drinker to relive horrible memories, how do one's memories get siphoned out automatically into the basin...before the drinker arrives? It would make more sense if those Worst Memories are the memories of the *previous* drinker. Ronin replied: > I was thinking that the potion itself or one of it's side effects, was that it caused the drinker to relive his/her own worst memories. More on the lines of a magical drug, rather than the memories being in the basin like a pensieve. Therefore, the memories are already inside the drinker's own mind and the potion merely acts as a stimulant or a instigator of sorts. I don't think that Voldemort would ever place his own memories out there in the open for someone else to view, however bad they might be. He trusts no-one and lets nobody know his true intentions. Even if he was 99% certain that the drinker would die, I don't think he would share such an insight into his psyche with anyone. Carol responds: I agree that Voldemort wouldn't have placed his own memories in the basin. However, we know that he can extract memories from his own mind and that Dumbledore, at least, can extract them from other people who aren't themselves Legilimens (or whatever the plural is--would it be Legilimentes, Geoff?). He extracts memories from Hokey and Morfin, for example. (He also acquires one from Bob Ogden, but Ogden, like Slughorn, might have been able to extract his own memory,) It's possible, then, that the memories in the Pensieve are not those of the drinker but those of one of Voldemort's victims. I've suggested, in a post that almost no one considered worthy of a response, that the memory could be that of Tom Riddle Sr. ("It's all my fault. My fault. Please make it stop. I know I did wrong, oh please maek it stop, and I'll never, never again . . . " and "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead" (572). The impression I get is of someone being tortured (Crucio'd) for some fault he has committed, and trying at the same time to protect innocent people from being Crucio'd. The memory can't be Voldemort's--he was never tortured or at anyone's mercy. It seems unlikely that Dumbledore, who could do extraordinary things with a wand even as a boy, and who was some ninety years old and very powerful when Tom Riddle first met him, would ever have been in such a position. (Of course, it might not be a memory; he might be reacting to the present torture, but if so, who are the "them" who are also being tortured or in danger of being tortured?) The situation fits Tom Riddle Sr., who deserted Tom Jr. before he was born, leaving him to be raised in a Muggle orphanage (Tom Jr. killed him for revenge, as he says himself, and the terrified expressions on the Riddles' faces suggest that all three were also tortured before they were killed). He's the only person I can think of from whom Voldie could have extracted a memory for later use who would be begging Voldie or Tom Jr. to torture him rather than other people who have not committed the fault. No Death Eater (other than perhaps Snape or Regulus Black) would do that. It's also possible that the memory of Tom Sr. screaming is Voldie's own, converted somehow to first-person so that the drinker experiences it from the victim's perspective rather than the torturer's. At any rate, the very shape of the basin, "a stone basin rather like the Pensieve" (566), along with the poisonous green color (the color of an AK and the Basilisk) suggests that the potion is, or contains, a poisoned memory. The memory is part of the torture that the victim undergoes, but it is not, of course, what causes the victim to suffer physical anguish, unbearable thirst, deathlike pallor, and lasting weakness (so great that DD is sliding down the tower wall when the DEs arrive). If, indeed, the memory is that of the last drinker, it's difficult to explain how the memory got in there in the first place. Neither Voldemort nor Bellatrix, if she hid the Horcrux, would have drunk the potion. Nor is it likely to be RAB's if RAB is Regulus, since his assistant had to be Kreacher (whose presence would not have been registered by the boat). Surely, Regulus would not have drunk the potion himself with Kreacher there to do it for him (no need to rouse the Inferi--just grab the Horcrux, toss the suffering Kreacher in the boat, and give him water when they're safely out of the cave), and the memory clearly isn't Kreacher's. So I don't think the memory changes. I think Dumbledore experiences the same anguished memory that the first drinker, probably Kreacher, experienced. I can't see it being his own memory or a reaction to the present situation, in which there's no "them" to be protected. Nor do I see how it could be Regulus's memory because I'm sure that, being a Black with a loyal house-elf, he would never have drunk the potion himself, at least not after the first taste. Shaunette: if Harry returns to the cave to look for the real locket (provided that Inferi-pocket-locket theory pans out) someone (kreacher's been suggested quite a bit, the poor thing) might have to drink DD's worst memories Carol: But why would Harry return to the cave to look for the real Horcrux, which isn't there? (I don't subscribe to the pocket-locket theory, and neither does the person who posted it, right, Mike?) RAB took it, and if RAB is Regulus, the real Horcrux is surely the unopenable locket that we saw at 12 GP in OoP. That being the case, either Kreacher retrieved it and hid it or Mundungus Fletcher stole it. There's the slight complication that Mundungus is currently in Azkaban for impersonating an Inferius, but JKR will find a way around that. At any rate, in the unlikely event that Harry returns to the cave to retrieve the real Horcrux from Inferius!Regulus, no one will have to drink the potion because the Horcrux isn't in the basin, and there's no indication that the basin, which now has nothing to protect or conceal, refills after DD "scooped up the locket from the bottom of the stone basin and stowed it inside his robes" (576). Carol, who thinks that the primary purpose of the cave scene is to weaken Dumbledore so that his death is inevitable and to turn the responsibility for fighting Voldemort over to Harry (and his supposed enemy, Snape) From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 4 17:30:22 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:30:22 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165693 Shaunette: > I do remember wondering about that owl and that > strange POV, too... however, I also remember Harry > looking down on a pair of white, long-fingered hands > resting on an armchair, his own hands (in the dream), > something happens with Wormtail... then Harry looks > into a dirty old mirror across the room into a flat, > snakelike face with gleaming red eyes...that's when > he woke up in a cold sweat, isn't it? houyhnhnm: Right after Harry's interview was published in The Quibbler, he and the other Gryffindors were celebrating in the common room. Fred and George put an engorgement charm on the front cover and hung it on the wall. Harry's giant head gazed down upon the proceedings, saying things like "The Ministy are Morons" and "Eat dung, Umbridge". As the spell wore down, it merely shouted words like "dung" and "Umbridge". Harry's scar began to prickle and his head hurt. He went to bed and fell asleep. Then ********************** He was standing in a dark curtained room lit by a single branch of candles. His hands were clenched on the back of the chair infront of him. They were long-fingered and white as if they had not seen sunlight for years and looked like large, pale spiders against the dark velvet of the chair. ********************** Voldemort is interrogating Rookwood. Harry not only sees from Voldemort's prespective, he *is* Voldemort. ********************** "You have done well to tell me this," said Harry. ... Left alone in the dark room, Harry turned toward the wall. A cracked, age-spotted mirror hung on the wall in the shadows. Harry moved toward it. His reflection grew larger and clearer in the darkness....A face whiter than a skull...red eyes with slits for pupils... ********************** OotP, Scholastic paperback, pp.584-586 From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 4 17:23:36 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:23:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] UVs (was: Re: On the trivial and the profound. References: Message-ID: <00a101c75e81$d8bd5f70$6392400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165694 Ceridwen: > When Snape agrees to take the UV, Narcissa has only iterated two > points, neither of which has anything to do with killing Dumbledore > except in the most remote way. > > Tangent: Watching over and protecting Draco, and helping him, doesn't > necessarily mean what Narcissa thinks it means. That's a problem > with all this mystical stuff. You can pray for a promotion at work, > meaning no harm to anyone, only good things. Maybe retirement, or > even promotions all around. You do get the promotion, but because > the person who held that position unexpectedly died. This wasn't > your intention at all, but it's the way your prayer was fulfilled. > > Back on track: Snape agrees to the first two clauses before joining > hands with Narcissa. IF the UV is binding from that point on, then > Narcissa played a dirty trick on Snape by throwing in that last > clause. He could not have gotten out of it at that point, IF the UV > takes charge from the joining of hands onward. A mother afraid for > her son's life would understandably do whatever it takes to save her > son, so I can completely see Sneaky!Narcissa's reasoning here. But > she played Snape unfairly after invoking such long-term friendship, > being Draco's favorite teacher, and so on. > > So, it's possible, given a certain interpretation of the UV, that > Snape would not have thought a bit about Dumbledore actually dying by > his or Draco's hand at this point, since Narcissa didn't tell him > about a third clause. Dumbledore's death and the war effort wouldn't > have come into his thoughts at all. Now, given a different > interpretation of the UV, that Snape could have refused the third > clause, then yes, I can agree with you that it was not Snape's place > to decide Dumbledore's importance in the overall scheme of things. > I'm just talking from my own idea of the UV. Magpie: I understand what you're saying here, but to go off on my own tangent, the problem I have with this "once the Vow starts Snape can't back out" is that that's not an Unbreakable Vow. That's Imperius. Snape was just forced into something that makes him kill Dumbleodre when it wasn't his intention. It's a huge difference compared to a Vow where Snape is making a promise to do something himself. I suppose I might say that's also why I don't lean towards the Vow forcing you to do fulfill it--the point of a Vow, to me, is the promise. Even if circumstances turn out to put you in a situation where you fulfill the Vow when you didn't intend to, you're still doing it in some way. Plus I guess to me Snape doesn't seem to be being forced here. His hand twitches, indicating a reaction to the surprise clause. Earlier I had said it wasn't a surprise, and to clarify what I meant, I do agree that Snape has before the Vow agreed to protect Draco only. I meant it's not a total surprise because Narcissa has brought up this possibility already, so it's no surprise to Snape that she wants him to do this. Only I think if he really had no intention of making that fatal Vow and she trapped him into it we'd get something besides just a twitch. That, to me, read more like Snape showing that he really didn't want to take this Vow, but was mastering himself--though of course that was just how it read to me. It's ambiguous and I could be wrong. It seems like often it's suggested that Snape also couldn't show that he was upset with that last Vow (if he was forced into it) because that would somehow make him seem less loyal, but it seems to me that if ESE!Snape (real or pretended by DDM!Snape) had been tricked that way he could show anger and show that he didn't want to take that part of the Vow. After all, he's already refused it. But on the most basic level it's the Vow vs. Imperius thing, like I said. A Vow is a Vow. A sacred promise. Even if Snape doesn't really want to do what he's Vowing to do, I feel like it has to be something he decides to do himself. As to why he does this...there, I've no clue. Can't completely understand it yet from DDM!Snape perspective, and it makes even less sense for ESE!Snape because why on earth is he risking his life? Especially for this? The scene on the Tower reads more to me like DDM!Snape (with the pleading as soon as he arrives and no moment where Dumbledore realizes he's been wrong), but I'm going to have to wait and be told exactly what was going on. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 4 17:53:54 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:53:54 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165695 > Sherry: > > But in a War, a real war, you don't go and kill your top general, just so > you can look good and get in good with the other side. Imagine someone > killing the top Allied generals, or even Churchill or Roosevelt during WWII. > It would have been a calamity, and whoever it was would not have been a > hero. He or she would have been a criminal, hunted down and if caught tried > and probably executed. It's truly an argument I just don't understand Pippin: You're omitting some details. Dumbledore was already in very bad shape and Harry was in mortal danger. If there was little chance Dumbledore could be saved, the principle of triage would compel Snape or any other Order member to save Harry first. Those who have fought with Dumbledore would understand this. Sherry: . > No matter Snape's motives, it's likely he will be hated and reviled for that one deed forever--unless somehow, he did not really kill Dumbledore, such as Dumbledore being dead already or something. Pippin: Do you think DDM!Snape cares about that? He's never been popular. The important thing is that the next generation has a chance to live free of Voldemort's domination. I can't imagine Dumbledore ever promised Snape he would live happily ever after. Sherry: > I know. I've expressed all of this before, and we're not all going to > convince the other side of our point of view. But it does truly baffle me > to consider that a truly supposedly good guy could ever have a legitimate > reason for murdering his leader, just to stay close to Voldemort. I'd think > it could actually make his position with Voldemort more precarious, because > double agents are never really trusted very much. Pippin: Huh? But Voldemort already thinks Snape is a double agent. The goal cannot have been to make Voldemort trust Snape. Voldemort is utterly incapable of trust. He could never believe that Snape was truly on his side, even if Snape was in truth as fanatically loyal as Bellatrix. But Voldemort could never understand willing sacrifice, or that loyalty to a cause supercedes loyalty to a leader, so he will never believe now that Snape has any loyalty to the Order. Dumbledore told Fudge he might have to give up his all his power and become reviled and hated in order to do the right thing, but eventually he would be remembered as a great minister of magic. Do you think he wouldn't take the same advice himself, or put Snape in such a position? Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 4 17:59:49 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Mar 2007 17:59:49 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/4/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1173031189.9.66139.m22@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165696 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday March 4, 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 18:30:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:30:08 -0000 Subject: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165697 Ceridwen wrote: > Just something that struck me as I was responding. I try to see all > sides of things when I'm not absolutely married to them, so it just > struck me that maybe the UV has a lot more control than we think. > I'm not even entirely sure the UV kills someone who doesn't fulfill > it. As I mentioned, I think "Unbreakable" means that the person > *cannot* break it. The UV killing if the person does not fulfill it > would mean that it's possible for someone to not fulfill the vow. > So, I'm less inclined to believe what I wrote there. Just off on a > tangent. :) Carol responds: I'm not so sure. The only canon we have at the moment about how the UV works is Ron's statement that if you break it, you die. (Aside on the Weasley Twins: They were five years old and probably could not have performed the vow effectively, but Arthur's reaction is in keeping with the real consequences if they had succeeded. When has he ever hit the Twins for any reason? And yet Fred speaks of his "left buttock" in terms that indicate that he, and presumably George, were severely punished by spanking or whipping.) I agree with you and Alla that the brutal-faced Death Eater's words about Draco being unable to kill DD triggered the Vow. I don't think, however, that Snape was robbed of his choice at that point or he would have killed Dumbledore immediately. Instead, as DD speaks his name, he exchanges glances with him. His expression changes to one of (self?) hatred and revulsion, but he still doesn't raise his wand, as he would have to do if the UV compelled him to act. He has the choice, as Draco did, to do the deed or refuse to do it. Draco remains "irresolute," never making any choice beyond a fractional lowering of his wand, and Snape for a moment remains in a similar position. Only when Dumbledore says, "Severus, please," does he choose between an action that would mean his death, such as trying to save Dumbledore or attacking the Death Eaters and fulfilling the vow by killing Dumbledore (which, as I've already argued, is the only way to save the two boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts). At any rate, I see no reason to doubt the canon we have, even if the source is Ron, that breaking a UV kills the person who breaks it. As I said, if the UV compelled Snape to kill Dumbledore, he would have done it without hesitation the moment the UV was triggered. I think he *chose* to keep it, very much against his will, because that's what Dumbledore wanted. BTW, thank you, Ceridwen, for pointing out that I *suggested* that it might have been impossible to escape the third provision once Snape was bound to Narcissa by ropes of fire, as opposed to *arguing* that point. I'm not certain how the vow works, nor do I know any more than anyone else what Snape's motives were in taking it, especially that provision. I'm only presenting that idea for consideration, not arguing that I'm right on that point. > Ceridwen: > Oh, I'm so glad you put in those parentheses! Because I do think DD had already been hit by the ring curse. Snape mentions that Dumbledore is not at the top of his game, and suggests that his decline was caused by the fight with LV at the Ministry. However, since I think the first four chapters of HBP take place on the same night, then DD will already have tackled the ring, and Snape has already saved him, something Snape conveniently doesn't mention to the Black sisters. Dumbledore himself is behaving as if he's on borrowed time. It could well be that DADA expert Snape knows, or believes, that Dumbledore will die before the end of the school year at this point in the story. They would have discussed the injury, even if DD didn't tell Snape how he got it, when Snape fixed him up. > Carol responds: I agree that the four chapters take place on the same night. And Snape *has* already saved DD from the ring curse. He tells Bellatrix, ". . . Dumbledore is growing old. The duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were" (31). Note that slowed reactions are not the reason that DD sustained the injury though DD lets Slughorn think the same thing. In fact, he lets the whole school see the injured hand, as if he wants to create the impression that he's weaker than he once was. There's no indication that the duel with the Dark Lord "shook" DD. That's Snape's excuse to Bella and Narcissa and presumably LV for DD's injury. He certainly isn't going to tell any of them that he saved DD's life, much less that the injury is from a cursed Horcrux (as Snape surely knows or has deduced). But, anyway, Snape has definitely saved DD from the curse, without being able to save the hand itself, before the conversation at "Spinner's End." And I'm pretty sure that both Snape and DD know that Snape will become the DADA teacher if and when Slughorn accepts the Potions position. It's all part of the plan necessitated by LV's rise to power and the end of the Prophecy diversion. It's time to start hunting Horcruxes and give Harry lessons, time to send Snape to Voldemort at the end of the year, time to give him a chance to show his stuff as a DADA teacher and anti-Dark Arts expert, time to hire a new Potions master and future HoH of Slytherin House to replace Snape at the end of the year when the DADA curse inevitably strikes. And there's the whole complication of Draco being assigned to kill DD and whatever that entails for Snape's and Dumbledore's plans. Dumbledore must know that between the ring Horcrux, whatever other Horcruxes he'll encounter during the year, Draco's assignment to kill him, and Voldemort's determination to rid himself of "the only one he ever feared" as the sole obstacle between himself and Harry, that he can't last till the end of the year. The UV, to him, is just one more complication entangling Snape in Dumbledore's fate. The fact that DD is placing his valuable spy Snape in the cursed DADA position after keeping him out of it all these years, even allowing Umbridge to teach at Hogwarts to keep Snape from leaving prematurely (what other reason could he have had to choose Umbridge over Snape, whom he knows to be well-qualified for the post?), and that DD visits the Dursleys, giving them the secret of the Order headquarters, and is finally teaching Harry about LV and Horcruxes, surely indicates that DD knows his time is short. Ceridwen: > When Snape agrees to take the UV, Narcissa has only iterated two > points, neither of which has anything to do with killing Dumbledore > except in the most remote way. Carol: Exactly. His motive in agreeing to the vow in the first place is surely to protect Draco, whom he, like Narcissa, expects to fail in his mission, at all costs. Ceridwen: > Snape agrees to the first two clauses before joining hands with Narcissa. IF the UV is binding from that point on, then Narcissa played a dirty trick on Snape by throwing in that last clause. He could not have gotten out of it at that point, IF the UV takes charge from the joining of hands onward. A mother afraid for her son's life would understandably do whatever it takes to save her son, so I can completely see Sneaky!Narcissa's reasoning here. But she played Snape unfairly after invoking such long-term friendship, being Draco's favorite teacher, and so on. Carol: That's how I see it as well. But even if the vow isn't binding from the moment the ropes of fire bind Snape to Narcissa, she's being sneaky. He wasn't agreeing to that third provision when he agreed to take the vow. He was agreeing to protect Draco, and to risk his own life by doing so. The third provision was not part of the bargain, and the twitch shows that Snape did not anticipate it. (Maybe Narcissa didnt, either. It could have been a last-minute inspiration.) Ceridwen: > With Dumbledore's original injury, which was not healing; with Dumbledore's behavior seeming to mean he thinks his time is short; with the potion that he drank making him so weak he passes out a couple of times before even reaching the Tower, and making him turning paler as the minutes ticked by, and making him so weak that he's sliding down as he's talking to Draco; with the presence of the other DE's, including or in addition to Fenrir Greyback; with Harry frozen to the castle wall under his Invisibility Cloak, since Harry is the only person in the war who is not expendable, then whether Snape took a UV to protect Draco or not, the only thing he could have done to save *Harry* (not even worried about Draco here, since we're shoving the UV aside), may have been to kill DD to convince the DEs to leave before Harry came out fighting. > > A DDM!Snape would need Harry to live. Carol responds: I agree with this reasoning. However, the UV makes the need for Snape to act, and act quickly, more urgent and compelling. If Snape dies from breaking the vow, everything is lost, not just Draco's life and Snape's mission to LV. Harry will rush out and be killed, ensuring Voldemort's victory. The Death Eaters will run rampant in Hogwarts, killing, torturing, destroying. (They've already smashed the Gryffindor hourglass and later one of them burns Hagrid's hut, mere hints of what they would do if there was no Snape to order them off the grounds, no Harry to defeat Voldemort in the future.) We've seen what Fenrir Greyback can do and we know that he loves killing children. The prospect is too horrible to consider. So I agree that Snape would have had no choice but to do what he did once he reached the tower even if it weren't for the UV, but the UV controls his reaction to Flitwick's plea for help and prevents him from joining the Order in fighting the DEs because he's bound by the UV to protect Draco. He doesn't know what he'll find when he rushes up the stairs to the tower, certainly not a helpless, disarmed, and apparently dying Dumbledore, but he must have known that the UV was in grave danger of being triggered, that he had to be with Dumbledore and Draco rather than with the Order to do whatever DD wanted him to do. To that extent, the UV controls Snape's actions once he's been alerted, and, IMO, it makes him a tragic figure, the victim of his own mistake or mistakes. The private hell he's experiencing in "Flight of the Prince" is surely in part a consequence of the UV--he know, or thinks he knows, that if he hadn't agreed to it, he might not have had to murder his mentor. I'm quite sure that if his death could have saved Dumbledore or the boys, he would have happily broken the vow. Unfortunately, Dumbledore could not be saved, and keeping the vow by killing him was the only way to save the boys and, by protecting Harry, make the ultimate defeat of Voldemort possible. Carol, still hoping that Snape isn't doomed but realizing that tragic flaws are usually fatal From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 18:29:17 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:29:17 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >> It's possible, then, that the memories in the Pensieve are not those > of the drinker but those of one of Voldemort's victims. I've > suggested, in a post that almost no one considered worthy of a > response, that the memory could be that of Tom Riddle Sr. ("It's all > my fault. My fault. Please make it stop. I know I did wrong, oh please > maek it stop, and I'll never, never again . . . " and "Don't hurt > them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead" > (572). The impression I get is of someone being tortured (Crucio'd) > for some fault he has committed, and trying at the same time to > protect innocent people from being Crucio'd. (snipped) > > The situation fits Tom Riddle Sr., who deserted Tom Jr. before he was > born, leaving him to be raised in a Muggle orphanage (Tom Jr. killed > him for revenge, as he says himself, and the terrified expressions on > the Riddles' faces suggest that all three were also tortured before > they were killed). He's the only person I can think of from whom > Voldie could have extracted a memory for later use who would be > begging Voldie or Tom Jr. to torture him rather than other people who > have not committed the fault. Carol Leah: I was very taken with this idea. However, I am wondering what purpose is achieved in plot by having DD relive these exact words, if they are indeed those of Tom Riddle Snr. Will it be of importance that Riddle Snr begged for forgiveness before his death and offered to sacrifice himself for others? Maybe it will- part of Voldemort now is the bone of his father. It seems to me that what DD relives is of some importance, otherwise he could have been rolling around, simply begging for the agony to stop, which would still have required an unwilling Harry to forcefeed him. It occurs to me that another possible suspect for the original owner of the memory is Frank Longbottom. We know that his wife was with him, and it perhaps possible that Neville was there too. There have of course been suggestions of a memory charm being used on Neville to suppress that particular traumatic remembrance. It is likely that Frank would plead in agony for his wife and child to be spared. There would of course not have been any way for that memory to have been incorporated into the potion by Voldemort, but I agree with the idea that the potion extracts the memory from the drinker's mind. If DD tried to find out by leglimency what had happened to the Longbottoms, then he would have been in possession of that terrible memory. The Frank ownership has some merit for me in that it might have some future play in the storyline. However, it seems to me that both the Frank and the Tom Snr theories can be objected to on the grounds of one particular line. In the case of Tom Snr, it is "I'll never do it again...". While I can appreciate Tom Snr begging his son's forgiveness for abandoning him and his mother, it just doesn't seem to ring true to me that he would be desperately promising not to do that to another woman and her child. Perhaps he didn't know what he was doing. In the case of Frank, it is the same line, with the addition of "I know I've done wrong...". That sounds like someone begging the forgiveness of an person who has authority over them, and I can not envisage why he should be addressing the LeStrange gang in that way, or what wrong he has done. (Unless he was in fact ESEFrank) Leah, feeling sure that the memory belongs to someone who betrayed Voldemort, but still puzzling. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 18:41:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:41:57 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165699 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Donna asked: > > > > > > Why would Hagrid be buying flesh eating slug > > > repellant for slugs eating the school's cabbages? > > >... I believe the slugs in the US eat plants and > > > not flesh... > > > Dondee's replied: > > I may be wrong, but I always thought that the > > repellent ate the flesh of the slugs - not that the > > slugs eat flesh themselves. ... > > > Carol responds: > I don't think so. "Flesh-eating" as an adjective > refers to "Slug" in this phrase, just as "man-eating" > in "man-eating tiger" refers to "tiger." So, like > Donna, I was struck ... by the strangeness of > flesh-eating--i.e., carnivorous--slugs eating > cabbages, a vegetable. > bboyminn: I see this from a couple of perspectives. First, it IS entirely possible that it is the Repellant that is Flesh-Eating and not the slugs themselves. It depends on how you parse the phrase - Flesh-Eating Slug / Repellant Flesh-Eating / Slug Repellant One good way to torture a Slug is to put salt on it. It really is a gruesome sight to see. It looks like you poured acid on it. So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it could not be Slug /Repellant/ of the Flesh- Eating variety. Second, it may be possible that these unique Flesh- Eating Slug are some form of scavanger. That is, they eat the flesh of dead animals they find in the forest. There are many scavangers, like buzzards, that won't eat living flesh. They wait for it to die, then eat it. Perhaps, when lacking dead animals to scavange, the slugs resort to eating whatever nourishing plants are available or easy; i.e. cabbage. Third, and most likely, the author simply wanted cool sounding, uniquely magical slugs. She simply wanted a cool gory creepy slugs because it made for more interesting reading. > Carol continues: > ... > > It's also odd that Hagrid would attempt to buy > Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant, whatever he really needs > it for, in Knockturn Alley, which sells Dark magic > artifacts. I can see a Knockturn Alley merchant selling > the slugs themselves, or a product to *attract* them, > but why would they sell repellant to deter a Dark > creature, however minor? bboyminn: Knockturn Alley may be a dark and dodgy place but it is allowed to exist, so dark as it may be, it must be conducting legitimate business or the Ministry would have closed it down long ago. So, I don't necessarily consider the dark nature of the place as indicating that Hagrid shouldn't have been there. Certainly most 'good' wizards might be afraid to go there but remember Hargid is no pixie. He is an extremely large man, and I doubt there is any place in the wizard world he fears going. My point is that Hagrid would feel no threat going into Knockturn Alley, and therefore would have no hesitation shopping there no matter how dark and dodgy the place might be. > Carol continues: > > Also, Hagrid says that he was looking for *a* > Flesh-Eating Slug repellant" ..., apparently meaning > *anything* that will repel them rather than a specific > product. bboyminn: Not sure what it means, but if you read that passage again, you will see that Hargid is trying to buy - a Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant not - a flesh-eating slug repellant the presents of capital letters, could simply be an editing decision, but in the context of the story, it seems significant. It would seem that 'Flesh-Eating Slug Repellant' is a very specific /thing/ and not a general description. The 'A' attached to the beginning could simply imply that while it is a specific entity, it is also make under several brand names. Some being better than others. > Carol concludes: > > The whole line strikes me as an excuse rather than a > plausible reason for being in Knockturn Alley. Harry, > of course, doesn't question it, but I immediately > reacted to it as illogical and implausible. What can > Hagrid's real reason be? I seriously doubt that he > wants any product or artifact that's sold in that > revolting place. IMO, he can only be looking for Harry. > How he knew Harry was there, I don't know, unless > Dumbledore is monitoring the Weasleys' fireplace. > > Carol, ... bboyminn: There is something very subtle in the way Hagrid responds to Harry's question, that has always made me think there was more to this scene than we know. Yet, for the life of me, I've never been able to determine what it is. I seriously doubt that Hagrid was specifically looking for Harry because he would have no way of knowing that Harry specifically needed looking for. Notice in the movie, Hagrid seems evasive in his answer, so we are not the only people who have picked up on this idea. But at the same time, a direct read of the passage really doesn't give any direct indication of evasiveness. Still, I've alway felt Hagrid wasn't being completely honest, though I can't point to anything specific. I hate to hang too much on this because there are already WAY TOO MANY unresolved mysteries in the story. There will hardly be time to resolve the Big Ones much less time to resolve these little matters. But still... Just a few thoughts that have nothing to do with Snape, Unbreakable Vows, or Horcruxes. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 4 18:58:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:58:18 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165700 > Carol again: Voldie himself > wouldn't need to drink it. He'd know how to get to the (fake) Horcrux > without doing so. The only point in having the potion there is to > deter anyone from stealing the Horcrux and force them to drink the > water so that the Inferi would attack them. And, of course, RAB would > *want* Voldemort to find his note. It was, after all, addressed to > him. The only explanation that makes sense to me is for the basin to > refill itself magically when an object is placed in it. Pippin: This makes it even clearer to me that RAB didn't steal the locket from the basin at all. He stole it beforehand. That eliminates a whole raft of problems. RAB doesn't have to be a white wizard on a level with Dumbledore in order to penetrate the cave, or a dark wizard on a level with Voldemort in order to replace the potion. He only has to be good enough at transfiguration to make a fake locket that would fool Bella, something like the swap Harry did with his potions books but more sophisticated. RAB wouldn't have had to count on his transfiguration being good enough to fool Voldemort himself, but it just might have been, at least for the brief amount of time needed for an unsuspecting Voldemort to recover the supposed horcrux from Bella and hide it in the cave. Of course if Bella is the one who did the hiding, so much the better, and Voldemort never saw the fake at all. Now, RAB would have to be exceptional at transfiguration for this to work, better than Slughorn whose transfiguration was detected by Dumbledore almost instantly. But Regulus was one of a set with Sirius, and Sirius, very conveniently, was a whiz at transfiguration, having mastered the immensely difficult and dangerous animagus transformation at the age of fifteen and boasting also of knowing everything in his transfiguration textbook. Really, what would the point of the fake locket be if RAB stole the horcrux from the cave? RAB would have had to have brought it with him, extracted the real one from the basin and left the fake, but why? To trick Voldemort into drinking the (possibly altered) potion? Maybe, but as Carol has just pointed out, there's no guarantee that Voldemort needs to drink the potion at all in order to get the locket out. To conceal the theft a little while longer? But it's not like there are security guards checking. Only Voldemort is likely to penetrate the cave. But he will detect traces of others' magic long before he reaches the island (as Dumbledore should have done if Regulus had indeed entered the cave before him) and once his suspicions were roused a fake wouldn't fool him for long. No, the fake locket only makes sense to me if the substitution was done earlier, while the locket was still in the possession of Bellatrix. Of course we do have to account for the locket being disenchanted by the time Harry found it. But the spell may have worn off over the years, or perhaps Dumbledore disenchanted it. Maybe not all the spells he was muttering were for lifting the protections on Hogwarts, or perhaps he did indeed survive the fall and discovered the substitution then. > Carol: > But DD's argument makes no sense at all. How can Voldemort know that > someone is there in the cave stealing the Horcrux? Pippin: Harry thinks the Inferi are going to drag him into the lake and drown him. But Inferi don't need to drown people to kill them! The 'bloody mass' shown in Snape's classroom clearly wasn't drowned. I suspect that once the intruder(s) had been overcome, the Inferi had instructions to deliver their catch to Voldemort alive or notify him in some fashion. Mike:\ > > Next, DD says "... this potion is supposed to be drunk." Huh? How > does the potion know that it's being taken out a cupfull at a time > and being drunk? Conjure a pail and pour it into that! Don't drink the > stuff! Where's the logic that DD "can only conclude" that drinking is > the solution? Pippin: Because that's what you do with potions! Clearly Voldemort put the potion there as a challenge, like the protections around the Stone. He would have arranged it so that there wasn't any simple way of retrieving the locket otherwise. JKR could have had Dumbledore make more than a cursory effort to confirm this, but that would be rather dull for us readers, seeing as how in the end he's bound to drink the potion so the story can take its course. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 18:56:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:56:32 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165701 Shaunette wrote: > > > I do remember wondering about that owl and that strange POV, too... however, I also remember Harry looking down on a pair of white, long-fingered hands resting on an armchair, his own hands (in the dream), something happens with Wormtail... then Harry looks into a dirty old mirror across the room into a flat, snakelike face with gleaming red eyes...that's when he woke up in a cold sweat, isn't it? > houyhnhnm replie: > > Harry's scar began to prickle and his head hurt. He went to bed and fell asleep. Then > > ********************** > He was standing in a dark curtained room lit by a single branch of candles. His hands were clenched on the back of the chair infront of him. They were long-fingered and white as if they had not seen sunlight for years and looked like large, pale spiders against the dark velvet of the chair. > ********************** > > Voldemort is interrogating Rookwood. Harry not only sees from Voldemort's prespective, he *is* Voldemort. > OotP, Scholastic paperback, pp.584-586 Caol responds: Which goes back to my original point. The dreams and visions in *OoP* are from Voldemort's perspective, except for the fake vision that LV implants in Harry's brain (a clue that it's not real, Harry?). Even when Harry sees from Nagini's perspective, it's because Voldemort is possessing the snake. So, as you say, harry *is* Voldemort in those dreams. It's the two dreams in *GoF* that are experienced by the reader, and presumably by Harry, from points of view other than Voldemort's. In the owl dream, Harry sees from his own perspective, not Voldemort's, even though he isn't really there. Nor can Voldemort be focusing on the owl, which he doesn't know is flying toward him. He's focusing on punishing Wormtail. In the Frank Bryce dream, the narrator shifts from a third-person dramatic perspective to Frank Bryce's pov (signalled by white space between the two perspectives). True, we don't know when the dream begins, but Harry has to be seeing from Frank's perspective, not Voldemort's, because he isn't present in the dream and it ends when Frank dies. Most likely, Harry sees what Frank sees at the end, Fetal!mort sitting in a chair and sending an AK at him. But when he wakes up, he can't remember the dream, perhaps because it wasn't from his own pov, perhaps because it was so shocking. But my point is, and remains, that the logical perspective for these dreams would be Voldemort's, the perspective used in OoP, which fits with the mind link. How could Harry see from the point of view of an unknown Muggle? How could he be riding, in his imagination, on the back of an owl? Maybe, as someone suggested, these dreams are a transition between the jumbled dreams he's had earlier, of, say, Quirrell's turban telling him that he should be in Slytherin and Draco's face changing to Snape's, and the Voldie-view dreams of OoP. And yet, he's still having the old, jumbled dreams, for example, Ron and Hermione wearing crowns in OoP. And the dreams in GoF, like the Voldie dreams in OoP, are visions of real events occurring at that moment, products of the mind-link forged by the scar. Logically, they, too, ought to be from Voldie's point of view. Carol, hoping that anyone who wants to respond to this thread will go upthread to the original post before doing so From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 19:20:34 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:20:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165702 Here it is ? the last chapter. Many thanks to SSSusan for her suggestions! CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 30, The White Tomb In the aftermath of the disaster the adults are trying to achieve some measure of damage control. Lessons are being suspended and examinations postponed. A number of parents anxious to get their children out of the harm's way are removing them from the school. The Patil twins and Zacharias Smith go quietly; Seamus Finnigan digs his heels in and stays for the funeral. Even as some of the students are clearing out, a number of official persons starts to trickle in. M-me Maxime causes a mild sensation among the younger students by appearing in the carriage pulled by a team of giant winged horses. Hagrid greets her with an affectionate embrace. A group of Ministry representatives including Scrimgeour and Percy arrives and gets accommodated within the castle. Harry, not being anxious to account for Dumbledore's (as well as his own) movements on the fatal night, steers clear of them. The Trio plus Ginny hang out together; Harry knows he has to discuss something important with Ginny, yet he puts the talk off and gets increasingly uneasy about it. They visit the infirmary twice a day; Neville has been discharged, but Bill is still in Madam Pomfrey`s care. His face is badly disfigured, and he has acquired a taste for rare steaks. Fleur is constantly fussing over him, and Ginny seems to finally accept their imminent marriage. Each of the gang tries to cope with the shock in their characteristic ways. Harry broods; at the moment he is unable to summon enthusiasm enough to pursue the matter of Horcruxes. Ron affects ? unconvincingly ? a pose of flippant aloofness, and Hermione researches away in the library. So far her attempts to identify R.A.B. have yielded no results, but she has found out about Eileen Prince's being Snape's mother. Harry finds this bit of information to be all of a piece with everything else he knows and hates about Snape. He sees it as proof positive that Snape's followed Voldemort`s road: renounced his muggle father and muggle heritage, tried to make up for the lack of purity by inventing a sham title. Harry resents Dumbledore for not seeing the obvious, and still more himself for succumbing to the Prince's attraction. The question of the Prince leads to the question of the book. Ron wonders why Snape didn't expose Harry as a cheat. Hermione suggests that by exposing Harry, Snape would have disclosed the identity of the Prince, which would have been damaging for his own reputation. Harry castigates hims elf for not showing the book to Dumbledore ? surely that would have demonstrated Snape's evil nature beyond doubt. Hermione objects to the word "evil;" when challenged, however, she says she merely thinks that Harry is being too hard on himself. It is impossible, she claims, to judge just how evil the Prince is with only the samples of his "nasty sense of humour" to go by. Ron affirms that no one could have possibly believed the worst about Snape. Finally the day of the funeral arrives. The narrator brings our attention to the fact that, although Harry has seen death before, this is the first funeral he's ever attended. He does not know what to expect and it worries him. He wonders whether this new experience will make him accept the finality of Dumbledore`s death. Everyone comes down for breakfast in their dress robes. The general mood is subdued; no one seems to be hungry. Hagrid is absent, his chair is unoccupied. Scrimgeour sits in Snape`s place, and Harry studiously avoids making any eye contact with him. Having noticed Percy among the Ministry crowd, Ron becomes seriously annoyed. Harry spots Crabbe and Goyle at the Slytherin table, looking "oddly lonely without the tall, pale figure of Malfoy between them." He spares Draco a fleeting thought, wondering what has become of him, and what else Voldemort is forcing him to do. Although on the whole Harry still disapproves of Draco, he, nevertheless, does not believe that Malfoy would have killed Dumbledore. With the breakfast finished, the heads of the houses lead their charges down to the lake where everything is ready for the ceremony. Prof. Sprout is uncharacteristically clean; Slughorn is resplendent in a robe of Slytherin green; Madame Pince in a "thick black veil falling down to her knees" stands next to Filch clad in "an ancient black suit and tie reeking of mothballs." It is a beautiful summer day. Down at the lake hundreds of chairs have been arranged in rows facing a big marble table. Quite a few of the chairs are already occupied; it seems like the entire wizarding community has congregated here to pay their last respects to Dumbledore: members of the Order of the Phoenix; the bass player of the Weird Sisters; M-me Malkin; the publican of the Hog's Head; and many others, only known to Harry by sight. Bill is supported by Fleur, Lupin holds hands with the no-longer-depressed Tonks. The castle ghosts, barely visible in the sunlight, also attend. People continue to file in. Harry catches a sight of Neville and Luna in the crowd and feels a "great rush of affection" towards them. He sympathises with their being outsiders. He also spots a miserable looking Fudge and then, to his great indignation, Rita Skeeter with her notebook at the ready and Dolores Umbridge wearing an unconvincingly grave expression. The latter is genuinely startled at the sight of Firenze. Finally everyone is settled down and "strange otherworldly music" sounds. Harry can't find its source at first. Others also seem bewildered and a little alarmed. Ginny nudges him and points to the lake, where a chorus of the merpeople sings the anthem for Dumbledore. Harry is shaken by their singing: it conveys sorrow and the sense of loss matching his own. He is convinced that, unlike some of the humans present, the merpeople at least are genuinely mourning for Dumbledore. At this point Hagrid appears with the body of Dumbledore. Everyone is shocked to see him dead, the girls cry. Hagrid places the body on the table and sits next to Grawp, his giant half-brother (the latter looking more civilized than Harry remembers him). A "little tufty-haired man in plain black robes" takes over proceedings and launches into a long speech about Dumbledore`s "nobility of spirit", "greatness of heart" and "intellectual contribution." Harry's mind wanders, and he remembers Dumbledore`s own disdain for such formality. The merpeople, however, resurface once again in order to listen. The centaurs also come to pay their respects. For some time Harry thinks idly about such things as where Dumbledore did learned Mermish, and suddenly he is crushed by the enormity of his loss. He thinks about all those who died for him and decides then and there that he must not allow anyone else to come between him and Voldemort. Finally the boring speech is over. Harry waits for someone else, probably the Minister himself to take the floor, as the funeral suddenly reaches its climax. To the shock and surprise of many, the body and the table combust into "bright white flames" that spiral into the sky, arranging themselves into strange shapes. Harry thinks he can see a Phoenix before the flames vanish. Then there is a white tomb where the body and the table have been. The centaurs fire a salute of arrows and melt into the Forest; the merpeople sink back into the lake. The ceremony is over. Harry looks at Ginny and notices that she's got her "hard blazing look" again. Even as he steels himself to the difficult talk, he knows that Ginny will understand. Indeed, when he informs her that their romantic relationship is over, she does not protest. Harry explains that since any girlfriend of his will be at risk, they ought to stop seeing each other. Ginny disapproves but complies with his wishes. However, she avers that she has always loved him (although she doesn't actually use the word) and implies that she always will. At last Rufus Srimgeour succeeds in waylaying Harry. He tries to pump Harry for information about Dumbledore's last mission. Harry is, as always, uncooperative and rather brusque in his manner. Scrimgeour lets it slip that one of the death eaters was stupefied on the Tower. He tries to bargain with Harry, offering him Aurors for protection. Harry turns him down flat. He asks again about the fate of Stan Shunpike, which annoys Scrimgeour greatly. The conversation ends with Harry reminding him that he's "Dumbledore's man through and through." The Trio now discuss their immediate plans. Ron and Hermione are afraid that Hogwarts may be closed. Harry informs them about his decision. He is not coming back next year. He stays at his uncle's until he turns seventeen and then he'll be heading to Godric`s Hollow to start his Horcrux-quest. Alone. To his surprise Ron and Hermione are having none of it. They are going to share every adventure with Harry. Ron also reminds him about Fleur and Bill's wedding, and says that before embarking on their horcrux-hunt they should attend it. The idea cheers Harry up he feels much better at the thought that "there is still one last golden day of peace left to enjoy with Ron and Hermione." Questions: 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find it sinister? 3. What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning of the chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the shock of Dumbledore's death, or was he damaged irrevocably in some ways? 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle heritage? 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose himself? 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, the words she actually uses can be at best described as understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so guarded? 7. Here is another thing that has been much discussed but should to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister or a priest ? Rowling's description of him seems deliberately ambivalent. It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion in the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. Now, why is that? 8. We are specifically told that this is the first funeral Harry has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the Potterverse by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire to it? 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? Or something (-one) else? 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about house-elves. Do you think that is significant? 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be of any use in book 7? 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very distinctly to Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle." The phoenix lament, the anthem, and the central episode with the funeral fire. Is this supposed to be a clue to the relationship between Fawkes and Dumbledore? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 4 20:45:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:45:33 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165704 bboyminn: > I see this from a couple of perspectives. First, it IS > entirely possible that it is the Repellant that is > Flesh-Eating and not the slugs themselves. It depends > on how you parse the phrase - > Flesh-Eating Slug / Repellant > Flesh-Eating / Slug Repellant houyhnhnm: There are such things as flesh-eating slugs according to Lupin (in the boggart lesson). Maybe they are omnivorous. Either way, I tend to agree with Carol. The line strikes me as an excuse rather than a reason. In fact, on the surface, it seems to be a typical example of Adult Hypocrisy: Do as I say, not as I do. Not that Hagrid shows any secret fascination with the dark arts. On the other hand, he does have a fondness for interesting creatures. It may be that Hagrid was doing something in Knockturn Alley of importance to the story and we will find out what it is, or maybe he just likes to sneak down there from time to time and indulge in a little window shopping for monsters. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 20:55:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:55:01 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165705 Carol earlier: >> It's possible, then, that the memories in the Pensieve are not those of the drinker but those of one of Voldemort's victims. I've suggested, in a post that almost no one considered worthy of a response, that the memory could be that of Tom Riddle Sr. ("It's all my fault. My fault. Please make it stop. I know I did wrong, oh please make it stop, and I'll never, never again . . . " and "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead" (572). The impression I get is of someone being tortured (Crucio'd) for some fault he has committed, and trying at the same time to protect innocent people from being Crucio'd. (snipped) > > The situation fits Tom Riddle Sr., who deserted Tom Jr. before he was born, leaving him to be raised in a Muggle orphanage (Tom Jr. killed him for revenge, as he says himself, and the terrified expressions on the Riddles' faces suggest that all three were also tortured before they were killed). He's the only person I can think of from whom Voldie could have extracted a memory for later use who would be begging Voldie or Tom Jr. to torture him rather than other people who have not committed the fault. Leah replied: I was very taken with this idea. Carol again: Thanks. I recall only one response to the original post, and that was offlist. Glad someone besides me likes it! Leah: > However, I am wondering what purpose is achieved in plot by having DD relive these exact words, if they are indeed those of Tom Riddle Snr. Will it be of importance that Riddle Snr begged for forgiveness before his death and offered to sacrifice himself for others? Maybe it will- part of Voldemort now is the bone of his father. It seems to me that what DD relives is of some importance, otherwise he could have been rolling around, simply begging for the agony to stop, which would still have required an unwilling Harry to forcefeed him. Carol responds; Claerly, Tom Sr.'s "sacrifice," if the memory is indeed his, didn't have the same effect as Lily's. I'm sure that's because, unlike Lily, he was the intended victim all along. Unlike her, he wasn't given a chance to "stand aside" and save himself. So Voldie could kill both his hated father and the "spares" with no damage to himself beyond a triply split soul, which would come in handy later when he needed soul bits for Horcruxes. So the only purpose I can see for that memory is the mental anguish it would cause the drinker, who perhaps would feel the Crucios as well as the speaker's guilt and fear. Leah: However, it seems to me that [the Tom Sr. theory] can be objected to on the grounds of one particular line "I'll never do it again...". While I can appreciate Tom Snr begging his son's forgiveness for abandoning him and his mother, it just doesn't seem to ring true to me that he would be desperately promising not to do that to another woman and her child. Perhaps he didn't know what he was doing. Carol: I had the same thought. "I'll never do it again" might mean "I'll never hurt you or betray you again." It can't mean "I'll never desert your mother again." But people experiencing torture and the fear of death for themselves and their loved ones might not be quite rational in their promises. Anyway, Tom Sr. is the only person I can think of who would be protecting others from being tortured by LV for something he did. It can't be Regulus, whose volte-face (or should I say, Voldie-face?) hasn't been discovered yet. Nor can it be young Severus Snape's, for the same reason. We don't know when the Horcrux was hidden, but it has to be before Godric's Hollow, and, if RAB is Regulus, before his death the year before GH. Leah: It occurs to me that another possible suspect for the original owner of the memory is Frank Longbottom. We know that his wife was with him, and it perhaps possible that Neville was there too. There have of course been suggestions of a memory charm being used on Neville to suppress that particular traumatic remembrance. It is likely that Frank would plead in agony for his wife and child to be spared. There would of course not have been any way for that memory to have been incorporated into the potion by Voldemort, but I agree with the idea that the potion extracts the memory from the drinker's mind. If DD tried to find out by leglimency what had happened to the Longbottoms, then he would have been in possession of that terrible memory. The Frank ownership has some merit for me in that it might have some future play in the storyline. Carol: It can't be Frank, for the same reason it can't be Regulus. Frank was tortured some time after Voldie was vaporized, long enough afterward for unobservant Harry to note a difference in Barty Crouch Sr.'s appearance at the Karkaroff hearing (itself post-GH), the Bagman hearing (after Karkaroff's because it relates to Rookwood, whom Karkaroff betrayed), and the Longbottom Four, by which time Barty was looking "gaunter and grayer than ever before" (GoF Am. ed. 594). Just how much time passed between GH and the Crucioing of the Longbottoms is unclear, but it's clearly more than a few days or weeks. More important, even if it were only a day later, Voldie would be vaporized and consequently unable to use that memory in the potion, not to mention that he wasn't present to extract it or even capable of using a wand at that point. So unless we credit Bellatrix with ingenious ideas for cruel potions and all the devices that protect the locket Horcrux, the memory can't be Frank's. (I think that Voldie sent her there to hide it before he was vaporized, possibly at the point when he first heard the Prophecy, and she poured in a potion that he provided, no doubt adding a refilling charm in case Voldie came to examine the locket and then replace it.--Oh, dear. This is complicated, isn't it?) > Leah, feeling sure that the memory belongs to someone who betrayed Voldemort, but still puzzling. Carol: Agreed on all counts, but whose can it be if not Tom Sr.'s? It's not James Potter's because he simply "fought with a straight back" and died--and also, of course, Voldie was vaporized shortly afterwards. Carol earlier: > Voldie himself wouldn't need to drink it. He'd know how to get to the (fake) Horcrux without doing so. The only point in having the potion there is to deter anyone from stealing the Horcrux and force them to drink the water so that the Inferi would attack them. And, of course, RAB would *want* Voldemort to find his note. It was, after all, addressed to him. The only explanation that makes sense to me is for the basin to refill itself magically when an object is placed in it. > Pippin replied: > This makes it even clearer to me that RAB didn't steal the locket from the basin at all. He stole it beforehand. That eliminates a whole raft of problems. RAB doesn't have to be a white wizard on a level with Dumbledore in order to penetrate the cave, or a dark wizard on a level with Voldemort in order to replace the potion. He only has to be good enough at transfiguration to make a fake locket that would fool Bella, something like the swap Harry did with his potions books but more sophisticated. Carol responds: Why would he need to be good at Transfiguration at all? Just buy a locket that vaguely resembles the other one and put his note in it. Even Harry notices that the fake Horcrux bears no resemblance to the other one: "This was neither as large as the locket he remembered seeing in the Pensieve, nor were there any markings upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark" (HBP Am. ed. 609). No Transfiguration required; he just wants to fool the basin, not Bellatrix, who would be extremely stupid if she mistook a plain locket for the Slytherin heirloom that LV had entrusted to her keeping. And I disagree that Regulus would have needed to be a "white wizard on a level with Dumbledore" to penetrate the cave." If Bella had Kreacher with her as her helper, Regulus would only need to order Kreacher to tell him how to get into the cave, cross the lake, etc. And he'd have Kreacher with him to drink the potion, which would explain why Kreacher is no normal house-elf. Kreacher would be bound to obey Regulus even after he realized that Regulus was betraying Bellatrix and LV. But I certainly agree that he wasn't "a dark wizard on a level with Voldemort" and didn't make the potion. That problem is resolved by an enchantment making the basin fill or refill itself when an object is placed in it. Pippin: > Really, what would the point of the fake locket be if RAB stole the horcrux from the cave? RAB would have had to have brought it with him, extracted the real one from the basin and left the fake, but why? > > To trick Voldemort into drinking the (possibly altered) potion? Maybe, but as Carol has just pointed out, there's no guarantee that Voldemort needs to drink the potion at all in order to get the locket out. Only Voldemort is likely to penetrate the cave. Carol: Agreed so far. RAB thinks that only Voldie is likely to check on the Horcrux (he doesn't anticipate someone else trying to steal and destroy it), and when Voldie does, after RAB is dead, he's in for a shock. Everything appears to be in order, as Bellatrix left it, but instead of his Horcrux, he'll find a fake and a note informing him who stole it. Pippin: But he will detect traces of others' magic long before he reaches the island (as Dumbledore should have done if Regulus had indeed entered the cave before him) and once his suspicions were roused a fake wouldn't fool him for long. Carol: I don't think so. Voldemort won't suspect that anyone could have found his Horcrux, certainly not Reggie. He has no idea that any Horcruxes are destroyed. And the fake locket wouldn't fool him for a second. There's no Slytherin emblem. He'd know the second he saw it that it was a fake, but it would be too late. And the traces of magic that Dumbledore detects are the signs of magical *concealment*, the same traces that he used to discover the ring Horcrux. Voldemort didn't know that Regulus stole the real Horcrux years before. Now, if he goes looking for the Horcrux, he still won't know about RAB. He'll discover an empty basin and no Horcrux at all. Then, if he goes looking for traces of magical theft and, erm, cave-breaking, he'll discover Dumbledore's blood and Harry's. He may figure out at that point why DD was so weak that *Draco* could disarm him. If so, he'll think that Harry has the real Horcrux, which will probably be true by that time. And then, my friends, we're in trouble--unless Severus Snape somehow staves it off. Pippin: > No, the fake locket only makes sense to me if the substitution was done earlier, while the locket was still in the possession of Bellatrix. Of course we do have to account for the locket being disenchanted by the time Harry found it. But the spell may have worn off over the years, or perhaps Dumbledore disenchanted it. Maybe not all the spells he was muttering were for lifting the protections on Hogwarts, or perhaps he did indeed survive the fall and discovered the substitution then. Carol: I don't follow this part of your argument at all. DD only briefly came in contact with the fake Horcrux. He never, AFAWK, saw the real one. The fake locket never had an enchantment on it (other than the spell that refills the basin with potion, and the basin is empty now--no potion, no locket, real or fake). And the real Horcrux still has protective enchantments on it; it's unopenable, and quite possibly cursed. Which locket would DD have disenchanted, and who would think that? Pippin: > > I suspect that once the intruder(s) had been overcome, the Inferi had instructions to deliver their catch to Voldemort alive or notify him in some fashion. Carol: If that's the case, they'd have notified Voldie that the original locket was stolen (unless your substitute locket theory is true, and I don't think so for reasons already stated). Nor do the Inferi do anything besides slide back into the lake hiding from the fire after Harry and DD steal the fake Horcrux. No alarm bells. No Inferi casting the DE equivalent of Patronus Charms to notify LV. No runaway Inferi reported heading toward Little Hangleton. And how would they get out of the cave and down the cliffside, anyway? Carol, still liking Regulus-steals-the-Horcrux-with-Kreacher's-help and thinking that Kreacher will 'fess up in DH From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Mar 4 21:05:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:05:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45EB34B5.8010408@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165706 justcarol67 wrote: > behind and inform him of the situation. So Snape "slithers out of > action" again, not joining the DEs on the pretense that he was ordered > not to do so (he would tell LV that he didn't want to blow his cover). > Besides, if he'd told the DEs that Harry wasn't coming, they wouldn't > have been arrested. But ESE Snape wouldn't want the DE's to be arrested. Bart From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 22:11:13 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:11:13 EST Subject: On the trivial and the profound. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165707 >Bart Lidofsky wrote: > There is one major piece of information > which I have yet to hear ANY > ESE!Snape explanation for: > Why did Snape tip off the OOP about > the raid on the Ministry >Eggplant >Voldemort's plan was to trick Harry to go to the ministry, but when Snape showed up Harry was already caught by Umbrage so Snape figured the plan had failed, it never occurred to him that Harry would manage to escape and make it all the way to the ministry. With the plan canceled anyway it couldn't hurt to tell the Order of the Phoenix what Harry said, in fact he had to if he wanted to remain a spy for Voldemort. Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and about a dozen other people heard Harry talk to Snape about Padfoot, and sooner or later the Order would hear about it and wonder why Snape didn't tell them immediately. >Jeremiah: >Well...what would Snape gain by not tipping off the Order? Harry's death? Voldemort hearing a prophesy that may or may not bring him to power... or his downfall? DD's respect? >Bart asked: > And why didn't he tip off the DE's that Harry wasn't coming? > >Carol responds: I think you're forgetting the mind link. Voldemort knew that Harry was coming. To tell the DEs that he wasn't would be an easily detectable, easily traceable lie, and fatal to Snape. Better to let the DEs come and send the Order after them. And, of course, Snape knew that Dumbledore was going to 12 GP, and had told Sirius Black to stay behind and inform him of the situation. So Snape "slithers out of action" again, not joining the DEs on the pretense that he was ordered not to do so (he would tell LV that he didn't want to blow his cover). Besides, if he'd told the DEs that Harry wasn't coming, they wouldn't have been arrested. >Carol, thinking that it's a very good thing for Snape that Narcissa and Bella don't know who tipped off the Order of the Phoenix and wondering if Voldie suspects Nikkalmati Eggplant seems to assume LV man Snape would know about the plan at the Ministry. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, Snape never warned the DEs that Harry wasn't going to make it, which he should have done, if he was LV man. We have seen the mind link lets LV send Harry dreams and visions, but not that it is used to locate Harry. (I think when DD is around Harry his presence is so strong LV has to detect it, thus, Harry's desire to strike at DD in the meeting in DD's office). When Snape left Umbridge's office, he contacted Sirius to find out if he was all right (what do you suppose he said "hey, I was worried about you, man"? ) and then discovered Harry and Hermione and Umbridge had gone into the forest. Presumably, Ron, Ginny. Luna, and Neville had already escaped from the office when he got back there, because they never mention seeing him. Snape must have spent some time patching up and dehexing the IS. He then went into the forest to look for the missing students. Only after he could not find them, did he conclude Harry was trying to get to the Ministry and might actually make it. He warned the Order and DD, wherever DD was in hiding, or he contacted DD and DD called in the Order. (Interesting that Snape apparently knew how to get a hold of DD. Guess DD must have trusted him ). In this view SS called in the Order to save Harry. If LV man Snape figured the whole plan was a bust, he probably would not have contacted Sirius (after all, he knew where Sirius was) and he at most would have told the Order something like "Harry thinks Sirius is at the ministry, but don't worry it isn't true and Harry can't get there anyway." Once it became clear Harry was gone, why not let the plan play out? With Harry captured or dead LV was a very big step ahead and he could have claimed ignorance of who Padfoot was or where was "the place where it is kept" or that Harry could get away from Umbridge. If Snape is LV man, and he alerted the Order hoping the DEs would have left with the prophecy and Harry before the Order got there, he s***ed up big time. Nikkalmati


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 22:11:44 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:11:44 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165708 > Carol responds: > Which goes back to my original point. The dreams and visions in *OoP* > are from Voldemort's perspective, except for the fake vision that LV > implants in Harry's brain (a clue that it's not real, Harry?). Even > when Harry sees from Nagini's perspective, it's because Voldemort is > possessing the snake. So, as you say, harry *is* Voldemort in those > dreams. It's the two dreams in *GoF* that are experienced by the > reader, and presumably by Harry, from points of view other than > Voldemort's. Annemehr: I think what is really going on is a progression in the mind link. In the dreams in GoF, while LV is in that Ugly Baby body, what Harry sees are LV's *external* actions. However, after LV is reborn by a potion using Harry's blood, the dreams become conduits of LV's *internal* thoughts and feelings as well, which is why it is only then that Harry *is* Voldemort in his dreams. (The jumbled dreams are something else altogether; Harry even had one after DD's death, about DD throwing him rope ladders that turned into snakes.) There seems to be a progression in the episodes of scar pain, similar to what happens to the dreams. In PS/SS, even when Quirrell!Mort is about to attack Harry in the Forest, the pain is great, but at Cedric's murder, it is so much greater that Harry falls to his knees and retches. Then again in OoP, though LV is at a distance during the school year, Harry has begun to discern swoops of emotion, which he learns to interpret, along with the twinges in his scar. It's all a dramatisation of the gradually strengthening link between the two. And though HBP gives us a respite due to LV's use of Occlumency, I don't suppose any of us expect that to continue through all of DH. Annemehr P.S. And just for clarity, my opinion is that, just as the whole story of the Riddle murders in Little Hangleton at the beginning of GoF is not part of Harry's dream, neither is the story, told from Frank Bryce's point of view, of Frank waking up and going on to eavesdrop on LV part of Harry's dream. I believe Harry only dreamed the part at the end that deals with LV's words and actions. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 23:15:52 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:15:52 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165709 -- > > > Mike previously: > > Next, DD says "... this potion is supposed to be drunk." Huh? How > > does the potion know that it's being taken out a cupfull at a time > > and being drunk? Conjure a pail and pour it into that! Don't > > drink the stuff! Where's the logic that DD "can only conclude" > > that drinking isthe solution? > > Pippin: > Because that's what you do with potions! Clearly Voldemort put the > potion there as a challenge, like the protections around the Stone. > He would have arranged it so that there wasn't any simple way of > retrieving the locket otherwise. > > JKR could have had Dumbledore make more than a cursory effort > to confirm this, but that would be rather dull for us readers, > seeing as how in the end he's bound to drink the potion so the > story can take its course. Mike: Exactly my point. JKR needed Dumbledore to drink that potion, whether or not it makes sense from a logical readers point of view. Therefore, boring or not, she's not going to put any effort into showing Dumbledore exploring other avenues. She needs him to *drink* that potion, not make it go away. BTW, the more I think on it, the more I'm convinced that Voldemort didn't put the locket in the cave nor did he transform the potion. I'm convinced that was all Bellatrix Black-Lestrange. Red Hen turned me on to the concept that the cave, the lake, and the basin are probably ancient; Going back to Merlin's time or before. She also explained that the cave reeks of being a *Womans Place* with the blood-payment symbolism et al. It follows for me that it would be Bella who exploited the cave for her/LV's twisted purposes. It could be that Voldemort made some preparatory changes then instructed Bella to put the locket there. The problem with that is then why give the locket to Bella in the first place? No, I think that Voldemort had been to the cave, had made the little boat to get to the island (then subsequently hid it), and found out what was originally in the basin. It was much later in his career, after he made the Hxes that he gave the locket to Bella, told her where to hide it and instructed her to protect it by transforming whatever was originally in the basin into something that would protect the locket. But I think the green liquid was all Bella. And I think those tortured memories come from her, whether they are hers or those of people she tortured and extracted the memories from. The first time I read those utterances, to me, they sounded like they came from a woman. In fact, they sound eerily similar to what Lily said to Voldemort, "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -" (PoA p.179, US ed.) Mike, who thinks this whole cave incident was one giant red herring on JKR's part but is nonetheless interesting magic to discuss and explore. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 23:20:06 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:20:06 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165710 exemplary summary by a_svirn, and selecting a few choice questions: > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right > in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does > proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's > muggle heritage? Goddlefrood: In respect of the adoption of the name by Snape. My view is that it was a name he called himself and that was only known to him. It seems unlikely that he would have drawn too much attention to his heritage with the Slytherin crowd he hung around with and it is also unlikely, judging by his popularity with other members of his year, that he was called anything else but Snivellus or Snape when same fellow students were being kind. Having said that there are parallels with LV, but then the Half-Blood Prince is hardly a name that might one day inspire terror within the wizarding community, now is it. It is actually rather the reverse in may ways as Snape is seemingly only referred to as Snape, Professor Snape or Severus when being referred to by any other than his enemies, and the name Snape is the muggle name. It is, thinking about it, actually quite bizarre that Snape actually may have convinced his fellow DEs in particular that he was a full blood. It would not seem likely that they would be unaware that Snape has not appeared as a wizarding name for some time, and, therefore, it would not take too huge a leap by his fellow DEs to become aware that Severus was a half-blood. (I know what this means even if no-one else can follow). > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about > the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose > himself? Goddlefrood: No, what would it benefit him to not be found out? He was not the one using the book, after all. > 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. > What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it > Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? > Or something (-one) else? Goddlefrood: I believe this will be Dumbledore's last message to Severus. It is too curiously like a Patronus and is very similar to the very first description of one (in GoF after Barty Crouch's body is found). > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? > Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? Goddlefrood: The Ministry, although possibly misguided, as Harry thinks, especially relative to Stan Shunpike, might also actually have some evidence against Stan. It may well turn out, and I put this forward here for further discusssion if anyone is interested, that Stan had been doing illegal or illicit jobs for LV or a Death Eater. If I am right then I further conject that he did so under the influence of an Imperius curse, a la Madam Rosmerta. However, whatever he may have done must have been extremely serious and his claim to have been acting under Imperius may have been disbelieved, hence his continued detention. Goddlefrood, who will leave it at that for now, but would be happy to expand if this last point is thought worthy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 23:35:04 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:35:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165711 a_svirn: > Questions: > > 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude > reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated > by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken > or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? Alla: I find the attitudes to be reasonable, or I guess understandable would be a better word, BUT I do suspect that Hogwarts even in book 7 would be the safest place in WW, sadly. As to whether there are extra security measures, I hope so but judging by DD security measures I am not holding my breath :) > 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find > it sinister? Alla: Um, I don't know, really. Just what I think of Remus - he is struck by illness and has to live with it now . I am not sure if I find it sinister. > 3. What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning of the > chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the shock of Dumbledore's > death, or was he damaged irrevocably in some ways? Alla: I hope not irrevocably, but sure he was damaged IMO. I mean how can one not to be damaged by not only losing another adult figure, but being present at execution of that person and wanting to help and umable to help. (Every time when I think of what Harry went through on the Tower, I am thinking that no way of death can be good enough for Snape). Death of loved one does leave an imprint on those who loved that person, that's for sure. As to whether apathy is the way to cope - maybe. I know I coped by trying not to think of it at first, when I lost a close family member. > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right > in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does > proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle > heritage? Alla: Heee, I am sure you know what I think about Snape following Voldemort's path. Sure, I think Harry is right. But even if he is wrong, that proclamation alone done away quite nicely with any tiny bit of sympathy I could felt for Snape ( that and "you and your filfy father). I thought it summed up the essense of the Snape as I see it quite nicely - the man had nothing to be proud of in his life but the childish nickname he gave himself, the man still holds to grudge against the dead man and his kid. I do not know if Snape was denouncing his muggle heritage with his nickname, but I do know how pathetically childish that sounded to me. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about > the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose > himself? Alla: Oh **YES**. Absolutely and most definitely I agree with this. To expose to DD that he invented Sectumseptra? Of course not IMO he would ever want that. > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so > guarded? Alla: Well, some people would tell you that this foreshadows that Snape is DD!M :) Not me, in case you were wondering :0 > 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. > What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it > Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? > Or something (-one) else? Alla: Yes, I am of the "essense of Dumbledore" view. > 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" > monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to > Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon > Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the > merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous > absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about > house-elves. Do you think that is significant? Alla: Oh this is **brilliant**. I never thought of it that way, but sure makes sense. I always thought that centaurs for example, wanting to be separate from humans as they are, and disliking them, do not feel that they are wronged by humans, makes sense that they would come. On the other hand, it is quite clear ( IMO of course) that goblins and house elves are wronged by humans, makes sense that those issues may need to be resolved. > 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some > kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be of > any use in book 7? Alla: LOL. I hope so, but I am very sceptical of Ministry Investigations starting with their "investigation of Sirius" and ending Stan's one. > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? > Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? Alla: YES, for that reason :) > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. Alla: Hmmm, I would say that JKR certainly writes friendships much better than she writes romance (see trio friendship as example and romances in book 6 as examples as well, and I **do** love Harry/Ginny, but was not happy as it was written). But I think there are two possible reasons for that - either Ginny will be waiting for Harry when he comes home ( hopefully alive) as his "prise" I mean it in best sense or she will surprise them by joining them in book 7. > 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very distinctly to > Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle." The phoenix lament, the > anthem, and the central episode with the funeral fire. Is this > supposed to be a clue to the relationship between Fawkes and > Dumbledore? Alla: Oh, have not read it. Please, please ellaborate. Thanks for excellent questions. Alla From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 23:39:43 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:39:43 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > >> Carol > Claerly, Tom Sr.'s "sacrifice," if the memory is indeed his, didn't > have the same effect as Lily's. I'm sure that's because, unlike Lily, > he was the intended victim all along. Unlike her, he wasn't given a > chance to "stand aside" and save himself. So Voldie could kill both > his hated father and the "spares" with no damage to himself beyond a > triply split soul, which would come in handy later when he needed soul > bits for Horcruxes. So the only purpose I can see for that memory is > the mental anguish it would cause the drinker, who perhaps would feel > the Crucios as well as the speaker's guilt and fear. Leah. That certainly makes sense in terms of sacrifice, although I wonder if repentence could still 'play out'. If the purpose of the memory is only to cause mental anguish, then again I wonder why we had to have the 'them'- someone pleading in terror on their own behalf would seem sufficient for that purpose. > >> Carol: > I had the same thought. "I'll never do it again" might mean "I'll > never hurt you or betray you again." It can't mean "I'll never desert > your mother again." But people experiencing torture and the fear of > death for themselves and their loved ones might not be quite rational Leah: Yes, that's quite possible. > Carol: > It can't be Frank, for the same reason it can't be Regulus. Frank was > tortured some time after Voldie was vaporized,(snipped) Leah: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear there. I was aware that Voldemort couldn't have put the Frank memory in the potion, for the very good reason you give. The Frank theory requires a potion which is in itself memory free but acts to activate a foul memory of the drinker's. Thus, had Harry drunk the potion, he might have relived the graveyard scene, though the poor lad has a few choices. I had thought that perhaps DD, following the Longbottom incident, had tried gentle leglimancy on Frank, to try and discover what knowledge the Longbottoms had that the Lestrange gang wanted so badly. (perhaps he succeeded a little- DD did somehow know that VM was in Albania). Thus, DD became privy to Frank's memory torture and relived it in the cave. Rather tortuous, I know. > > Leah, feeling sure that the memory belongs to someone who betrayed > Voldemort, but still puzzling. > > Carol: > Agreed on all counts, but whose can it be if not Tom Sr.'s? Leah: I want to make some connection between the memory and the children in the cave, Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop, but can't get there. Thanks for the response Leah From tctrppr at netscape.net Sun Mar 4 23:44:14 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:44:14 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165713 > Carol, still liking Regulus-steals-the-Horcrux-with-Kreacher's-help > and thinking that Kreacher will 'fess up in DH Paul: Perhaps, (and this may have been discussed in a thread I missed) the potion in the basin is a potion of Voldie's creation that will have NO effect if Voldie drinks it, but will addle the brains of anyone else who drinks it. If the potion had been made before Voldie was vaporized, it would act as a sort of "burglar alarm". If any one else drank the potion and suddenly became " addled",( for no apparent reason), that would be a tip-off for Voldie or another DE like Bella to go and check the status of the horcrux. Paul, with more food for thought. (maybe way off base) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 00:04:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:04:26 -0000 Subject: Why Snape is a good teacher In-Reply-To: <023501c75b68$4aec8750$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165714 List Elves please note: This is *not* a sixth post for today but an old one from February 28(!) that bounced, (I just received the notice today.) The actual post follows: k12listmomma wrote: > > > I have a question on this topic: If the HBP's methods were superior to what was being taught, why didn't Snape teach those methods, and keep using them himself while he was the Potions professor? Plot hole? > > Draeconin responded: > > All this talk about how Harry uses this (HBP's copy of the textbook) I think is a distraction from some points we may have missed. I haven't read all of this thread, so it may have been brought up before, but something significant comes through when we see Harry using the HBP's notes to great success. Carol notes: If you'd read all the posts in the thread, you would have noted that many of us believe that Snape *is* teaching his own methods in the Potions classes he teaches. He never assigns potions from the only Potions text Harry is required to buy before sixth year, "Magical Drafts and Potions" by Arsenius Jigger. Not once does Snape ask the students to refer to their Potions texts. Nor do the class lists ever include a Potions book after first year. Evidently, he doesn't use one. He writes the potions directions on the board (casts them there with his wand, according to OoP). He knows the instructions by heart, knows every step of every potion and exactly what can go wrong when a student adds too much leech juice or more than one rat spleen or leaves out a key ingredient. And he tells the students who make errors, or at any rate, Harry and Neville, exactly what they've done wrong. IMO, Snape, whose walls at Spinner's End are lined with books, probably continued his potions experiments long after his last year as a student at Hogwarts. And he apparently uses those improved directions in his classes; otherwise, there would be no point in writing them on the board. He could just tell them to open their books to page 394. His students, particularly Hermione and others who care about the subject, clearly benefit from his improved directions by having no problems with them, in marked contrast to the problems that even Hermione encounters with her unannotated version of "Advanced Potion-Making." Draeconin: Slughorn hasn't been teaching potions for a while- he hasn't been using the Standard Book of Spells text for years on end to know if they are particularly "good" potions, but he knows when he sees the results that Harry's potions better than the other students. I think of these "book of spells" as a cookbook. Carol: Erm, "The Standard Book of Spells" is the Charms textbook, the only class for which a new textbook is required each year. (Harry in HBP is using "The Standard Book of Spells, Grade 6"--for Flitwick's class, not Slughorn's.) Slughorn is using "Advanced Potion-Making" by Libatius Borage, the same book he used twenty-one years earlier when Severus Snape was his student, and quite probably, given the publication date, when Tom Riddle and Eileen Prince were his students as well. "Advanced Potion-Making" may or may not be a "cookbook." It certainly contains Golpalott's Third Law along with the potions directions (HBP Am. ed. 376) though the book doesn't explain the law: presumably, Borage, like Slughorn, assumes that students in an advanced class can figure it out for themselves, as Hermione does and the HBP must have done). So the book apparently contains a bit more than just the unimproved directions for the potions though exactly what is not clear. I agree that the book is out of date, but we don't know whether a better one is available. I doubt that there's one that meets Snape's exacting standards, however. (If Snape ever gets the opportunity, he should publish his improved versions of the potions, both NEWT-level and below. It would be a great service to the school--and to the lazy Slughorn, assuming that he's still the Potions Master at that point.) Draeconin: > Slughorn hasn't been teaching potions recently, so maybe he hasn't really evaluated this text thoroughly. If he did, and compared it with other items on the wizard book market, he might find a potions book that is more updated to include the tricks of the trade to get better results. But, since he steps in last minute and reuses the same text as the previous teacher, he really has no way of telling that Harry is obviously using some "better source" to enhance that textbook. Carol: Slughorn is perfectly familiar with this textbook. It's the same one he's always used. Otherwise, the HBP (teen!Snape) wouldn't have been using it. Quite possibly, Severus Snape's old book has been lying around the classroom since he left Hogwarts. When he became Potions Master, Slughorn having conveniently retired just at the point when young Snape applied for the DADA position, as far as I can determine, Snape didn't use his old book because the improved versions were already in his head. (I'm surprised that he assigned a Potions book at all, even to the first-years. Maybe they needed it to write essays before school began, or maybe the MoM required him to assign one.) Draeconin: > Snape, on the other hand, knows better [that Harry is not a Potions natural]. Had it been him teaching that year, he would have KNOWN that the Standard Book of Spells produces mediocre results, and that Harry's results weren't typical at all. He would have recognized that Harry was getting "help" from an additional source. Carol: Or rather, Snape would have known that the instructions in "Advanced Potion-Making" could be improved upon, and that the improvements Harry was using were his (Snape's) own. Harry might have gotten away with using the flat edge of the silver knife to crush the sopophorous bean, although the sharp-eyed Snape would have been immediately suspicious had he seen him do it, but the moment he started stirring counterclockwise on every sixth stir, producing the correct results ahead of Hermione, Snape would have swooped down like a bat and confiscated the book. He would not, after all, want Harry to learn his own Dark spell, Sectumsempra, any more than he would want Harry to have an advantage over the rest of the class. And yet, the scenario would never have happened in Snape's class since he doesn't assign potions from the book. JKR has to bring in a different Potions teacher, one who allows E students in the class so that Harry would need a book he hadn't bought, for the subplot to work. And, of course, she needs the irony of Harry learning from and identifying with young Snape without realizing what he's doing. Draeconin: > I think there is an explanation for why he does this, why Snape plays this "slightly less than Superbly Brilliant Snape" in public, and it revolves around my view of who Snape is. I hate to say that, because I detest all the theories of "Dumbledore's Man" Snape or "Pure Evil" Snape, because I think none of them even come close to hitting the mark. We have it in canon that Snape is a double agent, and has been the entire series. Dumbledore thinks Snape is working for him. Voldemort thinks Snape is working for him. To be a successful double agent, one must never give away the full truth, and one must always retain cards up your sleeve or tricks in your hat that you can use to get out of sticky situations when someone asks you to explain discrepancies in your behavior. A double agent is never fully truthful to either master, for that would end the double agent role. Thus, Snape would not have the incentive, as another teacher would, to really help the students succeed to their fullest. His loyalties lie elsewhere. Carol: I think that Snape would want the Slytherins, at least, to learn as much as possible, and since the Slytherins and the Gryffindors are together, he has to use the same potions instructions for both. Moreover, the essays he assigns (in contrast to Slughorn, who, AFAIK, never assigns essays, nor does he take unfinished potions to his office to mark, as Snape does, force the students to do research on key ingredients and to learn a bit of Potions theory in spite of themselves (which is perhaps how not only Harry but Ron managed to scrape an E on the Potions OWL when Snape himself wasn't there to distract them and they had nothing on their minds but the exam itself). Snape's loyalties need not be revealed by his teaching methods, which to me seem rather rigorous. He certainly expects his students to pass their OWLs even though he wants only the very best, those who care about Potions and excel at it, in his NEWT Potions class. Umbridge, you'll recall, criticizes him for teaching the students potions that she considers too advanced for their year. It's clear from the moment that Snape gives his "shimmering cauldrons" speech in SS/PS that he loves Potions and has no tolerance for "dunderheads" who don't understand and appreciate the subject. Draeconin: A real teacher would teach the kids all he or she knows, and would impart ALL of their knowledge, but Double Agent Snape can't afford to give that much away. Carol: Are you sure? How is it that eight students out of forty got an O on their Potions OWL if he's not teaching them? And why is he so critical about following directions and getting every step right if he's not teaching to the best of his ability (favoritism and unfair point-docking aside)? Why has he made sure that Harry Potter, of all people, knows about Bezoars from Day One (though, being convinced that Snape made his scar hurt, coupled with Snape's annoyance with Neville's melted cauldron, rather detracts from the intended lesson)? As for a double agent not giving much away, Voldemort is vaporized two months into young Snape's teaching career; Lucius Malfoy would be extremely provoked if he thought that Snape, whom he knew as a child prodigy, is giving his son less than the best Potions education possible; and Dumbledore is also watching the results of Snape's teaching. He surely knows that Snape cares about the scores the students receive on their OWLs, and he surely knows what those results are. McGonagall knows the results that the Gryffindors are achieving in Snape's class, at any rate, since she does career counseling. So would Flitwick and Sprout. And if Snape's teaching weren't up to scratch as determined by the results of the students OWLs and NEWTs, he would hear about it. (On a side note, Barty Jr., no double agent but a loyal Death Eater, nevertheless taught DADA in a way that those who regarded the real Mad-Eye as a half-mad paranoid fanatic determined to catch Dark wizards considered effective. A little too eager to demonstrate Unforgiveable Curses, true, but he certainly showed them what they were facing. So a teacher's loyalties are no sure indication of his abilities or his willingness to teach.) Draeconin: > He's trying for a different position- the DADA job, so why show off to be the "Best Potions Teacher That Ever Was"? That would be counter productive. We know he has the talent for that, but in demonstrating that level of knowledge in the classroom would hinder the desire to get the other job, and maybe even hinder the direction that has been keeping Voldemort's trust in him. Carol responds: As I noted, Voldemort was vapor from Snape's first year to his fourteenth. It's Dumbledore's opinion that matters during those years. And we see no change in Snape's teaching tactics, or his attitude toward Harry, even after Voldemort's return, when Snape has had to explain his absence from the graveyard and his saving of Harry's life in his first year. Snape, fortunately for him, is a master of half-truths and Occlumency, the only person we know of who can lie to the Dark Lord undetected. And he has the perfect excuse for still being at Hogwarts as Potions Master rather than DADA teacher; DD is (ostensibly) keeping him out of prison (*we* know that he's been cleared of all charges for being DD's spy, but he'd be a fool to tell that to Voldie--let him think that he pleaded the Imperius Curse like Lucius Malfoy) and DD (ostensibly) thinks that DADA will lure Snape back into his old ways (*we* know that DD knows the position is cursed and is keeping Snape out of it as long as possible, probably to keep him safely at Hogwarts, valuable as he appears to be to DD's long-term plans). Draeconin: He can't love his students, love his job without compromising Voldemort's tough stares that probe into Snape's loyalties. To be that > involved with the students would betray that Double Agent position. Carol: I can't see Snape "loving" his students (with the possible exception of Draco, whom he clearly does care about) under any circumstances. The only difference between his attitude toward his DADA students and his Potions students is that he allows anyone who has passed the DADA OWL to take that class (clearly, he thinks it's important for everyone to learn it now that Voldemort is back--even Crabbe and Goyle evidently get remedial lessons), whereas he won't tolerate "dunderheads" in NEWT Potions, which is for hard-working intellectuals like himself. As for Voldie's tough stares probing Snape's loyalties, how does that relate to Snape's teaching? Voldie is more concerned with why Snape thwarted Quirrell and other matters directly related to himself, which is where being a skilled actor ("Where would I be if I didn't know how to act?") and a superb Occlumens comes in. Draedonin: I can see Voldemort saying to an attached Snape, "Your loyalties belong to ME- not your students, not to Hogwarts, and not to Dumbledore! You shall love me, and none other!" Carol: Erm, I don't recognize this Voldie. The guy operates through fear and coercion and torture. He doesn't recognize the existence of love, and he doesn't care whether the loyalty is real or not as long as his servants do what he wants them to do, as we see with Wormtail. > Draeconin: > I think this shows up in more than just the Potions class. He never gives his caring concern to Harry in Occulemency lessons, either. He certainly hides his skills and talents there, and I don't think messing Harry up in that subject was pure accident. Carol: Of course he doesn't show "caring concern" for Harry. He either hates or intensely dislikes him, not only because he's James's son but because, in Snape's view, he takes after James both in "arrogance" and rule-breaking. There's some truth in this view, but it's also in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy--if you expect an arrogant, rule-breaking brat, you'll very likely get one. And, of course, it's Harry, not Snape, who sabotages the lessons by entering the Pensieve. He also, most inconveniently, wants to keep having that dream. Nevertheless, until the point where Harry violates Snape's trust, Snape has been, IMO, doing his best to teach Harry Occlumency, explaining what Occlumency is and that Harry needs to react quickly to block the Legilimens spell using any spell he can think of but better still, using his own mind to block the intrusions as he did with the Imperius Curse. He actually praises Harry in a roundabout way ("For a first attempt, that was not as bad as it might have been"). Had Snape attempted anything closer to friendliness than that, Angry!Harry would have been immediately suspicious. Fake!Moody was a lot kinder to Harry than Snape has ever been, and he was a loyal Death Eater. Surely, Harry hasn't already forgotten that "nice" isn't always good, and any niceness on Snape's part would cause Harry to think he was either up to something or Imperio'd. It's interesting that the few times when Snape becomes openly angry with Harry (never a full-blown rage until the Pensieve incident) involve memories that shouldn't be in Harry's head at all--Avery being Crucioed and the dream of the DoM. It appears from remarks that Dumbledore makes at the end of the book that Snape has made a full report of the lessons, and of his concerns about these memories that don't belong to Harry. Draeconin: Dumbledore presumes this "goof" of Snape's is mere trouble over forgiving, but Snape needs to keep his loyalties to Voldemort in tact for the Double Agent role to continue to work. Carol: Dumbledore knows perfectly well that Snape as double agent has to pretend to be loyal to Voldemort. We see in GoF that he and Snape had intended all along for Snape to return to LV when the time came. "If you are ready; if you are prepared." "I am." And DD sends him out the door, quite possibly to death or torture, if the stories and excuses Snape has prepared are unsatisfactory. But Dumbledore can hardly tell Harry the full extent of Snape's duties, nor can he safely mention, given Harry's state of mind, that the Occlumency lessons would not have ended if Harry had not ventured into the Pensieve, or that Harry himself has not been making an effort to learn Occlumency. He merely concedes that the whole thing has been a fiasco and takes the blame upon himself. Snape's "grudge" against James serves as always as a convenient excuse for his behavior, from saving Harry in SS/PS to his rage at Sirius Black in the Shrieking Shack, but, as always, there's more to Snape than Dumbledore--or JKR--is willing to reveal. (I think you're underestimating Dumbledore, who knows Snape much better than we do.) Draeconin: Thus, I think all the way through the books, we've never seen the real Snape to even judge his character. We've only seen what he needs to propagate his Double Agent role. He's not evil, he's not good- he's a spy. You will never see his real hand, nor will you ever get to see all the cards he's holding. Carol: I agree that we haven't yet seen the real Snape, but I'll be very surprised if we don't know exactly where his loyalties lie by the end of DH. Snape is a central mystery throughout the books, and JKR has been raising questions about him--in Harry's mind and the reader's--since the moment he was introduced. HBP was his book, but it's only the first half of the two-part final volume in the series. Snape's story has not yet been told, but we'll certainly find out exactly what was going on in the tower scene and exactly why he took the Unbreakable Vow. either that, or Snape is nothing but a cheap plot device whose sole purpose was to kill Dumbledore, in which case I, for one, will feel throroughly cheated. Carol, who will be very surprised if Draco Malfoy is right and Dumbledore is wrong P.S. I have no clue why this message didn't post on February 28, but that's the date on the failure notice I received belatedly today.. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Mar 5 00:24:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:24:21 -0000 Subject: The green liquid in the basin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165715 Pippin: My theory, which I apparently didn't explain clearly enough, is that Regulus learned of the horcrux while Bella still had it. He transfigured a locket to resemble Slytherin's, stole Slytherin's locket from Bella and left the other in its place before it was hidden in the cave, leaving Bella and Voldemort none the wiser. Dumbledore discovered the substitution and disenchanted the locket after he'd scooped it from the basin. Carol: No Transfiguration required; he just wants to fool the basin, > not Bellatrix, who would be extremely stupid if she mistook a plain > locket for the Slytherin heirloom that LV had entrusted to her keeping. Pippin: But how would Regulus know what it would take to fool the basin? Kreacher wouldn't know that. Besides, no magic is need to explain Kreacher's mental condition: IMO, he is, or was, a normal House Elf who was imprisoned in an abandoned house for years, ever since Mrs. Black's death, with no one but a mad old portrait to talk to. Who wouldn't be a little barmy under those circumstances? To take away from that undermines the irony that Grimmauld Place was no healthier for him than it was for Sirius. Carol: That problem is resolved by an enchantment making the basin fill or refill itself when an object is placed in it. Pippin: Then the basin would have refilled when Harry dropped the goblet in it: "No!" shouted Harry, who had stood to refill the goblet again; instead he dropped the cup into the basin, flung himself down beside Dumbledore, and heaved him over onto his back. --HBP ch 26. > > Pippin: > > > > I suspect that once the intruder(s) had been overcome, the Inferi > had instructions to deliver their catch to Voldemort alive or notify > him in some fashion. > > Carol: > If that's the case, they'd have notified Voldie that the original > locket was stolen (unless your substitute locket theory is true, and I > don't think so for reasons already stated). Nor do the Inferi do > anything besides slide back into the lake hiding from the fire after > Harry and DD steal the fake Horcrux. No alarm bells. No Inferi casting > the DE equivalent of Patronus Charms to notify LV. No runaway Inferi > reported heading toward Little Hangleton. And how would they get out > of the cave and down the cliffside, anyway? Pippin: I don't think the Inferi can do much thinking for themselves. If Voldemort doesn't think any intruder can escape his trap, he might have neglected to instruct the Inferi to notify him if someone grabs the locket and escapes them. They probably only have instructions to notify him if they've captured a thief. A little of the intruder's blood will enable them to leave the cave. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 00:40:09 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:40:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165716 > > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than > love? > > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. > > Alla: > > Hmmm, I would say that JKR certainly writes friendships much better > than she writes romance (see trio friendship as example and romances > in book 6 as examples as well, and I **do** love Harry/Ginny, but > was not happy as it was written). a_svirn: Yes, but that's not the problem. Some authors don't do love stuff well. I am OK with that. Austen, for one, is notorious for dismissing all that love nonsense with something like: "and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do," and heading straight to the epilogue. What I find strange is the way Ginny is always excluded from Harry's immediate circle. He grew up with her as much as he grew up with Ron and Hermione; she has always stood by him; she is loyal to the right cause; she is one of the most prominent members of DA; she is certainly one his nearest and dearest, and yet she is always left out of everything that is really important. Why wasn't she told about the Prophesy? Why wasn't she told about horcruxes? > > 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very distinctly to > > Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle." The phoenix lament, > the > > anthem, and the central episode with the funeral fire. Is this > > supposed to be a clue to the relationship between Fawkes and > > Dumbledore? > > Alla: > > Oh, have not read it. Please, please ellaborate. a_svirn: Well, it is a rather enigmatic poem (allegoric, I am afraid, -- sorry, I know some fellow-listers do not like allegory ) It is about the ideal "chaste" love and constancy between the Phoenix and the Turtle-dove. In the poem (as almost in any other works of literature I know) Phoenix is female though, unlike Fawkes. There are number very striking coincidences. The poem is about funeral. It stats with the description of various birds arriving at the double-funeral of the turtle and the phoenix. It seems that the entire aviary community congregates there except some well-known predators who are not invited. Compare with the way (nearly) everyone came to Dumbledore's. The dove was mortal, naturally, but phoenix self-incinerated herself on his funeral fire. The central part of the poem is the anthem (here is a parallel with the "otherworldly music" at Dumbledore's) which starts with the assertion that Love and constancy is dead; Phoenix and the turtle fled In a mutual flame from hence In a way, that's what happened at the Dumbledore's funeral ? his "essence" or whatever "fled" in a flame that took the shape of a phoenix. Also the anthem describes the unique relationship between the two: So they loved, as love in twain Had the essence but in one; Two distincts, division none: I'd say, the phrase "but in essence divided" sounds like a reverse quote. And, indeed, Voldemort (or at least a part of him) shares a body with his snake, but their essences are divided. The final part "Threnos" asserts the finality of the death ? "Death is now the phoenix' nest" ? their mingled ashes are enclosed in the urn. (like the white tomb?) From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 5 01:11:25 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:11:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb References: Message-ID: <011701c75ec3$33e49300$6392400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165717 ----- Original Message ----- From: "a_svirn" To: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:40 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb > > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than > love? > > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. > > Alla: > > Hmmm, I would say that JKR certainly writes friendships much better > than she writes romance (see trio friendship as example and romances > in book 6 as examples as well, and I **do** love Harry/Ginny, but > was not happy as it was written). a_svirn: Yes, but that's not the problem. Some authors don't do love stuff well. I am OK with that. Austen, for one, is notorious for dismissing all that love nonsense with something like: "and he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do," and heading straight to the epilogue. What I find strange is the way Ginny is always excluded from Harry's immediate circle. He grew up with her as much as he grew up with Ron and Hermione; she has always stood by him; she is loyal to the right cause; she is one of the most prominent members of DA; she is certainly one his nearest and dearest, and yet she is always left out of everything that is really important. Why wasn't she told about the Prophesy? Why wasn't she told about horcruxes? Magpie: Doesn't that just indicate that she isn't one of his nearest and dearest? I mean...she's not. She's never been at the level of Ron and Hermione. In OotP Harry meets the "real" Ginny for the first time, seeing the personality he's never seen before. He's spent time at her house, but the Twins are there too and he's not as close to them as he is to Ron and Hermione either. They're in the DA too. Neville goes to the MoM too. The Trio is still the Trio. In HBP, although Harry's lived in the same dorm and house with Ginny for years, he can still basically start dating her as any girl in his class. She's not as foreign as Cho, but he hasn't been hanging out with her at school. She's a friend, but she's not Ron or Hermione, who are on a completely different level. I don't think it's odd that the Trio is still a Trio and doesn't become a foursome. Perhaps in some part because Ginny hasn't really been created to fulfill that kind of role. It would be like suddenly having the Twins always be part of the innermost inner circle with Harry instead of where they are, people who are sometimes important but not in the Trio. Their dynamic would totally go off-kilter with the constant addition of Ginny, as all groups do when another person is added. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 01:34:15 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:34:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: <011701c75ec3$33e49300$6392400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165718 > > Alla: > > > > Hmmm, I would say that JKR certainly writes friendships much better > > than she writes romance (see trio friendship as example and > romances > > in book 6 as examples as well, and I **do** love Harry/Ginny, but > > was not happy as it was written). > > a_svirn: > Yes, but that's not the problem. Some authors don't do love stuff > well. I am OK with that. Austen, for one, is notorious for dismissing > all that love nonsense with something like: "and he expressed > himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently > in love can be supposed to do," and heading straight to the epilogue. > What I find strange is the way Ginny is always excluded from Harry's > immediate circle. He grew up with her as much as he grew up with Ron > and Hermione; she has always stood by him; she is loyal to the right > cause; she is one of the most prominent members of DA; she is > certainly one his nearest and dearest, and yet she is always left out > of everything that is really important. Why wasn't she told about the > Prophesy? Why wasn't she told about horcruxes? > > > Magpie: > Doesn't that just indicate that she isn't one of his nearest and dearest? I > mean...she's not. She's never been at the level of Ron and Hermione. a_svirn: Well, she is not, and yet, she is. She's not like the twins who have the circle of their own, and very exclusive one at that. Since OOP Ginny is one of the closest persons to Harry. And in HBP he falls in love in her. Well. Why not make a Quartet out of the Trio? It is as though she is not good enough somehow... > Magpie: > I don't think it's odd that the Trio is still a Trio and doesn't become a > foursome. Perhaps in some part because Ginny hasn't really been created to > fulfill that kind of role. a_svirn: Obviously, she wasn't. But it is not clear why. > Magpie: It would be like suddenly having the Twins always > be part of the innermost inner circle with Harry instead of where they are, > people who are sometimes important but not in the Trio. Their dynamic would > totally go off-kilter with the constant addition of Ginny, as all groups do > when another person is added. a_svirn: As I said, Ginny is not like the twins. She does not have a circle of her own. Even her boyfriends were means to the end ? to capture Harry's attention. She is always part of the group that is centered around Harry, but not quite close to the centre, as it were. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 01:39:21 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:39:21 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165719 > Neri: > . I suspect that a > > doctor would not be allowed to let a diabetes patient die by > > withholding insulin from him (even if that patient asks the doctor to > > do so) > > Pippin: > Not in Britain. In fact your hypothetical doctor might be charged with > assault if he administered treatment against the patient's will or > refused to discontinue it. > > > http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/ > nhs_patients_rights.htm#Righttorefusetreatment > Neri: I believe you cite the irrelevant clause. There's nothing about dying in there. Here's a more relevant clause from that same document http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/nhs_patients_rights.htm#Righttodie Quoting the relevant part: "Right to Die The law concerning whether a person has the right to die is unclear. You have a right to refuse or stop treatment at any time, even if this means that you may die. However, it is illegal for a doctor to omit or carry out treatment with the specific intention of inducing or hastening death." They don't say what the doctor would be charged with. However, note that this website is concerned with patients' rights, not with doctors' rights. Neri From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca Mon Mar 5 02:09:42 2007 From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:09:42 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Shaunette: > > > I do remember wondering about that owl and that > > strange POV, too... however, I also remember Harry > > looking down on a pair of white, long-fingered hands > > resting on an armchair, his own hands (in the dream), > > something happens with Wormtail... then Harry looks > > into a dirty old mirror across the room into a flat, > > snakelike face with gleaming red eyes...that's when > > he woke up in a cold sweat, isn't it? > > houyhnhnm: > > Right after Harry's interview was published in The > Quibbler, he and the other Gryffindors were celebrating > in the common room. Fred and George put an engorgement > charm on the front cover and hung it on the wall. Harry's > giant head gazed down upon the proceedings, saying > things like "The Ministy are Morons" and "Eat dung, > Umbridge". As the spell wore down, it merely shouted > words like "dung" and "Umbridge". Harry's scar began > to prickle and his head hurt. He went to bed and fell > asleep. Then > > ********************** > He was standing in a dark curtained room lit by a > single branch of candles. His hands were clenched > on the back of the chair infront of him. They were > long-fingered and white as if they had not seen > sunlight for years and looked like large, pale > spiders against the dark velvet of the chair. > ********************** > > Voldemort is interrogating Rookwood. Harry not > only sees from Voldemort's prespective, he *is* Voldemort. > > ********************** > "You have done well to tell me this," said Harry. > ... > Left alone in the dark room, Harry turned toward > the wall. A cracked, age-spotted mirror hung on > the wall in the shadows. Harry moved toward it. > His reflection grew larger and clearer in the > darkness....A face whiter than a skull...red > eyes with slits for pupils... > ********************** > > OotP, Scholastic paperback, pp.584-586 > Ah! So I had gone mad after all! Two completely separate dreams, and the owl one hadn't anything to do with *being* Voldemort, as is being discussed. Thank you, houyhnhnm, that clears everything up for me perfectly :) -Shaunette, happily unconfused From cdayr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 02:31:51 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:31:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Questions: > > 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find > it sinister? I don't find Bill's transformation sinister, but I do find his attack by Greyback while in human form to be extremely troubling for the future of werewolf prejudice and legislation. I sincerely hope Lupin gets to take down Fenrir in DH. I actually find him one of the most terrifying of the "monsters" that JKR has created, because he has such remorseless blood lust. To me, the fact of this type of attack on Bill is what is sinister, but not the results. Really, the part-transformation idea is actually very interesting- I hope we get to see the effects in action during a big battle sequence in DH. > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right > in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does > proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle > heritage? This name, to me, sounds like something Snape would have kept very much to himself. He would not want his Slytherin buddies so acutely aware of his blood status. Based on his memories of the hooked man and the cowering woman in OotP, it seems to me that "Half-Blood Prince" is more of a very sad attempt by Teen!Snape to separate himself from his father, muggle or not, rather than from his muggle heritage. That he may have generalized about muggles based on his unpleasant or abusive father could be one of the driving forces behind his recruitment into the Death Eaters. Overall I think of these two men (Tom and Severus) as having only very surface similarities (in fact, Harry and Tom have more in common than Sev and Tom), and this will be another of the lessons Harry will have to learn about Snape in DH. Side-bar: Sometimes I wonder if what Harry hates in Snape is that he sees in Snape one of the possible end-results of his own life path. In order to follow what he believes in, Snape has had to cut off emotional ties to everyone around him, and become a bitter and isolated man (this is true for DDM or ESE Snape). He has had to study intensely and become more and more secretive about his true self. The progression of Harry's life through the books is leading him to a similar fate in some ways- trying to get emotionally tough, cutting himself off from his friends or losing them to death, needing to become stronger and wiser than those around him, more cunning and more secretive. The difference (or one of the differences, there are many ) is that Harry has Ron and Hermione, who won't let him insolate himself to the level Snape has. Nonetheless, like most relationships where two people just rub each other the wrong way, Snape and Harry have a variety of things in common, and I think more and more in common as Harry gets older. End side-bar. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about > the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose > himself? > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so > guarded? Hermione, as one of the voices of JKR in the series, is not ready to condemn Snape as thoroughly as Harry is ("evil" etc.), which is a signal to me, the reader, that much more is to come about Snape, and that Harry's "black and white" read of the situation is far too simple. I've thought a lot about Snape's actions after the Sectumsempra, because he Has To Know that Harry has found his old book, but I find it hard to believe that Snape would actually be worried that Dumbledore would find out he had invented a dark spell- he was a Death Eater for goodness sake! So why not get more aggressive about finding the book? I wonder if Snape's pride may have been involved here after all, Potter's success in Potions he now knows is entirely because of him, and the opportunity to reveal that fact and lord it over Harry at a later, and more public, date may be his goal. No canon for this, but just supposition based on my understanding of Snape. Of course, Snape does just that eventually, although I doubt that it was his original plan to tell Harry while escaping from Hogwart's . > 8. We are specifically told that this is the first funeral Harry > has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the Potterverse > by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give > him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, > burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards > usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? This question just raised the question for me- didn't Harry attend Aragog's funeral? What was that, if not a funeral? Why does Harry dismiss it? A little human-centric bias there I think! And I'm sad to think that he was not present at some sort of ceremony for his parents, even as a young baby- one can only hope Petunia and Vernon would attend, but I guess maybe not. I'm assuming that this is the first time Harry has been to a funeral that meant something to him (he is old enough and loved the person). Sorry, not really a great response to your question- I'm very tangential today! > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the > onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. > And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set > fire to it? I think this was Dumbledore's plan for himself, and that most there did not know it would happen. It seems that Hagrid did, as he was in change of the placement of the body, but perhaps that is it. Sidebar 2: I have wondered recently if Dumbledore's tomb may not be the oft-discussed "graveyard" at Hogwart's, and all our speculation about what might happen there and who is buried there might not have been already sunk. End Sidebar 2. > 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. > What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it > Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? > Or something (-one) else? I'm of two minds and will be happy with either choice for the white phoenix- either the Spirit of Dumbledore or a Patronus. > 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" > monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to > Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon > Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the > merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous > absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about > house-elves. Do you think that is significant? House Elf liberation just has to be involved in DH in some way, and this was a subtle reminder that they are not included still. Not even Dobby! Very surprising. > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. Maybe it is poor writing, or maybe it is very intentional characterization, but the relationship between Ginny and Harry just never felt very deep to me. He is attracted to her and vice versa, they have a great "fling", enjoy their time together, and like each other, but the real LOVE in the story is still the love between the trio; they still have the deep bond that has been forged through time and experience. Ginny, present in all of their lives, is a lovely addition to Harry's life, but the essential parts that make him whole are still only Ron and Hermione. He does not *need* Ginny as he needs Ron and Hermione. In other words, I DO think JKR believes that LOVE is the strongest bond, and the responses of Ginny, Ron, and Hermione at the end show that the True Love between the trio of friends is, at this point, stronger than the romantic "love" (or "strong like") that Harry and Ginny feel. Thanks for a great conclusion to the chapter discussions! Celia who has a prominent nose, and was just thinking today how sad she will be if the character with a big hooked nose turns out to be totally evil. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 02:38:54 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:38:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165722 --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > ... > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 30, The White Tomb > > > ... > > Questions: > > 1a. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' > attitude reasonable or overprotective? bboyminn: No, it seems pretty normal to me, I would expect the same thing to happen if similar events occurred at a muggle school. Yes, they are being overprotective, but that is a reasonable thing for parents to be. > 1b. Although the school has been penetrated by death > eaters there is no mention of extra security measures > taken or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't > any? bboyminn: I think there is a low sense of immediate danger at the school. If the DE's had wanted to take over the school there would have been more of them, and they would have had more specific objectives. It seems reasonable that they came for one task only, and that was to kill Dumbledore. Having succeeded, there was no immediate need to stay at the school, nor an immediate need to attack the school again. That said, I'm sure there were precautions taken that we, through Harry, were simply not aware of. Remember the Minister of Magic and many other dignitaries are at the school. There would be reasonable security if for no other reason than just their presence. Further, with all the hints in all the books about how Voldemort never dared take over the school because Dumbledore was there, with Dumbledore gone, I can't imagine that later, there won't be an attempt, and probably successful, to take over the school. It is a target that is just too strategically important. He who holds the school, holds the wizard world. > 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? > Do you find it sinister? bboyminn: No, I don't think Bill's currents state is of any significants. He has his physical injuries and certainly the full moon will affect his moods, but he is not a werewolf and is not a danger to anyone. He will just have some annoying wounds for the rest of his life, but beyond that he is normal. > 3.What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning > of the chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the > shock of Dumbledore's death, or was he damaged > irrevocably in some ways? bboyminn: I think it is pretty normal, especially for a emotionally reserved person like Harry. Books and movies have made out death to be the /outwardly/ tramatic and emotional event. But really, life goes on; the Bills come, the mortgage is due, work begins on Monday, laudry must be done as well. As much as we most desperately want the world to stop so we can either wallow in or completely ignore out pain, the clock keeps ticking and life keeps moving forward despite our best resistance. I would hardly call Harry reaction 'apathy' though. Stoic, contained, reserved might be better terms. The death does affect Harry, but he doesn't let it show, just like for the most part each of us holds our pain inside when a loved one dies. Yet, in that critical moment during Dumbledore's funeral, when he is faced with the Merepeople and the Centaurs, and seeing Hagrid's grief has he carries Dumbledoore body to the table, the full impact hits Harry, and he breaks down crying with grief. We can all resist the pain in the dull routine moments, but in those moment when we speak or think fondly of the dead, the true impact hit us in the most painful way. None the less, try are we might, life goes on. > 4a. ... Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed > the same pattern as Voldemort? bboyminn: I think Harry is /right/ in thinking it, but that doesn't mean it's true. Harry has a very low opinion of Snape in the moment, an opinion that based on his current knowledge is perfectly justified. Yet, we the readers will only know the truth, when the last book is read. > 4b. Does proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean > renouncing one's muggle heritage? bboyminn: I don't think it is so much renouncing his muggle heritage as it is embracing his wizarding heritage. Notice he doesn't call himself the 'Half-Blood Snape'. By being the Half-Blood /Prince/, he is acknowledging and embracing his mother's wizarding blood. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his > peace about the book only because by exposing Harry he > would inevitably expose himself? bboyminn: That is certainly part of it, but I don't think to the extent that Harry believes it so. Harry has always been allowed special priviledges, but in subtle behind the scenes ways. Harry is still regularly threatened with and recieves punishment for his actions. But I think both Dumbledore and Snape know that Harry must be given some room to grow and act. Harry must learn to be a leader, to take initiative, because, if he is to defeat Voldemort, he absolutely can't do it by sitting back waiting for other to tell him what to do. Whether he is right or wrong, he must be allowed to take initiative, make decisions, and act on his decision. That is the only way he can have what it takes to win. In this sense I am very much reminded of Ender Wiggin in 'Enders Game'. He had to know that in the end, it all fell on his shoulders. When the critical moment of life-and-death came, he must be totally self reliant. No one would, should, or could come to his rescue. > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? > Why is she being so guarded? bboyminn: I don't think she is so much defending Snape as she is defending the book. The books itself was an accumulation of information, neither good nor evil. Though it did say something about the character and nature of Snape. On one hand, though it is a stretch under the circumstance, I'm not sure the Hermione is convinced that Dumbledore was wrong about Snape. At this stage she is torn, on one hand, Snape killed Dumbledore, but that happened under very unusual and specific circumstances. We know that Dumbledore trusted Snape, yet we also no that Snape killed Dumbledore. I think that leaves Hermione in a state of subconscious confusion and uncertainty. Consciously, she is with Harry in hating Snape's action, but unconsciously, she has doubts. > 7. ... The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind > of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? > Something else? ... bboyminn: I think JKR as an author is making a point of avoiding the whole religious issue, partly because, rather than make her books non-religious, it makes her books omni- religoius. That is encompassing the nature of all religions. I think the funeral is not so much a religious ceremony as it is a memorial service. It is a non-religious rememberance and and respectfull acknowledgement of the the newly departed's life and death. > 8. We are specifically told that this is the first > funeral Harry has ever attended. Can we judge of the > death rites in the Potterverse by this ceremony? ... > Do wizards usually bury their dead or do they usually > cremate them? bboyminn: I think we can judge memorial services in general by what we see, but religious is not an aspect of it. As too buried or cremated, I think social conditions dictate that more than anything. Places where cremation is common are places with either poor sanitation or minimum available land. In the great north central plains we have plenty of land to bury people, but in the south like Key West, New Orleans, and Florida the nature and availablity of land makes it rare, expensive, and hard to maintain, there cremation is more common. I really don't think cremation vs burial is an issue we need to worry about. It is whatever the social custom and physical circumstances dictate. > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? ... And another thing, > did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire >to it? bboyminn: I think it went according the plan of those who were truly in charge and according to the wishes of Dumbledore. Those who were mere observes were rightly startled by what they may have seen. Also, at services like this, I find it common for people to be on edge, so emotional shock affect them more noticably. I suspect, that the Smoke and Flame prior to Dumbledore being entombed was part of the process, either a conscious real time act or a present magical event. Either way it was deliberate. Much the same as lowering a coffin into the ground. > 10.... What about that white smoke taking the shape > of a phoenix? Was it Fawkes? Was it the essence of > Dumbledore, for want of a better word? > Or something (-one) else? bboyminn: I think it was symbolic of Dumbledore, but I reject all notions that it was Dumbledore himself making a magical escape. Nor was it an animagus or partonus. Dead people don't send out partonuses, nor do the transform into animals. I think it was simply symbolic of Dumbledore's spirit moving on to the other side. > 11. ... Virtually everyone came to pay their respects > to Dumbledore, .... Yet there were few conspicuous > absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has > been made about house-elves. Do you think that is > significant? bboyminn: Only in that it is a reflection of the wizard world. Goblins don't associate themselves with the affairs of wizard. Though they may have respected Dumbledore, he was no one of them, and they were not one of his kind. So, it doesn't surprise me that they weren't there. As to the House-Elves, they are typically never seen. They also don't involve themselves in the /outward/ affairs of wizards. Yet, they certainly greatly respected Dumbledore. He probably treated them kinder than anyone they had ever met. But still it is not their place to stand along side wizards in anything. Yet we do not know that they were not there far in the background, out of Harry frame of reference. We also don't know that they did not grieve for Dumbledore in their own private and special way. > 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude > that some kind of investigation is going on. Can the > captured death eater be of any use in book 7? bboyminn: I'm sure there is an investigation going on, but sadly, I suspect it is like everything the Ministry does, it is much much more about show than it is about results, consequently, I don't expect much results from the captured Death Eaters. Harry or one of his associates might find some way to get something usefull out of them, but I think the Ministry will put all it's emphasis on how THEY captured Death Eaters, and will let it go at that. > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's > fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for > Harry's cooperation? bboyminn: As I've implied, it is much more about preception and image than it is about results. Having someone in jail, especially when they only have a very very few people in jail, is better than admitting that everyone they caught is innocent. They already look bad for having so few, if it got out that those few were innocent, they would be a disgrace. Better to be bad, than to look bad. Though I can't say it WILL happen, I have this fantasy of Harry turning the tables on the Ministry. Essentially going to the Minister and saying either you cooperate with ME (Harry) or I will ruin you in the court of public opinion, just as I ruined Fudge. In a sense, Harry will blackmail the Ministry into doing his bidding. Into lending him what every resources he needs - no questions asked. I can hear Harry telling the Minister, you (the Minister) will give me every bit of information you have and make every resource available to me, and I in return will tell you what I think you need to know when I think you need to know it. > 14a. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts > Harry's decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do > so. bboyminn: Ginny accepts and understands what Harry says, but that doesn't mean she accepts his decision. Harry's relationship with Ginny is far different than his relationship with Ron and Hermione. There is a difference between friends and lovers. Friends can take care of themselves, but one feels the need to protect a lover. > 14b. Even stranger, Harry does not really attempt to > talk them out of sharing his destiny. ... Does it mean > that for Harry .. friendship is something infinitely > more important than love? Even so, Ginny is not just a > girlfriend; she is a friend as well. bboyminn: As Ron and Herione say to Harry, long ago they had the option of sticking with Harry or getting out, they chose to stay by his side. Harry understands and respects that. With regard to Ginny, no matter how much she may be his friend, more than that, and irrevocable, she is his girlfriend, once that line is crossed, it can never be uncrossed. Still, we don't know that Ginny has agreed to stay out of it. She accepted what Harry said, she understood his reasons for saying it, but we don't know that she is going to comply. > 15.... The phoenix lament, the anthem, and the central > episode with the funeral fire. Is this supposed to be a > clue to the relationship between Fawkes and Dumbledore? > bboyminn: I think it symbolizes the relationship between Fawkes and Dumbledore, and the 'phoenix' aspect of the story my not be over yet, but I don't think it is a clue in the sense that most fans are trying to make it a clue. Hey, it's just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Mar 5 02:39:34 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 02:39:34 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165723 > Ah! So I had gone mad after all! Two completely > separate dreams, and the owl one hadn't anything to > do with *being* Voldemort, as is being discussed. Thank you, > houyhnhnm, that clears everything up for me perfectly :) > -Shaunette, happily unconfused houyhnhnm: I have a lot of trouble remebering all of Harry's dreams and even making sense of them when I read them. Yet I know they must be important. I had a vested interest in tracking this one down, though, because if it ocurred in GoF, that spoiled my hypothesis that it was Harry's blood in Voldemort that changed the nature of the connection between them. Now I have to find the dream in which Slughorn changes into Snape. I don't even remember reading it, but I ran across a reference to it today. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 5 02:49:20 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 21:49:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb References: Message-ID: <014001c75ed0$e06607a0$6392400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165724 > Magpie: > Doesn't that just indicate that she isn't one of his nearest and dearest? I > mean...she's not. She's never been at the level of Ron and Hermione. a_svirn: Well, she is not, and yet, she is. She's not like the twins who have the circle of their own, and very exclusive one at that. Since OOP Ginny is one of the closest persons to Harry. And in HBP he falls in love in her. Well. Why not make a Quartet out of the Trio? It is as though she is not good enough somehow... Magpie: She's good enough as a person (too good, imo), but as a character I don't think she's been made to be a major player. Almost everything she does in OotP and HBP is showing how she's the perfect girl--which is fine for Harry's life, and presumably they'll get married and have kids in the prologue--as you said, her life is sort of about Harry. But I don't see any reason to change the core Trio for it. > Magpie: > I don't think it's odd that the Trio is still a Trio and doesn't become a > foursome. Perhaps in some part because Ginny hasn't really been created to > fulfill that kind of role. a_svirn: Obviously, she wasn't. But it is not clear why. Magpie: Hmm. I guess that's hard to say. She wasn't, so she wasn't? It seems like JKR created her Trio to be Harry and his friends and nobody else was made to do that. There are other characters who might have been created to be the fourth member of the Trio and weren't either. > Magpie: It would be like suddenly having the Twins always > be part of the innermost inner circle with Harry instead of where they are, > people who are sometimes important but not in the Trio. Their dynamic would > totally go off-kilter with the constant addition of Ginny, as all groups do > when another person is added. a_svirn: As I said, Ginny is not like the twins. She does not have a circle of her own. Even her boyfriends were means to the end - to capture Harry's attention. She is always part of the group that is centered around Harry, but not quite close to the centre, as it were. Magpie: Yup, it seems like she was just created to be a love interest. She's always pretty much been there to be Harry's girlfriend and that's what her story has always been about when she had one. But in terms of dynamic I think she is a rather major force in scenes because of it. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 03:03:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:03:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165725 > a_svirn's Questions: > > 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude > reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated > by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken > or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? zgirnius: Reasonable, in that I would expect it of a certain percentage of parents. On the other hand, it would appear the Death Eaters had a specific objective which they achieved, which might actually make the school, for the present, safer than some other places in the Potterverse. > 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find > it sinister? zgirnius: I thought it unfortunate for Bill along with the injury to his face. I don't think it is sinister though. Fleur is right, steak should be eaten rare. > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right > in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does > proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle > heritage? zgirnius: I find this point of view incomprehensible. Calling himself a half- blood explicitly references his Muggle heritage. Any other grand sounding epithet on top of Prince, sure. But not Half-Blood, which was Snape's choice. My own guess at the meaning of the name to Snape is that his mother and her family were purebloods, and that her family did not approve of her choice to marry a Muggle. To them, he was the half-blood, and thus inferior, so he chose that nickname for himself in a gesture of teenage 'I'll show them' bravado/dark humor. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about > the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose > himself? zgirnius: No, I disagree. Dumbledore is clearly well aware of the extent of Snape's knowledge of, and interest in, the Dark Arts. It seems to me that the information that he already had this interest while in school could not possibly be disturbing or new to Dumbledore. > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so > guarded? zgirnius: I found this interesting. It seems to mark a change in her attitude from the immediate aftermath of Dumbledore's death, in which she was embarrassed and guilty over trusting Snape enough to look after Flitwick on his orders. I am not sure what to make of it. Perhaps, while she did not like the Prince, she is a bit disturbed in the 180 Harry is pulling about him. > 7. It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status > of religion in the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. Now, why is that? zgirnius: While she has indicated she is a believer and a Christian of some variety, and further, that this informs her writing, I don't think she is trying to proselytize a particular religious sect in her work. Her goal, I believe, is to present some ideas which she has from her religion about love and morality and such, in a way that is accessible to all. Tacking a specific religious label onto her world would detract from the universaility for which I think she is aiming. > 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some > kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be > of any use in book 7? zgirnius: He might provide information to the Ministry, but it looks like Harry and the Scrimgeour are not going to be cooperating, so I doubt it. > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. zgirnius: Ron and Hermione have a longer history with Harry - Ginny started to join in their adventures only at the end of OotP. Even more importantly, they know exactly what Harry will be up to, and they know that they are the only two people Harry has told, as per Dumbledore's wishes. I think this is also why Harry does not try to talk them out of it. I did not find Ginny's agreement odd, myself. It was not the time or place to have an argument. Also, since Harry has left Ginny in the dark about what he will be up to, she may not see clearly how her involvement could help. She may also not know yet that Ron and Hermione will be helping. I expect to see more of Ginny in Book 7 despite her apparent acquiescence. She may try to find out what Harry is up to, she may help in some other way, or Ron and Hermione may decide to let her in on it. (I'm remembering LotR, in which the protagonist must leave on a dangerous secret quest that only his best friend and the wise old mentor know about. The best friend tells a couple more of the protegonist's friends/relatives about it and they end up going along too...) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 03:11:10 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:11:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: <014001c75ed0$e06607a0$6392400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165726 > a_svirn: > Well, she is not, and yet, she is. She's not like the twins who have > the circle of their own, and very exclusive one at that. Since OOP > Ginny is one of the closest persons to Harry. And in HBP he falls in > love in her. Well. Why not make a Quartet out of the Trio? It is as > though she is not good enough somehow... > > Magpie: > She's good enough as a person (too good, imo), but as a character I don't > think she's been made to be a major player. Almost everything she does in > OotP and HBP is showing how she's the perfect girl--which is fine for > Harry's life, and presumably they'll get married and have kids in the > prologue--as you said, her life is sort of about Harry. But I don't see any > reason to change the core Trio for it. a_svirn: Well, yes, I think you are right. Obviously, Rowling wanted the Trio to be always a Trio. But speaking personally, as a reader, I would like to have it explained from Harry's point of view. OK, he ended their romantic relationship for "some stupid noble reason". But what was (is) the cause of her constant exclusion? You (and me) may not see the reason to "change the core of Trio", but it occurs to me that Harry might have thought of a reason or two. From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 03:00:33 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:00:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Voldemort make use of a Horcrux already? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0703041900i79417a0u79e94bbbb3440fa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165727 I just got around to reading Carol's post -- Carol: But I wonder if Voldemort's experiments included a search for *bodily* immortality. The Horcruxes protect his soul and keep it earthbound, but what good is an immortal soul in a frail and aging body? Even wizards get old, unless, like Nicholas Flamel, they have a Philosopher's Stone and can keep taking the Elixir of Life. Debbie: I had always interpreted Voldemort's statement that "one or more of my experiments must have worked" to mean that he experimented with other means of immortality than simply the creation of Horcruxes. After all, the evidence suggests that he created two before he even left Hogwarts, so he must have been doing something else. He could have been experimenting with his own Elixir of Life (could Snape have worked on this?) as well as the creation of a new body. Interesting, though, that he did not succeed in creating a functional adult body. Could this have been because after all that soul-splitting he did not have enough humanity to inhabit a fully functioning adult? Or because his experiments were not fully successful? Just thinking out loud here. Carol: At any rate, if Voldie wants to "live" as opposed to surviving, he's going to need an immortal body to go with his immortal soul. I wonder whether he took small doses of Nagini's venom to make himself immune to poison. He would also need to protect himself against disease and especially old age. Possibly, that's where young Severus Snape came in. Was he "putting a stopper in death" for Voldemort, not by helping him with the Horcruxes, of course, but by brewing potions that would help to sustain Voldie's body long beyond its natural life? Debbie: It's my view that Nagini is intended to symbolize both the devil and resurrection (both historic uses of snakes as symbolism). Thus her initial appearance at the beginning of GoF to provide venomous 'milk' to nourish Baby!Mort foreshadows Voldemort's anti-resurrection at the end of the book, and is perhaps a necessary precursor to that resurrection. Carol: And, to return to Nagini, there's the whole question of why Voldie becomes more snakelike. The Horcruxes blur his features, making him appear less human as he loses what shreds of humanity he ever had, but do they also make him more snakelike? The Voldemort who applies for the DADA position is much less snakelike than the one who pops out of Quirrell's head in SS/PS or the restored Voldemort who appears in the graveyard, looking exactly as he did when he killed the Potters, as far as I can tell. (The Death Eaters are surprised that he's resurrected, but not by his snakelike appearance.) Debbie: The connection between horcruxes and snakes is strictly symbolic, so if the horcruxes caused Voldy's appearance to become more snakelike it's only to symbolize his trafficking with his diabolical version of immortality. I tend to think that he's been drinking Nagini's venom all along (though we have no idea how long she has been with him) as another one of his experiments, and that made him increasingly snakelike. Carol: Yes, Voldemort has always had an affinity for snakes and can talk to them in Parseltongue, but why Nagini? Where did she come from, and why is she his "dear" Nagini when he cares for no other living creature? Debbie: Although I have no canon to support my view (other than Voldy's affinity for her), I want to believe that Nagini is a magical creature in her own right (even though the only creature in Fantastic Beasts that could possibly qualify is a basilisk), and that her venom is diabolically magical. I might even go one step further and speculate wildly that Salazar Slytherin imbibed some of this same venom (not from Nagini but instead from her ancestor who I'll call Nag), perhaps not realizing its diabolical effects, which precipitated the split from the other Founders. Ok, I'm probably way off the reservation with this one. Carol, who thinks that Harry will slay Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor whether or not she's a Horcrux Debbie who agrees 100% with Carol on this point [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 03:15:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:15:32 -0000 Subject: Why Ginny is not the part of the Trio WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165728 > a_svirn: > Well, yes, I think you are right. Obviously, Rowling wanted the Trio to > be always a Trio. But speaking personally, as a reader, I would like to > have it explained from Harry's point of view. OK, he ended their > romantic relationship for "some stupid noble reason". But what was (is) > the cause of her constant exclusion? You (and me) may not see the > reason to "change the core of Trio", but it occurs to me that Harry > might have thought of a reason or two. > Alla: Hmmmm, that is a good point. I agree that I would like to hear it from Harry's POV, but only starting HBP, I guess. I suppose that before HBP it never felt strange for me from Harry's POV. Ginny was just Ron's little sister, even if she is friendly one, loyal one, the one he had to save, etc. Starting HBP and probably even OOP, Harry finds more staff in common with her, she is a member of the DA, and Harry falls in love with her and supposedly, no matter how short that was, it is friendship first, love later, so I think I would agree that in HBP I would love to hear why Harry still does not include Ginny in Trio's business. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 04:00:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:00:46 -0000 Subject: Why Ginny is not the part of the Trio WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165729 > Alla: > Starting HBP and probably even OOP, Harry finds more staff in common > with her, she is a member of the DA, and Harry falls in love with > her and supposedly, no matter how short that was, it is friendship > first, love later, so I think I would agree that in HBP I would love > to hear why Harry still does not include Ginny in Trio's business. zgirnius: Until she breaks up with Dean, I can certainly see why it would be personally awkward for Harry to try to include her. She does start to get included in their normal, social activities as a fourth and equal member after The Kiss, to my way of seeing it. The specific things he is not including her in is the Horcrux quest and the Prophecy. Both are things he has agreed with Dumbledore not to tell anyone other than Ron and Hermione about. He agreed to both those things while Ginny was still dating Dean. I therefore don't find it at all odd that he does not tell her. In the long run he might decide he wants to share these things with Ginny, but I would find it far more odd for him to decide to do so at Dumbledore's funeral! From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Mar 5 04:02:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:02:16 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165730 Neri: > Quoting the relevant part: > > "Right to Die > > The law concerning whether a person has the right to die is unclear. > You have a right to refuse or stop treatment at any time, even if this > means that you may die. However, it is illegal for a doctor to omit or > carry out treatment with the specific intention of inducing or > hastening death." > > They don't say what the doctor would be charged with. However, note > that this website is concerned with patients' rights, not with > doctors' rights. Pippin: Well, yes. The doctor must cease treatment at your request, but if he does it because he specifically wants to kill you, it's a crime. If there was any doubt, the doctor would presumably consult the ethics committee of the hospital, or turn the care of the patient over to someone else. But there's no time for Snape to do that on the Tower. Anyway, Dumbledore *is* the ethics committee of the Wizarding World, the epitome of goodness according to JKR. It's highly unlikely that his last request was for Snape to do something that JKR thinks is morally wrong. We may be discussing a cultural difference; Israeli patient rights stipulate that the gravely ill patient must be treated even if he refuses it. http://www.patients-rights.org/212e.htm OTOH, in America if you want your feeding tube or your respirator removed, the doctor has to do it, or turn your care over to someone who will comply with your wish. The issue only seems debatable when the patient is unconscious or for some other reason considered unable to make decisions regarding care. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 5 04:09:41 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:09:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Ginny is not the part of the Trio WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb References: Message-ID: <016301c75edc$1de0db40$6392400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165731 >> a_svirn: >> Well, yes, I think you are right. Obviously, Rowling wanted the > Trio to >> be always a Trio. But speaking personally, as a reader, I would > like to >> have it explained from Harry's point of view. OK, he ended their >> romantic relationship for "some stupid noble reason". But what was > (is) >> the cause of her constant exclusion? You (and me) may not see the >> reason to "change the core of Trio", but it occurs to me that > Harry >> might have thought of a reason or two. >> > > Alla: > > Hmmmm, that is a good point. I agree that I would like to hear it > from Harry's POV, but only starting HBP, I guess. > > I suppose that before HBP it never felt strange for me from Harry's > POV. Ginny was just Ron's little sister, even if she is friendly > one, loyal one, the one he had to save, etc. > > Starting HBP and probably even OOP, Harry finds more staff in common > with her, she is a member of the DA, and Harry falls in love with > her and supposedly, no matter how short that was, it is friendship > first, love later, so I think I would agree that in HBP I would love > to hear why Harry still does not include Ginny in Trio's business. Magpie: Not to be so picky about this, but Harry doesn't say anything about being in love with Ginny. While I'm pretty sure they'll wind up in love and married etc., their relationship is very much a high school boy and girlfriend. He has pleasant times with her that feel like "someone else's life" but it hasn't gotten to the point where he's really changed much of his outlook at all, much less changed to the point of saying that Ginny must be included in Trio business. The relationship isn't presented as a grand romance Harry's giving up. It's more on the level of his giving up school for a year. It's something he'll come back to and then he can fall in love with her or whatever (off screen). Because it's just not that big of a deal, it doesn't seem to require an explanation from Harry either. H/G romance has never become really part of the narrative so that it seems like we're losing something. I mean, we get Harry thinking about her beforehand and the whole chase, but once they're together we just hear that he likes spending time with her and a couple of scenes where Ginny gets more sassy lines and Ron looks foolish. I think even to the two of them it's not so important in the scheme of things that Ginny would feel like she needed to be included in things she hadn't been before and vice versa. -m From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Mar 5 04:13:24 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:13:24 EST Subject: On the trivial and the profound. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165732 > > Neri: > > I'm referring to the third part. The third part implies that if Draco > > tries to kill Dumbledore and fails, and Snape isn't present to step in > > and do the deed instead (say, because he's teaching or sleeping at the > > time) then he has broken the UV and he's dead, and there are no "to > > the best of your abilities" excuses in this part. > > Pippin: > But there's nothing about instantaneous action, either. Draco > fails with the necklace and the poison, fails to fix the cabinet for > months on end, Dumbledore continues to live, yet Snape doesn't > fall dead on the spot. The vow puts no time > limit on Snape's performance, which makes it a poor > contract. Narcissa needs a better lawyer > >Neri: >This isn't law. It's magic, and a very dangerous one. Draco doesn't fail with the necklace and the poison, because he has not been caught, and thus he's still free to make another try. For the same reason, as long as Draco hasn't fixed the cabinet but still has a fair chance to do so, he hasn't failed yet. But if he gets killed, then he certainly has failed. If he's locked in Azkaban or even just expelled from Hogwarts he doesn't have another chance at Dumbledore's life and so he's failed. Voldemort isn't going to wait until Draco is 150 years old for him to kill Dumbledore, and the UV isn't either. No time limits would make the whole UV magic worthless. > Pippin: > Snape, OTOH, is a DADA specialist -- he probably knows a whole lot > more about the Unbreakable Vow and its operations than Narcissa > does, and certainly more than we do. > >Neri: >You can be very good at DADA and yet you won't be able to cheat the UV if it's not cheatable. Just like you can't cheat the Fidelius no matter how good you are at Charms, and you can't cheat Felix Felicis no matter how good you are at Potions (or Slughorn would have surely used it much more than twice in a lifetime). The whole UV thing would be rather pointless if anyone good at DADA could fool it. Bellatrix knows something about these things too, and she's generally very suspicious of Snape, and yet she doesn't accuse him of slithering out of the UV terms. In her amazement you see that she believes this time Snape has committed himself totally. It never even crosses her mind that the UV can be fooled. Nikkalmati This exchange put me in mind of an explanation for the fury Snape expresses when Harry calls him a coward for the second time in the confrontation at the end of HBP. The first time Harry wants Snape to fight him instead of just defending against Harry's spells. Snape has no problem with this because he does not feel the sting of the accusation and turns it back on Harry by insulting his father as a coward. However, when Harry says kill me like you killed him, you coward, Snape loses it. "Don't call me a coward!" Maybe his reaction is because he has just taken a huge risk. The UV is ancient magic like Lily's protection of Harry and the Triwizard cup. It is unpredictable and not controllable by the knowledge or wizards or witches, as we have seen in those two cases. You just don't mess with it. When Snape took the UV, the terms were somewhat ambiguous, but neither Snape nor Narcissa was in control of the interpretation of the vow. What constitutes a breach of its terms? What if it was not "necessary" to kill DD? If Snape chose not to AK Dumbledore, but cast some other curse and levitated him to the ground, he was taking an enormous risk that he would be killed by the UV - and he would not know whether he was in danger or how much time he had. He did not know that DD had drunk poison, although he may have had time to see the scene at the cave in DD's mind (I don't believe any kind of verbal message can be sent by Legilimancy). He would not be sure DD was going to die; therefore, if he had just that moment risked everything to avoid killing DD himself, he would certainly be enraged by being called a coward. Nikkalmati (who understands that this theory means that Snape may have dropped dead from the UV after he left Hogwarts and may even now be dead. Say it isn't so!)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 04:32:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:32:49 -0000 Subject: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165733 A theory that I've long held to, which I know has been stated in many forms before, is that the locket Horcrux never made it to the cave in the first place. Pippin just posted another of these iterations on the "Green Liquid" thread. I'll add on to her post and you can read it in it's entirety here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165700 > Pippin: > This makes it even clearer to me that RAB didn't steal the locket > from the basin at all. He stole it beforehand. That eliminates a > whole raft of problems. Mike: Yay, Pippin I've been of a like mind as you on this for a long time. And although I'd agreed, I couldn't put my finger on the tipping point. But you did :) Why replace the locket in the basin indeed. As you said; 1) there's no point, it's not going to fool LV and I can't see Reggie being that bent as to have a driving need to taunt Voldemort. and 2) there *is* a need to substitute a fake one if he swapped it out on cousin Bella before she made her deposit. Yep, this cinches it for me too. Reggie is a wet behind the ears DE. I don't imagine he's much farther along the path to magical wisdom than Harry is right now. Could Harry have retreived that locket from the basin on his own, or even with help from a loyal Kreacher? I seriously doubt Reggie was capable of it either. And how did Reggie know it was a locket that was at the bottom of the basin? In fact, what makes anyone believe someone of Reggie's caliber could have found out about LV's Horcruxes, where the cave is, where the blood door is and how to open it, how to find LV's boat, and how to defeat the green liquid? Carol made a suggestion that Bella borrowed Kreacher (which I don't think Wolfburga would allow and can't understand why Bella would ask. Doesn't Bella have a house elf in her family, or better yet, wouldn't she borrow Dobby from her sister before she goes beggaring to her aunt?). My question would be: what does Bella need Kreacher for? Surely Bella put in/transformed the green stuff in the basin. Or, if LV had already caused the green stuff to happen, surely LV didn't send her on the mission without telling her how to bypass it. So what would be the purpose of bringing Kreacher? And would LV or Bella want more folks to know this closely guarded secret? But if Reggie learned about the Horcrux from Bella's bragging at his house, before she made the deposit, that changes everything. Then, Reggie would be capable of transforming one of his mother's lockets into looking like the Slytherin Locket well enough to fool Bella. And I doubt that she was ever going to open it to find that note. Besides, he could easily have charmed it shut without having to put a curse on it. Makes Harry and Dumbledore's whole cave adventure one giant red herring, imo. I've already posted my problems with the logic in the cave scene, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice it to say, I found the whole adventure pointless outside of the need as a plot device for JKR. > Pippin: > RAB wouldn't have had to count on his transfiguration being > good enough to fool Voldemort himself, but it just might > have been, at least for the brief amount of time needed for an > unsuspecting Voldemort to recover the supposed horcrux from > Bella and hide it in the cave. Of course if Bella is the one who > did the hiding, so much the better, and Voldemort never saw > the fake at all. Mike: I like the second version :D As I said on another post, it makes sense to me that Bella was the one that deposited the (fake) locket into the basin. Also, as I've postulated before, I can easily see Bella showing up at her Aunt Wolfburga's house and bragging about what an honour that the Dark Lord bestowed upon her, making her responsible for hiding one of his Horc... oops, I'm not suppose to tell you that. I can also see all of this happening *after* the Blacks have come to the revelation that Voldemort is not who or what he says he is. Sirius told us it did happen, just not when. "They got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regelus was a right little hero for joining up at first." (Ootp p.112, US ed.) Since it was Sirius' "parents", plural, and his father died in the same year as Reggie, this revelation must have come pretty close to the time of Reggie swapping the lockets. That would mean that although they might have put up a good front for their neice Bella (knowing her loyalties), they would secretly be in opposition to Voldemort around this time. This sets up perfectly for the whole family to be in on the switch. That said, I'm confident that Reggie could have done it by himself, and maybe didn't want to get his parents involved. A second likely scenario is that Reggie's dad has already died (at the hands of DEs or LV himself?) and that was the catalyst for Reggie to make his move on Voldemort. Then, as luck would have it, Bella shows up at his house with the locket and Reggie sees a perfect oppurtunity to make his *statement* move. He has to move fast though, Bella isn't going to wait for him to go shopping for a locket. > Pippin continued: > No, the fake locket only makes sense to me if the substitution was > done earlier, while the locket was still in the possession of > Bellatrix. Of course we do have to account for the locket being > disenchanted by the time Harry found it. But the spell may have > worn off over the years Mike: Not all magic is permanent. Heck, Crouch Jr even said the effects of his Imperious will wear off soon. (Yeah, I know he removed the Imperious, but something was still causing Ron to skip after class). Plus, look at all the battle scenes, with Stupefys and Petrificus Totalia [sp?] that don't last forever. So both the appearance of the locket and whatever was holding it shut could easily have worn off over the years, revealing what Harry sees as not the same locket he saw in the Pensieve scene. But as long as Bella was fooled up until the time she dropped the locket into the basin, it all makes sense. What about that note? It was written as a taunt and it also seems that Reggie expected LV to read it. And why did Reggie expect to be dead by the time Voldemort read the note? I have wild theory about this, but it might make the Horcrux problem not as overburdening as it seems to be at this point of the story. If Reggie was made "dead" by DD and Snape, he could now be hidden by a Fidelius. But what I like better is that the Metamorphmagus gene runs in the Black family. And Tonks isn't the only one. We've all been wondering why JKR introduced us to the concept without taking it somewhere. Maybe Reggie is where. Maybe Reggie is out there right now, disguised as someone else, and doing Dumbledore's bidding. If Reggie has taken up the Horcrux hunt from a long time ago, maybe Harry doesn't have that many to find and destroy after all. As to why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry all this? I'll answer that with another question: why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry the real reason he trusts Snape? Dumbledore feels he must protect his people that have put their lives in his hands. That's on top of his penchant for playing his hand close to the vest. So just like he's keeping Snape's secrets, he's keeping Reggie's secrets. With the distinct possibility that these two's secrets are intertwined. And, if LV is under the impression that Snape killed Reggie, that's two people who could be killed if this secret ever got out. Of course this beggars the question, why did DD take Harry to the cave if he already knew there was no Horcrux there? I've already stated my belief that the cave was a contrivance by JKR. But laying that aside, how does Dumbledore tune Harry into R.A.B. without giving away the whole thing to the detriment of both Reggie and Snape? By introducing a clue that is sure to take Harry a while to figure out and hopefully Harry will have received more guidance by then. There may be a couple of real simple answers to the cave trip. Reggie never told Dumbledore that he got that Horcrux out, and there is sparse to no communication between them now. Or, Dumbledore knew that the locket was at 12 GP, but it went missing back during OotP. So he takes Harry to recover the fake locket, knowing that Harry will now take up the hunt for the real one. And Dumbledore knows that Reggie can't return to 12 GP, but Harry can, he owns the place now. I know it's not foolproof theory, but it does cut JKR's on-page workload way down. And it keeps DH from becoming a wall to wall Horcrux hunt, not something anybody would want. Mike, waiting for the lumberjacks to chop this one down :) From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 5 04:52:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:52:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped? References: Message-ID: <017501c75ee2$10972830$6392400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165734 > Mike: > Yay, Pippin I've been of a like mind as you on this > for a long time. And although I'd agreed, I couldn't put my finger on > the tipping point. But you did :) Why replace the locket in the basin > indeed. As you said; 1) there's no point, it's not going to fool LV > and I can't see Reggie being that bent as to have a driving need to > taunt Voldemort. and 2) there *is* a need to substitute a fake one if > he swapped it out on cousin Bella before she made her deposit. Yep, > this cinches it for me too. > > Reggie is a wet behind the ears DE. I don't imagine he's much farther > along the path to magical wisdom than Harry is right now. Could Harry > have retreived that locket from the basin on his own, or even with > help from a loyal Kreacher? I seriously doubt Reggie was capable of > it either. And how did Reggie know it was a locket that was at the > bottom of the basin? In fact, what makes anyone believe someone of > Reggie's caliber could have found out about LV's Horcruxes, where the > cave is, where the blood door is and how to open it, how to find LV's > boat, and how to defeat the green liquid? Magpie: I could totally believe, if Bellatrix was the one to hide this Horcrux, that Regulus swapped the lockets beforehand. That's definitely within his capabilities and a nice use of the unexpected kid surprising everyone because Voldemort isn't paying attention. I don't know that I buy anything about him still being alive and Dumbledore tramping out there and poisoning himself to give Harry a clue. (I can just picture the conversation if he tried to run that by Snape: "Um, Dumbledore, you do know that Potter isn't exactly Sherlock Holmes, don't you?") It's not like keeping the secret of his trust in Snape, imo. We know about that secret--it wasn't a lie, it was him refusing to tell him. This is a bit too much like lying and seemingly for the sole reason of giving JKR her big cave scene. I guess I'm reluctant to lose just how much of a surprise Regulus is. It seems to take away from him if oh really, Dumbledore knew about the switch--I feel the same way about various theories about lots of surprises that have either Snape or Dumbledore knowing stuff that they're pretending not to know in canon. Maybe I'm just too fond of Wild Card!Regulus who's been dismissed for so many years turning out to surprise everybody. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 05:24:11 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:24:11 -0000 Subject: Why Ginny is not the part of the Trio Was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165735 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Well, yes, I think you are right. Obviously, Rowling > > wanted the Trio to be always a Trio. But speaking > > personally, as a reader, I would like to have it > > explained from Harry's point of view. OK, he ended > > their romantic relationship for "some stupid noble > > reason". But what was (is) the cause of her constant > > exclusion? You (and me) may not see the reason to > > "change the core of Trio", but it occurs to me that > > Harry might have thought of a reason or two. > > > > Alla: > > Hmmmm, that is a good point. I agree that I would like > to hear it rom Harry's POV, but only starting HBP, I > guess. > > I suppose that before HBP it never felt strange for > me from Harry's POV. Ginny was just Ron's little sister, > even if she is friendly one, loyal one, the one he had > to save, etc. > > Starting HBP and probably even OOP, Harry finds more > staff in common with her, she is a member of the DA, > and Harry falls in love with her and supposedly, no > matter how short that was, it is friendship first, love > later, so I think I would agree that in HBP I would > love to hear why Harry still does not include Ginny > in Trio's business. > bboyminn: I really think people are overlooking the difference between the Harry/Ron/Hermione relationship and the Harry/Ginny relationship. There is a huge difference between 'friend' and 'girlfriend'. 'Friend time' is INclusive time; that is, you invite all your friends to join in. In this case, that is just Ron and Hermione. But 'Girlfriend time' is EXclusive time. That is a time when Ron and Hermione are generally excluded, and it is just Harry and Ginny. Even when all four are sitting around the common room, we see far more physical intimacy with Ginny, who is sitting between Harry's legs, than we ever have seen with Ron or Herione. (Unless of course, you read a lot of Slash fan fic.) I have to believe people here are old enough and experienced enough to understand the very real and deep difference between 'friend time' and 'girlfriend time', even when that girlfriend time is still very innocent. Despite the innocents, it still represents a very intimate time, and an intimacy that is very different than that seen between Harry, Ron, and Hermione. They do have an intimacy, but it is a social intimacy. Harry and Ginny have a more romantic, physical, and emotional intimacy. Consequently, and especially now after HBP, Harry is going to react differently to any situation that involves Ginny; it's just instinct. He can go into battle with Ron and Hermione and trust them to take care of themselves. For one thing, they have already proven they can handle themselves under pressure. But if Ginny is with them, then they whole dynamic changes. Instead of concentrating on the task at hand, Harry is going to constantly be concerned with protecting Ginny, even though Ginny is a very strong witch who can protect herself. Like I said, to some extent, it is instinct. Harry's primal concerns are in protecting future generations, and that means protecting Ginny above everything. To Harry, that is a dark and dangerous distraction that he simply can not afford. So, I think he was absolutely right in cutting Ginny out of his life, and I think Ginny really truly completely understands what Harry is saying and what is motivating him, but I still say that doesn't mean she is going to comply. I simply don't think she is the personality type to just fade into the background while Harry does everything. Whether Harry likes it or not, Ginny will insert herself into the story. I don't think there is any way to compare or equate the Harry/Ron/Hermione relationship with the Harry/Ginny relationship. They are very very very different beasts. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From cdayr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 07:11:07 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:11:07 -0000 Subject: Why Snape is a good teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol notes: >(If Snape ever gets the >opportunity, he should publish his improved versions of the >potions, >both NEWT-level and below. It would be a great service to the > school--and to the lazy Slughorn, assuming that he's still the Potions > Master at that point.) Another thing that Snape may have given to up to keep his low-profile, double agent role intact - a career as a successful author. ESE or DDM, he really has had a sad, sad life. > Carol: > The only difference between his attitude toward his DADA students and > his Potions students is that he allows anyone who has passed the DADA > OWL to take that class (clearly, he thinks it's important for everyone > to learn it now that Voldemort is back--even Crabbe and Goyle > evidently get remedial lessons), whereas he won't tolerate > "dunderheads" in NEWT Potions, which is for hard-working intellectuals > like himself. This is a fascinating point to me, and adds still more fuel to my DDM! fire. It seems clear, and certainly in this post you have outlined beautifully Snape's intense love of and expertise in potions. I like your idea that he identifies with the talented potions students as "like himself." All this makes the likelihood, in my opinion, that he is really applying for DADA every year very small. He is in his field of expertise, using his own potions research and teaching to a very high level. As we have agreed on in the past, the long-term plan between DD and Snape involves him taking the cursed DADA position when the time is right and they put a year-long plan in effect, knowing Snape will be gone by the end of the year. The idea that he applies every year for the job is a cover story for Snape with VM and any DEs who may question his loyalty later. The point you so clearly make above, about Snape's standards being so much lower for DADA, is further evidence for this idea, because it seems to show that he really does not love DADA more than Potions. He'll take the riff-raff and have remedial classes, because he is not as personally tied to the subject. He is just in the DADA position as part of The Big Plan. I have no doubt that Severus is also an expert in DADA, as we have seen vividly in HBP, but I've always felt the passion and perfection he expects in Potions is lacking in his DADA teaching. He's teaching DADA for the good of DD and the Order, but my guess is that if he survives and somehow returns to Hogwart's in the end (could it happen?), it would be to teach Potions. Additionally, as you say above, he is actively teaching everyone he possibly can *Defense Against* the Dark Arts. Not very ESE of him. > Snape's story has not yet been told, but we'll certainly find out > exactly what was going on in the tower scene and exactly why he took > the Unbreakable Vow. either that, or Snape is nothing but a cheap plot > device whose sole purpose was to kill Dumbledore, in which case I, for > one, will feel throroughly cheated. > Carol, who will be very surprised if Draco Malfoy is right and > Dumbledore is wrong Hear hear. In addition, I must add my extreme disappointment if it turns out the ugly, short, greasy-haired obvious villain wearing black really IS the villain. -Celia not sure if I added much, but happy that now I'm thinking about the DADA curse again. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 09:29:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:29:09 -0000 Subject: Locket swapped, Regulus dead (Was Re: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165737 > Mike, started off: > A theory that I've long held to, which I know has been stated in many forms before, is that the locket Horcrux never made it to the cave in the first place. Goddlefrood: I too have seen several variants on this theme and have certainly given them plenty of thought. It certainly would make a great deal of sense and I agree with Mike's theory on the whole, but with a major reservation. Now where did I put that whetstone? > Mike again: > Why replace the locket in the basin indeed. As you (Pippin earlier) said: 1) there's no point, it's not going to fool LV and I can't see Reggie being that bent as to have a driving need to taunt Voldemort, and 2) there *is* a need to substitute a fake one if he swapped it out on cousin Bella before she made her deposit. Yep, this cinches it for me too. Goddlefrood: This was certainly a compelling reason for beginning to give this theory of the pre-basin switch some credence in the first place. There is a minor problem with it, but I'm prepared to overlook it in the interests of support. I will, however, set it out. Basically it is reasonable to suppose that LV had created all bar one (definitely) or possibly two (if the theory is to hold) of his Horcruxes before he applied for the DADA position in the late 1950s. At that point Reggie was probably not yet born and Bella would have been no more than six or seven. If my supposition is correct then I find it difficult to take it that LV would move his Horcruxes around, which he would have had to have done for the purposes of Bellatrix and, hence, Reggie getting hands on the one in the locket. Apologies here for snipping the greater part of a well worked out piece. > > Pippin earlier: > > RAB wouldn't have had to count on his transfiguration (of the locket) being good enough to fool Voldemort himself, Of course if Bella is the one who did the hiding, so much the better, and Voldemort never saw the fake at all. > Mike: > Also, as I've postulated before, I can easily see Bella showing up at her Aunt Wolfburga's house and bragging about what an honour that the Dark Lord bestowed upon her, making her responsible for hiding one of his Horc... oops, I'm not suppose to tell you that. But as long as Bella was fooled up until the time she dropped the locket into the basin, it all makes sense. Goddlefrood: Yes, very much the Bellatrix we know and love. We're coming to the part where the ax is out. > Mike: > But what I like better is that the Metamorphmagus gene runs in the Black family. And Tonks isn't the only one. We've all been wondering why JKR introduced us to the concept without taking it somewhere. Maybe Reggie is where. Maybe Reggie is out there right now, disguised as someone else, and doing Dumbledore's bidding. If Reggie has taken up the Horcrux hunt from a long time ago, maybe Harry doesn't have that many to find and destroy after all. Goddlefrood: If only this could be true. I am certainly in agreement that it is probable that another Horcrux is no longer active, possibly even two, unfortunately I can not agree that Reggie is the one going around to neutralise and / or destroy it / them. Here's why, reaching for the trusty books (Bloomsbury Hardback editions): In OotP we find, during Sirius's spiel about Reggie, the following (page 104 ? The Noble and Ancient House of Black): "Sirius jabbed a finger at the very bottom of the tree, at the name `Regulus Black'. A date of death (some fifteen years previously) followed the date of birth." The tapestry clinches this for me. The dates of birth and death of Black family members are recorded. Walpurga's date of death is noted as 1985. I propose that the tapestry, being itself magical, records the deaths of the family as they come up, and this would be the case even if no one is around to tell the tapestry. Somewhat similar to the Marauder's Map "The Map never lies". In that circumstance Regulus is sadly deceased and this poster would certainly have liked to meet him. Alas I don't believe we will other than from another source telling stories of him. The other small matter that reinforced me in the view that Reggie is deceased is the sequence of events in HBP (Wills and Won'ts ? p. 54): " 'Black family tradition decreed that the house was handed down the direct line, to the next male with the name Black. Sirius was the very last of the line as his younger brother, Regulus, predeceased him and both were childless' " Shortly after this Kreacher obeys Harry so proving (not entirely conclusively, but pretty well) that there are no other direct descendents surviving. > Mike: > Of course this beggars the question, why did DD take Harry to the cave if he already knew there was no Horcrux there? Goddlefrood: What follows this part I agree with, excepting the reference to Reggie being alive. > Mike: > And it keeps DH from becoming a wall-to-wall Horcrux hunt, not something anybody would want. Goddlefrood: Not unless DH exceeds in length War and Peace to name but one and certainly not something I would like to see, although inevitably a large part of DH will be about the Horcrux hunt. Goddlefrood who, to conclude, likes the substitution of the Horcrux part but can't agree that Regulus is alive, even if he secretly would like to. FWIW From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 13:04:14 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:04:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Locket swapped, Regulus dead (Was Re: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165738 Pippin: This makes it even clearer to me that RAB didn't steal the locket from the basin at all. He stole it beforehand. That eliminates a whole raft of problems. Mike: Yay, Pippin I've been of a like mind as you on this for a long time. Debbie: Me, too. There can't be enough time in DH to reveal all that backstory about dragging Kreacher to the cave. Pippin: Of course we do have to account for the locket being disenchanted by the time Harry found it. But the spell may have worn off over the years, or perhaps Dumbledore disenchanted it. Debbie: We have plenty of examples of spells wearing off (the twins' anti-Umbridge sayings spring to mind), but I think R.A.B. may have done it intentionally. If he didn't put the locket in the cave himself, he would have needed to protect it from Bella (or whoever placed it in the cave) from opening it. But did it need to be sealed after that? Now I'm wondering who R.A.B. intended to read the note. It was addressed to the Dark Lord, but he can't have expected Voldemort himself to come by and check up on his Horcrux (as, in fact, he did not). It seems that the note was put there half-expecting that someone would attempt to find and destroy the Horcruxes. Goddlefrood: The other small matter that reinforced me in the view that Reggie is deceased is the sequence of events in HBP (Wills and Won'ts ? p. 54): "?'Black family tradition decreed that the house was handed down the direct line, to the next male with the name Black. Sirius was the very last of the line as his younger brother, Regulus, predeceased him and both were childless'?" Shortly after this Kreacher obeys Harry so proving (not entirely conclusively, but pretty well) that there are no other direct descendents surviving. Debbie: I see this argument frequently, and I can't see how it's supported by canon. Dumbledore does not summon Kreacher to prove that Sirius has no direct descendants. Kreacher was summoned and tested to determine whether there was a spell or enchantment on 12 Grimmauld Place that would preclude Harry from inheriting it ( e.g., precluding ownership by anyone except a pureblood). It was only *tradition* that decreed that the house pass down the direct line. Sirius was free to disregard that tradition regardless of whether Regulus was alive (and perhaps especially if Regulus was alive, considering what Sirius thought of him). Mike: But what I like better is that the Metamorphmagus gene runs in the Black family. And Tonks isn't the only one. We've all been wondering why JKR introduced us to the concept without taking it somewhere. Maybe Reggie is where. Maybe Reggie is out there right now, disguised as someone else, and doing Dumbledore's bidding. If Reggie has taken up the Horcrux hunt from a long time ago, maybe Harry doesn't have that many to find and destroy after all. Debbie: I'd like to believe that Regulus is still alive (that's why I was so fond of all those Stubby Boardman theories). I like the Metamorphmagus argument very much. And it seems reasonable that he'd be out there looking for more Horcruxes. However, he doesn't seem to have been very successful, if the ring was just lying about Little Hangleton waiting to be found by Dumbledore. Moreover, I doubt Dumbledore would be aware of another Horcrux hunt, because the premise he sets out in PS/SS is that he's not going to lie directly to Harry (withhold information, yes; lie, no). So, on balance, unless Regulus is lying low, I have to give this theory fairly low odds. Debbie who wants Regulus to be alive but believes the characters always refer to him as *dead* and not as having to have disappeared, and not sure how he could have faked a body without Polyjuicing and killing someone, which would undo his goodness [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 13:45:22 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:45:22 -0000 Subject: UVs (was: Re: On the trivial and the profound. In-Reply-To: <00a101c75e81$d8bd5f70$6392400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165739 Magpie: ... > Plus I guess to me Snape doesn't seem to be being forced here. His hand > twitches, indicating a reaction to the surprise clause. ... > > Vow is a Vow. A sacred promise. Finwitch: Indeed it is. As I read somewhere - "Were you to draw a circle around me, on the ground and I gave you my word not to step outside it, that word would held me surely if locks and ropes could not. That is honor." -- or something alike. It came to my mind first with Sirius, who DID escape Azcaban, but ended up held in the house he had left at 16... And, a sacred oath is more than a word of honor. Of course, as Unbreakable Vow is clearly magical, I'd say that makes it impossible to break. Death would occur if you found yourself bound by conflicting Vows, both as unbreakable. This is a magical Vow. You cannot break it, even by suicide. Death, I think, would occur if you were bound by conflicting Vows. (Any of you having read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time-series, think of the Aes Sedai Oath Rod. At least I think it's somewhat similar). I wonder what oath the twins wanted Ron to take that day... Did they manage to get one or two clauses in before Arthur spotted them? One that i.e. prevented Ron to make a move when the twins were testing their products on First-Years? And another preventing him to tell that to anyone, enabling him only to say 'they wanted - dad spotted us'? Though, the twins weren't exactly breaking any rules there - which is why none but Hermione was about to do anything... Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 14:03:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:03:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165740 > 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? Carol responds: I can understand the parents' attitude. They thought that their children were safely under the protection of Dumbledore, and now Death Eaters have penetrated the school and Dumbledore is dead. I'm glad that Seamus's mother (his Muggle father seems to be out of the picture) let him stay, but maybe she wouldn't have if he'd been eleven rather than seventeen. As for security precautions at the funeral, many Order members and some Aurors are there, not to mention ex-Auror Rufus Scrimgeour. I don't think that the DEs or Voldemort would dare to act in the presence of so many people, almost all of them armed with wands. But I'm concerned that some of the security precautions seem to have been lifted, including the anti-flying spell (either it was permanently rather than temporarily lifted by Dumbledore when he and Harry flew in or it was lifted again to let in Madame Maxime's flying horses and carriage). I hope it's put back on after Madame Maxime leaves Hogwarts or Hogwarts is again vulnerable to invasion by broom. (LV and the Death Eaters taking over an empty Hogwarts would be almost as bad as taking the students hostage. They'd be nearly invulnerable.) On a sidenote, I'm also concerned about Madame Maxime's carriage calling attention to Fleur and Bill's wedding, which needs, IMO, to be a small, private affair with as few people attending as possible. If it's publicized, or if a carriage the size of a house is seen heading for the Burrow, the wedding party is likely to be attacked. I'm also concerned because a certain rat named Peter Pettigrew can get into Hogwarts through the secret passages, including the one that's blocked. > 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find it sinister? Carol: Not sinister. I was touched by Fleur's continued love for Bill and by her and Molly's moment of mutual understanding. But the Weasleys, including Bill, aren't safe yet. I think Bill will have a role to play in relation to the goblins and curse-breaking, just as Charlie will in relation to dragons, but I'll be surprised if both of them reach the Epilogue alive. On a sidenote, I'll bet our anti-Dark Arts Healer. Severus Snape, would have done a better job than Madam Pomfrey of removing the Dark magic from Bill's scars, but unfortunately, he won't have that chance. But I don't think Bill will come evil or have any dangerous tendencies at full moon. Maybe he'll help Lupin learn to prepare Wolfbane Potion. > 3. What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning of the chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the shock of Dumbledore's death, or was he damaged irrevocably in some ways? Carol: Oh, Harry will come around. He always does. I think the funeral was a healing experience for him. He's learning to feel compassion and appreciation for people he underestimated before, notably Neville and Luna. The only remaining obstacle to the Love he needs to feel for the WW as a whole in order to represent them and act for them against Voldemort is his hatred of Snape. > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle heritage? Carol: Harry has never understood Snape, but he's had glimpses of young Severus through the Occlumency lessons and the HBP's Potions book. I think he'll need more glimpses and an understanding of the adult Snape before he can defeat Voldemort. Right now, he's still oversimplifying, arriving at answers that match his view of Snape as evil and loyal to Voldemort. I do think there are parallels between Snape and Voldemort as there are parallels between Harry and Voldemort. What Harry needs to see is the third pairing, the parallels between Snape and himself. As for Teen!Severus's proclaiming himslef the Half-Blood Prince, I think that was a statement of his own worth made primarily for his own benefit in relation to his relatives, the Pure-blood Princes, who evidently neglected and undervalued him given that he grew up looking pale and straggly like a plant left in the dark (a description not all that different from that of Harry at the beginning of OoP, something about the slightly unhealthy look of someone who's grown several inches in a short time). I don't think that Snape has ever fully or formally renounced his Muggle heritage or he'd never refer to himself as a Half-Blood or live in a Muggle neighborhood. Nor have we ever heard him talk about blood purity except for the one moment when he calls Lily a "filthy little Mudblood" under duress. He is, however, concerned with keeping the WW a secret from the Muggles, as revealed by his reaction to the Flying Ford Anglia incident. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose himself? Carol: No. All he would expose is that he's the author of Sectumsempra if he revealed anything at all, and he was a kid at the time. It's not his fault that Harry used the spell on Draco without knowing what it was. He could have punctured Harry's reputation with Slughorn by revealing that those Potions hints were his own, but he chose not to do so. I think that he wanted to keep an eye on Harry himself and make sure that he stayed well away from Draco. It would have been interesting, however, if he'd told Harry on the spot whose Potions book that was. I think Harry would have been more than willing to surrender his book to Snape if he knew that it was Snape's. Too bad Snape didn't tell him exactly how he knew that Harry was lying about finding that spell in a library book. > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, the words she actually uses can be at best described as understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so guarded? Carol: First of all, she's right. The Prince isn't evil, and much of the book is either genuine Potions improvements resulting from a studious teenage boy's research or useful spells like Muffliato or minor hexes like the toenail hex and Langlock. The hexes and the Bezoar joke do demonstrate a slightly nasty sense of humor little different from, say, Ron's. (And HBP!Harry reminds me of James, hexing people in the hallways. No wonder he thought the HBP might be his dad--same "nasty" sense of humor.) The only Dark spell or other element in the book that we know of is Sectumsempra, and it's the product of a desire for revenge not all that different from Harry's or Sirius Black's. As for Hermione's being "guarded," she probably doesn't want to risk his anger by reminding him that he used Sectumsempra or by defending the teenage Snape. But I hope it's a sign that she's going to look a little deeper into Snape's past, maybe finding out things that Harry will need to know. Maybe she'll spot the holes in his version of the events on the tower as well. > 7. Here is another thing that has been much discussed but should to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister or a priest ? Rowling's description of him seems deliberately ambivalent. It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion in the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. Now, why is that? and > 8. We are specifically told that this is the first funeral Harry has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the Potterverse by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? Carol: To answer the second question first, it appears that wizards are usually buried. The Dementors buried what they thought was the body of Barty Crouch Jr. and his mother had a small, private funeral after Crouch Sr. faked her death and now has an empty grave. (I assume it contains an empty casket, but maybe it's just a gravestone marking nothing.) But there's no evidence of cremation. Even Dumbledore's spontaneous combustion or whatever it was results in a tomb, not an urn. As for religion and the ministerlike man, it does seem that the funeral is secular or secularized, yet the wizards celebrate a secularized Christmas and Easter and use mild oaths like "damn," "hell," and "good Lord," all derived from Christianity. The portraits include monks and one of the ghosts is the Fat Friar. Everywhere there are vestiges of Christianity (including Christmas carols rather mangled by everyone from Sirius Black to Peeves). The WW seems like a post-Christian world not all that different from twentieth-century England. If the books were set in the nineteenth-century, I'm sure that Christmas would remind us of a Dickens story, complete with churchbells. And yet there's that odd bit about Harry being baptised and Sirius Black being his godfather. Is JKR, a Christian herslef, being held back by the forces of political correctness from making the WW Christian? Or is she remembering the pagan influences on Christianity, specifically Catholicism, and on the celebration of such holidays as Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, and trying to make the WW a blend of Christian and pagan influences? We do have, after all, Tarot cards and prophecies and mythological creatures from a variety of cultures and the Veil, which seems to mark a passage to the Underworld like something out of a pagan rather than a Christian world. One thing is certain. There's such a thing as a soul in the WW and, unless it's sucked by a Dementor, it's immortal. Death is not the end of all things but "the next great adventure." I don't know where all this leads, but I think the existence of God is implied but not stated in the books. If JKR lived in another time, she would not have been so hesitant to make the outlook of the books overtly Christian, and fundamentalist Christians would not have so profoundly misunderstood them. > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire to it? Carol: I think it went exactly as planned, tomb, apparent combustion, and all, or Hagrid would have been in hysterics. But who or what caused the combustion to happen, I have no idea. > 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? Or something (-one) else? Carol: It wasn't Fawkes, who is immortal and will, I think, become Harry's in DH. My present thought--subject to revision in response on other people's ideas--is that the smokelike Phoenix was the spirit of Dumbledore taking flight to the other world. (Cf. Saruman's spirit trying to enter the Uttermost West, except that DD's spirit is not refused entry to heaven or whatever lies beyond the Veil.) I'm hoping that a similar Phoenix will become Snape's new Patronus. > 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about house-elves. Do you think that is significant? Carol: I hadn't thought about it, but it does suggest that the Goblins may have allied themselves with Voldemort. As for the house-elves, it's surprising that they didn't turn out in force, and especially odd that Dobby doesn't seem to have been present. As for the others, we're supposed to note that bartender/Aberforth is there--and the horrible hypocrite umbridge. I like the fact that Fudge looks miserable; apparently, he realizes that he should have listened to Dumbledore. (I like Fudge, actually, even though he was an idiot at the end of Gof and a, well, git throughout OoP. Now that he's out from under Umbridge's influence, I think he'll prove a useful ally to the Order and even to Harry if Harry will forgive him.) > 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be of > any use in book 7? Carol: First, there should be two captured Death Eaters, Brutal-Face (Yaxley, I'll bet five sickles on it) and Fenrir Greyback, and Brutal-Face was Petrified, not Stupefied, but whether the error is Scrimgeour's or JKR's is unclear. But it will be interesting if the MoM hears Brutal-Face's testimony regarding the events on the tower, especially regarding Draco, and his description of DD's body going over the battlements. Will anyone have the wits to examine this AK and wonder why it doesn't behave normally? I'd love to have someone intelligent, perhaps Scrimgeour, put Brutal-Face's memory in a Pensieve and see exactly what happened. Too bad Madam Bones, who was objective and fair, isn't around to explore it. > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? Carol: I have no idea. Scrimgeour and his motives are a mystery to me, but maybe Harry will visit Stan in prison? No idea where JKR is going with this particular sub-subplot. > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. Carol: Ginny may be a friend, but she's not a close friend. HRH have been sharing adventures since SS/PS. Harry should know by now that they'll want to be with him no matter what, but he couldn't even figure out that Ron has always wanted him to be with Ginny. He's really not very good at understanding how other people think, whether the person is Cho or Ron or Seamus or Snape. But, yes, I think JKR values friendship above everything except courage, certainly above the hormonal aberration that passes for love among teenagers. > 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very distinctly to Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle." The phoenix lament, the anthem, and the central episode with the funeral fire. Is this supposed to be a clue to the relationship between Fawkes and Dumbledore? Carol: I'm not going to attempt to discuss "The Phoenix and the Turtle" (which, BTW, refers to a turtledove, not a reptile, and its "chaste marriage" to a Phoenix, the Phoenix being the female partner) in relation to HBP. I'll just say that Fawkes is linked not only to Dumbledore but to Gryffindor House (note his colors) and to Harry via the core of his wand. Fawkes came through for Harry, on Dumbledore's orders, I'm sure, in CoS. The Phoenix feather and Phoenix song played a role in the graveyard scene in GoF, saving Harry when no one and nothing else could. (The echoes of Voldemort's victims could not have saved Harry without the Priori Incantatem effect produced by the brother wands with their shared Phoenix-feather cores.) I think that Fawkes is grieving for Dumbledore, transforming his grief into something beautiful that heals the hearts of other mourners ("Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought"). I don't think we've seen the last of Fawkes. Maybe he'll swallow an AK for Harry or heal him again (as in CoS and GoF) with his tears. And see my remarks in other posts regarding the symbolism of the Phoenix feather core in relation to the yew and holly wood wands of Voldemort and Harry. Carol, thanking a_svirn for her thought-provoking and original questions and feeling a bit sad because this is the last chapter From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 14:34:08 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:34:08 -0000 Subject: Flesh Eating Slugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165741 > > bboyminn: > > There are such things as flesh-eating slugs according > to Lupin (in the boggart lesson). Maybe they are > omnivorous. Either way, I tend to agree with Carol. > The line strikes me as an excuse rather than a reason. > In fact, on the surface, it seems to be a typical > example of Adult Hypocrisy: Do as I say, not as I > do. Not that Hagrid shows any secret fascination > with the dark arts. On the other hand, he does have > a fondness for interesting creatures. It may be that > Hagrid was doing something in Knockturn Alley of > importance to the story and we will find out what it > is, or maybe he just likes to sneak down there from > time to time and indulge in a little window shopping for monsters. Finwitch: Yes, well -- 1. remember that, as early as book one, among the first things Harry hears about magical world, is that Hagrid was expelled (and had his wand snapped). Don't forget his little 'chat' with Ollivander. No one does that to him in Knockturn Alley... 2. Maybe Flesh-Eeating Slug Repellant also happens to be a product that's potentially dangerous -- some xxxx or K17 material, I suppose. Adults only, that is. And most parents forbid their children to go there. What else they sell there - bottles of Ogden's Fire-whiskey, wizarding porn, Dark Arts, poisons... Mainly, not things that are not exactly illegal, but morally questionable. AND they sell to escaped convicts - if they have the money. I'm positive Sirius bought that lock-pick knife he sent Harry from KnockTurn Alley. (Sell something from GP12, then buy, perhaps). 3. Out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps the Ministry doesn't really mind that much what is sold and bought in Knockturn Alley-- and random people do not come up and turn them in... (admitting they had been in a questionable place themselves, that is). As for Flesh-Eating Slugs -- 'Flesh', other than *meat*, can also refer to - flesh of a leaf - (the part that's not the supportive part of leaf that is) as well as flesh of mushrooms, or fish ... So I suppose the slugs ate the flesh of cabbage leafs. Omnivorous, yes. I think they are... Finwitch From mkisland at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 14:25:33 2007 From: mkisland at gmail.com (Marcus Keith Island) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:25:33 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. Just a thought Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165742 Hi All, I am fairly new to this group and I just wanted to add some of my theories if I may. I have read the books and I am now listening to the audiobooks because it is easier for me to multi-task I have always thought that R.A.B. meant Regulus Black but listening to the audiobooks the name RABastian LeStrange hit me. I have no proof just a thought and would love to hear folks ideas. I have read others post about maybe Bellatrix hiding the locket and that Regulus Black is her cousin so yeah it fits that he could have done the old switcheroo. But Rabastian is her brother-in-law and maybe he had something against Bellatrix or his brother. Again this is just a thought so please bear with me. I ENJOY THIS GROUP YEAAAAAAHH.. mkisland From mkisland at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 14:41:43 2007 From: mkisland at gmail.com (Marcus Keith Island) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:41:43 -0000 Subject: Death of a character Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165743 Has anyone ever notice that things seem to happen to Ron often? I REAAAAAALLLY hope I am wrong but I think he maybe one of the characters that will die in book 7. Something seems to always happen to him (yes I know things happen to Hermione as well but..). I can't pin point everything to find the page numbers and all just yet but here are the thoughts. Book 1: Ron is taken out of commision by the Chess game. So he has to stay behind. Book 2: Ron is stuck in the cave with Mr. Memory gone bad (I know Hermione is injured but Ron still my man): He also is throwing up slugs. Book 3: Ron gets hurt and has to stay behind in the hospital while Harry and Hermione got Time traveling. Book 4: I can't remember the idea for this one. I know that Harry is asked what he would regret loosing the most by Dobby (I think). Book 5: Mrs. W, doesn't she see Ron dead first when she opens the box with the Boggie? Ron is hurt during the fight at the Ministry? Book 6: Ron is poisoned and can't go to the Quidditch match. This is just a theory and I love to discuss and I am still fairly new at this. Thanks mkisland From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 14:57:18 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:57:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower: A Defense of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165744 Finwitch: Just adding my theory here. There were, quite simply, two spells. One: the green light, which Harry has identified as AK, cast by Snape. That it's jet rather than flash is a matter of perspective. two: the spell that moved Dumbledore. This *could* be cast by two persons, Dumbledore himself (on purpose), in which case the spell was still in effect when the green light hit him. - or, more likely, it was paralyzed Harry, desperate to save Dumbledore, doing uncontrolled magic, which was the only way he could even try, straight out from a powerful emotion. That's how Aunt Marge happened, anyway... I am curious nothing like that happened at Hogwarts, though - but, it being on the moment of the death of the Headmaster as his spell on Harry ALSO ended -- maybe Dumbledore had cast some spell on the castle to prevent that sort from happening? Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 15:26:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:26:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165745 a_svirn wrote: > Obviously, Rowling wanted the Trio to be always a Trio. But speaking personally, as a reader, I would like to have it explained from Harry's point of view. OK, he ended their romantic relationship for "some stupid noble reason". But what was (is) the cause of her constant exclusion? You (and me) may not see the reason to "change the core of Trio", but it occurs to me that Harry might have thought of a reason or two. > Carol responds: I don't think it *can* be explained from Harry's pov because he doesn't know himself exactly how he feels. I think it's enough, from his standpoint, that he wants to protect Ginny. But I also think that he doesn't quite appreciate her as a person yet. His (needless) emotional conflict in HBP, thinking he had to choose between Ginny and Ron, indicates that he still thinks of her as Ron's younger sister. He has also noticed a clash between his own "elder brotherly" feelings and his attraction to her. He knows that he's about to face Voldemort, a final confrontation this time, not to mention unknown dangers in hunting and destroying the Horcruxes. I hate to say this for fear that the forces of feminism will attack me, but Harry at not quite seventeen doesn't know any girls except Hermione well and doesn't really understand them. He thinks of girls in general as giggling creatures who run in packs. He could talk to Cho about Quidditch, but her tearful desire to talk about Cedric was beyond his comprehension. (He didn't want to talk, or even think, about Cedric.) Really, they had nothing in common other than Quidditch, and her continued loyalty to Marietta (which on one level matched his to Hermione) was also beyond his comprehension. So, rather like Ron, who suddenly realizes in GoF that Hermione is a girl ("Oh, well spotted!" is my favorite Hermione line) but takes another two and a half books to realize exactly how much and in what way he cares about her, Harry is still just recognizing his attraction to Ginny, whom he doesn't know nearly as well as Ron knows Hermione in in HBP. Ginny is in a different year from the others, so she doesn't share any of their classes. She doesn't even share a dorm room with Hermione (who's stuck with Parvati, Lavender, and the two unnamed Gryffindor girls from Harry's year). The only time she's with Harry as part of his circle is when he's staying at the Burrow or 12 GP. After that, she's either excluded ("Go away, Ginny!") when the Trio need to talk or deliberately goes off with her own friends. In OoP, after Harry's implanted vision of Sirius Black ostensibly being tortured by Voldemort, he classes her with Neville and Luna as one of the last people he would choose to accompany him--and that's after he's seen her performance in the DA and after he knows about her Bat-Bogey Hex. It takes awhile for the experiences of OoP to sink in (not just the MoM battle but seeing Neville's mother and Luna's conversation with him about death), but Harry is finally starting to see all three of them as people in HBP. But it's easier with Neville because he's a boy like Harry and Harry's dormmate and with Luna because there's no uncomfortable sexual attraction, no "monster" raging inside him at the thought of some other boy "snogging" her. Harry still thinks of Ginny in terms of the fragrance she wears and imagines himself wrapped up in her arms Won Won/Wav Wav-style (only somewhere private rather than in the Gryffindor common room). I don't think that, despite his friendship with Hermione, who is not typical of the girls Harry sees at his school any more than Luna is, that Harry quite sees girls as people yet. So Ginny can play Quidditch. So could Cho. So she's attractive. So was Cho. So she can throw a Bat-Bogey Hex. So, probably, could Hermione, who can at any rate throw a mean Oppugno with conjured birds. So she isn't a human hose pipe like Cho. Neither is Hermione (though she does cry on occasion for reasons Harry can't comprehend, like the boys becoming friends again in GoF). So she has a rather nasty sense of humor. So do the Twins and the HBP. Harry, a boy raised with a male cousin and male dormmates, doesn't really "get" girls yet, even tomboys who play Quidditch well and hex Zacharias Smith at every opportunity. He certainly doesn't fully understand or appreciate Ginny, who hasn't accompanied him on any of his adventures (except as the victim in CoS and one of several companions in the MoM). She hasn't done homework with him or talked about Voldemort and Horcruxes with him. She's not included in the trusted few (make that two) in whom he's allowed by Dumbledore to confide DD's secrets (the Prophecy, Horcruxes, etc.). I really can't imagine Ginny accompanying HRH in their adventures in DH. three's company, four's a crowd, to alter the adage a little. I think that Ginny, who's not of age yet, will be forced by her parents to attend Hogwarts, where she can belatedly take her OWLs. And I think she'll be Harry's contact at Hogwarts, where she'll use Sirius Black's mirror or a shard or it to communicate with the Trio. Carol, who thinks that JKR does indeed have plans for Ginny, but they don't include being part of the Horcrux Hunt (at least, I hope not, not being a fan of post-GoF Ginny) From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Mar 5 15:13:03 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:13:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: That whole locket, green goo in mysterious cave thing (was: green potion et.all) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <14536.132.229.63.47.1173107583.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> No: HPFGUIDX 165746 Hi people, I'm sorry I've been erratic in answering posts etc; I've been very, VERY busy (writing a thesis, part-time job AND being a Teacher's Assistant is really eating up my time). It's all I can do when I come home late at night to skim through messages and cherrypick what looks like an interesting thread. But I just keep still on this one. Maybe I've missed it, but am I the only one who thinks that the whole secretly buggering off on one's own (I mean DD and Harryy. No back-up, no apparant telling where they're going) to a oooohhh, scary secret cave with ghouls and whatnot and having to past a certain test and DD drinking poison and going all 'OOOOhhh!! I'm *hurting*, I'm *dying*' is all a bit, I dunno, *theatrical*? A performance? A test, maybe, wether Harry would feed his mentor poison if asked? I remember that there was an experiment once, where students had to push buttons which would give a human subject increasingly painful (or so it seemed, the subject was an actor) electric shocks when that subject answered a question wrong. The result of that experiment was disconcerting. It showed how easily people would torture another human being if told to do so by an authority figure. I also remember the episode 'Comes the Inquisitor' of the tv series Babylon 5. In it we are told that there are evil forces afoot called the Shadows and a mysterious race called the Vorlons handpick a group of people to fight them (secret society, mystic philosophy; irresistable) The leader of this group one day is told that in order to proof that she is the 'Chosen One', the one worthy to lead against the Shadows, she has to subject herself to an 'inquisitor'. She gets tortured. BUT, she has the power to stop the torture. However, when she stops the torture she has shown that she is not worthy, she is not the Chosen One. Of course, it turns out that the Vorlons and the Shadows are not Good or Evil, they just have a difference of opinion and they use other people to duke it out. The Vorlons simply choose their pawns by searching for people with enough hubris to endure torture simply to proof that they're 'worthy'. So when I read the whole cave scene I thought, "this is such a performance. Who does DD think he's kidding?" If you ask me, DD and Snape have been setting up the chessboard for the past fifteen years. They've been playing for high stakes, and every chessplayer knows that sacrifice it the way to place a queen on the enemy's side of the board. In short, if DD didn't plant that locket in that cave himself, I'll eat my keyboard. Thoughts, anyone? Marion (who goes back to lurking because she is really to busy to join in the discussion, much to her regret) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 5 18:36:19 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:36:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unbreakable Vows Message-ID: <19489712.1173119779842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165748 >Pippin: >Well, yes. The doctor must cease treatment at your request, but >if he does it because he specifically wants to kill you, it's a crime. Bart: One additional factor. There's a war going on (whether or not it is recognized as one), and, during times of war, rules change. This has come up as a problem in a number of recent armed conflicts because there are advantages and disadvantages to having an armed conflict be a war, and, in trying to get only the advantages and none of the disadvantages, things turn into a general mess, with it being unclear what is "legal" and what is not. Based on the timing of the novels, however, if JKR had a war/nonwar in mind, it would have been the Belfast branch of the IRA vs. Great Britain, where GB didn't want to call it a war, because that would have legitimitized the IRA, but that meant they had to treat it as criminal activity, and were thus limited in their legal ability to apply military solutions. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 18:29:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:29:17 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. Just a thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165749 Marcus Keith Island wrote: > > Hi All, I am fairly new to this group and I just wanted to add some of > my theories if I may. I have read the books and I am now listening to > the audiobooks because it is easier for me to multi-task > I have always thought that R.A.B. meant Regulus Black but listening to > the audiobooks the name RABastian LeStrange hit me. I have no proof > just a thought and would love to hear folks ideas. I have read others > post about maybe Bellatrix hiding the locket and that Regulus Black is > her cousin so yeah it fits that he could have done the old switcheroo. > But Rabastian is her brother-in-law and maybe he had something against > Bellatrix or his brother. Again this is just a thought so please bear > with me. I ENJOY THIS GROUP YEAAAAAAHH.. Carol: And I thought I was the only person in the world to give Rabastan Lestrange, the forgotten Death Eater, a thought. It's interesting that when Sirius Black talks about the gang that Severus Snape belonged to at Hogwarts (most if not all of them older than he was, apparently), he doesn't mention Rabastan, only "the lestranges, they're a married couple." The wording is a bit odd--Rodolphus and Bellatrix are unlikely to have been married while they were still students--but Sirius doesn't want to mention Bellatrix Black because that would give away his relationship to her. But Rabastan is not mentioned at all. And the same thing happens in the graveyard, when Voldemort identifies some of the Death Eaters. He mentions his "loyal Death Eater at Hogwarts," Barty Crouch Jr., and says that "the Lestranges should be standing here," "They alone were loyal," etc., but there's only space enough for two people, and Rabastan is again forgotten. We do, however, see him in the Pensieve memory in GoF, though it's unclear whether he's the man who just stares dully at Crouch Sr. or the thinner, nervous-looking man whose eyes dart over the crowd. Neither of them speaks, but the fact that they're both with Bellatrix and that she shouts "We alone were loyal! We alone tried to look for him [Voldemort] suggests that they (and Barty) are just as guilty of Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity as Bellatrix is. (I think that she knew Voldie wasn't dead because he had assigned her to hide a Horcrux, and she shared that knowledge with three other followers that she knew to be as fanatical as herself, or perhaps her own personal fan club.) We only learn that one of the two men (not counting the boy, Barty) is Rodolphus's brother Rabastan when Sirius Black is discussing the tapestry in OoP. Bellatrix and Rodolphus are on it; Sirius mentions that they're in Azkaban and that Rodolphus's brother Rabastan is with them. That's as much as we learn about Rabastan until the battle of the MoM, when Lucius Malfoy pairs off the Death Eaters. Bellatrix and Rodolphus, naturally are together. Rabastan is assigned to work with, of all people, Crabbe (788). (Goyle is missing--too stupid for the mission?) I don't want to go through the whole long deductive process here, but apparently Crabbe is the Death Eater who gets caught in the Time Turner and ends up with a head that keeps transforming to a baby's and back again. Rabastan, robbed of a partner, apparently joins Rodolphus and Bellatrix, or at least they're accompanied by a third man when they show up again later. And if Rabastan is the DE I think he is, he is not a likely candidate for the thief of Voldemort's Horcrux (setting aside the unlikelihood that a torturer of the Longbottoms would have done such a thing): "A jet of red light hit the nearest Death Eater [Crabbe?]; he fell backward into a grandfather clock and knocked it over. The second Death Eater, however, had leapt aside to avoid Harry's spell and now pointed his own wand at Hermione, who had crawled out from under the desk to get a better aim. "*Avada*--" (789). Yep. Nice guy, that Rabastan. I could follow the rest of the chapter to show why I think that this DE is Rabastan, and I will if anyone wants me to, but my point is that Rabastan, who helped Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity, is a most unlikely candidate to be the would-be Horcrux destroyer, RAB. That pattern fits Regulus Black much better. Carol, wondering why Rabastan is in the books at all since he appears to be nothing more than a devoted follower of his own sister-in-law, the archfanatic Bellatrix Black From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 19:01:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:01:53 -0000 Subject: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165750 Mike wrote: > Reggie is a wet behind the ears DE. I don't imagine he's much farther along the path to magical wisdom than Harry is right now. Could Harry have retreived that locket from the basin on his own, or even with help from a loyal Kreacher? I seriously doubt Reggie was capable of it either. And how did Reggie know it was a locket that was at the bottom of the basin? In fact, what makes anyone believe someone of Reggie's caliber could have found out about LV's Horcruxes, where the cave is, where the blood door is and how to open it, how to find LV's boat, and how to defeat the green liquid? Carol: How did he know any of those things? He ordered Kreacher to tell him< IMO. Kreacher would have told him, for example, what spell Bella put on the cave entrance to make it demand blood. Or, better yet, LV would already have put that spell on the cave entrance and Bella would supply the blood. Maybe that's why she brought Kreacher along, so he could supply it and do anything else that might be unpleasant. > Mike: > Carol made a suggestion that Bella borrowed Kreacher (which I don't think Wolfburga would allow and can't understand why Bella would ask. Doesn't Bella have a house elf in her family, or better yet, wouldn't > she borrow Dobby from her sister before she goes beggaring to her > aunt?). Carol: There's no evidence of any house-elf in Bellatrix's own household, and she certainly wouldn't borrow Dobby, whose loyalties are suspect, when she could borrow Kreacher, who dotes on her. I don't know why she would need a house-elf to accompany her if she didn't need someone to drink the poison, but if she did, it makes absolute sense to me that she'd borrow one who worships the ground she walks on. Mike: > But if Reggie learned about the Horcrux from Bella's bragging at his house, before she made the deposit, that changes everything. Carol: This part I agree with. The bragging probably occurred before she hid the locket, when (IMO) she came to borrow Kreacher (who, BTW, is still loyal to the Dark Lord, a point I'll support later). And I can't see Bella letting the real Horcrux out of her possession for a second. She would just tell Aunt Walburga (who thinks enough of her to have her photo inthe house) that she had an important mission for the Dark Lord and needed to borrow Kreacher, who would have been delighted to oblige, and Reggie would have questioned Kreacher later. (How he knew that the locket was a Horcrux, or the Horcrux was a locket, I'm not sure. Surely, Bella isn't crazy enough to reveal her master's most important secret. Or maybe she bragged again after she'd accomplished her mission, directly to DE!Reggie under the delusion that he was loyal. Regardless of whether he swapped the lockets in the cave or before, that's the sticking point for me. How did Regulus find out that the Slytherin locket was a Horcrux?) Mike: Then, Reggie would be capable of transforming one of his mother's lockets into looking like the Slytherin Locket well enough to fool Bella. Carol: Again, the locket looks *nothing* like the one that Harry saw in the Pensieve memory. If Reggie can do Transfiguration at all, surely he's capable of adding a Slytherin symbol to an ordinary locket? Heck, everything in the Black house has Slytherin symbols on it--snakes on the chandeliers and the doorknobs. Surely, his mother had a locket that would look more like the real one than the plain locket Harry found with Dumbledore's body. Surely, he could Transfigure a snake into a Slytherin "S." To leave the locket plain and unadorned is a dead giveaway, and Bella would not be fooled. It also *feels* different, lighter than the original locket. And Bella may be crazy, but she isn't an idiot. She can tell a locket with a symbol on it from a plain locket just as she can tell Sirius Black from Severus Snape, two wizards of the same age both of whom have long black hair. > Mike: And I doubt that she was ever going to open it to find that note. > Besides, he could easily have charmed it shut without having to put a curse on it. Carol: But it *isn't* charmed shut. It falls right open when DD falls from the tower. And the idea that "maybe the charm would wear off" is just grabbed out of the air. (Sorry, Mike, but even Jelly-Legs requires a countercurse, and "Stupefy" requires "Ennervate." Imperius requires a mental effort on the caster to be sustained, as does Crucio, but most hexes, charms, and jinxes don't operate that way as far as I can see.) If he wanted the locket to stay closed, he'd put something like a Permanent Sticking Charm on it--whatever spell is on the real Horcrux (the 12 GP locket) to make it unopenable. But he doesn't want that. He wants it to be easily openable so that Voldemort can read the note and see that he's been had. And it would be counterproductive to make it unopenable for Bella because it would then be unopenable for LV as well. Mike: > I like the second version :D As I said on another post, it makes sense to me that Bella was the one that deposited the (fake) locket into the basin. Also, as I've postulated before, I can easily see Bella showing up at her Aunt Wolfburga's house and bragging about what an honour that the Dark Lord bestowed upon her, making her responsible for hiding one of his Horc... oops, I'm not suppose to tell you that. > Carol: Yes, she must have shown up at Aunt Walburga's or Reggie couldn't have learned about the Horcrux. But she wouldn't have stayed long enough for Reggie to find a substitute locket (not Transfiguration necessary to make a plain locket into a plain locket) and somehow sneak the real Horcrux out of her pocket and substitute the real one. She's not going to spend the night at Aunt Walburga's and let Reggie or anyone else sneak into her room. I think that she simply wanted to borrow the house-elf. And, of course, she would have needed a very good reason for doing so--a dangerous and difficult mission for the Dark Lord. Mike: > I can also see all of this happening *after* the Blacks have come to the revelation that Voldemort is not who or what he says he is. Sirius told us it did happen, just not when. "They got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regelus was a right little hero for joining up at first." (Ootp p.112, US ed.) Since it was Sirius' "parents", plural, and his father died in the same year as Reggie, this revelation must have come pretty close to the time of Reggie swapping the lockets. That would mean that although they might have put up a good front for their neice Bella (knowing her loyalties), they would secretly be in opposition to Voldemort around this time. > Carol: They must have put up a pretty good front for Kreacher, too, if that's the case. He remains devoted to both his master ("snogging" his unwizardly trousers, crying over his ring) and his mistress ("Oh, what would my poor mistress think?"), especially his mistress, *and* to "Miss Bellatrix": "By the looks of it, hers was Kreacher's favorite photograph; he had placed it to the fore of all the others and had mended the glass clumsily with Spellotape" (504). Moreover, Kreacher disapproves not only of "Mudbloods" (Hermione) and "blood traitors" (the Weasleys) but of the Order, with its "werewolves (Lupin) and traitors (Snape?) and thieves (Mundungus)" (OoP Am. ed. (107-08). When Sirius threatens him with clothes, he retorts, "Master must do as Master wishes, but Master will not turn Kreacher away, no, because Kreacher knows what they are up to, oh, yes, he is *plotting against the Dark Lord*, yes, with these traitors and Mudbloods and scum" (118). So even if Sirius is right that the adult Blacks came to disapprove of Voldemort's methods (perhaps after Reggie's death?), Kreacher has had no such conversion, nor does he think that Mrs. Black would approve of having Order meetings in her house. And we know where Kreacher went after Sirius ordered him out of the house. He couldn't go to Bellatrix, but he did the next best (or worst) thing--he went to her sister Narcissa, a loyal follower of the Dark Lord and the wife of a Death Eater, who in turn passed Kreacher's information on to Voldemort. If your view of the Blacks' loyalties is accurate, why would Kreacher, their devoted servant, still be loyal to the Dark Lord and his most fanatical follower, Bellatrix Black Lestrange? Mike: And why did Reggie expect to be dead by the time Voldemort read the note? I have wild theory about this, but it might make the Horcrux problem not as overburdening as it seems to be at this point of the story. > > If Reggie was made "dead" by DD and Snape, he could now be hidden by a Fidelius. But what I like better is that the Metamorphmagus gene runs in the Black family. And Tonks isn't the only one. We've all been wondering why JKR introduced us to the concept without taking it somewhere. Maybe Reggie is where. Maybe Reggie is out there right now, disguised as someone else, and doing Dumbledore's bidding. If Reggie has taken up the Horcrux hunt from a long time ago, maybe Harry doesn't have that many to find and destroy after all. > Carol: JKR has taken pains to establish that Sirius was the last of the direct male line. And there's no hint of Reggie's being a Metamorphmagus. Sirius himself calls him an "idiot." Surely, he'd have made some contemptuous remark about his not even being able to put his Metamorhmagus talents to good use if he were one. And JKR herself has said that he's dead. What she actually said: "He's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days" is different from what she's been misquoted as saying: "He's dead these days so he's pretty quiet." Dead is dead; clearly, Regulus expected his disloyalty to be discovered and to be killed for it. Sirius says that he was murdered, presumably by Death Eaters, which indicates that Regulus was right. Now, granted, there are hints that the Order has hidden people after faking their deaths, but for sixteen years? I think the faked death we'll find out about in DH is Emmeline Vance's and it will involve Snape's use of the Draught of Living Death to fake an AK; otherwise, I see no point in introducing her into the plot. As for Harry not having to find so many Horcruxes after all, he doesn't need Reggie to find the unopenable locket from OoP. If Kreacher didn't hide it, Mundungus stole it. And he should be out of Azkaban fairly quickly. If not, there's Aberforth, who may be operating as a fence for Mundungus. That Horcrux will be easy to track down. And as for destroying it, surely that's why curse-breaker Bill is part of the story. Who'll reveal the backstory? Kreacher, of course--a living character who has not yet played his full part. There's a reason JKR had Harry inherit him, after all. Mike: > As to why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry all this? I'll answer that with another question: why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry the real reason he trusts Snape? Carol: But asking that question doesn't answer the first one. Snape is a central mystery in the books; hiding Regulus would be a minor matter, not worth lying about or concealing. And surely Dumbledore wouldn't fear Bellatrix's inheriting Kreacher or consider Harry to be Kreacher's master if Regulus were alive. The magic doesn't work that way, AFAIK. Mike: > Of course this beggars the question, why did DD take Harry to the cave if he already knew there was no Horcrux there? Carol: Surely he wouldn't have done so, drinking that horrible poison "for nothing" (as Harry thinks when he finds the fake Horcrux), weakening himself to the point that he can't even defend himself against Draco, making it almost inevitable that Snape's UV would be triggered, and, most important, needlessly exposing Harry to the danger of the Inferi, which he knew were in the water because of Harry's Accio, if he didn't expect it before. If DD knew that the Horcrux was a fake, he would not have gone to all that trouble and endured all that suffering. He would have told Harry to go to Regulus, who had the Horcrux. Or, more likely, he'd have obtained the Horcrux from Reggie and destroyed it himself a long time ago. Dumbledore seems to have started suspecting multiple Horcruxes around the time of CoS. Why, if Regulus were alive and had the Horcrux in his possession, wouldn't DD have known about the Horcruxes--and destroyed that one--long before? Sorry, but it makes no sense. Mike: > There may be a couple of real simple answers to the cave trip. Reggie never told Dumbledore that he got that Horcrux out, and there is sparse to no communication between them now. Or, Dumbledore knew that the locket was at 12 GP, but it went missing back during OotP. So he takes Harry to recover the fake locket, knowing that Harry will now take up the hunt for the real one. And Dumbledore knows that Reggie can't return to 12 GP, but Harry can, he owns the place now. Carol: I can't imagine Regulus not confiding something so important to Dumbledore, who has gone to all this trouble to locate the cave when it would have been so much easier to question Reggie. And DD was not present when HRH, the Weasley, Sirius Black, and Lupin were house-cleaning, or he'd have recognized that locket immediately from Bob Ogden's memory. He doesn't know it's there or he'd have destroyed it immediately--no disastrous cave expedition necessary. > Mike: > I know it's not foolproof theory, but it does cut JKR's on-page > workload way down. And it keeps DH from becoming a wall to wall > Horcrux hunt, not something anybody would want. > > Mike, waiting for the lumberjacks to chop this one down :) > Carol: I did my best! I agree with you that JKR should have made it clearer why DD thought it was necessary to drink the potion (aside from the fact that potions are usually drunk), and I don't think his claim that LV would have wanted to question the drinker is plausible. I also think that the need for a person whose magic wouldn't be detected by the boat is an important clue, and Kreacher fits the bill. Carol, who absolutely does not want Dumbledore to have drunk that poison for nothing, knowing that the Horcrux was a fake P.S. Quick question for Marion: If DD was faking the torture in the cave, was he also faking the weakness that allowed Draco to disarm him? He could fake weakness, possibly, but how do you fake a deathlike pallor? Not buying it at all. C. From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Mar 5 20:02:12 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:02:12 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. Just a thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Keith Island" wrote: > > Hi All, I am fairly new to this group and I just wanted to add some of > my theories if I may. I have read the books and I am now listening to > the audiobooks because it is easier for me to multi-task > I have always thought that R.A.B. meant Regulus Black but listening to > the audiobooks the name RABastian LeStrange hit me. I have no proof > just a thought and would love to hear folks ideas. I have read others > post about maybe Bellatrix hiding the locket and that Regulus Black is > her cousin so yeah it fits that he could have done the old switcheroo. > But Rabastian is her brother-in-law and maybe he had something against > Bellatrix or his brother. Again this is just a thought so please bear > with me. I ENJOY THIS GROUP YEAAAAAAHH.. > > mkisland Well, swipe me, I had exactly the same thought last night. Rather I was wondering what Rabastan was doing in the books, and then the Rab bit hit me. I don't think Rab is Rabastan though. For one thing, he is still alive, and I think it is fairly clear that the writer of the locket note knew s/he was on borrowed time. We also have no back story on Rabastan, whereas we have the right sort of back story on Regulus- deatheater realising he's made a big mistake, dead before the septology begins, with a reckless, brave brother whose characteristics he may share. I think the reason Rabastan is there as a spare part is because he was intended to be the husband of Andromeda Black, before she ran away with Ted Tonks. Deprived of his bride, he hangs around lamely with his brother and sister in law. Just my theory. Leah > From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Mar 5 23:25:49 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:25:49 -0000 Subject: Snape & Draco WAS A Defense of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165753 > Eggplant: > > I hope JKR doesn't pursue this, trading Dumbledore's life for > > slime ball Draco seems like a poor idea and a very poor plot > > element. Valky: I don't see it as a poor plot element, myself. And I am quite sure it won't be denied, rather it will probably be confirmed, that DD would have, and did consider it a noble and worthy cause that his death was, among other things, a protection of Draco's young life. > Carol: > Well, I'd rather that she hadn't brought in the Unbreakable Vow and > had Snape kill Dumbledore on the tower because I hate what it's done > to Snape. (Either I'm wrong and he's evil or he's suffering > unendurable mental anguish and traded the reluctant trust of his > fellow Order members for the hatred of the whole WW and terrible > danger.) I'd much rather that Dumbledore had died from the poison or > even that Draco had succeeded in killing him. when I said "better > Snape than Draco," I was expressing what I believe to be JKR's and > Dumbledore's view, not my own. Valky: LOL Carol :) if Snape is anything but pure evil, he sure has a way with martyring himself, doesn't he. As you know my what my position is regards to the tower events, I won't rehash it all over again, I'll just say I find myself more inclined to JKR's view here, it is better Snape than Draco, and better it appears to be Snape than appears to have been the poison, which is just too big an information leak in the bigger picture, were that the case. Sympathy to what may be Snape's position comes into it for me but not to the extent where I would think it better to protect him than Draco, not to the point where I think Snape just a helpless victim all his days. If you and I are right, a lot has been asked of Snape in the last couple of years of his life, that's true, but I think it factors strongly that there is 25+ years of his life which we can only speculate upon, and those years surely meter it and demonstrate a Snape that has made his own choices freely, a Snape who *is* responsible for his own predicaments and battles and choices therein. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 00:42:39 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:42:39 -0000 Subject: Locket swapped, Regulus dead (Was Re: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped?) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165755 > > Goddlefrood earlier: > > The other small matter that reinforced me in the view that Reggie > > is deceased is the sequence of events in HBP (Wills and Won'ts ? p. 54): > > " 'Black family tradition decreed that the house was handed down > > the direct line, to the next male with the name Black. Sirius was > > the very last of the line as his younger brother, Regulus, > > predeceased him and both were childless' " > > Shortly after this Kreacher obeys Harry so proving (not entirely > > conclusively, but pretty well) that there are no other direct > > descendents surviving. > > Debbie responded: > I see this argument frequently, and I can't see how it's supported > by canon. Dumbledore does not summon Kreacher to prove that Sirius > has no direct descendants. Kreacher was summoned and tested to > determine whether there was a spell or enchantment on 12 Grimmauld > Place that would preclude Harry from inheriting it ( e.g., > precluding ownership by anyone except a pureblood). Goddlefrood: First, a hearty thanks for cutting out the main part of my argument that Regulus was dead. Second, the quote I used does tend to support the conclusion that Regulus is dead, which I mostly based on the tapestry, rather than the will, btw, for those who did not read my previous. Oh, and Kreacher was not summoned to check out the status of any potential enchantments but merely to find out if Harry had *actually* inherited, which was proven to be the case due to Kreacher's shutting up as soon as told to do so by Harry. I would also refer to the qualifier in my previous (that's the bit in brackets). Goddlefrood, a little tetchy this cloudy Fiji day From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 00:52:18 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:52:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165756 Celia wrote: didn't Harry attend Aragog's funeral? What was that, if not a funeral? Why does Harry dismiss it? A little human-centric bias there I think! Dondee responds: Aragog had a burial not a funeral. A funeral is the ceremony held before the burial. Also, it is only ever refered to as a burial in the book. Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Mar 6 01:38:23 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:38:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165757 > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. > Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed the > same pattern as Voldemort? Does proclaiming oneself > a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle heritage? houyhnhnm: If Snape is the Half Blood Prince (and I'm still not completely convinced), then I think his calling himself the Half Blood Prince is the first indication in the books that the dour, acerbic Man in Black has a sense of humor, and a self-mocking one at that. Calling himself Half Blood is not renouncing his Muggle heritage. It is a constant reminder. And "Prince" is just a surname. That is the difference between them I think. "Half Blood Prince" is a private joke. Tom Riddle's "Lord Voldemort" is no laughing matter. > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held > his peace about the book only because by exposing > Harry he would inevitably expose himself? houyhnhnm: I don't know what he would be exposing that anyone familiar with his history didn't already know. Snape didn't have actual evidence, since Harry successfully hid the book. He knew from practicing Legilimency on Harry that a potions book was involved, but he didn't have proof. I think Snape was very much afraid, at this point, of what Harry's actions might precipitate and didn't want to rock the boat. > 8. We are specifically told that this is the first > funeral Harry has ever attended. Can we judge of the > death rites in the Potterverse by this ceremony? Since > Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give him "a proper > send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, > burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. > Do wizards usually bury their dead or do they usually > cremate them? > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, > of the onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's > body combusted. And another thing, did it ignite all by > itself, or did somebody set fire to it? houyhnhn: At Odo's funeral, "they laid him to rest"-sounds like a burial to me. The bursting into flames struck me as unexpected. It makes me wonder just what *were* they planning to do with Dumbledore's body? > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny > accepts Harry's decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse > to do so. Even stranger, Harry does not really attempt > to talk them out of sharing his destiny. (And still > more strange seems his surprise at Ron and Hermione's > reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more > important than love? Even so, Ginny is not just a > girlfriend; she is a friend as well. houyhnhnm: To me, there is something odd about Harry and Ginny's relationship altogether. I'm not a SHIPPER and had no vested interest in any other outcome. I can see, intellectually, why Ginny is right for Harry and vice versa, but I feel no empathy for them. I've assumed it is because Rowling is not much good at writing love scenes. I suspect that Ginny is not much interested in being part of a quartet. She wants to be half of a duet. > 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very > distinctly to Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the > Turtle." The phoenix lament, the anthem, and the > central episode with the funeral fire. Is this > supposed to be a clue to the relationship between > Fawkes and Dumbledore? houyhnhnm: I was unfamiliar with "The Phoenix and the Turtle". Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I saw a program sometime or other that proposed that the sonnets that seem to be celebrating Platonic (or possibly even homoerotic) love were actually Shakespeare's response to the death of his son. I don't have an opinion on the poem's connection to Dumbledore and Fawkes, but I will certainly keep it in mind while I am reading Deathy Hallows. From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 01:43:51 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:43:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > Questions: 3. What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning of the > chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the shock of Dumbledore's death, or was he damaged irrevocably in some ways? Dondee: I don't know what you mean by apathy here. Harry is not avoiding people like he did after Sirius died, nor is he spending hours on end laying on his bed staring into space. IMO, Harry has matured signifigantly and is handling his grief very well - it is his feelings and thoughts towards Snape that he is not handling well. 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the > onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. > And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire to it? Dondee: The way I read the account in the book, Dumbledore was not cremated - the flames were part of the spell to erect the tomb. "Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay: Higher and higher they rose, obscuring the body."(pg. 645) The height of the flames obscure the body and the table from view - they don't envelope or engulf the body. "In its place was a white marble tomb, encasing Dumbledore's body and the table on which he had rested."(pg. 645) Encasing DD's body, not ashes. Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 03:34:22 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:34:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Locket swapped, Regulus dead (Was Re: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped?) In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0703051934p36abb468y65d09f63d2f47327@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165759 Goddlefrood: Second, the quote I used does tend to support the conclusion that Regulus is dead, which I mostly based on the tapestry, rather than the will, btw, for those who did not read my previous. Goddlefrood, earlier: The tapestry clinches this for me. The dates of birth and death of Black family members are recorded. Walpurga's date of death is noted as 1985. I propose that the tapestry, being itself magical, records the deaths of the family as they come up, and this would be the case even if no one is around to tell the tapestry. Debbie: The tapestry is *evidence* that Regulus is dead. However, it doesn't clinch it. Evidence can be unreliable. Barty Crouch Jr.'s grave was evidence that he was dead, but it was a lie. If we could prove that the tapestry was enchanted like the Marauder's Map or the Hogwarts quill, that would be proof. However, the enchanted tapestry is just a theory. Theories are perfectly welcome, of course, and this one is supported by the existence of many enchanted objects in the Potterverse. But there is no direct evidence; in addition, the fact that the tapestry didn't regenerate itself when Mrs. Black blasted people off it may be evidence that it was not enchanted (or at least that it doesn't tell the whole truth). We just don't know. Goddlefrood: Oh, and Kreacher was not summoned to check out the status of any potential enchantments but merely to find out if Harry had *actually* inherited, which was proven to be the case due to Kreacher's shutting up as soon as told to do so by Harry. Debbie: Kreacher was summoned to find out if Harry had actually inherited in accordance with Sirius' will, or if some kind of enchantment prevented it from being carried out. It wasn't a test to find out whether Regulus was alive. Dumbledore states: "While his will makes it perfectly plain that he wants you to have the house, it is neverhteless possible that some spell or enchantment has been set upon the place to ensure that it cannot be owned by anyone other than a pure-blood." . . . "And if such an enchantment exists, then the ownership of the house is most likely to pass to the eldest of Sirius' living relatives, which would mean his cousin, Bellatrix Lestrange." I think the point of mentioning "Black family tradition" (and Regulus' death) is to support Dumbledore's belief that any enchantment would result in Bellatrix inheriting the house. The phrase was not necessary to explain the need to summon Kreacher to determine if, in Harry's words, "I am allowed to own it." Dumbledore said that Regulus was dead, but he could have been mistaken. Again, everyone thought Barty Crouch Jr. was dead, too, and we know how reliable that was (not!). Goddlefrood: I would alkso refer to mthe qualifier in my previous (that's the bit in brackets). Debbie: You may have missed my qualifier, in which I conceded that the odds are not with Regulus, who most likely has long since departed this mortal coil. Debbie noting that the best theories are always supported by canon evidence, but that they remain theories for lack of proof [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 05:12:08 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:12:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > > Celia wrote: > didn't Harry attend Aragog's funeral? What was that, if not a > funeral? Why does Harry dismiss it? A little human-centric bias there > I think! > > Dondee responds: > Aragog had a burial not a funeral. A funeral is the ceremony held > before the burial. Also, it is only ever refered to as a burial in the > book. > > Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< > Hi Dondee! Allow me to say that I am feeling odd about replying at all because I really think this is a very small and unimportant point that is of no real significance to anything, but I DO think that Harry attended a funeral for Aragog. Hagrid is dressed in a black armband, there are guests (I know, sort of, as none of them are there for Aragog except Hagrid, but Slughorn even puts on a special cravat), and Slughorn makes a poignant eulogy for the big guy (as insincere as it is, he does say some nice words- "May your many-eyed descendants ever flourish," etc.)). It is an "observance held for a dead person usually before burial," which is what my dictionary calls a funeral. I can almost picture an earlier draft of the entire chapter about Aragog called "After the Funeral" instead of "After the Burial," but once JKR realized she wanted Dumbledore's funeral to be Harry's first, she had to go back and change the word "funeral" to "burial" throughout this chapter. Nonetheless, it is technically a funeral, IMHO, and it think it is authorial convenience that Harry et al choose to call it "burial" so that Harry can have his special funeral moment later. To me it is one of the troubling plot vs. story moments in HBP. For the effect of the story, it is special and meaningful and essential that Harry's first experience with a funeral is Dumbledore's. I'm glad it is. But for purposes of the plot, he has to attend Aragog's funeral first. So JKR just uses semantics to hide that fact. Again, who cares really? But I want to give Hagrid his props- I think he threw a nice little funeral for his good old friend Aragog. Celia always partial to Aragog for some weird reason, and sad that he died without getting to do anything else interesting From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 05:57:49 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:57:49 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165761 Hi all! In the continuing ramp up to July 21, here is the second installment of the "And in The End " series, a chance to focus on some of the events of an earlier book that might come into play in DH. This post focuses on that oft-maligned second novel, CoS. Here are a few items that may be important to The End, IMHO, and got their start in CoS. Each and every one of these items has been well discussed in the past, but what do you think now, as we approach The End? How will they conclude? 1. Dobby and the House Elves: Alright, not my favorite part of the series, but bound to be important nonetheless. So, here is my proposition does anyone want to put forth a satisfying prediction/theory as to how the house elves will be liberated and help the Order in DH? I'd love for someone to get me jazzed about House Elves! In more CoS-related action, what is it about Dobby that makes him so attached to Harry from the first moment? Why would he be loyal to Harry or think anything positive about Harry if his entire life was spent at the Malfoy's? Could he have belonged to someone else in the past? Now that we have seen a different house-elf being loyal (Kreacher), we know how hard it is for a house elf to break its family rules. Why is Dobby able to do it so successfully? How will he (inevitably) help Harry in The End? What will free the house elves powerful magic? 2. How is it possible that Voldemort entrusted one of his horcruxes (the diary) to Lucius Malfoy? Or did he? Where might Lucius have found it? Do you think this is evidence that other horcruxes (besides/in addition to the locket) may have been moved from their original hiding places and protections? Would Voldemort really have distributed some of them to his followers? Who else might have one? Did Lucius have a clue about the true nature of the diary when he gave it to Ginny? Does he know about the horcruxes? 3. Was there a larger point to the entire Deathday party scene besides a fun side-story about ghost culture for all of us? Will the Headless Hunt, the ghosts, etc. get to play a real role in DH? Might these long-dead spirits have some key info on Horcruxes or any other subject for HRH? 4. Do you think there is more than one secret in the Chamber of "Secrets"? Will there be a return to the Chamber in The End, or was it truly The Chamber of One Secret Basilisk? 5. The Dueling Club (on my list of top-ten favorite scenes in the series, I believe it comes in at #5) contains that lovely moment where it appears that Snape teaches Draco "Serpensortia" in order to attack/test Harry. (Now I wonder if that is an HBP spell!) What is Snape up to in this chapter? Why does he agree to be there at all? Why does he set up Harry and Draco? Why does he immediately offer to get rid of the snake for Harry? Why, Snape, why?! Basically, do we get any ESE/DDM/OFH help from his actions in this scene? 6. The Homorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? 7. An oldie, but a goodie. What do you think would have happened if Riddle had escaped from the diary by stealing Ginny's soul? Would he have been a second Voldemort, with a far different soul, partially Ginny, partially himself? Has the diary's destruction weakened Voldemort? Does Voldie know of the destruction of the diary? 8. Selfishly I just posted it to no response, so I won't again, but I'm always eager to discuss Aragog's origins and how I think that will be key to The End. See post 106761 for my old theory and 164920 for my most recent additions. I'll never give up! 9. Anyone want to venture a theory that any of these uniquely CoS things will be important in The End? Colin Creevey Kwikspell The Flying Ford Anglia Gilderoy Lockhart Skele-Gro Justin Finch-Fletchley The Malfoy's Secret Chamber Under the Floor 10. Okay we've been here way too much already, but it is in CoS, so I must include it: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, thunder-struck. "It certainly seems so." (p.333, Am. PB ed.) So, Horcrux or not a horcrux, that is the question There is surely more fodder for The End in this small volume, CoS, so please add what I have forgotten and correct what I have doubtless gotten wrong. -Celia who had fun re-reading the CoS scene in Borgin and Burkes after just re-reading HBP, and realizing that now almost everything in that scene has been used- but what about the glass eye and the hangman's rope? Coming soon in the series: And in the End PoA by Alla (yay!)_ And in the End GoF by Oryomai (yippee!) If you would like to start one of these threads about OotP or HBP in the months ahead, just e-mail me off-list so I can complete the schedule. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Mar 6 09:33:16 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:33:16 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cdayr" wrote: > 1. Dobby and the House Elves: Alright, not my favorite part of the > series, but bound to be important nonetheless. So, here is my > proposition does anyone want to put forth a satisfying > prediction/theory as to how the house elves will be liberated and > help the Order in DH? Brothergib replies: A lot of support for the theory that DH will end with a confrontation at Hogwarts. The House Elves are the only creatures who can apparate within Hogwarts which would make them extremely useful (providing the magical protection placed upon Hogwarts hasn't died with DD). An army of House Elves apparating around Hogwarts taking out Death Eaters - a bit too Star Wars perhaps!! As for their overall liberation, I'm not sure we'll see that come to pass! Celia again >In more CoS-related action, what is it about > Dobby that makes him so attached to Harry from the first > moment? Why would he be loyal to Harry or think anything > positive about Harry if his entire life was spent at the Malfoy's? > Could he have belonged to someone else in the past? Now that > we have seen a different house-elf being loyal (Kreacher), we > know how hard it is for a house elf to break its family rules. Why > is Dobby able to do it so successfully? How will he (inevitably) > help Harry in The End? What will free the house elves powerful > magic? > Brothergib again; I only have another question! How did Dobby come to Privet Drive in the first place? Surely the Malfoy's would never give him permission to leave the house! Then he consistently pops up at Hogwarts! I understand his loyalty to Harry, since house elves lives improved with the defeat of LV, but how can he get about so freely if he is enslaved - an oversight perhaps?? Celia; > 2. How is it possible that Voldemort entrusted one of his > horcruxes (the diary) to Lucius Malfoy? Or did he? Where might > Lucius have found it? Do you think this is evidence that other > horcruxes (besides/in addition to the locket) may have been > moved from their original hiding places and protections? Would > Voldemort really have distributed some of them to his followers? > Who else might have one? Did Lucius have a clue about the true > nature of the diary when he gave it to Ginny? Does he know > about the horcruxes? Brothergib; I think JKR has answered this one. LV wanted the diary to be used at some future date to open the COS. As a school governor, Lucius was the obvious candidate to get the diary into the school when LV demanded. Unfortunately, Lucius acted on his own initiative after LV's defeat. Lucius knew it was a tool to open the COS, but had no idea it was a Horcrux. Celia; > 3. Was there a larger point to the entire Deathday party scene > besides a fun side-story about ghost culture for all of us? Will the > Headless Hunt, the ghosts, etc. get to play a real role in DH? > Might these long-dead spirits have some key info on Horcruxes > or any other subject for HRH? > Brothergib; IMO, this isn't important. Maybe Nick might provide some link to Sirius, but I doubt it. Celia; > 4. Do you think there is more than one secret in the Chamber of > "Secrets"? Will there be a return to the Chamber in The End, or > was it truly The Chamber of One Secret Basilisk? Brothergib; Again, there has been a lot of speculation about the Deathly Hallows pertaining to an underground graveyard for the founders. If this is the case, it is possible that it is linked to the COS. Could young Tom Riddle have created another Horcrux with some artefact of the Founders that was found in such a graveyard? Or maybe he wants to get back there to make his final Horcrux! It ties in with DD question to LV to state why he really wanted to return to Hogwarts ('Lord Voldemort's Request' - HBP). Celia; > 5. The Dueling Club (on my list of top-ten favorite scenes in the > series, I believe it comes in at #5) contains that lovely moment > where it appears that Snape teaches Draco "Serpensortia" in > order to attack/test Harry. (Now I wonder if that is an HBP spell!) > What is Snape up to in this chapter? Why does he agree to be > there at all? Why does he set up Harry and Draco? Why does he > immediately offer to get rid of the snake for Harry? Why, Snape, > why?! Basically, do we get any ESE/DDM/OFH help from his > actions in this scene? Brothergib; It certainly seems the case that Snape wanted to test Harry with exposure to the serpent. My explanation was always that Snape wondered whether it was possible that Harry was opening the COS. He wanted to check whether Harry could speak Parseltongue. Whether Snape shared this info with DD is another matter! After this Snape was aware of Harry's LV-like powers, but still couldn't figure out how Harry could be used to open the COS. > Celia; > 6. The Homorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? Brothergib; Yes, but I think JKR has too many story arcs to deal with to worry about this. > Celia; > 7. An oldie, but a goodie. What do you think would have > happened if Riddle had escaped from the diary by stealing > Ginny's soul? Would he have been a second Voldemort, with a > far different soul, partially Ginny, partially himself? Has the > diary's destruction weakened Voldemort? Does Voldie know of > the destruction of the diary? Brothergib; We are told that LV was furious when he found out what Lucius had done to the diary. In fact, Draco's role in HBP is seen by some as punishment for Lucius' actions. If Diary Tom had reformed, then presumably Vapormort could have 'fused' with this new body, and the old LV would have been effectively reborn. The destruction of the diary is another lost piece of soul - but DD suggests that such a loss would by no means weaken LV's magical ability. > Celia; > 8. Selfishly I just posted it to no response, so I won't again, but > I'm always eager to discuss Aragog's origins and how I think > that will be key to The End. See post 106761 for my old theory > and 164920 for my most recent additions. I'll never give up! Brothergib; I think as a plot point Aragog has proven to be useful, but is of no further need. > Celia; > 9. Anyone want to venture a theory that any of these uniquely CoS > things will be important in The End? > Colin Creevey > Kwikspell > The Flying Ford Anglia > Gilderoy Lockhart > Skele-Gro > Justin Finch-Fletchley > The Malfoy's Secret Chamber Under the Floor Brothergib; No theory to venture!! > Celia; > 10. Okay we've been here way too much already, but it is in > CoS, so I must include it: > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, > thunder-struck. > "It certainly seems so." (p.333, Am. PB ed.) > > So, Horcrux or not a horcrux, that is the question Brothergib; DD states in OOTP that he was aware of LV's horcruxes when Harry handed him the diary. Therefore, he was thinking of horcruxes when he made this comment. IMO, this proves that DD suspected that Harry was/is a Horcrux. However, is this one of DD's mistakes? Or maybe LV reclaimed his soul piece when he was reborn in GOF (the reason for DD's look of triumph)! It also suggests that maybe LV wasn't trying to kill Harry, but use him. Might also explain why he tells Lily to 'stand aside you silly girl' i.e. i'm not going to kill him! I don't like the Harrycrux idea, but there is certainly strong canon evidence for it!! One final point. JKR has stated that Harry was well protected until GOF. This would suggest that Harry was protected when he faced LV and the Basilisk in COS. Since DD is no longer in the castle, how does he know that Harry is in the COS? He must be tracking Harry somehow - I just can't think of the how? Can anyone think of any direct evidence of DD's covert spying operation concerning Harry? Brothergib (interesting that LV never trusted Snape with the Diary. The one person with more access than Lucius). From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 11:35:01 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:35:01 -0000 Subject: Tapestry as evidence (Was Re:Locket swapped, Regulus dead) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0703051934p36abb468y65d09f63d2f47327@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165763 > Goddlefrood, earlier: > The tapestry clinches this for me. The dates of birth and death of > Black family members are recorded. Walpurga's date of death is noted > as 1985. I propose that the tapestry, being itself magical, records > the deaths of the family as they come up, and this would be the case > even if no one is around to tell the tapestry. > Debbie: > The tapestry is *evidence* that Regulus is dead. However, it > doesn't clinch it. Evidence can be unreliable. Barty Crouch Jr.'s > grave was evidence that he was dead, but it was a lie. Goddlefrood: Perfectly true, and unfortunately, I know this as well as anyone on the list, being a lawyer by profession. I said it clinced it for me and were I asked to argue the point, as I did, I would suggest it as compelling, though not irrefutable, evidence. I feel I should expand on my previous somewhat, now challenged. Here's roughly how I put it together: The tapestry hung and hangs in the Black household at Grimmaud Place. As at the time Mrs. Black died there were (a fair assumption) no others apart from Kreacher living at the house. Her date of death appeared on the tapestry as 1985. For that to be the case without someone around to sew it on, and I really can't see Kreacher doing it as he gives the impression that he still can't believe his old Mistress is deceased (and psychologically would be unable to sew the date on due to this being too final for him), then there has to be some method by which the tapestry enters these things itself. If I'm right, and I'm often not (quite deliberately sometimes), then the tapestry entered the date itself somehow (unless this is a slip by JKR). That being the conclusion I then concluded that Regulus's death would have been entered by the tapestry itself, notwithstanding the fact that Mummy was still alive when he died. Oh, here's where I throw in the possibility that Sirius gave his house to the Order to use well before the end of GOF, but they were unable to use it due to the enchantments on it until he (a Black, even if a blood traitor) entered the house himself. That would all tie back to the manipulative Dumbledore theory, but I am not about to expand further here. > Debbie continued (after some arbitrary snipping): > But there is no direct evidence; in addition, the fact that the > tapestry didn't regenerate itself when Mrs. Black blasted people > off it may be evidence that it was not enchanted (or at least that > it doesn't tell the whole truth). We just don't know. Goddlefrood: That's absolutely correct, it is just a theory, but quite a reasonable one. I don't think it needs confirming either way because after DH we will know for sure whether Regulus is alive or dead (even if he doesn't appear at all). > Debbie (quoting the hallowed canon, the bit after the snip): > Dumbledore states: > "While his will makes it perfectly plain that he wants you to have > the house, it is nevertheless possible that some spell or > enchantment has been set upon the place to ensure that it cannot be > owned by anyone other than a pure-blood." . . . "And if such an > enchantment exists, then the ownership of the house is most likely > to pass to the eldest of Sirius' living relatives, which would mean > his cousin, Bellatrix Lestrange." Goddlefrood: Doesn't alter the fact that the main purpose was to see if the will held. It's the terms you see, not the mechanics of what might happen if an enchantment were in place, that was being tested, which was my point. It's a fine distinction, but necessary to make. Finally, thanks to Debbie for agreeing with my point of Regulus being dead, even if the conclusion was arrived at differently. Goddlefrood, who better check some of those pending probates tomorrow. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Mar 6 11:49:57 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:49:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hickengruendler: First of all, thanks for the great sumary. a_svirn: > Questions: > > 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude > reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated > by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken > or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? Hickengruendler: I find the parents' reaction understandable. I do think Hogwarts is still one of the safest, if not the safest, place in Britain, but it has proven not to be safe from the Death Eaters. and in this case, I can understand the parents, who want to have their children around. I have, however, a nasty feeling that for some of them it will mean doom, when the families get attacked. Mrs Finnigan has married a Muggle. I wouldn't be surprised if the Death Eaters will attack the Finnigans just to set an example. I don't think extra safety measures are necessary right now, because the Aurors are there anyway for the funeral. But I assume there will be some in the new schoolyear. a_svirn: > 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right > in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does > proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle > heritage? Hickengruendler: IMO, no, Harry isn't right. Snape didn't call himself the "Pure-Blood Prince" and not even "The Wizard Prince", but he chose a nickname which instead of denouncing the fact, that he is a Halfblood, emphasizes it. The nickname is just as contradictory as the man himself. a_svirn: > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so > guarded? Hickengruendler: I think Hermione objected to the word evil to make Harry clear, that he isn't responsible for what happened. The book showed clearly the Prince's flaws (particularly with the Sectumsempra spell), which Harry ignored, but there's a long way from this to downright evil. Besides, it wouldn't have changed anything in regards to Dumbledore's death anyway. Even if Harry had gone to Dumbledore because he didn't trust the book any longer, and even if Snape would have been identified as the HBP, Dumbledore still wouldn't have believed, that Snape is on Voldemort's side. (And of course Dumbledore would have been right about this ;-) ). a_svirn: > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the > onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. Hickengruendler: I think it went as Dumbledore planned. If all of the guests expected it, I don't know. a_svirn: > 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" > monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to > Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon > Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the > merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous > absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about > house-elves. Do you think that is significant? Hickengruendler: It might be about the Goblins. From what we saw about the houseelves, they, (except Kreacher), seem to like Dumbledore. Dobby for sure does. So I don't think it is suspicious in regards to the houseelves. Maybe they just didn't want to be seen. a_svirn: > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? > Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? Hickengruendler: I have no idea. I don't understand Scrimgeour as a character and his motives, unless he is secretly working for Voldmeort. (Which I won't rule out.) Note that Voldemort blackmailed Fudge to leave him his office, but once Fudge retired and Scrimgeour got the office, there weren't any of those blackmail attempts, that we know of. So maybe Scrimgeour is Voldemort's minion. a_svirn: > 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's > decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, > Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his > destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and > Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for > Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? > Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. Hickengruendler: Yes, she is *a* friend. But she is not as close to him in this regards as Ron or Hermione. She is about on the similar level friendship wise as Fred, George and Neville. She doesn't even know about the Horcruxes or the prophecy currently. I think the explanation from without the storyline would be, that Ginny simply doesn't belong on the Horcrux hunt. It's the Trio, who are the central characters, and therefore it logically have to be them, to go on this mission together. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 6 14:37:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:37:19 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165765 ::Pippin does forehead slap:: Bet you a butterbeer I know why Dumbledore seemed to know so much about that nasty green potion in the cave -- he knew the guy who invented it. Not Voldemort, of course, but the erstwhile ESE!Snape. That explains *everything*. Snape could have told Dumbledore all about it when he defected. Dumbledore could then recognize it from Snape's description, do that little spell only to confirm that this was indeed the nasty stuff Severus had told him about, and know immediately what he could and couldn't do. He could also know that it will take some time to kill him and that Severus keeps the antidote prepared, just in case. That would be why he wants Snape and *only* Snape to attend to him. It would also mean that Dumbledore made the decision to die rather than get help at the moment when he froze Harry. It had nothing to do with the vow, IMO. It had to do with not outing DDM!Snape. Yes, maybe JohnWayne!Snape could have saved Dumbledore. But with DE's in the castle, Draco and Harry as eyewitnesses, with Rosmerta already aware that Dumbledore was dangerously ill, Snape couldn't have done it without revealing his true allegiance. And if he did, then vow or no vow, the one 'who I believe has left me forever' would be *dead*. If the vow didn't kill him, Voldemort would. The vow is really a beautiful piece of misdirection on JKR's part, to make us forget that if Snape reveals himself as Dumbledore's man he's going to be dead anyway. Does it make military sense for the commander to sacrifice himself for the genius? I don't know. But I know the US defeated Japan despite losing FDR. I'm not so sure it could have done without Einstein and Oppenheimer. But wait, there's more If we allow any legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape, then Dumbledore could easily tell Snape what had happened -- even if Dumbledore hasn't mastered Voldemort's trick of inserting entirely imaginary conversations into other people's minds, Dumbledore need only visualize the potion's name in writing for Snape to see it. Snape can know there's little chance of saving Dumbledore now. And he can know that he was in a way the instrument of Dumbledore's death. Thus the look of hatred and revulsion as he prepares the ruse that will preserve Dumbledore from Fenrir and preserve the illusion of ESE!Snape. Snape doesn't mind being called a coward for not fighting. He's following Dumbledore's orders and getting the DE's out of the castle before they can do any more harm. But he screams "DON'T" when Harry calls him a killer, and then follows up with "CALL ME A COWARD!" which hides the real reason for his anguish. He is by no means a coward. He is leaving his friend, Dumbledore, to face death alone, so that he can obey his friend's last wish and save Draco who has rejected him, and Harry whom he despises. So ::takes deep breath:: even if Dumbledore died of the poison, Snape may have killed Dumbledore, or at least contributed materially to the means of his death. If Snape invented the potion and Dumbledore died of it, we get a whole tragedy of sin coming home to roost without losing the reality of Snape's attempt to redeem himself. Pippin From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Tue Mar 6 09:24:01 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:24:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5033.78754.qm@web8407.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165766 First of all, very nice points..... I am trying to make personal responses for your doubts...I don't claim anything..... cdayr wrote the questions: 1. Dobby and the House Elves: We saw it in CoS that elves are far more powerful magical creatures than wizards. As the important and powerful characters from the Order side are dying or not available somehow, finally they will come to act, it's kinda war of good and evil, either you are on good or on evil side, no one can be neutral. Next, it's attitude, most of time most of the people felt proud of their powerful supremes, they can be masters, bosses, companions, rulers...anything. It is very difficult, but not impossible because then there would be no revolution by suppressed or slaves or such. That makes Dobby hate his masters. 2. Voldemort entrusted... Nah, he didn't trust Malfoy, but he was securing it for the future use, as was evidenced. No one knew about the Horcrux at that time, when Voldy went to play biggest gamble against the prophecy. He took measures if things got beyond control and put one of his parts in such hands so as to make it possible to survive again. I guess when he feels there is any danger to his life, he makes sure that his Horcrux is in such condition so that he again may come back. 3. Deathday party I guess yes.... there must be some clue. As in if you are not completely chopped off you can not join headless regime. She must have some point there which relates similarly to Horcruxes and other cases. 4. Chamber of "Secrets"? I guess no, not some significant secret. But there may be a return back to COS. 5. The Dueling Club Assuming Snape is not incarnation of devil, it is possible he tried to prevent the fact that HP can speak Parseltongue. Just assume he is with DD and here things settle well. 6. The Hormorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? For sure. 7. "What do you think would have happened if Riddle had escaped from the diary by stealing Ginny's soul?" He is a far more powerful wizard than others, is even Minister of Magic. Don't see Gin as girlfriend of HP, HP is a prophecy not Ginny. No one other than DD is there who doesn't fear him or who dares to challenge him. I think it's not a question "did he know about 'Diary destroyed'". 8. Selfishly old theories on Aragog Strangely, I read only e-mails. So I'm ashamed and sorry for this. 9. Uniquely CoS Sorry too tired to answer :p. But I do think they have some minor but important roles to play. 10. Too much already, I agree, and glad you realise, :p. Yeah HP is not a Horcrux but he does have some of the powers ( it's powers not parts) of Voldy the bad. regards avi_._,_.___ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 15:27:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:27:09 -0000 Subject: Snape as the HBP (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165767 houyhnhnm wrote: > > If Snape is the Half Blood Prince (and I'm still not completely convinced), then I think his calling himself the Half Blood Prince is the first indication in the books that the dour, acerbic Man in Black has a sense of humor, and a self-mocking one at that. Calling himself Half Blood is not renouncing his Muggle heritage. It is a constant reminder. And "Prince" is just a surname. That is the difference between them I think. "Half Blood Prince" is a private joke. Tom Riddle's "Lord Voldemort" is no laughing matter. Carol responds: I agree with your reaction to the nickname (it's not a rejection of his Half-Blood heritage and not comparable to Lord Voldemort--now if it were an anagram of "Severus Snape," I'd be worried!). But it's not *just* a surname; the name "Prince" denotes royalty and works well for a pun or a self-deprecating joke (cf. the title of the book Harry glimpses in 12 GP, "Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy"). I suspect that the Pure-Blood Princes regarded their blood heritage rather as the Blacks and the Malfoys do, evidence of their natural superiority to Muggles, Muggleborns, and little Half-Bloods who besmirch the purity of the family name). I'm speculating here, but *the* Half-Blood Prince suggests that he's unique, the *only* Half-Blood in a family of Princes. But it can't be a rejection of his Muggle heritage or he wouldn't joke about it, even to himself. He'd pretend that he was a pureblood or just not think about it at all. (BTW, I don't suppose that all the Purebloods have tapestries or go around consulting wizarding genealogies, except possibly when they're looking for a marriage partner. And the Black tapestry goes back seven hundred years. Who's going to look that far back to see whether the name Snape is on there or not?) That asied, I don't understand how anyone could not believe that Snape is the Half-Blood Prince after reading HBP, which is Snape's book on two levels. The minor mysteries (who's trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone, who is releasing the Basilisk/identity of the Heir of Slytherin, who the real traitor is/Scabbers = Wormtail revelation, who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire/Crouch!Moody revelation, what's hidden in the DoM/meaning of the dreams) are always solved within a particular volume of the series. In HBP, the minor mystery is the identity of the Half-Blood Prince, for which we have clues throughout the book, notably Snape's reaction to Harry's reputation as a Potions prodigy, and his healing of Scctumsempra, and his Legilimencing the Potions book into Harry's mind and ordering him to bring his books, focusing in most detail on the Potions book and quizzing him over it. He's familiar with Sectumsempra and knows it didn't come from a library book. There's also the handwriting clue. The handwriting throughout the books--"This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince," the Bezoar line, the potions hints, and the spells, are all in the same cramped handwriting. Given all these clues, the reader should not be surprised that Snape is the Half-Blood Prince. He calls himself by that name ("I, the Half-Blood Prince"), which indicates that he knows full well that Harry has been using *his* book all year long to earn his false reputation as a Potions genius. (We already know that *Snape* is a Potions genius--that's been increasingly evident since Book 1--note especially Lupin's reliance on Snape for the Wolfbane Potion, which Snape made "perfectly.") Snape also tells us that the spells are his, which explains his rage at James for using Levicorpus on him. And just in case we have any lingering doubts, Hermione confirms for us that 1) Snape is a Half-Blood and 2) his mother's maiden name was Prince. And what about the chapter title, "Flight of the Prince"? Surely, that should clinch the matter? How, then, could the Half-Blood Prince, whose ancestry, Potions talents, and DADA talents match Snape's, not be Snape? (I've already mentioned the irony of Teen!Snape teaching Harry and Harry empathizing with Teen!Snape, which would be entirely lost if the HBP were anyone else? To have Snape lying on this point, in the place where the revelation is supposed to be (a la Fake!Moody as Barty Crouch) would be *major* misdirection on JKR's part. Yes, HBP is the first half of a two-part book and the Snape mystery is not yet solved. we still have to find out why DD trusted him, where his loyalties truly lie, why he changed sides (assuming that he did), why he took the UV, and why he killed dumbledore (assuming that it was a real AK). But in terms of its own minor mystery, HBP is a finished book. The Soceror's/Philosopher's Stone has been rescued and destroyed. The Chamber of Secrets has been entered. The Prisoner of Azkaban has been revealed as loyal to the Potters and to Harry. The Goblet of Fire has served its purpose and will not be back. The Order of the Phoenix has been identified (and the noneponymous secret of that book revealed). The Half-Blood Prince has also been identified, to Harry's mortification. No further revelation is necessary with regard to the book. The book is Snape's. The Half-Blood Prince is young Snape, the Half-Blood grandson of Pure-Blood Princes as I read it (he's *the* Half-Blood Prince, the one and only.) The spells are his. There's no reason to believe, based on his reaction to Harry's supposed Potions ability and his own known potion-making abilities ("even you, Severus" makes him the Charlie Weasley of potion-making, the absolute best until Harry came along with his supposedly superior abilities), that the potions are not his, too. And note that the Prince's Bezoar hint immediately makes Harry think of Snape's first Potions lesson. (It's a clue, folks!) Carol, who just does not get this compuslion to discredit Snape, especially on the part of DDM!Snapers From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 16:11:18 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:11:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165768 > Celia wrote: > didn't Harry attend Aragog's funeral? What was that, if not a > funeral? Why does Harry dismiss it? A little human-centric bias there > I think! > > Dondee responds: > Aragog had a burial not a funeral. A funeral is the ceremony held > before the burial. Also, it is only ever refered to as a burial in the > book. Actually, Aragog had both. Hagrid and Slughorn did their best to send him off with all the proper ceremony. Slughorn even went to the trouble of choosing an appropriate tie. And what about all that ritual drinking and singing? a_svirn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 16:13:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:13:54 -0000 Subject: Locket swapped, Regulus dead (Was Re: The Locket Horcrux - When Was It Swapped?) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0703051934p36abb468y65d09f63d2f47327@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165769 Debbie: > The tapestry is *evidence* that Regulus is dead. However, it doesn't clinch it. Evidence can be unreliable. Barty Crouch Jr.'s grave was evidence that he was dead, but it was a lie. > > If we could prove that the tapestry was enchanted like the Marauder's Map or the Hogwarts quill, that would be proof. However, the enchanted tapestry is just a theory. Theories are perfectly welcome, of course, and this one is supported by the existence of many enchanted objects in the Potterverse. But there is no direct evidence; in addition, the fact that the tapestry didn't regenerate itself when Mrs. Black blasted people off it may be evidence that it was not enchanted (or at least that it doesn't tell the whole truth). We just don't know. Carol responds: I certainly agree that evidence in the HP books can be unreliable and tha JKR is fond of red herrings. However, if all the evidence points in one direction and there's no counterevidence, it's probably safe to conclude that Regulus is probably dead, at least if we assume that Regulus and RAB are the same person. Evidence that Regulus is dead: 1) The tapestry provides a date of death. As Goddlefrood noted, this date must have appeared on the tapestry magically rather than being put there by Walburga, who certainly didn't put on the dates of birth and death for people born before she was. The tapestry is 700 years old. Nor could she have put her own death date on the tapestry, but it's there, if the copy at the Lexicon is anything near accurate. (I have some doubts about thirteen-year-old fathers, but that could just be JKR's bad "maths.") 2) His own brother says that he was murdered, either by Voldemort himself or more likely by Death Eaters. (Inference: His body was found with a Drak Mark over it.) 3) Dumbledore refers to Sirius Black as the last of his line. 4) Kreacher has to obey Harry. (Bellatrix doesn't count; he'd obey her if he could, but she's not in the direct line of Orion and Walburga Black.) If Regulus, a member of that direct line were alive, I don't think that Kreacher could magically be compelled to obey Harry. 5) JKR has said straight out that Regulus is dead "He's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days." 6) RAB states that he'll be dead by the time that the Dark Lord reads his note. This bit of information fits with what we know about Regulus. &) JKR has also discounted the Regulus = Stubby Boardman theory. Counterevidence: Dumbledore says, in a line excised from all editions except the American hardback, "They can't kill you if you're already dead). This line, addressed to Draco, has been taken to mean that the Order is in the habit of hiding people and faking their deaths. If that interpretation is correct, a number of candidates seem more likely than Regulus, given the evidence for his death already cited, including Ollivander, Florian Fortescue, both of whom have disappeared without a trace (as did a member of the original Order whose name escapes me), and Emmeline Vance, whose death could have been faked by Snape using the Draught of Living Death (why else haave him mention it in "Spinner's End"?) Am I missing something? Where else can we find evidence (as opposed to wishful thinking) that Regulus is not really dead? Harry doesn't need RAB's help to find the locket Horcrux. He just needs to figure out that RAB is Regulus and that the locket is the one they saw when they were cleaning 12 GP. And then, of course, he needs to find it again (through Kreacher or Mundungus or Aberforth). > Debbie: > You may have missed my qualifier, in which I conceded that the odds are not with Regulus, who most likely has long since departed this mortal coil. > > Debbie noting that the best theories are always supported by canon evidence, but that they remain theories for lack of proof Carol: Agreeing that we should not confuse evidence, however strong, with proof, or theory with "fact," but believing that the evidence strongly supports Regulus's being both RAB and dead From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 17:17:09 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:17:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165770 > > 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about > the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose > himself? > > Carol: > No. All he would expose is that he's the author of Sectumsempra if he > revealed anything at all, and he was a kid at the time. a_svirn: Well, I would have revealed something of what sort of kid he was. But it doesn't seem to be an entirely sufficient reason, I agree. > Carol: It's not his > fault that Harry used the spell on Draco without knowing what it was. > He could have punctured Harry's reputation with Slughorn by revealing > that those Potions hints were his own, but he chose not to do so. I > think that he wanted to keep an eye on Harry himself and make sure > that he stayed well away from Draco. It would have been interesting, > however, if he'd told Harry on the spot whose Potions book that was. I > think Harry would have been more than willing to surrender his book to > Snape if he knew that it was Snape's. Too bad Snape didn't tell him > exactly how he knew that Harry was lying about finding that spell in a > library book. a_svirn: Too bad, indeed. But he could hardly do that for the sake of Harry's reputation. Must have been some other reason. > > > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so > guarded? > > Carol: > First of all, she's right. The Prince isn't evil, and much of the book > is either genuine Potions improvements resulting from a studious > teenage boy's research or useful spells like Muffliato or minor hexes > like the toenail hex and Langlock. The hexes and the Bezoar joke do > demonstrate a slightly nasty sense of humor little different from, > say, Ron's. (And HBP!Harry reminds me of James, hexing people in the > hallways. No wonder he thought the HBP might be his dad-- same "nasty" > sense of humor.) a_svirn: Oh, yes, I quite agree with you here. Perfectly reasonable for him to make a connection. > Carol: The only Dark spell or other element in the book that > we know of is Sectumsempra, and it's the product of a desire for > revenge not all that different from Harry's or Sirius Black's. a_svirn: Well, I agree it bespeaks a desire for revenge, but it hardly the same desire that Sirius harboured (or Harry still does). Sirius wanted to kill Pettigrew ? perfectly understandable desire, if illegal. Harry wanted to kill Sirius when he thought him responsible for his parents' death. He couldn't bring himself to do it then. Perhaps now, when is older and embittered, he can bring himself to kill Snape, as he says he will. We don't know. But neither Sirius, nor Harry employed their talents to invent a new torturous ways of killing. A man who kills his enemy is not necessarily evil, a man who impales or skins alive his enemy for his own entertainment is. And a young Snape was somewhat inclined in that direction or he wouldn't have invented the curse. > Carol: As for > Hermione's being "guarded," she probably doesn't want to risk his > anger by reminding him that he used Sectumsempra or by defending the > teenage Snape. But I hope it's a sign that she's going to look a > little deeper into Snape's past, maybe finding out things that Harry > will need to know. Maybe she'll spot the holes in his version of the > events on the tower as well. a_svirn: I don't see how she can, though. She does not know what we do. She wasn't a fly on the wall at Spinner's End. (Not that it would have helped her to understand Snape *better*, but it would have certainly kept her powerful mind occupied for some time). She wasn't present at the Tower; didn't see Snape's expression; didn't hear Dumbledore's plea. She didn't witness the altercation between Snape and Harry, when Snape obviously spared Harry. And I'll bet that Harry didn't dwell on those details as he recounted his version of events. She also knows ? from Harry ? that the reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape was the latter's remorse about playing his part in the Potters' death. She may or may not be sceptical about this particular disclosure, but that's all she has to go by. On the face of it, she has absolutely no reason to doubt Snape's betrayal. And no reason to be "guarded". > > > 7. Here is another thing that has been much discussed but should > to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind > of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something > else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister or > a priest ? Rowling's description of him seems deliberately ambivalent. > It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion in > the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. > Now, why is that? > > and > > > 8. We are specifically told that this is the first funeral Harry > has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the Potterverse > by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give > him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, > burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards > usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? > > Carol: > To answer the second question first, it appears that wizards are > usually buried. The Dementors buried what they thought was the body of > Barty Crouch Jr. and his mother had a small, private funeral after > Crouch Sr. faked her death and now has an empty grave. (I assume it > contains an empty casket, but maybe it's just a gravestone marking > nothing.) But there's no evidence of cremation. a_svirn: Oh, great, I forgot about that (and thanks houyhnhn for reminding about Odo). Yes, it seems that burial in a conventional way of doing things in the WW. Which makes Dumbledore's funeral all the more interesting. > Carol: There's such a thing as a soul in the WW > and, unless it's sucked by a Dementor, it's immortal. Death is not the > end of all things but "the next great adventure." I don't know where > all this leads, but I think the existence of God is implied but not > stated in the books. If JKR lived in another time, she would not have > been so hesitant to make the outlook of the books overtly Christian, > and fundamentalist Christians would not have so profoundly > misunderstood them. a_svirn: I am not sure that overt Christianity can be reconciled with that horcrux business, though. Her take on the immortal soul is very unorthodox, and I am almost sure, that the events of the funeral are part of her peculiar metaphysics. > > > 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the > onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. And > another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire > to it? > > Carol: > I think it went exactly as planned, tomb, apparent combustion, and > all, or Hagrid would have been in hysterics. But who or what caused > the combustion to happen, I have no idea. a_svirn: I may be wrong, but considering the quantity (and quality) of the coincidences with the poem, I think it was Fawkes who lit up the fire by incinerating himself. > > > 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. > What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it > Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? > Or something (-one) else? > > Carol: > It wasn't Fawkes, who is immortal and will, I think, become Harry's in > DH. My present thought--subject to revision in response on other > people's ideas--is that the smokelike Phoenix was the spirit of > Dumbledore taking flight to the other world. (Cf. Saruman's spirit > trying to enter the Uttermost West, except that DD's spirit is not > refused entry to heaven or whatever lies beyond the Veil.) I'm hoping > that a similar Phoenix will become Snape's new Patronus. a_svirn: But this is the world where a mortal can challenge Death by renouncing his mortality. Why not an immortal do the opposite for the sake of "love and constancy"? It is exactly what happened in the poem, and, after all, another significant absence at the funeral was Fawkes. He had sung his farewell song in the previous chapter, but where did he go afterwards? My take is ? straight to the fire. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 17:26:04 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:26:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165771 > > 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, > > the words she actually uses can be at best described as > > understatements ???'? "`?asty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being > so > > guarded? > > Hickengruendler: > > I think Hermione objected to the word evil to make Harry clear, that > he isn't responsible for what happened. a_svirn: That's where she turned their conversation eventually, yes. But I don't see why she needed to repudiate the word "evil" for that purpose. She could have said something like "you couldn't possibly guess how evil he is, Harry". But she *is* remarkably restrained when she talks of Snape. Even when Harry calls him "murderer" she agrees as though against her better judgment, "well yes." And then turns the subject. It is almost tempting to speculate if she knows something we don't. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 6 18:10:33 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:10:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165772 > > Hickengruendler: > > > > I think Hermione objected to the word evil to make Harry clear, > that > > he isn't responsible for what happened. > > a_svirn: > That's where she turned their conversation eventually, yes. But I > don't see why she needed to repudiate the word "evil" for that > purpose. She could have said something like "you couldn't possibly > guess how evil he is, Harry". But she *is* remarkably restrained when > she talks of Snape. Even when Harry calls him "murderer" she agrees > as though against her better judgment, "well yes." And then turns > the subject. It is almost tempting to speculate if she knows > something we don't. Magpie: I think that could be true. Not that Hermione specifically has information we don't, but it's very like her to have started puzzling things out herself and perhaps realize she's a DDM!Snaper! Hermione's very often the one to figure out what's really going on with what people are doing where Harry only looks at the surface. She might not know Snape well, but she's always trusted Dumbledore and may simply not believe Dumbledore was so fooled. Also she's got reason to defend DDM!Snape anyway, having always dismissed Harry's doubts about Snape in the past. I don't just mean that Hermione's pride is at stake so she doesn't want Harry to be right. I mean she may have given thought to this matter in the past just as many readers have each time Harry brought up his suspicions, so she's not ready to let them go. She herself never, iirc, called the Prince "evil" either, just a bad influence on Harry, and she may have begun theorizing about things she doesn't know regarding Snape and Dumbledore now that the shock is over. If Hermione's anything like me in this respect (and I get the feeling she is), she never wants to be wrong, so she is hesitant about making an extreme judgment too quickly. It's also her pattern to hold an opinion or say what they should do and then, when everyone else is convinced, suddenly question it herself. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 6 18:11:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:11:51 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] And in The End...CoS Message-ID: <3683795.1173204711386.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165774 From: cdayr >Could he have belonged to someone else in the past? Now that >we have seen a different house-elf being loyal (Kreacher), we >know how hard it is for a house elf to break its family rules. Why >is Dobby able to do it so successfully? How will he (inevitably) >help Harry in The End? What will free the house elves powerful >magic? Bart: I think the point there is that, while house elves have a built in need to obey a master/mistress, they also have definite preferences in who they would like to have as a master/mistress. THAT cuold be fixed. cdayr: >3. Was there a larger point to the entire Deathday party scene >besides a fun side-story about ghost culture for all of us? Will the >Headless Hunt, the ghosts, etc. get to play a real role in DH? >Might these long-dead spirits have some key info on Horcruxes >or any other subject for HRH? Bart: I haven't said so yet, but it seems to me that if anybody could stick around as a ghost to take care of unfinishd business, and then move on, it's Dumbledore. cdayr: >diary's destruction weakened Voldemort? Does Voldie know of >the destruction of the diary? Bart: There was SOME canon about that, IIRC; one of the reasons Voldy was upset with Lucius. cdayr: >10. Okay we've been here way too much already, but it is in >CoS, so I must include it: > >"Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, >thunder-struck. >"It certainly seems so." (p.333, Am. PB ed.) > >So, Horcrux or not a horcrux, that is the question It was not intentional, so not a horcrux. Not some of Voldemort's soul, but some of his power. Bart From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 18:14:01 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:14:01 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Celia; > > 7. Does Voldie know of > > the destruction of the diary? > > Brothergib; > We are told that LV was furious when he found out what Lucius had > done to the diary. Celia: I totally forgot about that! Thanks for the reminder. >Brothergib: > One final point. JKR has stated that Harry was well protected until > GOF. This would suggest that Harry was protected when he faced LV and > the Basilisk in COS. Since DD is no longer in the castle, how does he > know that Harry is in the COS? He must be tracking Harry somehow - I > just can't think of the how? Can anyone think of any direct evidence > of DD's covert spying operation concerning Harry? Good point! I have always been of the mind that Snape (among others) is assigned to follow and protect Harry as much as possible, explaining his various appearances at opportune and non-opportune times throughout the books, but that is hardly a foolproof protection, and certainly Snape was not lurking about in the back of the Chamber of Secrets to pop out and save Harry. I assume that the protection that Harry had through GoF was LVs inability to touch him, and LVs incorporeal form. Do you agree or is there more that I am forgetting? Do you think Diary!Tom could have touched Harry if he had become completely real? In terms of his ability to see what happens in CoS, or spy on Harry, could DD have a direct connection to Fawkes that allows him to follow Harry's progress in the Chamber? I think of the DD:Fawkes relationship as a mirror to the LV:Nagini relationship, and we know LV can possess and see through Nagini's eyes. Might DD have a similar, less sinister ability with Fawkes? > Brothergib (interesting that LV never trusted Snape with the Diary. >The one person with more access than Lucius) -Celia, still unsure about why LV would trust any of his horcruxes to his followers for any reason. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 18:16:03 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:16:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165776 > > Celia wrote: > > didn't Harry attend Aragog's funeral? What was that, if > not a > > funeral? Why does Harry dismiss it? A little human-centric bias > there > > I think! > > > > Dondee responds: > > Aragog had a burial not a funeral. A funeral is the ceremony > held > > before the burial. Also, it is only ever refered to as a burial in > the > > book. > > > > Cheers, Dondee >^,,^< > > > > Hi Dondee! > Allow me to say that I am feeling odd about replying at all > because I really think this is a very small and unimportant point > that is of no real significance to anything, but I DO think that Harry > attended a funeral for Aragog. a_svirn: I think it is significant. In some ways Aragog's burial is a counterpoint to Dumbledore's funeral service. The former is a farce, but it shows the usual procedure. The latter is a tragedy, but here something very unusual is going on > Celia: Hagrid is dressed in a black > armband, there are guests (I know, sort of, as none of them are > there for Aragog except Hagrid, but Slughorn even puts on a > special cravat), and Slughorn makes a poignant eulogy for the > big guy (as insincere as it is, he does say some nice words- > "May your many-eyed descendants ever flourish," etc.)). It is an > "observance held for a dead person usually before burial," which > is what my dictionary calls a funeral. a_svirn: hear, hear! > Celia: > > I can almost picture an earlier draft of the entire chapter about > Aragog called "After the Funeral" instead of "After the Burial," but > once JKR realized she wanted Dumbledore's funeral to be > Harry's first, she had to go back and change the word "funeral" to > "burial" throughout this chapter. Nonetheless, it is technically a > funeral, IMHO, and it think it is authorial convenience that Harry et > al choose to call it "burial" so that Harry can have his special > funeral moment later. a_svirn: Or maybe she wanted to bring our attention to the difference between the two? Hagrid couldn't allow the spiders to eat Aragog's body because it isn't "proper" (for humans, presumably, since it's perfectly natural for the spiders, and I'll bet not even Aragog himself would have objected to this.) Obviously, he thought burial is just the thing. And from the way he and Slughorn carried off the whole business of burial it is clear that they followed some kind of established procedure. > Celia > always partial to Aragog for some weird reason, and sad that he > died without getting to do anything else interesting a_svirn: As Malcolm said (in Macbeth), "Nothing in his life Became him like the leaving it" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 18:44:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:44:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White TOMB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165778 --- "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > ... I suspect that Ginny is not much interested in being > part of a quartet. She wants to be half of a duet. > bboyminn: To the last part about Ginny wanting to be part of a duet rather than a quartet, I absolutely agree and tried to make that point very strongly in one of my previous posts. 'Friend' is very very different than 'Girlfriend'; friend time is inclusive, and absolutely, girlfriend time is exclusive. Girlfriend time is reserved for the loving couple alone. As to not feeling empathy for Harry and Ginny, and thinking it is because JKR is not good at writing 'love scenes', let me say that we are never going to see, and should have never expected to see, anything even remotely close to a 'love scene' in the HP books. That is simply not what these books are about. Any platonic, more intimate, or even physical love is going to be referenced in the most indirect and metaphorical manner. At best we will see Harry and Ginny in physical closeness as we do in the common room scene where they are discussing tatoos. Maybe a quick kiss or a hug, but hot, naked, and sweaty never were and never will be, and should never have been expected to be, in any of these books. Any romance is going to be eluded to superficially because it is not the central theme of the story. You should have never expected 'well written romance' because this is not a romance story. That aspect is secondary to the central story and is not part of a book for general audiences. (I hesitate to say 'children's book'.) For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 20:38:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:38:46 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165780 Celia wrote: > This post focuses on that oft-maligned second > novel, CoS. Here are a few items that may be important to The > End, IMHO, and got their start in CoS. > > 1. Dobby and the House Elves: Alright, not my favorite part of the > series, but bound to be important nonetheless. Carol: Ugh. Not mine, either. To venture a guess, if there's an attack on Hogwarts, and there surely will be, the house-elves will somehow help fight Voldemort. And here's a reason for the school to stay open--if it doesn't hordes of unemployed house-elves will descend on the WW, seeking what? Employment? Wages? Rights? With Dumbledore dead, who's in charge? Will they consider McGonagall their mistress? Will they have anything to do with no students to cook for and do laundry for? No beds to make or messes to clean up? (Keep the school open, McGonagall, if you have any sense at all!) > > 2. How is it possible that Voldemort entrusted one of his horcruxes (the diary) to Lucius Malfoy? Or did he? Where might Lucius have found it? Do you think this is evidence that other horcruxes (besides/in addition to the locket) may have been moved from their original hiding places and protections? Would Voldemort really have distributed some of them to his followers? Who else might have one? Did Lucius have a clue about the true nature of the diary when he gave it to Ginny? Does he know about the horcruxes? Carol: I think that Voldemort started to feel concerned about the safety of his Horcruxes after he heard the Prophecy. I also think that he entrusted the locket to Bellatrix, actually telling her it was a Horcrux (she doesn't know about the others, IMO) and gave her instructions on where and how to hide it. He must have hidden the ring Horcrux himself, possibly soon after it was created since the protections seem crude compared with those on the locket. He entrusted the diary, which was always intended to be interactive and worked differently from the other Horcruxes, to Lucius, revealing its original purpose and how it worked but not telling him that it was a Horcrux. Nagini, even if she was a Horcrux at that point (DD doesn't think she was, but I wonder) would not need to be hidden. She can look out for herself. I have no idea where the others are (the RoR seems the most likely location), but I don't think he entrusted them to anybody. He didn't have that many fanatically loyal followers, and Barty Jr. doesn't seem to have had one. And if he'd given one to Snape and then later doubted Snape's loyalties, Snape would certainly be dead. I think, though, that Snape knows about the Horcruxes thanks to DD. He and Slughorn are the only living people besides HRH and Bella (who, IMO, knows about one and may have told the Lestrange brothers, as well--soul-sucked Barty Jr. doesn't count now) and LV himself who know about them, in my view. Lucius, like the other DEs, only knows that LV took measures to ensure his immortality. If he and the others had known about even one Horcrux, they'd never have dared to claim the Imperius Curse, or they'd have escaped Azkaban only to go and look for him, as the Lestranges and Barty Jr. seem to have done. They'd have known that LV would return and punish them for their disloyalty if the y knew he had even one Horcrux. (Snape is another matter. It's hard to know how much he, a Dark Arts expert, suspected from an early age, meaning about twenty, and from his association with Dumbledore.) > > 3. Was there a larger point to the entire Deathday party scene besides a fun side-story about ghost culture for all of us? Will the Headless Hunt, the ghosts, etc. get to play a real role in DH? Might these long-dead spirits have some key info on Horcruxes or any other subject for HRH? Carol: I think that the Death Day party was primarily a plot device to insure that HRH were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I wonder if Snape really did suspect Harry of Petrifying Mrs. Norris, considering the Serpensortia spell he apparently suggested to Draco and his words to Bellatrix in HBP about the DEs wondering if Harry might be another Dark Lord in the making. (I think he questioned Harry on the first day of Potions class for the same reason, to find out whether there was any truth to the Dark!Harry rumors and, assuming the rumors proved false, dispel any delusions on the part of the DE's children that Harry was LV's successor. (The last thing the Prophecy Boy needed was Slytherin hangers on thinking he was the next Dark Lord.) But the Petrification of Mrs. Norris, obviously Dark magic, might have aroused his suspicions again, especially in combination of the "Enemies of the Heir, Beware" message and Harry's presence at the crime scene. I'm assuming DDM!Snape, of course. Oops--forgot about the ghosts. Like the house-elves and even the suits of armor and even Peeves, I think they'll rise up against the Death Eaters in DH. The place isn't quite as uninhabited as it seems. Bad news for the portraits, though, if the DEs get in. Good thing that the Headmaster's office (or Headmistress's now) can lock itself to prevent unauthorized entry (as it did against Umbridge). > > 4. Do you think there is more than one secret in the Chamber of "Secrets"? Will there be a return to the Chamber in The End, or was it truly The Chamber of One Secret Basilisk? Carol: Don't know. It would be a good place to hide a Horcrux, which would certainly qualify as a second Secret. > > 5. The Dueling Club (on my list of top-ten favorite scenes in the series, I believe it comes in at #5) contains that lovely moment where it appears that Snape teaches Draco "Serpensortia" in order to attack/test Harry. (Now I wonder if that is an HBP spell!) What is Snape up to in this chapter? Why does he agree to be there at all? Why does he set up Harry and Draco? Why does he immediately offer to get rid of the snake for Harry? Why, Snape, why?! Basically, do we get any ESE/DDM/OFH help from his actions in this scene? Carol: I do think that Serpensortia is an HBP spell, but Snape seems to think that Draco already knows how to do it. (Surely, conjuring a serpent out of thin air is rather advanced magic for a second-year and must require at least as much practice as turning a hedgehog into a pincushion? OTOH, this may be a case of plot requirements outweighing consistency and logic.) Also, we don't *know* that Snape whispered "Serpensortia." He may have whispered something else and Draco could have come up with that spell on his own. (Unlikely, I realize, but it's been suggested before.) I *do* think that Snape had his suspicions about Harry at this point and deliberately suggested that spell to see whether Harry was a Parselmouth. At any rate, the "shrewd and calculating look" on Snape's face afterwards (evidence that he's putting two and two together) looks to me like the confirmation of a pre-existing suspicion of a connection between Harry and the Basilisk (surely Snape and DD know by now that it's a Basilisk). The revelation that Harry speaks Parseltongue certainly points to a strong connection between Voldemort and Harry that Snape, former DE, DADA expert, and Dumbledore's righthand man (none of which Harry knows or suspects at the time), could not fail to see. Even if Harry *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin, as Snape seems to suspect, Snape would deduce that Harry has nevertheless acquired at least one of LV's powers, presumably as a result of the scar connection (or the killing curse that failed). I suspect that Snape had a good long talk with Dumbledore after the duelling club session about the implications of Harry's knowing Parseltongue. It's even possible that DD set up the duelling club in the first place to allow Snape to conduct that experiment, but I don't think so. Snape seems to have volunteered his services as Lockhart's assistant, no doubt with a variety of motives, including exposing Lockhart and actually teaching the kids a useful spell or two. I have no idea whether Serpensortia was part of the plan or a sudden inspiration, but I do think it either reflects or confirms Snape's suspicions of Harry's involvement in the only Petrification that has yet occurred, Mrs. Norris's. There's another important aspect of this duelling club meeting that you didn't mention. It's Snape's first opportunity to teach DADA and, "assistant" or not, he's very much in charge. Besides exposing Lockhart's ineptitude in front of virtually all the students, making an utter fool of him, as well as determining who should be partners with whom, Snape eliminates the effects of all their hexes and jinxes with a single "Finite Incantatem," vanishes the conjured snake with a nonverbal spell (Evanesco?) after Lockhart succeeds only in sending it into the air and enraging it, and teaches Harry and the others Expelliarmus, possibly the most important defensive spell they know. Harry and Ron first use it to disarm Lockhart (who later snatches Ron's damaged wand, to Lockhart's detriment). Harry uses it against Voldemort in the Priori Incantatem scene. All three of them use it against Snape himsself in PoA (obviously an unintended consequence of the lesson. Poor Snape!). It comes in handy at the DoM, IIRC. And Draco, alas, uses it against Dumbledore in HBP, another unintended consequence of that early lesson. But still, Snape has taught Harry two of his most important lessons--Bezoars and Expelliarmus. And we get hints here of exactly what DADA would be like if only he had been allowed to teach it before Harry's sixth year. If only the position weren't cursed (or jinxed, if you prefer). > 6. The Homorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? Carol: I don't think so. I think the Homorphous Charm only reveals whether an animal is an Animagus (surely it's the spell that Lupin and Black use on Pettigrew in PoA). Possibly, the witch or wizard whose story Lockhart stole in CoS used it to transform the werewolf long enough to reveal his identity, but if it could transform a werewolf permanently, or even for a single full moon, into himself, it would surely be in widespread use by Aurors and Healers. There would be little need for Wolfbane Potion, and werewolves could be easily controlled. Bill doesn't seem to be in danger of transforming into a werewolf, but there may be some unadulterated poison in those wounds--another reason I don't think he'll survive into the Epilogue. > > 7. An oldie, but a goodie. What do you think would have > happened if Riddle had escaped from the diary by stealing > Ginny's soul? Would he have been a second Voldemort, with a > far different soul, partially Ginny, partially himself? Has the > diary's destruction weakened Voldemort? Does Voldie know of > the destruction of the diary? Carol: Last question first: he knows of the destruction of the diary (presumably Voldie asked him about it and he was forced to confess), and the result was unexplained fury on Voldie's part. (DD's source for this info has to be Snape.) I don't think that the loss of a Horcrux affects him directly in any way. It's just one less soul bit anchoring him to earth, one less security blanket. And, of course, the magic of the number seven is all spoiled and can't, IMO, be recreated by making an eighth Horcrux. He surely doesn't know about the ring being destroyed (he only knows what Snape has told him,that DD sustained a serious injury as the result of slowed reflexes) or about the stolen fake locket, any more than he knew that the original locket was stolen. As for what would have happened if a fully animated Diary!Tom had met Vapor!mort, I asked the same question and received no answers. Maybe Vapor!mort would possess his own young body, becoming doubly strong. I can't imagine Diary!Tom attempting to kill his older self, his future self, and if he knew about the Horcruxes (I'm not sure that he did), he'd realize that doing so was futile, anyway. Vapor!mort, being virtually indestructible, would probably win the contest if there was one. (I'm open to other readings, however. JKR says it would have made Voldie stronger, and I'm trying to figure out how. We can't have two Voldies running around interfering with each other's power grab, can we?) > 8. Selfishly I just posted it to no response, so I won't again, but > I'm always eager to discuss Aragog's origins and how I think > that will be key to The End. See post 106761 for my old theory > and 164920 for my most recent additions. I'll never give up! Carol: Sorry. No thoughts on the subject. I'm more interested in where Nagini came from and how Quirrell got Vapor!mort into England before Voldie had possessed him, but oops, wrong book! > 9. Anyone want to venture a theory that any of these uniquely CoS > things will be important in The End? > Colin Creevey > Kwikspell > The Flying Ford Anglia > Gilderoy Lockhart > Skele-Gro > Justin Finch-Fletchley > The Malfoy's Secret Chamber Under the Floor Carol: Not all of these items/people are unique to CoS. Colin Creevy acquires a brother in GoF and becomes a member of the DA (along with Dennis, whose adventure with the giant squid seems rather pointless at the moment but may foreshadow something). Gilderoy Lockhart reappears in OoP as the means of getting HRH into the closed ward, where they learn about the Longbottoms. Skele-gro is mentioned by Draco in GoF ("Her's me thinking he [Hagrid] swallowed a bottle of Skele-gro]. Kwikspell, I think, is merely a clue that Filch is a Squib, a concept that becomes important later in connection with blood purity and Arabella Figg, my favorite Squib. The Flying Ford Anglia is probably hanging out with Sirius Black's flying motorcycle. I expect both to reappear in DH, along with the Centaurs and your beloved Acromantulas. Justin Finch-Fletchley I don't know about. As a Muggleborn, he seems likely to return to Hogwarts. His parents won't know about the Death Eaters or even about the death of Dumbledore if Justin keeps quiet. And the Malfoys' secret chamber, which obviously wasn't found when Mr. Weasley did another raid on the Malfoys' manor because *Harry forgot to mention it* is undoubtedly where Bellatrix Lestrange is hiding. (Draco may hide there, too, if he doesn't stay with Snape. After all, he's an accessory to murder and guilty of criminal endangerment in his own right.) > > 10. Okay we've been here way too much already, but it is in CoS, so I must include it: > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, thunder-struck. > "It certainly seems so." (p.333, Am. PB ed.) > > So, Horcrux or not a horcrux, that is the question Carol: Anyone who doesn't know that I think Harry acquired some of Voldie's *powers* without becoming a Horcrux hasn't been reading this list more than a month. "A bit of himself" (Harry's words, not DD's) need not mean a soul fragment. > > -Celia > who had fun re-reading the CoS scene in Borgin and Burkes after just re-reading HBP, and realizing that now almost everything in that scene has been used- but what about the glass eye and the hangman's rope? Carol: Don't know about the hangman's rope (mere background to disguise the importance of other items in the scene, rather like the box of wartcap powder in OoP?), but maybe the glass eye foreshadows Mad-Eye (without actually being his). Thanks for an enjoyable chance to go in a different direction from the plethora of Snape and Horcrux posts. (Not that I ever get enough of Snape.) Carol, who still wants to know how Ron knew (in HBP) that Draco had the Hand of Glory, which Lucius does *not* buy for him in CoS From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 20:44:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:44:40 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165781 Pippin wrote: > Bet you a butterbeer I know why Dumbledore seemed to know so much about that nasty green potion in the cave -- he knew the guy who invented it. Not Voldemort, of course, but the erstwhile ESE!Snape. > > Snape could have told Dumbledore all about it when he defected. Dumbledore could then recognize it from Snape's description, do that little spell only to confirm that this was indeed the nasty stuff Severus had told him about, and know immediately what he could and couldn't do. > > He could also know that it will take some time to kill him and that Severus keeps the antidote prepared, just in case. > > That would be why he wants Snape and *only* Snape to attend to him. It would also mean that Dumbledore made the decision to die rather than get help at the moment when he froze Harry. It had nothing to do with the vow, IMO. It had to do with not outing DDM!Snape. > > Yes, maybe JohnWayne!Snape could have saved Dumbledore. But with DE's in the castle, Draco and Harry as eyewitnesses, with Rosmerta already aware that Dumbledore was dangerously ill, Snape couldn't have done it without revealing his true allegiance. And if he did, then vow or no vow, the one 'who I believe has left me forever' would be *dead*. If the vow didn't kill him, Voldemort would. The vow is really a beautiful piece of misdirection on JKR's part, to make us forget that if Snape reveals himself as Dumbledore's man he's going to be dead anyway. > > If we allow any legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape, then Dumbledore could easily tell Snape what had happened -- even if Dumbledore hasn't mastered Voldemort's trick of inserting entirely imaginary conversations into other people's minds, Dumbledore need only visualize the potion's name in writing for Snape to see it. Carol responds: Or an image of the potion itself? BTW, we do have evidence of looks of mutual understanding between *Harry* and DD (GoF), and Harry's attempt to convey a verbal message to Snape via Legilimency in OoP, which may or may not have worked (its effectiveness is masked by the spoken message a moment later, which Snape clearly did understand). > Pippin: > Snape can know there's little chance of saving Dumbledore now. And he can know that he was in a way the instrument of Dumbledore's death. > > Thus the look of hatred and revulsion as he prepares the ruse that will preserve Dumbledore from Fenrir and preserve the illusion of ESE!Snape. Carol: Or prepares to kill him because, between the vow and the potion, he has no choice for the reasons you've cited and others. And, of course, he has to get him off the tower, especially if he's going to die from the poison rather than the (fake?) AK. And the closed eyes indicate that this is no normal AK, as does first blasting and then floating him over the battlements to what appears to be a soft landing. > Pippin: > Snape doesn't mind being called a coward for not fighting. He's following Dumbledore's orders and getting the DE's out of the castle before they can do any more harm. But he screams "DON'T" when Harry calls him a killer, and then follows up with "CALL ME A COWARD!" which hides the real reason for his anguish. He is by no means a coward. He is leaving his friend, Dumbledore, to face death alone, so that he can obey his friend's last wish and save Draco who has rejected him, and Harry whom he despises. Carol: Agreed here on the first four sentences regardless of how DD died. And I like the last sentence as a clincher for DDM!Snape that those who can't accept a DDM!Snape who AKs DD because of the vow may be able to accept. (How about it, Sherry? Not self-preservation on Snape's part but an inability to save Dumbledore and a determination to do what DD wants at the expense of his own freedom and the trust of the Order? his soul wouldn't be split in this version because he wouldn't have intentionally killed dumbledore, only allowed him to die, very much against his will, from the potion he created?) But I still can't quite get past DD deliberately drinking the stuff. He must not have expected to find it there, and he must have thought that the Horcrux was real. I think he would only have come down to your reasoning once he recognized the potion and determined that it was indeed Snape's. (If you're right, that is. I'm still not sure.) > Pippin: > So ::takes deep breath:: even if Dumbledore died of the poison, Snape may have killed Dumbledore, or at least contributed materially to the means of his death. > > If Snape invented the potion and Dumbledore died of it, we get a whole tragedy of sin coming home to roost without losing the reality of Snape's attempt to redeem himself. Carol responds: It certainly makes Snape's position even more tragic and ironic, his own work as a DE coming around to haunt him with unendurable remorse. And we get a reason for Snape's return to Dumbledore and for remorse that precedes Godric's Hollow (something to do with the death of Regulus?) and for Dumbledore's trust in him. But it doesn't by any means answer all our questions. How can we link all this to RAB (and Bellatrix, who claims to have been entrusted with LV's "most precious--" treasures? Secrets? Whatever she started to say, she doesn't share it with Snape, nor does she believe that LV would confide in him as he in in her. And it makes sense for Bellatrix, a former Black, to be linked with the same Horcrux as RAB, her cousin, who seems to have stashed the real Horcrux in 12 GP before he had a chance to attempt to destroy it. (Could Reggie have died a slow death from Severus's poison? Doesn't seem to fit the few facts we have. I got the impression (from brother Sirius) that Reggie was AKd by Death Eaters, and I still think that his was the death that young Snape witnessed, the one that enabled him to see Thestrals. I almost like this theory, especially in terms of DD's wanting Harry to fetch Severus and only Severus. But I still don't think DD knew that the Horcrux was fake. I can't imagine him exposing Harry to the danger of the Inferi or making him forcefeed DD poison, risking both their deaths for a fake Horcrux. And whose memory is DD reliving? Is there a way it can be Snape's own? Also, I don't think we can dismiss the UV quite that easily. It's surely more than a red herring, as indicated by all that sinister imagery of flames and bonds at the close of "Spinner's End." Carol, intrigued but not fully convinced by this possibility From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 6 21:35:39 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:35:39 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White TOMB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165782 > bboyminn: > As to not feeling empathy for Harry and Ginny, and > thinking it is because JKR is not good at writing > 'love scenes', let me say that we are never going to > see, and should have never expected to see, anything > even remotely close to a 'love scene' in the HP books. > That is simply not what these books are about. Any > platonic, more intimate, or even physical love is > going to be referenced in the most indirect and > metaphorical manner. > > At best we will see Harry and Ginny in physical closeness > as we do in the common room scene where they are > discussing tatoos. Maybe a quick kiss or a hug, but hot, > naked, and sweaty never were and never will be, and should > never have been expected to be, in any of these books. > > Any romance is going to be eluded to superficially because > it is not the central theme of the story. You should have > never expected 'well written romance' because this is > not a romance story. That aspect is secondary to the > central story and is not part of a book for general > audiences. (I hesitate to say 'children's book'.) Magpie: Actually, I have to defend juvenile lit a bit there.:-) Children's books don't have sex (YA books do, and HBP is a YA book, but still obviously its style does not include graphic sex), but they can contain love stories. So I wouldn't say a lack of empathy for H/G as a couple is due to the age group of the books or that the lack of empathy couldn't be due to JKR not being particularly good at love scenes--or romance in general. Children's/YA authors have created plenty of couples to root for. There are of course plenty of H/G shippers rooting for them, but I don't think JKR is one of those authors who are good at creating those kinds of couples. (After all, there are plenty shippers of every pairing in canon, and it's not usually about literally what's in the text but what could be between the lines-H/G included.) JKR tends to write romance as plot points and not as real explorations of specific feelings between characters and I think that works fine for the books. But I think that's also the reason shipping takes place most off the page. You get when characters are supposed to fancy each other, but you don't feel it with them. At least that's my experience. -m From marchrpea at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 21:53:40 2007 From: marchrpea at yahoo.com (christie) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:53:40 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165783 christie: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, thunder-struck. It certainly seems so." (p.333, Am. PB ed.) So, Horcrux or not a Horcrux, that is the question I say no, because he wanted Harry dead. <<"Brothergib; We are told that LV was furious when he found out what Lucius had done to the diary. In fact, Draco's role in HBP is seen by some as punishment for Lucius' actions. If Diary Tom had reformed, then presumably Vapormort could have 'fused' with this new body, and the old LV would have been effectively reborn. The destruction of the diary is another lost piece of soul - but DD suggests that such a loss would by no means weaken LV's magical ability.">> I thought V's anger was Lucius' actions in the ministry in OP, not because of the diary. He didn't get the prophecy- it broke. ~christie From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Mar 6 23:08:20 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:08:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White TOMB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165784 bboyminn: > > As to not feeling empathy for Harry and Ginny, and > > thinking it is because JKR is not good at writing > > 'love scenes', let me say that we are never going to > > see, and should have never expected to see, anything > > even remotely close to a 'love scene' in the HP books. > > That is simply not what these books are about. Any > > platonic, more intimate, or even physical love is > > going to be referenced in the most indirect and > > metaphorical manner. Magpie: > JKR tends to write romance as plot points and > not as real explorations of specific feelings > between characters and I think that works fine > for the books. But I think that's also the reason > shipping takes place most off the page. You get > when characters are supposed to fancy each other, > but you don't feel it with them. At least that's my experience. houyhnhnm: a_svirn mentioned Jane Austin as an example of an author who doesn't write physical love scenes. Another is Mary Stewart. These are a couple of typical Mary Stewart love scenes: Later.... Much later.... Yet I care about the romantic couples created by both authors. For all the snogging that goes on, Harry and Ginny (or any of the other pairings in GoF and HBP) just leave me cold. It could be because Austin and Stewart write from the point of view of the female characters. (We are in the heads of Austin's heroines and Stewart's romances are written in the first person.) But I think Magpie is right, too. JKR is not interested in real explorations of feelings between the characters. The romances serve the plot. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 23:11:55 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:11:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165785 > > a_svirn: > > That's where she turned their conversation eventually, yes. But I > > don't see why she needed to repudiate the word "evil" for that > > purpose. She could have said something like "you couldn't possibly > > guess how evil he is, Harry". But she *is* remarkably restrained > when > > she talks of Snape. Even when Harry calls him "murderer" she > agrees > > as though against her better judgment, "well yes." And then > turns > > the subject. It is almost tempting to speculate if she knows > > something we don't. > > Magpie: > I think that could be true. Not that Hermione specifically has > information we don't, but it's very like her to have started > puzzling things out herself and perhaps realize she's a DDM!Snaper! > Hermione's very often the one to figure out what's really going on > with what people are doing where Harry only looks at the surface. > She might not know Snape well, but she's always trusted Dumbledore > and may simply not believe Dumbledore was so fooled. a_svirn: This doesn't look like a sound judgment, though. More like "it cannot be true because it can never ever be true". Why can't she believe that Dumbledore was fooled? He is only human. > Magpie: Also she's got > reason to defend DDM!Snape anyway, having always dismissed Harry's > doubts about Snape in the past. a_svirn: This sounds even less sensible. Not to say childish. > Magpie: > I don't just mean that Hermione's pride is at stake so she doesn't > want Harry to be right. I mean she may have given thought to this > matter in the past just as many readers have each time Harry brought > up his suspicions, so she's not ready to let them go. a_svirn: Ah, but then they were only suspicions. And Dumbledore was alive. Now she has to face facts. And the facts, as she knows them, are as follows: Snape was instrumental to the Potters' murder; Dumbledore trusted him because he was impressed by his remorse (granted, that's only Harry's interpretation, but that's the only one she has); Snape made a vow to kill Dumbledore and eventually he did kill him. She knows nothing about the circumstances under which he took the vow (not that it is very helpful knowledge as far as I am concerned, but perhaps she could have spotted something at Spinner's Endwe we all have missed so far.) She wasn't at the Tower and didn't see Snape's expression, nor did she hear Dumbledore's last words; she probably doesn't even know that Snape spared Harry's life when they dueled in "the Prince's flight". As far as she knows the facts, Snape *is* a traitor and a murderer. Which does rather bespeak evil disposition. > Magpie: She herself > never, iirc, called the Prince "evil" either, just a bad influence > on Harry, and she may have begun theorizing about things she doesn't > know regarding Snape and Dumbledore now that the shock is over. If > Hermione's anything like me in this respect (and I get the feeling > she is), she never wants to be wrong, so she is hesitant about > making an extreme judgment too quickly. a_svirn: But she *knows* that Snape murdered Dumbledore. It's not just a suspicion of "once a death eater, always a death eater" kind. It wouldn't be too extreme to call him "murderer" or even "evil" from where she stands. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Mar 7 00:00:53 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:00:53 -0000 Subject: Snape as the HBP (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165786 Carol: > How, then, could the Half-Blood Prince, whose > ancestry, Potions talents, and DADA talents match > Snape's, not be Snape? (I've already mentioned the > irony of Teen!Snape teaching Harry and Harry > empathizing with Teen!Snape, which would be entirely > lost if the HBP were anyone else? To have Snape lying > on this point, in the place where the revelation is > supposed to be (a la Fake!Moody as Barty Crouch) > would be *major* misdirection on JKR's part. houyhnhnm: I know how you feel about this one, Carol . So, I don't want to rake up the old arguments. (#156762, #156781 and thereabouts) Time will tell. Four months, two weeks, and one day. If it turns out that Snape *is* the Half Blood Prince, I will eat crow most willingly. On the other hand, if he isn't, I get to say, "Ha!". (JKR commit a major misdirection? Nevah!) > Carol, who just does not get this compuslion to > discredit Snape, especially on the part of DDM!Snapers houyhnhnm: I don't see how suggesting that Snape may not be the Half Blood Prince is discrediting him. We already know he's a genius. We didn't need the Prince's book to tell us that. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 7 00:26:55 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:26:55 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165787 > Carol: > But I still can't quite get past DD deliberately drinking the stuff. > He must not have expected to find it there, and he must have thought > that the Horcrux was real. I think he would only have come down to > your reasoning once he recognized the potion and determined that it > was indeed Snape's. (If you're right, that is. I'm still not sure.) Pippin: Agreed. From what Dumbledore said earlier about Voldemort's careless disposition of The Ring and The Diary, he wasn't expecting the sort of elaborate and dangerous protections he encountered. I doubt he would ever have taken Harry with him, and possibly wouldn't have engaged Harry in the horcrux hunt at all if he'd known. It was all predicated on the idea that Voldemort thinks no one knows about his horcruxes, after all, but evidently Voldemort did think someone might be coming after this one. I think if Harry had refused to give his word, or hadn't felt able to honor it, Dumbledore would have turned back. But I think he feared that there might never be a better chance at this horcrux if he did. Possibly this horcrux was guarded like no other because Voldemort realized that unlike Lucius, Bella had guessed what she'd been entrusted with. When he discovered that, Voldemort began to worry that someone else might guess too. Voldemort then decided to recover the horcrux from her and hide it in the cave, concealed with the potion Snape had invented for the Dark Lord's enemies. But what Voldemort wouldn't know was that Regulus had discovered Bella's secret already. What happened next is unclear. If the Vampire!Snape fiasco has taught me anything, it's that my second-order hypotheses from canon are highly entertaining (well, to me, anyway :) )but largely useless as a means of prediction. My sense is we just don't know enough right now to guess how the substitute locket ended up in the basin, though it's fun to try. I don't much like the idea that Kreacher drank the poison, though. House Elves are more sensitive to poisons than humans, not less. Consider poor Winky, sloshed on mere butterbeer. My guess is that if any House Elf drank twelve draughts of the goo, it'd be dead. I still think the switching spell Rowling showed us with the bookcovers has something to do with it. She certainly made sure we understand just how it works. Could a switching spell allow Slytherin's locket, with the horcrux inside, to assume the cover of the Black locket, while the Black locket, with the note inside, got the Slytherin cover? Then Regulus would swap the disguised lockets so that Bella had a locket with a genuine Slytherin outside, but the note within, while Regulus had a locket with the Black outside but the horcrux inside. All it would take is a sleeping draught in Bella's nightcap and she'd wake none the wiser, with Slytherin's locket still apparently safe around her handsome neck. When Voldemort recovered the locket from Bella nothing would seem amiss, since the outside would be perfectly genuine and, according to Dumbledore, Voldemort can't detect the presence or absence of his soul fragments. The seemingly intact Slytherin locket would then go into the green goo. There would be no reason for Voldemort to tell Snape what use he'd made of the recipe. Meanwhile, Regulus got killed before he could discover how to destroy the horcrux locket, which remained at GP. But when Dumbledore, who does know how to detect horcruxes, scooped the locket out of the goo, he suspected a switch. He was able to reverse the switching spell but not the swap, so that the locket then had its proper outside, that of the Black locket, and its proper inside, Regulus's note. There's not a lot of canon for Dumbledore's discovery of the theft, but he does stagger and lean against Harry when Harry tries to cheer him with the thought that at least they'd got the horcrux. I think he already knew they didn't. But meanwhile, perhaps, unbeknownst as yet to our heroes, the Slytherin locket at GP (or wherever it is now) has taken on its on its rightful form... It's a little complicated and would probably be easier to explain with diagrams. My compliments if you've followed all this. But I don't think we can rule it out on that ground. I usually have to re-read the ending chapters of Rowling's books three or four times before I even think I understand what happened. Carol: Also, I don't think we can dismiss > the UV quite that easily. It's surely more than a red herring, as > indicated by all that sinister imagery of flames and bonds at the > close of "Spinner's End." Pippin: I think the UV is like the prophecy. It has some importance, but not as much as the DE's think. The UV isn't a sacred promise at all -- it's a travesty of the whole concept, as I think JKR suggests by having Snape and Narcissa parody a wedding rite. If Narcissa thought Snape valued honor more than life, she'd never have asked for a UV in the first place. Snape was indeed bound by the magic to die if he broke the UVs, but he was *never*, honor-bound to keep them, except in so far as protecting and watching over Draco was already his duty as Head of Slytherin. But as for committing murder, no such promise could be sacred. Pippin From cdayr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 00:30:55 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:30:55 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Pippin wrote: > Bet you a butterbeer I know why Dumbledore seemed to know so much about that nasty green potion in the cave -- he knew the guy who invented it. Not Voldemort, of course, but the erstwhile ESE!Snape. > Snape could have told Dumbledore all about it when he defected. Dumbledore could then recognize it from Snape's description, do that little spell only to confirm that this was indeed the nasty stuff Severus had told him about, and know immediately what he could and couldn't do. > > He could also know that it will take some time to kill him and that Severus keeps the antidote prepared, just in case. > > That would be why he wants Snape and *only* Snape to attend to him. Celia: I want to get on board with this one. It fits nicely into my view of Snape as a man with so many regrets and pitfalls in his life that they come upon him at every turn. It also re-confirms that he is one incredible potion maker and that that is the skill be brought to the DEs, and it makes the scene on the Tower that much more poignant. I also think, rather than making the UV misdirection, it confirms the power of a UV- see below for my thoughts on this. Pippin: > Yes, maybe JohnWayne!Snape could have saved Dumbledore. But with DE's in the castle, Draco and Harry as eyewitnesses, with Rosmerta already aware that Dumbledore was dangerously ill, Snape couldn't have done it without revealing his true allegiance. And if he did, then vow or no vow, the one 'who I believe has left me forever' would be *dead*. If the vow didn't kill him, Voldemort would. The vow is really a beautiful piece of misdirection on JKR's part, to make us forget that if Snape reveals himself as Dumbledore's man he's going to be dead anyway. Celia: So, in your view (just making sure I understand) Dumbledore fully intended to call Snape to help him recover from Snape's own potion when they first return to the Tower, but upon realizing that Draco and the DEs are attacking, DD instantly shifts into a plan to protect Snape's cover, knowing he will die for it. Dumbledore's death by AK (or fake AK) over the battlements becomes the only way to save Snape and, as Carol has so clearly explained in the past, almost everyone else at Hogwart's. Do I have your theory right? I would add that this also conveniently allows Snape to fulfill his unfortunate UV because he is killing DD with the potion. Tangential note: If in the UV, Snape has only committed to killing DD if Draco appears to have failed, does he break the vow if he kills him *before* Draco has failed? Snape's potion would already be killing DD by the time Draco has arrived. I know Draco has sort of tried with the mead and the necklace, so it is a moot point, but interesting to think about Pippin: > If we allow any legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape, then Dumbledore could easily tell Snape what had happened Dumbledore need only visualize the potion's name in writing for Snape to see it. Carol responds: Or an image of the potion itself? BTW, we do have evidence of looks of mutual understanding between *Harry* and DD (GoF), and Harry's attempt to convey a verbal message to Snape via Legilimency in OoP, which may or may not have worked (its effectiveness is masked by the spoken message a moment later, which Snape clearly did understand). Celia: Based on Snape's response to Harry in OotP when Harry has shouted about "Padfoot" and the "place where it is hidden", I tend to think Snape did get Harry's mental message in that scene. Snape, as he continues to do all the way through Flight of the Prince, teaches Harry while scolding him, telling him, "Potter, when I want nonsense shouted at me I shall give you a Babbling Beverage." I other words, Shut up, Potter, no need to shout, I heard you. Or at least that is my interpretation (granted there are others). Therefore I also see no impediment to Snape and DD exchanging a number of mental images and messages about the potion and what to do next in the short moments on the Tower. Pippin: > Snape can know there's little chance of saving Dumbledore now. And he can know that he was in a way the instrument of Dumbledore's death. Celia: Here's where I see the UV coming into play, rather than being lessened. Snape kills DD and fulfills the vow without even meaning to, which to me seems like the appropriate result of an Unbreakable Vow- it has a will of it's own and get itself fulfilled in a way the person taking it cannot necessarily imagine. DD drinking Snape's green potion from years past would certainly be a nasty surprise way for the UV to fulfill itself. Carol: But I still can't quite get past DD deliberately drinking the stuff. He must not have expected to find it there, and he must have thought that the Horcrux was real. I think he would only have come down to your reasoning once he recognized the potion and determined that it was indeed Snape's. (If you're right, that is. I'm still not sure.) Celia: I agree with you here Carol, DD and Snape could not have anticipated this turn of events. I truly do not think DD knew what was in the cave, but put the potion together with info from Snape once he saw it. Pippin: > So ::takes deep breath:: even if Dumbledore died of the poison, Snape may have killed Dumbledore, or at least contributed materially to the means of his death. > > If Snape invented the potion and Dumbledore died of it, we get a whole tragedy of sin coming home to roost without losing the reality of Snape's attempt to redeem himself. Carol responds: It certainly makes Snape's position even more tragic and ironic, his own work as a DE coming around to haunt him with unendurable remorse. Celia: I have always believed that however DDM!, Snape killed DD. I like this theory because it adds the twisted element of the UV coming in and turning on Snape as well, so that he is responsible for DD's death even without taking action. Carol: And we get a reason for Snape's return to Dumbledore and for remorse that precedes Godric's Hollow (something to do with the death of Regulus?) and for Dumbledore's trust in him. But it doesn't by any means answer all our questions. How can we link all this to RAB (and Bellatrix, who claims to have been entrusted with LV's "most precious--" treasures? Secrets? Whatever she started to say, she doesn't share it with Snape, nor does she believe that LV would confide in him as he in in her. And it makes sense for Bellatrix, a former Black, to be linked with the same Horcrux as RAB, her cousin, who seems to have stashed the real Horcrux in 12 GP before he had a chance to attempt to destroy it. (Could Reggie have died a slow death from Severus's poison? Doesn't seem to fit the few facts we have. I got the impression (from brother Sirius) that Reggie was AKd by Death Eaters, and I still think that his was the death that young Snape witnessed, the one that enabled him to see Thestrals. Celia: Just throwing this out there what if Reggie did drink Snape's green potion to steal the locket horcrux, then ran to his potion expert friend from school, Snape, to get cured. Seeing his hopeless state, Snape himself is the DE who had to kill Regulus? Then Snape gets the glory of killing a traitor for LV, it appears that he died from the AK/fakeAK Snape uses, and no one ever knows better. Voila, Snape sees thestrals, everyone knows Reggie is killed by a DE, and the emotional toll on Snape for having to kill his friend drives him to the Order, pre-GH. Whew, full of holes, this idea is, but somehow, I like it and will think on it further Carol: And whose memory is DD reliving? Is there a way it can be Snape's own? Celia: Wish I had HBP with me to think over the lines again as possibly Snape's? How is it that I have every book here except that one? Carol: Also, I don't think we can dismiss the UV quite that easily. It's surely more than a red herring, as indicated by all that sinister imagery of flames and bonds at the close of "Spinner's End." Celia: I agree, and as I said, I think this theory actually strengthens the power of the UV. Draco is failing to kill DD throughout the book, and finally the vow has had enough and leads DD to a bowl of Snape's poison potion. That UV is powerful magic. -Celia, saying all this with very little confidence, but really intrigued by this entire idea and planning to think more about Snape and Regulus tonight. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 01:03:44 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:03:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165789 > > Magpie: > Also she's got > > reason to defend DDM!Snape anyway, having always dismissed Harry's > > doubts about Snape in the past. > > a_svirn: > This sounds even less sensible. Not to say childish. zgirnius: This depends on *why* she always defended Snape. She typically used Dumbledore's trust and greater knowledge of the facts to argue her position against Ron, the usual bad Snape advocate. If she has looked at the same facts the DDM! types around here have looked at and drew the same conclusions, this is a sensible reason to take a second look. She does know of three occasions when Snape went out of his way to try and save Harry. She may also know of his involvement with healing Dumbledore. These are all actions inconsistent with the idea he is and has always been a loyal Death Eater. > a_svirn: > Ah, but then they were only suspicions. And Dumbledore was alive. Now > she has to face facts. And the facts, as she knows them, are as > follows: Snape was instrumental to the Potters' murder; zgirnius: Even in Harry's version, the one she heard, this is supposed to be something he regretted. a_svirn: > Dumbledore > trusted him because he was impressed by his remorse (granted, that's > only Harry's interpretation, but that's the only one she has); zgirnius: Did Harry share his Pensieve memories of GoF with her and Ron? My book is not in Florida with me. If he did, she knows something made Dumbledore trust Snape before the Potters died. a_svirn: > Snape > made a vow to kill Dumbledore and eventually he did kill him. She > knows nothing about the circumstances under which he took the vow zgirnius: But she does know that Snape needed to be summoned by Flitwick, which is certainly a bit odd. Not in a "gee, he's good!" kind of way, but in a 'there is more than I know going on behind the scenes here' way that might invite further thought. Minor point, she does not know what Snape Vowed. Just that a UV with Cissy was made. The contents of the Vow were not overheard by Harry as Snape did not mention them. I don't think she would be thinking in terms of DDM!, but she might be seeing the possibility of Weak!Snape, anyway. There is enough there in my view to suggest he's not Voldemort's man. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 02:06:10 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:06:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165790 > zgirnius: > This depends on *why* she always defended Snape. She typically used > Dumbledore's trust and greater knowledge of the facts to argue her > position against Ron, the usual bad Snape advocate. If she has looked > at the same facts the DDM! types around here have looked at and drew > the same conclusions, this is a sensible reason to take a second > look. She does know of three occasions when Snape went out of his way > to try and save Harry. She may also know of his involvement with > healing Dumbledore. These are all actions inconsistent with the idea > he is and has always been a loyal Death Eater. > a_svirn: But we are not discussing whether he was or wasn't a loyal death eater. For all she knows he could have been as disloyal to Voldemort as he was to Dumbledore. Point is as far as she knows, he *was* disloyal to Dumbledore. To anyone, but hardened DDM!Snaper murder must look like an act of ultimate disloyalty (besides being evil in itself.) And although Hermione often took his side against Ron and Harry, I don't think she is that hardened She has every reason to dislike the man. > zgirnius: > Even in Harry's version, the one she heard, this is supposed to be > something he regretted. a_svirn: Yes, but we can easily dismiss any notion of remorse now, can we not? Even if it was genuine, obviously it wasn't enough to prevent him from committing a murder. > zgirnius: > Did Harry share his Pensieve memories of GoF with her and Ron? My > book is not in Florida with me. If he did, she knows something made > Dumbledore trust Snape before the Potters died. a_svirn: If you mean the phrase about "great personal risk" we know now that he has a way to minimise any risks involved at the expense of other people lives. > zgirnius: > Minor point, she does not know what Snape Vowed. Just that a UV with > Cissy was made. The contents of the Vow were not overheard by Harry > as Snape did not mention them. a_svirn: But she knows it now. She can piece together what Harry overheard and what happened on the tower. OK, she doesn't know that he vowed to kill Dumbledore with his own hand, if Draco failed to do so, but she knows that he vowed to help Draco in his task. Which is even worse, actually. > zgirnius: > I don't think she would be thinking in terms of DDM!, but she might > be seeing the possibility of Weak!Snape, anyway. There is enough > there in my view to suggest he's not Voldemort's man. a_svirn: Can't one be an evil murderer without being a Voldemort's man? Point is does Hermione have any reason to doubt that Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore? Does she have any reason to believe that he did it "for the Greater Good?" And last, but not the least, is their any reason why she would *want* to believe any such thing? Apart from having always taken his side in the past, that is? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 02:17:10 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:17:10 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165791 Celia: > Here's where I see the UV coming into play, rather than being lessened. Snape kills DD and fulfills the vow without even meaning to, which to me seems like the appropriate result of an Unbreakable Vow- it has a will of it's own and get itself fulfilled in a way the person taking it cannot necessarily imagine. DD drinking Snape's green potion from years past would certainly be a nasty surprise way for the UV to fulfill itself. Ceridwen: I'm starting to like this idea, since this part of it works well with my idea that the Unbreakable Vow is Unbreakable. In post 161684, I wrote: "I think that the name says what it does. It's Unbreakable. You cannot break your promise and must go through with it: you are compelled by the Vow itself." And in a response post 165690 I said: "Tangent: Watching over and protecting Draco, and helping him, doesn't necessarily mean what Narcissa thinks it means. That's a problem with all this mystical stuff. You can pray for a promotion at work, meaning no harm to anyone, only good things. Maybe retirement, or even promotions all around. You do get the promotion, but because the person who held that position unexpectedly died. This wasn't your intention at all, but it's the way your prayer was fulfilled." Sure, I was talking about Narcissa's designs for the UV. If Snape was trying to figure out how to get around her intent and do things in an alternative interpretation of her words, then he got a nasty surprise as well. Celia: > I agree, and as I said, I think this theory actually strengthens the power of the UV. Draco is failing to kill DD throughout the book, and finally the vow has had enough and leads DD to a bowl of Snape's poison potion. That UV is powerful magic. Ceridwen: Yes. The Vow shows itself to be very magically powerful from the beginning, with the elaborate ceremony and the snakes of fire binding Snape and Narcissa. I can certainly see the UV as "having a mind of its own" and creating its own destiny, like some Force of the Universe. I believe the UV is called "Unbreakable" because it's Unbreakable - and it could very well be that it's the magic of the Vow itself that makes it Unbreakable. Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Mar 7 02:29:25 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:29:25 EST Subject: The green liquid in the basin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165792 >Mike: >skip> BTW, the more I think on it, the more I'm convinced that Voldemort didn't put the locket in the cave nor did he transform the potion. I'm convinced that was all Bellatrix Black-Lestrange. It could be that Voldemort made some preparatory changes then instructed Bella to put the locket there. The problem with that is then why give the locket to Bella in the first place? No, I think that Voldemort had been to the cave, had made the little boat to get to the island (then subsequently hid it), and found out what was originally in the basin. It was much later in his career, after he made the Hxes that he gave the locket to Bella, told her where to hide it and instructed her to protect it by transforming whatever was originally in the basin into something that would protect the locket. But I think the green liquid was all Bella. And I think those tortured memories come from her, whether they are hers or those of people she tortured and extracted the memories from. The first time I read those utterances, to me, they sounded like they came from a woman. In fact, they sound eerily similar to what Lily said to Voldemort, "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -" (PoA p.179, US ed.) >Pippin: >My theory, which I apparently didn't explain clearly enough, is that Regulus learned of the horcrux while Bella still had it. He transfigured a locket to resemble Slytherin's, stole Slytherin's locket from Bella and left the other in its place before it was hidden in the cave, leaving Bella and Voldemort none the wiser. Nikkalmati I have advocated the Regulus switch from Bella theory for a long time now starting in April last year ( messages 150465, 150548, 150762, 153599 160510), but I can't recall if I got the idea from someone else or not, so feel free to claim it. The theory that Regulus took the true Horcrux from Bella who had been given it by Voldemort to place in the case simplifies things a great deal. We don't have to worry about how a junior wizard could get into and out of the cave and he doesn't require any help to do the job. Bella would have been carrying the necklace in some container and may not have given it a close look. Regulus could have made the switch at Grimauld Place. Just like he gave the diary to Lucius, LV gave the necklace to Bella with instructions what to do with it. The bowl in the cave was filled only once with the potion, which was on instructions of LV and probably provided by him. Regulus was discovered to be a traitor and killed before he destroyed the necklace or he was killed trying to open it or he already had been discovered and stealing the necklace was his last act of defiance. Nikkalmati (good ideas just keep coming back!)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 7 02:47:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 02:47:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165793 > a_svirn: > Ah, but then they were only suspicions. And Dumbledore was alive. Now > she has to face facts. And the facts, as she knows them, are as > follows: Snape was instrumental to the Potters' murder; Dumbledore > trusted him because he was impressed by his remorse (granted, that's > only Harry's interpretation, but that's the only one she has); Snape > made a vow to kill Dumbledore and eventually he did kill him. Pippin: Whoa! Hermione only knows that Snape made a vow to help Draco, not to kill anyone. In fact, if Spinner's End is largely misdirection, then Hermione's thought processes are all the clearer for *not* knowing about it. She doesn't know of any reason why a cowardly Snape would want to try to kill Dumbledore, surely not a safe thing to attempt no matter how weak Dumbledore was. Nor does she know of Snape's supposed preference for slithering out of action. The Snape *she* knows took on a werewolf and a convicted murderer singlehanded, and undertook a task, with pale face and glittering eyes, that had even Dumbledore looking apprehensive. She also knows that Dumbledore trusted Snape. That doesn't mean she ought to trust Snape just because Dumbledore did, but as she says, if she doesn't trust Dumbledore, who is she going to trust? A trio of wet-behind-the-ears students whom she knows have no idea at all of what's been going on behind the scenes? She also knows that though Dumbledore has been fooled many times, so have the Trio, and that the Trio has never, ever once found out a bad guy that Dumbledore still trusted. I'm sure she remembers Fake!Moody's comment about needing more than the words and the wand to make an AK work, too. If she hesitates to say that Snape is a murderer, perhaps it's because she knows that nothing involving Snape has ever been as simple as it appeared to be. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 03:41:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 03:41:56 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165794 > a_svirn: > But we are not discussing whether he was or wasn't a loyal death > eater. For all she knows he could have been as disloyal to Voldemort > as he was to Dumbledore. zgirnius: I thought you were discussing Hermione's little objection to the word 'evil' to describe Snape. That's what I'm talking about, anyway. She says 'evil is a strong word'. She also, after a hesitation, agrees with 'murderer' as a characterization of Snape. I could see her making the objection to the word 'evil' if she had started to have some doubt creep in as to whether Snape is indeed *as* evil as Harry painted him. (Harry painted a picture of someone whose every action was evil: he set up the Potters deliberately, he got them killed, he went to Dumbledore and lied, he killed Dumbledore.) The one evil action Hermione knows about for sure is the murder of Dumbledore. The whole Potters story is shaky. Hermione knows how vague the Prophecy was - could Snape really set them up. She knows Dumbledore trusted Snape before the Potters died (that is why I brought up GoF, not the 'personal risk' bit). > a_svirn: > Yes, but we can easily dismiss any notion of remorse now, can we not? > Even if it was genuine, obviously it wasn't enough to prevent him > from committing a murder. zgirnius: It comes down to what Hermione means by her little comment, then. I think she would agree with us both that murder is evil, and with you that Snape committed murder. However, calling a *person* evil is a bit different from calling a specific action evil. One might call a person evil for doing one evil thing, or one might think of the good the person has done/may do in the future and hesitate, especially if one can entertain the possibility the person's act was an aberration, or driven by highly unusual circumstances. Hermione is aware of seemingly good actions by Snape in the past. > a_svirn: > If you mean the phrase about "great personal risk" we know now that > he has a way to minimise any risks involved at the expense of other > people lives. zgirnius: I'm not clear on how killing someone, other than Voldemort, would have helped Snape stay safe as a spy in the first war. If you are suggesting in a roundabout way that Snape killed Dumbledore to save his own life, that is certainly possible (in particular, that *was* one of the effects of his action), and possibly what Hermione believes as well. If so, I think it is part of the reason for her hesitation to label him evil. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 04:45:21 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:45:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] That whole locket, green goo in mysterious cave thing (was: green potion et.all) In-Reply-To: <14536.132.229.63.47.1173107583.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> References: <80f25c3a0703050504j484a7fb9nadb415e17f82dd04@mail.gmail.com> <14536.132.229.63.47.1173107583.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <2795713f0703062045i2e000ac7y2ff60863c1c4d4c9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165795 Marion: If you ask me, DD and Snape have been setting up the chessboard for the past fifteen years. They've been playing for high stakes, and every chessplayer knows that sacrifice it the way to place a queen on the enemy's side of the board. In short, if DD didn't plant that locket in that cave himself, I'll eat my keyboard. Thoughts, anyone? Marion (who goes back to lurking because she is really to busy to join in the discussion, much to her regret) Lynda: Your observations work very well with my statements that this entire scenario reads like a set up. A set up of exactly what has yet to be revealed. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 05:16:16 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:16:16 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165796 Pippin snipped: Agreed. From what Dumbledore said earlier about Voldemort's careless disposition of The Ring and The Diary, he wasn't expecting the sort of elaborate and dangerous protections he encountered. I doubt he would ever have taken Harry with him, and possibly wouldn't have engaged Harry in the horcrux hunt at all if he'd known. Snow: Why wouldn't he? Harry is the only known person to come into contact with a Horcrux and come out of it unscathed. Even if the Phoenix had its role to play and the Basilisk tooth that was driven into the diary was tainted with poison, the result was that Harry was left purely well. Dumbledore did not have that same interaction with a Horcrux even though he was well aware of Harry's outcome in the Chamber. This could be why Dumbledore chose Harry for the designed mission. Harry is the only one who can defeat the Horcruxes without harm to himself. Then again I'm looking at this from the point of view that Harry has a bit of Voldy in him and is therefore protected the same as Voldemort is against any traps that these Horcruxes have been assigned. The Horcrux would not act any differently towards Harry than Voldemort when approached if both of them represent the same person, would they? Pippin snipped: When Voldemort recovered the locket from Bella nothing would seem amiss, since the outside would be perfectly genuine and, according to Dumbledore, Voldemort can't detect the presence or absence of his soul fragments. The seemingly intact Slytherin locket would then go into the green goo. There would be no reason for Voldemort to tell Snape what use he'd made of the recipe. Snow: Then why did the locket from Dumbledore's pocket appear different to Harry immediately from the one he vaguely remembered seeing when Dumbledore took it from the basin in the cave? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 05:53:28 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:53:28 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape WAS Re: Snape as the HBP (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, who just does not get this compuslion to discredit Snape, > especially on the part of DDM!Snapers > Valky: LOL, I sense a vague swipe at PotionsGenius!Lily here. ;) If that be the case, I did want to say that it's not even the point of the theory to discredit Snape as a Potions Master; that would be pretty impossible anyhow considering that Slughorn recalls Snape as having been great at Potions, anyhow, so clearly he was. If we are to take the HBP text and separate it into its useful Prince-added elements the list wuld look something like this : 1. Spells and Incantations (with invention/research notes aside them) 2. Theory notes. 3. Practical tips and hints. It's clearly safe to say that #1 are all Snapes handiwork; he claims the spells as his own and demonstrates his familiarity with their inner workings when healing Draco. No contest. #2 and #3 as far as I can see are more ambiguous elements, especially #3 and I'll get to why that in a moment. First #2 is slightly ambiguous as to where the totality comes from; my guess is that these notes are likely to have come from various sources originally. To nail down those sources - 1. We can probably write off Sluggy, we've seen his classes and he's no help 2. There is of course Snape's own research efforts, and we can be fairly sure of those per the Pensieve scene in OOtP, Snape appeared to be quite diligent in his study and it's not a leap from the pensieve scene to a heavy study habit, I don't think. Now 3. there is another possible source for this information, and we have our example of it in Hermione. It's not unlikely that a few of the notes were taken down by Snape in class when they seemed at all useful. Now we can say Slughorn is a pretty lacklustre 'teacher', but he surely knows how to brew a quality potion and he does (quite loudly "OHO!") recognise a good idea when he sees one. That is to say, in a class, Snape would recognise something said or offered by any of the class members that got Slughorn's tick of approval was of some very real value, and there's a good chance he'd note it, assuming he hadn't thought of that himself. I think if we break down element #2 it would be fair to say 90% of it was Snapes own research, with an added contribution from those around him. And so my point with that is to say - I invariably credit Snape with as near enough 99% of the elements 1 and 2 in the book. it is only on element 3 that I think an extra consideration could be taken. The practical hints in the book have the most ambiguous source of all; For one in this subject such things need only be seen, in order to be known. additionally there is also a stark difference between these particular innovations in Snapes notes, and the other innovations in Snapes notes. Take the spell Levicorpus for instance, when Harry is looking at the margin with this spell in it he sees that Snape has made more than one attempt to get it right, crossed out that attempt and tried again until he got the results he wanted, these innovations are pedictably revised. OTOH the practical potions hints are never mentioned as having been revised, not once, at all. They are simply written. Snape is a logical genius, we know this as canon, so where is his trail of logic? It's there in black and white in the spells, it's percievable in the theory notes, but it's virtually non-existent in the practical hints, that makes little sense for a logical man like Snape. It does however point directly at another source - Lily Potter, who we are told directly by Slughorn *does* have an intuitive talent. If neither of these are enough for anyone, there is a kicker to this ambiguity of the Potions hints...... The Mint Leaf. Do we really believe Snape deliberately added a delicate and aesthetic touch to a complicated potion purely for its delicate aesthetic touch? Doesn't that sound more like something a sweet kind-natured young lady would do? JMHO xxoo Valky who really doesn't want to discredit Snape's genius; just keep it in a perspective, and, of course, the gold ideal, call JKR out on her misdirection. ;) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 07:00:16 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:00:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Green Goo Again, and a new(!) view of the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703062300l193c2fe9u924eed68581dc46d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165798 > ::Pippin does forehead slap:: > > Bet you a butterbeer I know why Dumbledore seemed to know so much about > that nasty green potion in the cave -- he knew the guy who > invented it. Not Voldemort, of course, but the erstwhile ESE!Snape. > > That explains *everything*. Snape could have told Dumbledore all about > it when he defected. Dumbledore could then recognize it from Snape's > description, do that little spell only to confirm that this was indeed the > nasty stuff Severus had told him about, and know immediately > what he could and couldn't do. Kemper now: To add to your theory... Voldemort would want test the potion. Perhaps while testing the potion, he could also test the loyalty of his newest Potion Master DE. Perhaps the potion drinker was one or both of his parents: Dad, a Muggle; Mom, a Muggle-Lover. This may be a reason for Snape leaving the Shadow for the Light. (Personally, I like it better than Pining4Lily!Snape) This would increase the tragedy and irony of Snape even further. And perhaps Regulus learned of Snape's loyalty test which got him thinking what his test would be for the Dark Lord. Snape tells Regulus about his potion, tells Regulus about its antidote. Perhaps. Kemper, presupposing possibilities and appreciating Pippin's post on the potion From bercygirl2 at aol.com Wed Mar 7 05:18:43 2007 From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:18:43 -0000 Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165799 During the events on the tower, Dumbledore was disarmed and his wand thrown off. Does anyone have any thoughts about where it could be now? It doesn't seem likely to me that it was just left lying in the grass. I thought of 2 possibilities - It was burned along with his body during the funeral. (After Aragog's burial, Hagrid and Slughorn sang a song about a wizard who was buried with his wand) My other thought - we know that Harry's wand and Voldemort's will not work properly against each other. Could Harry somehow end up with Dumbledore's wand? bercygirl2 From funkeginger at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 09:01:50 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 01:01:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <156480.10513.qm@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165800 bercygirl2 wrote: During the events on the tower, Dumbledore was disarmed and his wand thrown off. Does anyone have any thoughts about where it could be now? It doesn't seem likely to me that it was just left lying in the grass. I thought of 2 possibilities - It was burned along with his body during the funeral. (After Aragog's burial, Hagrid and Slughorn sang a song about a wizard who was buried with his wand) My other thought - we know that Harry's wand and Voldemort's will not work properly against each other. Could Harry somehow end up with Dumbledore's wand? Funkeginger You're right. I didn't even realise the wand was missing. I dont think it was burned with DD or they would have said something in book HBP. I think DD's wand just might have an important role to play because of the following reasons. First, You Know Who knows that he cannot fight with Harry with his wand because of what happened in book four. Secondly, The man who made all those wands, Ollivander, went missing in book six. What if V was trying to use him to find a way out of the bond he and Harry share as far as the wands go? Maybe the answer lies with DD's wand. Last but not least, didn't Malfoy carry DD's wand when he was fleeing the Tower? Maybe he took it to You Know Who. Well, send your views From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 11:28:54 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:28:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165802 > > a_svirn: > > But we are not discussing whether he was or wasn't a loyal death > > eater. For all she knows he could have been as disloyal to > Voldemort > > as he was to Dumbledore. > > zgirnius: > I thought you were discussing Hermione's little objection to the > word 'evil' to describe Snape. That's what I'm talking about, anyway. > She says 'evil is a strong word'. She also, after a hesitation, > agrees with 'murderer' as a characterization of Snape. a_svirn: That's just it I don't see why she would hesitate to call him thus. He *is* a murderer, after all, even if he killed for "the Greater Good" (not that I believe that such thing exists, but for the sake of argument.) > zgirnius: > I could see her making the objection to the word 'evil' if she had > started to have some doubt creep in as to whether Snape is indeed > *as* evil as Harry painted him. (Harry painted a picture of someone > whose every action was evil: he set up the Potters deliberately, a_svirn: Well, he did. The Potters and the Longbottoms. He did know that the people he was exposing to Voldemort were these two couples, but what does it matter? He knew only too well what they were in for. > zgirnius: he > got them killed, a_svirn: He did. He can't get all the credit, naturally, but a substantial part of it, certainly. > zgirnius: he went to Dumbledore and lied, a_svirn: Looks like it, doesn't it? What other explanation can she possibly have? She knows that Snape made a vow to help Draco in his mission, and she knows what the nature of that mission was. Genuinely repentant persons are not supposed to plot against their benefactors. > zgirnius: he killed > Dumbledore.) The one evil action Hermione knows about for sure is the > murder of Dumbledore. a_svirn: I like "only". > zgirnius: The whole Potters story is shaky. Hermione > knows how vague the Prophecy was - could Snape really set them up. > She knows Dumbledore trusted Snape before the Potters died (that is > why I brought up GoF, not the 'personal risk' bit). a_svirn: Actually, the only "shaky" part is that it was the reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape. But she has no alternative explanation for that trust anyway. > > a_svirn: > > Yes, but we can easily dismiss any notion of remorse now, can we > not? > > Even if it was genuine, obviously it wasn't enough to prevent him > > from committing a murder. > > zgirnius: > It comes down to what Hermione means by her little comment, then. I > think she would agree with us both that murder is evil, and with you > that Snape committed murder. However, calling a *person* evil is a > bit different from calling a specific action evil. One might call a > person evil for doing one evil thing, or one might think of the good > the person has done/may do in the future and hesitate, especially if > one can entertain the possibility the person's act was an aberration, > or driven by highly unusual circumstances. Hermione is aware of > seemingly good actions by Snape in the past. a_svirn: But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. Like McGonagall said, "I mean . . . with Snape's history ... of course people were bound to wonder. . . but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance was absolutely genuine-----Wouldn't hear a word against him!" Now, that that Dumbledore is gone, killed by the very man he trusted, the reason for that trust is gone along with him. And look how the adults changed their tune! Lupin who had assured Harry that he neither liked nor disliked Snape suddenly remembered what a good occlumence he is. And he absolutely scorned the idea Snape might have repented his actions, "And Dumbledore believed that?" said Lupin incredulously. "Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James. . . ." It seems that Hermione is the only one who doubts Snape's evilness. > > > a_svirn: > > If you mean the phrase about "great personal risk" we know now that > > he has a way to minimise any risks involved at the expense of other > > people lives. > > zgirnius: > I'm not clear on how killing someone, other than Voldemort, would > have helped Snape stay safe as a spy in the first war. > > If you are suggesting in a roundabout way that Snape killed > Dumbledore to save his own life, that is certainly possible (in > particular, that *was* one of the effects of his action), and > possibly what Hermione believes as well. If so, I think it is part of > the reason for her hesitation to label him evil. > a_svirn: I didn't mean it to be "roundabout". After all the reason for trusting Snape in the fist war was presumably the same one that in the second. And I don't think it is "safe" to kill anyone other than Voldemort. Spying business is never safe, but it is less risky if you are "ready and prepared" to choose a lesser evil for the greater good (which is to say, to kill rather than get killed.) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 11:52:06 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:52:06 -0000 Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? In-Reply-To: <156480.10513.qm@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165803 > > Bercygirl2 asked: > > During the events on the tower, Dumbledore was disarmed and his > > wand thrown off. Does anyone have any thoughts about where it > > could be now? > > It doesn't seem likely to me that it was just left lying in the > > grass. > Funkeginger answered (in part): > I dont think it was burned with DD or they would have said > something in book HBP. Goddlefrood (with a small aside): Like JKR remembered about the Marauder's Map in book 4, then? > Funkeginger then continued: > What if V was trying to use him to find a way out of the bond he > and Harry share as far as the wands go? Goddlefrood: Who is this V of whom you speak? A new character on me I'm afraid. Sorry, LV, huh? Anyway, perhaps you might care to expand on just why DD's wand would be important as suggested. Do you, perhaps, think that LV will get and use DD's wand to counteract the Priori Incantatem effect? If he did, I hope that it backfires, now there's a thought... (The Magnificent Backfiring Wand theory - a work in progress) :) > Funky Chicken (apologies Ginger): > Last but not least, didn't Malfoy carry DD's wand when he was fleeing the Tower? Maybe he took it to You Know Who. Goddlefrood: No, he didn't. Here's what the relevant canon says (Bloomsbury Hardback Edition - The Lightning Struck Tower, pps. 545-6): "Then by the light of the Mark, he saw Dumbledore's wand flying in an arc *over the edge of the ramparts* and understood ... Dumbledore had wordlessly immobilised Harry, and the second he had taken to mperform the spell had cost him the chance of defending himself." I couldn't see any other later reference to the wand , but it's clear it flew off the Tower, so unless Draco took another detour, he can't have it and won't, therefore, be giving it to LV. Do feel free to point me to any you (generic) may come across. Having said this DD's wand will probably be of little further significance IMO. Goddlefrood From anandamaz at yahoo.co.in Wed Mar 7 11:16:58 2007 From: anandamaz at yahoo.co.in (anandamaz) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:16:58 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore believed Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165804 Among the few things that are still not quite clear in the books, one of the biggest is Dumbledore's continuous belief in Snape.Was it only because Dumbledore's tendency to believe people,as Barty Crouch jr. said in book no.4:"it is so easy to manipulate decent people",or there is yet some reason that is to be revealed. Dumbledore was the only person among the teachers who didn't loved him.One may say that the reason behind that was their first meeting, where he saw every sign of evilness in Voldemort.But remember,Voldemort never demonstrate his evil nature in his company during his time at Hogwarts and Dumbledore also knew Snape was a dark eater.Snape was the main culprit of he murder of Harry's parents after Voldemort @ Wormtail.Is it that easy to convince a intelligent person like Dumbledore by saying sorry ? Although there is much time left till the end(??),we may still get our answer.Will a plotmaker like JKR leave that side weak? Remember,we finally had our answer of the question:'why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry as a kid'finally in the 5th book.So,hope for the best and please let me know your thoughts about it anandamaz From funkeginger at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 09:49:18 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (funkeginger) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:49:18 -0000 Subject: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165805 Funkeginger: Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for fighting You Know Who and disarming the Horcruxes is Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to teach HP how to fight Voldemort? I see where people are coming from saying that Snape could have helped HP but Bill, this is the same person who looks like Mad Eye Moody because he was bitten by that Fenrir guy. There are better people in the Order to help him or even outside the Order like: Fred and George, they might not have got a lot of Owls but they are both really smart and skilled. Look at all of that Dark Arts line they came up with for their store. I think in book seven HP is going to need all the help he can get. I think that the two of them will offer him some help when he goes to Godric's Hollow (you know that place he said he would go to in HBP). Fred and George will be a lot more useful than Bill anyhow. Another peron who could be of some help to him if he can find him is DD's brother Aberforth. He was only mentioned a little in the books but he's DD's brother plus if he has the initials RAB, maybe he could be the person in the letter. What about Professor Lupin? Has everyone forgotten about him in running to Bill as the guy who can help HP? I know he's a Werewolf but he is really skilled in the Dark Arts. I bet he could help HP find the Horcruxes and train him for fighting You Know Who like he did for fighting Dementors. He had around the same skills or more then Snape and Black, who would have been able to help Harry. I don't know, I might be wrong about what you guys think here. From abryan at bordgrng.bham.sch.uk Wed Mar 7 11:37:36 2007 From: abryan at bordgrng.bham.sch.uk (Andrew) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:37:36 -0000 Subject: The Role of Kreacher In-Reply-To: <003b01c71712$04707ec0$48570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165806 Apparently JK Rowling is on record as being positive about this character being included in the film version of the Order of the Phoenix, which suggests that he has a very important role to play. I am rather worried that this part may be as a traitor to Harry, (his current master), in the same way that he was to Sirius Black. When Sirius told Kreacher to "get out", the House Elf was able to leave Grimauld Place and go to Bellatrix Lestrange - leading indirectly to Sirius' death. In the same way, Harry orders Kreacher to "get out of it" after the report from the House Elves in the chapter "Elf Tails" of the Half Blood Prince. We then hear no more of Kreacher, (as far as I am aware), for the remainder of the book. This suggests to me that he may have gone from Hogwarts - to the Death Eaters' HQ or wherever Bellatrix is based. (From the chapter, "Will and Won't" it is obvious that Kreacher would prefer Bellatrix as a mistress!) Rowling is also on record as saying that she "knew why Sirius had to die". Could this reason be, (in part), so that Kreacher passed into Harry's servitude - and thus may be able to betray him? Kreacher is not the Secret Keeper for the Order, so he can't reveal where the HQ is, but Dumbledore expresses concern that if Kreacher is able to contact the Death Eaters he could cause considerable harm because he knows "too much". Harry had to forbid Kreacher to communicate with Draco Malfoy, since the Elf was obviously intending to do so. He cannot disobey this order, but if Bellatrix - as his "mistress" - commanded him to tell her what he knows I assume he would do so with delight! Kreacher is under no command of silence with respect to anyone other than Draco. I suspect that Kreacher will play a pivotal role in the "Deathly Hallows"! I only hope he doesn't cause Harry's death ......! Andrew From juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk Wed Mar 7 14:05:36 2007 From: juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk (juleyjubes) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:05:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165807 Hello, I'm new here and very much enjoyed reading this post and love this group. Here are my answers. (Questions by a_svirn) 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? I find their attitude reasonable although the only way Draco was able to get the death eaters into the school was via the cabinet so I would assume this entry will have been denied them now. 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find it sinister? It is horrible, but not as horrible as if he had been made into a full werewolf. 3. What do you make of Harry's mood at the beginning of the chapter? Is his apathy a way to cope with the shock of Dumbledore's death, or was he damaged irrevocably in some ways? I think he was shocked and probably realised what he had to do and the enormity of doing it all without the backup of DD (or Sirius). 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle heritage? I see this as Snape saying that he may only be "half-blood" but he is still fantastic at potions (prince). Maybe this was something he prided himself on but was unable to celebrate publicly because of the stigma of anyone who wasn't pure-blooded. 5. Do you agree with Hermione that Snape held his peace about the book only because by exposing Harry he would inevitably expose himself? and... 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, the words she actually uses can be at best described as understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so guarded? I haven't made my mind up about Hermione's thoughts and comments in questions 6 & 7. 7. Here is another thing that has been much discussed but should to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister or a priest ? Rowling's description of him seems deliberately ambivalent. It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion in the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. Now, why is that? I think JKR has made it clear in her interviews that she is a Christian however, I believe she has left the funeral open for each reader to grieve DD in their own way, and to apply whatever religion they choose to the ceremony. 8. We are specifically told that this is the first funeral Harry has ever attended. Can we judge of the death rites in the Potterverse by this ceremony? Since Hagrid wanted to bury Aragog in order give him "a proper send-off", one can assume that for Hagrid, at least, burial is the proper way of disposition of the dead. Do wizards usually bury their dead or do they usually cremate them? After Aragog, this is Harry's and our first funeral. Therefore we can only make assumptions and I would assume that funerals are just like in our world, some burials and some cremations. 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire to it? See above but I also think DD did everything spectacularly and therefore I would have expected nothing less of him but to go out in a blaze of glory. 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? Or something (-one) else? I really don't know about this and each time someone writes about it on here I change my mind! It could be a signal to everyone / anyone, it could happen with all cremations. I will stop speculating now as I just don't know. 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about house-elves. Do you think that is significant? Possibly. Maybe the Goblins weren't there as they are not emotional creatures and see the maintaining of the treasures as more important than weeping over a dead human. Maybe the house elves were there but are so used to being servants, getting the job done but without getting in the way, that they paid their respects without being seen. 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be of any use in book 7? Possibly, although I think Scrimgeour was telling Harry that to goad him into telling him more about what happened that night. 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? To let Stan Shunpike go would be to admit to being wrong. He doesn't trust Harry enough to act on this until he had Harry on side. 14. There is something odd about the way Ginny accepts Harry's decision, while Ron and Hermione refuse to do so. Even stranger, Harry does not really attempt to talk them out of sharing his destiny. (And still more strange seems his surprise at Ron and Hermione's reaction.) Does it mean that for Harry (and even for Rowling) friendship is something infinitely more important than love? Even so, Ginny is not just a girlfriend; she is a friend as well. I see this as Ginny being very clever. She had probably already thought that this is what Harry would do. By kicking up a fuss and trying to convince him otherwise she would probably have driven a wedge between the two of them and made Harry even more resolute. By accepting what Harry said she will still be able to be his friend and eventually probably to become his girlfriend again. I believe she loves him so I think she would want to be part of his life and to have the chance to look after him as much as possible, even if he doesn't realise she is doing it as a girlfriend would. I believe Harry is grateful for the support from Hermione and Ron and after DD had suggested that he share the knowledge he had with them he probably feels this would be DD's choice, that they take on his quest with him. 15. The last two chapters of the book allude very distinctly to Shakespeare's "The Phoenix and the Turtle." The phoenix lament, the anthem, and the central episode with the funeral fire. Is this supposed to be a clue to the relationship between Fawkes and Dumbledore? No comment as I don't know anything about "the Phoenix & the Turtle". Juley From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 14:58:01 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:58:01 -0000 Subject: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165808 Funkeginger: > Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for fighting You Know Who and disarming the Horcruxes is Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to teach HP how to fight Voldemort? Ceridwen: People are mentioning Bill Weasley because, since the beginning of the series, he has been a professional curse-breaker for Gringotts Bank. He is skilled in curses placed on ancient tombs and treasure stashes, the sorts of curses Voldemort might use to guard his Horcruxes. There is some reason JKR made Bill a professional curse-breaker, and now it seems as if the protective curses surrounding the remaining Horcruxes may be the reason. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 15:34:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:34:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165809 zgirnius wrote: > Did Harry share his Pensieve memories of GoF with her and Ron? My > book is not in Florida with me. If he did, she knows something made > Dumbledore trust Snape before the Potters died. Carol responds: He tells them everything he saw except the part about the Longbottoms being Crucio'd into insainity, which Dumbledore has asked him to keep private for Neville's sake--another example of Dumbledore protecting people's secrets, by the way (GoF Am. ed. 604 and 605). So, yes, she does know that Snape became a spy for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow (though Harry may not have bothered to include the phrase "at great personal risk). So *if* she has started to think things through, she knows that Snape's remorse and return had to precede their deaths. She also witnessed the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack, where it's clear that Snape believed he was saving Harry from the murderer and traitor who betrayed the Potters. She knows he saved Harry from Quirrell in their first year, that he conjured the stretchers to get them away from the werewolf and any stray Dementor in PoA, that he showed his Dark Mark to Dudge to prove that Voldemort was back in PoA and left on some dangerous mission for Dumbledore soon afterwards. She must know that he sent the Order to rescue them from the Death Eaters at the MoM (she heard Harry trying to communicate with him about Padfoot). I'm not sure what she thinks of the Occlumency lessons, but she knows that Harry wasn't trying very hard to learn it. And she's seen Snape teach DADA, pointing out that his attitude toward it resembles Harry's. She has mastered nonverbal spells, as we see in Potions with Specialis Revelio, so I'm betting she's learned more from Snape in DADA than Harry has (including that alternate method of fighting Dementors, which may come in handy in DH). If she really thinks about Snape and what she's seen him do (as opposed to his sarcastic words and the cruel remark about her teeth), she may realize that killing Dumbledore is out of character for him. (Even Ron, who hates, Snape, didn't think him capable of murder.) And if Harry describes that Avada Kedavra on the tower--Dumbledore's body going over the battlements instead of falling backward instantly dead), she may start wondering what's going on, especially if she decides to talk things over with Lupin, who may also start seeing inconsistencies and holes in Harry's version of events once he gets past his initial reaction to the supposed traitor Snape. After all, he does know what happened when the Aurors, Crouch Sr., and even Dumbledore took the Muggles' version of events as accurate: Sirius Black went to Azkaban and the real "murderin' traitor" got away. Of course, Snape *did* say the words "Avada Kedavra," but that doesn't make Harry's account accurate in all other respects. It's colored by his emotions and preconceptions. And Lupin, like Hermione, knows about the UV to protect Draco. Surely, one of them will mention that and try to figure out where and how it fits the picture. That and the exchanged look between Snape and Dumbledore. Lupin will know whether it's possible to communicate that way. (I think he and Snape have actually done it with regard to Neville's Boggart, but I know I'm a minority of one in holding that view.) > a_svirn: > > Snape made a vow to kill Dumbledore and eventually he did kill him. She knows nothing about the circumstances under which he took the vow > zgirnius: > > Minor point, she does not know what Snape Vowed. Just that a UV with Cissy was made. The contents of the Vow were not overheard by Harry as Snape did not mention them. Carol: I don't think this is a minor point. She knows about the vow to *protect Draco*--the only part of the UV that Snape mentioned in the conversation with Draco that Harry overheard. Lupin and Mr. Weasley know about that part, too. Surely, one of those three will realize that, whatever else he was doing, Snape was protecting Draco on the tower. They may think that he was doing it to keep from dying, but at least they'll realize that he wasn't murdereing Dumbledore out of loyalty to Voldemort. (What evidence is there for that loyalty? None. If he were a loyal DE, he'd have shown up at the graveyard, however long it took to run off, change to DE robes, run to the gates, and Apparate to the graveyard. And he would not have shown his Dark Mark to Fudge as proof that Voldemort was back or sent the Order to save the kids at the MoM.) Someone other than Harry will surely start wondering and trying to figure things out. I'm hoping that it's Hermione together with Lupin, another victim of the DADA curse. zgirnius: > I don't think she would be thinking in terms of DDM!, but she might be seeing the possibility of Weak!Snape, anyway. There is enough there in my view to suggest he's not Voldemort's man. > Carol: I don't se Weak!Snape anywhere. (Weak!Lupin, yes.) She's seen him display exemplary courage. What she may see is Inconsistent!Snape, meaning a Snape whose actions don't fit at all with those of a Death Eater loyal to Voldemort (Crouch!Moody being the key example). And now that she knows that the HBP is/was Snape, she may want to take another look at his Potions book to see if she can figure anything out. Carol, wondering whether Harry will ever tell Hermione about his excursion into Snape's worst memory and how she'll react if he does From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Wed Mar 7 15:07:51 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:07:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001c760ca$607b6bb0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165810 --Funkeginger Wrote-- >>>Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for fighting You Know >Who and disarming the Horcruxes is Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to teach HP how to fight Voldemort? <<< --Ronin's Comments-- I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that Bill will be pivotal in Harry's quest, but I can certainly understand where people would get the idea. Bill is probably the most qualified character to help since he works for Gringot's WIzarding Bank as a curse breaker and treasure hunter. Breaking curses on magical artifacts is his specialty. Being disfigured by Fenrir Greyback really has nothing to do with it. Fenrir Greyback is a werewolf. He did not disfigure Bill by use of dark arts or a curse, but by means of a brutal physical attack. I still hold to my theory that Snape is Harry's greatest ally, but there can be no disputing Bill's qualifications. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 16:32:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:32:44 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape WAS Re: Snape as the HBP (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165811 Carol earlier: > > Carol, who just does not get this compuslion to discredit Snape, especially on the part of DDM!Snapers > > > > Valky: > LOL, I sense a vague swipe at PotionsGenius!Lily here. ;) Carol: Guilty as charged. But I still don't think that she and Severus would have worked together, a Gryffindor and a Slytherin (rival Houses) who didn't even share a common room to study in together, especially after the "worst memory" incident. And, as I said, it's very likely that James and Sirius were also in the NEWT Potions class given their reputation for being good at all subjects and Slughorn's tolerance in admitting E students into his NEWT classes. It isn't that I don't think Lily was good at Potions though Slughorn's memory of her is undoubtedly rose-colored, as McGonagall's is of James (she conveniently forgets all those detentions for things like head-swelling hexes). My point is that just because Lily was also good at Potions doesn't mean that she should be credited with performing the HBP's research. Those Potions hints are clearly the result of hands-on research (trying various ways to crush a sopophorous bean, adding various ingredients to eliminate side-effects, stirring clockwise and then counterclockwise) the kind of thing that was not necessarily done in the classroom but more likely out of class, away from prying eyes. And we know that Adult!Snape works alone. I can't imagine him conducting potions experiments with a Gryffindor partner in the Potions classroom after hours, and if he conducted them in his own room, Lily certainly wasn't there. > Valky: > If that be the case, I did want to say that it's not even the point of the theory to discredit Snape as a Potions Master; that would be pretty impossible anyhow considering that Slughorn recalls Snape as having been great at Potions, anyhow, so clearly he was. Carol: Exactly. So it makes no sense to me not to credit him with the notes in his own handwriting in his own book. He seems to be applying the results of his own long-term research to his teaching, which is why he casts directions on the board rather than assigning them from the book and knows exactly what will go wrong at every step. > Valky: > If we are to take the HBP text and separate it into its useful Prince-added elements the list wuld look something like this : > > 1. Spells and Incantations (with invention/research notes aside them) > 2. Theory notes. > 3. Practical tips and hints. > > It's clearly safe to say that #1 are all Snapes handiwork; he claims the spells as his own and demonstrates his familiarity with their inner workings when healing Draco. No contest. Carol: Agreed. Valky: > #2 and #3 as far as I can see are more ambiguous elements, especially #3 and I'll get to why that in a moment. First #2 is slightly ambiguous as to where the totality comes from; Carol: I don't understand this sentence. Valky: my guess is that these notes are likely to have come from various sources originally. To nail down those sources - 1. We can probably write off Sluggy, we've seen his classes and he's no help 2. There is of course Snape's own research efforts, and we can be fairly sure of those per the Pensieve scene in OOtP, Snape appeared to be quite diligent in his study and it's not a leap from the pensieve scene to a heavy study habit, I don't think. Carol: Exactly. so where does the ambiguity come in? Valky: Now 3. there is another possible source for this information, and we have our example of it in Hermione. It's not unlikely that a few of the notes were taken down by Snape in class when they seemed at all useful. Now we can say Slughorn is a pretty lacklustre 'teacher', but he surely knows how to brew a quality potion and he does (quite loudly "OHO!") recognise a good idea when he sees one. That is to say, in a class, Snape would recognise something said or offered by any of the class members that got Slughorn's tick of approval was of some very real value, and there's a good chance he'd note it, assuming he hadn't thought of that himself. > > I think if we break down element #2 it would be fair to say 90% of it was Snapes own research, with an added contribution from those around him. > > And so my point with that is to say - I invariably credit Snape with as near enough 99% of the elements 1 and 2 in the book. it is only on element 3 that I think an extra consideration could be taken. Carol: I'd say 100% of element 1 and probably 100% of element 2 though I agree that if anyone said anything intelligent or original in class, including Sluggy himself, he'd make at least a mental note of it. However, 99% for elements 1 and 2 is fine with me. > Valky: > The practical hints in the book have the most ambiguous source of all; > > For one in this subject such things need only be seen, in order to be known. > > additionally there is also a stark difference between these particular innovations in Snapes notes, and the other innovations in Snapes notes. Take the spell Levicorpus for instance, when Harry is looking at the margin with this spell in it he sees that Snape has made more than one attempt to get it right, crossed out that attempt and tried again until he got the results he wanted, these innovations are pedictably revised. OTOH the practical potions hints are never mentioned as having been revised, not once, at all. They are simply written. Snape is a logical genius, we know this as canon, so where is his trail of logic? Carol: There's a world of difference in the creation of spells and Potions hints. In the spells, he's thinking in writing (as we do when we respond to a post). With Potions research, you can't do that. You don't write, Wonder what will happen if I add a mint leaf? You add the mint leaf and see what happens. Severus is recording the results of his experiments (and perhaps an occasional observation). There's no need for a paper trail. As I said earlier in this post, you try various ways of crushing the sopophorous bean or eliminating the side effect and record the one that works. He's not keeping a diary of his experiments, including the failed attempts; he's making marginal notes that he can use later. Valky: > If neither of these are enough for anyone, there is a kicker to this ambiguity of the Potions hints...... > > The Mint Leaf. Do we really believe Snape deliberately added a delicate and aesthetic touch to a complicated potion purely for its delicate aesthetic touch? Doesn't that sound more like something a sweet kind-natured young lady would do? Carol responds: Severus wouldn't need cross-outs with regard to his Potions experiments, which are hands-on research involving potion ingredients and a cauldron--for example, crushing the sopophorous bean with the dull side of the blade or adding a mint leaf. And Snape *dose* have an appreciation for aesthetics. Have you forgotten his initial speech to the first-years about "the *beauty* of the softly shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses?" (SS Am. ed. 137). He appreciates subtle effects, including the elimination of undesirable side effects, which was the purpose of adding the mint leaf. It's intended to prevent nose-tweaking, not to add a delicate aesthetic touch. FWIW, I'm not sure that Lily, whom Slughorn remembers as being cheeky and who called James (deservedly) a "bullying toerag" can be regarded as "a sweet kind-natured young lady" any more than Ginny can. I can't see that she'd be any more inclined to add a mint leaf than Severus would. He was trying to eliminate a side effect, and he would try various ingredients until he discovered the one that works. Carol, who thinks that Snape wouldn't react as he does to Harry as a supposed Potions prodigy if he thought that Harry was taking credit for Lily's research rather than Snape's own From cdayr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 16:54:17 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:54:17 -0000 Subject: And in The End...CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: And I wonder if > Snape really did suspect Harry of Petrifying Mrs. Norris, considering > the Serpensortia spell he apparently suggested to Draco and his words > to Bellatrix in HBP about the DEs wondering if Harry might be another > Dark Lord in the making. (I think he questioned Harry on the first day > of Potions class for the same reason, to find out whether there was > any truth to the Dark!Harry rumors and, assuming the rumors proved > false, dispel any delusions on the part of the DE's children that > Harry was LV's successor. (The last thing the Prophecy Boy needed was > Slytherin hangers on thinking he was the next Dark Lord.) But the > Petrification of Mrs. Norris, obviously Dark magic, might have aroused > his suspicions again, especially in combination of the "Enemies of the > Heir, Beware" message and Harry's presence at the crime scene. I'm > assuming DDM!Snape, of course. Celia: Of Course! I agree that Snape does appear to be testing Harry throughout the first two books as possibly being the next Dark Lord, and it makes Snape much more human to interpret that throughout the books he is actually acting on his honest impression that Harry might be evil, just like he really thinks Lupin is working with Sirius to hurt Harry in PoA. If I try to see this book from the POV of Snape, then it would be an obvious choice for him to use his slithery skills to probe Harry's abilities and check out his status as the heir. But here's a thought...doesn't LV go around bragging about being the heir of Slytherin to all the DEs? I wonder what genetic pathway Snape thinks could lead to Harry also being the heir? Seems like he (and DD and pretty much everyone) *should* know that the heir is LV, and if they know that Harry is not related to LV, then there is no chance of him being his heir. Could LV be more secretive with his heritage than I think? Did Snape actually think for a while that Harry and LV were directly related? > Carol: > I do think that Serpensortia is an HBP spell, but Snape seems to think > that Draco already knows how to do it. (Surely, conjuring a serpent > out of thin air is rather advanced magic for a second-year and must > require at least as much practice as turning a hedgehog into a > pincushion? OTOH, this may be a case of plot requirements outweighing > consistency and logic.) Also, we don't *know* that Snape whispered > "Serpensortia." He may have whispered something else and Draco could > have come up with that spell on his own. (Unlikely, I realize, but > it's been suggested before.) Celia: All true, although if "Serpensortia" is anything like "Sectumsempra," perhaps Draco could have performed it by just saying the word and pointing his wand, similar to Harry being able to perform Sectumsempra with no experience or knowledge of the spell. Obviously Harry as a sixth year is a much more advanced wizard, but perhaps HBP spells are just so darn fabulous, one can perform them with no practice and no idea what you are doing? Ahh, Snape... Carol: > There's another important aspect of this duelling club meeting that > you didn't mention. It's Snape's first opportunity to teach DADA and, > "assistant" or not, he's very much in charge. Snape has > taught Harry two of his most important lessons--Bezoars and > Expelliarmus. And we get hints here of exactly what DADA would be like > if only he had been allowed to teach it before Harry's sixth year. If > only the position weren't cursed (or jinxed, if you prefer). This is a great point- and although I just spent time this week convincing myself that Snape's real gift is Potions, this is an excellent reminder that he truly is a DADA expert as well. It is interesting to think about the long term effects of the DADA curse on the British wizarding world- really for, what is it, 20 years or so, every student who goes through Hogwart's has learned a spotty and confused DADA curriculum. What a great and subtle way for LV to weaken the population. If Snape had been DADA all along, I agree this type of high-content lesson would have been Day 1, and all of our characters would be much better prepared for a fight. Carol: I'm more interested in where Nagini came from and how Quirrell got Vapor!mort into England before Voldie had possessed him, but, oops, wrong book! Celia: Carried him in a well-sealed tupperware? I suppose he could have been possessing one of the poor Albanian animals at that point, and came along with Quirrell as a pet or something? OOO, wait, maybe Nagini is just an unlucky snake from Albania that LV possessed, and Quirrell brought him back in her? Then she somehow survived because he made her a horcrux? I don't know, I'm grasping at straws... > Carol: > Not all of these items/people are unique to CoS. Celia: Oh, I know, but somehow they all, to me, are most associated with this book- I mean Colin Creevey is all over this thing, and then definitely fades into the background in his future appearances. I feel the same way about all of these items, even those that have recurred- by "uniquely" CoS, I just meant "most associated" with CoS. Carol: The Flying Ford Anglia is probably hanging out with > Sirius Black's flying motorcycle. I expect both to reappear in DH, > along with the Centaurs and your beloved Acromantulas. Celia: What a parade that will be, treking out of the forest! > Carol: > Thanks for an enjoyable chance to go in a different direction from the > plethora of Snape and Horcrux posts. (Not that I ever get enough of > Snape.) Celia: And now look what I've done, snipping this back down almost entirely to Snape...Oh well, I tried. > Carol, who still wants to know how Ron knew (in HBP) that Draco had > the Hand of Glory, which Lucius does *not* buy for him in CoS Celia: This has always driven me crazy! I remember back pre-HBP when we were all predicting what from CoS would be important in HBP, and many listies were sure it would be Draco's Hand of Glory, and I was constantly bugged by that because Lucius had never bought it for him! Then when he had it in HBP, I just threw up my hands. Maybe Lucius bought it later as a gift... And Ron knowing about it? Who knows? Celia, who will try to write about non-Snape related items whenever she can. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Mar 7 17:21:14 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:21:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165813 > > Magpie: > > I think that could be true. Not that Hermione specifically has > > information we don't, but it's very like her to have started > > puzzling things out herself and perhaps realize she's a DDM! Snaper! > > Hermione's very often the one to figure out what's really going on > > with what people are doing where Harry only looks at the surface. > > She might not know Snape well, but she's always trusted Dumbledore > > and may simply not believe Dumbledore was so fooled. > > a_svirn: > This doesn't look like a sound judgment, though. More like "it cannot > be true because it can never ever be true". Why can't she believe > that Dumbledore was fooled? He is only human. Magpie: Oh, I didn't mean to suggest it was a sound judgment, just that Hermione may have begun, in her mind, looking for evidence that Dumbledore wasn't fooled and that Snape wasn't evil, and perhaps that's partly behind her resistance to giving him the label. Hermione could certainly be wrong--as could Dumbledore. > > > Magpie: > Also she's got > > reason to defend DDM!Snape anyway, having always dismissed Harry's > > doubts about Snape in the past. > > a_svirn: > This sounds even less sensible. Not to say childish. Magpie: That sort of thing could definitely be not sensible and childish, but it's also a common way of thinking. It's just a case of trying to make things fit what you already know instead of immediately discarding it all--she's seen evidence of her previous understanding in the past. Harry's own reasons for wanting Snape to be evil aren't completely objective either (which is not to say he imagined Snape murdering somebody in front of his eyes). > > > Magpie: > > I don't just mean that Hermione's pride is at stake so she doesn't > > want Harry to be right. I mean she may have given thought to this > > matter in the past just as many readers have each time Harry > brought > > up his suspicions, so she's not ready to let them go. > > a_svirn: > Ah, but then they were only suspicions. And Dumbledore was alive. Now > she has to face facts. And the facts, as she knows them, are as > follows: Snape was instrumental to the Potters' murder; Dumbledore > trusted him because he was impressed by his remorse (granted, that's > only Harry's interpretation, but that's the only one she has); Snape > made a vow to kill Dumbledore and eventually he did kill him. She > knows nothing about the circumstances under which he took the vow > (not that it is very helpful knowledge as far as I am concerned, but > perhaps she could have spotted something at Spinner's Endwe we all > have missed so far.) She wasn't at the Tower and didn't see Snape's > expression, nor did she hear Dumbledore's last words; she probably > doesn't even know that Snape spared Harry's life when they dueled > in "the Prince's flight". As far as she knows the facts, Snape *is* a > traitor and a murderer. Which does rather bespeak evil disposition. Magpie: Right--but we're looking for reasons Hermione still feels the need to say that "evil is a strong word." So clearly despite the evidence she has and Dumbledore's death she's not ready to say he's evil. I think personality-wise this fits with Hermione for maybe a combination of all these reasons mentioned in the thread. For Harry everything makes sense now that Snape has killed Dumbledore. Perhaps for Hermione it doesn't--I know it doesn't for me! Harry has always seen Snape as being dastardly. For Hermione the murder is the anomaly. > > Magpie: > She herself > > never, iirc, called the Prince "evil" either, just a bad influence > > on Harry, and she may have begun theorizing about things she > doesn't > > know regarding Snape and Dumbledore now that the shock is over. If > > Hermione's anything like me in this respect (and I get the feeling > > she is), she never wants to be wrong, so she is hesitant about > > making an extreme judgment too quickly. > > a_svirn: > But she *knows* that Snape murdered Dumbledore. It's not just a > suspicion of "once a death eater, always a death eater" kind. It > wouldn't be too extreme to call him "murderer" or even "evil" from > where she stands. Magpie: And yet she doesn't want to do that, exactly. She may still feel that she doesn't have enough information to understand what really went on and from her perspective I don't think that's so surprising. Even if Snape did betray Dumbledore and murder him, "evil" isn't much of an explanation. It can obscure the events rather than make them clear. "Murderer" is certainly a reasonable thing to call Snape given what Harry has seen, but it doesn't explain his whole personality either. It's something Harry even uses, iirc, to shut off any thinking about Snape as the HBP. Hermione isn't defending Snape here, that I recall, or trying to prove he didn't kill Dumbledore. She could just be wanting to understand what really went on, which "evil" doesn't give her. It's more of an emotional judgment, which is just what Harry wants. I think she could also be instinctively reacting against exactly that. so character-wise, it seems completely consistent for Hermione to be the one witholding judgment of evil. She doesn't always do that, but her own harsh judgments are usually reserved (understandably) for the people that get under her skin--often females, like Rita and Umbridge. -m From bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu Wed Mar 7 16:56:02 2007 From: bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu (bkalb1977) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:56:02 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165814 1. I've heard people discuss that Snape has fooled both Voldemort and Dumbledore in the whole "is Snape good or bad" argument. However, I haven't heard the following specific point addressed (probably missed it)... but to me, it makes perfect sense that Snape would be fooling Voldemort and not Dumbledore. The reason is that even though Dumbledore is trusting, he isn't stupid... he trusts when he should. This is best demonstrated with the fact that Dumbledore never trusts young Riddle even though EVERY OTHER teacher fawns over him. In terms of Voldemort... even though he is the opposite of Dumbledore (in terms of being suspicious and non-trusting), it makes perfect sense that Snape is able to deceive him because his major weakness is his pride. He would NEVER believe that anyone could hide things from him. Doesn't he always say "I always know when people are lying"?? He is so prideful in his Legilimency abilities, he cannot fathom that Snape is lying to him. This more than anything to me argues for Snape being on the "good" side. 2. WHY does everyone covet the Defense Against the Dark Arts job??? Voldemort, Snape... there seems to be an inordinate amount of interest in this job from these two people who are in love with the Dark Arts- why do they want to teach a "Defense" class? Is there some sort of power or secret related to Hogwarts that the DADA teacher is privy to? Bobby From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 18:42:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:42:06 -0000 Subject: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165816 --- "funkeginger" wrote: > > Funkeginger: > > Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for > fighting You Know Who and disarming the Horcruxes is > Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it > say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to > teach HP how to fight Voldemort? > > ... bboyminn: Others have already answered, but hopefully I can elaborate a bit. First no one is saying Bill's role is pivotal or all inclusive. Bil has a specialty, and that is curse breaking, not just general curse breaking but breaking curses made in languages that are long dead or languages that he doesn't specifically understand. Ancient treasure tomb are protected by very severe curses as is seen from Ron's reports of his trip to Egypt to visit Bill. Bill does, everyday he is in the field, exactly what Dumbledore did in the Cave. He determines multiple and ancient curses, then determines how to neutralize or by-pass then so he can get at the treasures contained there in. Again, that is exactly what Dumbledore was doing to get to the Horcruxes and destroy them. Each of the Order members and each of the key people in Harry's life has specialized talents. Harry will resist using the people at first because he has made a promise to Dumbledore not to tell people what he is doing. Then he will realize, probably with Ron and Hermione's help, that he can enlist the help of these talented people without telling them everything. Each will only need to know as much as they need to know in the moment to give Harry the lessons he needs. Though at some point, I feel that Harry will have to bring some people to the inside, to tell them some of the details of what he is trying to accomplish. I think the three prime candidates to help Harry are Bill (curse breaker), Moody (Auror and dark wizard fighter), and Lupin (general knowledge, trusted, and skilled and/or knowledgable in dark and general magic). I think it is likely that Moody will take over as the official leader of the Order, but as Harry's needs make more and more demands on the group, Harry's purpose will take over as the Order's new role, making Harry the unoffical leader. You seem to be assuming that Bill will be all things to Harry, helping him on every front, but Bill has a specialty, and it is in that specialty that he will assist Harry. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Mar 7 20:47:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:47:29 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) Message-ID: <12086062.1173300449493.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165818 a_svirn: >That's just it I don't see why she would hesitate to call him thus. >He *is* a murderer, after all, even if he killed for "the Greater >Good" (not that I believe that such thing exists, but for the sake of >argument.) Bart: Just to set a context: Do you think soldier/snipers in times of war are murderers? Say, if they take out the radioman? If someone is carrying secret information, and is about to be captured, and another soldier is assigned to kill him if he gets captured. The first soldier does get captured, and the second soldier, following orders to which both soldiers agreed, kills him. Is the second soldier a murderer? Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 20:54:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:54:04 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165819 zgirnius wrote: > > I could see her making the objection to the word 'evil' if she had started to have some doubt creep in as to whether Snape is indeed *as* evil as Harry painted him. (Harry painted a picture of someone whose every action was evil: he set up the Potters deliberately, > > a_svirn: > Well, he did. The Potters and the Longbottoms. He did know that the > people he was exposing to Voldemort were these two couples, but what > does it matter? He knew only too well what they were in for. Carol responds: Dumbledore says that Snape had no way of knowing who the people in the Prophecy were, and that statement has to be true for the simple reason that neither Harry nor Neville had been born yet. It's hard to tell exactly when the Prophecy took place, but given the weather (a cold wet night), it was probably autumn, winter, or spring--certainly nowhere near the end of the seventh month. Given Trelawney's description of the length of time she'd been teaching when Umbridge questioned her (not quite sixteen years), late autumn seems most likely. (I think it was Halloween night, the probable night of Harry's conception, but I can't prove it.) Not only did young Snape have no way of knowing that the Prophecy referred to people he knew, he had no way of knowing how Voldemort would interpret it, as Dumbledore also states. IOW, he had no way of knowing that Voldemort would try to kill the child before he revealed himself as "the one with the power." Dumbledore says that this revelation, the way that Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy, was the reason that young Snape came to him, the reason for his remorse. He clearly did *not* know "what they were in for." If he did, why feel remorse? Why go to Dumbledore? Why not just let them all die, especially the hated James? > zgirnius (listing Harry's accusations against Snape, not her own views): > he got them killed, > > a_svirn: > He did. He can't get all the credit, naturally, but a substantial > part of it, certainly. Carol: It was Voldemort who killed the Potters and Wormtail who betrayed them. The revelation of the Prophecy to Voldemort wouldn't have mattered if the Fidelius Charm had worked, if the Secret Keeper hadn't betrayed the trust that had been placed in him. Snape's rage in the Shrieking Shack indicates that he believed that James's "arrogance" in trusting Sirius Black over Dumbledore led to his death. If it hadn't been for Snape's revealing Voldemort's intention to kill the Potters (or at least Harry) to Dumbledore, Dumbledore wouldn't have suggested the Fidelius Charm in the first place, and if the Potters had accepted DD's offer to be Secret Keeper, they wouldn't be dead. The evidence suggests that Snape was trying to *prevent* their deaths but failed (which is part of the reason that he still hates James, IMO. How dare he not listen and get himself killed? The arrogance of it!) He does, however, IMO, try to shift part of his own guilt onto Sirius Black until PoA, which is why he really doesn't want to hear anything that would exonerate Sirius. He's believed for too long that Sirius, who lured him into a tunnel with a werewolf at sixteen, deserved that sentence to Azkaban. > zgirnius (again listing the charges against Snape): > he went to Dumbledore and lied, > > a_svirn: > Looks like it, doesn't it? What other explanation can she possibly have? Carol: It may indeed look like it, but only to Harry, not Hermione, who will realize, I hope, that Harry's version of events conflicts with what she already knows--that Snape began spying for Dumbledore *before* Godric's Hollow (and presumably before he began teaching that same year). That being the case, the Potters' deaths *can't* be the reason for Snape's tale of remorse. His remorse, and his return to Dumbledore, has to have occurred some time between the Prophecy and Godric's Hollow, not afterwards. (It's a shame that the timeline is so vague, to Harry and Hermione even more than to us.) > a_svirn: She knows that Snape made a vow to help Draco in his mission, and she knows what the nature of that mission was. Genuinely repentant persons are not supposed to plot against their benefactors. Carol: No, she doesn't. She knows that Snape made a UV to *protect Draco*, but she has already suggested (as did Lupin and Mr. Weasley) that Snape is trying to "help" Draco by finding out what he's up to. Which is exactly what he *is* doing--along with putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention. Hardly helping Draco fix the Vanishing Cabinet, which Snape knows no more about than Harry does at this point, or helping him kill Dumbledore. Instead he's discouraging amateurish tactics like the cursed necklace (and the poisoned mead that he doesn't know about and is too late to prevent from being sold to Slughorn). Hermione's initial reaction to Harry's report of the conversation between Snape and Draco is the correct one, IMO, and I don't think she'll change her mind. Let's look at the conversation in a little more detail. "'Listen to me,' said Snape . . . . 'I am trying to help you. I swore to your mother I would protect you. I made the Unbreakable Vow, Draco--' "'Looks like you'll have to break it, then, because I don't need your protection! It's my job, he gave it to me and I'm doing it, I've got a plan and it's going to work, it's just taking a bit longer than I thought it would!' "'What is your plan?' "'It's none of your business!' (HBP Am. ed. 323). Granted, Snape does say that if Draco tells him his plan, he can assist him, but he's not compelled to do so by the vow, which only requires him to watch over and protect Draco and "do the deed" (the "job," not the "plan") if it seems that Draco will fail. (We've already seen that his idea of helping Draco is finding out what he's up to and hindering him if possible. (The last thing DDM!Snape wants is for Draco to be in a position to unwittingly trigger the third provision of the Unbreakable Vow.) Meantime, Snape is extracting what information he can from Draco (that he has other helpers, that he's learned Occlumency, presumably from Bellatrix, that he has a plan); he's discouraging him from dangerous tactics like the cursed necklace; he's telling Draco that he's already suspected of involvement with the necklace but not saying by whom (obviously, Snape himself and DD); and he's putting Draco's known assistants, Crabbe and Goyle, in detention. Harry hears all of this and concludes that Snape is helping Draco with the job he's been assigned by his master. (Snape says "*your* master," not "*our* master," and Harry actually notes that wording to Hermione, p. 353, but doesn't register its significance. Neither, of course, does Draco. Hermione thinks it might refer to Draco's father, but if she thinks about the conversation later, she should realize that it refers to Voldemort--*Draco's* master, but not Snape's). Mr. Weasley's reaction to the whole story is, "Has it occurred to you, Harry, that Snape was simply pretending [to offer help]?" to which Harry replies, "Yeah, I thought you'd say that. But how do we know?" and Lupin supports Mr. Weasley by saying, "It's not our business to know. It's Dumbledore's business. Dumbledore trusts Snape, and that ought to be good enough for all of us" (HBP 332). Hermione's reaction is identical to Mr. Weasley's: "Don't you think--' "'--he was pretending to offer help so that he could trick Malfoy into telling him what he's doing?' "'Well, yes,' said Hermione. Hermione concedes that *Draco* is up to something (though not necessarily for Voldemort). She fails to pick up on the "your master" clue, and the conversation gets sidetracked onto Lupin. But I can imagine Hermione coming back to the conversation and discussing it with Lupin or Mr. Weasley, whose reactions Harry has told her resembled hers. (And BTW, three reasonable people arriving at the same conclusion regarding Snape ought to be a hint to the reader, at least, that perhaps they're right about Snape, as Harry is right about Draco.) zgirnius: > The whole Potters story is shaky. Hermione knows how vague the Prophecy was - could Snape really set them up. > > She knows Dumbledore trusted Snape before the Potters died (that is why I brought up GoF, not the 'personal risk' bit). > > a_svirn: > Actually, the only "shaky" part is that it was the reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape. But she has no alternative explanation for that trust anyway. Carol: I agree that the whole Potters story as Harry gives it is shaky. And zgirnius' point that Hermione *knows* DD trusted Snape before the Potters died is crucial. *Someone* has to figure out that Harry's version of events (the tale of remorse coming after the Potters' deaths) doesn't jibe with what they already know--he turned spy for Dumbledore before Voldemort's fall. If Hermione can't see the inconsistency, then her capacity for logic (first demonstrated with Snape's riddle in SS/PS and shown again when she deduces that the vision of Sirius Black in the MoM has to be fake) has failed her--and us. As for having no alternative explanation for Dumbledore's trust in Snape, she can at least deduce that he *had* a reason--*before* Godric's Hollow--and it isn't the reason that Harry gives. > a_svirn: > But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. > And look how the adults changed their tune! Lupin who had assured Harry that he neither liked nor disliked Snape suddenly remembered what a good occlumence he is. And he absolutely scorned the idea Snape might have repented his actions, > It seems that Hermione is the only one who doubts Snape's evilness. Carol: First, we've seen reactions very like these before, not only in the readiness of the Little Hangletonians to believe Frank Bryce capable of murder and the willingness of the whole WW to believe Sirius Black to have betrayed his best friens to their deaths followed by the murder of thirteen people, but of a similar belief on the part of the Hufflepuffs that Harry was the Heir of Slytherin based on the Serpensortia incident. So, based on Harry's story, most of the adults, and especially Lupin, seize on the idea that DD was wrong to trust Snape. But Slughorn's reaction ("I taught him. I thought I knew him") is rather different. He trusted Snape as Snape, not because Dumbledore did. And Hagrid repeatedly defends Snape until he actually sees the body, and even then doesn't speak against him. He only weeps for Dumbledore. Hermione's reaction is similar to McGonagall's at first ("Oh, Harry. I was so stupid!"). Consequently, it's *very* interesting that she doesn't seem to maintain that attitude. She defends the HBP, whom she's been criticizing all year, as something less than "evil" (even given Sectumsempra, an undeniably Dark spell that he apparently invented at sixteen). She hesitates to call Snape a murderer and even does a bit of research to determine how he came up with the name "Half-Blood Prince." It's almost as though Hermione can trust the Prince, at least with regard to Potions, now that she knows who he is (it's okay that his potions hints aren't Ministry-approved; she knows that he's a potions genius and has herself benefited from his expertise). And she seems to have some sort of sympathy or empathy for him that she didn't have when he was an unknown student with a "nasty" sense of humor. The only way I can account for Hermione's changed attitude is to conclude that she's been thinking about Harry's story, noting the gaps and inconsistencies, and thinking about the Snape she knows--the sarcastic teacher whom she *knows* to have acted courageously in support of Dumbledore and to protect Harry--in contrast to the unknown Snape who would murder Dumbledore to "steal [Draco's] glory" or support the Dark Lord he's been opposing all this time. I think she's concluded, as so many of us have done, that there must be more to Snape's story, more to Dumbledore's trust in him, than has yet been revealed. Carol, counting on Hermione to use her brain to figure out what Harry doesn't want to see From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 21:09:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:09:04 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165820 Bobby wrote: > > 1. I've heard people discuss that Snape has fooled both Voldemort and Dumbledore in the whole "is Snape good or bad" argument. However, I haven't heard the following specific point addressed (probably missed it)... but to me, it makes perfect sense that Snape would be fooling Voldemort and not Dumbledore. The reason is that even though Dumbledore is trusting, he isn't stupid... he trusts when he should. This is best demonstrated with the fact that Dumbledore never trusts young Riddle even though EVERY OTHER teacher fawns over him. > > In terms of Voldemort... even though he is the opposite of Dumbledore (in terms of being suspicious and non-trusting), it makes perfect sense that Snape is able to deceive him because his major weakness is his pride. He would NEVER believe that anyone could hide things from him. Doesn't he always say "I always know when people are lying"?? He is so prideful in his Legilimency abilities, he cannot fathom that Snape is lying to him. This more than anything to me argues for Snape being on the "good" side. Carol responds: I agree with you, and I think this idea is borne out not only by Snape's words to Harry in the Occlumency lessons but by his words to Bellatrix in HBP, which I'll discuss in more detail in a moment. It's important to note that unlike, say, Draco, Snape is a "superb Occlumens" (Lupin's compliment, and Lupin does not hand out praise lightly, especially to Snape) who can "shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie and so utter falsehoods in his presence without detection" (OoP Am. ed. 531). It's obvious to Snape that Draco has erected some sort of mental barrier to block Snape from seeing his thoughts (or memories or emotions). Try that trick with Voldemort and you'll be lucky if he Crucios rather than kills you. To practice Occlumency undetected, Snape must be able to supply alternate or even faked memories to fool a Legilimens as skilled as LV appears to be (and I do think he's genuinely skilled since he seems to have been able to detect lies as early as age eleven). If he were merely presenting a mental barrier like Draco's, LV would know what he was doing. Dumbledore, of course, is also a highly skilled Legilimens, perhaps better even than LV, but even he could possibly be fooled by a highly skilled Occlumens like Snape. However, he can also read people psychologically far better than Voldemort can (if not quite perfectly), and I don't think that Occlumency can create a false *emotion* even if it can create a false memory. If Snape's remorse were fake, surely Dumbledore's Legilimency would detect that, no matter how skilled he is at acting. (The phrase "spun a tale of deepest remorse" is for Bellatrix's benefit, and Snape also pretends that he told the tale to DD after the Potters' deaths, but we know from GoF that the remorse preceded the fall of Voldemort.) And Dumbledore surely knows that Snape would not have spied for him "at great personal risk" (before becoming a teacher, obviously, or there would be neither danger nor opportunity to spy) if the remorse weren't sincere. So, I agree. Dumbledore has reason to believe that Snape is telling him the truth, that his remorse and his loyalty are sincere, and he doesn't need Legilimency to know that. Nor do I think that Snape, who IMO knows that DD is a greater wizard than LV, would be foolish enough to attempt Occlumency on Dumbledore. If he *were* detected, the trust that he had worked so hard to build would be in shambles. And Dumbledore's trust is very important to Snape, as he reveals to Fake!Moody in an angry moment under the delusion that Fake!Moody is also DD's trusted friend. (An aside here: People have wondered why Snape doesn't use Legilimency--not Occlumency--on Fake!Moody, suspicious as he always is of the DADA teachers. But it would hardly do to attempt Legilimency on *Moody*, the Auror hired to protect Hogwarts during the TWT, even if it could be done with that awful magical eye looking right through you. And Fake!Moody's personal dislike of him as a DE who "walked free" exactly matches the real Moody's feelings. Snape can feel resentful and even envious of DD's new righthand man without figuring out that Fake!Moody is a DE in disguise. Once Fake!Moody is exposed, he goes right back to his old place again, indicating that DD knows where Snape's loyalties lie and perhaps regrets the slip.) Regarding Voldemort's pride, I also agree with you. He may know that Snape is an Occlumens, but I doubt that he has any idea how skilled Snape really is. Snape askes Bellatrix rhetorically, "Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?" IOW, Snape is about to give her exactly the same answers that he's already given to Voldemort, and Voldemort has believed him (at least to the extent of allowing him to survive the encounter). Bellatrix hesitates. "I know he believes you but . . . ." and Snape counters with, "You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?" (HBP Am. ed. 26). Bellatrix is trapped. She can't acknowledge that the Dark Lord could be wrong or that he could somehow be hoodwinked by Severus Snape (who hasn't mentioned his skills as an Occlumens in this cleverly worded response as that would reveal exactly how he *did* hoodwink Voldemort). He's merely worded the question so that she can't voice her suspicions of him without seeming to doubt his Lordship's greatness. Snape wisely doesn't press his advantage. He instead changes the subject, providing ostensibly truthful answers to her questions (with some significant omissions like sending the Order to the MoM). Bobby: > 2. WHY does everyone covet the Defense Against the Dark Arts job??? Voldemort, Snape... there seems to be an inordinate amount of interest in this job from these two people who are in love with the Dark Arts- why do they want to teach a "Defense" class? Is there some sort of power or secret related to Hogwarts that the DADA teacher is privy to? Carol: I think it's clear why *Voldemort* would have wanted the DADA job if he were hired. DD is probably right that LV doesn't want to teach so much as to influence young minds and recruit followers--and where better to do that than in a popular class like DADA, which everyone wants to learn (unless they have a bad teacher like Lockhart or Umbridge). Even Fake!Moody seems to have enjoyed teaching that class, pushing the limits so that he could not only hex students under the pretense of teaching them hex deflection but actually torture and kill spiders and cast the Imperius Curse on students. Voldemort, too, would have pushed the class to its limits, taking advantage of its closeness to or association with the Dark Arts. In fact, I don't doubt that, like Karkaroff, he would actually have taught the Dark Arts if he could manage it. (Needless to say, DD was not about to give him the opportunity.) But also, LV would not have wanted the students to learn *Defense* Against the Dark Arts, which is probably why he "jinxed" (cursed) the class to prevent any DADA teacher from teaching more than a year and particularly to prevent the good ones from returning--that and revenge on Dumbledore for not hiring him. (Quirrell, the exception to the rule, seems to have developed a dangerous desire to encounter Dark creatures in person, which conveniently led him straight to Albania--and Vapormort. And even he seems to have taught for only one year before that unfortunate excursion based on Dumbledore's remark in HBP.) Snape is another matter. Of course, he tells Bellatrix (and presumably Voldemort) that DD doesn't want him to teach DADA because it might tempt him to resume his old ways, that is, take up his old interest in the Dark Arts, but we see that teaching the class does no such thing to him. He teaches the students nonverbal spells, alternate defenses against Dementors, ways of resisting the Imperius curse (if only we could sit in on more of his lessons or essay assignments!). He doesn't demonstrate the Unforgiveable Curses even to his sixth years; he only shows their effects using posters (no doubt moving ones like Ron's Quidditch posters). He pairs the students off to practice nonverbal curses and countercurses on each other, only resorting to hexing Harry nonverbally when Ron fails to do it (which< IMO, is why Harry's verbal Protego hit him so hard--it was deflecting Snape's own spell, which is what a Protego does--not that Harry's reflexes were faster than Snape's, as we know from "Flight of the Prince" that they aren't). At any rate, I think that on one level, Snape does want to teach DADA because he's extremely good at it, just as he is at Potions, but unlike Potions, DADA is a course for the masses, not for the elite. IOW, everyone needs to learn it, as he acknowledges by admitting anyone who passed their OWL (even with an Acceptable), even giving remedial lessons to those who failed (Crabbe and Goyle), in contrast to NEWT Potions, to which he admits only those who have earned an O. DADA is especially important with Voldemort back, and most of the students (Draco excepted) realize that. And yet Snape can't help but know that the DADA class is cursed/jinxed given the fates of his predecessors (including those we don't see--the class is already rumored to be jinxed before Quirrell meets his fate). He applied for the DADA position on Voldemort's orders, but Snape would have told DD that, and DD, I think, gave him the cover story that he feared that the position would tempt him to take up the Dark Arts. Meanwhile, he took the opportunity to hire Snape to teach Potions, not only because he was exceptionally good at it but because it would keep him safely at Hogwarts for most of the year, away from the DEs and Voldemort. So, IMO, young Snape was a protected person like Trelawney and Hagrid, but he was also given a large amount of responsibility at an early age, surely becoming HoH in his first year in Slughorn's place (the reverse of what occurs at the end of HBP). If I'm right that Snape, like Dumbledore, knew or suspected that LV was not dead (his words to Bellatrix to the contrary), he would have continued to apply for the DADA position every year as a show of loyalty to LV when he returned, but I think he knew he would never be hired for the position until the time was ripe--after Voldie had returned and DD urgently needed his talents in that position (including side jobs like dealing with cursed necklaces). And they would both know that Snape would leave the job in disgrace (if he survived the year) and be forced to return to the Death Eaters. So I think that DD held the job in reserve for Snape until the time that his need for Snape to teach DADA and return to the DEs outweighed his need for him to teach Potions and act as his watchdog and righthand man around Hogwarts. Carol, wishing that Harry had could have learned what Snape had to teach him before the opportunity was lost forever and knowing that the fault lies as much with Snape's personality as with Harry's preconceptions From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Mar 7 22:40:19 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:40:19 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Here's a third vote for Voldie being a whole lot easier to fool than DD. The former is obviously even more fallible given the way Harry keeps slipping through his fingers. Dumbledore might be compassionate but he is neither naive nor foolish. He has indicated all along that he knows something about Snape that nobody else does, something he does not share with Harry though he thinks about doing so in HBP. As Lupin says - and then forgets - if you trust DD you *MUST* trust his judgement about Snape, and I do, all appearances to the contrary. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 23:25:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:25:38 -0000 Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165823 --- "bercygirl2" wrote: > > During the events on the tower, Dumbledore was > disarmed and his wand thrown off. Does anyone have any > thoughts about where it could be now?... > > I thought of 2 possibilities - > It was burned along with his bodyduring the funeral... > My other thought - we know that Harry's wand and > Voldemort's will not work properly against each other. > Could Harry somehow end up with Dumbledore's wand? > > bercygirl2 > bboyminn: First and foremost, the 'song' is just a song and shouldn't be taken too literally. Second, yes it is possible that Dumbledore was buried with his wand; can't rule that out. But I think it is more likely that his wand was combine with his other artifacts and dispersed according to his Will. I suspect a vast majority of his personal affects and his likely sizable fortune were given to the school as an endowment; historical and financial endowment. I suspect that beyond the original Founder's Endowment, Hogwarts is funded by the other endowments and by the generosity of the Board of Governors. Likely, the Governors are on the Board precisely because it is their money that is being spent by the school, and like most 'controlling' boards (like corporations) they are there to insure that their money is invested and used wisely. So, the bulk of Dumbledore's estate has been left to the school he loved. The remainer has been disbursed to specific individuals according to his Will, like his brother and perhaps to Harry. I speculate that it is most likely that the School has his wand, or second, that Aberforth has it. Either way, it could still become available to Harry. Lastly, let's not get carried away, Harry and Voldemort's wands will work nicely against the other person. It is only under vary rare and unlikely circumstances that the wands will not work against each other. Either Harry or Voldemort is perfectly capable of cursing or killing the other unless their respective spells collide in mid-air. That is the only circumstance under which the 'Brother Wand' affect comes into play. In normal dueling, it doesn't usually matter. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From muellem at bc.edu Wed Mar 7 23:52:35 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:52:35 -0000 Subject: That whole locket, green goo in mysterious cave thing (was: gree In-Reply-To: <45EF3356.000007.02700@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165824 "Debi" wrote: > > What am I missing? Where does it say in HBP that Bellatrix was the one to place the locket in the cave? Or where does it say she had it in the first place, page or chapter? Because I can't find this reference. > colebiancardi: It doesn't state it anywhere. It is a theory - just like all of the theories on this board. We try to base our theories on hints in the books - The reason why I think this is a good theory is because of this line in HBP spoken by Bellatrix: "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious..." HBP Am Edition hardback - "Spinner's End" pg 29. Put that with the theory that RAB is Regulus Black, who was a DE that turned and was *killed* (still thinking that Regulus is alive), and that Bellatrix is Regulus's cousin - it makes for a pretty good theory. That Bellatrix had the locket - Regulus took it and replaced it with the fake one. Or something along those lines. colebiancardi (this board is full of theories - some sadly gone by the wayside, some happily gone by the wayside and some still unknown until book 7 - and even then, maybe never known) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 00:10:27 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:10:27 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165825 --- "justcarol67" wrote: >... > Carol responds: > > ... If she (Hermione) really thinks about Snape and > what she's seen him do ..., she may realize that > killing Dumbledore is out of character for him. ... > And if Harry describes that Avada Kedavra on the tower > --Dumbledore's body going over the battlements instead > of falling backward instantly dead), she may start > wondering what's going on, especially if she decides to > talk things over with Lupin, ... Of course, Snape *did* > say the words "Avada Kedavra," but that doesn't make > Harry's account accurate in all other respects. It's > colored by his emotions and preconceptions. And Lupin, > like Hermione, knows about the UV to protect Draco. > Surely, one of them will mention that and try to > figure out where and how it fits the picture. That and > the exchanged look between Snape and Dumbledore. Lupin > will know whether it's possible to communicate that way. > ... bboyminn: I'm going to just address this one point. Since I read HBP, I have been racking my brain trying to find some way for Snape to convince Harry that he can be trusted, that he has valuable information about Voldemort's camp that can help Harry defeat Voldemort. I picture Snape luring Harry into a clandestine meeting, Snape offerring his explanation, but no matter how I word that explanation in my mind, Harry is just not going to buy it. He has too much hatred of Snape to forgive so easily. But I do have an old theory of mine, that so far, while good has fallen short because it always falls back on Snape somehow having to convince Harry. But Carol, in her post above, has offerred me the key to get past the roadblock - Lupin. Let me diverge a moment to talk about spells and curses as it is at the heart of my theory. Note, as Carol points out, some thing isn't quite right with the reaction to Snape's Killing Curse on the top of the tower. Dumbledore should, alledgedly, have just quietly fallen over dead, not been blasted over the battlements. Forget that for a moment and look at all the examples in the books of curses that have /missed/. When a curse strikes it's target, it can have some physical force, that is not out of the question, but generally it does what it is intended to do. But notice the action of missed curses, they generally have substantial physical impact; breaking off chunks of wall, floor, or the wing of a stone angel, etc.... Time and time again we see this, especially in the heat of battle when emotions are running high; missed curses do physical damage. Now back to Dumbledore; what if Dumbledore was already dead when Snape threw the Killing Curse? That would explain the unusual response. Also, if Hermione and Lupin probe Harry at depth for the details of what happened on the tower, Harry might let it slip that it was the Killing Curse that threw Dumbledore off the tower. Indeed as Carol points out, that might lead Lupin to conclude the only way that could happen was if Dumbledore was already dead. I consider a Killing curse against a dead person as very much the equivalent of a missed curse with respect to the reaction we will see. Now, we have a reason for Harry to come to his clandestine meeting with Snape, and actually come away believing Snape is on his side, and willing to accept his assist in defeating Voldemort. Someone has to figure this out and plant the seed in Harry's head that Dumbledore was already dead when Snape cursed him. Perhaps just before he cursed, Snape became aware that the life had slipped from Dumbledore's body, and he took advantage of the stituation. I really can't see any other way that Snape can convince Harry to accept his help. And I believe that absolutely Harry needs Snape's help if he has any chance of accomplishing the many near impossible tasks set before him. Call it "The Curse of the Dead Man". Steve/bboyminn From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 23:51:34 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:51:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Horcrux References at Hogwarts - banned books in ROR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <830475.79897.qm@web35003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165826 I was under the impression from something I read, that Dumbledore was the one to remove books from Hogwarts that referenced Horcruxes. Now I can't find any evidence to support this. Does anyone know if Dumbledore is responsible for banning the books containing Horcruxes? If they were banned before his reign as headmaster, does anyone know how Tom Riddle originally found information on them, or are we to suppose he found the same one reference as Hermione in "Magick Moste Evile" or a source in an outside library. I have a hard time picturing him going home with a friend over holidays, but I suppose it could have happened... deborah, who understands that Horcruxes are terrible and dangerous, but still doesn't want Dumbledore to have been the one who banned books because of them --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 01:00:12 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:00:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcrux References at Hogwarts - banned books in ROR In-Reply-To: <830475.79897.qm@web35003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <830475.79897.qm@web35003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007b01c7611d$20ba3ad0$7bd02444@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165827 --Deborah Wrote-- >>>I was under the impression from something I read, that Dumbledore was the one to remove books from Hogwarts that referenced Horcruxes. Now I can't find any evidence to support this. >Does anyone know if Dumbledore is responsible for banning the books containing Horcruxes? If they were banned before his reign as headmaster, does anyone know how Tom Riddle originally found information on them, or are we to suppose he found the same one >reference as Hermione in "Magick Moste Evile" or a source in an outside library. I have a hard time picturing him going home with a friend over holidays, but I suppose it could have happened... <<< --Ronin's Comments-- I think that it's just a memory of something he says in HBP which, when reflecting upon it later may have been mis-remembered. Somewhere in HBP, (I think it's when DD is trying to impress upon Harry, the importance of getting Slughorne's memory or just after they've studied that memory), DD says something about how anyone would be hard pressed to find anything about horcruxes in the books at Hogwarts. I think that horcruxes were either a taboo subject or something that is so extremely rare that even the Hogwarts library didn't have any information about them. When Tom Riddle began researching horcruxes, he was still a student and Dumbledore was just a teacher then. But Tom was forced to seek the information from Slughorne, although I'm sure he would've tried the library first. I wonder how he heard of horcruxes at all. Maybe he became curious from the tiny mention that Hermione found and wanted to know more. I also wonder why he knew that Sughorne was the man to ask about them and why Slughorne knew so much about them to begin with. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 8 02:26:42 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:26:42 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165828 Bobby: > In terms of Voldemort... even though he is the > opposite of Dumbledore (in terms of being suspicious > and non-trusting), it makes perfect sense that Snape > is able to deceive him because his major weakness is > his pride. He would NEVER believe that anyone could > hide things from him. Doesn't he always say "I always > know when people are lying"?? He is so prideful in his > Legilimency abilities, he cannot fathom that Snape is > lying to him. This more than anything to me argues for > Snape being on the "good" side. houyhnhnm: That makes a lot of sense. Voldemort's pride, his self-centeredness, and his inability to understand love or altruism as a motive for others' behavior are all of a piece and they are all weaknesses. Bobby: > WHY does everyone covet the Defense Against the > Dark Arts job??? Voldemort, Snape... there seems > to be an inordinate amount of interest in this > job from these two people who are in love with > the Dark Arts- why do they want to teach a "Defense" > class? Is there some sort of power or secret related > to Hogwarts that the DADA teacher is privy to? houyhnhnm: Dumbledore ascribed that motive to Tom. "Secondly, the castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. Undoubtedly Voldemort had penetrated many more of its secrets than most of the students who pass through the place, but he may have felt that there were still mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap." I don't know about power or secrets accruing automatically to the holder of the DADA position, though. It's logical that since the DADA professor is offically responsible for handling dark objects and breaking curses, the holder of that office would be privy to secrets the other faculty are not, but it doesn't seem to have benefited Lockhart much. He remained pretty much incompetent at anything other than memory charms. I suspect Snape privately hankered after the challenge of the DADA position, but I'm not sure he really applied for it every year in earnest. I think that may have been a rumor circulated by Dumbledore. But that's because I am a DDM!Snaper. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 8 02:31:39 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:31:39 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > Now back to Dumbledore; what if Dumbledore was already > dead when Snape threw the Killing Curse? That would > explain the unusual response. Also, if Hermione and > Lupin probe Harry at depth for the details of what > happened on the tower, Harry might let it slip that > it was the Killing Curse that threw Dumbledore off > the tower. > > Indeed as Carol points out, that might lead Lupin to > conclude the only way that could happen was if > Dumbledore was already dead. I consider a Killing > curse against a dead person as very much the equivalent > of a missed curse with respect to the reaction we will > see. Quick_Silver: I actually think this is a really neat idea and could actually work but I have to say that I feel there's no...set-up...to it. Harry doesn't notice Snape stalling, or taking long then normal to do the deed, and Snape eyes, iirc, aren't described as searching (as if he was looking at Dumbledore's life force) but his face is filled with anger and hatred (again if I remember correctly). It's just that if JK wanted to have this why not include a second of hesitation that no one but Harry could notice? My entire view of Draco is different because Harry noticed his wand drop a fraction, why not have Snape hesitate for a fraction of second? > bboyminn: > Now, we have a reason for Harry to come to his > clandestine meeting with Snape, and actually come away > believing Snape is on his side, and willing to accept his > assist in defeating Voldemort. Quick_Silver: My own personal (and unlikely) theory is that the seed of doubt about Snape will be planted in Harry's mind by Draco...who of course will be spying for Harry on Snape and Voldemort. Draco will realize that there was in fact someone else on the Tower that saw his hesitation and deduce that it was Harry. Quick_Silver From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 8 02:46:07 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 02:46:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165830 Carol: > (An aside here: People have wondered why Snape > doesn't use Legilimency--not Occlumency--on Fake!Moody, > suspicious as he always is of the DADA teachers. But > it would hardly do to attempt Legilimency on *Moody*, > the Auror hired to protect Hogwarts during the TWT, > even if it could be done with that awful magical eye > looking right through you. And Fake!Moody's personal > dislike of him as a DE who "walked free" exactly matches > the real Moody's feelings. Snape can feel resentful > and even envious of DD's new righthand man without > figuring out that Fake!Moody is a DE in disguise. houyhnhnm: After several reads of GoF, I have the distinct impression that Snape is highly suspicious that Fake!Moody is a DE in disguise. I think his failure to share that suspicion with Dumbledore (AFAWK) is due to his bad experience with Lupin and Sirius in PoA. Part pique at DD for not listening to his doubts about Lupin, part chagrin at being wrong about Sirius. From yoliteran at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 03:10:27 2007 From: yoliteran at hotmail.com (teranyoli) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:10:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is not dead Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165831 Dumbledore is not dead. He is an animagus, a phoenix. There is hit in page 645 of HBP Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue,.... teranyoli From yoliteran at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 03:00:14 2007 From: yoliteran at hotmail.com (teranyoli) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:00:14 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165832 --I think Dumbledore is not dead it was all planned by him to fake his death so Voldemort would believe it. Snape is on Dumbledore's side. Did you put attention to the text were it says: Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay: Higher and higher they rose, obscuring the body. White smoke spiraled into the air and made strange shapes: Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue, but next second the fire had vanished... Page 645 of HBP. See, He was an animagus, he could turn himself into a phoenix, and he did it at the funeral. I know he is alive, he has to be. He cannot end up killed by Snape. teranyoli From muellem at bc.edu Thu Mar 8 03:24:03 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:24:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is not dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165833 "teranyoli" wrote: > > Dumbledore is not dead. He is an animagus, a phoenix. There is hit in > page 645 of HBP Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he > saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue,.... > colebiancardi: alas, JKR has stated that Dumbledore is dead: "Author JK Rowling explicitly clarified tonight on her final appearance at Radio City Music Hall in New York City that Dumbledore is "definitely" dead." http://www.hpana.com/news.19531.html I can only assume as we have only met one phoenix in the HP series, that phoenix was Fawkes. colebiancardi(who wonders why Fawkes was not around during the scene in the Tower....) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 03:28:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:28:03 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165834 > Quick_Silver: > My own personal (and unlikely) theory is that the seed of doubt about > Snape will be planted in Harry's mind by Draco... > Draco will realize that > there was in fact someone else on the Tower that saw his hesitation > and deduce that it was Harry. zgirnius: This is my pet theory as well. I have a slightly different version of it. I think Snape is still bound by the Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco, and is thus now in the unenviable position of needing to protect Draco from Voldemort. This is something he simply can't do in the long run. He needs Draco off his hands and safe with the Order. If Draco does not figure out Harry was there, heard Dumbledore's offer, and saw Draco lower his wand, I expect Snape will tell him. And will subtly encourage him to seek Harry out. From finessefluteecole at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 03:17:18 2007 From: finessefluteecole at gmail.com (Joshua Michael) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:17:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore is not dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99ca58c40703071917u5d678f96m6c18c0ba43c4231a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165835 teranyoli: "Dumbledore is not dead. He is an animagus, a phoenix. There is hit in page 645 of HBP Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue,...." Dumbledore is dead! JK Rowling her self said so in a scholastic book interview. JK did say he would be back in Book 7 but in a different form! Maybe as a portrait? Not as a ghost as he was not scared of death (Or he may have stuff to tell harry and he may come back) Do you go to dumbledoreisnotdead.com? -- Sincerely, JOSHUA R.B. MICHAEL The RCMFluter http://www.freewebs.com/rcmfluter ______________________P_____________________ ()_( O )_____]_o_o_O_O_O_O_O_O_O_O_]d_O_O_O_) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 03:33:03 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:33:03 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again - lockets confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Then why did the locket from Dumbledore's pocket appear different to > Harry immediately from the one he vaguely remembered seeing when > Dumbledore took it from the basin in the cave? I'm confused! I've always thought that Harry noticed the difference between the fake locket that fell from DD's pocket and the real Slytherin's locket that he (Harry) saw in the Pensieve, in Ogden's memory, not the difference between the locket from DD's pocket and the locket DD took from the basin (I still think it's the same locket, but this is not the point). Harry didn't even look at the locket when DD took it from the basin, IIRC, and he barely caught a glimpse of it in the basin. I don't think he could notice any difference even if it existed. All he could see was that the locket from DD's pocket was not Slytherin's locket that Harry saw Merope wearing in Ogden's memory. That's how I've always understood it. Maybe I missed something here. I just don't think that Harry would call the basin in the cave "Pensieve" even if they look similar (p.609 US). zanooda, confused From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 8 03:40:45 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:40:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? References: Message-ID: <009601c76133$8ee16130$3d8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165837 >> Quick_Silver: >> My own personal (and unlikely) theory is that the seed of doubt about >> Snape will be planted in Harry's mind by Draco... > >> Draco will realize that >> there was in fact someone else on the Tower that saw his hesitation >> and deduce that it was Harry. > > zgirnius: > This is my pet theory as well. I have a slightly different version of > it. I think Snape is still bound by the Unbreakable Vow to protect > Draco, and is thus now in the unenviable position of needing to protect > Draco from Voldemort. This is something he simply can't do in the long > run. He needs Draco off his hands and safe with the Order. > > If Draco does not figure out Harry was there, heard Dumbledore's offer, > and saw Draco lower his wand, I expect Snape will tell him. And will > subtly encourage him to seek Harry out. Magpie: I admit I lean a similar way. I've no ideas about what will happen or how or why, but it seems like the obvious road for Harry towards his Slytherin antagonists is now starting with Draco, based on that slight change in the way he views him at the end of HBP. No idea how it will be used, but it seemed like something to use (hopefully, for me, with a little different closure for Sectumsempra). If that book is only the first half of the story, that was the one thing that seemed like a starting point to get us into the second part. We know they're going to be hunting Horcruxes and that Harry's going to have to confront Snape and vanquish Voldemort, but that moment seemed like the hint of a place to start somehow, given that Harry is now the only person who saw that scene on the Tower. It's very rare that Harry has a piece of information like that when others don't, especially one that's so Dumbledore like, where Harry understands a person better than someone else might because he saw this. Harry's almost like Dumbledore's heir when it comes to this. -m From muellem at bc.edu Thu Mar 8 03:48:14 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:48:14 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again - lockets confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165838 "zanooda2" wrote: > I'm confused! I've always thought that Harry noticed the difference > between the fake locket that fell from DD's pocket and the real > Slytherin's locket that he (Harry) saw in the Pensieve, in Ogden's > memory, not the difference between the locket from DD's pocket and the > locket DD took from the basin (I still think it's the same locket, but > this is not the point). > colebiancardi: You are not confused - you are correct!! From Flight of the Prince, HBP, Am Ed Hardcover, page 609: "He turned the locket over in his hands. This was neither as large as the locket he remembered seeing in the Pensieve, nor were there any markings upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark." from The Cave, pg 567 - "...but then he saw that the light was coming from a stone basin rather like the Pensive, which was set on top of a pedestal." same chapter, pg 574 "He {Harry} leapt to his feet and seized the goblet he had dropped in the basin; he barely registered the golden locket lying curled beneath it." same chapter, pg 576 "Dumbledore scooped the locket from the bottom of the stone basin and stowed it inside his robes" The only time Harry got a good look at the locket was in the Pensive - Lord Voldemort's Request, p 437 "There upon the smooth crimson velvet lay a heavy golden locket. Voldemort reached out his hand, without invitation this time, and held it up to the light, staring at it. "Slytherin's mark," he said quietly, as the light played upon an ornate, serpentine S. Harry noticed the locket in the Pensive, not in the stone basin. I would also like to point out that the stone basin, although it looked very similar to a Pensive to Harry, he never refers to it as such colebiancardi From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 04:05:26 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:05:26 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165839 > a_svirn: > That's just it I don't see why she would hesitate to call him thus. > He *is* a murderer, after all, even if he killed for "the Greater > Good" (not that I believe that such thing exists, but for the sake of > argument.) zgirnius: I figure the hesitation is for the moment it takes for her to recall that there are degrees of murder. I don't think she believes the killing to be premeditated. He was not in on Draco's plan, as she knows because she saw he made no move to join in until Flitwick was sent for him. Also, as Carol pointed out (thanks for the canon, Carol!) Hermione knows Snape was bound by an Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco. She may not think he believed it could ever involve killing Dumbledore (even if we know better). > a_svirn: > Actually, the only "shaky" part is that it was the reason for > Dumbledore's trust in Snape. But she has no alternative explanation > for that trust anyway. zgirnius: That does not matter. That the reason she has been given is wrong implies there was another. She can deduce its existence without knowing it. > > zgirnius: > > It comes down to what Hermione means by her little comment, then. > > One might call a > > person evil for doing one evil thing, or one might think of the > good > > the person has done/may do in the future and hesitate > a_svirn: > But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an > essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's > weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and > the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that > inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. zgirnius: This is your opinion. I do not share it, and I do not see why Hermione must. Hermione is aware of the following good actions of Snape, which have occured over the past six years: 1) Saving Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS 2) End of PoA - I think she would believe him sincere in his comments to her and Harry in the Shack - in other words, he was after Sirius because he was the traitor 3) Revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge 4) Teaching Harry Occlumency (I think she did read up on it, and has reason to believe Harry's reaction is typical in the early stages) 5) Not providing Umbridge with Veritaserum in OotP 6) Sending the Order to the MoM (and checking on Sirius) 7) Saving Dumbledore's life 8) Saving Katie Bell's life The bad actions you point to (except the murder of Dumbledore) are all in Snape's, as you say, murky past. Hermione has not seen them, and has conflicting accounts of them. I think it is entirely possible to take all this, decide Dumbledore had a good reason to accept whatever it was Snape told him on VoldWar 1, believe Snape did make a colossal effort to reform and achieved some good through it, and then, as you say, 'fell from grace'. I also think Hermione probably has some admiration for Snape despite his classroom manner and treatment of her. She was quite impressed with his defense of the Stone in PS/SS. She persists in trying to win his approval, and likens his teaching of DADA to Harry's. She tolerates him in her ordinary school life, I think, because she believes he brings something of value to the table (his knowledge and skills, which he is able to communicate to her). Likewise, I think he has been of some use to the Order in the past, it is just forgotten in the shock of the murder. (And can be dismissed now as just keeping his cover). a_svirn: > It seems that Hermione is the only one who doubts Snape's evilness. zgirnius: Hagrid has yet to accuse him. Even if she were alone, it would not make her automatically wrong. *from elsewhere in this conversation* > Carol wrote: > zgirnius (listing Harry's accusations against Snape, not her own views): > he got them killed, zgirnius: LOLOL. Thanks for clarifying that, Carol! > Carol: > I don't se Weak!Snape anywhere. (Weak!Lupin, yes.) She's seen him > display exemplary courage. zgirnius: There is such a thing as a moment of weakness, which even usually brave people can have. *I* don't think that's what happened, but then I know the entire contents of the Vow, so I know Snape had all year to think about what he would do when faced with the decision he had on the Tower. Hermione doesn't. As you point out, she knows Snape swore to protect Draco. This seems a Vow extremely unlikely to require the killing of Dumbledore to fulfill, on the face of it. Though, now that I think about it...Harry did not tell her and Ron about Dumbledore and Draco's conversation, did he? That's the one bit she needs to start thinking in a DDM! direction, it seems to me. She may be thinking Snape killed Dumbledore to protect Draco and save his own life. If she knew about the entirety of the conversation, she might start wondering what Dumbledore would have wanted Snape to do.... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 04:13:46 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:13:46 -0000 Subject: The Green Goo Again - lockets confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > You are not confused - you are correct!! > The only time Harry got a good look at the locket was in the > Pensive -Lord Voldemort's Request, p 437 > "There upon the smooth crimson velvet lay a heavy golden locket. > Voldemort reached out his hand, without invitation this time, and > held it up to the light, staring at it. "Slytherin's mark," he said > quietly, as the light played upon an ornate, serpentine S. > > Harry noticed the locket in the Pensive, not in the stone basin. I > would also like to point out that the stone basin, although it > looked very similar to a Pensive to Harry, he never refers to it as > such Thanks for the reference! But, you see, I was still wrong in a way, because somehow I didn't think that Harry remembered the locket from "Lord Voldemort's request", I thought it was from "The House of Gaunt", where we see the locket for the first time. I looked it up, and of course you are right: in "The House of Gaunt" the locket is not described in detail. We find out only that it was "a heavy gold locket" and that it was Slytherin's. There is nothing about the "S" mark in there. I mixed up the two scenes, what was described where :). Thanks again for unconfusing me! zanooda From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 04:22:29 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:22:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703072022h7da0faaeu6114acc8e1dde8ec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165841 Funkeginger Wrote-- >>>Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for fighting You Know >Who and disarming the Horcruxes is Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to teach HP how to fight Voldemort? Lynda: Bill left school before Harry learned he was a wizard, so his skills and knowledge are basically an unknown quantity. We know he is a curse breaker for Gringotts, but other than that, he's pretty much an unknown as far as magical ability is concerned so there's no way for us to know, before reading the last book if he will be crucial or not. Having said that, its a good theory and completely plausible. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 04:46:52 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:46:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is not dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165842 > Teranyoli wrote: > Dumbledore is not dead. He is an animagus, a phoenix. Goddlefrood: Sorry, but Dumbledore is dead. JKR told us this, although you could try and argue she was referring to Aberforth or some other Dumbledore. It's the second point I want to expand on, just a little. Two things I have found curious, and which I submit for your edification. The first is Hermione checked the Animagus register to inform us there were only seven registered Animagi in the last century without mentioning who any of the other six (apart from McConagall) were. The second is that there was an arbitrary wasp flying around the examination room during the course of Harry taking his OWLs. This latter made me think that Dumbledore's Animagus form was a wasp and that he was keeping an eye on the OWLs. Dumbledore is, after all, bee in Olde English (small aside - in The Mayor of Casterbridge there is a reference to a dumbledore and also one of the characters is said to be hagrid, which is the only other place I have come across these two words). Bee/wasp are often confused and JKR, I propose, was having her little joke by making Dumbledore a wasp in his Animagus form. Goddlefrood with little better to do just now, but recall this early thought (which I posted once on Chamber of Secrets, to my shame) ;-) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 05:00:58 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:00:58 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165843 > houyhnhnm (Our favourite intelligent horse friend): > I suspect Snape privately hankered after the challenge > of the DADA position, but I'm not sure he really > applied for it every year in earnest. I think that > may have been a rumor circulated by Dumbledore. > But that's because I am a DDM!Snaper. Goddlefrood: As long ago as October 2005 I put together a little piece on Snape and the DADA position. I believe he never wanted it and still hold that view. He certainly did not apply every year, and my reasoning is in the referred post below. Here is a link to that post, from which anyone interested could follow the discussion. No-one really managed to counter my original view, but then that's the joy of the list, I await a dressing down. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141829 Enjoy Goddlefrood From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 05:22:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:22:56 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165844 --- "quick_silver71" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > Now back to Dumbledore; what if Dumbledore was already > > dead when Snape threw the Killing Curse? That would > > explain the unusual response. ... > > > > Indeed as Carol points out, that might lead Lupin to > > conclude the only way that could happen was if > > Dumbledore was already dead. ... > > Quick_Silver: > I actually think this is a really neat idea and could > actually work but I have to say that I feel there's > no...set-up...to it. Harry doesn't notice Snape > stalling, or taking long then normal to do the > deed, and Snape eyes, .... bboyminn: There is no need for a set-up, which I think is actually there, nor for hestiation because Draco and Dumbledore did all the hestiating. By that I mean, as Dumbledore and Draco talk, Dumbledore grows weaker and weaker, gradually sliding down the wall and, to some extent, collapsing on the floor. So Dumbledore is pretty far gone, actually, completely helpless by the time Snape arrives. "In the dim glow from the Mark, Harry saw Dumbledore, clutching at his chest with he blackened hand." "Standing against the ramparts, very white in the face, Dumbledore..." " ...Dumbledore slid a little down the rampart, the strength in his legs apparently fading, ..." "aaaah..." "Dumbledore closed his eyes again and nodded, as though he was about to fall asleep...." "His (Dumbledore's) voice was light and conversational, but Harry saw him slip an inch lewer down the wall as he said it." "...Harry saw his (Dumbledore's) feet slide a little on the floor as he struggled to remain upright." "He (Draco) looked terrified as he stared into Dumbledore's face, which was even paler, and rather lower than usual, as he had slid so far down the rampart wall." So, the point is that Dumbledore is fading fast. However, when Snape finally arrives, things happen pretty fast, and I will grant you at this point, that there doesn't seem to be a pause for Dumbledore's final collapse. "...and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the scene, from Dumbledore's slumped against the wall, ....and Malfoy." "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of is face." "Severus...please..." "Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore." "Avada Kedavra1" "A jet of GREEN light shot from the end of Snape's wand ... Dumbledore was blasted into the air. ... seemed to hang suspended ...the he fell slowly backward...." Now, I admit my theory is slightly weak give the information we have, but on the other hand, JKR wouldn't want to give too much away. It is clear that Dumbledore is fading fast. I speculate Snape's 'revulsion and hatred' are not against Dumbledore, but for the position Snape has been forced into. In doing this Snape is dooming himself in the public mind forever. That is also why he chastises Harry for calling him a coward, when just moments before he has done the bravest and most self-destrutive thing he has ever done in his life. > Quick_Silver: > > My entire view of Draco is different because Harry > noticed his wand drop a fraction, why not have Snape > hesitate for a fraction of second? > > > bboyminn: > > Now, we have a reason for Harry to come to his > > clandestine meeting with Snape, ... > > Quick_Silver: > My own personal (and unlikely) theory is that the seed > of doubt about Snape will be planted in Harry's mind > by Draco...who of course will be spying for Harry on > Snape and Voldemort. Draco will realize that there was > in fact someone else on the Tower that saw his hesitation > and deduce that it was Harry. > > Quick_Silver > bboyminn: But Draco presents the same problem as Snape. While Harry may have realized that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore, Draco, none the less, caused Dumbledore's death. He is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or accessory to murder. In the eyes of the law, Draco is just a guilty as Snape. So how can Harry reconcile with Draco? What could possibly happen to bring them together on the same side? If Draco contacts Harry, why would Harry even remotely trust him. How could he possibly dare met with Draco when Draco has caused Dumbledore's death and caused the injuries to Harry friends, and is now working with the Death Eaters? I don't see how Draco could bring Snape into Harry's camp, but I do see how Snape could bring Draco in. If it turns out that Dumbledore was already dead when Snape 'killed' him. I am convinced that in the end, Snape, and probably Draco, will turn out to work for the good side. The questions is what circumstance could occur to allow that to happen. As things stand, Harry is dead set against both Snape and Draco. He wouldn't trust either one any father than he could throw Grawp. So, something has to happen, new information must become available to make Harry accept their help. But what? What could that 'thing' be? The only thing I can come up with the fills the bill is Dumbledore was already dead. --- "teranyoli" wrote: > > --I think Dumbledore is not dead it was all planned by > him to fake his death so Voldemort would believe it. > ... bboyminn: Just one problem, JKR has stated pretty emphatically that Dumbledore is dead and he is not coming back. Certainly we will see some aspect of him in the story, but Dumbledore himself is going to the great beyond. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying I have yet to hear a better explanation. Steve/bboyminn From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 8 05:44:23 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:44:23 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > There is no need for a set-up, which I think is actually > there, nor for hestiation because Draco and Dumbledore > did all the hestiating. By that I mean, as Dumbledore > and Draco talk, Dumbledore grows weaker and weaker, > gradually sliding down the wall and, to some extent, > collapsing on the floor. So Dumbledore is pretty far > gone, actually, completely helpless by the time Snape > arrives. > Now, I admit my theory is slightly weak give the > information we have, but on the other hand, JKR > wouldn't want to give too much away. It is clear that > Dumbledore is fading fast. I speculate Snape's > 'revulsion and hatred' are not against Dumbledore, > but for the position Snape has been forced into. In > doing this Snape is dooming himself in the public > mind forever. That is also why he chastises Harry for > calling him a coward, when just moments before he > has done the bravest and most self-destrutive thing > he has ever done in his life. Quick_Silver: The thing is that basically makes the entire Tower scene a quirk that happened though sheer luck (Felix perhaps?) rather then planning or at least foresight (i.e. something like the conversation in the forest). If Snape had shown up a minute earlier then how it happened in the scene then what? He'd just kill time till Dumbledore died? > bboyminn: > > But Draco presents the same problem as Snape. While > Harry may have realized that Draco couldn't kill > Dumbledore, Draco, none the less, caused Dumbledore's > death. He is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or > accessory to murder. In the eyes of the law, Draco is > just a guilty as Snape. So how can Harry reconcile with > Draco? What could possibly happen to bring them together > on the same side? > > If Draco contacts Harry, why would Harry even remotely > trust him. How could he possibly dare met with Draco > when Draco has caused Dumbledore's death and caused the > injuries to Harry friends, and is now working with the > Death Eaters? > > I don't see how Draco could bring Snape into Harry's > camp, but I do see how Snape could bring Draco in. If > it turns out that Dumbledore was already dead when > Snape 'killed' him. > > I am convinced that in the end, Snape, and probably > Draco, will turn out to work for the good side. The > questions is what circumstance could occur to allow > that to happen. As things stand, Harry is dead set > against both Snape and Draco. He wouldn't trust > either one any father than he could throw Grawp. So, > something has to happen, new information must become > available to make Harry accept their help. But what? > What could that 'thing' be? The only thing I can come > up with the fills the bill is Dumbledore was already > dead. Quick_Silver: That's not how I remember the Harry Draco relationship at the end of HBP at all (if I'm wrong please correct me). Harry states that he feels a slight amount of pity for Draco and realizes that Draco is being coerced by threats against his family. He thinks neither of those things about Snape...indeed by the end of HBP Snape vs. Harry is basically then same in sheer hate as Harry vs. Voldemort. Draco isn't in the same league. Harry knows that on some level Draco is the enemy of his enemy and I think that Harry can work with that (on some level) and from the Tower scene he knows that Draco is being threatened. Harry's never made that connection with Snape, who Harry seems to see as an enemy in his own right. What's more the final HBP scene with Snape ends in the utter humiliation of Harry by Snape. The last time Harry and Draco fought Draco ended up dying on the floor which means that Harry could be more secure in dealing with Draco knowing that their in roughly the same talent league. To me it's a matter of degrees...Harry has more incentive to work with Draco (he witnessed the talk between Draco and Dumbledore), less hatred and emotion to overcome in regards to Draco, and there's no hidden issues lurking between Harry and Draco whereas there may well be with Snape. Once he understands Draco then I think that he may be ready to apply those lessons to Snape. Quick_Silver From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 06:31:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:31:58 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, and Harry in DH (WAS Re: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165846 > > Quick_Silver: > > My own personal (and unlikely) theory is that the seed > > of doubt about Snape will be planted in Harry's mind > > by Draco... > bboyminn: > But Draco presents the same problem as Snape. While > Harry may have realized that Draco couldn't kill > Dumbledore, Draco, none the less, caused Dumbledore's > death. He is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or > accessory to murder. In the eyes of the law, Draco is > just a guilty as Snape. So how can Harry reconcile with > Draco? What could possibly happen to bring them together > on the same side? zgirnius: I am not very interested in legal arguments, not being a lawyer, and not having handy the legal code that governs wizarding Britain. I think in this my approach is probably similar to Harry's . >From Harry's point of view, (and not the point of view of DDM!Snapers such as you and I who may feel the whole situation forced Snape's hand) is Draco responsible for what happened to Dumbledore? Harry knows that Draco excluded Snape from his plans, he heard their discussion during Slughorn's party. He believes Draco would in the end not have killed Dumbledore. And he saw Snape kill Dumbledore, he believes because Snape is Voldemort's man. Not a Death Eater Draco brought in, but someone who was trusted completely by Dumbledore and had daily access to him. Sure, legally there's probably something there because they belong to the same illegal organization, or Draco was in the process of committing a felony, or what have you, but from Harry's point of view, the same outcome could have resulted if weak, sick Dumbledore had gotten to Snape in his dungeon that same evening as he appeared to intend, without Draco lifting a finger. There is also what I think Harry would see as a mitigating factor, the threat to Draco's family. So much for Harry, on to Draco - what would bring him to Harry's side? My answer - desperation. He has been forced to face the fact that he does not have what it takes to be a successful Death Eater. Being an unsuccessful one is likely to be unpleasant and/or deadly for Draco and/or his family. Running and hiding is not something Draco can do successfully on his own. I am sure he is aware of the fate of Igor Karkaroff, a much older and more accomplished wizard than Draco. He does have some pride, and this would be a barrier to approaching Harry. But I think the threat to his parents might help overcome that. Also, if Draco can bring something to the table - a piece of useful information, or some such, that might help as well, it would feel less like begging his old rival for help. bboyminn: > If Draco contacts Harry, why would Harry even remotely > trust him. How could he possibly dare met with Draco > when Draco has caused Dumbledore's death and caused the > injuries to Harry friends, and is now working with the > Death Eaters? zgirnius: I would not expect Draco to try and set up a meeting, that does smell like a trap. Showing up on Harry's doorstep is another matter. > bboyminn: > I picture Snape luring Harry into a clandestine meeting, > Snape offerring his explanation, but no matter how I > word that explanation in my mind, Harry is just not > going to buy it. He has too much hatred of Snape to > forgive so easily. zgirnius: I'm replying to you, but really I want to say something more general about this type of discussion, about how Harry and DDM!Snape could ever again cooperate, and am just using your post as a spot to jump off. There are a lot of very interesting theories about how Harry will come to realize that Snape is on his side. What they have in common is cold, hard facts and logic. An Order member knows the plan, he will explain to Harry. Lupin or Hermione will figure it out (Lupin, because he seems capable of a dispassionate view of a situation, or Hermione because she is so darned smart) and will explain it to Harry. Harry will find a letter from Dumbledore. Harry will see a Pensieve memory of the argument in the Forest (either one Dumbledore has left, or perhaps Hagrid's). And then Harry will be forced to reexamine his ideas about Snape. I've probably missed a few. I can see one or more of these playing a role, but to me Harry's feelings about Snape really have very little to do with facts and reason, and a lot more to do with emotion. To be clear, at the end of HBP Harry has an excellent, logical reason to hate and be suspicious of Snape. He has just seen with his own eyes that Snape is a murdering traitor. But, Harry was already burning with hatred for Snape at the *start* of the book. He blames Snape for Sirius's death - but the plot that led to it was facilitated by Kreacher, not Snape, as Harry knows well. He is aware Snape saved Dumbledore's life, that Snape sent the Order to the Ministry, that Snape returned to Voldemort as a spy in GoF, and that Snape tried to save his life from Quirrell's broom jinx, but none of these facts make a dent in Harry's feelings. For this reason, I think that the breakthrough will have to involve emotion. Which is why I don't think it will be accomplished through the clever machinations of Snape, but probably come about spontaneously, when Harry and Snape next bump into one another. (Yes, I think Rowling is promising us that with Harry's comments at the end of HBP). My mental model for how this would look and feel is the Shrieking Shack scene of PoA. Snape's position is similar to that of Sirius Black - a wanted fugitive, damned by appearances, and hated by Harry more than Harry hates Voldemort. I believe, also, that like Sirius before him, Snape is affected by his involvement in the tragedy, and feels responsible. Much CAPSLOCK conversation and drama must ensue given the feelings of both characters (look how far they got in the chase scene...), after which Harry will be able to look at old facts in a new light, or entertain new facts with less prejudice. Enough of a shift for Harry to consider taking the super-useful hypothetical piece of information that he really needs to accomplish his mission, rather than turning Snape over to the Ministry or killing him in cold blood. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 11:54:40 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:54:40 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike - As White as he's Painted? (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165848 > > a_svirn: > > 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? > Goddlefrood earlier: > The Ministry, although possibly misguided, as Harry thinks, > especially relative to Stan Shunpike, might also actually have > some evidence against Stan. It may well turn out, and I put this > forward here for further discusssion if anyone is interested, > that Stan had been doing illegal or illicit jobs for LV or a > Death Eater. > If I am right then I further conject that he did so under the > influence of an Imperius curse, a la Madam Rosmerta. However, > whatever he may have done must have been extremely serious > and his claim to have been acting under Imperius may have been > disbelieved, hence his continued detention. Goddlefrood now: I wrote this little answer to a_svirn's earlier question completely free from the influence of the books, having been at work at the time (I think). I have now had the chance to check references to Stan throughout the series and present a little expansion on the above. Turns out I wasn't too far off on my original answer for reasons I now explain. Be that as it may, Stan first appears, as we know on the Knight Bus in the chapter of the same name back in PoA. He is portrayed as rather goofy and probably naive. I say this because he looks directly at Harry's scar when Harry first gets on the bus, but seemingly fails to register, even while he and Harry are discussing the Prophet article relative to Sirius. He is put over as a good natured, but slightly foolish young man, and here I'm thinking of his continued use of Neville to address Harry even after he discovers who Harry really is. He is further portrayed as a love struck dummy in the chapter Dark Mark in GoF while attempting to attract some Veelas. I mention it for completeness sake, rather than for any direct relevance it has to what will follow. Stan has no fewer than five appearances, as it were, in HBP, which contains the meat of the evidence I will be using to expand on the above quoted portion of my previous post. We are advised that Stan has been arrested in Hermione's Helping Hand. (All quotes are from the Bloomsbury Hardback Edition). '"Stan Shunpike, conductor on the popular wizarding conveyance the Knight Bus, has been arrested on suspicion of Death Eater activity. Mr. Shunpike, 21, was taken into custody late last night after a raid on his Clapham home ..." (p. 208) There follows a short discussion in which the trio give no credence to what they say is Stan being a Death Eater. The article does not specifically state he is a Death Eater or even suspected of being one, but that's the trio's interpretation. We do, of course need to bear in mind that the trio are sixteen year old fictional characters before any accusations are levelled against this poster. >From this article it can only be concluded that Stan was taken in for some reason connected with the Death Eaters (or so the Ministry informed the Prophet). What that was any more certainly we are not informed due to the article either being just what is quoted above or the balance of the same not being transcribed by JKR. Harry is seemingly very irate about what has happened, and maintains that position throughout the rest of the book. He gives no credence to the allegation that Stan could have in any way been involved as a or with the Death Eaters. Moving on, Stan is next discussed at The Burrow during the Christmas holidays. Arthur Weasley tells Harry in answer to his question that Stan is still under arrest (so obviously Wizarding Law is very different from Muggle law, in that a person arrested can not be held without charge for more than 48 hours [UK], excluding terrorist suspecs where it can be longer {Guantanamo Bay for instance}). At this news Harry contains himself. (The exchange is on pps. 310 and 311). In the same chapter (A Very Frosty Christmas) we get a brief glimpse of a reson why Stan may have been arrested and not released. p. 324: "You see, I don't like some of the things the Ministry's doing. Locking up Stan Shunpike, for instance." Scrimgeour did not speak for a moment, but his expression hardened instantly. "I would not expect you to understand" he said, and he was not as successful at keeping anger out of his voice as Harry had been. "These are dangerous times, and certain measures need to be taken. You are sixteen years old -" Harry goes on to try to justify *his* position, but Scrimgeour takes no notice. Now it appears that Scrimgeour wanted to say a little more, but held back. This man was previously, remember, the Head of the Auror Office - oh, and I don't adhere to the view that he is himself a Death Eater or even a slightly bad man, just that he's a man trying to do a difficult job in difficult times with a little more success than Cornelius Fudge. It is, then, a fair assumption to make that Scrimgeour had a valid reason for Stan's continued detention, but he won't share with Harry and doesn't. Not knowing him that well it is not easy to form an opinion of his motivations, however I would state that he has a better idea of the situation in the WWW than does Harry. As this is becoming a rather long piece on a relatively minor matter I will not tire you further with the other two references, they are in similar vein. Any thoughts on what Stan was being held for out there, other than what is in the quoted material above? Goddlefrood From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 05:02:54 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:02:54 -0000 Subject: Horcrux References at Hogwarts - banned books in ROR In-Reply-To: <830475.79897.qm@web35003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Deborah Krupp wrote: > > I was under the impression from something I read, that Dumbledore was the one to remove books from Hogwarts that referenced Horcruxes. Now I can't find any evidence to support this. > > Does anyone know if Dumbledore is responsible for banning the books containing Horcruxes? If they were banned before his reign as headmaster, does anyone know how Tom Riddle originally found information on them, or are we to suppose he found the same one reference as Hermione in "Magick Moste Evile" or a source in an outside library. I have a hard time picturing him going home with a friend over holidays, but I suppose it could have happened... Dondee: In Slughorn's true memory, Slughorn says to Riddel... "But all the same, Tom...keep it quiet, what I've told - that's to say, what we've discussed. People wouldn't like to think we've been chatting about Horcruxes. It's a banned subject at Hogwarts, you know...Dumbledore's particularly fierce about it..."(HBP pg. 499) This conversation took place when Dumbledore was Transfiguration teacher and Dippet was Headmaster. My guess is that the topic of horcruxes had been banned by the School Governors and the Ministry long before. Horcruxes are seriously dark magic and no way would any of the authorities want kids learning about or discussing it. As for how Riddle found out about them, I can imagine him skulking about Nocturne Alley on his summers off and reading any dark arts book he could get his hands on. Cheers, Dondee>^,,^< From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 8 13:27:59 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:27:59 -0000 Subject: FILK: We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165850 We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo To the tune of We Will All Go Together When We Go by Tom Lehrer Text and MIDI here: http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/evening.html#go A slightly shortened version on You-Tube (with Star Wars footage) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2mwrxRQyA Dedicated to Siriusly Snapey Susan It's the climax of the Potterverse That's arriving on the twenty-first Of July when Deathly Hallows goes on sale. And we've all of us had queries Or sophisticated theories Quite ornate and convoluted in detail, But better hurry . No more "Who will die?" or "Who lives?" Or a parsing of Snape motives Will soon now never more arouse debate. For as the saga does conclude It's the end of all our feuds Once we learn everybody's final fate .. And we will know all the story wrote by Jo When we finish the final blow-by-blow. It will be near and far heard, What's before that final "scar" word. Yes, we will know all the story wrote by Jo. We will know all the story wrote by Jo Who will end up in happiness or woe. No more of "ifs", "buts" or "maybes" When we learn who is R.A.B, Barnes and Nobles will see their profits plateau. Oh we will all sob in reading the last snog For we'll have nothing more on which to blog. We will on-screen The Phoenix see Then next week, we will get Kleenex-y While perusing the ending epilogue. Down at Steve's Lexicon, Pages marked "new" will soon be gone. And we will find ev'ry answer there to find. There will be no more forward, just rewind. For Book Seven's circulation Brings an end to speculation, 'Cept for what comes from reading `tween the lines. Oh we will all hear together what's to hear All the stuff that has puzzled us for years. When the seventh Horcrux-tion Is put up to its destruction All our chat rooms of chatter will be clear. 'Oh, we'll be stripped altogether of our ships We will see no more joining of the lips For there's virtually no chance We'll have any further romance Once we obtain the final manuscript. We will learn what Snape was up to at the Tower of Astronomy Which I must confess at present is totally beyond-a me And we will know all the story wrote by Jo After we've spent our thirty bucks or so. We will all find out if Harry'll Find himself in need of burial. Yes we will know all the story We will know all the story Yes we will know all the story wrote by Jo. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 8 15:20:04 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:20:04 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike - As White as he's Painted? (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165851 > > Any thoughts on what Stan was being held for out there, other than > what is in the quoted material above? > Pippin: You didn't report the part of the conversation with Arthur where he says that no one who knows anything seriously suspects that Stan is guilty. "I mean, anybody who's actually interviewed him agrees that he's about as much a Death Eater as this satsuma...but the top levels want to look as though they're making some progress, and 'three arrests' sounds better than 'three mistaken arrests and releases'...but again, this is all top secret..." That is the secret Scrimgeour doesn't want to discuss with Harry -- Stan's innocent, and is being held because it would make the ministry look bad to say it was making no progress. Scrummy has a point, though a weak one. There are Wormtails in other circles besides the Potters'. Many are less willing than Harry or Dumbledore to fight a losing battle, and might desert if they knew how poorly the fight was going on. I did have some hopes that Stan would be released now that at least one genuine Death Eater has been captured, but that was naive. Letting him go would be tantamount to admitting there was no reason to hold him in the first place. I don't think he has really done anything worse than waste the ministry's time with his silly boasting. It was idiocy on a level with cracking jokes about hijackers while in line at the airport, but he's no terrorist. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 15:27:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:27:29 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike - As White as he's Painted? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165852 Goddlefrood wrote: > Stan first appears, as we know on the Knight Bus in the chapter of the same name back in PoA. He is portrayed as rather goofy and probably naive. I say this because he looks directly at Harry's scar when Harry first gets on the bus, but seemingly fails to register, even while he and Harry are discussing the Prophet article relative to Sirius. > > He is put over as a good natured, but slightly foolish young man, and here I'm thinking of his continued use of Neville to address Harry even after he discovers who Harry really is. He is further portrayed as a love struck dummy in the chapter Dark Mark in GoF while attempting to attract some Veelas. > We are advised that Stan has been arrested in Hermione's Helping Hand. (All quotes are from the Bloomsbury Hardback Edition). > > '"Stan Shunpike, conductor on the popular wizarding conveyance the Knight Bus, has been arrested on suspicion of Death Eater activity. Mr. Shunpike, 21, was taken into custody late last night after a raid on his Clapham home ..." (p. 208) > > There follows a short discussion in which the trio give no credence to what they say is Stan being a Death Eater. The article does not specifically state he is a Death Eater or even suspected of being one, but that's the trio's interpretation. > From this article it can only be concluded that Stan was taken in for some reason connected with the Death Eaters (or so the Ministry informed the Prophet). What that was any more certainly we are not informed due to the article either being just what is quoted above or the balance of the same not being transcribed by JKR. > > Harry is seemingly very irate about what has happened, and maintains that position throughout the rest of the book. He gives no credence to the allegation that Stan could have in any way been involved as a or with the Death Eaters. > In the same chapter (A Very Frosty Christmas) we get a brief glimpse of a reson why Stan may have been arrested and not released. p. 324: > > "You see, I don't like some of the things the Ministry's doing. Locking up Stan Shunpike, for instance." > Scrimgeour did not speak for a moment, but his expression hardened instantly. "I would not expect you to understand" he said, and he was not as successful at keeping anger out of his voice as Harry had been. "These are dangerous times, and certain measures need to be taken. You are sixteen years old -" > > Harry goes on to try to justify *his* position, but Scrimgeour takes no notice. Now it appears that Scrimgeour wanted to say a > little more, but held back. It is, then, a fair assumption to make that Scrimgeour had a valid reason for Stan's continued detention, but he won't share with Harry and doesn't. Not knowing him that well it is not easy to form an opinion of his motivations, however I would state that he has a better idea of the situation in the WWW than does Harry. > Any thoughts on what Stan was being held for out there, other than > what is in the quoted material above? > Carol responds: I don't know if this is helpful, but a few paragraphs below the excerpt from the article that you quoted, we have Hermione saying, "It says here he was arrested after he was overheard talking about the Death Eaters' secret plans in a pub." So, assuming that the article is accurate, he either actually knew about the Death Eaters' plans (unlikely) or he was spouting unlikely lies to make himself look powerful and impressive, just as he did under the influence of the Veelas. ("I'm going to be the youngest ever Minister of Magic, I am.") We know he's not very bright and he was in a pub, so he probably had too much to drink. Harry is right, I think, that the MoM needs to look as if it's doing something, and scrimgeour is certainly trying to use him as the MoM's poster boy to boost WW morale, so I understand his position. And he is also probably right that Stan Shunpike is a harmless idiot. Nevertheless, I can also understand the MoM's position. If a young man is caught bragging that he knows Death Eater's secrets, it would be foolish not to take him in for interrogation. Holding him after the interrogation if no solid evidence comes to light is another matter, and Stan has in Azkaban for seven or eight months when Harry confronts Scrimgeour in "The White Tomb." I'm not sure what to think of Scrimgeour--he's not on the side of the Death Eaters, IMO, but Dumbledore has reservations about him. (He calls him a "man of action who has fought Dark wizards most of his working life" but doesn't answer the question of whether he's "good," HBP Am. ed. 61). Also, Scrimgeour had some sort of suspicion regarding Tonks and Shacklebolt back in OoP (possibly he suspected them of knowing Sirius Black's whereabouts or of being loyal to Dumbledore, who was supposedly making a power bid to oust Fudge). He's curious about Dumbledore's doings in HBP as well. (I assume that it was Scrimgeour who sent Dawlish to tail Dumbledore.) It's odd, BTW, that Scrimgeour sits in the front row with McGonagall at Dumbledore's funeral rather than with the revolting Umbridge and the miserable-looking, apparently penitent Fudge (HBP 642). Just to stick my neck out a little, I'd say that the Aurors were right to arrest Stan in the first place and take him in for questioning but wrong not to release him after failing to find sufficient evidence to hold a trial. Maybe habeas corpus has been suspended, if it ever existed in the WW (given Crouch Sr.'s behavior in the GoF Pensieve scenes and the imprisonment of Sirius Black, I'm not sure it ever did.)? If so, not a good sign. Carol, suspecting that Harry is right about Stan and glad that he's presuming someone innocent for once From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 15:30:38 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:30:38 -0000 Subject: Bella and Horcruxes (was: That whole locket, green goo in mysterious cave thing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165853 > "Debi" wrote: > > > > What am I missing? Where does it say in HBP that Bellatrix was the > one to place the locket in the cave? Or where does it say she had it > in the first place, page or chapter? Because I can't find this reference. > > > > > colebiancardi: > > It doesn't state it anywhere. It is a theory - just like all of the > theories on this board. We try to base our theories on hints in the > books - The reason why I think this is a good theory is because of > this line in HBP spoken by Bellatrix: "The Dark Lord has, in the past, > entrusted me with his most precious..." HBP Am Edition hardback - > "Spinner's End" pg 29. Put that with the theory that RAB is Regulus > Black, who was a DE that turned and was *killed* (still thinking that > Regulus is alive), and that Bellatrix is Regulus's cousin - it makes > for a pretty good theory. > > That Bellatrix had the locket - Regulus took it and replaced it with > the fake one. Or something along those lines. Neri (jumping on the chance to plug in his own theory): As I wrote here before, personally I don't think it is the locket Hx that Bella is involved with. This one already seems to have quite enough plot and characters to go on with: Regulus, Sirius, Kreacher, Mundungus, Dumbledore, perhaps Aberforth. Bella's addition would be rather redundant here, especially since her involvement according to the locket switch theory was minor and had ended anyway many years ago. In this case her slip of tongue in Spinner's End would be completely useless as a clue to the current whereabouts of the locket. Such waste of clues and character potential just wouldn't be very good plotting on JKR's behalf. Especially since we still have three other Hxs to find, and their stories seem to be in a much poorer shape than that of the locket right now (except maybe for the last one, if it's Harry himself). We're in urgent need of some really good subplots to go with the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw Hxs, at the very least, preferably subplots based on clues from past books, or DH is going to be rather disappointing. But in fact we do have an important subplot lying around for several books, just burning to be resolved in a satisfying manner. And moreover, it is a subplot that Bellatrix already plays a central part in. I'm talking about the Longbottoms subplot, of course. Why were they attacked? What great secret was Bellatrix trying to torture out of them? Why has JKR been keeping them in cold storage, alive but unable to speak, for the whole series? Isn't it because this secret they keep is still very important today? And how will the development of Neville's character fit in this? I'd be extremely miffed with JKR if all this beautiful foreshadowing won't resolve in a satisfying BANG in DH. So, we have Bella's hypothetical Hx in need of a plot on the one side, we have the great Longbottoms plot in need of a secret on the other side, we already have Bella herself connecting them, and the timing of this connection (in the end of VW1 or just after) right for both. Hmmm, don't you get that feeling when two separate puzzle pieces *just* match? No, we don't have any details yet, but speculation from here seems to practically flow of itself: Bellatrix was appointed the keeper of a Hx, by default I'd guess the Hufflepuff Cup, just as Lucius was appointed the keeper of the Diary Hx. Frank and Alice, probably while doing their job as aurors, possibly trailing Bella or searching her place, found it and confiscated it from her. At that point they may have realized it's the Hufflepuff Cup and suspected that Bella hadn't come by it legally, but they didn't yet have proof against her and didn't know it was made a Hx. Bella attacked them and tortured them in order to get it back, but at that point they may have realized its critical importance and refused to reveal where it is. So it is still hidden somewhere, perhaps in the Longbottoms house, perhaps even in Neville's possession. It's going to surface in DH and Bella will be coming back for it, just in time to have a final showdown between her and Neville, probably while he's protecting his parents. Awesome plot potential, isn't it? I just can't wait. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 16:08:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:08:14 -0000 Subject: Horcrux References at Hogwarts - banned books in ROR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165855 Dondee wrote: > In Slughorn's true memory, Slughorn says to Riddel... > > "But all the same, Tom...keep it quiet, what I've told - that's to say, what we've discussed. People wouldn't like to think we've been chatting about Horcruxes. It's a banned subject at Hogwarts, you know...Dumbledore's particularly fierce about it..."(HBP pg. 499) > > This conversation took place when Dumbledore was Transfiguration teacher and Dippet was Headmaster. My guess is that the topic of horcruxes had been banned by the School Governors and the Ministry long before. Horcruxes are seriously dark magic and no way would any of the authorities want kids learning about or discussing it. As for how Riddle found out about them, I can imagine him skulking about Nocturne Alley on his summers off and reading any dark arts book he could get his hands on. > Carol responds: Thanks for the canon. As you say, Tom certainly didn't find out about Horcruxes through any book in the Hogwarts library. Possibly he'd heard older Slytherins talking about them, or maybe there was a rumor that Grindelwald had one, which would be a reason for Dumbledore's fierce opposition and the banning of the topic. Nor did Slughorn provide sufficient information when Tom questioned him for Tom to create a Horcrux despite his having already comeeited four murders (counting Myrtle). A lot of people assume that Tom created his first Horcruxes while he was still at Hogwarts, but I disagree. I think that the diary was exactly what Dumbledore called it, an object "with a powerful magical history" and "proof that Tom was the Heir of Slytherin" (HBP Am. ed. 505). IMO, it originally contained a memory and was designed to lure the reader into opening the Chamber of Secrets--exactly what Lucius Malfoy thought it was--but was not yet a Horcrux capable of possessing the reader. The diary had to be "special" (Harry's word) *before* it was chosen as a Horcrux to fit Tom's pattern of choosing objects "wothy of the honor" of being a Horcrux (505). So the idea that tom had made Horcruxes at sixteen, or at any rate, soon after the unhelpful interview with Slughorn (at which point he was wearing the ring) remains an assumption, not a canon fact. But Tom had clearly made at least one and probably two Horcruxes (the ring and the diary) by the time he killed Hepzibah Smith to acquire the locket and the cup. At that time he was working at Borgin and Burke's, in Knockturn Alley--just the place to find out more information on Horcruxes. Another possibility, of course, is a visit to Grindelwald in the summer of 1945, just after he left Hogwarts and before he began working at Borgin and Burke's, not coincidently the same year that Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald (probably by destroying his Horcrux, IMO). I don't know, of course, that Grindelwald had a Horcrux, but DD says that both he and LV know of a wizard who had one, and as Grindelwald is identified as a Dark wizard defeated by Dumbledore in the same year that Tom Riddle left Hogwarts, it's a logical assumption that Grindelwald is that wizard. Carol, remembering DD's words about Voldemort consorting with "the worst of our kind" and pretty sure that he had Grindelwald in mind From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 8 16:36:20 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:36:20 -0000 Subject: Snape, Draco, and Harry in DH (WAS Re: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165856 > > bboyminn: > > I picture Snape luring Harry into a clandestine meeting, > > Snape offerring his explanation, but no matter how I > > word that explanation in my mind, Harry is just not > > going to buy it. He has too much hatred of Snape to > > forgive so easily. > > zgirnius: > I'm replying to you, but really I want to say something more general > about this type of discussion, about how Harry and DDM!Snape could > ever again cooperate, and am just using your post as a spot to jump > off. > > There are a lot of very interesting theories about how Harry will > come to realize that Snape is on his side. What they have in common > is cold, hard facts and logic. An Order member knows the plan, he > will explain to Harry. Lupin or Hermione will figure it out (Lupin, > because he seems capable of a dispassionate view of a situation, or > Hermione because she is so darned smart) and will explain it to > Harry. Harry will find a letter from Dumbledore. Harry will see a > Pensieve memory of the argument in the Forest (either one Dumbledore > has left, or perhaps Hagrid's). And then Harry will be forced to > reexamine his ideas about Snape. I've probably missed a few. > > I can see one or more of these playing a role, but to me Harry's > feelings about Snape really have very little to do with facts and > reason, and a lot more to do with emotion. To be clear, at the end of > HBP Harry has an excellent, logical reason to hate and be suspicious > of Snape. He has just seen with his own eyes that Snape is a > murdering traitor. > > But, Harry was already burning with hatred for Snape at the *start* > of the book. He blames Snape for Sirius's death - but the plot that > led to it was facilitated by Kreacher, not Snape, as Harry knows > well. He is aware Snape saved Dumbledore's life, that Snape sent the > Order to the Ministry, that Snape returned to Voldemort as a spy in > GoF, and that Snape tried to save his life from Quirrell's broom > jinx, but none of these facts make a dent in Harry's feelings. For > this reason, I think that the breakthrough will have to involve > emotion. > > Which is why I don't think it will be accomplished through the clever > machinations of Snape, but probably come about spontaneously, when > Harry and Snape next bump into one another. (Yes, I think Rowling is > promising us that with Harry's comments at the end of HBP). Magpie: I couldn't agree more--that's the kind of stuff the books usually turn on as well, not legal technicalities and strategy. And even more importantly, I think Harry's story with Draco in HBP points the way to the same thing. Harry's change of heart about Draco at the end of HBP--small as it is--is not just a case of Harry learning that Draco's family is being threatened and feeling sorry for him. First, it comes at the end of a year trailing Draco and seeing shadows of other perspectives on him. It's seeing private moments that point to his personality that other people don't know--this, I think, is probably very much like Dumbledore's secret understanding about Snape. Harry probably couldn't explain why he feels certain things about Draco now that he does feel, because it came from seeing him at key moments (throughout the year he couldn't successfully articulate why it made sense Draco was acting as a DE either). Harry and Draco also share some intimate moments in HBP that have perhaps unconsciously shifted Harry's perception. He also finds himself more intimately connected with Snape than he ever wanted to be, but in a way that just validates how he's felt before and pushes Snape farther away--Snape's now reponsible for his parents' death as well as Sirius' death. He's responsible for everything! Perhaps most importantly, Draco, albeity unwittingly, proved himself in a small way. It's too much to say that he met Harry "halfway," but he took a step in the right direction (or didn't step in the wrong direction) when he didn't kill Dumbledore. That's the thing Harry focuses on at the end of HBP, and is perhaps the thing that makes him able to more easily feel that drop of pity. If Draco were simply under threat to his family Harry might just consider him all the more dangerous (rightly so--Wormtail's under threat too). He might see him as deserving of that danger as well. It's seeing that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore despite the threat, seeing the kind of "choice" that "shows" who he is, that molds Harry's impression. At this point with Snape Harry's not able to do this. As you pointed out, Harry is not moved by anything good that Snape does. (In the past he's been equally careless with Malfoy on a smaller scale just in that he'll casually accuse him of things he hasn't done and upon learning the truth not think of himself as being wrong about Malfoy, if that makes sense.) I think he'll need a significant emotional shift of a kind that can't help but affect Harry. The Pensieve was one, but quickly dismissed. -m From Vexingconfection at aol.com Thu Mar 8 12:46:05 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:46:05 -0000 Subject: JKR...HP and world events Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165857 I am gonna toss this out and hope no one hates me later, lol. Please, no hate mail. About the pure bloods in Harry Potter. The first ones we are introduced to are the Malfoys, who are the like Nazi ideals- blond, blue eyed and evil. We also see the Weasleys who are what I always seemed to imagine not the Nazi ideal but would be acceptable if it weren't for their association with mud bloods. The next true blood family are the Heirs of Slytherin and they are exactly what the Nazis were- everything they hated, not blond, not blue eyed, handsome, physically fit and mentally unstable (when I say Nazi I do not mean all Germans). When JKR talks about imprisoning people without trial, many countries have done that through the ages in time of war. Her political figures within the ministry all have their own agendas as do ours of this day. It's unfortunate, but there are Stan Shunpikes and Sirius Blacks who end up imprisoned. To continue this thought, first, Sirius Black; then, under new people, Stan Shunpike. The ministry still makes the same mistakes- something I am sure we are all familiar with. I could go further with militias, but I would like to listen to the thoughts of others. Thank you. The original VexingConfection Proof that opinions does not = intelligence From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 16:55:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:55:56 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165858 bboyminn wrote: > > > Now back to Dumbledore; what if Dumbledore was already dead when Snape threw the Killing Curse? That would explain the unusual response. Also, if Hermione and Lupin probe Harry at depth for the details of what happened on the tower, Harry might let it slip that it was the Killing Curse that threw Dumbledore off the tower. > > > > Indeed as Carol points out, that might lead Lupin to conclude the only way that could happen was if Dumbledore was already dead. I consider a Killing curse against a dead person as very much the equivalent of a missed curse with respect to the reaction we will see. Carol responds: First, let me point out that I'm only hoping that Lupin will realize that the AK did not behave normally. I didn't suggest that it did so because Dumbledore was already dead. The delayed response before the Freezing Charm on Harry wears off suggests the opposite--that DD wasn't dead yet when the supposed AK sent him over the ramparts. It's possible, for example, that Snape's spell, whatever it was (something nonverbal disguised as an AK or combined with an AK that wasn't "meant"--"You have to mean them," says Belatrix) sent DD over the tower wall and then floated him gently down (the rag doll image). Anyway, all I know is that that AK differs from the norm in more ways than one and that DDM!Snape had good reason to get the body off the tower: he had to keep the invisible Harry from rushing out to fight the Death Eaters. So, yes, I'm counting on Lupin to spot the anomalies, possibly in conjunction with Mad-Eye, who should know how an AK usually acts if anyone does, but I didn't say anything about Dumbledore being already dead. (Not ruling out the possibility, just noting that it isn't what I said.) > Quick_Silver: > I actually think this is a really neat idea and could actually work but I have to say that I feel there's no...set-up...to it. Harry doesn't notice Snape stalling, or taking long then normal to do the deed, and Snape eyes, iirc, aren't described as searching (as if he was looking at Dumbledore's life force) but his face is filled with anger and hatred (again if I remember correctly). It's just that if JK wanted to have this why not include a second of hesitation that no one but Harry could notice? My entire view of Draco is different because Harry noticed his wand drop a fraction, why not have Snape hesitate for a fraction of second? Carol responds: Harry has his own emotions and preconceptions, and if we want to find the truth, we need to eliminate his perspective (fear, horror, etc.) as much as we can. He sometimes sees without knowing what he sees, for example, with the "horrible" Thestrals, or hears without understanding, as with Sirius Black's "There will be only one murder here tonight" (or the various conversations he overhears through eavesdropping, starting with Quirrell and Snape in SS/PS). Certainly, if DD and Snape exchange a silent message, Harry isn't going to see it. He sees Snape looking at DD but doesn't register the possible significance, just as he sees Snape's eyes sweep the room but doesn't register that Snape must have seen the two brooms and be aware of his presence. Steve quoted a large part of the scene, but he left out the part that, IMO, answers your question. Snape *does* hesitate. The "lumpy" Death Eater, Amycus (Carrow?) tells Snape that it seems Draco can't do it (trigger UV, provision 3) and at the same time, Dumbledore whispers Snape's first name, and Snape meets Dumbledore's eyes. *At that point* his expression changes--surely the result of whatever he sees in DD's eyes--and yet he still doesn't raise his wand until DD says "Severus, please." Then and only then does Snape speak the spell and send out a "jet of green light" (not a "blinding flash") that hits DD in the chest and sends him over the ramparts. Here's the canon just to confirm the accuracy of what I'm saying: "'We've got a problem, Snape,' said the lumpy Amycus, whose eyes and wand were fixed alike upon Dumbledore, "the boy doesn't seem able--' "But somebody else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly. "'Severus . . . .' "For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. "Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy out of the way. "*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. "'*Avada Kedavra!*" "A jet of green light shot from Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest. Dumbledore was blasted into the air. For a split second, he seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he fell slowly backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of sight" (HBP Am. ed. 596). I don't see any room here for Dumbledore to die before Snape hits him with the spell, but there's somehow time for him to close his eyes before he dies, and Snape does hesitate before killing him, pushing his luck as far as the UV is concerned, as if he'd rather die from it than kill Dumbledore. *If* the UV is about to kill him for failing to complete the vow and DD wants him alive (to save himself and Draco and Harry and do whatever else DD wants him to do), DD's urgency, indeed desperation, is understandable. No doubt time is slowed down from Harry's perspective, and yet I don't think the part about floating like a rag doll is his perspective. I'm almost certain that Snape slowed his fall. There's no indication of broken bones, only the trickle of blood that Pippin finds so significant, the locket jarred open, and the glasses slightly askew. Carol, who really wants someone to put Harry's memory of DD's death into a Pensieve and figure out what's really going on From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 17:10:12 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:10:12 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165859 Everybody knows about the mysterious "Gleam of triumph" passage in Goblet of Fire, but there is another strange remark made way back in book 2, it came right after Harry first found the diary but before he found out how to use it: "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before Hogwarts, Dudley had made sure of that." (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what that was all about. A friend?! Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 17:23:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:23:56 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165860 Eggplant wrote: > > Everybody knows about the mysterious "Gleam of triumph" passage in Goblet of Fire, but there is another strange remark made way back in book 2, it came right after Harry first found the diary but before he found out how to use it: > > "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. " > (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) > > I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what that was all about. A friend?! Carol responds: I know that some people (probably half the members of this group) think that Harry's reaction is related to his being a Horcrux (his soul bit identifies with Tom Riddle), but I don't agree with that interpretaion, not being a Harry!Horcrux advocate. I think Harry's reaction to the name is part of the spell that's designed to draw the reader in to interact with Memory!Tom by writing in the diary. Ginny has a similar reaction, confiding her little girl's secrets to "dear Tom" and thinking of him as her friend. To be sure, Harry's reaction occurs before he has interacted with the diary, after simply reading the name, but I still thinks that's just part of the way the diary is designed, to lure the reader into writing in it and conversing with the seemingly charming Tom. Carol, a voice crying in the wilderness with whom nobody is likely to agree From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 17:58:29 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:58:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another mysterious message References: Message-ID: <008b01c761ab$62432d20$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 165861 > Eggplant wrote: >> "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle > before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though > Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had > half-forgotten. " >> (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) >> >> I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what that > was all about. A friend?! > > Carol responds: > I think Harry's reaction to the name is part of the spell that's > designed to draw the reader in to interact with Memory!Tom by writing > in the diary. Ginny has a similar reaction, confiding her little > girl's secrets to "dear Tom" and thinking of him as her friend. To be > sure, Harry's reaction occurs before he has interacted with the diary, > after simply reading the name, but I still thinks that's just part of > the way the diary is designed, to lure the reader into writing in it > and conversing with the seemingly charming Tom. > > Carol, a voice crying in the wilderness with whom nobody is likely to > agree Shelley follows: Actually Carol, I think you are correct. The Diary casts a friendly spell over the holder, so that they aren't likely to throw the Diary out or ignore it as if it were insignificant. It calls to the person, like a soft spoken Siren. If it didn't, there is the possibility that Tom would never be able to steal a soul because of the many uses the diary required to make it work. Harry assumes this Siren song he hears is a recognition of a "old friend", yet he knows logically that this shouldn't be true. I think he's not experienced enough as a Wizard to know what this "call" should mean, that this thought did not originate with him but through an external source- a magically enchanted item. Shelley From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 17:28:26 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:28:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR...HP and world events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <268604.74914.qm@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165862 It is funny you should mention people being locked up without trial. Stan Shunpike was imprisoned because he flippantly remarked he was a Deatheater to impress girls and imprisoned without investigation...something similar to the Witch Trials when people were accused of being witches because of accusation without investigation. Half of Hollywood was imprisoned in the 50's for suspected Communist activities or couldn't work for years because a Blacklist. I wonder what the Wizarding Comuntiy was like or what the Wizard Schools across Europe were like before World War II? What things were like at Beauxbatons during the invasion or if Hogwarts served as a shelter for awhile for Witches and Wizards affected in the Blitz. It also makes me think if they had the power to stop it all, would they have? David From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 18:32:29 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:32:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: <008b01c761ab$62432d20$c0affea9@MOBILE> References: <008b01c761ab$62432d20$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <700201d40703081032m2ad8ca2aq827d5cfda1623e41@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165863 > > Eggplant wrote: > >> "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle > > before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though > > Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had > > half-forgotten. " > >> (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) > >> > >> I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what that > > was all about. A friend?! > > > > Carol responded: > > I think Harry's reaction to the name is part of the spell that's > > designed to draw the reader in to interact with Memory!Tom by writing > > in the diary. > > > > ... Harry's reaction occurs before he has interacted with the diary, > > after simply reading the name, but I still thinks that's just part of > > the way the diary is designed, to lure the reader into writing in it > > and conversing with the seemingly charming Tom. > > > > Carol, a voice crying in the wilderness with whom nobody is likely to > > agree > > Shelley followed: > > Actually Carol, I think you are correct. The Diary casts a friendly spell > over the holder, so that they aren't likely to throw the Diary out or ignore > it as if it were insignificant. It calls to the person, like a soft spoken > Siren. ... Kemper concurs: I, too, believe the Diary has a Charm charm and not because I detest Horcrux Harry. I see the Diary less a soft spoken Siren and more a Venus Flytrap. The reader is lured into the pages, is allowed to write a bit, until the writer triggers the trap, snaring her, and letting the Diary suck the juicy soul at its leisure. Of course one would wonder why Lucius wasn't compelled to read the Diary. Or maybe he was and the Diary told him to get it back to Hogwarts. How else would Lucius know it was cause damage? My reading of the Dark Lord isn't that he shares information readily. Kemper From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 18:45:59 2007 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:45:59 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "justcarol67" wrote: > >... > > Carol responds: > > > > ... If she (Hermione) really thinks about Snape and > > what she's seen him do ..., she may realize that > > killing Dumbledore is out of character for him. ... > > And if Harry describes that Avada Kedavra on the tower > > --Dumbledore's body going over the battlements instead > > of falling backward instantly dead), she may start > > wondering what's going on, especially if she decides to > > talk things over with Lupin, ... Of course, Snape *did* > > say the words "Avada Kedavra," but that doesn't make > > Harry's account accurate in all other respects. It's > > colored by his emotions and preconceptions. And Lupin, > > like Hermione, knows about the UV to protect Draco. > > Surely, one of them will mention that and try to > > figure out where and how it fits the picture. That and > > the exchanged look between Snape and Dumbledore. Lupin > > will know whether it's possible to communicate that way. > > ... > > > bboyminn: > > > Let me diverge a moment to talk about spells and curses > as it is at the heart of my theory. Note, as Carol > points out, something isn't quite right with the > reaction to Snape's Killing Curse on the top of the > tower. Dumbledore should, alledgedly, have just quietly > fallen over dead, not been blasted over the battlements. > I see where this is going and it is an excellent point by both of you. It's entirely possible that Snape spoke the AK without the intent behind it, or simply misdirected it, or DD could have already been dead. That would explain DD going over the side of the tower, in affect, allowing himself to die (I think the potion was already killing him) without Snape having to bear the burden of being a murderer. I like that idea. The only clear example of the AK we have (that I can remember) is Cedric. He did just drop over dead, no explosions or openly destructive side affects. My question is, does that mean the AK always occurs that way? At Godric Hollow, the house was left in rubble. Was that due to the AK or was it because of the curse against Harry rebounded on Voldemort? If it was the rebounding curse, then that more than supports Carol's and bboyminn's theory which I find really interesting. If the AK always results in instantaneous death, without all the other surrounding destruction, this could lead to the way that Harry will find out that Snape was really on DD's side and it was all a plan. I hope I explained that clearly and my questions was understandable. Thanks. Carla From bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu Thu Mar 8 19:12:30 2007 From: bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu (bkalb1977) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:12:30 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165866 Thanks for the response, enjoyed reading it. Regarding the DADA job: It just seems weird to me the intense interest in this specific job at Hogwarts. If Voldemort's real purpose was to be at Hogwarts and influence kids, really any position would do fine... Slughorn was able to influence plenty of people as Potions Master. And as long as Voldemort was a teacher at Hogwarts (any subject), he would have the ability to explore the castle. justcarol: > DD is probably right that LV doesn't want to teach so much as to > influence young minds and recruit followers--and where > better to do that than in a popular class like DADA, which everyone > wants to learn > But also, LV would not have wanted the students to learn *Defense* > Against the Dark Arts, which is probably why he "jinxed" (cursed) > the class to prevent any DADA teacher from teaching more than a > year and particularly to prevent the good ones from returning-- You make good points about Voldie wanting to influence how kids thought about the "Dark Arts" and to keep them from getting a good "Defense" education... I guess I am wondering though if there is more to it than that. It seemed he was interested in the DADA job even as a 6th year- remember he asked Slughorn in that memory "Sir, is it true that Professor Merrythought is retiring?" Plus I don't really get Snape's obsession either. I do think he wanted the job and Dumbledore kept refusing him. The reason I think that is A) he admitted this to Umbridge in OOP and had this look of annoyance at being asked, and B) JKR addressed this issue and didn't really seem to hint that it was a feint set up by Dumbledore and Snape. justcarol: > If I'm right that Snape, like Dumbledore, knew or suspected that LV > was not dead (his words to Bellatrix to the contrary), he would > have continued to apply for the DADA position every year as a show > of loyalty to LV when he returned, but I think he knew he would > never be hired for the position until the time was ripe--after > Voldie had returned and DD urgently needed his talents in that > position It's possible that Snape only applied for the DADA job to demonstrate loyalty to voldemort, as you suggested... i just think that is less likely. I get this sense that Snape really does want to teach that specific subject. I certainly could be reading too much into this... but I also wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out in Book 7 that there is more to the DADA job that we are aware of currently. Bobby From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 19:22:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:22:55 -0000 Subject: Green-lit spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165867 We know that Snape can cast nonverbal spells, and it's possible that he can cast more than one spell at the same time (for example, whatever he did to the door in "Spinner's End" to keep Wormtail from eavesdropping, which causes "a loud bang and a squeal" from Wormtail, as well as presumably Imperviousing the door to keep him from hearing the conversation). Even if Snape's Avada Kedavra is real and effective, he may have used something else at the same time to slow Dumbledore's fall--a Hover Charm, for example. And if Snape's AK isn't real, or isn't effective because he didn't mean it, he would also have needed to cast another spell either in addition to the AK or under cover of the AK--something that caused a "jet of green light" as opposed to the "blinding flash" that JKR has associated with Avada Kedavra ever since she introduced us to Harry's dream of his parents' death back when he still thought they'd died in a car crash. I *know* that JKR isn't always consistent in her descriptions. Even the stool on which the sorting Hat sits sometimes has three legs, sometimes four, and Percy's silver Prefect badge is somehow identical to Ron's red and gold one. (That last error seems to have been caught and corrected, but my point is that she's not as careful with consistency as she ought to be.) So I may be completely off the mark here in trying to figure out what's going on with Snape's supposed AK. But bear with me, please. I just want to explore some possibilities other than Steve's idea that Dumbledore was already dead, which I'd love to believe but see no evidence to support. Let's start with spells that give off a green light. Obviously Ron's "Eat slugs!" can be ruled out, as can Morsmordre, which conjures the Dark Mark. The Death Eaters seem to have been using some spell that casts a green light at the QWC: "Loud jeering, roars of laughter, and drunken yells were drifting toward them; then came a burst of strong green light, which illuminated the scene" (GoF Am. ed. 119). " . . . a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them" (122). Whatever these spells are, they are neither AK (no one is killed) nor Morsmordre: no Dark Mark appears until Barty Jr.'s is conjured a few pages later: "'MORSMORDRE!' "And something vast, green, and glittering erupted from the patch of darkness" (128). Green-lit spells also abound in the MoM battle in OoP. At least one Death Eater (Rabastan Lestrange, if my deductions are correct) attempts to cast an AK, but the spell is interrupted halfway through when Harry tackles him around the knees (789). This is the only instance I can find of a definite attempt at an AK other than Voldemort's, which is blocked by the golden statue of the wizard from the fountain (813). The Death Eaters shout a lot of other spells, ranging from Crucio to Impedimenta and Tarantellegra, some of which cast silver light, some red, some green, and one (Dolohov's, which seriously injures Hermione), purple. Most of these unnamed spells either miss their target or damage the inanimate objects they hit: For example, "Another jet of green light flew over Harry's head as he launched himself toward Neville" (803). Similarly, Voldemort sends "another jet of green light at Dumbledore," but DD turns and disappears "in a whirling of his cloak," perhaps Disapparating for a short distance before reappearing behind Voldemort (813). "Another jet of green light flew from behind the silver shield," this one blocked by the centaur, which shatters "into a hundred pieces" (814). And then there's the "jet of green light" that Fawkes swallows whole (815), which we're probably supposed to think is a killing curse, but which is not so identified. Voldemort shouts "Avada Kedavra" only once, and he's aiming for Harry, not Dumbledore. (Similar examples can be found in HBP when the Death Eaters are fighting the Order and DA, but I think you get the point.) Most interesting to me is the green-lit spell that hits Tonks: "A jet of green light had narrowly missed Sirius; across the room Harry saw Tonks fall from halfway up the stone steps, her limp form toppling from stone seat to stone seat, and Bellatrix, triumphant, runing back toward the fray" (OoP Am. ed. 803) I thought initially, based on the color of the light and Bellatrix's reaction, that Tonks had been killed, but Dumbledore informs Harry that she's in St. Mungo's, and we see her again as her usual (pre-HBP) self in the farewell scene at King's Cross Station in OoP. A nonfatal, nonverbal AK? How likely is that? Bellatrix was aiming at Sirius, and if she'd cast an AK at him, surely she would have intended to kill him, which would mean that her unintended victim, her Half-Blood niece Nymphadora, would certainly have died. So it must be some other highly dangerous but nonfatal spell. Since so few of these spells are actually identified as killing curses or involve the shouted incantation "Avada Kedavra," it's possible that they aren't killing curses at all but some other spell that casts a green light, especially given what happens to Tonks. And even the one that the narrator identifies as "another killing curse" (813) may simply be perceived by Harry, the pov character, as an AK because of the green light, or he may in that instance have heard an incantation that the narrator doesn't quote: the narration is as ambiguous as the description of the spell that knocks Sirius Black through the Veil. There are, in nany case, no unambiguous, completed AKs in the entire MoM sequence to compare with the one Snape casts, none that at all resemble the curse that killed Cedric in GoF, none that send out a "blinding flash of green light." We see only *jets* of green light like the one that issues from Snape's wand in HBP, the one that Harry assumes is a real and fully meant Avada Kedavra despite its being nothing like the AKs that killed Cedric and Fake!Moody's spider. (He can hardly be blamed for not recalling the one he sees in the Frank Bryce dream.) At any rate, given the unreliable narrator (aka the "Harry filter"), I'm not at all convinced that all of these green-lit curses are AKs. We certainly hear very few shouts of "Avada Kedavra" to confirm that they are. What they could be other than AKs, I'm not sure. We know that Stupefy casts a red light and Expelliarmus a scarlet one (described in CoS when Snape hits Lockhart with a disarming spell that does more than disarm him). Whatever Dolohov hit Hermione with cast a purple light. Protego merely deflects the opponent's spell onto himself (for example, the Stunning spell that Bellatrix deflects back onto Harry); it isn't associated with any particular color of light. We don't know, however, what color light Impedimenta sends out; IIRC, it's never described. So Impedimenta is my current candidate for the mysterious green-lit spells, one that *might* have sent Dumbledore over the ramparts, followed by a silent Hover Charm or the slowing spell that DD used on Harry to break the fall. (Note "might." I'm not saying that's what happened.) If anyone has a list of the spells and the colors associated with them, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Carol, who just noticed that the liquid that the brains float in is green and wonders if that's significant in relation to the cave potion From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 18:38:13 2007 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:38:13 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR...HP and world events In-Reply-To: <268604.74914.qm@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> References: <268604.74914.qm@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5BDC6DF2-A99F-4BCC-BF5D-2E253DA4C2CD@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165868 On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:28 AM, dragonkeeper wrote: > It is funny you should mention people being locked up without > trial. Stan Shunpike was imprisoned because he flippantly remarked > he was a Deatheater to impress girls and imprisoned without > investigation...something similar to the Witch Trials when people > were accused of being witches because of accusation without > investigation. > > Half of Hollywood was imprisoned in the 50's for suspected > Communist activities or couldn't work for years because a Blacklist. > . > > Half, really? I don't think so. Please provide a source. Last I knew there were only ten who were imprisoned. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 8 21:18:36 2007 From: hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 21:18:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Jo's Alchemy Message-ID: <703732.95205.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165869 Deborah Hunt in post 2603 to Harry Potter for Seekers gave us a quote from an interview with Jo dating from 1998: "I've never wanted to be a witch, but an alchemist, now that's a different matter. To invent this wizard world, I've learned a ridiculous amount about alchemy. Perhaps much of it I'll never use in the books, but I have to know in detail what magic can and cannot do in order to set the parameters and establish the stories' internal logic." I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately, and I've come to the conclusion that this explains a great deal! Jo was sitting in a train in June 1990 when Harry unexpectedly walked into her mind. She worked out the main story of the septology in her thoughts. When she got home she wrote down what she could remember, in an exercise book. She then spent SEVEN years doing research and learning all she had to know to be able to write her Opus Magnum. Now we know what occupied her mind so much of the time: ALCHEMY! In those days she didn't have a computer, but it's clear she was very busy in libraries. And when you study alchemy for seven years, surely it's almost impossible NOT to come across Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosencreutz published in 1616? No wonder so many things there also happen in Harry Potter! (Jo has a degree in French and can read German and Portuguese as well) And what book explains the story of Christian Rosycross so clearly and so wondrously beautifully? The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross by Jan van Rijckenborgh! Once she had read that, and been transfixed by the sublimity in the writing, wouldn't Jo have started searching for other books he's written? For example his The Call of the Brotherhood of the Rosycross, which explains Fama Fraternitatis published in 1614? And wouldn't she then have read the words Then you will discover that a pure white flower will begin to reveal itself in your being - the mystic lily, the lotus of the Eastern seers? No wonder Harry's mother is called Lily! And wouldn't she have read Chapter 15 of the same book? Obviously yes, because here we see the description of the human being as a sleeping giant tied to the cross, which is used in EXACTLY the same way in Chapter 30 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to describe Hagrid's brother. Would she have stopped reading Jan van Rijckenborgh's books there? Hardly likely, as Hermes Trismegistus is known as "the father of Alchemy". And who's written four wonderful books about the works of Hermes? Of course: Jan van Rijckenborgh again! No wonder that when you read his Egyptian Arch-Gnosis with a thorough knowledge of Harry Potter, and vice versa, you keep coming across things that are very similar. For example Harry's scar, as I've pointed out in my essay: Harry Potter: The Road Map to Liberating Alchemy Once Jo had seen the majestic message of liberation in the books of Jan van Rijckenborgh, the same massage which she saw in her hours of inspiration, would she have stopped reading them then? Of course not. She would have read The Coming New Man and used the chapters dealing with the mental conception of the Immortal Man as a basis for the life of Sirius. It's just not possible otherwise! She has read The Gnosis in Present-Day Manifestation because that deals with the defeat of the basilisk symbolising the kundalini at the bottom of the spine. How often does Jan van Rijckenborgh not quote Psalm 42 to compare the longing for God with the thirst of a stag? Certainly he does so in The Coming New Man. Is it a wonder that Harry's father is an animagus who can change into a stag? For Harry is the child of a lily and a stag - the white flower which pants for the Living Water - from which the New Soul is born. There are hundreds of other examples! What does all this mean? It means that God is reaching the hearts of many millions of people, especially children. It means that the basis of a new religion is being laid. This is not a traditional religion, based on a literal interpretation of divinely inspired symbolic instructions, and on the authority of a church run by fallible humans, but on the understanding that Jesus Christ can be born in the heart of every person who has a Lily there, and who thirsts for the pure, unsullied spiritual power which can bring Him back to life. That is the true message of Harry, son of the primeval Potter of Creation. Hans Visit the new group: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/summa-scientia --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 21:21:58 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another mysterious message References: <008b01c761ab$62432d20$c0affea9@MOBILE> <700201d40703081032m2ad8ca2aq827d5cfda1623e41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002901c761c7$cfd509a0$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 165870 > Kemper concurs: > I, too, believe the Diary has a Charm charm and not because I detest > Horcrux Harry. I see the Diary less a soft spoken Siren and more a > Venus Flytrap. The reader is lured into the pages, is allowed to > write a bit, until the writer triggers the trap, snaring her, and > letting the Diary suck the juicy soul at its leisure. > > Of course one would wonder why Lucius wasn't compelled to read the > Diary. Or maybe he was and the Diary told him to get it back to > Hogwarts. How else would Lucius know it was cause damage? My reading > of the Dark Lord isn't that he shares information readily. I think this answer is because Lucius KNEW that the Diary was from the Dark Lord, and thus knew enough not to touch it with his bare skin. He always treated it with something in-between his hand and the object, like the poisoned necklace had to be treated. I think he knew enough about cursed items to be savvy enough to know how not to be taken in by them. He had to suspect that if he was hiding this item for the Dark Lord, that it couldn't have been just an ordinary item. Otherwise, why would he want to plant an ordinary item into Ginny's hand and thus into Hogwarts? He had to have known something about it. Shelley From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 8 21:47:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:47:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore is not dead Message-ID: <3164547.1173390449982.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165871 From: Goddlefrood >The second is that there was an arbitrary wasp flying around the >examination room during the course of Harry taking his OWLs. This >latter made me think that Dumbledore's Animagus form was a wasp and >that he was keeping an eye on the OWLs. Dumbledore is, after all, bee >in Olde English Bart: Well, there is a wasp that looks like a bee (a yellowjacket). I wonder if there are any bees that look like wasps? Bart From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 22:01:01 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:01:01 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Eggplant wrote: > > "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle > > before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as > > though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and > > had half-forgotten. " (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) > > I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what > > that was all about. A friend?! > Carol responds: > I know that some people (probably half the members of this group) > think that Harry's reaction is related to his being a Horcrux (his > soul bit identifies with Tom Riddle), but I don't agree with that > interpretaion, not being a Harry!Horcrux advocate. > > I think Harry's reaction to the name is part of the spell that's > designed to draw the reader in to interact with Memory!Tom by > writing in the diary. zanooda: Hehe, I'm definitely one of "some people" Carol is hinting at (meaning Harry!Horcrux theory supporters). However, I find the idea of a charm attracting people to the diary very sensible. There is no way Teen!Riddle could have known *who* would find his diary in the future, and he certainly couldn't know anything about our Harry! Horcrux theories :-). Logically, a person who finds the diary should be compelled to just throw it away due to it's complete uselessness. Even if it happened to be a person who likes to write in a diary, why would he/she use someone else's old diary with the outdated calendar instead of his/her own new diary? Carol is right to assume that Teen!Riddle needed to find some way to make people keep *his* diary, IMO. Of course I would like to believe that Harry felt like he knew Tom Riddle because of the LV's soul-bit, but this absolutely doesn't exclude the possibility of the diary being enchanted. Maybe Harry *didn't* need the charm to want to keep the diary, but any other person would. zanooda, thinking that Harry!Horcrux and Enchanted!Diary ideas can coexist peacefully From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 23:54:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:54:33 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165873 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > > Now back to Dumbledore; what if Dumbledore was > > > already dead when Snape threw the Killing Curse? > > > ... Also, if Hermione and Lupin probe Harry at > > > depth for the details of what happened on the tower, > > > Harry might let it slip that it was the Killing > > > Curse that threw Dumbledore off the tower. > > > > > > Indeed as Carol points out, that might lead Lupin > > > to conclude ...Dumbledore was already dead. ... > > Carol responds: > First, let me point out that I'm only hoping that Lupin will realize > that the AK did not behave normally. I didn't suggest that it did so > because Dumbledore was already dead. bboyminn: Precisely, I've had the 'Dumbledore was already dead' theory for ages and have presented it here before. The problem was, what good did that knowledge do? Harry still wasn't going to trust Snape. In the past I have always speculated that actions 'X', some unknown event, would occur and that would change Harry's mind. What I got from you was that mysterious Action 'X', that allowed my orginal theory to work. Lupin and Hermione would figure out that there was something wrong with the Killing Curse on the top of the tower. Now 'Lupin figures it out' works for many potential theories. If Dumbledore is really alive, then Lupin could deduce that from the same block of information. If Dumbledore was already dead, Lupin figures it out. I have the theory, you gave me the missing element to make it work. That's all I'm saying. > Carol continues: > > The delayed response before the Freezing Charm on Harry > wears off suggests the opposite--that DD wasn't dead > yet when the supposed AK sent him over the ramparts. bboyminn: A fair assessment but not necessarily true. Harry is in shock, plus he is a little distracted; he is not actually sure when the Body Bind wore off. > Carol continues: > > ... > > Anyway, all I know is that that AK differs from the > norm in more ways than one and that DDM!Snape had good > reason to get the body off the tower: .... bboyminn: In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of what is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we have never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. For example, when Cedric was killed, Harry's eyes were closed; so to some extent, we get Harry's preception rather than his knowledge. In addition, we know from general references to other spells, that the normal spell action doesn't prevent substantial secondary action. For example, when Harry stuns Ron during practice, Ron simply falls over. However, when Dumbledore stuns fake!Moody, the same Stunning Spell has enough force to splinter a substantial wooden door and still has enough reserve to knock Moody over and Stun him. Same curse, dramatically different secondary results. > .... > > Carol, who really wants someone to put Harry's memory > of DD's death into a Pensieve and figure out what's > really going on > bboyminn: That is actually a pretty good idea. How better to give people exact unbiased objective knowledge of the event than to let them view it in a penseive. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 01:50:17 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:50:17 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165874 bboyminn snipped: In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of what is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we have never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. For example, when Cedric was killed, Harry's eyes were closed; so to some extent, we get Harry's preception rather than his knowledge. Snow: There may be one other thing to add to the quotient; all persons, whether we witnessed there death or not, were not prepared to die when they were hit with the AK. Dumbledore is asking Snape "Severus please". Dumbledore was prepared to die at this point so the exemption of shock on his face may have been due to his acceptance and not significant of the spell involved. In fact, when Snape concurred with Dumbledore's request, Dumbledore could close his eyes in peace trusting that his plan would succeed as a result of his death. The end product of the AK has only ever been seen from a victim and not a willing participant, so I would assume Dumbledore's situation would be quite unique to at least the AK spell. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 9 01:55:33 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:55:33 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165875 Goddlefrood: > As long ago as October 2005 I put together a > little piece on Snape and the DADA position. I > believe he never wanted it and still hold that > view. He certainly did not apply every year, and > my reasoning is in the referred post below. Here > is a link to that post, from which anyone interested > could follow the discussion. No-one really managed > to counter my original view, but then that's the > joy of the list, I await a dressing down. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141829 houyhnhnm: Hey, Goddlefrood! Hnuy illa nyha majah Yahoo! Good points about Snape's obvious pride in his title and the alternative explanations for the hostility Snape shows other DADA professors. Then of course, there is the love of his subject evinced by the speech made at the beginning of term in Harry's first year. But the strongest reason, IMO, to suspect the claim that Snape applied for the DADA position evey year and was turned down is that the reason given by Rowling in the interview (and by Snape himself to Bellatrix) just doesn't hold water. The DADA position might bring out the worst in Snape, but making him head of Slytherin House wouldn't? Sending him back out as a spy among the Death Eaters wouldn't? I don't see Snape as being out for himself. He may see himself that way, but I believe he is actually a moralist in disgust. Medved?nko: "Why do you always wear black?" Masha: "I am in mourning for my life." ~Anton Chekhov, The Seagull From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 9 02:34:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:34:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR...HP and world events In-Reply-To: <268604.74914.qm@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> References: <268604.74914.qm@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45F0C7A9.5030007@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165876 dragonkeeper wrote: > It is funny you should mention people being locked up without trial. > Stan Shunpike was imprisoned because he flippantly remarked he was a > Deatheater to impress girls and imprisoned without > investigation...something similar to the Witch Trials when people > were accused of being witches because of accusation without > investigation. Bart: I doubt anybody bragged about being a witch. > Half of Hollywood was imprisoned in the 50's for suspected Communist > activities or couldn't work for years because a Blacklist. Bart: 10 people were imprisoned, not for suspected Communist activities, but for refusal to testify before an investigative committee. At this time, the Soviet Union was in direct control of the American Communist Party, and was using it for espionage activity against the United States (at least according to their own documents). Most of those blacklisted also refused to cooperate with investigators. Bart From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 02:53:22 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:53:22 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165877 > bboyminn: > In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of what > is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we have > never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. For example, > when Cedric was killed, Harry's eyes were closed; so > to some extent, we get Harry's preception rather than > his knowledge. Goddlefrood (with a strong sense of deja vu): It is true we have not seen many AKs *actually* performed. The only one that comes close would be Frank Bryce. The effects of AKs seem reasonably ascertainable though. The Riddles were simply lying dead (at table if I recall) and Cedric dropped to the ground, unlike in the film version :)) Dumbledore may just have been already dead, but I'm not prepared to get into that right now. ;) Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 03:40:06 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:40:06 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165878 > houyhnhnm: > > Hey, Goddlefrood! Hnuy illa nyha majah Yahoo! Goddlefrood: My apologies for not knowing Klingon, or is it outta Star Wars (Jabba's language perhaps - oh the memory!). Not a horse myself, so can't help you. > houyhnhnm: > But the strongest reason, IMO, to suspect the claim that Snape > applied for the DADA position evey year and was turned down is > that the reason given by Rowling in the interview (and by Snape > himself to Bellatrix) just doesn't hold water. The DADA position > might bring out the worst in Snape, but making him head of > Slytherin House wouldn't? Sending him back out as a spy among > the Death Eaters wouldn't? Goddlefrood: Yeah, JKR sticks to the book line in interviews pretty well. The story really wouldn't hold too much water. It is odd, isn't it? Thanks for the input, but I won't be revisibg my theory too much anytime soon. > houyhnhnm: > Medved?nko: "Why do you always wear black?" > Masha: "I am in mourning for my life." > ~Anton Chekhov, The Seagull Goddlefrood: Like we didn't know where that was from. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it! Goddlefrood signing out for the Fiji weekend (or not) > From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Fri Mar 9 03:39:53 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:39:53 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165879 Hi everyone, this is my 1st post (although I have been reading for a while). In regards to the AK looking 'unusual' I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that there was a bunch of experienced DE's on the Tower at the moment of casting the AK. Surely, one or more of them would have noticed the 'discrepancy' between the 'usual' vs 'unusual' AK? Cheers Kvapost From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Fri Mar 9 06:31:15 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:31:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Facts regarding RAB Message-ID: <751010.34314.qm@web8414.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165880 Hi I have went through Orkut.com and found this: [quote]"R A B, the initials of the mysterious character who is also hunting the Dark Lord's soul secrets, changed in the Dutch translation of the novel, where Regulus Black is called Regulus Zwarts and the initials read R A Z. In the Norwegian edition, apparently, Regulus has the surname Svaart, and the initials R A S. In the Finnish translation, Regulus Black is called Regulus Musta, and the initials are R A M."[/quote] It was in "Harry Potter and Deathly Hollow", community, posted by someone "Awaneesh" with topic heading as " Proof Regulus is RAB" or something similar. Hope you people can confirm it from different sources and look into it. regs avi PS: special thanks for Jen to make it appear on Forum. From finessefluteecole at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 06:36:42 2007 From: finessefluteecole at gmail.com (Joshua Michael) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:36:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bella and Horcruxes (was: That whole locket, green goo in mysterious cave thing) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99ca58c40703082236r56c85bfel85687cadc2be042d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165881 Neri: > No, we don't have any details yet, but speculation from here seems > to practically flow of itself: Bellatrix was appointed the keeper > of a Hx, by default I'd guess the Hufflepuff Cup, just as Lucius was > appointed the keeper of the Diary Hx. Frank and Alice, probably > while doing their job as aurors, possibly trailing Bella or > searching her place, found it and confiscated it from her. At that > point they may have realized it's the Hufflepuff Cup and suspected > that Bella hadn't come by it legally, but they didn't yet have > proof against her and didn't know it was made a Hx. Bella attacked > them and tortured them in order to get it back, but at that point > they may have realized its critical importance and refused to > reveal where it is. So it is still hidden somewhere, perhaps in the > Longbottoms house, perhaps even in Neville's possession. It's going > to surface in DH and Bella will be coming back for it, just in time > to have a final showdown between her and Neville, probably while > he's protecting his parents. Awesome plot potential, isn't it? I > just can't wait. MY VIEW: Didn't Bella and her fellow fienss (alliteration right?) torture Frank and Alice to get info on Voldi from them? I mean it would make sense as they were top aurors. It will be intersting to see if the papers Neville is handed by his mother mean anything (OOTP). I mean it could right? She gave him tons. I mean how would the last book end without a happy Neville, it wouldn't be nice :). I mean you got to say some people like Neville as a character -he reminds me of those you are weak (Not smart) but want something so bad they work to get it. He works hard at DA so he can be prepared if the DE's try to get him. It will be intersting to see what LP's and JP's career were. They must of had important careers as they helped the OOTP so much right? Cause Voldi was targeting them before he learnt about the Prophecy right? -- Sincerely, JOSHUA R.B. MICHAEL ~The one wondering why I am standing up for Neville?~ The RCMFluter http://www.freewebs.com/rcmfluter ______________________P_____________________ ()_( O )_____]_o_o_O_O_O_O_O_O_O_O_]d_O_O_O_) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bercygirl2 at aol.com Fri Mar 9 06:54:11 2007 From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:54:11 -0000 Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Lastly, let's not get carried away, Harry and Voldemort's > wands will work nicely against the other person. It is > only under vary rare and unlikely circumstances that the > wands will not work against each other. Either Harry or > Voldemort is perfectly capable of cursing or killing > the other unless their respective spells collide in > mid-air. That is the only circumstance under which > the 'Brother Wand' affect comes into play. In normal > dueling, it doesn't usually matter. > > Just a few thoughts. > > Steve/bboyminn > I should have written "the wands will not work PROPERLY against each other." GoF, page 697: "So what happens when a wand meets its brother?" said Sirius. "They will not work properly against each other," said Dumbledore. If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle... a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse order. The most recent first... and then those that preceded it..." -Donna From funkeginger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 08:56:19 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:56:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <296416.75198.qm@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165883 > Funkeginger: > > Most people are saying that Harry's last hope for > fighting You Know Who and disarming the Horcruxes is > Bill. I don't get it, where in all the books does it > say that Bill is skilled in the Dark Arts enough to > teach HP how to fight Voldemort? > > ... bboyminn: > Others have already answered, but hopefully I can elaborate a bit. First no one is saying Bill's role is pivotal or all inclusive. Bil has a specialty, and that is curse breaking, not just general curse breaking but breaking curses made in languages that are long dead or languages that he doesn't specifically understand. Each of the Order members and each of the key people in Harry's life has specialized talents. < Funkeginger: I get what you are saying that there are different members in the order with different skills that will more than likley help Harry. bboyminn: But just because Bill is a curse breaker does not mean that he is trained to handle Voldemort's Horcrux traps like that stuff in the cave. It's like saying that a nurse working with a doctor all day in the hospital is Qualified to do operations if a patient is dying and there are no doctors around. She or he's not best what for the doctor. That's what I am saying with Bill . He might work with Curses every day but I doubt that they are half as dangerous as Voldemort's Horcrux traps. You have to take in to account that Eygptians just wanted to keep people out with their traps, not really kill them or drive them mad and curse them on told pain before killing them. Voldemort does, and it use a bit of logic. It's better to die a quick and painful death then, be driven mad by a curse and be caused so much pain like DD was. I was really surprised Snape that killed him it was the Poison. Do you think that Bill just because of his job can handle what DD could not? I thing you are right in the sense that it is only the order that can help him from this point. Unless we find out that Snape is not bad or Sirius and DD really are not dead. Funkeginger From funkeginger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 08:20:50 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:20:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070309082050.47617.qmail@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165884 Steve/bboyminn: > Lastly, let's not get carried away, Harry and Voldemort's > wands will work nicely against the other person. It is > only under vary rare and unlikely circumstances that the > wands will not work against each other. Donna wrote: I should have written "the wands will not work PROPERLY against each other." GoF, page 697: Funkeginger: We all know that it only when special circumstance under which the 'Brother Wand' effect comes into play. In normal dueling, it doesn't usually matter. But what most people are saying is that in the Deatly Hallows Voldemort might want to use DD's wand because he knows about the brother effect,One. Two, we all know from reading book six that Voldemort cannot stand having someone sharing something the same as him. DD said that in the book to Harry when he was showing him the memories. Also book seven is the last book and Harry and Voldemort have to do Battle with each other like they did in book four so the same circumstances might arise. "They will not work properly against each other," said Dumbledore. If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle... a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse order. The most recent first... and then those that preceded it..." --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 15:03:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:03:14 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165885 bboyminn wrote: > In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of what is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we have never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. For example, when Cedric was killed, Harry's eyes were closed; so to some extent, we get Harry's preception rather than his knowledge. Carol: Actually, yes, we have--Harry sees Fake!Moody kill the spider: "There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air--instantaneously, the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead (GoF Am. ed. 316). Harry's reaction is perhaps significant: "So that was how his parents had died. . . . exactly like that spider. Had they been unblemished and unmarked too? Had they simply seen the flash of green light and heard the rush of speeding death, before life was wiped from their bodies?" (316, ellipsis in original). It's noteworthy, of course, that Harry's earliest memory is an identical "blinding flash of green light." He wonders "where all that green light came from" (SS Am. ed. 29), as if the green light is not just a "jet" coming from a wand but everywhere in sight, *blinding* him. The light is so memorable, so important, that he retains that memory alone until the Dementors help him to recall voices as well. And, though Harry's eyes are closed when Cedric dies (he's feeling ill because of Voldemort's presence), the similarities are still marked: "A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him. . . . [T]errified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead. For a second that contained an eternity, Harry stared into Cedric's face, at this open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised" (638). The rushing sound is missing, perhaps because Harry is retching and too terrified to notice it, but the blinding flash ("blast") is so marked that he sees it with his eyes closed, and the death in both cases is instantaneous. Like the Riddles ("Lying there with their eyes wide open!" 2), Cedric's eyes are open. Dumbledore's are not. He looks like he's asleep. Nor does DD look surprised like Cedric or terrified like the Riddles, who, like the spider, are unmarked and appear to be in perfect health, aside from being dead (4). (FWIW, DD is hit in the chest, so if there's a "hex mark," it would be hidden from Harry's view.) And there's Frank Bryce. *Harry* may not see that death, but *the reader* does. There's no reason to doubt the reliability of the narration in this instance, though the pov is odd (the limited-omniscient narrator is no longer in Frank's head and has perhaps switched to Harry's): "There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled. He was dead before he hit the floor" (15). The flash, the rushing sound, instant death. Exactly like the spider, very similar to Cedric. We can safely assume that there's no mark on Frank and that the police can't figure out the cause of death (assuming that he's not fed to Nagini). How many descriptions do we need to see that AK victims do not go sailing into the air, that they die instantly (the freezing charm should have worn off instantly), that there's a "blinding flash" or "blinding blast" of green light, nothing like the "jet" of green light that comes from Snape's wand? And just for the sake of completeness, "flash" and "jet" are not synonyms. flash Function: noun 1 a: a sudden burst of light b: a movement of a flag in signaling2: a sudden and often brilliant burst jet Function: noun 1 a (1): a usually forceful stream of fluid (as water or gas) discharged from a narrow opening or a nozzle (2): a narrow stream of material (as plasma) emanating or appearing to emanate from a celestial object (as a radio galaxy) b: a nozzle for a jet of fluid2: something issuing as if in a jet A sudden burst of light versus a forceful stream like water from a hose. Not the same thing at all. > > Carol, who really wants someone to put Harry's memory of DD's death into a Pensieve and figure out what's really going on > bboyminn: > > That is actually a pretty good idea. How better to give people exact unbiased objective knowledge of the event than to let them view it in a penseive. Carol responds: Thanks. It's the only way I can think of to present the death and what preceded and followed it from a perspective other than Harry's. Maybe that's why the Pensieve was introduced into the books in the first place. Carol, who hopes that JKR has not somehow forgotten those detailed and overlapping descriptions of Avada Kedavra, which is what it is regardless of whether Harry witnesses it From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 9 15:15:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:15:29 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165886 > Goddlefrood (with a strong sense of deja vu): > > It is true we have not seen many AKs *actually* performed. The only > one that comes close would be Frank Bryce. > Pippin: Poor nameless, faceless spider. It made the ultimate sacrifice, just so we could see exactly what an AK looks like. Here's the canon: Moody raised his wand, and Harry felt a sudden thrill of foreboding. "_Avada Kedavra_!" Moody roared. There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air-- instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked but unmistakably dead. Several of the students stifled cries; Ron had thrown himself backward and almost toppled off his seat as the spider skidded toward him. --GoF ch 14 Now maybe this wasn't really an AK, as it was Fake!Moody doing it. But you couldn't accept that and still maintain that AK's can't be faked :) Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 15:14:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:14:14 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165887 kvapost wrote: > In regards to the AK looking 'unusual' I just wanted to draw your > attention to the fact that there was a bunch of experienced DE's on the Tower at the moment of casting the AK. Surely, one or more of them would have noticed the 'discrepancy' between the 'usual' vs 'unusual' AK? Carol responds: That's a fair point, but I don't think they had time to notice anything unusual. They were all in awe of snape, he was taking charge, and he ordered them off the tower before they had time to think about anything--not to mention that Amycus, Alecto, and Fenrir Greyback are none of them very bright. The one DE who seems to have a brain (Brutal-Face, who I'm sure is Yaxley), was hit in the back by a Petrificus Totalus. If he has anything to say about the AK being unusual, he can tell it to the Aurors and Scrimgeour. Hope he does. And as far as the differences between Snape's supposed AK and all the others. see my previous post, which cites the relevant canon. Carol, who thinks that one reason Snape shouted "It's over!" was to get the DEs off the tower before they started realizing that AKs don't normally send people over the ramparts From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 15:39:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:39:29 -0000 Subject: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: <296416.75198.qm@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165888 Funkeginger wrote: > > But just because Bill is a curse breaker does not mean that he is trained to handle Voldemort's Horcrux traps like that stuff in the cave. > > You have to take in to account that Eygptians just wanted to keep people out with their traps, not really kill them or drive them mad and curse them on told pain before killing them. > > Voldemort does, and it use a bit of logic. It's better to die a quick and painful death then, be driven mad by a curse and be caused so much pain like DD was. I was really surprised Snape that killed him it was the Poison. > Carol responds: I'll get to the post as a whole in a moment, but I don't understand this last sentence. Can you clarify your intended meaning, please? Funkeginger: > Do you think that Bill just because of his job can handle what DD could not? > I thing you are right in the sense that it is only the order that can help him from this point. Unless we find out that Snape is not bad or Sirius and DD really are not dead. Carol responds: Well, we're not going to find out that Dumbledore isn't really dead, and I'm pretty sure that Sirius Black is, too, given Dumbledore's use of the word "dead" and the will and all that. (I think Harry will see them both beyond the Veil, but I've talked about that elsewhere.) And Snape as a bad guy? Not on my watch. As for Bill: Poor Bill. Gets attacked by the most savage werewolf in the WW, loses his looks, and now, IMO, he's probably headed for death as well. I do think that his expertise as a curse breaker is in the books for a reason. It's been mentioned rather frequently since at least PoA (and we've known that Charlie is working with dragons in Romania since SS/PS, meaning we'll surely see Charlie in that capacity in DH.) It seems to me that, once Harry realizes that the locket all of them saw in 12 GP and none of them could open is the Slytherin locket, he's going to need help opening it. He'll remember the ring Horcrux and anticipate a curse, and Ron will remind him that breaking curses is Bill's job. (Dumbledore, after all, was a powerful and multi-talented wizard, as well as a genius, but his specialty is Transfiguration, not DADA. It's possible--I'm not saying probable--that he knows something DD didn't know.) DD succeeded in destroying the Horcrux, which is the important thing. What he couldn't do is protect himself from the curse or heal himself from the curse once it had attacked, which is where Snape came in. He couldn't save or restore the arm, but he prevented the curse from killing Dumbledore, much as he prevented the curse on the opal necklace from killing Katie. (I assume that he also removed the curse from the necklace, which must be why McGonagall gave it to him in the first place.) I can see something similar happening to Bill. He succeeds in getting the locket Horcrux open and destroying the soul bit, but he's struck by a curse that he can't cure any more than Dumbledore could. Without the resident Dark Arts expert/Healer, Snape, there's no way to save him. Do they trust Snape enough to call him in and ask for his help? Unlikely, but I'll bet that Snape is mentioned. Bill is sent off to St. Mungo's, where he either dies or is out of action for the rest of the book. Three Horcruxes down, three to go. If one of them is Nagini (whom I predict that Harry will kill with the Sword of Gryffindor), only two more will need to be found and de-Horcruxed. Harry will eventually realize that the only person left who can help him is Snape. Or that's my prediction. Carol, who is only speculating but does expect either Bill or Charlie to die in DH, not to mention Redeemed!Snape being indispensable to Harry once Harry realizes that he's DDM! From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 9 15:55:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:55:31 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? Message-ID: <2375723.1173455731763.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165889 Pippin: >Poor nameless, faceless spider. It made the ultimate sacrifice, just >so we could see exactly what an AK looks like. Throughout the books, we see a lot of examples of cruelty to animals, particularly in Transfiguration class. Bart From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 16:45:16 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:45:16 -0000 Subject: HP's last hope for disarming the Horcrux and battle In-Reply-To: <296416.75198.qm@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165890 Funkeginger wrote: > But just because Bill is a curse breaker does not mean that he is trained to handle Voldemort's Horcrux traps like that stuff in the cave. > It's like saying that a nurse working with a doctor all day in the hospital is Qualified to do operations if a patient is dying and there are no doctors around. > She or he's not best what for the doctor. That's what I am saying with Bill . He might work with Curses every day but I doubt that they are half as dangerous as Voldemort's Horcrux traps. > > You have to take in to account that Eygptians just wanted to keep people out with their traps, not really kill them or drive them mad and curse them on told pain before killing them. Annemehr: Actually, I think Bill would be just the man for the job. He *is* the doctor, not the nurse. There is a hint as to what he deals with in PoA, in Ron's birthday letter to Harry: "It's amazing here in Egypt. Bill's taken us around all the tombs and you wouldn't believe the curses those old Egyptian wizards put on them. Mum wouldn't let Ginny come in the last one. There were all these mutant skeletons in there, of Muggles who'd broken in and grown extra heads and stuff." [ch. 1] You might think extra heads aren't so bad, but I wonder what "and stuff" meant -- not to mention whatever may have happened to the long- gone fleshy parts of their bodies and the fact that they never got out of the tombs alive... And yet, because of the talents of some curse-breaker, the Weasleys (well, most of them) could just stroll in for a bit of sightseeing. Annemehr From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 9 16:51:43 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:51:43 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165891 "justcarol67" wrote: > I think Harry's reaction to the name > is part of the spell that's designed > to draw the reader in to interact with > Memory!Tom by writing in the diary. But it wasn't just any friendly feeling, Harry felt it had to do with something that happened to him when he was very young, that can't just be coincidence. Besides if your theory were true it's hard to understand why JKR would bother to include it at all, as it would not advance the plot or character development one bit. I think JKR felt that to play fair she must drop a few hints and foreshadow a connection between something that happened near the beginning of his life and at the very end when Harry became the man who died. Eggplant From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 16:23:55 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:23:55 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > But it's another unintended consequence. So again, Harry does > something stupid (lies) but luckily it turns out to give him a brain > storm on how to get in good with Slughorn? Is that supposed to > reflect well on him? > Yes, I suppose it is. You talk about being Lucky as if it was a minor or unimportant or unpraisworthy thing. Many times it's not. Indeed, there are plenty of human cultures who have, over time, held that being lucky is a personal attribute every bit as important as being intelligent or brave or anything else. It is, after all, a sign of Divine Favor. And although many (but not all) modern religions don't specifically equate being Lucky with being Favored of God, that is still the gut reaction of most people. On a less philosophical level, Harry quite simply IS the favored of God -- or of JKR, who amounts to the same thing in the context of the Potterverse. OF COURSE he's going to have incredible runs of good fortune, timely interventions of fate, and plentiful unintended consequences from which he is going to reap the rewards. That is what being the Favored of God gets for you. It's a fact of life in literature -- and beyond literature, for that matter. This even speaks to the conflict between Harry and Snape. Snapey-poo, bless his abusive little heart, is UNlucky, and that isn't a good thing. The Unlucky are the invisible lepers of the world, for deep in their guts most people regard them as being Despised of God as much as the lucky are favored. Why are people so uncomfortable in the face of misfortune? Well, there are many reasons, some laudable and some not. One of the most powerful, and least admirable, is that faced with an unlucky person people have a deep superstitious dread that the disfavor of God will rub off. Faced with someone like the teenage Snapey-poo who is, let's admit it, quite a loser, the automatic reaction is to keep your distance lest the plague of unluck infect you. So Snape hates Harry because Harry has that powerful and triumphant thing that Snapey-poo doesn't have -- luck. And he hates Neville because Neville is a mirror of himself in the luck arena -- except that Neville rubs salt in the wounds by actually experiencing a change in his luck over time, largely by garnering the good favor of people more lucky than himself -- or more accurately and more viscerally, he sticks close enough to God's Favored that some of the luck rubs off. It even speaks to the position of Hermione in the saga. Hermione is, after all, smarter than Harry, brave (albeit in a different way), and as a muggleborn faced with a much higher set of social barriers. So why is Harry the Hero and Hermione the Sidekick? And I know at least one feminist literature professor who constantly fumes because for all Hermione's sterling qualities, it has been made extremely clear that she isn't the hero and never will be. The answer is that Harry is the favored of fortune, as the Romans might say, or the favorite of JKR, as we would say, and Hermione, for all her estimable qualities, isn't. So, it all comes down to this -- Harry is JKR's favorite character. He gets the luck, Snapey-poo doesn't. He gets to be the hero, Hermione doesn't. He gets the girl, Neville doesn't. He most likely gets to live, Dumbly-dore doesn't. He makes mistakes and garners rewards from it. He is facing a wizard who, under any rules of logic you can imagine, ought to have easily killed him a dozen times by now -- and in the end he will beat said wizard and said wizard's henchman who are "nearly as terrible as he." How does he accomplish all this? He is the Favored of the God of the Potterverse. So yeah, it's wise to praise and value Harry's luck. After all, if you were a Potterverse character, a little bit of it might just rub off on you. Lupinlore From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 17:12:21 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:12:21 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165893 a_svirn: >That's just it I don't see why she would hesitate to call him thus. >He *is* a murderer, after all, even if he killed for "the Greater >Good" (not that I believe that such thing exists, but for the sake of >argument.) Bart: Just to set a context: Do you think soldier/snipers in times of war are murderers? Say, if they take out the radioman? If someone is carrying secret information, and is about to be captured, and another soldier is assigned to kill him if he gets captured. The first soldier does get captured, and the second soldier, following orders to which both soldiers agreed, kills him. Is the second soldier a murderer? a_svirn: Frankly, I'd rather not to go there. It would only lead to a discussion on whether wars are fought for the Greater Good or for some other goods, which would be decidedly OT. And anyway, your example doesn't work for Snape, does it? It's not like Snape killed his enemy in a battle. He killed his ally and his commander-in-chief in an ambush. Carol: The evidence suggests that Snape was trying to *prevent* their deaths but failed (which is part of the reason that he still hates James, IMO. How dare he not listen and get himself killed? The arrogance of it!) a_svirn: Only someone really twisted and perverse can hate a man for such a reason. And from "twisted and perverse" to murderer and even to evil not such a long stretch. To anyone in the order it is much easier to believe that Snape is low life, than to try to explain away the murder of their leader. Besides what evidence? We have only Dumbledore's word on the "personal risks" Snape took in the first war, and, frankly, in the light of the events on the tower, the phoenixes would be justified in thinking that he had been hoodwinked by Snape. Carol: It may indeed look like it, but only to Harry, not Hermione, who will realize, I hope, that Harry's version of events conflicts with what she already knows--that Snape began spying for Dumbledore *before* Godric's Hollow (and presumably before he began teaching that same year). That being the case, the Potters' deaths *can't* be the reason for Snape's tale of remorse. His remorse, and his return to Dumbledore, has to have occurred some time between the Prophecy and Godric's Hollow, not afterwards. (It's a shame that the timeline is so vague, to Harry and Hermione even more than to us.) a_svirn: That's true. She must have seen that the explanation doesn't hold water. But she has no other, and at this point it has been borne upon the entire order of the Phoenix that Dumbledore must have been mistaken in Snape. Carol: No, she doesn't. She knows that Snape made a UV to *protect Draco*, a_svirn: not just protect, but *help* as well. > a_svirn: > But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an > essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's > weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and > the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that > inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. zgirnius: This is your opinion. I do not share it, and I do not see why Hermione must. Hermione is aware of the following good actions of Snape, which have occured over the past six years: 1) Saving Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS 2) End of PoA - I think she would believe him sincere in his comments to her and Harry in the Shack - in other words, he was after Sirius because he was the traitor 3) Revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge 4) Teaching Harry Occlumency (I think she did read up on it, and has reason to believe Harry's reaction is typical in the early stages) 5) Not providing Umbridge with Veritaserum in OotP 6) Sending the Order to the MoM (and checking on Sirius) 7) Saving Dumbledore's life 8) Saving Katie Bell's life a_svirn: To start with, out of your list only the first point is undisputable. The rest of your points has been challenged on-list over the years. (And the seventh is certainly negated by his actions later on). More importantly, it is not why Hermione had been defending Snape in the past. Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 17:32:47 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:32:47 -0000 Subject: Stan Shunpike - As White as he's Painted? (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165894 > Goddlefrood: Arthur Weasley tells Harry in answer to his > question that Stan is still under arrest (so obviously Wizarding > Law is very different from Muggle law, in that a person arrested > can not be held without charge for more than 48 hours [UK], > excluding terrorist suspecs where it can be longer {Guantanamo Bay > for instance}). At this news Harry contains himself. (The exchange > is on pps. 310 and 311). a_svirn: Yes, and there used to be defense regulation 18B (UK). But if you consider Sirius Black's fate, I'd say, that habeas corpus does not feature in the WW's legal system. > Goddlefrood: Harry goes on to try to justify *his* position, but Scrimgeour > takes no notice. Now it appears that Scrimgeour wanted to say a > little more, but held back. This man was previously, remember, the > Head of the Auror Office - oh, and I don't adhere to the view that > he is himself a Death Eater or even a slightly bad man, just that > he's a man trying to do a difficult job in difficult times with a > little more success than Cornelius Fudge. > > It is, then, a fair assumption to make that Scrimgeour had a valid > reason for Stan's continued detention, but he won't share with Harry > and doesn't. Not knowing him that well it is not easy to form an > opinion of his motivations, however I would state that he has a > better idea of the situation in the WWW than does Harry. a_svirn: The why not share it with Harry? It's no use saying that he's only sixteen. He's the Chosen One, and Scrimgeour wants his cooperation. Badly, by the looks of it. If he had a valid reason to detain Stan surely he could have explained the situation to Harry? I don't think Harry would have been unreasonable. Stan is no friend of his. Then again ? why not give Stan a fair trial? As you pointed out, Scrimgeour used to be the chief Auror, and it seems like he acts exactly like on of his predecessors ? Barty Crouch Sr. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 9 18:23:00 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:23:00 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165895 > > Betsy Hp: > > But it's another unintended consequence. So again, Harry does > > something stupid (lies) but luckily it turns out to give him a brain > > storm on how to get in good with Slughorn? Is that supposed to > > reflect well on him? Lupinlore > > > > Yes, I suppose it is. You talk about being Lucky as if it was a minor > or unimportant or unpraisworthy thing. Many times it's not. Indeed, > there are plenty of human cultures who have, over time, held that being > lucky is a personal attribute every bit as important as being > intelligent or brave or anything else. It is, after all, a sign of > Divine Favor. And although many (but not all) modern religions don't > specifically equate being Lucky with being Favored of God, that is > still the gut reaction of most people. > > On a less philosophical level, Harry quite simply IS the favored of > God -- or of JKR, who amounts to the same thing in the context of the > Potterverse. OF COURSE he's going to have incredible runs of good > fortune, timely interventions of fate, and plentiful unintended > consequences from which he is going to reap the rewards. That is what > being the Favored of God gets for you. It's a fact of life in > literature -- and beyond literature, for that matter. > > This even speaks to the conflict between Harry and Snape. Snape, > bless his abusive little heart, is UNlucky, and that isn't a good > thing. The Unlucky are the invisible lepers of the world, for deep in > their guts most people regard them as being Despised of God as much as > the lucky are favored. Why are people so uncomfortable in the face of > misfortune? Well, there are many reasons, some laudable and some not. > One of the most powerful, and least admirable, is that faced with an > unlucky person people have a deep superstitious dread that the disfavor > of God will rub off. Faced with someone like the teenage Snape > who is, let's admit it, quite a loser, the automatic reaction is to > keep your distance lest the plague of unluck infect you. So Snape > hates Harry because Harry has that powerful and triumphant thing that > Snape doesn't have -- luck. And he hates Neville because Neville > is a mirror of himself in the luck arena -- except that Neville rubs > salt in the wounds by actually experiencing a change in his luck over > time, largely by garnering the good favor of people more lucky than > himself -- or more accurately and more viscerally, he sticks close > enough to God's Favored that some of the luck rubs off. > > It even speaks to the position of Hermione in the saga. Hermione is, > after all, smarter than Harry, brave (albeit in a different way), and > as a muggleborn faced with a much higher set of social barriers. So > why is Harry the Hero and Hermione the Sidekick? And I know at least > one feminist literature professor who constantly fumes because for all > Hermione's sterling qualities, it has been made extremely clear that > she isn't the hero and never will be. The answer is that Harry is the > favored of fortune, as the Romans might say, or the favorite of JKR, as > we would say, and Hermione, for all her estimable qualities, isn't. > > So, it all comes down to this -- Harry is JKR's favorite character. He > gets the luck, Snape doesn't. He gets to be the hero, Hermione > doesn't. He gets the girl, Neville doesn't. He most likely gets to > live, Dumbledore doesn't. He makes mistakes and garners rewards from > it. He is facing a wizard who, under any rules of logic you can > imagine, ought to have easily killed him a dozen times by now -- and in > the end he will beat said wizard and said wizard's henchman who > are "nearly as terrible as he." How does he accomplish all this? He > is the Favored of the God of the Potterverse. > > So yeah, it's wise to praise and value Harry's luck. After all, if you > were a Potterverse character, a little bit of it might just rub off on > you. Magpie: Very interesting post! And I basically agree...and yet I think there's different ways that something can reflect well on Harry. I believe in the original context Betsy was talking about it wouldn't make sense to admire Harry for his actions. What you're describing is, as you say, a superstitious idea that Harry is favored by the gods. Harry clearly is favored by the god of his universe, but that's a very specific thing to admire in him. Many people admire other characters more when they aren't favored if they think, for instance, that they have done something admirable. If Harry is lucky, that's all the more reason not to model ourselves on his actions--if a person not favored by the gods did it, it would get them into trouble. Harry gets rewarded for his mistakes, but they're still mistakes. And Snape isn't actually as unlucky as he presents himself. He has a negative, glum outlook and seems to always by default see himself as put-upon, but Snape's hung around way longer than a lot of his contemporaries. Nobody would have doubted back in the 70s that the Marauders were the ones favored by the gods--handsome, cool, popular, talented, smart, getting away with stuff. And how did their lives turn out? Peter's a pathetic wreck of a slave and a murderer, Lupin until recently was jobless, alone and barely above the poverty line. Sirius lost his whole life and then died absurdly after further imprisonment. James, for all his early glamour, was just there to be sacrificed. All of them suffered pretty sad fates, sometimes coming right out of their own flaws. It's Snape who turned out to be indispensible, to have power and be needed by Dumbledore and, perhaps, Voldemort. Snape's the one protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Snape's actions are on the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than Harry's. Harry is clearly the Chosen One, but the Chosen One isn't always the best one in a narrative in every way. I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to Cosette). I've always prefered Edmund to Peter in Narnia. In HP, Snape's survival could perhaps be seen as a form of luck in itself. It conceivable could take a good deal of luck to become both Dumbledore's and Voldemort's right hand man. In fact, I might say that sometimes the book does sort of contrast the two different kinds of luck. Harry and Snape both want to protect the Philosopher's Stone. Harry saves it through being the one favored by the Gods, doing the wrong thing and having it turn out right. Snape is the one who more figures out what's really going on. Harry's role is obviously held above Snape's, but Snape isn't wrong so much as just in a supporting role. Harry's destruction of Quirrel seems to be a sign of his greater gifts as a hero, but he also learns that he was wrong about Snape. Ultimately I don't think it's necessarily wrong if a readers thinks less of--or is just less interested/impressed by--Lucky Harry than Unlucky, sullen DDM!Snape who brought his bad fortune on himself and doggedly sticks to his own ideas about honor to try to make it right to himself while still turning people off with his cloud of unluckiness. I think at least that Rowling has shown an interest in Snape's kind of redemption story. Ironically, in HBP the very question is brought up in terms of Felix Felicitas. Slughorn, iirc, warns against using it too much because it leads to reckless behavior. That kind of links back to maybe what others were saying about Harry in general in this case. Being favored by the gods can sometimes be an obstacle to personal development. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 18:37:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:37:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165896 > a_svirn: > That's true. She must have seen that the explanation doesn't hold > water. But she has no other, and at this point it has been borne upon > the entire order of the Phoenix that Dumbledore must have been > mistaken in Snape. Alla: I am not sure if my reply is directly to this quote of yours, but when I read this thread and had been reading it carefully enough I hope, I keep thinking about JKR's remark that she writes about degrees of evil. So, what I am trying to say is maybe what Hermione really says is not that book is not evil at all, but that it is *evil*, but not *Evil*? > a_svirn: > To start with, out of your list only the first point is undisputable. > The rest of your points has been challenged on-list over the years. > (And the seventh is certainly negated by his actions later on). More > importantly, it is not why Hermione had been defending Snape in the > past. Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and > murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore > trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no > longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. Alla: Yep. I once went through five books with rather fine comb (not so fine through HBP, but all other five books I did rather careful search) and Hermione never to the best of my knowledge defends Snape as teacher, as person, as anybody but the one whom DD trusts ( I do not have link with me now, but will provide upon request). And as you said, this argument is at least no longer **seems** to be valid IMO. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 9 18:51:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:51:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) Message-ID: <23457260.1173466293919.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165897 From: a_svirn >Bart: >Just to set a context: Do you think soldier/snipers in times of war >are >murderers? Say, if they take out the radioman? If someone is carrying >secret >information, and is about to be captured, and another soldier is >assigned to >kill him if he gets captured. The first soldier does get captured, >and the >second soldier, following orders to which both soldiers agreed, kills >him. Is >the second soldier a murderer? > >a_svirn: >Frankly, I'd rather not to go there. It would only lead to a >discussion on whether wars are fought for the Greater Good or for >some other goods, which would be decidedly OT. And anyway, your >example doesn't work for Snape, does it? It's not like Snape killed >his enemy in a battle. He killed his ally and his commander-in-chief >in an ambush. Bart: Well, there IS a war going on, albeit a civil war. And, sometimes, it is necessary in war to take out one of your own people to avoid their capture. Also, in espionage, if one spy is going to die anyway, it is not unusual for a double spy to do the dirty deed, so as to ensure the double spy's postion. Bart From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Fri Mar 9 18:19:32 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:19:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002e01c76277$87a6e300$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165898 --Zgirnius Wrote-- >>>zgirnius: This is your opinion. I do not share it, and I do not see why Hermione must. Hermione is aware of the following good actions of Snape, which have occured over the past six years: 1) Saving Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS 2) End of PoA - I think she would believe him sincere in his comments to her and Harry in the Shack - in other words, he was after Sirius because he was the traitor 3) Revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge 4) Teaching Harry Occlumency (I think she did read up on it, and has reason to believe Harry's reaction is typical in the early stages) 5) Not providing Umbridge with Veritaserum in OotP 6) Sending the Order to the MoM (and checking on Sirius) 7) Saving Dumbledore's life 8) Saving Katie Bell's life <<< --Then, a_svirn Wrote-- >>> a_svirn: To start with, out of your list only the first point is undisputable. The rest of your points has been challenged on-list over the years. (And the seventh is certainly negated by his actions later on). More importantly, it is not why Hermione had been defending Snape in the past. Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. <<< --Ronin-s Comments-- Technically, any point made by either side is disputable. I could say that Quirrell was just watching the Quiditch match and Snape was really the one working the jinx. Just because Snape claimed he was trying to help Harry doesn't make it true when their own (Ron's & Hermione's) eye witness accounts portray Snape as the culprit. Number 7 is probably the most relevant point on the list because we KNOW that Dumbledore himself has said that Snape was the only one who could help him as he did when his hand was cursed. It was definitely Snape who kept the curse from spreading and killing Dumbledore. Yes. The argument is STILL quite valid. Dumbledore has not been proven right or wrong as of yet. All we have to go on are the presumptions made by a teenage boy during a very emotional and traumatic event. You may believe that Dumbledore's real reason for trusting Snape without a doubt was as Harry said, "Snape passed Voldemort the 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." - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, pg. 616, 1st American Hardcover Edition. This is what Harry ASSUMES. It's hardly the ironclad reason that Dumbledore would've trusted Snape. It's no more ironclad than if Fenrir Greyback had come and said, "I'm really sorry that I've been attacking children. Can I be the DADA professor now please?" The point is that we won't know until DH has been read, and even then, we may have questions. I fear that Dumbledore's ironclad reason for trusting Severus may have died with him. But I am as certain as is possible based on what I've read in canon, that Harry's reasoning for DD's trusting Snape is NOT correct. Hermione may just be bright enough to see through this as well. She could likely put it together for herself that this was a ridiculous reason for DD to trust Snape and knew that Harry was just basing his OPINION on his hate for Snape and the emotion of what had just transpired. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 20:11:19 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:11:19 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165899 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of > > what is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we > > have never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. ... > > Carol: > Actually, yes, we have--Harry sees Fake!Moody kill > the spider: > > "There was a flash of blinding green light and a > rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something > was soaring through the air--instantaneously, the > spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, > but unmistakably dead (GoF Am. ed. 316). > > ... > > ... > > How many descriptions do we need to see that AK > victims do not go sailing into the air, that they die > instantly (the freezing charm should have worn off > instantly), that there's a "blinding flash" ..., > nothing like the "jet" of green light that comes from > Snape's wand? > > ... bboyminn: Here is the key aspect of my point, that you seem to be missing. Curses act very differently depending on the emotion behind them. I gave the example of comparing Harry's practice Stunning Spell against Ron, and the same Stunning Spell used against Moody by Dumbledore. Another example is the Expelliarmus Disarming Spell. /Normally/ is simply deprives the cursed person of their wand or other weapon. Yet, we see a substantial difference between that, and what happens in the Dueling Club between Lockhart and Snape. Snape knocks Lockhart on his ass. Yet in practice in the DA Club, people's wands simply fly across the room. Also, key to my theory, is that /missed/ spells frequently have substantial physical impact. So, my point is that there is no 'normal' for a spell. We have many examples of the emotion behind the spell afftecting how the spell occurs. Powerful emotions make for powerful secondary effects, even though the primary effect remains the same. The Stunning Curse stuns, but it can simply stun or it can stun with a full range of physical impact. The Disarming Spell disarms, but it can do so with a wide range of physical impact depending on the emotions behind it. In the one case where we literally see a Killing Curse make contact and have it's desired effect, it is in Moody's classroom and the secondary emotional impact isn't there because the emotions aren't there. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that this absolute determination to see the Killing Curse in only one light is ignoring a lot of available information. Also, I am trying to find a reasonable and workable explanation for what has happened. I do agree that something isn't quite right about the whole Green Light Spell on the top of the tower. It is possible that Snape used some alternate spell, but why? JKR has said about as unequivocally as is possible that Dumbledore is dead and he is not coming back. So, what purpose does an alternate spell provide? I know my 'Dumbledore was already Dead' theory has its weaknesses, but it as an explanation, weak as it may be, that fits within the confines of known information. As to 'Flash' vs 'Jet', you have a point, but I'm not sure to what extent I buy it. The only 'jet' of light the produce very very little peripheral light is a lazer. Most other intense 'jets' or more accurately 'beams' of light are going to have some peripheral radiation. A brilliantly intense beam of light is also going to produce a substantial peripheral 'flash' of light. Again, I can't say your wrong. In fact, I will flat out say that all I am doing is speculating. Until JKR tells us for sure, that is all we can do. But I also think there are bits of evidence that you are discounting in your analysis. Again, say that Snape used an alternative Spell; to what end? I don't know how JKR could make it any plainer that Dumbledore is dead and not coming back. So /if/ Dumbledore is dead, what is the purpose of this alternate spell? I think there is a mystery there to be found, I just don't think it is that Dumbledore faked his death, and if it is /not/ that, then what is another plausable explanation? Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 20:11:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:11:52 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165900 Goddlefrood wrote: > > As long ago as October 2005 I put together a little piece on Snape and the DADA position. I believe he never wanted it and still hold that view. He certainly did not apply every year, and my reasoning is > in the referred post below. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141829 Goddlefrood earlier: > One matter that has bothered me somewhat throughout the series of Harry books, and more so since the release of HBP is Professor Snape's hankering after the DADA job. I do not agree with speculation regarding this position as being some kind of addiction for Snape, rather I believe that Snape may not have wanted the position until the time was right or at all. > The first relevant matter to my theory is contained in HBP, Chapter Twenty ?Lord Voldemort's Request, page 418: > "You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort." > I postulate that Dumbledore figured out that he could not keep a DADA teacher for more than a year within a short time of his interview with LV. Why then would Dumbledore give the job to a useful man like Snape? Clearly Snape, despite his faults, is a competent and able teacher and is particularly gifted at Potions as indicated by his identity as the Half-Blood Prince. Dumbledore as an intelligent man would have wanted Snape to remain at Hogwarts for longer than one year. > It is also worthy of note that Dumbledore did not believe Voldemort was finished and he would, therefore, want to maintain one of his most useful spies in case LV returned as we know he subsequently did. Carol responds: I agree with you here. So long as Voldemort has not returned, that is, up until the end of GoF, Dumbledore would undoubtedly want Snape on hand in his other area of expertise, Potions, and to watch over Harry and keep contact with Death Eaters, such as Lucius Malfoy. But during GoF, it becomes clear that Voldemort is getting stronger (Snape reports that his Dark Mark and Karkaroff's are getting darker, and there are other signs). Snape and Dumbledore plan for Snape to return to Voldemort when the time comes, Snape prepares a version of events that Voldemort will accept ("If you are ready, if you are prepared"), and Snape goes off, risking torture and death, to report to him before returning to Dumbledore, ostensibly as a double agent loyal to LV. Voldemort would expect him to continue as a teacher. How else could he spy on Dumbledore? And Snape has his excuse for teaching Potions rather than DADA, the same one he gives to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," that DD thinks the position will bring out the worst in him. LV, having jinxed or cursed the position himself, will readily believe this lie. And DD still wants Snape safely at Hogwarts, directly exposed to Voldemort and the DEs only when it's absolutely necessary. He still needs Snape's Potions expertise, just as he has in previous years (the Potions riddle and curtains of fire in SS/PS, the Mandrake Restorative Potion in CoS, the Wolfbane Potion in PoA, Veritaserum in GoF, fake Veritaserum in OoP. (We still see his Potions expertise in HBP via his old Potions text and the Bezoar incident, but we also his DADA-related skills, heretofore mostly concealed from Harry because he wasn't teaching that class--or healing injuries related to Dark curses that we know of.) I agree with you that the DADA position is indeed cursed and that DD doesn't want to give it to Snape until he has no other choice (despite Snape's qualifications and any desire he may or may not have for a job that he must know is jinxed or cursed). In SS/PS, Voldemort is not yet back, and DD gives the DADA position to Quirrell, who taught it for one year (going by the remark you quoted above), went off to Albania looking for personal experience with Dark creatures, and got more than he bargained for when he encountered Voldemort, who was presumably possessing small animals at the time--or perhaps inhabiting his dear Nagini. (FWIW, Quirrell is not actually carrying Voldie around in his head when Harry first meets him; that doesn't happen until he botches the Gringotts robbery and Voldemort actually possesses him as punishment.) Snape keeps an eye on Quirrell, determining before Halloween that he's after the Stone. At the end of the year, with Quirrell dead (he dies as Voldie leaves his body, not killed by Harry as in the film), DD hires Gilderoy Lockhart, who certainly has an impressive resume, having written seven(?) books on killing or defeating Dark creatures. Whether DD knows that Lockhart is a phony or not, Snape suspects him immediately. He shows him up in the duelling club (not incidentally teaching the students Expelliarmus) and again near the end of the book, when he tells Lockhart that now is his chance to show his expertise by battling the monster and rescuing Ginny. (Overhearing this remark inspires Ron to suggest that he and Harry go to Lockhart, setting the Basilisk sequence in motion.) In PoA, Dumbledore finally hires a qualified teacher, one who not coincidentally is a former friend of the escaped convict, Sirius Black, who is supposedly out to murder Harry. Snape, knowing that Lupin is a werewolf and suspecting that he's trying to help his friend Black get into the castle to murder Harry, watches him closely, too. (Jealousy of the DADA position and the old "grudge" are red herrings here, IMO. Snape, like DD, believes that Harry is in danger and knows full well that Lupin is concealing a magical parchment of which he is one of the manufacturers. Why he doesn't tell DD about it even after he uses it at the end of PoA is unclear. Plot needs, probably.) In GoF, DD again hires a qualified DADA teacher, his old friend, Mad-Eye Moody, who has real experience fighting and bringing in Dark wizards. Unfortunately for DD and Harry and all concerned, the "Moody" who's teaching the students about Unforgiveable Curses, even performing the Imperius Curse on them, is not the real Moody (as such behavior ought to have indicated). Whether Snape suspects him of being an imposter or just dislikes him for personal reasons is not clear; he's sidetracked by the suspicion that *Harry* has been breaking into his office to steal Polyjuice ingredients or he might have arrived at the correct conclusion before DD did. (Too bad Snape didn't pick up the map instead of Fake!Moody and see the name Bartemius Crouch on th map!) But whatever antagonism exists between Snape and "Moody" is initiated by Moody's searching Snape's office, ostensibly looking for Dark artifacts but really looking for Potions ingredients, and his insinuating that he'd like to meet Snape in a dark corridor. No jealousy of the DADA position that I can see, though Snape may resent the temporary usurpation of his role as DD's righthand man. He certainly resents "Moody's" insinuation that he's not to be trusted and his hints in front of the invisible Harry (whom Snape knows full well is present) that he, Snape, might have placed Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. Plenty of reason to hate the evil madman without fully realizing who and what he is and without coveting the DADA position per se. So far, so good. We can see why Snape reacted to them as he did, and we can see why DD would hire these people rather than Snape, whether Snape wants the position or not, for a position that DD knows to be cursed or jinxed. But why allow the MoM to bring in Umbridge, who is clearly a spy for Fudge and who intends (as DD must know from the booklist) to teach a useless theory-based DADA course? DD knows that Snape is much more qualified to teach the course than Umbridge is. Why not give it to him instead of her? The answer can only be that he wants Snape to remain with him at Hogwarts. It's not yet time to give him the cursed position. The danger hasn't reached crisis level because Voldemort is still sidetracked by the Prophecy, and there's the whole side problem of the MoM trying to take control at Hogwarts. DD can't, IMO, give Snape the position and give away the game too soon. He's got to deal with Fudge et al. first. Snape is still too useful as Potions master and Occlumency teacher and Order member to lose him now. Better Umbridge as useless DADA teacher and even High Inquisitor than Snape away from Hogwarts. And Snape, who gave her fake Veritaserum and is reporting Harry's "progress" at Occlumency as revealed by DD's knowledge of the lessons at the end of the book, is probably giving him reports on Umbridge as well after DD leaves. (They are certainly still communicating, as again indicated by the post-MoM interview between DD and Harry.) But with Umbridge gone, there is quite literally nobody left to teach DADA except Snape (unless DD can persuade the real Moody, who has spent nine months in a trunk and is performing other duties for the Order to try again). Voldemort is back, no longer sidetracked by the Prophecy (which he thinks has been destroyed) and bent on revenge against the Malfoys, complete with a plot to have Draco kill Dumbledore (which Snape has clearly revealed to DD--there's no other way he could know about it). DD needs a qualified teacher who will teach the students to protect themselves (including nonverbal defensive spells and alternate methods of dealing with Dementors). And he no longer needs Snape's Potions expertise if he can get Slughorn, whom he wants at Hogwarts for other reasons, to teach Potions (and be ready to take over as HoH of Slytherin after the DADA curse forces Snape out of Hogwarts). What DD does need, in addition to a knowledgeable DADA teacher in a time of crisis, is Snape's expertise in Healing and the Dark Arts, exactly the qualifications a DADA teacher should have for duties outside the classroom. (It was Lockhart's *duty* to try to find and destroy the Basilisk, or at least figure out what it was, as Snape reminds him near the end of the book, just as it was Snape's duty, not Lockhart's, to brew the Mandrake Restorative Potion and Sprouts's to grow the Mandrakes. It was Lupin's duty to sit in the Hogwarts Express supplied with chocolate in case the Dementors came on board. It was "Moody's" duty to watch over ex-DE Karkaroff and the Durmstrang students and make sure that the Hogwarts students, especially Harry, were safe from them. And it's Snape's duty as DADA teacher to deal with the cursed necklace and stop the curse from killing Katie.) And, of course, there's the whole business of watching over Draco, but Snape as HoH would be doing that whether he were Potions master or DADA teacher. (Healing the Horcrux curse had to be done by Snape whether he had agreed to be DADA teacher or not, but I think he already had. All that was needed was Slughorn's acceptance; everything else was in place, including the plan for Snape to return to Voldemort at the end of the year if the DADA curse forced him to do so.) I agree that Snape seems not to know, when he talks about OWLs in OoP, that he won't be back as Potions master next year, or that DD will want him as DADA teacher instead, but the battle at the MoM has not yet occurred, and Voldemort has not yet assigned Draco to kill DD. By the end of OoP, Dumbledore surely knows that it's time to hire Snape as DADA teacher, and the encounter with the ring Horcrux clinches the matter. (Snape may not know of DD's decision even when he talks to Bellatrix and Narcissa is "Spinner's End," but more likely, IMO, it's not official until Slughorn actually accepts the Potions position. Or Snape may just be lying to Bellatrix and Narcissa, concealing information he doesn't want them to know yet, just as he conceals his role in sending the Order to the MoM, the nature of DD's "serious injury," and the fact that he saved DD's life. Goddlefrood: [JKR:] He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4." > I have been taking this advice seriously and keeping an eye on Snape. The matter we discover about Snape during GOF is, I believe, simply that he was a Death Eater. Carol: You're overlooking a wealth of other information about Snape that comes from GoF, notably that he "returned to our side" (what does that mean, anyway?) and began spying for Dumboedore "at great personal risk" before Voldemort was vaporized. (The charges against him were dropped; they don't seem to have been publicized, in contrast to Malfoy, Nott, Avery, Crabbe, and Goyle, all of whose names appeared in the paper after they claimed to have been under the Imperius Curse.) He shows up in Moody's Foe Glass and helps DD expose and deal with the Fake Moody. He shows his Dark Mark to Fudge in a vain attempt to prove to him that Voldemort is back. And he goes off, pale-faced and with glittering eyes, into danger so great that Dumbledore can't even speak for a few minutes afterwards, his apprehension is so great. And unlike Karkaroff, who flees in terror when he feels the Dark Mark burn, Snape remains with DD, just as he said he would do during the Yule Ball. ("Flee, then. Flee! I will remain at Hogwarts.) IMO, GoF is *the* book that reveals to us (but not to Harry) exactly where Snape's loyalties lie. Goddlefrood: > Almost immediately after the release of Book 5 a further question was asked regarding Snape > {Question:]Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. In book five he doesn't get the job. Why doesn't Professor Dumbledore let him be the DADA teacher? > JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is I have to be careful not to say too much. However, when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape onto the staff and Professor Snape said he'd like to teach Defence Against the Dark Arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that it might bring out the worst in Professor Snape, so Dumbledore said: "I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there."' > The question suggests that the questioner believed Snape always wanted the job. I disagree with the questioner as I am sure that Dumbledore would have mentioned to Snape that he could not keep a DADA teacher for more than a year and other than just thinking that the position would bring out the worst in Snape, as it possibly did, he would have persuaded Snape to accept the Potions position or Snape may have actually wanted the Potions job. This position is, after all, one at which Snape excels and Dumbledore would know that Snape was a marvelous potioneer. Carol: As indicated earlier, I agree with you that Dumbledore wanted and needed Snape at Hogwarts, and not only as Potions teacher. And I agree that he didn't want Snape in a cursed position--not yet, not till it was unavoidable and it was time to send Snape back to the DEs at the end of the year, not till the need for his DADA expertise overrode the need for his Potions expertise and everything else. But I disagree that DD really feared that the position would bring out the worst in Snape or he certainly would not have hired him in Harry's crucial sixth year, with Voldemort back and making a bid for power. It's important, I believe, that Snape really *is* teaching DADA to the best of his abilities in HBP, not just to O students (as he would if he were teaching NEWT Potions) but to anyone who scraped an Acceptable, and is even apparently giving remedial lessons to Crabbe and Goyle. (Draco, who respected him as Potions Master, sneers at him as DADA teacher, thinking that "we" don't need protection against the Dark Arts. But he's wrong, as Sectumsempra shows, and *defense* against the Dark Arts is exactly what Snape is teaching.) JKR's explanation in he interview, which matches the one that Snape gives Bellatrix, doesn't fit the facts. DADA does not bring out the worst in Snape or he'd be using methods resembling Barty Crouch's, murdering and torturing spiders and Imperioing his own students. Like the explanation of DD's injury as the result of slowed reflexes and the grudge against James as the explanation for all of Snape's actions from rescuing Harry in SS/Ps to his rage in the Shrieking Shack to cancelling Occlumency lessons, it appears to be a cover story that Snape and DD have agreed upon. And Snape's applying, or supposedly applying, for the DADA position (the one that LV sent him to apply for) year after year would fit with this cover story. Goddlefrood: > Everyone knows Snape is after the DADA position do they? A carefully disguised ruse in my opinion to cover the fact that Snape actually is content to be the Potions Master. Carol: Ruse, yes, but "content to be the Potions master" is hardly a sufficient reason for a ruse. I think that Snape and DD together want people to think that he's watching the DADA professors closely out of envy and that he stays on as Potions master because DD doesn't trust him to take the DADA job. The fact of the matter, IMO, is that Snape, unlike Quirrell, Lockhart, and even Lupin, is too valuable to lose. (As for Moody, he was hired for a single year to begin with. The others probably were as well.) Dumbledore needs Snape at hand, and not just to teach Potions. No one else could do the jobs he does, especially finding out for DD what Voldemort is telling the Death Eaters ("Occlumency," OoP). Goddlefrood: > Up to the end of the first book then we have no indication to disprove that Snape longed for the DADA position, however this position changes into line with my theory in CoS. As we all know Gilderoy Lockhart is appointed as the DADA teacher in book 2, but why would this be if Snape, a seemingly more suitable candidate, was constantly applying for the job? As Hagrid says about Lockhart in Chapter Seven ? Mudbloods and Murmurs, page 88: > "He was the on'y man for the job" > If this is true, and perhaps Hagrid's expostulations should be taken with a pinch of salt, then Snape could not have applied for the DADA job for Harry's second year. Apparently only Lockhart applied. Carol responds: *To Hagrid's knowledge*, only Lockhart applied. And, whether Snape wanted the position or not, Dumbledore wasn't ready to give it to him. As for his being "a seemingly suitable candidate," his qualifications are vastly superior to Gilderoy Lockhart's pretentions. Lockhart is repeatedly exposed as inept (the Cornish Pixies, the bones removed from Harry's arm) and admits himself that he's a fraud near the end of the book. Snape makes an idiot of Lockhart in the duelling club (see my published works, erm, my post on that topic) and leads the other teachers into forcing Lockhart to show his (empty) hand at the end of the book. But we first see that Snape may well be qualified for the position in this book, with his "teeny bit of knowledge of duelling" (as Lockhart puts it to Snape's ire). Expelliarmus. Serpensortia. Finite Incantatem ending every hex in the room. Whether he applied or not, he *should* be teaching the DADA class--except for that small matter of the curse on the position. (I'm by no means denying, BTW, that he loves Potions and is an expert in the subject. But he's an expert in DADA as well, as we see again with his detailed answers on the DADA OWL in "Snape's Worst Memory" and his easy, nonverbal deflection of Harry's curses in "Flight of the Prince.") Goddlefrood: > Not long after this Snape himself says to Lockhart (Chapter Nine ? The Writing on the Wall, page 110: > "Excuse me" said Snape icily, "but I believe I am the Potions Master at this school." > This is after Lockhart says he could make the Mandrake Restorative Draught for Mrs. Norris. Snape himself seems proud at this point that he is the Potions Master and able to remedy a condition through his skill in Potions. It is not reflective of Snape envying Lockhart his position as DADA teacher, although quite likely Snape is aware that Gilderoy is incompetent. Carol: This is an important moment because it shows that the teachers have duties related to their positions other than actually teaching the classes. It's not Snape's job as Potions master to try to go after the Basilisk (though he may be consulting with DD about it in private and apparently tries to find out whether Harry is the Heir of Slytherin by having Draco cast Serpensortia), but he certainly knows or suspects that Lockhart is inept. He can't expose Lockhart just yet, but he can certainly prevent him from infringing on his (Snape's) territory as Potions Master. I agree that Snape isn't envying Lockhart here, but he certainly holds him in contempt. Goddlefrood: > In Chapter Eleven ? The Duelling Club, page 142 some further author misdirection is thrown at us where the following is found: > `Snape's upper lip was curling. Harry wondered why Lockhart was still smiling; if Snape had been looking at him like that he'd have been running as fast as he could in the opposite direction.' > I understand from this that we are supposed to believe that Snape is acting as he does because he is envious of Gilderoy's position as DADA teacher. An equally plausible explanation is that Snape is well aware of Gilderoy's incompetence and is looking forward to humiliating him in front of the entire school body. Carol: Exactly. And Snape demonstrates his own DADA expertise at the same time, teaching the students the most useful defensive spell in their repertoire, Expelliarmus, at the same time. Goddlefrood: > In the same Chapter at page 72 further emphasis is put on Snape's known proclivity for the DADA post while Snape is looking at Lupin: > `It was common knowledge that Snape wanted the Defence Against the Dark Arts job, but even Harry, who hated Snape, was startled at the expression twisting his thin, sallow face.' > The twisted expression noted here is more probably due to Snape's continued bitterness regarding the werewolf caper than his disgust at not being appointed DADA teacher as we are supposed to believe. Carol: The evidence indicates that Snape believed that Sirius Black was trying to murder Harry and he already suspected that Lupin, Black's former friend, might be his accomplice, or at least that he was not to be trusted. The "grudge" is another red herring. Snape's hatred and suspicion has, IMO, a much stronger basis than the so-called Prank, relating to Godric's Hollow and James Potter's "arrogance" in trusting Black over Dumbledore. Snape thinks he's saving Harry from the murderer and his werewolf accomplice (and he does conjure stretchers to get HRH safely back to Hogwarts). Goddlefrood: > Reinforcement to the red herring regarding Snape hating Lupin because of the appointment as DADA teacher is found in Chapter Eight ? The Flight of the Fat lady, page 107 where we find: > `Snape was in a particularly vindictive mood these days, and no one was in any doubt why His eyes flashed menacingly at the very mention of Professor Lupin's name, and he was bullying Neville worse than ever.' > At this point Snape already suspects that Lupin is assisting Snape's nemesis Sirius to get into the castle. He goes so far as to voice this suspicion to Dumbledore in the Great Hall. More misdirection in other words and a bolster to my belief that Snape wanting the DADA job has been perhaps the ultimate red herring throughout the series so far. Carol: Agreed that this is misdirection, but I see no evidence for or against Snape's wanting the DADA position. What's clear is that his antipathy toward Lupin is being attributed to the Boggart incident (which may well have increased it but is not the cause of it) rather than to Snape's suspicions that the werewolf is in league with the murderer. The quotation you cited occurs immediately before, not after, the attack on the Fat Lady, but Snape voices his suspicions to DD in the following chapter and indicates that they came before the attack on the Fat Lady, which confirms Snape's suspicions of Black's murderous intent and his being helped into the castle. (We can hardly blame him for not recognizing Crookshanks as Black's accomplice.) Goddlefrood: > Two chapters later in Chapter Fourteen ? The Unforgivable Curses, page 185: > "You know why Snape's in such a foul mood, don't you?" "Yeah" said Harry "Moody." > Still further misdirecting us on the DADA position. We are to believe that Snape is once again disappointed to have missed out to Moody. A more likely explanation of Snape's foul mood is twofold. One Moody has searched his office, about which he is far from cheerful and two he is annoyed that Harry continues to do all that is loathsome to Snape, for instance being picked for the Tournament. Carol: I agree that this is more misdirection, but I'm not sure about the part about Harry's doing everything that's loathsome to Snape. He suspects, or seems to suspect, that Harry put his own name into the Goblet of Fire, which, of course, makes him angry because he wants Harry to be safe, having repeatedly saved or tried to save his life. He resents Harry's constant rule-breaking, but he may also suspect that someone is trying to kill Harry--at least after Fake!Moody says his piece about a skilled witch or wizard Confunding the Goblet. What's clear, and I agree with you here, is that Snape's "foul mood" has nothing to do with a man he still thinks is an Auror having been appointed DADA teacher to keep an eye on Karkaroff and keep Harry safe. (Or, if he does resent Moody's appointment, it's because keeping Harry safe is *his* job. Nothing to do with DADA per se, but there's some evidence that he sees "Moody" as an interfering usurper on the floor-prowling, Harry-protecting front.) Goddlefrood: > The problematic passage is contained in Chapter Seventeen ? Educational Decree Number Twenty-Four at pages 323-4: >`"You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post I believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape "Yes" said Snape quietly. "But you were unsuccessful? "Obviously." "And you have applied regularly for the defence Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. "Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?" asked Umbridge. "I suggest you ask him."' > Unless of course Snape is being less than honest and covering the real reason he has not become DADA teacher. As we know Snape follows orders and he would have to apply for the DADA post if LV wanted him to. Carol responds: Exactly. It *does* appear from this passage that Snape has applied for the position, knowing full well that DD would refuse his application, since he first arrived at the school, Hagrid to the contrary. It seems (IMO) to be part of the agreement between Snape and Dumbledore to make it appear that Snape covets the DADA post. But while Snape is certainly far superior to most of the other DADA teachers (Lupin may be more knowledgeable about minor Dark Creatures if the Kappa remark is of any importance, but I doubt that Lupin could match Snape's duelling performance in HBP), he's unlikely to want a cursed position. (Lupin, in contrast, is glad of a job even if he knows it's likely to last only one year.) As Snape tells Bellatrix, he has a "comfortable job" at Hogwarts, and, of course, if he's going to work with DD against Voldemort and his henchmen, he needs to keep that job as long as possible. So while he might or might not prefer DADA to Potions (at which he's unquestionably an expert but in which he has to put up with "dunderheads" who don't appreciate the subject), as long as the DADA position is cursed, he's probably content to teach Potions--and help to expose the ineptitude or iniquity of the current DADA teacher on the side (he undermines Umbridge by giving her fake Veritaserum and telling Harry not to let her know about the Occlumency lessons, not to mention dismissing Harry's garbled message about Sirius Black as "nonsense" worthy of someone who's drunk a "babbling beverage" and then informing the Order about Harry's delusion). Goddlefrood: > Or did LV want him to? After all LV would know of his own curse on the position and only if he anticipated Snape staying only a year or he lifted the curse could Snape last beyond a year in the post. I contend that Snape is not being entirely truthful. The passage does not say, however, that Snape applied every year since he joined the staff, only that he has applied regularly. To have applied every year would be inconsistent with the matters noted in this article. Even to say he applied regularly is a bit of a stretch as clearly, from Harry's year 2 until his year 5 (four full years), Snape probably did not apply for the job. Carol: I think "applied regularly" can safely be read as "applied every year." However, LV would certainly have known that the position was cursed, having cursed it himself. If he did send young Snape to apply for it, he probably intended him to teach for a short time, possibly to supply information on Dumbledore that would make it possible for LV to kill him. Alternatively, Snape could have suggested the idea to LV himself as a way (ostensibly) to spy on Dumbledore. Either way, DD would have told young Snape (who was already spying for him "at great personal risk") that the position was cursed and given him Potions instead, Slughorn having conveniently retired, and they would agree upon the tale of the DADA position supposedly tempting Snape back into his old ways. Voldie, if he even knew that Snape had been assigned Potions instead of DADA, would have no objections. Snape was still at Hogwarts. But Snape and DD would want to maintain the ruse, keeping alive the rumor that Snape wanted the DADA position just as DD encouraged the rumor that the Shrieking Shack was haunted to disguise the fact that it was being used to shelter a teenage werewolf. (If it comes to a choice between protecting someone and telling the truth, DD will choose protection over truth every time.) Goddlefrood: > Finally we reach book 6 and Snape is appointed to the DADA job. We continue to be assured that Snape has craved the position for years. In Chapter Eight ? Snape Victorious on page 159 is says: > `How could Snape be given the Defence Against the dark Arts job after all this time? Hadn't it been widely known for years that Dumbledore did not trust him to do it?' > Sorry? It had been widely known for years that Dumbledore did not trust him to do it[?] Where exactly did this come from, if not the Royal Albert Hall Interview ? 26th June 2003 at which it was first mentioned by JKR. It seems like a little covering up to me and inconsistent with just about all other canon information. It is also through Harry's perspective and Harry tends to be a little blinkered where Snape is concerned. Carol: Exactly. Misdirection. Harry doesn't know about the UV and has only the dimmest idea what Draco is up to, and JKR is trying to arouse the reader's suspicions, too. But whatever grim satisfaction Snape feels about finally receiving the position that he also lets Bellatrix think is his favorite, I don't think it has anything to do with wanting a cursed job or preferring DADA (which he *does* excel at) to his other favorite. and much safer, subject, Potions. It has to do, IMO, with finally dealing with the matter at hand, Voldemort. Finally, he has a chance to teach the students what he thinks they need to know (Potions, except for Bezoars and antidotes, not being of much use in the battle, or at least not as much as a good knowledge of what they're up against and how to fight it). Finally, his job will allow him to use his combined knowledge of Healing and the Dark Arts if a Dark object somehow slips into the castle (as seems likely, with Draco trying to kill DD). Ultimately, whether he wants to do so or not, the job will force him out, into Voldemort's camp, where Dumbledore wants him, but at least he'll have the chance to teach the job for a year when Dumbledore most needs him to do so. Goddlefrood: > Personally I think Snape is only out for himself, but in the matter of the DADA job he did not always want it and probably now regrets ever having been appointed to it. Carol responds: Without question, Snape regrets the consequences of taking the DADA job, which, IMO, include the third provision of the Unbreakable Vow coinciding with Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position. Snape doesn't, I'm sure, regret having had the chance to teach DADA, though he's angry with Harry for not mastering nonverbal defensive spells, but he certainly regrets being a wanted murderer who has to feign loyalty to Voldemort to stay alive and out of Azkaban. I don't for a moment think that Snape is out for himself. If he were, he'd have been utterly stupid to take a vow that would either kill him or make him a wanted criminal if he could find no way around it. People who are out for themselves don't go out on a limb or risk their necks for other people or a cause. He didn't want to kill Dumbledore, as both the hand twitch and the expression of hatred and revulsion indicate (as well as his reaction to "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!"). There was nothing to gain *for himself* by killing Dumbledore. Better to die from breaking the vow or be murdered by Death Eaters than to live the life he's living now. He killed DD, IMO, because allowing anyone else to do so would have made matters even worse for everyone except Snape himself. But without question, in my view, he'd rather be teaching Potions with Dumbledore still alive. If only he hadn't accepted that cursed position. If only he hadn't taken that vow. If only he hadn't revealed that Prophecy to Voldemort. If only he hadn't joined the Death Eaters when he was young and angry and foolish. If only. Carol, wishing that young Severus had gotten a job doing research for St. Mungo's instead of joining the Death Eaters From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 9 20:16:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:16:12 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165901 Lupinlore: > So Snape hates Harry because Harry has that powerful and triumphant > thing that Snape doesn't have -- luck. And he hates Neville > because Neville is a mirror of himself in the luck arena -- except > that Neville rubs salt in the wounds by actually experiencing a > change in his luck over time, largely by garnering the good favor > of people more lucky than himself -- or more accurately and more > viscerally, he sticks close enough to God's Favored that some of > the luck rubs off. > So, it all comes down to this -- Harry is JKR's favorite > character. He gets the luck, Snape doesn't. He gets to be the > hero, Hermione doesn't. He gets the girl, Neville doesn't. He > most likely gets to live, Dumbledore doesn't. Jen: You've thrown out some interesting thoughts about luck here and verbalized something I haven't been able to put into words since HBP: Why does JKR make Snape's life so miserable? At every critical juncture his choices have led to a downturn in his own fortunes and personal life even if in the end it turns out he helped the greater good. I don't feel certain JKR is headed in the direction of 'look how much Snape has sacrificed for the good of the WW' when his motivation is finally revealed. She could be depicting what can happen to a promising life when resentment and hatred are allowed to take over a person. Or perhaps there won't be any message involved except what Dumbledore summarized in POA about the consequences of our actions being too diverse to really divine the future, that choices are made and characters in Potterverse live with the consequences. Magpie: > And Snape isn't actually as unlucky as he presents himself. He has > a negative, glum outlook and seems to always by default see himself > as put-upon, but Snape's hung around way longer than a lot of his > contemporaries. Nobody would have doubted back in the 70s that the > Marauders were the ones favored by the gods--handsome, cool, > popular, talented, smart, getting away with stuff. And how did > their lives turn out? All of them suffered pretty sad fates, > sometimes coming right out of their own flaws. Jen: This section is along the lines of what I've been trying to figure out. I believe JKR is painting the Marauders (minus Peter) as tragic and heroic in varying degrees, and don't know if she is going to include Snape with this grouping in the end or not. They've all lost their lives literally or figuratively or at least that's how I read Snape. He had much promise despite his social difficulties and chose to throw away his future by joining the DE's and he's been attempting to make up for that choice ever since at the expense of progressing in his own life. Magpie: > It's Snape who turned out to be indispensible, to have power and be > needed by Dumbledore and, perhaps, Voldemort. Snape's the one > protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Snape's actions are on > the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than > Harry's. Harry is clearly the Chosen One, but the Chosen One isn't > always the best one in a narrative in every way. Jen: Yes, all true, but Snape also had a hand in being the one to protect James' son. He's indispensible to Dumbledore and perhaps Voldemort because he made the wrong choice as a young man and hasn't been able to free himself from being ensnared with LV ever since. The only reason he's still alive is he has supreme survival skills, like learning Occlumency and siding himself with Dumbledore who offered him protection in exchange for being a double agent. Do the means matter or only the end? I'm not sure what JKR is saying about that concept yet. Magpie: > I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but > it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? > Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I > would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to > Cosette). I've always prefered Edmund to Peter in Narnia. Jen: I don't remember Tale of Two Cities well enough to recall although do believe it's a very personal and subjective experience when it comes to favoring and remembering characters. (And I can't say I favored either Edmund or Peter in Narnia myself). There are people drawn to the dark mystery of a Snape or a Heathcliffe, but I find those characters difficult to identify with. While I care about each one's story and why/how each character evolved into the person he became, I don't feel emotionally attached to them or their outcome for whatever reason. For that reason I do at least try to understand how other people can read a Harry, or a Peter or a Charles and think, 'eh, not my type'. Magpie: > Ultimately I don't think it's necessarily wrong if a readers thinks > less of--or is just less interested/impressed by--Lucky Harry than > Unlucky, sullen DDM!Snape who brought his bad fortune on himself > and doggedly sticks to his own ideas about honor to try to make it > right to himself while still turning people off with his cloud of > unluckiness. I think at least that Rowling has shown an interest in > Snape's kind of redemption story. Jen: I don't think it's wrong either. I find it more difficult to sympathize with Snape not only because of his actions but for the simple reason that JKR won't give us any information about what's going on inside his head. Hearing how Harry makes decisions and choices turns off some readers, but having that information helps me to identify with him whether I always agree with his actions or not. (I'm not exactly sure why, but Harry talking sarcastically to Narcissa in HBP bothered me more than anything he's done and physically attacking Mundungus was a close second. I wouldn't mind discussing those if anyone has thoughts about those two events.) Magpie: > Ironically, in HBP the very question is brought up in terms of > Felix Felicitas. Slughorn, iirc, warns against using it too much > because it leads to reckless behavior. That kind of links back to > maybe what others were saying about Harry in general in this case. > Being favored by the gods can sometimes be an obstacle to personal > development. Jen: I don't see any particular obstacles in his personal development due to being the Chosen One as opposed to the normal obstacles of growing up in general and living in a permissive environment like Hogwarts in addition. None glaringly different from the rest of the kids at Hogwarts at any rate. Besides Slughorn, who would have favored Harry as Lily's son whether he was the Chosen One or not (not that it hurt), Harry's status seems to impair his relationships with peers and the WW as a whole more than him being exalted above all others. Like narrowly escaping being killed by Voldemort and being slandered and libeled for it or the events in COS after Harry spoke Parseltongue. So when has his development been hindered by being the Chosen One specifically rather than by being an average teen and living in a quasi-supervised living arrangement like Hogwarts? Now I do see Harry being favored by Dumbledore and would say he is one of several in the castle whom Dumbledore treats as special and protects because they are important for his Plan. If there have been advantages for Harry there, such as DD stepping in and keeping Harry from being expelled or from failing potions, they are connected with Snape in particular and speak to a situation separate from Harry's development. Meaning that Harry is unique in the way Snape treats him and that leads to special interventions rather than something developmentally flawed in Harry because he is the Chosen One. Although ironically I do think the fact that Harry is the Chosen One is the main reason why Snape treats him differently, the very thing he's supposedly trying to prevent happening with Harry. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 20:26:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:26:41 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165902 Magpie: And Snape isn't actually as unlucky as he presents himself. He has a negative, glum outlook and seems to always by default see himself as put-upon, but Snape's hung around way longer than a lot of his contemporaries. Nobody would have doubted back in the 70s that the Marauders were the ones favored by the gods--handsome, cool, popular, talented, smart, getting away with stuff. And how did their lives turn out? Peter's a pathetic wreck of a slave and a murderer, Lupin until recently was jobless, alone and barely above the poverty line. Sirius lost his whole life and then died absurdly after further imprisonment. James, for all his early glamour, was just there to be sacrificed. All of them suffered pretty sad fates, sometimes coming right out of their own flaws. It's Snape who turned out to be indispensible, to have power and be needed by Dumbledore and, perhaps, Voldemort. Alla: That is an interesting question though. Whether Snape is as unlucky as he presents himself. I mean, it is sort of obvious that in terms of survival he is luckier than Marauders ( crossing my fingers that situation would be changed at the end of book 7). I mean, Marauders are dead and he is alive. But even if Snape IS alive at the end of book 7, Do you think that necessarily means that he is luckier than Marauders, who died as heroes? I mean isn't it what Snape feels should matter the most in terms of how lucky he is? He is **still** in his "you and your filfy father" mode at the end of HBP, no? There is also that question of what is JKR considers to be more luck for her characters ? heroic death or rotten life. I mean, no question, I guess that in RL survival is better than death, almost any survival ( and still I would not say **any**), but in Potterverse, I tend to think " you should have died as we would have died for you" are not just empty words. What I am trying to say that if say for example, at the end of the books we leave Snape to rot in Azkaban for life, I would hardly call him **luckier** than James and Sirius. IMO of course. Of course if Snape is DD!M and acknowledged as hero, etc, etc, then he would be luckier, for sure IMO. Magpie: Snape's the one protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Alla: His protection of James's son IMO is really open for debate prior to HBP as well. Magpie: Snape's actions are on the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than Harry's. Alla: Oh, LOL. "Severus Snape and the annoying little Gryffindor" it is not. (Thank you the person who came up with it ? if you want to claim a credit, please do, I am just hesitant to do it since it was originally mentioned to me off list) Snape is important for sure, but " on the whole more important to the outcome of things than Harry's" I really disagree, unless of course Snape will locate all the horcruxes in book 7 and gives them to Harry on the silver platter or if Snape will kill Voldemort somehow, then I will happily acknowledge that Snape's actions are more important to the outcome. Untill then I disagree. Magpie: Harry is clearly the Chosen One, but the Chosen One isn't always the best one in a narrative in every way. Alla: No, not always. Magpie: I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to Cosette). Alla: Eh, Marius is just boring to me. Sure, I love Valjean so much more, but do we see any confusion in the book as to Valjean good, even saintly intentions? After he is so clearly IMO redeemed on page very early through the book. Magpie: I've always preferred Edmund to Peter in Narnia. In HP, Snape's survival could perhaps be seen as a form of luck in itself. It conceivable could take a good deal of luck to become both Dumbledore's and Voldemort's right hand man. Alla: Sure but IMO it will be depend on what kind of survival Snape will have if any. I am not sure that some survivals can be viewed as very lucky in Potterverse. Magpie: In fact, I might say that sometimes the book does sort of contrast the two different kinds of luck. Harry and Snape both want to protect the Philosopher's Stone. Harry saves it through being the one favored by the Gods, doing the wrong thing and having it turn out right. Snape is the one who more figures out what's really going on. Harry's role is obviously held above Snape's, but Snape isn't wrong so much as just in a supporting role. Harry's destruction of Quirrel seems to be a sign of his greater gifts as a hero, but he also learns that he was wrong about Snape. Alla: Sure, but in light of HBP we IMO can not be sure that Snape really wanted to protect Stone for the right reasons. > Jen: I don't think it's wrong either. I find it more difficult to > sympathize with Snape not only because of his actions but for the > simple reason that JKR won't give us any information about what's > going on inside his head. Alla: Oh my goodness. YES, Jen, YES. Give me a line or two from **Snape** himself as to how remorseful he is, and I may change my tunes, hehe. It is Harry's story, but still, sigh. Jen: > Although ironically I do think the fact that Harry is the Chosen One > is the main reason why Snape treats him differently, the very thing > he's supposedly trying to prevent happening with Harry. Alla: Oh, brilliant, have to think on that. JMO, Alla From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Mar 9 21:01:37 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:01:37 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165903 Lupinlore: > > On a less philosophical level, Harry quite simply IS the favored of God -- or of JKR, who amounts to the same thing in the context of the Potterverse. OF COURSE he's going to have incredible runs of good fortune, timely interventions of fate, and plentiful unintended consequences from which he is going to reap the rewards. That is what being the Favored of God gets for you. It's a fact of life in literature -- and beyond literature, for that matter. magpie: > Nobody would have doubted back in the 70s that the Marauders were the ones favored by the gods--handsome, cool, popular, talented, smart, getting away with stuff. And how did their lives turn out? Peter's a pathetic wreck of a slave and a murderer, Lupin until recently was jobless, alone and barely above the poverty line. Sirius lost his whole life and then died absurdly after further imprisonment. James, for all his early glamour, was just there to be sacrificed. All of them suffered pretty sad fates, sometimes coming right out of their own flaws. Ceridwen: The people in Real Life who have the apparent favor of the gods die young. They die spectacularly in a blaze of glory. It seems that the luckier a person is at one time, rather than having that luck spread out over a lifetime, the sooner they die. I'm talking about amazing prodigies like Mozart and Poe, who both had their luck, their talents, early, then shuffled off this mortal coil. I'm also thinking about the ones who 'live fast, love hard, die young' and those elevated people who are a cross between the two. The Marauders are a good example of this. Peter was never the sort of lucky, gods-blessed person like James and Sirius. He's still alive, though he's a creepy little man who is not the sort of guy you'd like to hang around with. Lupin never had the same spark as James and Sirius, he was more easy-going. We saw a moment of failure for him in Snape's Worst Memory, and it wasn't anything like the aggressive actions taken by James and Sirius. His failing was no action when it was warranted. Lupin is still alive. The ones who blazed in the brightest light of the gods' favor, James and Sirius, are dead. Luck runs out. There are warnings in some religions about taking the hero's path to glory. It's a viable path; it's a short but amazing journey. But you can't seem to have it both ways. The hero fights, the hero wins, women adore him, men wish they could be him (turn it around for a heroine, I'm too lazy to him/her this!). Meteoric - streaking across the heavens for a split second, then dying in a burst of flame. The smiling god is no longer smiling. The hero is taken to Valhalla. So, I'm not so sure the favor of the gods is a good thing in life overall. It's like the gods in this case are parents of a terminally ill child who is being pampered early in life because a dire fate awaits. Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 9 21:18:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:18:30 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165904 > Jen: This section is along the lines of what I've been trying to > figure out. I believe JKR is painting the Marauders (minus Peter) as > tragic and heroic in varying degrees, and don't know if she is going > to include Snape with this grouping in the end or not. They've all > lost their lives literally or figuratively or at least that's how I > read Snape. He had much promise despite his social difficulties and > chose to throw away his future by joining the DE's and he's been > attempting to make up for that choice ever since at the expense of > progressing in his own life. Magpie: I think they're heroic and tragic as well--maybe even Snivellus who joined the DEs, as you say. I *don't* think the idea here is that the Marauders were all punished for their sins by the universe. On the contrary, it seems more like they all had genuinely good qualities but still this is the way things happened to turn out. Not as punishment but just...because. One of the tragic things about Snape is the way he can't even enjoy that. He doesn't seem to be able to really look at them and let go of his hatred even when seeing them suffering or dead. > Magpie: > > It's Snape who turned out to be indispensible, to have power and be > > needed by Dumbledore and, perhaps, Voldemort. Snape's the one > > protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Snape's actions are on > > the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than > > Harry's. Harry is clearly the Chosen One, but the Chosen One isn't > > always the best one in a narrative in every way. > > Jen: Yes, all true, but Snape also had a hand in being the one to > protect James' son. He's indispensible to Dumbledore and perhaps > Voldemort because he made the wrong choice as a young man and hasn't > been able to free himself from being ensnared with LV ever since. > The only reason he's still alive is he has supreme survival skills, > like learning Occlumency and siding himself with Dumbledore who > offered him protection in exchange for being a double agent. Do the > means matter or only the end? I'm not sure what JKR is saying about > that concept yet. Magpie: I don't know what she's saying about it either. I don't think it's a case of only the end mattering--at least I hope not. That seems like a really silly brand of ethics! I could more easily believe that she just likes driving her fictional personalities and sees certain consequences of their actions. I can't imagine her saying that it was a good thing that Sirius was imprisoned, for instance, but I can certainly imagine her saying that she killed Sirius off for the good of tha story or whatever. And I'm sure she loved writing the story of handsome Sirius aging before his time. Snape really is a "gift of a character" even if we don't understand him yet. So far I can easily believe him as a character working to do right while also being the one who does all kinds of wrong. > Magpie: > > I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but > > it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? > > Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I > > would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to > > Cosette). I've always prefered Edmund to Peter in Narnia. > > Jen: I don't remember Tale of Two Cities well enough to recall > although do believe it's a very personal and subjective experience > when it comes to favoring and remembering characters. (And I can't > say I favored either Edmund or Peter in Narnia myself). There are > people drawn to the dark mystery of a Snape or a Heathcliffe, but I > find those characters difficult to identify with. While I care about > each one's story and why/how each character evolved into the person > he became, I don't feel emotionally attached to them or their outcome > for whatever reason. For that reason I do at least try to understand > how other people can read a Harry, or a Peter or a Charles and > think, 'eh, not my type'. Magpie: True, though I'm not really talking here about subjectively liking a character better--I could have phrased that better. Whether or not somebody likes Sydney Carton, he's the one who says "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." Whether one prefers Valjean, Eponine or Edmund, I think it's clear that the narrative sees them as being worthwhile in their own way, and capable of doing admirable things or doing things we can learn from. > Magpie: > > Ultimately I don't think it's necessarily wrong if a readers thinks > > less of--or is just less interested/impressed by--Lucky Harry than > > Unlucky, sullen DDM!Snape who brought his bad fortune on himself > > and doggedly sticks to his own ideas about honor to try to make it > > right to himself while still turning people off with his cloud of > > unluckiness. I think at least that Rowling has shown an interest in > > Snape's kind of redemption story. > > Jen: I don't think it's wrong either. I find it more difficult to > sympathize with Snape not only because of his actions but for the > simple reason that JKR won't give us any information about what's > going on inside his head. Magpie: That's a good point--and JKR's obviously using that as much as she can! (I am interested in hearing your thoughts on those two incidents with Harry also--it's always kind of cool which things push our buttons, especially when they're objectively not as bad as other things.) > Magpie: > > Ironically, in HBP the very question is brought up in terms of > > Felix Felicitas. Slughorn, iirc, warns against using it too much > > because it leads to reckless behavior. That kind of links back to > > maybe what others were saying about Harry in general in this case. > > Being favored by the gods can sometimes be an obstacle to personal > > development. > > Jen: I don't see any particular obstacles in his personal development > due to being the Chosen One as opposed to the normal obstacles of > growing up in general and living in a permissive environment like > Hogwarts in addition. None glaringly different from the rest of the > kids at Hogwarts at any rate. Besides Slughorn, who would have > favored Harry as Lily's son whether he was the Chosen One or not (not > that it hurt), Harry's status seems to impair his relationships with > peers and the WW as a whole more than him being exalted above all > others. Like narrowly escaping being killed by Voldemort and being > slandered and libeled for it or the events in COS after Harry spoke > Parseltongue. So when has his development been hindered by being the > Chosen One specifically rather than by being an average teen and > living in a quasi-supervised living arrangement like Hogwarts? Magpie: I wasn't actually saying that Harry was being hindered by the god's favor. I was saying that in the abstract, being a character favored by the gods can lead to bad things as well as good, just as Slughorn points out that being addicted to luck can make you reckless. So the fact that Harry is lucky doesn't automatically lead to his actions always being good in themselves. There's plenty of times when Harry's actions *are* good in themselves, judged on their own merit. Since Lupinlore was talking about being lucky being a good thing, a mark of almost being part of the elect, it reminded me that HBP contained Liquid Luck and that that Potion came with some warnings. Actually, I think one could make a case for all four Potions in Slughorn's class that first day being the dangerous ones. Love Potions can cause tragedy (as they did with Merope and Tom), Polyjuice can be badly misused (as it was by Crouch), Felix Felicitas can lead to recklessness, Veritaseum causes people to tell the truth, which could also lead to serious consequences in the wrong hands. Alla: That is an interesting question though. Whether Snape is as unlucky as he presents himself. I mean, it is sort of obvious that in terms of survival he is luckier than Marauders ( crossing my fingers that situation would be changed at the end of book 7). I mean, Marauders are dead and he is alive. But even if Snape IS alive at the end of book 7, Do you think that necessarily means that he is luckier than Marauders, who died as heroes? I mean isn't it what Snape feels should matter the most in terms of how lucky he is? Magpie: Snape's nature is to always be miserable, which is certainly unlucky. But it doesn't objectively mean that his life is so bad. If he'd have let go of his hatred, or could, he probably would have been a lot happier. But one could surely say that the Marauders were unlucky in terms of things that happened to them. It was just chance that James had the Chosen One baby that brought Voldemort to his door. Sirius rotted in jail for years. Lupin got bitten by Fenrir. All of them might describe themselves as lucky just for having the friendship of the others, though. All a matter of perspective. I would guess JKR would think it was far better to be born with James, Sirius or Remus' personality, but might also concede that all three of them had bad luck. Alla: What I am trying to say that if say for example, at the end of the books we leave Snape to rot in Azkaban for life, I would hardly call him **luckier** than James and Sirius. IMO of course. Magpie: Neither would I--I was talking about Snape so far. However, if Snape wound up in Azkaban he would be suffering as Sirius had suffered. And if he were in Azkaban for something he actually did, Sirius might still be seen as the unlucky one, since he's the one being punished for a crime he didn't commit. Really it comes down to how one is defining "lucky" in context. Is it luckier to be born a person more capable of appreciating good things in life, who still deals with lots of awful things happening to you, or to be a person always miserable who avoids those things? Some would automatically say the first person was luckier for having the better personality. Another person might define "luck" as being outside of character, referring only to circumstances of your life. Magpie: Snape's the one protecting James son, not James, until HBP. Alla: His protection of James's son IMO is really open for debate prior to HBP as well. Magpie: Hmmm. I don't think it is in the context I meant it. Even if you think Snape was just leaving Harry alone and then handing him over to Voldemort, I was just saying that Snape was the one called on and acting in that capacity. (Though I should have remembered that James does protect Harry in GoF, and Harry's Patronus might also be seen as protection connected to James.) James can't protect Harry because he is dead, but Snape is in position to do so. Magpie: Snape's actions are on the whole more important to the outcome of things, at times, than Harry's. Alla: Oh, LOL. "Severus Snape and the annoying little Gryffindor" it is not. (Thank you the person who came up with it ? if you want to claim a credit, please do, I am just hesitant to do it since it was originally mentioned to me off list) Snape is important for sure, but " on the whole more important to the outcome of things than Harry's" I really disagree, unless of course Snape will locate all the horcruxes in book 7 and gives them to Harry on the silver platter or if Snape will kill Voldemort somehow, then I will happily acknowledge that Snape's actions are more important to the outcome. Untill then I disagree. Magpie: No, I wasn't positing Snape and the Annoying Little Gryffindor at all. I was not suggesting that Snape is the one who's going to destroy Voldemort. Voldemort hasn't been destroyed yet, obviously, nor have the Horcruxes been destroyed, and I wasn't claiming that Snape would be the one to do it. I am saying that like it or not, the story over and over comes back to Snape and Snape's actions. Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort, and told Dumbledore that he'd done so, setting the Fidelius in motion. Snape was put in the key position of double agent in the war. Snape's actions *matter*. That does not make him a hero or give him Harry's role. But Harry's role has up until now often been *reactive*. So yes, Snape's actions are very important to the story. It's his mistake that put Voldemort onto Harry's trail, possibly his decision to take the Vow that made things turn out the way they did in HBP, certainly (imo) his action that kills Dumbledore. I find it difficult to look at HBP in particular and *not* see Snape's actions as very important. By contrast Harry in HBP is still playing catch up. He's not quite in the loop yet. Magpie: I believe it's Charles who gets the girl in Tale of Two Cities, but it's Sydney Carton we remember best and admire most, isn't it? Marius is the lucky one in Les Miserables, but Jean Valjean is, I would guess, more often the favorite (as is Eponine as opposed to Cosette). Alla: Eh, Marius is just boring to me. Sure, I love Valjean so much more, but do we see any confusion in the book as to Valjean good, even saintly intentions? After he is so clearly IMO redeemed on page very early through the book. Magpie: But Valjean isn't necessarily *lucky* which was what Lupinlore was saying. Valjean is absolutely redeemed early on, but that doesn't necessarily make him a character favored by the gods. (I would guess Valjean would be favored by God--but that that was a result of Valjean's devotion to God and doing the right thing at risk to himself in spite of being unlucky in life etc.) I'm not saying that Snape *is* like any of these characters--we don't know yet. I'm just saying that in general the character that's lucky isn't always the blessed one. Magpie: I've always preferred Edmund to Peter in Narnia. In HP, Snape's survival could perhaps be seen as a form of luck in itself. It conceivable could take a good deal of luck to become both Dumbledore's and Voldemort's right hand man. Alla: Sure but IMO it will be depend on what kind of survival Snape will have if any. I am not sure that some survivals can be viewed as very lucky in Potterverse. Magpie: But by the definition of, say, Felix Felicitas, hasn't Snape potentially already been lucky? He was a Death Eater who didn't go to prison, found a kindly ear for his tale of remorse in Dumbledore, didn't get killed by Voldemort in GoF. I also agree with what you're saying that in the long run Snape might not really be so lucky--and he's been miserable enough that it's strange to apply that word to him. But at the same time there's short term "lucky" that Snape could be said to have demonstrated. Alla: Sure, but in light of HBP we IMO can not be sure that Snape really wanted to protect Stone for the right reasons. Magpie: Regardless, that is the story of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. At the end of that book Dumbledore names Snape as a person on the good side and Harry learns he is wrong. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 21:26:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:26:09 -0000 Subject: The wording of the vow (Was: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165905 Carol earlier: > She knows that Snape made a UV to *protect Draco*, > > a_svirn: > not just protect, but *help* as well. Carol responds: Actually, no. Admittedly, Narcissa asked him to take the UV to help and protect Draco, and Snape agreed to do so, but note how Narcissa interprets "help": "Severus--oh, Severus--you would help him? Would you look after him, see he comes to no harm?" To which Snape responds: "I can try." (HBP Am. ed. 35) He's not saying, "I can try to figure out what he's up to and help him do it," much less "I can try to help him kill Dumbledore" or "I can help him fix the Vanishing Cabinets" (which he doesn't know about). His whole objective is to try to keep Draco from being killed (Narcissa's fear) and possibly to keep him from becoming a killer (Dumbledore's objective, as we see on the tower). And then Narcissa says, "If you are there to protect him . . . . Severus, will you swear it? Will you make the Unbreakable Vow?" (35, ellipses in original) Snape, his eyes fixed on Narcissa's tear-filled eyes, calmly agrees to take the vow (ignoring Bellatrix's taunt that he'll "slither out of action" again). He can have only one intention, the one that has already been stated, to protect Draco. (And "help," should she ask him to do it, can be interpreted to mean "see he comes to no harm," or, as we see Snape later trying to do: find out what he's up to, put his cronies in detention, advise him against foolish actions like cursed necklaces, encourage him to confide his plans. Draco refuses Snape's offer of help, and nothing happens. The vow is not triggered because Snape is not bound to help him.) The vow itself (setting aside the provision about "doing the deed" if it appears that Draco can't) asks him to *watch over* and protect Draco, not *help* and protect him: "Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?" "I will." And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?" "I will." (HBP Am. ed. 36, dialogue only) Not a word about helping him do it. No commitment to help fix the Vanishing Cabinet or let DEs into Hogwarts, nothing to prevent him from discouraging Draco from attempting amateurish tactics that could get him caught, nothing to prevent Snape from putting Draco's helpers in detention. If Snape had vowed to help Draco and "help" meant helping him with his Vanishing Cabinet plan, Snape would have been dead long before the UV forces him to choose between killing DD and dying himself. What it does entail is keeping an eye on Draco--and saving him from Harry Potter's Sectumsempra curse. He has clearly kept his vow to protect Draco "to the best of his ability" or he'd be dead. (That provision is still in effect on the tower, as far as I can see, which is one reason why Snape snatches Draco by the scruff of the neck and makes sure that he gets safely off the Hogwarts grounds.) The third provision is, of course, another matter, but it doesn't go into effect until Draco, face to face with Dumbledore on the tower, is unable to "do the deed." That the "deed" is what Draco calls his "job" (killing Dumbledore) and not his "plan" for accomplishing that objective (getting the DEs into Hogwarts) is clear from the fact that Snape doesn't even know about the plan (though I think he knows that Draco has been spending time in the RoR and he's trying to get Draco to tell him the plan) and from Amycus's words on the tower: "We've got a problem, Snape. The boy doesn't seem able--" (595). Able to do what? To "do the deed." The third provision, "And, should it prove necessary . . . if it seems Draco will fail . . . will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" (36, ellipses in original). It does indeed seem that Draco will fail, as Amycus's words indicate, but Snape's hesitation suggests that he hopes it still won't "prove necessary." Only after DD speaks his name, he and Snape exchange glances, and DD repeats his name, followed by "please," does Snape "do the deed." That action has nothing to do with "helping" Draco. It has to do with watching over him, protecting him, and doing the deed that, alas for them all, has proved necessary despite Snape's and Dumbledore's combined efforts. Carol, who could simply have quoted the vow to prove that "help" isn't in it but wanted to emphasize the point From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 21:36:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:36:52 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165906 > Alla: > > Yep. I once went through five books with rather fine comb (not so > fine through HBP, but all other five books I did rather careful > search) and Hermione never to the best of my knowledge defends Snape > as teacher, as person, as anybody but the one whom DD trusts ( I do > not have link with me now, but will provide upon request). zgirnius: I checked, and you missed a few conversations. Hermione defends Snape as the man who saved Harry's life on a couple of occasions in GoF. The first one is when they are discussing 'Moody's' apparent distrust of Snape. > GoF: > "What?" said Ron, his eyes widening, his next cushion spinning high into the air, ricocheting off the chandelier, and dropping heavily onto Flitwick's desk. "Harry... maybe Moody thinks Snape put your name in the Goblet of Fire!" > "Oh Ron," said Hermione, shaking her head skeptically, "we thought Snape was trying to kill Harry before, and it turned out he was saving Harry's life, remember?" zgirnius: And also in a later conversation, with Sirius in the cave outside Hogsmeade. > GoF: "Oh give it a rest, Hermione," said Ron impatiently. "I know Dumbledore's brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him -" "Why did Snape save Harry's life in the first year, then? Why didn't he just let him die?" zgirnius: In Hermione's eyes, in other words, Snape has done something she views as unambiguously good. That he also killed Dumbledore does not take that away, it remains a fact. Possibly a fact she can explain away, but nonetheless a fact which, on its face, suggests Snape is not Voldemort's man, or wholly evil. I think it is entirely possible Hermione also considers some of Snape's other actions good, even though she did not bring them up. (A potential list of such actions appears elsewhere in this thread). She may consider saving Harry's life directly in PS/SS, and Dumbledore's trust, her two best and simplest arguments, so she would use them rather than weaker or more complicated arguments in her short exchanges with Ron. And of course, in HBP she does defend Snape as a teacher, when she likens his DADA teaching to Harry's in the first lesson. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 22:03:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:03:57 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)/ Snape and his importance. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165908 > Magpie: > Snape's the one > protecting James son, not James, until HBP. > > Alla: > > His protection of James's son IMO is really open for debate prior to > HBP as well. > > Magpie: > Hmmm. I don't think it is in the context I meant it. Even if you > think Snape was just leaving Harry alone and then handing him over > to Voldemort, I was just saying that Snape was the one called on and > acting in that capacity. (Though I should have remembered that James > does protect Harry in GoF, and Harry's Patronus might also be seen > as protection connected to James.) James can't protect Harry because > he is dead, but Snape is in position to do so. Alla: Right and I am questioning that Snape ever protected Harry to protect Harry ( except of course saving his life in PoA). I am saying that it is possible that Snape first and foremost did things to save himself or to further his goals and if it is protected Harry by extension, it is not really protection IMO. ETA: reposted to change that of course . I meant saving in PS/SS. The last thing I believe that Snape was concerned with saving Harry in PoA. > Magpie: > No, I wasn't positing Snape and the Annoying Little Gryffindor at > all. I was not suggesting that Snape is the one who's going to > destroy Voldemort. Voldemort hasn't been destroyed yet, obviously, > nor have the Horcruxes been destroyed, and I wasn't claiming that > Snape would be the one to do it. I am saying that like it or not, > the story over and over comes back to Snape and Snape's actions. > Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort, and told Dumbledore that he'd > done so, setting the Fidelius in motion. Snape was put in the key > position of double agent in the war. Snape's actions *matter*. That > does not make him a hero or give him Harry's role. But Harry's role > has up until now often been *reactive*. So yes, Snape's actions are > very important to the story. It's his mistake that put Voldemort > onto Harry's trail, possibly his decision to take the Vow that made > things turn out the way they did in HBP, certainly (imo) his action > that kills Dumbledore. I find it difficult to look at HBP in > particular and *not* see Snape's actions as very important. By > contrast Harry in HBP is still playing catch up. He's not quite in > the loop yet. Alla: Sure it does come back to Snape's actions - what I am questioning though is that Snape's actions are **more** important than Harry, not that they are important initself. Yes, Snape started the circle of Harry's misery. In that sense, the story of Harry's life may not have happened, but isn't the argument like that often given by Snape defenders? That Voldemort could have learned the prophecy anyways, that he already targeted the Potters and could have attacked regardless and that is why Snape's actions are not that important? I mean, I guess if you would say that Snape's actions are more important for plot development so far, I guess I would agree, but if you are saying that Snape's actions are more important for ultimate resolution of the story, then we are in disagreement. Snape is the loyal to DD superspy or stinking traitor and murderer, take your pick, but he is not the one who saved Peter from being killed and thus probably set in the motion the mysterious ancient magic that can play key role at the end. Snape is not the one, whom young mother heroically defended and thus set in motion another incredibly important ( hopefully) magic. Snape is not the one who inspires people to follow him ( see DA) and thus could be the key to unite the houses and win the fight. So, whether Harry is playing catch up or not in regards of information, I am still not agreeing that his actions are in general more important that Harry's. > Magpie: > But by the definition of, say, Felix Felicitas, hasn't Snape > potentially already been lucky? He was a Death Eater who didn't go > to prison, found a kindly ear for his tale of remorse in Dumbledore, > didn't get killed by Voldemort in GoF. I also agree with what you're > saying that in the long run Snape might not really be so lucky--and > he's been miserable enough that it's strange to apply that word to > him. But at the same time there's short term "lucky" that Snape > could be said to have demonstrated. > Alla: Sure. But this is not the kind of luck I was talking about at all :) From juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk Fri Mar 9 22:18:45 2007 From: juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk (juleyjubes) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:18:45 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165909 I, like many others on here, have been re-reading the books from number one and am currently reading the COS. However, I skipped ahead this evening because I wanted to check something in HBP. I have just re-read from the Lightning-Struck Tower and there is something in there that I don't think I had ever noticed before. I have read many posts on here and I know most of you tend to either be for or against Snape and I have always been one of those who has thought he is definitely DDM. However, on page 549 of the UK hard back version of HBP I have just read, Draco, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -" Dumbledore, "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -" I now have a feeling of dread as we know he did make a promise with Draco's mother! Can Dumbledore really have got it wrong....? I'm sure you have probably already discussed this many times so sorry to go over old ground. Juley (Hoping that in the end Snape turns out to be good and everyone lives happily ever after) From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 9 22:31:37 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:31:37 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)/ Snape and his importance. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165910 > Alla: > > Right and I am questioning that Snape ever protected Harry to protect > Harry ( except of course saving his life in PoA). I am saying that it > is possible that Snape first and foremost did things to save himself > or to further his goals and if it is protected Harry by extension, it > is not really protection IMO. Magpie: But that fits my point as well, which is that Snape is in the position of power over Harry--James is not. Because James is dead and Snape is alive and free and in the position that he is in. Whether Snape is protecting Harry for Harry's sake doesn't matter to the point I'm making. I'm just talking about Snape's position and power as opposed to James'. > > Magpie: > > No, I wasn't positing Snape and the Annoying Little Gryffindor at > > all. I was not suggesting that Snape is the one who's going to > > destroy Voldemort. Voldemort hasn't been destroyed yet, obviously, > > nor have the Horcruxes been destroyed, and I wasn't claiming that > > Snape would be the one to do it. I am saying that like it or not, > > the story over and over comes back to Snape and Snape's actions. > > Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort, and told Dumbledore that he'd > > done so, setting the Fidelius in motion. Snape was put in the key > > position of double agent in the war. Snape's actions *matter*. That > > does not make him a hero or give him Harry's role. But Harry's role > > has up until now often been *reactive*. So yes, Snape's actions are > > very important to the story. It's his mistake that put Voldemort > > onto Harry's trail, possibly his decision to take the Vow that made > > things turn out the way they did in HBP, certainly (imo) his action > > that kills Dumbledore. I find it difficult to look at HBP in > > particular and *not* see Snape's actions as very important. By > > contrast Harry in HBP is still playing catch up. He's not quite in > > the loop yet. > > Alla: > > Sure it does come back to Snape's actions - what I am questioning > though is that Snape's actions are **more** important than Harry, not > that they are important initself. Yes, Snape started the circle of > Harry's misery. In that sense, the story of Harry's life may not have > happened, but isn't the argument like that often given by Snape > defenders? > > That Voldemort could have learned the prophecy anyways, that he > already targeted the Potters and could have attacked regardless and > that is why Snape's actions are not that important? > > I mean, I guess if you would say that Snape's actions are more > important for plot development so far, I guess I would agree, but if > you are saying that Snape's actions are more important for ultimate > resolution of the story, then we are in disagreement. Magpie: I'm just saying that in general Snape's actions are very important to the story. Within his world his actions have affected a lot of people and things that are central to the central Voldemort arc. I compared him to Harry in that limited way, but I wasn't meaning to set them up against each other competing for the real hero of the story or anything like that. However Voldemort might have learned of the Prophecy, what happened was Snape, the same Snape waiting to hate Harry and also (seemingly) protect him when he gets to Hogwarts. And because Snape has been in "the story" a lot longer than Harry (in terms of being older and having a part to play in a past before Harry was born) he's often a few steps ahead of Harry. Alla:> > Snape is the loyal to DD superspy or stinking traitor and murderer, > take your pick, but he is not the one who saved Peter from being > killed and thus probably set in the motion the mysterious ancient > magic that can play key role at the end. > > Snape is not the one, whom young mother heroically defended and thus > set in motion another incredibly important ( hopefully) magic. > So, whether Harry is playing catch up or not in regards of > information, I am still not agreeing that his actions are in general > more important that Harry's. Magpie: I'm regretting making the throwaway comparison (even though I know I put in some kind of qualifier I don't remember like "in some ways" or "sometimes"--thinking that would make it clear I wasn't saying what I'm taken to be saying). My point was *not* to start a competition between Snape and every other character because *they're all necessary for the story.* Or to make Snape the number one hero or character. It just seemed obvious to me that Snape's personal story is hugely important in the series, and the series comes back to it even more as it gets towards the climax because of where Snape is positioned. The Snape/Harry dynamic is so central to the plot it just didn't occur to me that saying Snape's actions were important (or that Snape's actions as a character sometimes had more effect on the greater story than Harry) would be taken as forgetting about what Lily or James or the DA or what anyone else did. I'm not claiming Snape is better than Harry, and obviously there are plenty of areas of the narrative where Snape doesn't matter at all the way Harry does. Snape isn't involved in the interactions between the students, or the R/Hr romance, or Harry's romances with Cho or Ginny, or the saving of Buckbeak etc. I'm just saying that when it comes to the Voldemort/Harry story, Snape's pretty important and was before Harry arrived at Hogwarts. At the risk of starting the whole thing up again, Harry's getting people to follow him with the DA really isn't affecting things on the level I'm saying Snape's actions have, even if it's obviously important in its own way. Snape's actions have at times set up the story of which *Harry* is the protagonist. Snape is one hard-working *antagonist* who acts as an opposing force to Harry and causes him to generate action back -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 22:39:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:39:27 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165911 bboyminn earlier: > > > > > In general, I somewhat dispute people's claims of what is a normal Killing Curse. To my knowledge, we have never seen a Killing Curse actually occur. ... > > Carol earlier: > > Actually, yes, we have--Harry sees Fake!Moody kill the spider: > > > > "There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air--instantaneously, the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead (GoF Am. ed. 316). > > How many descriptions do we need to see that AK victims do not go sailing into the air, that they die instantly (the freezing charm should have worn off instantly), that there's a "blinding flash" ..., nothing like the "jet" of green light that comes from Snape's wand? > bboyminn: > > Here is the key aspect of my point, that you seem to be missing. Curses act very differently depending on the emotion behind them. Carol: Sorry. I didn't mean to ignore that aspect. I conceded that JKR's descriptions aren't always consistent and that it may simply be that she's unaware of the inconsistencies. And I also conceded that Snape's powerful Expelliarmus (which so delightfully "knocks Lockhart on his ass," as you put it, is roughly equivalent to the three combined Expelliarmuses that knock Snape into the wall in PoA (it's the wall that knocks him out, not the spell). Expelliarmus is, indeed, usually just a disarming spell. But I don't think that Snape's AK is extra strong, or that an extra strong Ak would knock someone over the wall. Voldemort's AKs don't do that, and he's the most powerful Dark wizard ever. And Wormtail "screams" the words AVADA KEDAVRA! "into the night--and Cedric just plops down dead like Frank Bryce. So, yes, spells act differently depending on the power of the wizard casting them, how many people are casting them, and the emotional state of the wizard casting them, but I still don't think Avada Kedavra alone, no matter how powerful the wizard or how angry he was (and snape was furious at somebody) could account for DD's body going over the wall. I think it had to be a deliberate action on Snape's part, without which he would never have succeeded in keeping Fenrir Greyback from having Dumbledore for "afters" or getting the DEs off the tower before Harry came rushing out to fight them. If anyone but Snape had killed DD, the consequences would have been unthinkable. But *my* point was that, yes, we do know what a "normal" AK looks (and sounds) like. I cited all the examples from GoF and showed their similarities. And Snape's AK doesn't fit the pattern. That's all I'm saying. bboyminn: > Also, key to my theory, is that /missed/ spells frequently have substantial physical impact. Carol: But Snape's spell, whatever it was, didn't "miss." It hit DD squarely in the chest--and unlike any AK we've ever seen, *blasts* him into the air and then leaves him suspended for a second like a ragdoll over the battlements. Find me an AK anywhere in the books that does that. However, rather surprisingly, Impedimenta (which also, note concession, acts rather differently at different times) can and does have almost exactly the same effect as Snape's unusual AK: "'*Impedimenta*!' yelled Harry. "His jinx hit Amycus in the chest. He gave a piglike squeal of pain, was lifted off his feet and slammed into the opposite wall, and fell out of sight behind Ron" (599). "Lifted off his feet." Rather like Dumbledore, who is "blasted into the air" and sent over the ramparts, only, unlie Amycus, Dumbledore seems to have had a soft landing. Isn't it odd that after falling from the Astronomy tower, the *entrance* to which is seven floors up and which must be at least two stories above that to be the tallest tower in Hogwarts, Dumbledore is still recognizable, looking like he's asleep with his glasses and limbs askew but is not a pile of bloody pulp? True, JKR may simply be protecting her readers' sensibilities and setting up a poignant scene with Harry, but Harry would have been dead had it not been for Dumbledore's slowing spell ("Arresto Momentum" in the film--I don't think it's named in the book) and that was only fifty feet. Seven stories would be 84 feet, plus the additional height of the tower itself, plus the fact that the seventh story in British English is equivalent to the eighth floor in American English, which would mean that DD fell about 120 feet (your calculations may vary). I really think that Snape must have slowed the fall somehow. > bbpyminn: > I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that this absolute determination to see the Killing Curse in only one light is ignoring a lot of available information. Carol: Funny. That's the same way I feel about your position. I'm not ignoring your points; I'm just not convinced by them. Nor am I "absolute[ly] determin[ed] to see the Killing Curse in only one light." I'm only pointing out that Snape's AK is different in many respects from any other AK that we've seen. So the first thing I'm doing is presenting the evidence to that effect--whether Harry has seen the AKs or not, the reader has, and they don't resemble Snape's. >From there, I'm doing the same thing you're doing, which is trying to figure out a plausible reason why that's the case. > bboyminn: > Also, I am trying to find a reasonable and workable explanation for what has happened. Carol: So am I. We agree that something is up with this weird AK. We just don't agree on the differences or the reasons behind them. (We're both speculating, and we're both supporting our speculations with canon evidence. But we can't use the same evidence because we're going in different directions.) bboyminn: > something isn't quite right about the whole Green Light Spell on the top of the tower. Carol: Exactly. bboyminn: It is possible that Snape used some alternate spell, but why? JKR has said about as unequivocally as is possible that Dumbledore is dead and he is not coming back. So, what purpose does an alternate spell provide? Carol: Right. Dumbledore is dead. That, unfortunately, is indisputable. As far as an alternate spell disguised as an is concerned, its sole purpose would be to let Dumbledore die from the poison (or the "unstoppered" ring curse, according to some theories). That way Snape would not be guilty of murder, only of letting Dumbledore die. It accomplishes exactly the same thing that your Dumbledore-was-already-dead theory accomplishes. It would also explain the anomalies in the supposed AK, including the closed eyes and sending DD over the ramparts. The other possibility is that Snape cast a nonverbal spell *in addition to* a real AK. This version of the theory explains one anomaly, sending DD over the ramparts, which IMO was an essential step toward getting the boys safely off the tower and the DEs out of Hogwarts. It doesn't get Snape off the hook for murder, but it does explain the apparent soft landing and is compatible with a Snape tragically trapped by the vow into killing Dumbledore against his will. (This version explains Snape's anguish and makes Harry's forgiveness of Snape, which I'm sure is coming, a more generous and merciful and compassionate act on his part than it will be if Snape merely "killed" a Dumbledore who was already dead. IMO, he acted very much against his will but did exactly what Dumbledore wanted him to do. That took much more courage, IMO, than pretending to kill Dumbledore. But that took courage, too, because of the danger it placed Snape in and the hatred he would face. But to murder your mentor because it's the only way to save everyone else? It's like the old ethical dilemma--the lifeboat only has room for four people. Which of the five prospective passengers should be left to drown? In this case, the old man whose job is done.) Anyway, I hope you understand that, like you, I'm trying to make sense of Snape's actions in relation to the strange behavior of the AK spell, which, as I've already demonstrated, is not "normal" insofar as "normal" can be determined based on Frank Bryce, the spider, Cedric, and the Riddles. bboyminn: > > As to 'Flash' vs 'Jet', you have a point, but I'm not sure to what extent I buy it. The only 'jet' of light the produce very very little peripheral light is a lazer. Most other intense 'jets' or more accurately 'beams' of light are going to have some peripheral radiation. A brilliantly intense beam of light is also going to produce a substantial peripheral 'flash' of light. Carol: Hm. I'll go with my dictionary definitions, thanks. A jet of light, as you say, is like a laser. A flash is like the flash of an old-fashioned camera. It hurts our eyes, it does. I can't ignore that word "blinding" or the reference I cited in SS/PS to "all that green light." > > Again, I can't say your wrong. In fact, I will flat out say that all I am doing is speculating. Until JKR tells us for sure, that is all we can do. But I also think there are bits of evidence that you are discounting in your analysis. Carol: Possibly. But I was, after all, trying to counter a specific point that there's no normal AK. And I did make the concessions noted earlier in this post, and I feel the same way about your discounting the evidence that I think is important. Yes, we're both speculating, and we're both trying to make concessions. I just don't think we're going to convince each other. Much as I would love to believe that Snape was innocent of murder, I won't be convinced that Dumbledore was already dead unless I see some evidence other than the way spells act when they encounter inanimate objects. Carol, noting again that the alternate spell/additional spell hypotheses serve the same purpose as the idea that Dumbledore was already dead, to explain Snape's actions and motives in a way consistent with the abnormal action of the so-called Killing Curse From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 22:49:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:49:06 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)/ Snape and his importance. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165912 > > Alla: > > > > Right and I am questioning that Snape ever protected Harry to > protect > > Harry ( except of course saving his life in PoA). I am saying that > it > > is possible that Snape first and foremost did things to save > himself > > or to further his goals and if it is protected Harry by extension, > it > > is not really protection IMO. > > Magpie: > But that fits my point as well, which is that Snape is in the > position of power over Harry--James is not. Because James is dead > and Snape is alive and free and in the position that he is in. > Whether Snape is protecting Harry for Harry's sake doesn't matter to > the point I'm making. I'm just talking about Snape's position and > power as opposed to James'. Alla: Sure, I have no objection to that at all. Snape **is** in the position of power to Harry, while James is not. It is just not the same to me as Snape set up as protecting Harry. > Magpie: > I'm regretting making the throwaway comparison (even though I know I > put in some kind of qualifier I don't remember like "in some ways" > or "sometimes"--thinking that would make it clear I wasn't saying > what I'm taken to be saying). My point was *not* to start a > competition between Snape and every other character because *they're > all necessary for the story.* Or to make Snape the number one hero > or character. It just seemed obvious to me that Snape's personal > story is hugely important in the series, and the series comes back > to it even more as it gets towards the climax because of where Snape > is positioned. The Snape/Harry dynamic is so central to the plot it > just didn't occur to me that saying Snape's actions were important > (or that Snape's actions as a character sometimes had more effect on > the greater story than Harry) would be taken as forgetting about > what Lily or James or the DA or what anyone else did. > Alla: As I said I have no argument at all to Snape's actions being very important to the story, **at all**. Their dynamic are important, but to me it does not follow that Snape's actions are more important than Harry's, that's all. Besides, I still think that it is possible that Snape is a plot device for Harry to get to certain point of his development, you know? Why would you regret making that comparison? Because I attempted to chalenge it? Blinks. Magpie: Snape isn't involved in the interactions between > the students, or the R/Hr romance, or Harry's romances with Cho or > Ginny, or the saving of Buckbeak etc. I'm just saying that when it > comes to the Voldemort/Harry story, Snape's pretty important and was > before Harry arrived at Hogwarts. At the risk of starting the whole > thing up again, Harry's getting people to follow him with the DA > really isn't affecting things on the level I'm saying Snape's > actions have, even if it's obviously important in its own way. > Snape's actions have at times set up the story of which *Harry* is > the protagonist. Snape is one hard-working *antagonist* who acts as > an opposing force to Harry and causes him to generate action back Alla: We don't know, whether Harry getting people to follow him would affect the story more than Snape's actions had? After all, Sirius and Lupin listening to Harry plea to free Peter already arguably affected the story a lot and probably more than any of Snape's actions did. IMO of course. And if at the end Harry would make all four houses stand together, I would think it would matter much more than any of Snape's actions so far. And yes, Snape's actions **are** important in their own way, just as Dumbledore's were, I am just not agreeing with more important than Harry's, that's all. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 00:24:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:24:06 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165913 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Also, key to my theory, is that /missed/ spells > > frequently have substantial physical impact. > > Carol: > But Snape's spell, whatever it was, didn't "miss." It > hit DD squarely in the chest-- > bboyminn: Ahhh... but in my theory, it did miss. An AK takes life, if there is no life to take, then that is the equivalent of a /miss/. Still, I'm well aware of the weaknesses in my theory. > > bboyminn: > It is possible that Snape used some alternate spell, > but why? ... > > Carol: > Right. Dumbledore is dead. That, unfortunately, is > indisputable. As far as an alternate spell disguised as > an is concerned, its sole purpose would be to let > Dumbledore die from the poison (or the "unstoppered" > ring curse, according to some theories). That way Snape > would not be guilty of murder, ... bboyminn: Just requesting a clarification on this point. Are you saying that Snape cast /some/ curse against Dumbledore that threw an alive but fading Dumbledore off the tower, and we will assume gave him a soft landing, so that Dumbledore coud die quietly on his way down? The key here being that Dumbledore die on the way down of either natural or previous causes rather than died by Snape's curse or the landing. Just checking. If Snape is guilty of some form of murder, then it makes it extremely difficult for he and Harry to work together as I am convinced the must do before the end of the book. So, if there is some way that Snape could have only /appeared/ to murder Dumbledore, and if somehow Lupin and Hermione can determine this independantly, then perhaps Harry would be open to at least hearing Snape out. My opinion is that Draco will come to the good side through Snape. That is Harry's struggle will be between himself and Snape. Draco's stuggle will also be between himself and Snape. Once Snape and Harry resolve, that opens the door for Draco to come in. But both these strike me as huge problems to overcome. It's going to be interesting. What I love about the last book in a series is how it all comes together. How strange characters lurking in the shadows come forward and their true significants becomes known. Nothing more rewarding than seeing all the pieces fall into place. You have refined your claim to 'a normal AK to the extent that we are able to determine'. That seems reasonable, as long as you are doing your best to include everything that might help us determine and not just what serves you. Not making any accusations since we are all speculating, the best we can do is consider everything, but focus on what we think is significant. I'm just pointing out that what most people consider /normal/ is wider than they typically will admit. And this is not specifically directed at you, but directed at the overal discussion of the subject of 'Normal AK' in general. Normal reaction for any specific curse is actual very widely varied. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 00:34:47 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:34:47 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165914 > > a_svirn: > > But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an > > essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's > > weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and > > the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that > > inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. > > zgirnius: > This is your opinion. I do not share it, and I do not see why > Hermione must. Hermione is aware of the following good actions of > Snape, which have occured over the past six years: > a_svirn: > To start with, out of your list only the first point is undisputable. > The rest of your points has been challenged on-list over the years. zgirnius: I made no claim that every act on the list was irrefutably good, just that these are the actions of Snape of which Hermione is aware which one might consider good. It is *possible* that *she* may consider some or all of them good, or not (except for saving Harry's life. She has expressed her views on that in canon). I cannot help but believe it is possible for a logical, intelligent person such as Hermione to have the opinion that these actions are good, because that happens to be *my* opinion. A_svirn: > More > importantly, it is not why Hermione had been defending Snape in the > past. Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and > murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore > trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no > longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. zgirnius: As I demonstrated in my response to Alla on this thread, Hermione has on at least two occasions defended Snape on the grounds that he saved Harry's life in PS/SS. I don't recall a single long argument on Snape involving Hermione anywhere is the series. Usually it is one or two exchanges between Hermione and Ron, with her defending Snape and Ron attacking. In such discussions, I would not expect her to put forward an exhaustive list of her own reasons for concluding Snape is good, just the ones she considers strongest and or simplest to state. So in my view, she may also consider some or all of my other examples as evidence for Snape. > a_svirn: > (And the seventh is certainly negated by his actions later on). zgirnius: *ought not to have snipped my list* 7) was "Snape saved Dumbledore's life". This remains a fact, I do not see why his taking of the same life later in the book negates the first action. An explanation is needed of why he would first save Dumbledore and then later kill him, for sure, but DDM! is one such explanation, and the threat of the Unbreakable Vow is another, neither of which point to Voldemort's Man/totally and consistently evil Snape. The first could be viewed as a 'good' motive, the latter could indicate a lapse rather than a pattern of consistently evil behavior. So, now Snape has killed Dumbledore, and yet Hermione has always believed that he did at least one good thing that she knows of. Her trust was not entirely based on Dumbledore's with no explanation given, but also on her own opinion of an action or actions she knows Snape has taken. She could decide that the killing of Dumbledore outweighs that completely, or not. But she does need to think about it. I think that her initial reaction in "The Phoenix Lament" was reflective of the sadness and shock she felt (as the characters all did) at the events. Her comments in "The White Tomb", however, suggest to me that she may have started to come out of that shock and be trying to reach an unerstanding of their meaning by applying her considerable intellect to the problem, rather than transitioning to a childish, kneejerk return to the "Dumbledore can't be wrong" thinking of which you accuse her. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Sat Mar 10 00:42:16 2007 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:42:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juleyjubes" wrote: > > I, like many others on here, have been re-reading the books from > number one and am currently reading the COS. However, I skipped > ahead this evening because I wanted to check something in HBP. > > I have just re-read from the Lightning-Struck Tower and there is > something in there that I don't think I had ever noticed before. > > I have read many posts on here and I know most of you tend to either > be for or against Snape and I have always been one of those who has > thought he is definitely DDM. However, on page 549 of the UK hard > back version of HBP I have just read, > > Draco, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -" > > Dumbledore, "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -" > > I now have a feeling of dread as we know he did make a promise with > Draco's mother! Can Dumbledore really have got it wrong....? > Joe: There is a theory that Snape is left handed (many references in the books lend credence to that) and that one must use his or her wand hand to make the unbreakable oath (not stated?just a guess). Snape used his right had to make the oath. Perhaps that was a way out of it. Just a theory. From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sat Mar 10 00:46:06 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:46:06 -0600 Subject: Fleur References: Message-ID: <001001c762ad$7cef72c0$2f01a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 165916 Okay, My sister and I were talking and she brought up something I hadn't thought about. Fleur... I am a bit bewildered that JK brought her back into the storyline. Why?? It seems odd that someone of no apparent relevance, to me anyway, would be brought back. What are the theories surrounding her? Anyone care to speculate why she was brought back into play? Just seems odd to me unless she will play at least some role in the future battle. Maybe her "charm" as a veela or something? Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 00:54:20 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:20 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165917 > Juley: > I have read many posts on here and I know most of you tend to either > be for or against Snape and I have always been one of those who has > thought he is definitely DDM. However, on page 549 of the UK hard > back version of HBP I have just read, > > Draco, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -" > > Dumbledore, "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -" > zgirnius: Try this out for size: "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but it was I who ordered him to look after you as soon as he told me about your assignment." Juley: > (Hoping that in the end Snape turns out to be good and everyone lives > happily ever after) zgirnius: Hear, hear! From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Sat Mar 10 00:20:16 2007 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:20:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juleyjubes" wrote: > > I have read many posts on here and I know most of you tend to either > be for or against Snape and I have always been one of those who has > thought he is definitely DDM. However, on page 549 of the UK hard > back version of HBP I have just read, > > Draco, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -" > > Dumbledore, "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -" > > I now have a feeling of dread as we know he did make a promise with > Draco's mother! Can Dumbledore really have got it wrong....? > > I'm sure you have probably already discussed this many times so sorry > to go over old ground. > > Juley > (Hoping that in the end Snape turns out to be good and everyone lives > happily ever after) Hi Juley: I am with you and believe that Snape was DDM. Part of my opinion was formed by timing. The Spinners End chapter comes before Dumbledore (okay, Harry) persuades Slughorn to become the new potions teacher. As the previous chapters in the books are sequential in time (except when Harry and Hermione use the timeturner) it is reasonable to assume that Dumbledore and Harry visit Slughorn comes after Snape makes the unbreakable vow. The next is pure speculation and is not supported by cannon. IMO after Snape made the promise to Narcissa he immediately told Dumbledore who when given lemons - made lemonade. Dumbledore moves Snape to DADA teacher. This implies that Dumbledore only planned for him to be at Hogwarts one more year (Dumbledore admits in his discussions with Harry that he believes Voldy cursed the position). Next, Dumbledore brought in Slughorn. Therefore, he made arrangements no only for a long-term potions teacher but also a new head of Slytherin House. Under this hypothesis when Dumbledore says "Severus please" he's asking Snape to kill him in futherance of his plans to put people in place to assist Harry in his final fight with Voldemort. Remember at this time Snape is the only "turned" DE oh which we have knowledge. On another note I believe that in Deathly Hollows we will learn that when Dumbledore was away from Hogwarts that last year he was very busy putting plans in place. I believe that Dumbledore has Olivander and Fornescue (sp?) in hiding and they will be revealed to be on Harry's side in the final fight. Remember in POA Fornescue kept giving Harry free ice creams; I believe this was so that he could keep an eye on Harry (without his knowledge) at Dumbledore's request. "Phyllis D. Barnes" From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Mar 10 02:32:52 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:32:52 -0500 Subject: Where is Dumbledore's wand? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165919 -Donna > I should have written "the wands will not work PROPERLY against each > other." > > GoF, page 697: > "So what happens when a wand meets its brother?" said Sirius. > "They will not work properly against each other," said Dumbledore. > If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle... > a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the > other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse order. The > most recent first... and then those that preceded it..." If the wand core represents the 'soul' or power of the wand, and the wood the body... Does this suggest anything about what happens/happened/might happen when Harry and Voldemort meet? ___Google submits to Chinese Gov't. Tibetan cybercafe warning:___ ___"Do not use Internet for any political or unintelligent purposes."___ _________ From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 10 04:41:10 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:41:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating)/ Snape and his importance. References: Message-ID: <00da01c762ce$541fbe60$0a7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165920 Alla: > > As I said I have no argument at all to Snape's actions being very > important to the story, **at all**. Their dynamic are important, but > to me it does not follow that Snape's actions are more important than > Harry's, that's all. > > Besides, I still think that it is possible that Snape is a plot > device for Harry to get to certain point of his development, you know? > > Why would you regret making that comparison? Because I attempted to > chalenge it? Blinks. Magpie: No, I get that--and I agree. Because when we talk about Harry's importance--I mean, to the Voldemort plot specifically--it's leading towards the future. Like, Harry let Peter go and that's surely going to be important, but that bomb hasn't detonated yet. Snape's story is very much about setting up Harry's thing that he's going to do. And that's all I mean about Snape's actions being more effective in that story, because Harry hasn't yet had his battle with Voldemort. It's the nature of the series that it keeps getting put off until DH where Harry must destroy all the Horcruxes and Voldemort. Up until then he has to be flying by the seat of his pants--acquiting himself well when he's on the spot, but not going out and doing things that set things in motion, because he's reacting. (Not that he never does that--he decides to go to the MoM, for instance in OotP, etc.) > Magpie: > Snape isn't involved in the interactions between >> the students, or the R/Hr romance, or Harry's romances with Cho or >> Ginny, or the saving of Buckbeak etc. I'm just saying that when it >> comes to the Voldemort/Harry story, Snape's pretty important and > was >> before Harry arrived at Hogwarts. At the risk of starting the whole >> thing up again, Harry's getting people to follow him with the DA >> really isn't affecting things on the level I'm saying Snape's >> actions have, even if it's obviously important in its own way. >> Snape's actions have at times set up the story of which *Harry* is >> the protagonist. Snape is one hard-working *antagonist* who acts as >> an opposing force to Harry and causes him to generate action back > > Alla: > > We don't know, whether Harry getting people to follow him would > affect the story more than Snape's actions had? > > After all, Sirius and Lupin listening to Harry plea to free Peter > already arguably affected the story a lot and probably more than any > of Snape's actions did. IMO of course.\ Magpie: Yes, but my point is they haven't been important *yet*. Like the analogy above about the bomb not yet detonating. Snape's from the past generation. We're now living more with the consequences of the mistakes of that generation. Harry's generation hasn't been idle or anything, but they've just gotten to the point where presumably the people they are (as opposed to who the past generation was) will make history and shape the world their children will live in. That's why it makes sense to me that Snape's story has so far affected the world more, while Harry and other kids from his class must take the lead in this battle against Voldemort. That's why Snape can't save everyone in the end. He's been in the role of protector (even if his motives aren't really to protect Harry, as you said) and now he's got to step aside and let Harry do his thing. No coincidence that this is at the same time that Harry plans to stop being reactive and protecting himself for "someday", go out in the world and find Voldemort. Alla:> > And if at the end Harry would make all four houses stand together, I > would think it would matter much more than any of Snape's actions so > far. Magpie: Yes, it would--and that's why, imo, we're reading the story of *this* generation and not Snape's. But Harry hasn't done that yet. He's been dealing with the world left to him by Snape's generation. They didn't unite the houses, didn't get over important problems. Their "defeat" of Voldemort was just a postponement. Harry appears in the middle of the story. In the end it's his choices that will defeat Voldemort because he's the hero. So when I say that Snape's actions have had more effect on the Voldemort storyline the "have had" is important. Harry's important actions--destroying the Horcruxes, inspiring some turnaround with Peter, uniting the Houses--haven't happened yet, even if they no doubt will be the things that actually destroy Voldemort (which Snape certainly didn't do). I'm not comparing Snape's actions to anything Harry might do or effects Harry might have when the series is over. Actually, I think if you look at all three kids who have close, personal ties to the first war with Voldemort you'll find the same thing. Neville has been living with the effects of what other people have done. But now he's expressed blatant interest in having an effect in his own right. I think Neville will have a part in the actual defeat of Voldemort and so surpass his parents in that respect. But it's a fight he's inherited, and he had to develop before he could take it on effectively himself. He did pretty well against Bellatrix in OotP, but it's not surprising when it's talked about in fandom it's almost assumed to be a battle that isn't over yet, as if it instinctively *feels* like it's a prelude to Neville asserting himself on events in ways he hasn't yet. -m From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 10 01:05:33 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:05:33 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165921 Okay I am going to rant a little bit on Snape and why I think DD did not ask Snape to kill him. After I post this I am going to hide under some rock to avoid the herd of Snape fans trying to run me over. There are a few reasons why I do not believe that the scenario of DD asking Snape to kill him actually fits with what is shown to us or why it isn't even logical (for me that is). Of course it is besides the fact that the majority of fans seem to hold this view while JKR specifically states it is not easily guessable what will happen in book 7 or she will be extremely annoyed. So she must either be really depressed that so many fans are now on to her or she is laughing her head off for pulling the wool so thoroughly over the heads of her fans for all of them to think they understand Snape. (And yes that could include me: I make no illusion I would be able to figure JKR out) I have read many arguments about why people believe what happened on the tower was directed by DD and Snape was acting out his orders. Well, there are a few problems with the logic of these arguments for me to understand them as true. Instead I am going to argue that I think Snape indeed did kill DD because he got himself into this mess and there was no other way for him to get out of it; but for me, DD's orders had nothing to do with it. I even have another reason but will talk about that further down. So why do I doubt DD asking Snape to kill him and why for instance the argument in the forest does not sound as proof to me that DD asked this of Snape? From a logical standpoint, Snape's reaction in the forest makes no sense if DD indeed asked him to kill him. Why? Because Snape by that time already believed LV expected him to do it and he committed himself to an UV to do it if Draco failed. So why argue DD for it? If he doesn't, he dies - either by LV's hand, or due to the UV. So what does it matter if DD then asks him? Wouldn't it make Snape's job a little easier if DD agrees it is for the best? Let see what would happen if Snape rejects DD's orders --> well he dies; if not by the UV then by LV's hand, because it would make it very clear Snape's loyalties are not on his side. So what happens if Snape acts on DD's orders? Oh yes, he lives. Which he also would if he acts out the UV and acts on LV's orders (presumed orders). Mmmh, then why would Snape have a problem with DD if he asked him to do it? Or even argue about it? Did Snape have a death wish and he was planning to die if DD had not asked him to kill him and save his own life? So the lines of hate in Snape's face are there because Snape hates himself for not dying -- is that what all Snape fans want me to believe? Because hating himself only because DD now expects Snape to kill him makes no sense to me if LV expects him to do it as well, or if he keels over for not doing it when the UV comes into effect. At least for me, there is no logic to it. Why not? Because all of them (DD/LV/UV) give him the same option. Do it or die. DD's orders are totally irrelevant to the outcome under these circumstances, unless I am to believe that Snape had rather died and had planned to do so. In that case of course he could hate himself for being so stupid to be left with so few options, but it doesn't sound logical to me that it would be only DD's request that would install this self-hatred in Snape. Unless of course Snape really did show hate for DD at that moment -- after all Snape does have a nasty tendency to blame everybody else for letting himself get into more than he can handle -- but more on that later. Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? The boy can't come back to school for his implications in attempted murder of Kathy, Ron (even if they were not the targets) and Dumbledore, Imperio Madam Rosemerta, and letting DE's into the castle. He can be sent to Azkaban for his involvement in this if the MoM ever catches him, and oh my he is still at LV's mercy and with only Snape, who is now known as a murder, to vouch for him -- and this is helping Draco, how? And just because Harry showed him some pity doesn't mean Draco can now consider himself saved; maybe Harry can do something for him at the end of book 7 (if both of them life that long), but at this moment Draco is still in the same trouble, maybe even more than before DD's death. (so if this was DD plan than it seems like a really poor one) Let's hope LV will let the boy live now that he showed himself too weak for his cause and disobeyed a direct order even if Snape saved the day on assumed orders, because if LV did not mean for Snape to do it in the end as he suggested (by *thinking* it is what LV wants him to do) in the beginning of the book, then Snape himself has a lot of explaining to do, and it might not be enough to protect Draco at the same time. Maybe Draco will be given a second chance (because LV is in such a good mood now DD is gone), and LV will find someone else for him to kill. Let see if Snape is still bound to the UV this time and do it for Draco again and again and again Well you get my drift -- or just let the kid get killed because he is done with it and has more important things to do. From this position it doesn't seem like the sun will be shining for Draco any time soon. So again I ask the question: how does this arrangement protect Draco? By the way, isn't it interesting that in the US version DD suggests something entirely different? Doesn't this suggest that if Snape and DD arranged this, then saving Draco was never part of it, why else suggest something different to the boy if all as been arranged in the first place? It doesn't make sense to me that DD would ever want Snape to kill him to deliver Draco back to LV; and besides, also like Neri has suggested before, don't you think it would raise an awful lot of questions if Snape would still walk this earth while Draco died, and thus failing his task, and of course DD is not dead either; but if Snape kills DD than Draco can't be hidden away so... This sounds to me that DD was either not aware of the UV or did not care much for Snape keeling over for breaking the vow. At least it doesn't seem like DD has the same plan as Snape fans say he does if he ordered to have Snape kill him because he is more valuable alive (and in LV's camp), because if Draco had taken the offer it would be bye bye Snape. Even if the UV would not be broken Snape would still have to face LV and you can bet your *ss that Bella would bring Snape's head on a silver platter for having her sister and her nephew killed (as no one will tell her about it, she is to loyal to LV and if to many people know then there is too much risk for this plan to fail), and not finishing the job and it would have been the end of the plan. Doesn't sound really airtight to me this plan Snape fans are trying to sell me but than again I am not interested in a bridge either. (Sorry, could not resist promise will behave from now on) Oh, but there is more of course, because Snape fans will say DD asked this of Snape because Snape is more important to Harry alive. How? So he can tell Harry what LV is going to do next? Or any of the members of the Order? Are they really going to listen to what he has to say? It was DD who trusted him, but he never explained to anyone why. I think it is a little too much to ask of anyone to still keep this in mind when the same person just killed the one who trusted him. By the way -- without the UV Snape could just go to LV and tell him he doesn't want to pretend he is working for DD anymore and that he wants to come out and be a proud DE. This does not require a dead DD -- according to Spinner's End, LV already trusts Snape so he doesn't have to be convinced in this fashion, and Bella is essentially nobody, so why do anything that would risk the entire operation or a plan B for that matter and take an UV? How again does this serve Harry or even Draco? If his only use to LV is being a spy, then with DD's death he will be no use to him either, so with that it makes no difference -- besides, we still have to wait and see if LV is as thrilled with Snape murdering DD as Snape thinks he will be because now he has no spy in the Order as well. So what is he going to make him do? Brew potions? Or send him out to kill a few more annoying Order members? And this can serve Harry how? Wouldn't it be far more logical to assume that DD wanted Snape on the side of the Order to help Harry? Even if Harry himself did not want to talk to Snape, Snape could still pass information on to the Order, but this is no more. So we can only assume that the only way Snape is ever going to help Harry from LV's side is by physical action that will show Harry without reasonable doubt Snape is on his side. No one in his right mind will trust Snape by his word: that's what DD did and he is dead; and if it was on his orders, he forgot to let anybody else in on this little secret. So I seriously doubt any of them will change their minds about Snape any time soon, and no, not even Lupin -- don't be ridiculus. Lupin might want to be liked, but Snape is not on his list of people he wants to be liked by. So maybe it is me failing to see what use Snape will be to Harry, but at this moment I see none. I even think Snape will be a lot of trouble because Snape will have to do whatever LV asks of him because if he doesn't, his benefit to Harry is short lived. Besides, we already know that Snape doesn't want to help Harry if he can get out of it. Sure even Quirell tells us Snape doesn't want Harry dead, but is this for the same reason the Order want Harry alive? Or is that pesky lifedebt still at play? Everybody keeps saying that Snape has tried over and over to save Harry's life, but the only real attempted that has registered with me is in book 1. No Snape involvement when it comes to saving Harry's life in book 2; motivated by revenge in book 3; and bringing everybody to the castle was not a necessity to save lives pers? -- he even might have done it to get rid of Sirius as fast as he could, so no points for Snape there. No life saving in book 4: DD could have managed fake!moody alone fine. By the time he sent the Order, Harry could have been dead for all he knew, so no points for saving Harry's life either in book 5; and nobody knew he was there on the tower even if Snape had noticed the second broom. The death eaters didn't know and if Snape had allowed the Order members to follow him onto the tower, they could have taken all the death eaters, so no points for saving Harry's life in book 6. Mhh over and over right? And beside when did Snape ever put his own life on the line for Harry? He certainly did not go to the MoM himself to make sure Harry was okay; he was the only one who knew and still found his cover more important and we are told he was ordered by LV to stay behind meaning he was privy to LV's plans, even before Harry's adventure to the DoM. He could have warned to MoM so the DE's would have been surprised by a dozen aurors instead of a couple of teenagers. For g*d sake, they were running around the MoM building: how hard would it have been for an auror to run into them without any risk to Snape's cover? Many argue that Snape did not hurt Harry on the way out at the end of book 6, but apparently they forgot Snape was run over by a Hippogriff. Snape's so-called hurt expressed in that moment seem to me his hatred for Harry is coming to a climax when Harry called him a coward -- not because Snape just had done a brave thing, but because the whole Harry/ James issue has prevented Snape to live the life he wanted as he is still controlled by a Potter brat in his adult life, and that must really hurt. So what do I think DD asked of Snape in the argument in the forest? Well, I believe DD asked Snape to stop his spying days and help Harry in his task to defeat LV. This would be too much to ask of Snape now that LV trusts him, because if he now renounced LV, he will move up on the "to do list" of things LV needs to dispose of. This would be something I can see Snape arguing about with DD, and what DD would order Snape to do. Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending Snape back to LV in GoF. I believe Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in DD. And I believe Snape's hate for James, Sirius and, eventually, Harry, is the cause of this. I believe Snape has grown to see DD as a substitute father and until Harry showed up everything was fine, and Snape was a happy camper getting the respect (or forcing it) from all who surrounded him, including DD: but then Harry shows up and in his first year he steals Snape's glory when he tries to expose Quirell, so DD's eyes are on Harry and not on Snape, and this must have brought back so many memories, for it was James who stole his glory when he himself was a student. Then in CoS, Snape again tries to prove to DD what an incompetent jerk Lockhart is by trying to expose him for what he is, and again it is Harry who ends up running the show. Then in the third year, the old wounds are really ripped open because not only does DD give the DADA job to Lupin of all people, the one he would have been killed by if it weren't for James -- he tries to warn DD all year about him helping his friend Black, and when he finally faces the inner demon himself, DD helps him escape proving to him once again that Snape has to take a back seat to all of them, just like the time he is sworn to secrecy while all four got away, and James even got rewarded a year later with the headboy badge. Then in GoF, Fake!Moody puts the final nail in the coffin by announcing that DD doesn't really trust him, as he gave him permission to search his office and this while Snape has been trying to warn DD all year his mark is getting darker as the pensieve memory shows, and how does DD react? That he already knew, even if he wasn't told. So, when in the hospital wing Snape is again confronted with Sirius Black, I believe Snape lost all faith in DD, and I really believe that sending Snape to LV was DD's biggest mistake, because it meant losing control over him entirely. Snape's hatred for DD has been building over these 4 years, and I believe that OotP was the climax where Snape lost the intention to be on the right side; and I believe it did not go unnoticed. I even believe that DD noticed the delay in time it took Snape to send the Order to the DoM, and it might even have caused DD to decide to finally give Snape the DADA position because he knew he had already lost him. Slughorn's memory of LV asking about the Horcruxes does not require him to be a teacher, even if it did make it easier. DD did not even needed Harry to retrieve it if push came to shove. I believe it was convenient for DD to make Harry do it because it would keep him preoccupied and out of Draco's way. Snape's attempts in all the books to get Harry expelled, I believe, are sincere, because I believe the fight between Snape and Harry are about sibling rivalry: to get a father's attention even if Harry is not playing the same game. Snape has been trying to prove to DD he is loyal to him by keeping Lupin's problem a secret, even at the cost of his own pain: he then returns after a short stroll as DE and spies for DD, which I believe was real even if LV suggested it, because it just provided a chance for Snape to get out, and then he works for DD for 10 years without causing problems, and in all his attempts to warn DD about the people he is hiring, and again turning spy for him, DD still makes him second to Harry/ James. When Snape felt he could never win DD's attention, he also lost his loyalty to DD and thus the side of light, and he made the same decision he made when he was a young man: that the Dark Side had more to offer. Only problem is, Snape still has the lifedebt and it will come into play in book 7, and there we will see that Sirius' little joke will save both Snape and Harry. Because it will force Snape out of LV's camp, and Harry's side will be the only one left, and Snape will take it. For those who might wonder why DD did not mention to Harry that Snape might have turned, and also why DD would never ask Snape to kill him in front of Harry, is because he knows what hate can do to you, that it can consume you and that it will drive all love out of you if you let it control you. Snape would not have died, not by UV or at the hands of LV, if he let DD die on his own accord (if he was really dying from the potion from the cave), so if Snape by legillimency saw DD was dying he could have stalled to let DD die because you cannot kill someone that is already dead, and the vow to do the task Draco was ordered to do would nullify at that same moment. Harry would not have hated Snape even more and Snape could still cross over to LV if that was really what DD wanted of him, and also order out the DE because DD's death was the end of the mission, end of story. So it is very improbable that DD died seconds before Snape AKed him and Snape still going through with it. Snape killed DD because he hated DD for not choosing him, not even when he spied for him at great personal risk. He still chose Harry, and thus James' and Sirius' side. Okay I'll stop now, and if you made it to here, thank you for your patience with this extremely long rant. Dana From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 05:41:31 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:41:31 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165922 > Eggplant: > Everybody knows about the mysterious "Gleam of triumph" passage in > Goblet of Fire, but there is another strange remark made way back in > book 2, it came right after Harry first found the diary but before he > found out how to use it: > > "While Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, > it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was > a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. But > this was absurd. He'd never had friends before Hogwarts, Dudley had > made sure of that." > (Chamber of Secrets, 233-34) > > I've read 4 Potter books since then but I still don't know what that > was all about. A friend?! > Neri: This "half forgotten friend" is a very important clue, I believe, one that points to the very heart of the Harry Potter mystery. And it joins a whole line of other subtle clues, all pointing to those early years of Harry with the Dursleys, just after GH. Years that are suspiciously shrouded in mystery, that are "half forgotten", and I suspect for very good reasons. I recommend reading Chapter 2 of SS/PS again, where you'll come across some of them. Here's something that, when you think about it, seems just as absurd as that "friend" word: *********************************************************** Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair and bright-green eyes. He wore round glasses held together with a lot of Sellotape because of all the times Dudley had punched him on the nose. The only thing Harry liked about his own appearance was a very thin scar on his forehead which was shaped like a bolt of lightning. He had had it as long as he could remember and the first question he could ever remember asking his Aunt Petunia was how he had got it. "In the car crash when your parents died," she had said. "And don't ask questions." ************************************************************ Harry *liked* his scar. Not his "green-bright" eyes, which are also special, and not his black hair that he got from his father. The only thing he liked about his own appearance was the scar, despite it being a constant reminder of the accident in which he'd lost his parents. Why? Perhaps because in his subconscious it was also connected with a certain half-forgotten friend? The only friend he had in his early childhood? Note also that the Dursleys, although they certainly don't want to take Harry with them to the zoo, refuse to let him stay alone in the house. "And come back and find the house in ruins?" asks Petunia rhetorically. She seems to think it was baby Harry who blew up his parents' house on them. It was all his fault. But why would she think such a thing? She knows about Voldemort, after all. Perhaps she blames Harry because he had some destructive incidents of uncontrolled magic in front of her? But Harry doesn't remember such destructive incidents. He only remembers innocent things like flying to the school's roof and growing his hair back overnight. He protests: "I won't blow up the house" and doesn't recall any such incidents. Or maybe he had "half forgotten" them too? And it seems that there was at least one really bad incident. And very suspiciously, Dudley has forgotten about it too. But under the effect of a dementor he recalls it, and it was the worst memory he had in his life, something so bad he won't talk about it. Harry wonders what it is, and JKR promised we'll find out, so you can bet it's important. But what could terrorize Dudley so badly? Reminds you of a certain boy who had a hobby terrorizing muggle children? Only if it was him again, then he was terrorizing Dudley but *not* Harry. Well, of course he wasn't ? he was Harry's *friend*. Oh, and there's another person who's very interested in Harry's half forgotten years with the Dursleys. It's Snape. Instead of teaching Harry some useful ways of blocking Voldemort he was spending all the Occlumency lessons digging after Harry's "very early memories he had not even realized he still had" (OotP, Ch. 26). What was so interesting about these old memories? And yet, all Snape could dig up was things like Dudley making Harry stand in the toilet, and that's very strange in itself. Since when is Harry such a good Occlumens that he can block Snape? Or was it someone else who blocked Snape? Someone who unlike Harry is very good at Occlumency? Someone who was always very good at making people forget? Someone who could hide the really interesting memories without Snape or Harry even realizing that he did? Well, it looks like that someone has managed to fool Snape, because only a few moths after the Occlumency lessons, in Spinner's End, Snape mentions to Bella that in the beginning he had thought Harry might be another Dark Lord, but now he's convinced Harry is useless. But I think Snape wasn't realizing how much he was right about one thing: Harry was indeed only saved by "more talented friends". There's that word again. I suspect JKR had a very ironic smile on her face when she wrote it. Because if we accept all these clues, then we must conclude that that someone *is* a friend of Harry. Not a very nice friend, perhaps ? he still has that nasty hobby of terrorizing muggle children ? but the point is that he doesn't terrorize Harry. He helps him. He seems to like his current hiding place in the back of Harry's mind, a half forgotten friend, and he wants to stay there. Perhaps he's very afraid of what Harry would think of him if he ever finds out, and this is why he decided to go underground when Harry grew up. He's mostly very careful not to draw attention to himself, to his knowledge and powers. But when Harry is in mortal danger, that someone would save him even if it means destroying old parts of himself. Remember, when Harry destroyed a Horcrux (and unlike the great Dumbledore without any damage to himself) he did it "without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along" (CoS, 14). Or anyway, some half forgotten friend in the back of Harry's mind had meant to do it, if there would be need, and had also known *how* to do it. And you know, a friend in need is a friend indeed. So I don't think there's anything absurd about that "friend" paragraph in CoS. I think it's the whole point. Neri From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 06:37:32 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:37:32 -0000 Subject: Lily and Snape WAS Re: Snape as the HBP (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > Carol, who just does not get this compuslion to discredit Snape, > especially on the part of DDM!Snapers > > > > > > > Valky: > > LOL, I sense a vague swipe at PotionsGenius!Lily here. ;) > > Carol: > Guilty as charged. But I still don't think that she and Severus > would have worked together, a Gryffindor and a Slytherin (rival > Houses) who didn't even share a common room to study in together, > especially after the "worst memory" incident. And, as I said, it's > very likely that James and Sirius were also in the NEWT Potions Valky Now: I'm happy to concede the likelihood of James and Sirius joining NEWT potions is there, I wouldn' call it 'very' likely, just personally, but even so, I should say that nothing I am suggestin here IMO is at all dependent on James' absence or unknowing. I don't at all suppose that Lily was the kind of girl who felt any need to have her friendships, associations or alliances in class justified by the approval of the likes of Gryffindor's in-crowd. In any case, at most I see her simply conducting herself in a genuine and helpful manner around Snape anyway and him simply being observant of the valuable information that she was able to share in the classroom. Carol: > My point is that just because Lily was also good > at Potions doesn't mean that she should be credited with performing > the HBP's research. Valky replies: My point is that with this third element of the potions text (the practical hints) there is no evidence of exploratory research to credit the HBP with. Other than that I am simply taking clues from Slughorn's comments about intuitive understanding of potions as one of Lily's finer traits and extrapolating an idea from it. Carol: > Those Potions hints are clearly the result of > hands-on research (trying various ways to crush a sopophorous bean, > adding various ingredients to eliminate side-effects, stirring > clockwise and then counterclockwise) the kind of thing that was not > necessarily done in the classroom but more likely out of class, away > from prying eyes. Valky: I disagree on the idea that it is 'clear' they are the result of exploratory research conducted by the writer. IMHO if it was *clear*, then the problem would be listed with the solution in the text notes, or other ideas that were explored as a solution would appear in the same context. Above you say 'various' a lot, which is quite erroneous, isn't it. There is no 'various' in the notes, there is no various ways of dealing with the spophorous bean or even a consideration as to why releasing more juice wuld be preferable, there is not various ingredients added in some exploratory manner to remove side effects either, there is only the right answer written down beside the crossed out inferior original text. In every case, all that is written in terms of practical hints is *One* Solution. That's it. The problem isn't mentioned, the cause of the problem isn't considered, alternative solutions are not noted. There is no clear evidence of research here to count on. I admit that does not mean it wasn't done by Snape, it certainly could have been. My point is that it is not a given that Snape *researched* these solutions, it's a given that he *wrote them down in their completed and correct form*. Nothing more or less than that. If being right is all the evidence anyone needs to assume that you researched to solution then why not credit Harry the same way? Carol: > He seems to be applying the > results of his own long-term research to his teaching, which is why > he casts directions on the board rather than assigning them from the > book and knows exactly what will go wrong at every step. > > Valky: But you see, to Slughorn, Harry seems to be applying the results of his own research. That does not make it so. Applying good results is not proof that you did the research, or what have you, that brought the end about. > Valky: > > #2 and #3 as far as I can see are more ambiguous elements, > especially #3 and I'll get to why that in a moment. First #2 is > slightly ambiguous as to where the totality comes from; > > Carol: > I don't understand this sentence. Valky: I meant what was explained in the following part. The explanatory notes to the theory text could come from various sources. The teacher or lecturer is supposed to be one of those sources, but Slughorn isn't all that great at that part of his job. So I mean that there is no way to be sure that all the element 2 notes (the totality) came from one source. However chances are good that almost all of it came from SS's own clever interpretations and study, he should be credited with that. > Carol: > There's a world of difference in the creation of spells and Potions > hints. In the spells, he's thinking in writing (as we do when we > respond to a post). With Potions research, you can't do that. You > don't write, Wonder what will happen if I add a mint leaf? You add > the mint leaf and see what happens. Valky: No, I completely disagree. This contradicts what you wrote above about researching a solution to a problem. With adding the mint leaf to solve a problem of side effects a body of evidence is needed to credit someone with the research. First that body of evidence should define the problem, it should breakdown the problem into possible causes, each likely cause will have a possible solution. The researcher then narrows down that list by considering the probabilities of each of the components being the problem and or each of the idea being a solution. Then the most likely things are tested, then the solution is produced. Now again, I am not saying Severus did not do this research. I am only saying that without the body of evidence, how can we be sure he did? Carol: > Severus is recording the results of > his experiments (and perhaps an occasional observation). There's no > need for a paper trail. Valky: In Snapes terms, no. He doesn't need to keep a paper trail. I agree. And if he did the research and decided not to note any of those steps in his texts that is no problem *he* does not need them. It is *we* who need them. Before we can say anything more conclusive about Snape's NEWT work than Slughorn can say about Harry's NEWT work, *we* need to see the proof. Carol: > He's not keeping a diary of his > experiments, including the failed attempts; he's making marginal > notes that he can use later. Valky: Yes he is including the failed attempts of his work in this book. The failed attempts at Levicorpus are there in black and white. > Carol responds: > Severus wouldn't need cross-outs with regard to his Potions > experiments, which are hands-on research involving potion > ingredients and a cauldron--for example, crushing the sopophorous > bean with the dull side of the blade or adding a mint leaf. Valky: A LOT of potions inredients to waste, you mean. Don't we see a Snape who is conservative with his ingredients and who values a good pre-thought-out methodology in what he does. I honestly can't see a Snape who would trial methods in practice only never making a single note until the right thing happened. We have the Book itself as evidence that Snape writes things down when he is alone with his work, and the pensieve scene where after his exam he sits under a tree, to think and write and write and write. > Carol, who thinks that Snape wouldn't react as he does to Harry as a > supposed Potions prodigy if he thought that Harry was taking credit > for Lily's research rather than Snape's own > Valky who thinks Snape would go to great lengths to dissociate himself from his guilt over Lily's death, even to the extent of dissociating Harry from Lily and focussing only on James who his memory of is easier to deal with. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 07:16:10 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:16:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703092316w36b02f1ai18ba82f81684100e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165924 a_svirn: Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. Lynda: Has he been then? Irrevocably? There is more to the story, after all, that we readers have not yet knowledge of. Yes. It may be as you say. Snape is ESE and Hermione's statement will turn out to be just that, the statement of a schoolgirl who has misjudged one of her professors that she trusts only because her headmaster chose (wrongly) to trust him. Or there could be more to the story. I choose to keep an open mind until JKR reveals the truth. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 11:14:18 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:14:18 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position (very long) (Not quite so Long reply) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165925 > Goddlefrood earlier: > I postulate that Dumbledore figured out that he could not > keep a DADA teacher for more than a year within a short time > of his interview with LV. Why then would Dumbledore give the > job to a useful man like Snape? Clearly Snape, despite his faults, > is a competent and able teacher and is particularly gifted at > Potions as indicated by his identity as the Half-Blood Prince. > It is also worthy of note that Dumbledore did not believe > Voldemort was finished and he would, therefore, want to maintain > one of his most useful spies in case LV returned as we know he > subsequently did. > Carol responded (in part): > I agree with you here. So long as Voldemort has not returned, > that is, up until the end of GoF, Dumbledore would undoubtedly > want Snape on hand in his other area of expertise, Potions, and > to watch over Harry and keep contact with Death Eaters, such as > Lucius Malfoy. Goddlefrood now: The good Professor continued in his position as Potions Master in year 5 also, don't forget. Even though the Ministry did not acknowledge LV's return, Snape knew of it, from his Dark Mark and he met him, two hours or so after the grevayard scene, so why, pray, did he not leave at that point, or at the latest at the end of year 5? Didn't serve Voldemort's purpose very much now really did it? Can we perhaps be enlightened :) on the usefulness of Snape remaining at Hogwarts. I suggest that there was no purpose being served by having Snape remaining at Hogwarts for year 5, other than perhaps a continued wish to somehow back up the story of the Ministry that LV had not returned (and I really can't see how that would work). If Snape were to be useful to Dumbeldroe, as suggested by Carol in a bit I snipped (sorry about that), then surely he would have been *more* useful away from Hogwarts than at it. He would have been able to spy more effectually, I propose, by getting in more with Voldemort and his plans over the course of OotP, which, other than the Prophecy issue, we are not so far privy to. Surely it is no great leap to infer that LV was doing other things apart from tracing down ways to get the Prophecy record. Carol went on: > Fake Veritaserum in OoP. Goddlefrood: The who or the what or the where now? (It was mentioned, but not seen) and yes I know the one about Barty Crouch Jnr. being given it > Carol, a little later on: > I agree with you that the DADA position is indeed cursed and > that DD doesn't want to give it to Snape until he has no other > choice (despite Snape's qualifications and any desire he may or > may not have for a job that he must know is jinxed or cursed). Goddlefrood: It's not me who says it, Dumbledore does, and I rarely doubt him. With all due respect, the point of the post responded to by Carol was that Snape himself *did not* want the DADA job. Oh, and almost certainly in the WWW there was a wizard or witch somewhere whom DD could have persuaded to take the DADA job somehow, he has that effect on people. Additionally, if he had no other choice I find it unlikely that the Ministry would have been unable to parachute someone in (although not a la Umbridge). Carol again: - Summary of years 1 to 4 > So far, so good. We can see why Snape reacted to them as he did, > and we can see why DD would hire these people rather than Snape, > whether Snape wants the position or not, for a position that DD > knows to be cursed or jinxed. But why allow the MoM to bring in > Umbridge, who is clearly a spy for Fudge and who intends (as DD > must know from the booklist) to teach a useless theory-based DADA > course? DD knows that Snape is much more qualified to teach the > course than Umbridge is. Why not give it to him instead of her? > The answer can only be that he wants Snape to remain with him at > Hogwarts. Goddlefrood: I see what you're saying, but refer you to my earlier herein (briefly - what purpose does it serve?). It was brought up in the earlier discussion that the Ministry would have forced Umbridge on DD even if he had wanted to appoint Snape at that point. The argument was a good one, in many ways a better one than put forward in the post to which this responds. However, personally I don't see it. DD is the most powerful wizard of his age (I like that he's the only wizard of his age - that we've met anyway) and if he wanted something he would not have let the Ministry override him. His purpose (in year 5) to make the Ministry announce to the WWW that LV has returned is served in no way that is clear to me by accepting Dolores as the DADA teacher and not appointing Severus. Happy to be enlightened :) > Carol > I agree that Snape seems not to know, when he talks about OWLs > in OoP, that he won't be back as Potions master next year, or > that DD will want him as DADA teacher instead, but the battle at > the MoM has not yet occurred, and Voldemort has not yet assigned > Draco to kill DD. By the end of OoP, Dumbledore surely knows that > it's time to hire Snape as DADA teacher, and the encounter with > the ring Horcrux clinches the matter.> Goddlefrood: -previous quoted material > You're overlooking a wealth of other information about Snape > that comes from GoF, notably that he "returned to our side" > (what does hat mean, anyway?) and began spying for Dumboedore > "at great personal risk" before Voldemort was vaporized. Goddlefrood: Not at all, I was arguing a case for Snape not wanting the DADA job at all, so why would this and some of the other material be relevant exactly? I can certainly help you on the question above though. It is stated quite clearly that no one leaves the Death Eaters. You're either in or you're dead, basically, as Sirius told us in OotP. "It's a lifetime of service, or death" or words to that effect. Had Voldemort known Severus was working against LV back in the day could you see him lasting long? At that point, although I have to concede, we don't really know, LV appears to have been more powerful than he is in his current incarnation. Severus may be many things, but he's no fool. He would have had to give LV the very firm impression that he (Severus) was still on LV's side if he really had become DDMSnape. > Carol: > (I'm by no means denying, BTW, that he loves Potions and is an > expert in the subject. But he's an expert in DADA as well, as we > see again with his detailed answers on the DADA OWL in "Snape's > Worst Memory" and his easy, nonverbal deflection of Harry's > curses in "Flight of the Prince.") Goddlefrood: Apart from the non-verbal spell lesson, the Flight of the Prince (which shows Snape is an excellent duellist) and not forgetting his knowlegde of hexes and curses as an 11 year old newly arrived at Hogwarts there is not a great wealth of material to support the assertion that Snape is any more expert in DADA than Harry, for example. If Harry can get the hang of non-verbal spells, and he's done several without knowing, other than Levicorpus, then I see no reason to not say, as I now will, that Harry would be better than Severus. He's 16, Severus is 37 (or so) so (as Americans might say) go figure. - More material and quotes, one little bit to add > Carol later: > preliminary > (though he may be consulting with DD about it in private and > apparently tries to find out whether Harry is the Heir of > Slytherin by having Draco cast Serpensortia) Goddlefrood: My impression of that scene was that Snape wanted to show Harry up in front of the school. I believe by then he had already figured out that Harry was a Parselmouth. It is nothing more nor less than petty one-upmanship on Severus's part IMHO. It appears (if one cares to read through Carol's) that she agrees with me on this point, a little later in material I have snipped for the purpose of this reply. I'm quite tired now, it's late and I appreciate there was a wealth of more more material in Carol's well put together post. My view remains unchanged *at this point*. Further argument specifically on the matter of whether Snape actually did want the job would be welcome. Goddlefrood who once more puts forward for your consideration adopting LANOSnape (looking after number one) From juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 10 12:17:15 2007 From: juleyjubes at yahoo.co.uk (juleyjubes) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:17:15 -0000 Subject: Snape saved Harry on the "Lightning-struck tower" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165926 After recetly re-reading the end of HBP I have been thinking about the end of the Lightning-Struck Tower chapter (UK hardback edition page 556) where Snape "gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face". Dumbledore said, "Severus...please". After which, Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at DD and said "Avada Kedavra". Now making some assumptions here..... - Snape knew where DD and Harry had gone that evening and what they were doing. - Snape knew what was in the basin (he had helped LV make it). - Harry feeding it to DD meant he was effectively killing him. - It really was an Avada Kedavra curse from Snape to DD. Maybe Snape and DD had a prior agreement that when they got back he would have to finish DD off to avoid Harry becoming a killer. Maybe that is why he had the look of revulsion and hatred, being forced to help a student he so obviously disliked. However, knowing the prophecy (did he or didn't he know the full prophecy - I think maybe he did) he knew Harry had to stay alive and fully intact to be able to achieve his destiny of defeating LV. Juley (Who is seriously creeped out after having re-read this chapter and realising how scary Greyback is). From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Mar 10 13:23:05 2007 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:23:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR...HP and world events Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165927 In a message dated 3/8/2007 9:37:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bartl at sprynet.com writes: I doubt anybody bragged about being a witch. ------------------------- Sherrie here: Actually, there were at least two who did that we have record of. One was Dorcas Good, daughter of Sarah Good, one of the first accused; though Dorcas' bragging didn't come til she confessed and testified against her mother in court. (She was five at the time, and her father later sued because she was never right in the head after her release from prison.) The other was Abigail Hobbes, a teenage girl who boasted to friends that she had "sold herself body and soul to the Old Boy" and that she had "seen the Devil and made a covenant with him." (Hansen, Witchcraft at Salem, pp. 63-64.) (Arthur Miller took a bit of Hobbes when he created his character for Abigail Williams in The Crucible, IMHO. It's certainly NOT the historical Williams!) Tituba, the Carib Indian slave whose entertainment of the girls with fortune-telling triggered the troubles, also speaks freely of the "Black Man" (a Puritan euphemism for the Devil) in her confessions and testimony. No, it wasn't The Thing To Do Around Salem in 1692 - but it did happen. Sherrie (who started reading about Salem in 6th grade, & just happened to be going back over all this in preparing a director's proposal for The Crucible...)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 14:25:44 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:25:44 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165928 Dana: > Of course it is besides the fact that the majority of fans seem to hold this view while JKR specifically states it is not easily guessable what will happen in book 7 or she will be extremely annoyed. Ceridwen: While the interviews, and answered questions at JKR's site, are useful and considered canon-compatible if not actually canon for the purposes of this list, I tend to take what JKR says with a grain of salt. In this case, what stops me from believing her unequivocally, is that this is a book series for children and "young adults" - teens - who may not have read as extensively as the adults on this and other lists. For the target audience, any scenario will be harder to guess than it would be for adults. Dana: > From a logical standpoint, Snape's reaction in the forest makes no sense if DD indeed asked him to kill him. Why? Because Snape by that time already believed LV expected him to do it and he committed himself to an UV to do it if Draco failed. Ceridwen: There has been some discussion on this list about that statement of Snape's in Spinner's End. To some, it is a straightforward statement made by one DE to another. To some, it is misdirection by a spy to members of the group he is spying upon. And to some, he didn't mean LV here, but DD. No name is ever mentioned. Dana: > Because all of them (DD/LV/UV) give him the same option. Do it or die. DD's orders are totally irrelevant to the outcome under these circumstances, unless I am to believe that Snape had rather died and had planned to do so. *(snip)* Ceridwen: Another bone of contention between DDM!Snapers and ESE!Snapers. You already understand the ESE!Snapers' side. Some DDM!Snapers do believe that Snape would rather have died than kill Dumbledore, but the curse on the DADA position manipulated events to make sure he had to do it in the end. The reason for wanting to die varies, I think, from one proponent to another. Snape wants to be recognized as a hero and will go out in a blaze of glory; Snape is tired of having to walk the tightrope between DD and LV - it's so nervewracking that he would rather let something kill him at his own discretion than wait for the sudden surprise of LV, for instance, doing it, with some torture for the salad course. There are imagined reasons that fall between the two. And of course, in a series for children and teens, suicide wouldn't be suggested. Another possibility brought up by various posters is that Snape believed that he could get around the wording of the UV. Looking out for Draco's safety is something Snape, as Draco's Head of House, would do anyway. That he is also an old friend of Draco's father would strengthen this sense of obligation, so there was no harm done in taking that part of the UV. Just because Narcissa means something more sinister doesn't mean that Snape is bound to go by her interpretation of keeping Draco safe. Keeping him safe could just as easily mean that he dissuades Draco from doing the deed. Draco rejecting the task to kill Dumbledore would actually be a safe thing for him to do, just as an example. So, getting around that provision would be as easy as having a different interpretation of keeping Draco safe. Dana: > Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? Ceridwen: Dumbledore's death comes in the same book where Slughorn tells young Tom Riddle that murder is an unnatural act, that it is the worst thing in the world to do, that it tears the soul. This is such a horrible outcome on the overall level, that Dumbledore and Snape want to shield Draco from splitting his soul. So, while *Dumbledore's death* doesn't serve Draco for many of the resons you state, having *Draco innocent of murder* serves Draco by leaving his soul unsplit. I think you have outlined Draco's current position in the WW very well, otherwise. He is definitely a fugitive, and guilty of a lot of things. Most DDM!Snape arguments come from the view that Dumbledore and Snape wanted to save Draco from the spiritual catastrophe of tearing his soul, not from the logical outcome of his own decision to act for LV, or for his subsequent actions. Dana: > Maybe Draco will be given a second chance (because LV is in such a good mood now DD is gone), and LV will find someone else for him to kill. Let see if Snape is still bound to the UV this time and do it for Draco again and again and again Ceridwen: I think the UV's provision that Snape do the deed if it seems that Draco is unable, was specific to the Dumbledore assassination. The other two provisions of the UV may or may not still be in effect. There has been some discussion about the UV, its limits, and its effects on Snape. There is quite a bit of disagreement as well as some areas where most posters agree. Yes, some have suggested that Draco will be cut some slack because the deed was actually done, and that was what LV wanted. Whether it is because this puts him in a good mood, or because it serves his overall mission, we just don't know. We don't know that he will let Draco off the hook. We do know that by the time of Dumbledore's funeral, the bodies of Draco, Narcissa and/or Snape have not surfaced to show that LV was displeased. Dana: > By the way, isn't it interesting that in the US version DD suggests something entirely different? Doesn't this suggest that if Snape and DD arranged this, then saving Draco was never part of it, why else suggest something different to the boy if all as been arranged in the first place? Ceridwen: Yes, it's very interesting that the only place where the "can't kill you if you're already dead" line shows up is in the US hardcover edition. There has been a lot of discussion about this point alone, let alone why it was introduced to Draco in the first place. It isn't necessarily "entirely different", but it is an odd thing that this part of the discussion was in the US hardcover edition and in no other. And, there is the problem of Draco not wanting to tell Snape what he's doing through HBP. He accuses Snape of trying to "steal his glory". He keeps his activities secret, even from his closest friends at school, Crabbe and Goyle. Since he was being uncooperative, there was no chance to make the offer until DD made it on the Tower. There may never have been a chance to make the offer, since Draco was trying alternative methods of killing DD - the necklace and the poisoned mead - and may not have been available for a talk like the one we eventually did see. Proponents of the Dumbledore Stages It All theory suggest that DD's plan tried to cover every eventuality. I imagine that the answer from that theory's viewpoint would be that not having the opportunity to broach the subject with Draco would be part of their contingency plans. Dana: > Oh, but there is more of course, because Snape fans will say DD asked this of Snape because Snape is more important to Harry alive. How? *(snip)* Ceridwen: First, some have suggested that DD did tell someone in the Order about the plan so Snape's ability as a spy would not be hindered. This person would be his contact, and would pass information along without revealing the source. Not every Order member was shown reacting to Snape's AK of DD. So there could be a contact person in the Order who was not in the hospital wing when the news was announced. A second suggestion has made use of the Patronuses as a communication method unique to the Order. This draws in the Tonks/Remus storyline. Tonks's Patronus changed shapes because of emotional upheaval. If Snape is DDM and is emotionally overwrought because of what he did on the Tower, his Patronus might change so that it is unrecognizable to other Order members as his own. It would still be received with trust, because communicating with Patronus is something that only the Order does. Dumbledore taught them this method, and it is unique to their group. So an unknown Patronus used in this way would be accepted because the person sending it must have been instructed by Dumbledore on this use. A third suggestion is that someone in the Order or close to Harry will figure out that something isn't right about the AK on the Tower, and will do some digging and put things together to arrive at the conclusion of DDM!Snape. The two most likely candidates suggested are Hermione and Remus. A fourth is what you suggest further down: that no one will know, but in the end, Snape will prove himself to Harry's satisfaction in a dramatic way. In most of these scenarios, Snape is helping behind the scenes - fomenting dissention in DE ranks; finding and at least informing Harry anonymously about the location of undiscovered Horcruxes; biding his time at LV's hand, soaking up information, and constructing a plan that will be useful in what we all tend to think of as the Final Battle. Dana: > Everybody keeps saying that Snape has tried over and over to save Harry's life, but the only real attempted that has registered with me is in book 1. *(snipping other examples from books)* Ceridwen: People will, of course, disagree with your view that Snape did nothing to help Harry and friends in PoA. I think the 'conjuring stretchers' to get the vulnerable people off the grounds while werewolf!Lupin was at large would be seen by some to be a life-saving measure. And of course, the Dementors were out there, and we know from the beginning of the book that they seem to be attracted to Harry for some reason, and attack him accordingly. So, while getting rid of Sirius may or may not be a motive for taking him into the castle, it would have no part in taking Harry. And in OotP, Snape didn't have to send the Order to the MoM at all. Harry's comments were cryptic (he's got Padfoot at the place where it's kept, if I recall it right), Snape could easily say that he didn't understand and couldn't make eye contact for the purpose of Legillimency with Harry because Harry actively avoided his eyes. Not true, as the readers know. But, Snape could have said it. Dana: > He could have warned to MoM so the DE's would have been surprised by a dozen aurors instead of a couple of teenagers. For g*d sake, they were running around the MoM building: how hard would it have been for an auror to run into them without any risk to Snape's cover? Ceridwen: Since they didn't run into a dozen Aurors, it is feasable to assume that Aurors don't frequent the department in the MoM that the DEs and the DA were running around. I expect that LV would know this, since at least one of his people works at the MoM. If a dozen Aurors showed up, it would have been a tip-off that someone was passing LV's secrets. Plus, at this point, official Ministry stance on the return of Lord Voldemort is that he hasn't returned. A tip that LV's DEs were trying to steal a prophecy would probably be written off as a crank call. If they're as sensitive about false reports as many Real Life police departments are, Snape would have been called in to verify, if he could, that the information was correct. We do know that the MoM doesn't adhere to Real Life protocol regarding prisoners such as Sirius Black and Stan Shunpike, so I could easily see them dragging whoever reported a DE attack *in the Ministry itself* down to the Ministry for questioning, as their official line is that LV is not back. This would be reported in the Daily Prophet, and it would probably have gotten to LV sooner because of his own man being in the Ministry. Dana: > Many argue that Snape did not hurt Harry on the way out at the end of book 6, but apparently they forgot Snape was run over by a Hippogriff. Ceridwen: Buckbea... er, Witherwings didn't attack Snape until after his confrontation with Harry. I'm not sure where you're going with this observation, so I can't say any more. Dana: > So what do I think DD asked of Snape in the argument in the forest? Well, I believe DD asked Snape to stop his spying days and help Harry in his task to defeat LV. Ceridwen: But, Snape's spying is helping Harry to defeat LV. Snape brings information to the Order that, apparently, no one has complained about, not even after events on the Tower. It may well have been Snape's information that told Dumbledore that Voldemort knew about the destruction of his Diary Horcrux and blamed Lucius for it, for one example. This gave DD insight into Draco's task and mindset, and to the probable fact, later borne out as truth, that Draco was being set up to die as punishment for Lucius. Another thing is that Snape, or no DE for that matter, can just quit the DEs. Karkarov tried it, and was hunted down and killed. Regulus Black tried it, and died. If Dumbledore is trying to protect the people under him, then he couldn't suggest that Snape just quit the DEs. Suggesting that he stop spying would be the same thing as suggesting that he just drop his membership in that organization, not go when summoned, just like Karkarov didn't go. There are reasons why a leader would want to protect the people depending on him. One very politic reason is that he would lose the trust of the rest of the people under his command if he were to fail one of them in such a way. If he would betray Snape by ordering him to do something that would probably get him killed, then he would betray the rest as easily. Dana: > Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending Snape back to LV in GoF. Ceridwen: You're not the first to see it this way. And, most people see some sort of validity to that argument, even if they don't agree that this sent Snape over the edge. Some would say that, if DD really didn't give Snape the DADA position because he thought it would draw him back into his Dark Arts past, as JKR and, in HBP Spinner's End, Snape himself, says, then sending him back to LV, where the use of Dark Magic is expected and encouraged, would do the same thing in spades. Dana: > Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in DD. *(snipping) * Ceridwen: Your support for this makes for a very sympathetic reading of Snape. I'm not sure you meant to do that, but you were very eloquent about the situations and their results. I just wanted to reach out and pat his head for this! *ahem* (putting tissue away) Again, others have suggested the same scenario. Snape felt betrayed by DD, he felt as if he lost position with FatherFigure!DD when Harry arrived and supplanted him as the favorite son. It's possible from an OFH (Out For Himself) or even an ESE viewpoint. It's also possible from a DDM viewpoint with a Snape who is somehow feeling angsty but still determined to be against LV. Dana: > Only problem is, Snape still has the lifedebt and it will come into play in book 7, and there we will see that Sirius' little joke will save both Snape and Harry. Because it will force Snape out of LV's camp, and Harry's side will be the only one left, and Snape will take it. Ceridwen: Interesting prediction, given ESE!Snape. And, very interesting that you credit Sirius with starting these wheels in motion. It's true, but most people don't go back that far. It does carry out the thread of choices having a bearing on future events, though. Very interesting. If Snape turns out to be ESE, then I would want to see something like this as it does carry the theme. Dana: > For those who might wonder why DD did not mention to Harry that Snape might have turned, and also why DD would never ask Snape to kill him in front of Harry, is because he knows what hate can do to you, that it can consume you and that it will drive all love out of you if you let it control you. Ceridwen: Very true. And, this has also been discussed. Harry already hates Snape unreasonably at the beginning of HBP. He blames him for Sirius's death. He admits to himself that he only feels this way because it makes him feel better. Harry's hatred has already begun. And, I do believe that he has to get rid of it in order to use the Patented Power of Love to vanquish LV. To me, getting rid of, releasing, his hatred, would be like cleaning a gun before using it. A lot of DDM!Snapers are worried about Harry's apparent slide into hatred because of his Love being necessary to defeat LV. Dana: > Snape would not have died, not by UV or at the hands of LV, if he let DD die on his own accord (if he was really dying from the potion from the cave), so if Snape by legillimency saw DD was dying he could have stalled to let DD die because you cannot kill someone that is already dead, and the vow to do the task Draco was ordered to do would nullify at that same moment. Ceridwen: Probably, the third provision of the UV would have been rendered null and void if DD had died on his own. But we don't know what LV would have to say about that. As you mentioned earlier, we don't have any proof that LV wanted Snape to do this in the end; we don't know that LV will let Draco off the hook if Snape does the deed for him (though he may see the measure as making sure the deed gets done - still, would LV think this way?). And, we don't know if the UV would accept any DD death, or if it must happen at the hand of either the original contracted assassin, or the one who promised to do it if the first failed. We just don't know that much about Unbreakable Vows. So, we can't make the leap that Snape could definitely have waited for DD to finish dying before AK'ing him. Or, we could make the leap that he did wait until DD died, and in that instant, produced the AK that sent the lifeless body over the battlements. And, we don't know that Snape could have easily gone back to LV if he 'slithered out of action' again. He may have actually needed to boost his credits with LV, since he's been sitting at Hogwarts while the others have risked capture at the MoM, for an instance. He may need to prove by actions that he is LV's man. JKR has written this character and his thread in the stories to be ambiguous. As you mentioned at the beginning of your post, it's hard to outguess her, so I don't put anything past her. She is developing this world; we don't know how half the things work in it. We even have debates about things that should probably be straightforward, like whether the WW has habeas corpus or not: Sirius and Stan show that perhaps it doesn't, or perhaps that it has been suspended. So, we're all still in the dark, no matter which side we take in the Snape Debate. Interesting viewpoint on why you support a Snape who wasn't asked or ordered to kill Dumbledore. Thanks for the discussion! Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Mar 10 14:51:03 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:51:03 EST Subject: Fleur Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165929 >Lana >Okay, >My sister and I were talking and she brought up something I hadn't thought about. Fleur... I am a bit bewildered that JK brought her back into the storyline. Why?? It seems odd that someone of no apparent relevance, to me anyway, would be brought back. What are the theories surrounding her? Anyone care to speculate why she was brought back into play? Just seems odd to me unless she will play at least some role in the future battle. Maybe her "charm" as a veela or something? Nikkalmati One of the themes of the books is unity and many listees expect the houses of Hogwarts to be united, as well as the other magical creatures such as centaurs, giants, and house elves to take part in the defeat of LV. In this context, the purpose of bringing Fleur and MM back into the books is to show unity within the WW.. Fleur will represent her school and also Krum will return to represent his school. MM serves a double purpose of representing half-giants. Nikkalmati (sorry if the font looks funny, I am having trouble adjusting it)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 16:12:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:12:30 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165930 --- "juleyjubes" wrote: > Juley: > > .... However, ... I wanted to check something in HBP. > > I have just re-read from the Lightning-Struck Tower >and ... something ... I had (not) ever noticed before. > > ... on page 549 of the UK hard back version of HBP I > have just read, > > Draco, "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised > my mother -" > > Dumbledore, "Of course that is what he would tell you, > Draco, but -" > > I now have a feeling of dread as we know he did make > a promise with Draco's mother! Can Dumbledore really > have got it wrong....? > > ... bboyminn: I think, to some limited extent, we have a question of context. Does 'of course he would tell you that' refer to 'orders' or 'promise'? If you apply it to 'promise' then you may have something, but if you apply Dumbledore's response to 'order' then it is more reasonable series of statements. Let's break it down to illustrate the point - "He hasn't been doing your orders...." "Of course, that is what he would tell you..." OR "...he promised my mother -" "Of course, that is what he would tell you..." Different context, different meaning. Also, note that neither one really finishes his sentence. What does Draco /think/ Snape promised his mother? What would have come after Dumbledore's 'but'? >From out limited knowledge, Draco knows that Snape promised Draco's mother that Snape would look after him? But does he have information from his mother; it seems not since he doesn't seem to believe Snape. So, apparently, he only knows what Snape told him in the overheard converstaion during Slughorn's party. That's not much compared to what Snape actually promised. Also, Draco certainly believes that Snape is one of the loyal Death Eaters. It's not that Draco doubts Snape, it's that Draco like all the DE's is spending his time trying to curry favor with Voldemort. In this case, I'm reminded of the Bartimaeus Trilogy; another story about wizards in London. The wizards in this story are in charge of the government, and they are all so intent on being in favor with the Prime Minister, that they can't accomplish anything. They don't dare make a decision for fear that it is the wrong one. So, rather that take a chance and do something, they spend all their time trying to make the other guy look bad. That is a completely disfunctional organization. Individuals are incapable of independant thinking and problem solving for fear of reprisals. So, what does get done, gets done badly. I think perhaps you are taking Dumbledore's statement as too absolute. He is probably speaking in generalities within the context of this specific conversation. He is not trying to make an all inclusive statement, he is just making the point, that while Draco feels Snape is working for Voldemort, Dumbledore feels he is working for him. Not sure if that helps but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 16:44:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:44:18 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: HBP30, The White Tomb - What if...??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165931 Carol earlier: > > Right. Dumbledore is dead. That, unfortunately, is indisputable. As far as an alternate spell disguised as an is concerned, its sole purpose would be to let Dumbledore die from the poison (or the "unstoppered" ring curse, according to some theories). That way Snape would not be guilty of murder, ... > > bboyminn: > > Just requesting a clarification on this point. Are > you saying that Snape cast /some/ curse against > Dumbledore that threw an alive but fading Dumbledore > off the tower, and we will assume gave him a soft > landing, so that Dumbledore coud die quietly on his > way down? > > The key here being that Dumbledore die on the way down > of either natural or previous causes rather than died > by Snape's curse or the landing. > > Just checking. Carol responds: That's what I'm proposing as a *possibility*, yes. It's even possible, in this hypothesis, that DD died *after* the soft landing. Not long after, of course, because Harry was released from the Freezing Charm and the UV didn't kill Snape. But the point is, doing that would have allowed Snape to get DD off the tower so that he could die from whatever poison was clearly killing him, away from the DEs (especially Greyback), save Draco and Harry, and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. A second *possibility,* having another spell or spells *combined with* an AK, accomplishes all the same objectives but leaves Snape guilty of murder. That version is easier to reconcile with the UV but not with the Freezing Charm, where we have to rely, as we do with your theory, on Harry's state of mind keeping him frozen long enough for Snape to get the DEs off the tower (Brutal-Face was just running out the door as Harry threw off the Invisibility Cloak and zapped him in the back with a Petrificus Totalus. All the others, including Greyback, were on their way down the stairs and out of range.) This second version makes him a more tragic figure but also makes the understanding between him and Harry more difficult to arrive at. Either way, in my view, Snape did what he had to do and what Dumbledore wanted him to do at terrible cost to himself. And either way, I'm certain that he *deliberately* sent DD off the tower to keep Greyback away from him. Had DD's body remained on the tower, the objectives I listed would have been impossible to achieve. Use your imagination. Greyback rushes to the body to ravage it (look at his words on the tower). Snape grabs Draco and tries to run out with him, but Harry, released from the Freezing Charm, throws off his Invisibility Cloak and attacks Snape. Mayhem ensues, with Snape forced to protect the boys and blow his cover or let them be killed or taken as prisoners to the Dark Lord and break the protection clause of his vow in the process. The likelihood of any of the three surviving is slim. *Dumbledore's body had to go over the wall, and I think that Snape did it on purpose to achieve his objectives.* Now, I would happily sacrifice Snape-as-tragic-figure and make him into Snape-as-*apparent*-murderer, which the first version accomplishes. It's like allowing a cancer patient to go off his medication and die naturally from the cancer. In this case, the poison was killing DD but Snape couldn't let DD die *on the tower* for the reasons I've explained. If he's going to die, he had better do it, but offstage so Greyback can't get him and start the mayhem. I realize that your version would also make Snape not guilty of murder, but I don't see a shred of evidence that he was already dead. I know you think that Dumbledore's body behaved like an inanimate object, but wouldn't it have blown up like Voldemort's at GH if he were already dead? And where is the interval between "Severus, please" and his death? Yes, Snape hesitates, allowing time for the exchanged glance and making "Severus, please" necessary, but there's no time between "Severus, please" and the raised wand and the spell itself for him to die, no moment when his expression changes or he slumps down dead. He's still sliding down the wall. (Is he looking at Snape or does he close his eyes before the spell hits? The narrator, seeing Snape as traitor/murderer through Harry's eyes, doesn't tell us.) > > If Snape is guilty of some form of murder, then it makes it extremely difficult for he and Harry to work together as I am convinced the must do before the end of the book. So, if there is some way that Snape could have only /appeared/ to murder Dumbledore, and if somehow Lupin and Hermione can determine this independantly, then perhaps Harry would be open to at least hearing Snape out. Carol: Yes, I know. That's the advantage of the first version of this hypothesis, that Dumbledore died from the poison after he was blasted off the tower and floated down. All that's needed is a green-lit spell that could pass for the AK that the DEs and Harry were expecting Snape to cast. The second version has the advantage of being more probable and fitting better with the UV but does make the understanding with Harry difficult. (If, however, Harry could be made to understand why Snape acted as he did, he would be a model of compassion, a perfect hero in terms of understanding how Voldemort has ruined *Snape's* life as well as those of the Longbottoms and so many others. He did, after all, have compassion for Barty Crouch Sr. for sentencing his own son to Azkaban, a good sign, I think.) What I'm waiting for with regard to your hypothesis is solid evidence, other than the action of a spell on an inanimate object, which I "get" but don't find convincing in and of itself. How and why could he have been "already dead" and yet say the words "Severus, please?" Or if he died after he spoke those words, where is the interval in which to do it and the evidence that he did? > bbpyminn: > My opinion is that Draco will come to the good side through Snape. That is Harry's struggle will be between himself and Snape. Draco's stuggle will also be between himself and Snape. Once Snape and Harry resolve, that opens the door for Draco to come in. But both these strike me as huge problems to overcome. It's going to be interesting. Carol: Here I agree with you completely. > You have refined your claim to 'a normal AK to the extent that we are able to determine'. That seems reasonable, as long as you are doing your best to include everything that might help us determine and not just what serves you. Carol: Now, Steve. What a thing to say! As I said, I'm just stating possibilities, presenting the canon for them, conceding their weak points, pointing out weaknesses in your position, conceding its strengths, and noting points of agreement. I don't think I'm right in anything except the strangeness of the AK and the necessity for DD to go over the ramparts. (JKR could have let him die like Cedric. Why didn't she? Because Snape could never have gotten the DEs and Draco and Harry off the tower had she done so. Just my opinion, but I'd like to see another explanation that fits the bill as well.) Carol, wondering how a person postulating two possible hypotheses (I'm not even calling them theories) without actually arguing for either one could possibly be excluding evidence and doing what serves her From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 10 17:35:29 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:35:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) References: Message-ID: <006e01c7633a$80272310$806c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165932 Dana: Did Snape have a death wish and he was planning to die if DD had not asked him to kill him and save his own life? So the lines of hate in Snape's face are there because Snape hates himself for not dying -- is that what all Snape fans want me to believe? Because hating himself only because DD now expects Snape to kill him makes no sense to me if LV expects him to do it as well, or if he keels over for not doing it when the UV comes into effect. At least for me, there is no logic to it. Why not? Because all of them (DD/LV/UV) give him the same option. Do it or die. DD's orders are totally irrelevant to the outcome under these circumstances, unless I am to believe that Snape had rather died and had planned to do so. In that case of course he could hate himself for being so stupid to be left with so few options, but it doesn't sound logical to me that it would be only DD's request that would install this self-hatred in Snape. Unless of course Snape really did show hate for DD at that moment -- after all Snape does have a nasty tendency to blame everybody else for letting himself get into more than he can handle -- but more on that later. Magpie: I also have no illusions about knowing what will happen, and I have no idea what DD asked or didn't ask Snape to do when and for what! But I can answer this idea by saying that yes, Snape could have had a death wish. The idea, for some, is that Snape planned to die rather than fulfill the vow if necessary and Dumbledore asked him not to do that. Dumbledore, if he asked Snape to kill him at some point, was never saying "do it or die" but "do it because it is for the greater good and will get us closer to killing Voldemort." So the hatred on Snape's face is hatred at what he has to do, which is not what he wanted to do. Of course I can't explain the real circumstances or why Snape took the Vow or why Dumbledore asked him to do this. I can't imagine he literally had a plan that involved Snape killing him--in an emergency situation yes, maybe, but not as Plan A. But I do see a big difference between LV asking Snape to kill DD and DD asking him to do it for the greater good. Dana: Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? The boy can't come back to school for his implications in attempted murder of Kathy, Ron (even if they were not the targets) and Dumbledore, Imperio Madam Rosemerta, and letting DE's into the castle. He can be sent to Azkaban for his involvement in this if the MoM ever catches him, and oh my he is still at LV's mercy and with only Snape, who is now known as a murder, to vouch for him -- and this is helping Draco, how? And just because Harry showed him some pity doesn't mean Draco can now consider himself saved; maybe Harry can do something for him at the end of book 7 (if both of them life that long), but at this moment Draco is still in the same trouble, maybe even more than before DD's death. (so if this was DD plan than it seems like a really poor one) Let's hope LV will let the boy live now that he showed himself too weak for his cause and disobeyed a direct order even if Snape saved the day on assumed orders, because if LV did not mean for Snape to do it in the end as he suggested (by *thinking* it is what LV wants him to do) in the beginning of the book, then Snape himself has a lot of explaining to do, and it might not be enough to protect Draco at the same time. Maybe Draco will be given a second chance (because LV is in such a good mood now DD is gone), and LV will find someone else for him to kill. Let see if Snape is still bound to the UV this time and do it for Draco again and again and again. Magpie: Snape did not keep Draco from being a murderer. Only Draco could keep Draco from being a murderer and he did that by not killing Dumbledore. That seemed important to Dumbledore throughout the year, that Draco realize that about himself. Snape, if he was helping Draco on the Tower, was helping him stay alive by killing Dumbledore in his place, perhaps, now that Draco wasn't a killer. Again, I can't see Dumbledore having a plan that involved Snape murdering him simply for Draco--not Plan A. But I think that protecting Draco as one of his students and perhaps giving him a chance to make better decisions about his life would definitely be important to Dumbledore, just as it was important to him that Snape see the error of his ways all those years ago. DD's offer to Draco (which I don't think is really different in the US and UK versions, Dumbledore just makes it more explicit how his family is going to be protected in one version) does not involve DD's death--obviously not, because once DD is dead Draco can't take the offer. So his original plan couldn't have involved Snape killing him. Snape might have understood that in this situation Dumbledore would want him to kill him, perhaps, because it was the best of many bad choices, but that wouldn't make it Dumbledore's original intention to have Snape murder him. Dumbledore's original plan could never have been for Snape to deliver Draco back to LV. He never intended Draco to go back to LV's clutches. Nor did he want Snape to break his vow and so die either, as I understand it. Dana: At least it doesn't seem like DD has the same plan as Snape fans say he does if he ordered to have Snape kill him because he is more valuable alive (and in LV's camp), because if Draco had taken the offer it would be bye bye Snape. Even if the UV would not be broken Snape would still have to face LV and you can bet your *ss that Bella would bring Snape's head on a silver platter for having her sister and her nephew killed (as no one will tell her about it, she is to loyal to LV and if to many people know then there is too much risk for this plan to fail), and not finishing the job and it would have been the end of the plan. Magpie: Why would Bella be able to complain to LV about Snape getting her nephew and sister killed? LV *wanted* Draco killed. That was his plan. If Dumbledore had lived and LV believed Draco to have died in the attempt, that would be fine with LV. That's what was supposed to have happened. If LV believed the other side also went after Narcissa so much the better. Bella's got nothing to complain about to LV-to do so would be to be complaining about his own plan. Dana: Oh, but there is more of course, because Snape fans will say DD asked this of Snape because Snape is more important to Harry alive. How? So he can tell Harry what LV is going to do next? Or any of the members of the Order? Are they really going to listen to what he has to say? It was DD who trusted him, but he never explained to anyone why. I think it is a little too much to ask of anyone to still keep this in mind when the same person just killed the one who trusted him. Magpie: I've no idea how this would work--but it still doesn't seem strange to me that Dumbledore might think Snape was more valuable alive. Remember, you started out by pointing out that we're supposedly going to be surprised by how Book 7 turns out. So just as we can't assume we know what Dumbledore was doing in protecting Snape, we can't yet say protecting Snape was a bad idea. Dana: By the way -- without the UV Snape could just go to LV and tell him he doesn't want to pretend he is working for DD anymore and that he wants to come out and be a proud DE. This does not require a dead DD -- according to Spinner's End, LV already trusts Snape so he doesn't have to be convinced in this fashion, and Bella is essentially nobody, so why do anything that would risk the entire operation or a plan B for that matter and take an UV? How again does this serve Harry or even Draco? Magpie: No clue--but I don't think this idea, that Snape is killing DD to make himself seem loyal to LV, is necessary for the "DD wanted Snape to kill him" idea. That's just one possible explanation people have come up with--one that I, like you, don't find very compelling. It would be more logical to assume DD wanted Snape on the Order's side helping Harry, but what seems logical to us might not really be the best choice. Plus, I think everything indicates Dumbledore did intend Snape to be on the Order's side. He wasn't planning to die on the Tower by anyone's hand, as evidenced by his offer to Draco, an offer that DD would need to be alive to carry out. Dana: So maybe it is me failing to see what use Snape will be to Harry, but at this moment I see none. I even think Snape will be a lot of trouble because Snape will have to do whatever LV asks of him because if he doesn't, his benefit to Harry is short lived. Besides, we already know that Snape doesn't want to help Harry if he can get out of it. Sure even Quirell tells us Snape doesn't want Harry dead, but is this for the same reason the Order want Harry alive? Or is that pesky lifedebt still at play? Everybody keeps saying that Snape has tried over and over to save Harry's life, but the only real attempted that has registered with me is in book 1. Magpie: I think we're all failing to see it because we can't see it yet--which is a good thing. Though I don't think it's so strange to say Snape is trying to save Harry. Harry is the one who's supposed to kill LV, and he could also have personal reasons for wanting to protect him (his history with Lily and James). That he hates Harry is what makes it interesting, imo, it doesn't make it impossible. Yes, Snape has only tried to save Harry outright once in PS, but how many times does he have to do it? He did it the one time it came down to Harry's life being in danger in front of Snape. So in that case Snape acted in accordance with a person wanting to keep Harry alive whiel Quirrel acted as a person wanting Harry dead. And his sending the Order to the MoM I think does count as Snape acting in the Order's interests, against LV, and in Harry's best interest as well. That Harry "might have been dead" by the time he sent the Order makes no difference that I can see. If Snape sent the Order once he realized Harry had gone off to the MoM he's doing what a person who wanted to protect Harry would do, not someone who wanted Harry dead (and could easily have not sent the Order after him there). He doesn't have to "put his own life on the line" for Harry to act to save him. That's crossing the line from asking for proof he's acting to keep Harry alive into proving he adores Harry to asking for proof he really loves Harry like Sirius did, and Snape's never claimed to do that. He doesn't have to be running to the MoM in a tizzy to make sure Harry's all right to have been the one that was responsible for Harry being all right. Dana: He could have warned to MoM so the DE's would have been surprised by a dozen aurors instead of a couple of teenagers. For g*d sake, they were running around the MoM building: how hard would it have been for an auror to run into them without any risk to Snape's cover? Magpie: I don't understand what you mean. According to what I understood happening, Snape made sure Sirius was all right, which was all that was needed. Once he realized that Harry had gone off to the MoM--something he'd have no reason to suspect earlier--he alerted the proper people and they got there as fast as they could. He alerted the right people, the ones he could alert, and the ones who would know what to do. One of the big issues in OotP is that the Order are the only people who are even listening to the idea that Voldemort is alive. Dana: Many argue that Snape did not hurt Harry on the way out at the end of book 6, but apparently they forgot Snape was run over by a Hippogriff. Snape's so-called hurt expressed in that moment seem to me his hatred for Harry is coming to a climax when Harry called him a coward -- not because Snape just had done a brave thing, but because the whole Harry/ James issue has prevented Snape to live the life he wanted as he is still controlled by a Potter brat in his adult life, and that must really hurt. Magpie: I would think the answer to that is that if Snape is so upset about that why didn't he let the guy keep Crucio-ing Harry? (And I think this was before Snape was chased by the hippogryff--wasn't that just at the very end?) It's not as big of a deal as killing the DE for harming Harry or whatever, but it's another instance of Snape being in a great position to just let Harry get seriously hurt and taking the trouble to stop it. Dana: So what do I think DD asked of Snape in the argument in the forest? Well, I believe DD asked Snape to stop his spying days and help Harry in his task to defeat LV. This would be too much to ask of Snape now that LV trusts him, because if he now renounced LV, he will move up on the "to do list" of things LV needs to dispose of. Magpie: My question to this would be that if Snape is worried about his life being at risk, why did he take a suicide pact earlier in the book? And more importantly, why would Dumbledore ask Snape to stop spying when it was Dumbledore who made him start spying to begin with only a year and a half before? It makes it seem like Dumbledore's asking for show of loyalty from Snape by not spying when Snape's showing loyalty to Dumbledore by being a spy. I can't help but think that despite the fact that Voldemort would want Snape to die if he openly abandoned him, being a spy is still far more dangerous than just being under DD's protection. Dana: This would be something I can see Snape arguing about with DD, and what DD would order Snape to do. Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending Snape back to LV in GoF. I believe Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in DD. And I believe Snape's hate for James, Sirius and, eventually, Harry, is the cause of this. I believe Snape has grown to see DD as a substitute father and until Harry showed up everything was fine, and Snape was a happy camper getting the respect (or forcing it) from all who surrounded him, including DD: but then Harry shows up and in his first year he steals Snape's glory when he tries to expose Quirell, so DD's eyes are on Harry and not on Snape, and this must have brought back so many memories, for it was James who stole his glory when he himself was a student. Magpie: Could certainly be as intriguing a story as any! Dana: Snape's hatred for DD has been building over these 4 years, and I believe that OotP was the climax where Snape lost the intention to be on the right side; and I believe it did not go unnoticed. Magpie: So then Snape was on DD's side until OotP, and then changed his mind. I admit I don't think there's a changing Snape here. I think the two choices are Snape who was basically always LV's man (though one biding his time, as he says), or a Snape who was always DDM since he switched sides, as Dumbledore says. Snape's sending the Order to the MoM is a problem in this scenario where he's switched sides by OotP. If he hadn't done that it's very likely Harry would have been killed, and he's doing it here when in your scenario he's back to being LV!Snape. Dana: I even believe that DD noticed the delay in time it took Snape to send the Order to the DoM, and it might even have caused DD to decide to finally give Snape the DADA position because he knew he had already lost him. Magpie: I think the problem with this is it always focuses on the alleged delay in time when the more obvious question is: why send the Order at all? It's mushy, with Snape having to presumably have to wonder how much time it would take for the kids to be dispatched so that he can send the Order just late enough. Yet in canon we still wind up with the Order showing up and saving Harry because Snape, the only person who could have alerted them, alerted them. We're back to a Snape whose problem isn't that he doesn't act to save Harry, but that he doesn't act to save him in a good enough way, even though Harry is still saved. So we're faced with a situation where Snape did save Harry because he took logical steps to do so, and we have to explain it away. Dana: Slughorn's memory of LV asking about the Horcruxes does not require him to be a teacher, even if it did make it easier. DD did not even needed Harry to retrieve it if push came to shove. Magpie: Canonically we are given reasons that Slughorn has to be a teacher. Dumbledore is bringing him to the school to get the memory while Slughorn's under his protection, and its his being at the school that leads to getting the memory. I agree that Dumbledore didn't really need Harry to do it, but he could use that training of Harry as an extra plus once he had Slughorn at the school, as you say. Dumbledore's bringing in Slughorn to teach Potions does seem to indicate he knows Snape will be gone at the end of the year--the DADA curse would make that clear anyway--but it doesn't mean Dumbledore must suspect Snape. Dana: Snape's attempts in all the books to get Harry expelled, I believe, are sincere, because I believe the fight between Snape and Harry are about sibling rivalry: to get a father's attention even if Harry is not playing the same game. Magpie: How many attempts does Snape make to get Harry expelled, exactly? I don't remember any of them--and I could just be forgetting, but the only times I remember Harry seriously needing to worry about not being at school is connected to pre-school plots, nothing to do with Snape. Sometimes when Snape brings up the idea of expulsion it's taken as Snape trying to get Harry expelled when he Harry being expelled isn't ever really a possibility. By HBP he's no longer bringing up the idea as a scare tactic. Dana: When Snape felt he could never win DD's attention, he also lost his loyalty to DD and thus the side of light, and he made the same decision he made when he was a young man: that the Dark Side had more to offer. Only problem is, Snape still has the lifedebt and it will come into play in book 7, and there we will see that Sirius' little joke will save both Snape and Harry. Because it will force Snape out of LV's camp, and Harry's side will be the only one left, and Snape will take it. Magpie: Ah, so we're back to the Life Debt again. Only the Life Debt is with James, not Harry. James, who died, possibly while Snape was trying to save him. So I don't see how Snape's Life Debt can be so important. It's not with Harry. He's not in Peter's position. Snape may, as Dumbledore says, *feel* that if he saves Harry he'll be even with James and can call it quits, but then he *does* have a reason to protect Harry and is doing so. Dana: For those who might wonder why DD did not mention to Harry that Snape might have turned, and also why DD would never ask Snape to kill him in front of Harry, is because he knows what hate can do to you, that it can consume you and that it will drive all love out of you if you let it control you. Magpie: Dumbledore did more than not tell Harry he thought Snape had turned. He told Harry he trusted Snape completely, just as he told the rest of the Order. He personally guaranteed them that Snape was to be trusted. So he lied. Why would he lie and put them in danger that way? Harry already hates Snape and suspects him of being ESE. Dumbledore's hiding the fact that Harry's right seems like it would lead to more hatred on Harry's part, not less. Dana: So it is very improbable that DD died seconds before Snape AKed him and Snape still going through with it. Snape killed DD because he hated DD for not choosing him, not even when he spied for him at great personal risk. He still chose Harry, and thus James' and Sirius' side. Magpie: So Dumbledore actually knows that Snape is a DE, and that Draco is in fact right about his loyalties. When Snape comes to the Tower he pleads for...what reason? Because he starts to plead as soon as Snape appears. Is he pleading with Snape not to kill him? Were all his claims to "trust Severus Snape completely" just to make it a surprise for everyone else when Snape killed him? And why was he *asking* for Snape when they got back to the Tower at all, if he knew he had turned? -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 10 20:50:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:50:43 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165933 Phyllis D. Barnes wrote: > The Spinners End chapter comes before Dumbledore (okay, Harry) persuades Slughorn to become the new potions teacher. As the previous chapters in the books are sequential in time (except when Harry and Hermione use the timeturner) it is reasonable to assume that Dumbledore and Harry visit Slughorn comes after Snape makes the unbreakable vow. > > The next is pure speculation and is not supported by cannon. IMO after Snape made the promise to Narcissa he immediately told Dumbledore who when given lemons - made lemonade. Dumbledore moves Snape to DADA teacher. This implies that Dumbledore only planned for him to be at Hogwarts one more year (Dumbledore admits in his discussions with Harry that he believes Voldy cursed the position). Next, Dumbledore brought in Slughorn. Therefore, he made arrangements no only for a long-term potions teacher but also a new head of Slytherin House. Under this hypothesis when Dumbledore says "Severus please" he's asking Snape to kill him in futherance of his plans to put people in place to assist Harry in his final fight with Voldemort. Remember at this time Snape is the only "turned" DE oh which we have knowledge. > > On another note I believe that in Deathly Hollows we will learn that when Dumbledore was away from Hogwarts that last year he was very busy putting plans in place. Carol responds: I agree that Dumbledore was busy putting his plans in place, and those plans included hiring Slughorn, who has been hiding from DD as well as from the Death Eaters. Hiring Slughorn solves two problems (aside from keeping him safe and getting that memory)--it provides a replacement for Snape as Potions Master and a potential replacement for Snape as HoH of Slytherin once the DADA curse strikes. It paves the way to give Snape, whose DADA expertise is sorely needed with Voldemort back, the DADA post. "the Other Minister" and "Spinner's End" unquestionably occur on the same night, and the next three chapters clearly follow each other in a chronological sequence. The only question is whether 1 and 2 occur at roughly the same time as 3 through 5 or whether the entire sequence is chronological, as you assume. I think that the three chapters involving Harry and Dumbledore go back to an earlier part of the same night as the first two chapters, so that the Dursley chapter occurs at roughly the same time as "The Other Minister" and the Slughorn chapter occurs at roughly the same time as "Spinner's End." IIRC, the first two chapters occur at the end of a terrible week that includes Emmeline Vance's murder, which suggests that they occur on a Friday night. The next two definitely occur on a Friday night, probably the same one. though I don't have time at the moment to look for canon to support this time frame. If I'm correct, the moment Slughorn accepts the Potions position, Snape becomes by default the DADA instructor--and subject to the DADA curse, which takes the form of the Unbreakable Vow. Narcissa cannot have planned the UV from the beginning or she'd have *wanted* Bellatrix with her. Instead, Bellatrix is following her, trying to keep her from asking Snape for help. (Had Bellatrix not been there, they would have had no bonder and the vow could not have been performed.) I think that either the vow itself, or the unanticipated third provision, occurs as a result of Snape's having become, whether he knows it or not, the DADA teacher and the DADA jinx/curse falling into place. I don't have time to go through the chapters for supporting evidence, but a search for posts with the titles of the chapters as search terms will turn up the necessary canon. (I think the time frame was discussed during the chapter discussions for the first two or three chapters.) BTW, that's "Deathly Hallows," not "Hollows." Carol, who of course shares your conviction that Snape is DDM! but sees him caught in a web of circumstance that stems in part from his own past actions and in part from a malign fate symbolized by the fiery bonds at the end of the chapter From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 11 00:51:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:51:49 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: <006e01c7633a$80272310$806c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165934 Dana wrote: > Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? The boy can't come back to school for his implications in attempted murder of Kathy, Ron (even if they were not the targets) and Dumbledore, Imperio Madam Rosemerta, and letting DE's into the castle. He can be sent to Azkaban for his involvement in this if the MoM ever catches him, and oh my he is still at LV's mercy and with only Snape, who is now known as a murder, to vouch for him -- and this is helping Draco, how? Carol responds: Hi, Dana. Rants feel good, don't they? All of us feel like venting our feelings sometimes when the other side just doesn't get our point of view. And I understand why Harry's point of view would seem like the one the reader is supposed to see as valid. He's the hero, after all. At any rate, those of us who don't see from Harry's point of view aren't being obstinate or trying to upset those who do. We're just trying to explore the canon and see where it leads. All of us, whether we're Snape fans or not, are trying as best we can to find answers that make sense to us, and it's fun and profitable to bounce them off each other because doing so helps us to see the holes in our own theories and speculations. For me, Snape's actions in the previous books (Harry's pov to the contrary) point to Snape as Dumbledore's man, so killing Dumbledore is either out of character, completely inconsistent with Snape as he's already been depicted, or they require an explanation consistent with Dumbledore's man that can be supported by canon. That's what I'm trying to find. I trust Dumbledore's judgment over Harry's, as well. I understand that you don't, but for me it's an important consideration. I've already examined what I think Snape's motives are in taking the Unbreakable Vow (to protect Draco). Certainly, his and Narcissa's first concern is Draco's life. Both of them (rightly) see Draco as being in great danger if he fails in his mission. Narcissa may also see Draco as in danger of being killed by Dumbledore (Snape would know that isn't the case.) If Snape is Dumbledore's man, he would know that Dumbledore wouldn't want Draco to commit murder, or be placed in a position where he would be forced to do so. So, if Snape is Dumbledore's man and if he's already talked the situation over with DD (not knowing about the Vanishing Cabinets, only that Draco's "job" is to kill Dumbledore), he would be under orders to do anything he could to protect Draco, to keep him from killing or being killed. Taking the first two provisions of the Unbreakable Vow fits perfectly with this objective. Even the third one can be explained if Snape's job is not only to protect Draco from harm and death but to keep him from committing murder at all costs. And the cost to Snape is great, whether he dies or commits the murder himself. As far as I can see, no man who's out for himself would subject himself to such a risk. (I don't pretend to know any more than you do about Snape or JKR's intentions for the series. I'm just presenting a scenario that makes sense to me.) As for what Draco would get out of it, Draco is furious at the end of OoP that his father has been arrested, furious with both Harry and Dumbledore. Just as Harry wants revenge against Snape, Draco wants revenge against anyone responsible for his father's humiliation. (Good thing he doesn't know Snape's role in sending the Order to the MoM!) Here's Draco in OoP: "'You're dead, Potter.' . . . Malfoy looked angrier than Harry had ever seen him. . . . [H]is pale, pointed face [was] contorted with rage. "'You're going to pay. . . . *I'm* going to make you pay for what you've done to my father. . . . You think you're such a big man, Potter. You wait. I'll have you. You can't land my father in prison--'" (OoP Am. ed. 851). Draco is furious, bent on revenge. Conveniently, as we discover later, he knows about the Vanishing Cabinet providing a means of entry into Hogwarts. Can he be already thinking about a means of bringing DEs into Hogwarts? That would be revenge, all right, and not only Harry but Dumbledore would pay. Draco and his friends attempt to ambush Harry and his friends on the Hogwarts Express but don't get a chance to say anything because they're immediately attacked by DA members (864). We can assume, however, that the attack has done nothing to change his feelings and may well have intensified them. We've already seen Draco, in GoF, gloating about the Dark Lord being back: "'You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this! Too late now, Potter! they'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Mugglelovers first!" (729) Like Regulus Black before him, he associates the Dark Lord's agenda with pureblood supremacy. He also, like Wormtail before him, wants to be associated with the winning side. Now, in HBP, he has actually joined up (or been recruited, take your pick) and has a "job" to do for the Dark Lord, which he is taking very seriously (and, unlike the adults, actually believes that he can accomplish). We see in the scene in Madam Malfoy's shop that his anti-"Mudblood" prejudices remain in place. We see him in Knockturn Alley threatening Borgin with "retribution" via Fenrir Greyback if Borgin doesn't give the "problem" his full attention. It's clear in hindsight that the Vanishing Cabinet plan is already in operation, and at least one DE, a terrifying one, is involved. On the Hogwarts Express, Draco hints to his friends that he's moving on to "bigger and better things" than Hogwarts and asks them whether the Dark Lord will care how many OWLs or NEWTs anyone has, and he answers himself, "Of course, he isn't It'll be all about the kind of service he received, the level of devotion he was shown" (151). and then he states openly that the Dark Lord has assigned him a "job" (152). So Draco's "devotion" to the Dark Lord, taking his father's place as a Death Eater, seems to have merged with his desire for revenge, which involves the "job" (killing the old "Muggle lover," as he calls Dumbledore in CoS) and the "plan" (getting DEs into Hogwarts as backup). As for Harry, he's now small potatoes. Draco Petrifies him to make him fall out of the luggage rack in his Invisibility Cloak, stamps hard on Harry's face ("That's for my father"), then covers him with his Invisibliity Cloak so he won't be found and treads on his fingers (154). For the remainder of the book, except for unavoidable encounters with harry (including the Sectumsempra scene, where he retaliates furiously after Harry sees him crying in desperation), his concern is with his "job" and his "plan." He *has* to kill Dumbledore, which he can't do without fixing the Vanishing Cabinet and getting the DEs into Hogwarts (the opal necklace and poisoned mead are obvious failures) or he and his family will be killed. When Draco first commits himself to his mission, he has no doubt of his success, no doubt that he's on the winning side. The last thing on his mind is being sent to Azkaban or being a fugitive from justice. Later, his focus becomes his own survival. He must succeed or die along with his parents. Again, Azkaban and being a fugitive seems never to have entered his mind. Dana wrote: > Maybe Draco will be given a second chance (because LV is in such a good mood now DD is gone), and LV will find someone else for him to kill. Let see if Snape is still bound to the UV this time and do it for Draco again and again and again. Carol responds: Snape has committed himself to watch over and protect Draco, as he does throughout the school year, trying to find out what he's up to, dissuading him from using "amateurish" tactics, saving him from Harry's Sectumsempra. Clearly, he is also reporting to Dumbledore. (I won't get into the argument in the forest, which we hear about only in fragmented form from Hagrid, whose conclusions about it are unlikely to be accurate.) Until the DEs, Draco, and Dumbledore are together on the tower, the third provision (which Snape perhaps hoped would not be triggered) does not come into play. Dumbledore has already managed to persuade Draco that he's not a killer, or at least bring him to a point where he's literally incapable of any action, either killing DD or completely lowering the wand. Snape pushes him out of the way, relieving him of the necessity to kill Dumbledore. But Snape himself is bound by the vow, bound to protect Draco and bound to "do the deed" if it appears that Draco will fail. Draco *has* failed (though he unwittingly forced Snape's hand by bringing the DEs into Hogwarts). Snape hesitates, not raising his wand when DD speaks his name or even when they make eye contact and his expression changes to one of hatred and revulsion. He doesn't speak. Dumbledore says "Severus, please . . ." and only then does he cast what appears to be an AK and send DD over the ramparts to his death. If he had *wanted* to do so, surely he would have killed DD immediately, gloating first. He would have seen no need to order the DEs out of Hogwarts, no reason to stop the DE from Crucioing Harry later or to deflect Harry's spells rather than Stupefying him or sending them back onto the caster with a Protego. It's just not as simple as it appears. There are too many unanswered questions, from the meaning of "Severus, please. . . ." to the unusual behavior of the AK. You mentioned the hippogryff, which doesn't attack until the very end of the duel with Harry, when Snape finally has enough and hits Harry with something like a stinging hex and disarms him. That's another question for which we have differing answers. Why hex him at that point when he hasn't done so earlier? I'd say that, for one thing, his nerves are frazzled and he's furious, not to mention the suppressed anguish that we see for one moment when he's compared with the dog in the burning house. For another, time is pressing. The vow to protect Draco may still be in effect, and, IMO, he's going to have to explain to Voldemort that the boy did his part by getting the DEs into Hogwarts against all probablilty and making the death of Dumbledore possible. As for the third provision still being in effect, I don't think so. It was specifically about "the deed [singular] that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform" (36). The provision to protect Draco may not have a time limit, but the others have, presumably, expired now that the mission has been accomplished. Carol, wondering how Draco will like being "protected" now that he's seventeen and, by WW standards, a man and how either he or Snape will fare now that they've been forced into Voldemort's camp From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Mar 11 01:02:54 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:02:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fleur References: <001001c762ad$7cef72c0$2f01a8c0@Lana> Message-ID: <00b501c76379$006b4090$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 165935 > My sister and I were talking and she brought up something I hadn't > thought about. > Fleur... I am a bit bewildered that JK brought her back into the > storyline. Why?? It seems odd that someone of no apparent relevance, to > me anyway, would be brought back. > What are the theories surrounding her? Anyone care to speculate why she > was brought back into play? Just seems odd to me unless she will play at > least some role in the future battle. Maybe her "charm" as a veela or > something? > Lana Frankly, I think Fleur is reintroduced again because she points the way to the end of the series: the trio is growing up, and will get married, settle down and will have kids themselves. It's all about love, growing up, the future. It's only natural to show, as Rowling usually does, someone else doing something before Harry himself does it. I don't think there is any deep theory about her at all- she is what she is- someone marrying into the Weasley family, and that she will only be the first of many yet to come. I think Fleur paves the way for Harry to marry into the family. I think the weddings we will see are the Wizarding World's attempt to keep at a normal life, despite all the wickedness and hardship that is war around them. Shelley From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 11 11:31:54 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:31:54 -0000 Subject: Nagini / great but terrible / word of honor / Homorphus / the DADA curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165936 Shelley wrote in : << We see Wormtail needing to "milk Nagini"- milk is used for a baby, is it not? >> Here in the Muggle real world, 'milk' is the verb for drawing venom from a snake, such as to use the venom to produce antivenin. Carol wrote in : << (Does Ollivander know about the Horcruxes? What else would qualify as "terrible but great"?) >> Maybe the curse on the Hogwarts DADA professorship -- it works in quite a complicated way. Maybe making Inferii -- we don't know how difficult that spell is. Maybe breaking through a protective spell that was thought to be invulnerable. Maybe transforming some mighty and magically protected building into a termite and all the people in it into bacteria in the termite's digestive system... Finwitch quoted in : << "Were you to draw a circle around me, on the ground and I gave you my word not to step outside it, that word would held me surely if locks and ropes could not. That is honor." >> And there is on-going argument about whether it is more ethical, more virtuous, to be bound by one's honor or to sacrifice one's honor to prevent some very bad thing from happening. If one gives one's word of honor to keep Lord Voldemort's secrets, and then tells those secrets to the Order of the Phoenix so they can defeat Voldemort, was that the right thing to do? Celia cdayr wrote in : << The Homorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? >> I agree that the Homorphus Charm is real, because Lockhart stole his exploits, not invented them. I don't agree that the Homorphus Charm is a cure for lycanthropism, because if it were, someone would have tried it on Lupin by now, either his parents, who 'tried everything' or his clever friends who became Animagi for his sake. At first I thought it might put an end to the werewolf transformations permanently, but at the cost of tremendous brain damage to the person, but then I realized (as Carol has mentioned) that it might be the same spell that Black and Lupin used to make Pettigrew leave his rat form. So now I think that it turns the transformed human back into his/her human form for only a few moments. That's not a cure for lycanthropy, but it is long enough for the villagers to recognize one of their neighbors. Now that they know who the werewolf is, they can deal with him while he is still a mere human. One would hope that they would lock him in a secure cage before moonrise on the Full Moon night and release him when he turned human again, but I expect they probably just killed him in his sleep in his bed at New Moon. Houyhnhnm wrote in : << The DADA position might bring out the worst in Snape, but making him head of Slytherin House wouldn't? Sending him back out as a spy among the Death Eaters wouldn't? >> Rowling was being sneaky when she said that. At the time she said it, everyone assumed that Dumbledore meant that giving Snape the DADA job would be like giving an alcoholic a bartending job. Not until we read HBP did we learn that the curse on the DADA job was real, not just a student rumor, and had begun long before Harry discovered Hogwarts. There has been much discussion on list about how that curse works, apparently by using the person's own secret flaws against them. That's pretty clear for Lockhart, whose secret flaws were that he was a liar, a braggart, a thief of accomplishment, and not actually good at any magic except Memory Charms. And for Lupin, it exposed his secret of being a werewolf and his flaw of being careless about werewolf precautions. So when Dumbledore said he was afraid that the DADA position would bring out the worst in Snape, he meant that the curse on the DADA position would reveal ('bring out') Snape's secrets and flaws. From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Mar 11 12:00:04 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:00:04 -0000 Subject: Snape, the unbreakable vow and an unwelcome revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >. > > If I'm correct, the moment Slughorn accepts the Potions position, > Snape becomes by default the DADA instructor--and subject to the DADA > curse, which takes the form of the Unbreakable Vow. Narcissa cannot > have planned the UV from the beginning or she'd have *wanted* > Bellatrix with her. Instead, Bellatrix is following her, trying to > keep her from asking Snape for help. (Had Bellatrix not been there, > they would have had no bonder and the vow could not have been > performed.) I think that either the vow itself, or the unanticipated > third provision, occurs as a result of Snape's having become, whether > he knows it or not, the DADA teacher and the DADA jinx/curse falling > into place. I don't have time to go through the chapters for > supporting evidence, but a search for posts with the titles of the > chapters as search terms will turn up the necessary canon. (I think > the time frame was discussed during the chapter discussions for the > first two or three chapters.) > > > Carol, who of course shares your conviction that Snape is DDM! but > sees him caught in a web of circumstance that stems in part from his > own past actions and in part from a malign fate symbolized by the > fiery bonds at the end of the chapter Leah: Time sequence: The Other Minister: 'It was nearing midnight' Spinners End: No time given directly, but mention of the same mist which 'had pressed against the Prime Minister's windows...' might possibly suggest this chapter occurs later than the first Will or Won't: DD's letter to Harry indicates he will arrive in Privet Drive at 11 pm. Horace Slughorn: 'According to a clock on a nearby church, it was almost midnight.' An Excess of Phlegm: Arthur is 'a tiny bit late...he said he'd be back around midnight'. Harry explains he arrived at Ron's house 'about one in the morning'. Those two statements do not quite tally, unless the 'tiny bit late' is just Molly reassuring herself. As DD and Harry are some time at Slughorn's, Harry's would seem liklier to be the correct statement. I would make the timeline: 1. Will or Won't 2. The Other Minister/Horace Slughorn happening at the same time 3. An Excess of Phlegm Notice that Spinners End can not be definitively fitted into this (what a surprise) and could be 1a or 2a (or indeed 3a, but the fact that Snape and Wormtail are still up and about makes that too late for me). The only clue I can find is that 'had pressed' referring to the mist. Personally, I agree with Carol that the whole thing makes far more sense if Slughorn's acceptance triggers Snape's appointment as DADA professor. This would make it possible for The Other Minister, Horace Slughorn, and Spinners End to all be happening at the same time. We have an explanation in this book of the DADA curse/jinx and it makes sense to me both that we see it in force as Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow. I would note, though, that Bellatrix's presence is not technically necessary for the Vow to be taken. There is a third person already in the house, namely Wormtail. Snape's answer to Narcissa asking if they are alone is "Well, Wormtail's here, but we're not counting vermin are we?". Narcissa's lack of reaction here, suggests to me that she may well have been aware that Wormtail had been assigned to Snape. Whether either Snape or Narcissa would have been willing to take the vow with Wormtail as Binder would be a moot point however. Leah (agreeing with Carol's sign-off) From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Mar 11 06:13:22 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:13:22 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165938 > > Dana before: > > Of course it is besides the fact that the majority of fans seem to hold this view while JKR specifically states it is not easily guessable what will happen in book 7 or she will be extremely annoyed. > Ceridwen: > While the interviews, and answered questions at JKR's site, are useful and considered canon-compatible if not actually canon for the purposes of this list, I tend to take what JKR says with a grain of salt. In this case, what stops me from believing her unequivocally, is that this is a bookseries for children and "young adults" - teens - who may not have read as extensively as the adults on this and other lists. For the target audience, any scenario will be harder to guess than it would be for adults. Dana now: Interesting because there are many adults writing essays all over the net and still JKR has not seen anything that was spot on, just a few that skimmed it very closely. Are you suggesting that JKR only reads the essays written by children and young teens? Also is this not a little bit condescending towards the very young that they cannot come up with a decent theory? Personally I think you could be very mistaken in the power the young have to understand things much better than adults do because they are far less likely to bend over backwards to fit a theory into their own perspective because the young mind is not clouded with the so-called life experience adults always think they have. The main problem I see with adults is that they are mostly set in the knowledge they think they possess and thus less flexible to look at things from a different perspective than their own. Many adults loose their imagination of what it is like to be young and this doesn't mean they understand better what a children's book tells the reader, but understand less because they dwell too long on the ethics of a scene instead of what the scene can actually tell about that moment in time. JMHO 'Some fans have come very close to guessing the ending of Book 7, but the one she has planned isn't "very obvious."' [Read the whole quote from BBC Radio4, 2005] 'Loves fan-theories. People have been very close to figuring out things and *some* people have even figured out part of Book 7.' [Read the whole quote from ITV, 2005] 'Jo gets "cold shivers when *someone* guesses at something that's very close" but enough ideas are "off the wall" that she doesn't really worry; the ending is "clearly not that obvious."' [Read the whole quote from BBC-Radio4, 2005] (All these are available in full at www.accio-quote.org) Of course you are right that JKR directions in interviews should not be taken one way or the other because you do not know what part of the story she is referring to and it could be anything for the actual ending of the story to Snape's true loyalties. > > Dana before: > > From a logical standpoint, Snape's reaction in the forest makes no sense if DD indeed asked him to kill him. Why? Because Snape by that time already believed LV expected him to do it and he committed himself to an UV to do it if Draco failed. > Ceridwen: > There has been some discussion on this list about that statement of Snape's in Spinner's End. To some, it is a straightforward statement made by one DE to another. To some, it is misdirection by a spy to members of the group he is spying upon. And to some, he didn't mean LV here, but DD. No name is ever mentioned. Dana now: Interesting because what use will it be to Snape to misdirect Bella about LV? He might gloat a little that he is in the know more than she is but misdirecting another DE can be a very dangerous business, especially one that is competing for the Dark Lord's favor. Better not mess with information that can be checked with LV himself. Bella is not stupid, she even made sure Draco did not let Snape help him and wipe his own slate clean. So far it doesn't seem that Snape's misdirection is working very well now is it. Apparently Bella perceived Snape's words exactly as many readers do as being misdirection, so it missed the point entirely and I do not believe Snape is that dumb, but who knows? Let's look at the scene itself and see if Snape means anything else than LV wanting him to do it in the end. Pg 32 UK ed. paperback: The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it, `Narcissa continued, her eyes closed. He wishes none to know of the plan. It is very secret. But ?` `If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak,' said Snape at once. `The Dark Lord's word is law.' ... `It so happens that I know of the plan,' he said in a low voice. `I am one of the few the *Dark Lord* has told. 'Nevertheless, had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been guilty of great treachery to the *Dark Lord*.' ... But what help do you require Narcissa? If you are imagining I can persuade the *Dark Lord* to change his mind, I am afraid there is no hope, none at all.' ... My son.. My only son ' ... If Draco succeeds, said Snape, still looking away from her, `he will be honoured above all others.' 'But he won't succeed! Sobbed Narcissa. `How can he, when the Dark Lord himself-?' ... You could do it instead of Draco, Severus. *He* would reward you beyond all of *us* -` "He intends me to do it in the end, I *think*. But he is determined that Draco should try it first. You see, in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy.' 'In other words, it doesn't matter to him if Draco is killed!' 'The Dark Lord is very angry,' End quote canon. [Emphasis throughout mine]. Well and from here we go straight to the vow. So we are to assume while the conversation is about what the Dark Lord wants, Snape is suddenly referring to what Dumbledore wants? And he isn't even sure? And Snape would take the risk going against LV's orders and kill Dumbledore when he just referred twice to the fact that LV's orders are law and he is not stupid enough to even try and persuade LV to change his mind about using Draco for the task? But Snape then decides to agree to do it in a vow because it would be what Dumbledore wants him to do? So what is Snape going to say to LV that he did it on Dumbledore's orders? And this would not raise questions as to why DD would want Snape to do this. I think if there is a plan between DD and Snape to park Snape permanently in LV's camp then he better be sure it is precisely what LV is expecting of him because LV is not going to allow a DE to run his own show on his turf, you can be sure of that. For me it is a little bit of a stretch to think Snape would take all these actions on the basis of a lot of assumption on what either DD or LV will want him to do. Especially with the vow in place because if LV finds out Snape was helping Narcissa to go against his plan he will not forgive Snape not even if it resulted in DD's death. If DD is not planning to die, and will never ask this of Snape, then he has a little problem on his hands there as well. But this then goes against what all Snape fans say that the hate on Snape's face is because he has to do something he really doesn't want to do. If you are correct and Snape did what he did in Spinner's End because it is what he thinks DD wants him to do then again the argument in the forest can be no proof DD is asking this of Snape because Snape would not go against what he already suspected DD wanted from him. I still fail to see the Snape killed DD on DD's orders scenario working here. > > Dana before: > > Because all of them (DD/LV/UV) give him the same option. Do it or die. DD's orders are totally irrelevant to the outcome under these circumstances, unless I am to believe that Snape had rather died and had planned to do so. > Ceridwen: > Another bone of contention between DDM!Snapers and ESE!Snapers. You already understand the ESE!Snapers' side. Some DDM!Snapers do believe that Snape would rather have died than kill Dumbledore, but the curse on the DADA position manipulated events to make sure he had to do it in the end. The reason for wanting to die varies, I think, from one proponent to another. Snape wants to be recognized as a hero and will go out in a blaze of glory; Snape is tired of having to walk the tightrope between DD and LV - it's so nervewracking that he would rather let something kill him at his own discretion than wait for the sudden surprise of LV, for instance, doing it, with some torture for the salad course. There are imagined reasons that fall between the two. And of course, in a series for children and teens, suicide wouldn't be suggested. Dana now: I am not an ESE!Snaper because they believe he was evil from the start and I do not. I believe Snape is not an LV man either and I do not even believe he is out for his own self anymore or at least not as part of grabbing the bone when the other two top dogs are fighting for it. I believe Snape is driven by his feelings of hate that are raging inside him and he cannot control. I believe he is looking for acceptance so desperately that he lets himself be driven by it and yes at this moment I believe he's disappointed in DD for not choosing him over the, in his mind, not special at all, Harry, which has driven him to the other side where at this moment LV is giving him the acceptance he is graving so badly. Wanting to be a hero has a deeper ground than just wanting to have power because wanting to be admired, being accepted, are feelings that can replace love. That is why LV himself is not looking for admiration he demands loyalty in his quest for power and disposes of those that are not useful to this quest. I do not think he minds if his followers hate him in the meantime. One can argue Snape is the same with his students and, yes, he is, but the difference is that he only expects respect out of them to gain respect of others that do mean something to him even if he does not show it. The way he can control his class will invoke respect from other teachers and this is what Snape wants and he will use all means on his students to get it. I do not believe Snape would rather have died and his wanting to be a hero has nothing to do with going out with a blaze. He keeps everybody reminded of the fact he could have died at Lupin's hand and even wants to have Sirius soul sucked for having a hand in it. He also keeps reminding everybody that he is risking his butt at great *personal* risk, that is not a man who has a death wish but one that wants to be admired for his skills to stay alive while others parish. He is too self-centered to die on behalf of someone else. He doesn't even want to risk his cover for Harry because it would mean LV would turn on him; and all this while he would certainly have been the hero for DD if he had done so. Snape is not tired of walking the tightrope between LV and DD because he tells as much in Spinner's End that if Draco succeeds he will remain at Hogwarts to fulfill his spying duties. Also if he really was DD's man then choosing LV's side to end the spying game if he doesn't want it anymore is a poor way of repaying DD's trust, plan or no plan, because like I said before he is running this show on his own accord because he doesn't even know what the two overlords really want. Well if he is so noble he could have helped Harry and denounced LV, his death wish will be fulfilled sooner or later and at least it will be known to all on the good side that he did it to defeat LV. > Ceridwen: > Another possibility brought up by various posters is that Snape believed that he could get around the wording of the UV. Looking out for Draco's safety is something Snape, as Draco's Head of House, would do anyway. That he is also an old friend of Draco's father would strengthen this sense of obligation, so there was no harm done in taking that part of the UV. Just because Narcissa means something more sinister doesn't mean that Snape is bound to go by her interpretation of keeping Draco safe. Keeping him safe could just as easily mean that he dissuades Draco from doing the deed. Draco rejecting the task to kill Dumbledore would actually be a safe thing for him to do, just as an example. So, getting around that provision would be as easy a having a different interpretation of keeping Draco safe. Dana now: Narcissa already asked Snape to do it for Draco so either Snape is really ignorant or a complete idiot to not expect Narcissa including this in the vow. Quote: 'You could do it instead of Draco, Severus. *He* would reward you beyond all of *us* -` page 39 UK ed [Emphasis mine] Snape would never do this for Draco if he had not expected he would be ordered to do it in the end. Because if LV does not want Snape to do it he might get killed for overstepping LV's orders. I do not believe Snape's friendship with Lucius goes that deep. The problem with the wording of the vow is that it could mean that Snape is now forever bound to do all Draco's tasks ordered by LV. The Vow never mentions the task itself only that Snape will do that what Draco is ordered to do in case if he fails. Snape knows too much about magic to not know what a UV means and its consequences. On the one side Snape fans are protesting the fact that the scribbles in the books could be no-one other than Snape's because the man is a genius but they expect him to not understand a UV regardless of how it is worded? Either the man is a genius and he knows perfectly well what he is getting into or he is really an ignorant idiot. He would not keep Draco safe by persuading him to not do the task he is ordered by LV because LV said he would kill him and his family and Snape said to Narcissa that he could not persuade LV to chang his mind so it would not help Draco at all if Snape did this, with or without the vow. It would even bring danger to Snape because Draco could, as an attempt to sav himself, tell LV he was ordered by Snape not to do it (which would not help Draco at all of course but still). So the only way this would have worked is if Draco would have taken DD's offer but this would require an alive DD not a dead one. Snape is even stupider for taking the vow because at this time no one had ordered him to do anything. It is only Narcissa who asks this of him and if Snape is persuaded by the endless glory he will receive from all of them as she so elegantly puts it then it is safe to assume taking the vow had nothing to do with orders from DD. The only thing I can think of as to why Snape takes the vow is because he believes he can control the circumstances under which he will have to complete it. Draco's stubbornness to not include Snape in his bidding might have caused Snape some unforeseen problems because now he is at Draco's mercy under which circumstances he will be forced to act out the UV. (Maybe this was the DADA curse at work who knows). Snape might have thought that he would get an opportunity to strike without it being known to anyone that it was him who preformed it so he could remain on both sides of the fence. > > Dana before: > > Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? > Ceridwen: > Dumbledore's death comes in the same book where Slughorn tells young Tom Riddle that murder is an unnatural act, that it is the worst thing in the world to do, that it tears the soul. This is such a horrible outcome on the overall level, that Dumbledore and Snape want to shield Draco from splitting his soul. So, while *Dumbledore's death* doesn't serve Draco for many of the resons you state, having *Draco innocent of murder* serves Draco by leaving his soul unsplit. I think you have outlined Draco's current position in the WW very well, otherwise. He is definitely a fugitive, and guilty of a lot of things. Most DDM!Snape arguments come from the view that Dumbledore and Snape wanted to save Draco from the spiritual catastrophe of tearing his soul, not from the logical outcome of his own decision to act for LV, or for his subsequent actions. Dana Now: Yes, but this will only work as long as LV will not order Draco to kill anyone else. I do not believe DD would plan something so superficial that it will have no effect in the long run. Especially not if he has to pay the ultimate price for it. He would make sure that his death would help Draco for a very long time, not just until he faces LV yet again. Otherwise he would be more useful to the boy alive and Draco is not DD's only responsibility, so I can't believe he would throw away his life if the sacrifice can be overturned in a heartbeat. So you can ask the question is Draco's soul really saved by this action just because he did not split it by murdering DD? How nice of DD to not want Draco to split his soul on him, but he can on anyone else, if he likes, or at least Draco will be able to die with one soul instead of a split one because he is surely not there to prevent this from happening either way. And it makes no sense to save Draco's life so he can in the end die with his soul intact. Sure, one could argue that Draco proved he was not capable of murder, and I believe this is indeed so, but this does not take the risk away of LV ordering him to do it again because he has not proved himself to him. Only if Draco is really lucky would LV be too busy with other things now DD is gone to concern himself with Draco, but this is not something DD could know for sure. Draco has nowhere to go than back to LV because he is, and remains, a wanted young man and Snape cannot hide him because there are too many witnesses that Draco lived to tell the tale. > > Dana before: > > Maybe Draco will be given a second chance (because LV is in such a good mood now DD is gone), and LV will find someone else for him to kill. Let see if Snape is still bound to the UV this time and do it for Draco again and again and again > Ceridwen: > I think the UV's provision that Snape do the deed if it seems that Draco is unable, was specific to the Dumbledore assassination. The other two provisions of the UV may or may not still be in effect. There has been some discussion about the UV, its limits, and its effects on Snape. There is quite a bit of disagreement as well as some areas where most posters agree. Yes, some have suggested that Draco will be cut some slack because the deed was actually done, and that was what LV wanted. Whether it is because this puts him in a good mood, or because it serves his overall mission, we just don't know. We don't know that he will let Draco off the hook. We do know that by the time of Dumbledore's funeral, the bodies of Draco, Narcissa and/or Snape have not surfaced to show that LV was displeased. Dana now: The vow asks of Snape to do the task LV ordered Draco should he fail, and although this is indeed at that moment killing DD, it does not specifically state the task itself. Meaning one has to wonder if the UV would again be active if LV orders Draco to do something new. I do not specifically believe JKR meant for it to be able to be interpreted this way, but the way it was worded could very well mean precisely that. I am not going to argue about what a UV can or can't do but I do not believe that JKR meant anything other than for it to mean the most serious magical bond one can commit to. Why have it in the first place if it means nothing serious will happen to you if you disregard it? If it can be overlooked that easily why would Bella be so surprised Snape would take it after she accuses him of always saving his own skin and hiding behind his orders. That we have not seen any of their bodies tells us nothing about their current health status. We have been told of many of the Order who disappeared without a trace. Yes, they could all be hiding but some are gone for more than 20 years and did not even resurface after LV was presumed dead. I am not saying I believe they are dead or anything because I do not believe they are, but we also do not know if LV was pleased enough to not Crucio Draco just for the fun of it. > > Dana before: > > By the way, isn't it interesting that in the US version DD suggests something entirely different? Doesn't this suggest that if Snape and DD arranged this, then saving Draco was never part of it, why else suggest something different to the boy if all has been arranged in the first place? > Ceridwen: > Yes, it's very interesting that the only place where the "can't kill you if you're already dead" line shows up is in the US hardcover edition. There has been a lot of discussion about this point alone, let alone why it was introduced to Draco in the first place. It isn't necessarily "entirely different", but it is an odd thing that this part of the discussion was in the US hardcover edition and in no other. And, there is the problem of Draco not wanting to tell Snape what he's doing through HBP. He accuses Snape of trying to "steal his glory". He keeps his activities secret, even from his closest friends at school, Crabbe and Goyle. Since he was being uncooperative, there was no chance to make the offer until DD made it on the Tower. There may never have been a chance to make the offer, since Draco was trying alternative methods of killing DD - the necklace and the poisoned mead - and may not have been available for a talk like the one we eventually did see. Proponents of the Dumbledore Stages It All theory suggest that DD's plan tried to cover every eventuality. I imagine that the answer from that theory's viewpoint would be that not having the opportunity to broach the subject with Draco would be part of their contingency plans. Dana now: Yes, it's entirely different because this would mean that DD is ready to sacrifice Snape for Draco's safety if DD indeed knows about the UV. This would go against the idea that DD thinks Snape is more important alive because he will be more use to Harry alive than dead. Would DD really sacrifice Harry's chances to defeat LV if Snape is really the key player in this, for Draco's safety? Doesn't this raise too much conflicts of interest to be believable? He can't have it both ways, if he knows about the UV and he will not have Snape kill him to keep his cover because the offer could not be taken care of if he died and Snape can't do it. I am sorry I do not believe there was no opportunity to offer this to Draco sooner. If both DD and Snape knew about the plan all along, they could have offered it as soon as the school year started, just because Draco is not telling *how* he will execute the plan doesn't make the *intention* of the plan less clear. Also Snape is not trying to persuade Draco to not kill DD and I believe DD let it go on because he still hoped he could get Snape back into his camp and if he succeeded he would kill two birds with one stone. I personally do not believe DD knew the UV included for Snape to finish the job in case Draco failed. He would not have placed his well being in Snape's hands by drinking the potion if he had known (or it is something I have a hard time believing). When they first arrive back at Hogsmeade DD orders Harry to get Snape and this was before Madam Rosmerta pointed out the Dark Mark above the castle. No, I am not suggesting Snape would have killed him right then and there because Snape had no reason yet to kill DD. It would be a real leap of faith to assume that DD would allow himself to get caught with his pants down in a situation like that with a bunch of uncontrollable DEs loose in the castle. Didn't Harry accuse him of such before they left? This does not just concerns Draco or Harry's safety. And for this so called plan to work DD doesn't have to be weakened down, he could have let Draco overpower him all the same and make sure he could control the situation if there was a need for it. I just can't see the logic of having DD die of the potion and risk the safety of the entire school body in the process to have Snape save everybody in the ultimate sacrifice. Personally I cannot see DD staging everything in such a way that it would leave too many things open to chance. It doesn't fit with DD putting the safety of the students above all. To me it makes no sense to first let Harry believe Snape could help DD then to later have him kill him in front of him. Personally if this was a set up of DD I believe DD would not have allowed Harry to witness Snape killing him because it was this that makes the Snape / Harry conflict personal and thus Snape's help inaccessible to Harry. I am not sure why people think this will be for Harry's benefit. So Harry can overcome his feeling of hate, is that the ultimate lesson Snape is going to teach Harry? He probably will indeed but not because DD orchestrated it to be so. Don't you think Snape's knowledge and expertise to counter the dangers the Horcrux hunting involves would be far more help to Harry than having Snape feed information to Harry incognito? I will not be surprised if Snape does not even know where they are and I do not believe that with the experience LV already has with the diary that he will let anyone of his trusted followers in on his secret, not even Snape. Of course we have to wait and see. > > Dana: > > Oh, but there is more of course, because Snape fans will say DD asked this of Snape because Snape is more important to Harry alive. How? Ceridwen: First, some have suggested that DD did tell someone in the Order about the plan so Snape's ability as a spy would not be hindered. This person would be his contact, and would pass information along without revealing the source. Not every Order member was shown reacting to Snape's AK of DD. So there could be a contact person in the Order who was not in the hospital wing when the news was announced. A second suggestion has made use of the Patronuses as a communication method unique to the Order. This draws in the Tonks / Remus storyline. Tonks's Patronus changed shapes because of emotional upheaval. If Snape is DDM and is emotionally overwrought because of what he did on the Tower, his Patronus might change so that it is unrecognizable to other Order members as his own. It would still be received with trust, because communicating with Patronus is something that only the Order does. Dumbledore taught them this method, and it is unique to their group. So an unknown Patronus used in this way would be accepted because the person sending it must have been instructed by Dumbledore on this use. A third suggestion is that someone in the Order or close to Harry will figure out that something isn't right about the AK on the Tower,and will do some digging and put things together to arrive at the conclusion of DDM!Snape. The two most likely candidates suggested are Hermione and Remus. A fourth is what you suggest further down: that no one will know, but in the end, Snape will prove himself to Harry's satisfaction in a dramatic way. In most of these scenarios, Snape is helping behind the scenes - fomenting dissention in DE ranks; finding and at least informing Harry anonymously about the location of undiscovered Horcruxes; biding his time at LV's hand, soaking up information, and constructing a plan that will be useful in what we all tend to think of as the Final Battle. Dana now: If this is true then this comment of JKR makes no sense JK won't answer if Snape is evil or not because it will have such a huge impact on what will happen when Harry and Snape meet again: "I love the theories." [Read the whole quote from the Leaky Cauldron, 2005] "Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry- Voldemort." [Read the whole quote from the Leaky Cauldron, 2005] If Harry can be convinced by an order member that Snape is still working for the Order than there will be no huge impact when they meet again. Available from www.accio-quote.org Of course you can see this from any angle you choose. FirstHarry is convinced by Lupin or Hermione Snape is good and is still in service of the Order but when they meet Snape prooves to Harry he is ever so evil. Second Harry still believes Snape killed DD and then Snape rescues Harry or one of his friends in front of him and he has to reconsider. This either on DD's order or not, it would be actually more devastating to Harry, I believe, if he finds out he has been made to believe Snape killed DD on DD's orders. I do not think Harry will see the nobility of it for causing him so much pain and hatred for the cause, but maybe it is just me. Because Harry believing Snape and Snape proving to Harry he is indeed on his side will not be very huge now will it? It would cool down it being now even more personal than Harry-Voldermort before it even began. They will just shake hands and have a butterbeer together. > > Dana before: > > Everybody keeps saying that Snape has tried over and over to save Harry's life, but the only real attempt that has registered with me is in book 1. - other examples from books > Ceridwen: > People will, of course, disagree with your view that Snape did nothing to help Harry and friends in PoA. I think the 'conjuring stretchers' to get the vulnerable people off the grounds while werewolf!Lupin was at large would be seen by some to be a life-saving measure. And of course, the Dementors were out there, and we know from the beginning of the book that they seem to be attracted to Harry for some reason, and attack him accordingly. So, while getting rid of Sirius may or may not be a motive for taking him into the castle, it would have no part in taking Harry. Dana now: The dementors returned to their positions at the gate and Werewolf!Lupin fled on his own after the fight with Padfoot and he doesn't know he is out cold so his animal instinct will not bring him back or he would not have left in the first place. Besides second Harry and Hermione were there and they were not at risk of Lupin at that time and Snape did not save them. Technically the only two Snape saved that night were Sirius and Buckbeak because bringing all of them back to the castle made it possible for Harry and Hermione to go back in time. I know that some people will even grant Harry's first survival to Snape because if he was soul sucked by the dementors the first time he could not go back in time, so unless JKR makes it specifically clear that she meant the time travel bit that way, I am still happy to believe the fact it was meant to read that Prongs and Harry did the saving bit there. And of course if Snape did save Harry from the dementors the first time it becomes irrelevant because time1 + time2 = end time and only the end time is the one that remains standing. But granted if he did it will add his attempts to safe Harry actively to two. In 6 years it is still not enough to consider it over and over but for argument sake I am prepared to let this one go. > Ceridwen: > And in OotP, Snape didn't have to send the Order to the MoM at all. Harry's comments were cryptic (he's got Padfoot at the place where it's kept, if I recall it right), Snape could easily say that he didn't understand and couldn't make eye contact for the purpose of Legillimency with Harry because Harry actively avoided his eyes. Not true, as the readers know. But, Snape could have said it. Dana now: Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Snape was already privy to LV's plan because he would not use that information in Spinner's End to convince Bella otherwise, and no, I do not believe he made it up because Bella is accusing him for not being there, so she knows he knows, and he only replies that he did so on a direct order to remain behind, not that he had no way of knowing or that he had orders from DD to watch over Hogwarts or something like that. He states specifically that he had orders from *LV* to not blow his cover. It would have been safer for him to use a different excuse than something that can be checked even if Bella will not; it would still be possible to check it. So if you are lying then better make up something impossible to confirm, especially if the lie can bite you in the *ss later if by change the conversation comes up in the presence of LV. Even if he was not aware of when it would have gone down, knowing what the plan is and hearing Harry's distress, he would have put two and two together that it would go down that night. And if he was DDM through and through then Harry's safety was more important than his cover, especially if we have to believe Snape was ready to die at the end of book 6. So apparently going out with a bang only means something to Snape when he thinks it is worthy enough. And Harry isn't it. DD's appreciation for saving Harry isn't enough either. Snape ignoring Harry's little message would result in too many problems and saying he didn't understand is irrelevant because there were too many witnesses to proove that Harry had tried to warn Snape, and even if Snape did not understand what Harry was saying, it should have been enough to cause concern especially after Harry went missing. So not doing anything is not an option unless you think DD would forgive Snape for getting Harry killed. I do not think DD is that noble, and in case Harry again miraculously survives, as he has an annoying tendency of doing, then he can be sure it will be discussed, so better do something. To actually consider this an attempt to save Harry at all costs and thus prove Snape is saving Harry over and over, again and again, is a little stretching the nobility of our dear Severus Snape in my opinion. But still I do not consider this an active involvement of Snape to save Harry because it can be easily read as he was saving his own cover and if Harry was killed it would be no fault of his because he did everything he could, right? And he would not be losing any sleep over it I am sure. And if we leave the Spinner's End part out of it, then there were many times Snape could have known something was up besides the fact DD told him as much. We still have the Arthur incident (guarding the DoM), the Occlumency lessons, Snape seeing part of the dreams Harry was having and Snape himself telling Harry LV might try to misuse the link between them and everything else that happened in relation to guarding the prophesy that year. We know from Sirius' slip up that the Order knew LV was going for the prophecy and Snape is part of the Order. I have been told over and over that Snape is such a brilliant clever man that it will hardly be a good excuse for him to say he could not have known what was going on or where Harry would have gone to. But then again who knows, maybe JKR is indeed so bad at maths that she really can't count the total of hours between right after dinner and sunset in the summer. Still I am not granting Snape any points, call me stubborn. > > Dana before: > > He could have warned the MoM so the DE's would have been surprised by a dozen aurors instead of a couple of teenagers. For G*d's sake, they were running around the MoM building: how hard would it have been for an auror to run into them without any risk to Snape's cover? > Ceridwen: > Since they didn't run into a dozen Aurors, it is feasable to assume that Aurors don't frequent the department in the MoM that the DEs and the DA were running around. I expect that LV would know this, since at least one of his people works at the MoM. If a dozen Aurors showed up, it would have been a tip-off that someone was passing LV's secrets. Plus, at this point, official Ministry stance on the return of Lord Voldemort is that he hasn't returned. A tip that LV's DEs were trying to steal a prophecy would probably be written off as a crank call. If they're as sensitive about false reports as many Real Life police departments are, Snape would have been called in to verify, if he could, that the information was correct. We do know that the MoM doesn't adhere to Real Life protocol regarding prisoners such as Sirius Black and Stan Shunpike, so I could easily see them dragging whoever reported a DE attack *in the Ministry itself* down to the Ministry for questioning, as their official line is that LV is not back. This would be reported in the Daily Prophet, and it would probably have gotten to LV sooner because of his own man being in the Ministry. Dana now: I grant you this one because it is indeed not a well thought out idea and will leave it at that for now, because it raises some other questions not specifically concerning Snape's actions. Although it is strange that DD was able to overflow the MoM with Auror's after the fact. So why not have Shacklebolt or Tonks raise the alarm, but this is for another discussion. The point I was trying to make, but of course missed, was that I'll feel Snape did wait longer than necessary to make sure the DE had a chance to complete their mission before the Order arrived, and, if he was really only working for DD then he should have cared less, but again this is still only based on the time it took for the order to arrive and therefore the time it took for Snape to raise the alarm (as according to DD they left immediately after receiving Snape's message). Instead of only checking if Sirius was still at headquarters, he could have mentioned it would be a good idea to send someone over to the DoM just in case. And don't say it was not his call because those were the only two things the Order were busy with all year. Keeping both Harry and the prophecy from LV. > > Dana: > > Many argue that Snape did not hurt Harry on the way out at the end of book 6, but apparently they forgot Snape was run over by a Hippogriff. > Ceridwen: > Buckbea... er, Witherwings didn't attack Snape until after his confrontation with Harry. I'm not sure where you're going with this observation, so I can't say any more. Dana now: Snape did try to hurt Harry before Buckbeak attacked him and people are using this argument to proove Snape is good because he could have hurt Harry if he wanted to. Although he mocked Harry at first and only reflected what was thrown at him, he then loses it when Harry hit a nerve and Snape loses control (and besides if all the DE had orders to leave Harry alone so did Snape so it can be used either way and this would not be a particularly good time to go against LV's orders) This is what is said right after the "don't call me coward" bit: Quote page 564 UK ed: 'And he slashed at the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backwards into the ground. Spots of light burst in front of his eyes and for a moment all the breath seemed to have gone from his body, then he heard a rush of wings above him and something enormous obscured the stars: Buckbeak had flown at Snape.' We know that Snape, for whatever reason does not want Harry dead, we are told this by Quirrel in book 1, but Snape is not shy of handing out some punishment if the right buttons are pushed. This is proof of nothing either way, but it makes no sense to me to only read this as proof Snape must be good, and that is what I was trying to point out. > > Dana before: > > So what do I think DD asked of Snape in the argument in the forest? Well, I believe DD asked Snape to stop his spying days and help Harry in his task to defeat LV. > Ceridwen: > But, Snape's spying is helping Harry to defeat LV. Snape brings information to the Order that, apparently, no one has complained about, not even after events on the Tower. It may well have been Snape's information that told Dumbledore that Voldemort knew about the destruction of his Diary Horcrux and blamed Lucius for it, for one example. This gave DD insight into Draco's task and mindset, and to the probable fact, later borne out as truth, that Draco was being set up to die as punishment for Lucius. Dana now: Snape's spying days are over because there is, as far as we know, at this moment no one to share his information with. Sure, this can change in book 7, but I still feel it would be far more likely that DD wanted Snape to be accessible to Harry in case Harry gets hurt by an attempt to destroy a Horcrux. Information is not what Harry needs, at least not from LV's camp, and as I said if LV knows about the destruction of the Diary then he will not let anyone else be privy to his little secret and I find it hard to believe he would not be suspicious if Snape was snooping around for them or even asking questions about them. So do I have to believe that this giant scheme was orchestrated in case LV let something slip and this could not be so without killing DD? I am not sure if my simple mind can understand this. Could you point out to me where it is I can find the information in the book on LV finding out about the Diary being destroyed, I know I have read it somewhere but can't find it. And also where it is said the DoM fiasco and Lucius being locked up in Azkaban was not reason enough to set up Draco's task? > Ceridwen: > Another thing is that Snape, or no DE for that matter, can just quit the DEs. Karkarov tried it, and was hunted down and killed. Regulus Black tried it, and died. If Dumbledore is trying to protect the people under him, then he couldn't suggest that Snape just quit the DEs. Suggesting that he stop spying would be the same thing as suggesting that he just drop his membership in that organization, not go when summoned, just like Karkarov didn't go. Suggesting that he stop spying would be the same thing as suggesting that he just drop his membership in that organization, not go when summoned, just like Karkarov didn't go. Dana now: I do not see these two examples as the same thing. Sure, Snape would move up on the "to do list" but both of these guys were alone and were not under the protection of DD or the Order. All the Order members risk their life even just by association, so why would Snape's life be more important than any other, and besides, in this case DD would only ask Snape to make the transition to the side of good permanent. The risk of being found out if he indeed is DDM was always there and if Snape had a death wish, as we are to believe why is he having such a hard time killing DD, why would this be a problem? I am not trying to say that it is definite that DD asked this of him but DD asking him to kill him and Snape arguing because he was planning to die and now has to live does not go well with him being afraid to leave the DE and die because of this. He either wanted to die because not killing DD would have resulted in his death or he never planned to die and he killed DD to make sure he lived. Orders or no orders the UV still made sure he only had these two options when Draco decided the time to move was now. So to me it makes more sense he would argue with DD about something that would cause his death than something that he already was bound by UV. Especially because he still could have chosen to let the order follow him on the tower if it was really all for Harry and Draco, because with a little help he could have taken those 4 DE's with ease and then said sorry to DD for dying and then keel over for failing in his task. The story would be less fun but he would have won my heart then and there. Besides, what do you think the Order or the MoM will do to him if they catch him, have some tea? The person privy to DD's plan if he exists should hurry up to inform everyone before someone kills Snape on sight or before he is taken to Azkaban. I do not think LV would find it believable if they let Snape go with a pat on the head for being such his brave guy for killing DD. But what if DD asks this of Snape in order to protect him? Because Snape has turned and he doesn't want Snape doing anything that would make a return to the light impossible? What if DD was giving Snape a choice to do what is right and not what is easy. And if he can help Harry directly to defeat LV the risk to his life will be short lived we only have one book left (I know Snape doesn't know he is a character in a book) and he has managed to stay alive since the first WW both as DE and Spy. And, no in my book killing DD is not right, not even for the greater good, because Harry's heart is permanently damaged by this, no matter how inventive the excuse for it will be. I do not believe Harry would be able to forgive DD for orchestrating such a thing for him to witness. I know I wouldn't. To make someone believe he is murdered for my benefit is not a burden I would want to carry. It would not be noble of DD to have Snape split his soul so he can help Harry if helping Harry could have been accomplished without it. The only problem in all this is the UV nothing more nothing less and if Snape had not made it this would have been a non-issue because without it he could have remained in control of the situation whatever way he wanted to go. If he wanted so desperately to die then he could just have stuck up his middle finger to LV and told him where to put it. (Metaphorically speaking) If DD wanted Snape in LV's camp then they could have made something up that DD found him out and he escaped just in time before he was dragged to Azkaban, for instance that DD found out he passed information that led to the capture and murder of Emmeline Vance as he was boosting about to Bella. Draco could have been taken care of by DD and all would be swell. So the whole DD orchestration scenario tells me either DD is really bad at planning things or that he has no heart. Neither are believable to me. Therefore it is easier for me to believe that DD saw Snape slipping into his old ways and was trying as hard as he could to keep a hold on him before he did anything that would make the way back impossible. I also believe that DD holds on to the idea to the very last moment that Snape would chose the right path up until he walked onto the tower and here after realizing Snape, like Harry, suggested really made a UV as confirmed by Draco he started pleading with Snape to not let go of the side of good. To answer Magpie about the DADA curse, what if Snape thought he could control the situation and that he could control Draco enough to make sure he would have all the time in the world, but was forced to take action as soon as Draco made his move? After all, he never expected Draco to cause him such trouble. He could then finish the job on his own terms which would still leave many options open after the fact but the DADA curse prevented this from happening? This to me seems more logical than to think the DADA curse forced DD to decide what Snape was going to do next. JMHO > Ceridwen: > There are reasons why a leader would want to protect the people depending on him. One very politic reason is that he would lose the trust of the rest of the people under his command if he were to fail one of them in such a way. If he would betray Snape by ordering him to do something that would probably get him killed, then he would betray the rest as easily. Dana now: But isn't this what happened? Does this entire ordeal not seed doubt and even despair in the people who depended on DD to lead them? How can DD choose to let Snape live without them knowing it was his own choice to sacrifice himself for Snape? I would even go so far as to say that in situations like this people could lose the faith in the cause because it was DD who trusted Snape and it was DD that told them Harry is the one worth risking your life for because he is the chosen one. Just because LV keeps trying to kill him doesn't mean DD is right that Harry is indeed the one who will do it. I don't think this will happen but it is a great risk just to save one man and provide a very uncertain future for a second young man without even knowing it would have been enough there are no second chances here. > > Dana: > > Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending Snape back to LV in GoF. > Ceridwen: > You're not the first to see it this way. And, most people see some sort of validity to that argument, even if they don't agree that this sent Snape over the edge. Some would say that, if DD really didn't give Snape the DADA position because he thought it would draw him back into his Dark Arts past, as JKR and, in HBP Spinner's End, Snape himself, says, then sending him back to LV, where the use of Dark Magic is expected and encouraged, would do the same thing in spades. Dana now: Yes, but this would not have been so in my opinion if Snape's personal needs would have been met. Why does an eleven year old boy come to school knowing more hexes than half the 7th years? Because like Hermione being knowledgeable makes you being admired or so you feel. Just because Snape used the Dark Arts as his focus point does not make him by definition an evil person. Most people want to be liked and if you do not have a natural ability to draw people towards you, like we have been made to believe James and Sirius could, then being better at something no one else is can bring you far. I truly believe that if DD had noticed or really understood Snape's needs then the temptations would have been, well I will not say non existent, but would definitely been less and the pull to the right side would have been stronger. I am not trying to shove the blame into DD's shoes here because it is still Snape's problem and his own responsibility but nevertheless DD should have seen it, especially after PoA that Snape was still living within his childhood pains and never gotten over them. To not have seen that makes me think this wise old man is a little detached from understanding human nature but we already knew that. That is a different discussion entirely. > > Dana: > > Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in DD. > Ceridwen: > Your support for this makes for a very sympathetic reading of Snape. I'm not sure you meant to do that, but you were very eloquent about the situations and their results. I just wanted to reach out and pat his head for this! *ahem* (putting tissue away) Again, others have suggested the same scenario. Snape felt betrayed by DD, he felt as if he lost position with FatherFigure!DD when Harry arrived and supplanted him as the favorite son. It's possible from an OFH (Out For Himself) or even an ESE viewpoint. It's also possible from a DDM viewpoint with a Snape who is somehow feeling angsty but still determined to be against LV. Dana now: Yes, I meant it that way and no I am not patting him on the head because every action he takes is still his own responsibility but I am not an ESE!Snaper. Every action we encounter in life has a consequence some of them are within our own control and some of them aren't. What is within our own control is the way we deal with them. In my viewpoint Snape is driven by hatred. He thinks he is in total control over his feelings and mocks Harry for wearing his heart on his sleeve but hate is a very powerful emotion and it can be all consuming and Snape is only in control over it as long as he does not come into contact with the source. When he comes into contact with his inner demons directly he loses control. How much depends on that particular situation? I'll bet it is more than Harry has registered. It was not a surprise to me to see JKR had made Snape a Capricorn because that is precisely what I see in Snape. The other shell projects total control but underneath there is a very real power struggle to keep the outer projecting as straight as possible. And we see it flicker out of control when the battle is momentarily lost. The only way to keep everything at bay is to make sure that every situation is controlled by you, but that is not how life works, not even for Snape. For this part I am sympathetic to Snape because I know what it is like being a Capricorn myself but I am not sympathetic to the way he chooses to deal with his inner struggle because instead of dealing with it and moving on he swells in it. I have seen so many people seem sympathetic to Snape and forgive him his own bullying because he was bullied, but two wrongs do not make a right and it is Snape's choices that define him, not what happened to him. You cannot change the past, not even when reliving it, so not wanting to listen to anyone in the Shrieking Shack because he finally has a chance to make a wrong right is not going to help him deal with the past feeling of hate. He lets his hate drive his actions and that is never good, not even if it was understandable. Snape projecting a substitution for his father on to DD would be very understandable just as it was understandable for Harry to project this on Sirius but you cannot expect these people to actually replace the father you never had, even if like in Sirius' case they try. And, therefore if Snape indeed did this then he cannot blame DD for not heeling his hurt feelings of the past, because only Snape can do that. So for a moment, if we assume this is the reason that Snape lost faith in DD, then the only mistake DD is responsible for is not recognizing it, but Snape is still responsible for letting his hate control him and let it now even shift to DD for not correcting all wrongs and making Harry more important than him. If Snape had moved on then he could have understood DD's actions because they essentially have nothing to do with Snape or how DD feels about him. Most people are capable of loving more than one person but instead Snape used DD's actions as proof that it was not all about him failing to see it never was. What DD did for Snape should have been enough proof DD made a tremendous effort to go out of his way for him. But with so much unresolved pain still being very alive it will never be enough. And I do not think LV can fill this void either in the long run. The only thing that can is love of self but I am not sure if book 7 will be long enough to have Snape go through the process, but you never know. Of course I could be so terribly wrong and Snape was always ever so evil and out for power and a what you see is what you get kind of man. We have to wait and see. > > Dana before: > > Only problem is, Snape still has the lifedebt and it will come into play in book 7, and there we will see that Sirius' little joke will save both Snape and Harry. Because it will force Snape out of LV's camp, and Harry's side will be the only one left, and Snape will take it. > Ceridwen: > Interesting prediction, given ESE!Snape. And, very interesting that you credit Sirius with starting these wheels in motion. It's true, but most people don't go back that far. It does carry out the thread of choices having a bearing on future events, though. Very interesting. If Snape turns out to be ESE, then I would want to see something like this as it does carry the theme. Dana now: Well I am a big Sirius fan and JKR has made him suffer enough, so in my wishful thinking mode she will credit him for setting up the lifedebt that eventually will be of some use even if he never had the foresight for it when he played it out. It would counter balance Snape's claiming credit for deposing of him. To me it doesn't really matter if Snape is ESE because I feel for what he did to Harry after Sirius died by taking a bag of salt and hose it into Harry' open wounds is enough for me to see Sirius have a go at him one last time even if he turns out to be DDM all along. > > Dana before: > > For those who might wonder why DD did not mention to Harry that Snape might have turned, and also why DD would never ask Snape to kill him in front of Harry, is because he knows what hate can do to you, that it can consume you and that it will drive all love out of you if you let it control you. > Ceridwen: > Very true. And, this has also been discussed. Harry already hates Snape unreasonably at the beginning of HBP. He blames him for Sirius's death. He admits to himself that he only feels this way because it makes him feel better. Harry's hatred has already begun. And, I do believe that he has to get rid of it in order to use the Patented Power of Love to vanquish LV. To me, getting rid of, releasing, his hatred, would be like cleaning a gun before using it. A lot of DDM!Snapers are worried about Harry's apparent slide into hatred because of his Love being necessary to defeat LV. Dana now: Maybe I should have just written this in my rant because essentially for me it is the only reason that I could never ever believe that DD would be willing to let it come to this in order for the grand plan to work. And if JKR is going to sell me this then these books will probably end up in the shredder. Don't get me wrong JKR can do whatever she pleases but this would go against all logic that she would have her "epitome of goodness" willingly fulfill Harry's fire of pure hatred because this is a power the Dark Lord knows enough of. Yes, It will be great to see Harry overcome and win this fight but there was already enough of it there after Sirius died than to not have Snape himself add some more but to have DD do it. That is one thing that I could not accept. That does not mean of course that I am not open to anything else, for instance that DD was right about Snape not being pure evil, and that he was somehow trustworthy and, if it is so I am sure she will find a way to make this convincing as long as it is not DD made me do it and he wanted you to watch it and experience what it is like to really hate just as you had to learn what it is like to really feel the pain of losing someone you love. (Which I still find very lame in the way it was written but will hold my silence on that issue and not waste valuable computer memory bytes on it) > > Dana before: > > Snape would not have died, not by UV or at the hands of LV, if he let DD die on his own accord (if he was really dying from the potion from the cave), so if Snape by legillimency saw DD was dying he could have stalled to let DD die because you cannot kill someone that is already dead, and the vow to do the task Draco was ordered to do would nullify at that same moment. > Ceridwen: > Probably, the third provision of the UV would have been rendered null and void if DD had died on his own. But we don't know what LV would have to say about that. As you mentioned earlier, we don't have any proof that LV wanted Snape to do this in the end; we don't know that LV will let Draco off the hook if Snape does the deed for him (though he may see the measure as making sure the deed gets done - still, would LV think this way?). And, we don't know if the UV would accept any DD death, or if it must happen at the hand of either the original contracted assassin, or the one who promised to do it if the first failed. We just don't know that much about Unbreakable Vows. So, we can't make the leap that Snape could definitely have waited for DD to finish dying before AK'ing him. Or, we could make the leap that he did wait until DD died, and in that instant, produced the AK that sent the lifeless body over the battlements. And, we don't know that Snape could have easily gone back to LV if he 'slithered out of action' again. He may have actually needed to boost his credits with LV, since he's been sitting at Hogwarts while the others have risked capture at the MoM, for an instance. He may need to prove by actions that he is LV's man. Dana now: Now we do not know if it was what LV wanted but re-reading the scene it seems that way because all other DE's present instantly step aside when Snape steps forward and no one says to him, hey what are you doing, Draco should do it. Greyback gets blasted for losing his patience and the other DE's are very willing and even ask Draco to step aside so they can take over if he is not going to do it anytime soon. They all are a little too eager for my taste to assume LV will be terribly upset with them if they kill DD themselves. So have to reconsider that one for now. Just before Snape cast the AK DD speaks to him so the stopping of the heart was really fast if we have to believe DD just died before the curse hit him. The only line between Severus please and the Avada Kadavra is Snape raising his want and pointing it to DD. If DD died before Snape killed him there would be nothing to bind the vow to. He can't say, h?y that is not fair, come back I have to kill you, you can't die on me before I can send you to your doom, how dare you. (Or next great adventure what ever) Technically Draco would not have failed in his task either, even if he'd lowered his wand and was never going through with it. Snape could have taken the time pretending to talk to Draco to convince him to do it. Think of your mother Draco, L From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 11 16:59:51 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:59:51 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/11/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1173632391.12.17661.m51@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165939 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday March 11, 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 celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 11 20:32:08 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:32:08 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165940 Dana: > `If he has forbidden it, you ought not to > speak,' said Snape at once. `The Dark Lord's > word is law.' > ... > `It so happens that I know of the plan,' he said > in a low voice. `I am one of the few the *Dark Lord* > has told. 'Nevertheless, had I not been in on the > secret, Narcissa, you would have been guilty of > great treachery to the *Dark Lord*.' houyhnhnm: Your ellipsis in the portion of "Spinner's End" quoted above leaves out a couple of things that I feel may be fairly important to the interpretation of what exactly is going on in that scene. First there is the fact that "Bellatrix looked satisfied for the first time since she had entered the house". Secondly, there is Snape's excursion to the window. These two factors make it perfectly plausible to me that Snape's first objective was to neutralize the threat posed by Bellatrix, and once he was secure of that, to turn the situation to good account by bluffing his way into Narcissa's confidence. At least I see nothing that contradicts such an interpretation. But I see little in that chapter of certain information, as opposed to plausible speculation, about who knew what, or how any of them stand with Voldemort, or what Voldemort has or has not ordered. It seems to me that just about every poster who cites "Spinner's End" to argue against DDM!Snape (whether or not they are espousing ESE!Snape; I know you are not.) makes the assumption that all three players in the scene are speaking the literal truth. Why is that a valid assumption? We *know* that Snape is the Dark Lord's favorite because Narcissa says so. We *know* that Snape already knows of the Dark Lord's plan because that's what he tells Bellatrix. Do we? I, for one, wouldn't trust anything any one of them says. All three are either directly or indirectly involved in a company of outlaws run by a murderous, torture-loving megalomaniac who rules by instilling fear and distrust. That alone puts them in a perilous position. In addition there is Narcissa, whose husband is in prison and whose son is being threatened with death. There is mad Bella, the fanatic devotee, whose last mission for the Dark Lord ended in utter failure. Then there is Snape. Whatever side one believes he is on, I think we can all agree that he is playing a dangerous game. So we have three high stakes players, each of whose interests may be at odds with those of the other two, and all of whom work for a boss who maintains power by keeping his followers in the dark and pitting one against the other. What do we know for sure about what is going on in Death Eater circles? Or what LV wants or doesn't want? Or whom he trusts? I don't think we get any. At the end of the chapter we know about the UV and that's about it for certain, because it seems obvious to me what all three of these people are doing at Spinner's End. They're bluffing. They're lying. They're spinning. They're flattering. They're threatening. Each one is trying to psyche out the other two. For that reason, I'm not sure how much can be concluded from the events at Spinner's End. I think it is a safe assumption that Narcissa knows about the plan. I'm not absolutely certain that Bellatrix does at this point. She may just know that something is up. She is outraged at Snape's claim that he is in the loop. ("You know about the plan?" said Bellatrix, her fleeting expression of satisfaction relaced by a look of outrage. "*You* know?") Snape may know or he may be bluffing. I don't think we can make any other assumptions, especially about what Voldemort did or did not want. All we have are three (ostensible) minions whose self-interests conflict, and they're all lying. Anyone who has ever had a really bad boss--the kind who encourages flattery and back-stabbing--and experienced the special kind of hell of a workplace environment that results, should be able to relate. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 11 20:52:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:52:27 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165941 Dana wrote: > > Interesting because what use will it be to Snape to misdirect Bella about LV? He might gloat a little that he is in the know more than she is but misdirecting another DE can be a very dangerous business, especially one that is competing for the Dark Lord's favor. Better not mess with information that can be checked with LV himself. > > Bella is not stupid, she even made sure Draco did not let Snape help him and wipe his own slate clean. So far it doesn't seem that Snape's misdirection is working very well now is it. Apparently Bella perceived Snape's words exactly as many readers do as being misdirection, so it missed the point entirely and I do not believe Snape is that dumb, but who knows? Carol responds: Bella isn't stupid, I agree. I don't think she's a genius, by any means, but such intelligence as she has leads her to suspect that Snape isn't as loyal to LV as she is. Even at the end of the chapter, she's still expecting him to "slither out of action" as usual. And certainly Snape has some reason to spend half the chapter convincing her of his loyalty, giving her, apparently, exactly the same answers that he's already given LV: "Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not already asked me each and every one of these questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be here talking to you?" (HBP Am. ed. 26). "Satisfactory answers," certainly, but we know that they're not entirely true. Snape is concealing anything that can be used against him, and we know that he can use Occlumency to lie without detection (OoP "Occlumency" chapter). Moreover, Snape specifies his reason for taking the time to answer Bella's questions before turning to Narcissa: The other DEs are talking about him behind his back, and he wants her to tell them exactly what he's told her (26)--obviously what he's already told LV or the conflict between the stories would get him in big trouble with the Dark Lord. That he does not entirely allay her doubts is beside the point. She has the story he's told the Dark Lord, and she has no way to disprove it. She can't very go to the Dark Lord and tell him that Snape has successfully lied to him. Her choice is to believe that Voldemort, "the greatest Legilimens in the world," could not possibly be fooled by Severus Snape--or to confront the Dark Lord with the idea that Snape has somehow "hoodwinked" him (26). If Bella values her life, she'd better keep those doubts to herself. Moreover, Snape makes sure that Bellatrix is no longer in the confidence of the Dark Lord before he begins his negotiations with Narcissa, which he knows full well that Bellatrix won't approve of because they involve trying to rescue Draco from a dangerous mission that the Dark Lord has sent him on, one that can end only with the death of Dumbledore or, more likely, Draco's failure and subsequent murder. "'He shares everything with me!' said Bellatrix. . . . "'Does he?' said Snape, his voice inflected to suggest disbelief. "'Does he *still*, after the fiasco at the Ministry?' "That was not my fault! said Bellatrix, flushing. 'The Dark Lord has in the past entrusted me with his most precious--" (29). That this trust was *in the past* makes it clear that Snape can safely proceed. Bella is no longer in the Dark Lord's confidence. She can't confirm his story and more than she can question the story he's already told the Dark Lord. (Note that she doesn't suspect that Snape sent the Order to the Ministry, complaining only that he wasn't there. She has no way of confirming whether his orders were to remain behind, as he claims. It makes sense that they were; after all, double agent Snape has to maintain his cover.) As additional insurance that Bella won't go to Voldemort, Snape makes sure that she's involved with the Unbreakable Vow by making her the Bonder. She *can't* go to LV to tell him about the UV to protect Draco because she's the one who administered it. Very clever, Snape! (Aside on Wormtail: He could have been made the Bonder in an emergency, but I don't think Narcissa would have thought of that or that Snape would have suggested it considering that he's carefully sent Wormtail out of the room and apparently sealed the door to keep him from eavesdropping. I still think that Narcissa didn't plan the UV from the beginning--she didn't expect Bella to follow her and she wouldn't have known that Wormtail was there.) As for Bella perceiving Snape's word as misdirection, do you mean that she knows or suspects that he lied to the Dark Lord about his loyalties? If that's your meaning, I agree with you, but again, she can't say anything, because to do so would be to tell Voldemort that Snape has "hoodwinked the greatest Legilimens the world has ever known"--and Bella isn't fool enough to tell LV that Snape is smarter than he is. Snape's taking the vow doesn't assure her of his allegiance to Voldemort, since all of them are going behind the Dark Lord's back, but it does seem to prove to her that he's not Dumbledore's man. (That's hardly a sufficient reason for Snape to take the vow, especially the last provision, nor do I think it's his main reason, though it's probably a consideration. But at the moment, I'm talking about Bellatrix, not Snape.) I think her astonishment is significant because it relates to and sheds light on her subsequent actions. This time, in her view, Snape *isn't* "slithering out of action.* He's agreeing to "protect" and "watch over" Draco, at the risk of his own life. He's even willing, apparently, to "do the deed" if it appears that Draco will fail. But Bellatrix, loyal servant of Voldemort, is determined that the "glory" of killing Dumbledore will go to Draco, not to Snape, and she does her best later to undermine Draco's relationship with Snape, not only teaching Draco rudimentary Occlumency (easily detectable but sufficient to prevent him from seeing Draco's plans in his mind). It's likely that she's the one who plants the suspicion in Draco's mind that Snape is trying to steal his glory, an idea that Snape himself reacts to with scorn, saying coldly, "You are speaking like a child" (524). It's clear, so clear that even Harry notices it, that something or someone has come between Snape and his favorite student, who used to speak to him respectfully. The something is obviously Draco's "job" for the Dark Lord; he no longer trusts Snape and sneers at his protection (as well as at Snape's new subject, Defense against the Dark Arts. He assumes that Snape is a loyal Death Eater, competing with the other DEs for Voldemort's favor. Since Narcissa trusts Snape and has come to him for help, she can't be the person who has planted these doubts in Draco's mind. It has to be either Voldemort himself or Aunt Bellatrix, the same person who has (Snape deduces or assumes) taught Draco Occlumency to keep Snape from, as Draco puts it, "butting in" (324). Clearly, Bellatrix doesn't want Snape to know what's going on. *She* believes Narcissa's line about being rewarded above all others. She wants her old position of trust restored, or if she can't resume her old position, she wants it to go to her own nephew, not to Snape. Unlike the others, she doesn't care whether Draco lives or dies: "If I had sons, I would be glad to give them up to the service of the Dark Lord!" 35). Bellatrix wants the Dark Lord's orders carried out. She wants Dumbledore dead. But the last thing she wants is for Severus Snape, whom she still doesn't fully trust, to "steal" Draco's "glory." And Draco, even after Snape saves him from Sectumsempra, believes it, too. I wonder, however, how he'll feel when he discovers that the "glory" he anticipated is really infamy and the life of a wanted criminal. Dana wrote: > > I am not an ESE!Snaper because they believe he was evil from the start and I do not. I believe Snape is not an LV man either and I do not even believe he is out for his own self anymore or at least not as part of grabbing the bone when the other two top dogs are fighting for it. Carol responds: Good. So far, we agree perfectly. I'm not an ESE!Snaper, either, nor do I believe for a moment that a man who is out for himself would take an Unbreakable Vow under any circumstances. Dana: I believe Snape is driven by his feelings of hate that are raging inside him and he cannot control. I believe he is looking for acceptance so desperately that he lets himself be driven by it and yes at this moment I believe he's disappointed in DD for not choosing him over the, in his mind, not special at all, Harry, which has driven him to the other side where at this moment LV is giving him the acceptance he is graving so badly. Carol: I think you're partially right. IOW, I think that young Snape joined the DEs in the first place looking for (or craving) acceptance and respect, not to mention a creative outlet for his considerable abilities. And he also deeply values, perhaps craves, Dumbledore's respect. But I'm not sure that he's as driven by hatred as you seem to think he is. He's certainly shown courage by showing his Dark Mark to Fudge, returning to LV with prepared explanations for his dealings with Quirrell and absence from the graveyard ("If you are ready, if you are prepared"), and he has undoubtedly saved Harry's life at least once despite hating him. (As for PoA, he could easily have left HRH to the werewolf and Black to the Dementors that were still on the Hogwarts grounds and could have returned as soon as the person who conjured the Patronus disappeared. I count that as saving Harry's life again, just as he saved him from a Crucio in HBP.) Nor am I sure about Snape's view of Harry, other than his being an arrogant little rule-breaker. Does he really think that Harry is "mediocre in the last degree" (in which case, he may fear that Harry will fail in his role as the Chosen One) or is that what he wants the DEs and Voldemort to think? Either is consistent with DDM!Snape. Dana: > I do not believe Snape would rather have died and his wanting to be a hero has nothing to do with going out with a blaze. Carol: I'm not sure where you get this idea that some of os see Snape as wanting to go out in a blaze of glory. (I certainly haven't argued that, and I don't know of anyone who has.) If that's what he wanted, surely, he would have fought a few Death Eaters until they or the UV killed him. And certainly whatever "glory" he might receive from LV (the reward that Narcissa was apparently trying to tempt him with and that Draco accuses him of wanting to steal) is small compensation for the loss of his mentor and protector, the loss of his job, the loss of his freedom, the threat of death and imprisonment, and the hatred of the entire WW aside from the possibly envious DEs). No one is saying that Snape wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. That might fit Sirius Black but not Snape, whose choices are to take on the ignominy of murdering Dumbledore himself (or seeming to do so, according to some hypotheses) or to die from the UV. *We don't know* whether he would rather have died than be in his present situation, but it's certainly possible. Not being Wormtail, he may not value his own life above anything else. It's possible (IMO likely) that he valued Dumbledore's cause, the destruction of Voldemort, above else. If so, to die fighting the DEs would *seem* to be the right choice but instead it would be the *easy* choice. What good is dying a hero if the boy you vowed to save and protect is killed, along with the only person who can bring avbout his goal, the destruction of Voldemort? DDM!Snape *has* to save Harry and Draco, and the only way to do that, under the peculiar circumstances of the tower, which neither he nor DD could have anticipated, is to kill DD himself. (See my previous posts.) Dana: > He keeps everybody reminded of the fact he could have died at Lupin's hand and even wants to have Sirius soul sucked for having a hand in it. Carol: No. Harry and Lupin *assume* that the "schoolboy grudge" is the reason for Snape's rage and his desire to have Black soul-sucked, and it's certainly the reason that he hated and mistrusted them in the first place. But Snape himself states that James Potter was too arrogant to believe that Black was not trustworthy and that he's saving HRH from a murderer and his werewolf accomplice. He still thinks that Black murdered thirteen people, including Peter Pettigrew, and that Lupin has been helping him into the castle to murder Harry. Events prove him wrong, but those beliefs (easily supported by canon from the Shrieking Shack scene and the earlier scene after Black slashes the Fat Lady's portrait) provide the real reason for his actions. He has also, of course, been trying to prevent Harry from sneaking into Hogsmeade, where Black could easily kill him, as Lupin points out when he confiscates the map). And Snape doesn't "keep everybody reminded" of the fact that Lupin could have killed him. He reminds Dumbledore *once* that Sirius Black (not Lupin) tried to kill him when they were sixteen. IMO, Snape is ashamed of having had his life saved by his worst enemy, James Potter, and only mentions the incident to remind Dumbledore of Black's seemingly murderous tendencies. Dana: > He also keeps reminding everybody that he is risking his butt at great *personal* risk, that is not a man who has a death wish but one that wants to be admired for his skills to stay alive while others parish. He is too self-centered to die on behalf of someone else. He doesn't even want to risk his cover for Harry because it would mean LV would turn on him; and all this while he would certainly have been the hero for DD if he had done so. Carol: Sirius Black says in the Shrieking Shack that he wishes Snape had died in the so-called Prank. He tries to undermine Snape when Snape tells Harry that DD wants Snape to teach him Occlumency, calling him Snivellus and implying that he's not to be trusted, that he's Malfoy's "lapdog." Snape retorts in kind, insinuating that Black is a coward and pointing out that Black's rash excursion accompanying Harry to Platform 9 3/4 caused Malfoy to spot him. Now that Snape knows that Black wasn't the murderer who betrayed the Potters, as he had so happily believed all these years, he's back to his schoolboy grudge. But so is Black. They reinforce each other. I'm not arguing, BTW, that Snape has a death wish, so we agree there. The choice between killing DD or dying has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to die. It has to do with right vs. easy in a very particular set of circumstances. But I think we can safely say that, unlike Wormtail and Voldemort, Snape isn't *afraid* to die. In that, oddly enough, he resembles Sirius Black. Both of them resent charges of cowardice, but neither is a coward. (The cowards we've seen are Wormtail and Karkaroff, and, on a moral level, Lupin when he chooses not to act in both the Pensieve scene and throughout PoA. He does. of course, accept the mission to spy on the werewolves, but that involves physical danger, not the loss of friendship or esteem, which is Lupin's real fear, his full-moon Boggart to the contrary.) Dana: > Narcissa already asked Snape to do it for Draco so either Snape > is really ignorant or a complete idiot to not expect Narcissa including this in the vow. > > Quote: 'You could do it instead of Draco, Severus. *He* would > reward you beyond all of *us* -` page 39 UK ed [Emphasis mine] Carol: And yet that's not what she asked him to do. She asks if he'll take the UV to protect Draco. And that's what the first two versions require of him. The hand twitch indicates that he didn't anticipate, and dreads, what's coming in the third provision. Snape is neither an idiot nor ignorant. He knows that Narcissa wants him to protect Draco from harm and death, and that's what he's promising to do when he agrees to take the vow. That she may have something else up her sleeve is a risk he takes, wittingly or unwittingly. We don't yet know his motives. But to think that Snape is at all tempted by the thought that LV will reward him "beyond all of us" is, IMO, to make Snape appear as naive as Draco. Snape knows all too well how LV rewards his followers. He sees the wreck that Wormtail has become, despite his precious silver hand. He knows that one of LV's motives in sending Draco to kill Dumbledore is vengeance against Lucius Malfoy if Draco fails. He knows what happened to Barty Crouch Jr. He knows that Bellatrix, the most faithful remaining follower, is no longer in a position of trust. Unlike Draco, unlike his younger self, Snape has no illusions of reward. And Narcissa's mentioning this idea earlier, to which Snape has merely replied thoughtfully that he *thinks* he expects him to do it in the end is no indication that he *wants* to do it, nor does her mentioning that idea in hopes that being rewarded by LV to do the deed will serve as an inducement automatically mean that she'll sneak in the same idea, without the suggestion of a reward, into the vow. (I personally think she had no such intention and that the DADA curse caused it to pop into her head, but I'm sure you disagree with that view.) Carol, who can't possibly answer all the ideas in Dana's very long post and is for the moment limiting herself to these From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Mar 12 00:57:14 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:57:14 -0000 Subject: Fate, Snape and the DADA curse was Re: Snape, the unbreakab etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165942 Carol signed off: > Carol, who of course shares your conviction that Snape is DDM! but > sees him caught in a web of circumstance that stems in part from his > own past actions and in part from a malign fate symbolized by the > fiery bonds at the end of the chapter > Pippin: Can dark magic really control fate? If fate in the Potterverse is set forth in the heavens, to be deciphered by centaurs over tens of years, if it is not concerned with "trivial hurts, tiny human accidents", then it's beyond the power of dark wizards to meddle with. Trelawney and Voldemort would no doubt see it differently, but IMO the beliefs of Dumbledore and Firenze are more likely to be in accord with the author than theirs. After all, if Voldemort did have such power, why waste it on such a petty target? Why not curse the Headmastership itself? And what about the Ministry of Magic? Plenty of targets there. IMO, the curse does not tamper with fate. I agree with Catlady that it simply forces its victim to divulge whatever secrets make him unworthy of his office. That would make it the perfect tool of revenge for Voldemort, denied the position because he was unworthy. But it wouldn't work on, say, the Minister of Magic, or the Headmaster, because candidates for those offices are (one presumes) vetted far more thoroughly, and the skeletons in their closet are found out in the selection process. In addition, I think the curse works in conjunction with the spells of protection on Hogwarts. It strikes me that those who come to the worst harm do so not when their secret is revealed but when they attempt damage control by attacking students. Perhaps that is why Voldemort has not used this curse elsewhere. Now, if the curse works a bit like veritaserum, then perhaps it can be fought in the same way -- with occlumency, as Jo mentions on her website. If so, then perhaps Snape thought he could beat it, although whether Voldemort would really want him to is open to question. Voldemort does not like his servants to surpass him. I think Snape did indeed want the job, in the sense that he thought it would be a better use of his talents than trying to teach potions to dunderheads. However, IMO, applying for it every year was part of his cover, to maintain the impression that Dumbledore did not, whatever he said, trust Snape completely. As I said, Voldemort does not like his servants to surpass him, and since he himself was never able gain Dumbledore's trust, he would surely have problems with the idea that Snape had done so, especially over such a long period of time. Also, if the curse works like veritaserum and can be fought with occlumency, it may shed some more light on the Shrieking Shack. It has always puzzled me that Snape interrupts when he does. Why at that particular moment? Wouldn't it have been better to let Lupin go on talking? Or wait until he or Sirius proved their evil nature by attacking? Surely Snape wouldn't think Lupin was going to admit to Snape's face that he'd helped Sirius attempt to murder him. Or would he? If Snape thought that Lupin was talking so much because he was being compelled to confess by the DADA curse, if Snape *was* expecting to hear from Lupin that he had taken part in planning the events known to us as The Prank, it's no wonder he lost it when his dramatic appearance failed to produce the desired result. Lupin not only failed to confess but accused Snape of acting on a schoolboy grudge. And so it seemed to Harry. Of course there's a very strong hint in canon that Lupin is an occlumens,* so Lupin's failure to confess is not necessarily proof of his innocence. :) Pippin Who thinks the solutions to the major mysteries will be guessable but, unlike the minor mysteries, counter-intuitive. *"An odd, closed expression had appeared on Lupin's face"-- PoA ch 14 From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 02:00:44 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:00:44 -0000 Subject: Another mysterious message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165943 Neri snipped: Harry *liked* his scar. Not his "green-bright" eyes, which are also special, and not his black hair that he got from his father. The only thing he liked about his own appearance was the scar, despite it being a constant reminder of the accident in which he'd lost his parents. Why? Perhaps because in his subconscious it was also connected with a certain half-forgotten friend? The only friend he had in his early childhood? Note also that the Dursleys, although they certainly don't want to take Harry with them to the zoo, refuse to let him stay alone in the house. "And come back and find the house in ruins?" asks Petunia rhetorically. She seems to think it was baby Harry who blew up his parents' house on them. It was all his fault. But why would she think such a thing? She knows about Voldemort, after all. Perhaps she blames Harry because he had some destructive incidents of uncontrolled magic in front of her? But Harry doesn't remember such destructive incidents. He only remembers innocent things like flying to the school's roof and growing his hair back overnight. He protests: "I won't blow up the house" and doesn't recall any such incidents. Or maybe he had "half forgotten" them too? And it seems that there was at least one really bad incident. And very suspiciously, Dudley has forgotten about it too. But under the effect of a dementor he recalls it, and it was the worst memory he had in his life, something so bad he won't talk about it. Harry wonders what it is, and JKR promised we'll find out, so you can bet it's important. But what could terrorize Dudley so badly? Reminds you of a certain boy who had a hobby terrorizing muggle children? Only if it was him again, then he was terrorizing Dudley but *not* Harry. Well, of course he wasn't ? he was Harry's *friend*. Snow: First off, I would like to commend you on an excellent synopsis of Harry's special friend. Now, if you don't mind, I would like to add to this paragraph and say that Harry's little friend was making a repeat performance in OOP only Harry didn't take notice. (Harry never questions this voice even when it becomes so noticeable that Harry talks to it) Harry returns to the Dursleys after witnessing his nemesis' bodily rebirth and one of the first things that Harry does is goad Dudley at the playground. Voldemort's rebirth seems to have had an affect on the connection in Harry by influencing Harry's special friend, for throughout the book Harry has had conversations with himself that began when he thinks his best buddies betrayed him. Dumbledore won't look at Harry because he could see Voldemort lurking there ... or is it Harry's special friend that makes that connection for Harry when Harry is at his most vulnerable? Why could Dumbledore see Voldemort lurking behind Harry's eyes (the window to the brain) and yet Snape even through Occlumency doesn't detect his old master? This connection becomes so strong that Harry's special friend becomes one with this evil counterpart in the bowels of a snake feeling all the sensations that Voldemort feels when they attack Arthur. Dumbledore checks with his gadgets and is assured that a final connection has not been made between the special friend and Voldemort and they do remain separate at this point. It becomes clear to Dumbledore that the matter at hand needs to be further tested and see just how close to the surface this special friend is and how much influence he has on Harry. Along come Occlumency lessons that Harry feels are making himself more susceptible to Voldemort. Neri: Oh, and there's another person who's very interested in Harry's half forgotten years with the Dursleys. It's Snape. Instead of teaching Harry some useful ways of blocking Voldemort he was spending all the Occlumency lessons digging after Harry's "very early memories he had not even realized he still had" (OotP, Ch. 26). What was so interesting about these old memories? And yet, all Snape could dig up was things like Dudley making Harry stand in the toilet, and that's very strange in itself. Since when is Harry such a good Occlumens that he can block Snape? Or was it someone else who blocked Snape? Someone who unlike Harry is very good at Occlumency? Someone who was always very good at making people forget? Someone who could hide the really interesting memories without Snape or Harry even realizing that he did? Snow: Although Snape has probed Harry's memories he still maintains there is nothing special about you Potter and Tom Riddle had a similar opinion when he told Harry in the Chamber that he knew he had to meet him if he could but determined that there was nothing special about Harry. This special friend does seem to possess special powers. It would answer why Snape or Diary Tom were unable to detect Harry's special friend or acknowledge any powers that this friend has. Neri: Well, it looks like that someone has managed to fool Snape, because only a few moths after the Occlumency lessons, in Spinner's End, Snape mentions to Bella that in the beginning he had thought Harry might be another Dark Lord, but now he's convinced Harry is useless. But I think Snape wasn't realizing how much he was right about one thing: Harry was indeed only saved by "more talented friends". There's that word again. I suspect JKR had a very ironic smile on her face when she wrote it. Because if we accept all these clues, then we must conclude that that someone *is* a friend of Harry. Not a very nice friend, perhaps ? he still has that nasty hobby of terrorizing muggle children ? but the point is that he doesn't terrorize Harry. He helps him. He seems to like his current hiding place in the back of Harry's mind, a half forgotten friend, and he wants to stay there. Perhaps he's very afraid of what Harry would think of him if he ever finds out, and this is why he decided to go underground when Harry grew up. He's mostly very careful not to draw attention to himself, to his knowledge and powers. But when Harry is in mortal danger, that someone would save him even if it means destroying old parts of himself. Remember, when Harry destroyed a Horcrux (and unlike the great Dumbledore without any damage to himself) he did it "without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along" (CoS, 14). Or anyway, some half forgotten friend in the back of Harry's mind had meant to do it, if there would be need, and had also known *how* to do it. And you know, a friend in need is a friend indeed. So I don't think there's anything absurd about that "friend" paragraph in CoS. I think it's the whole point. Snow: Placing a soul bit inside another living creature that can think for itself can be quite dangerous and ill-advised but then again when you don't know that you've placed it there...it can be quite hazardous to your health... Isn't it funny that the only part of the Prophecy Voldemort neglected to hear was the part that would have allowed him to realize that Harry is only equal to himself because he has a bit of Voldemort? And why does Dumbledore realize not to look at Harry, at Grimmald Place, even before he encounters the fact that looking at Harry reveals a lurking of Voldemort? Does Dumbledore know or suspect that Harry has a Horcrux-portion of Voldemort? Snow From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Mar 12 04:29:27 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:29:27 EDT Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165944 >Dana >There are a few reasons why I do not believe that the scenario of DD asking Snape to kill him actually fits with what is shown to us or why it isn't even logical (for me that is). Of course it is besides the fact that the majority of fans seem to hold this view while JKR specifically states it is not easily guessable what will happen in book 7 or she will be extremely annoyed. I have read many arguments about why people believe what happened on the tower was directed by DD and Snape was acting out his orders. Well, there are a few problems with the logic of these arguments for me to understand them as true. Instead I am going to argue that I think Snape indeed did kill DD because he got himself into this mess and there was no other way for him to get out of it; but for me, DD's orders had nothing to do with it. I even have another reason but will talk about that further down. Nikkalmati At this point I am a DDMSnaper, but I don't believe DD ordered Snape to kill him or planned it ahead of time. What we see on the Tower is the result of a broken plan, a salvage attempt, an adjustment to an unexpected development. Nikkalmati >Dana So why do I doubt DD asking Snape to kill him and why for instance the argument in the forest does not sound as proof to me that DD asked this of Snape? >From a logical standpoint, Snape's reaction in the forest makes no sense if DD indeed asked him to kill him. Why? Because Snape by that time already believed LV expected him to do it and he committed himself to an UV to do it if Draco failed. So why argue DD for it? If he doesn't, he dies - either by LV's hand, or due to the UV. So what does it matter if DD then asks him? Wouldn't it make Snape's job a little easier if DD agrees it is for the best? Nikkalmati I don't think we can get much out of the argument in the forest - except that Snape and DD argued, presumably in a location where they thought no one could hear them (remember Hagrid implied that they really went at it). But from a DDman Snape view, Snape could have been arguing that he was willing to die rather than kill DD. DD was saying we are not going to let it come to that point, but if it does, I want you to live rather than me. At Spinner's End Snape did not say LV wanted him to carry out Draco's task in the end - just that Snape thought that was what he wanted. (Personally, I think Snape was lying through his teeth in this whole scene and had no previous knowledge of the task or of what LV wanted or did not want). Lets assume LV wanted Draco dead - then why would he order Snape to kill DD, if Draco failed? If he thought Snape could kill DD why not just have him do it? Nikkalmati (inserting post from wynnleaf from last summer below) >wynnleaf >In any case, what I'm basically saying is that Snape's argument with Dumbledore is due to anxiety over the intricate nature of Dumbledore's plans and the fact that they relied on too many variables whose outcome Snape felt Dumbledore was taking for granted. What I'm supposing is that some of those things Dumbledore took for granted *did* fail him. His plan depended on a certain timing from Draco. But events moved too swiftly within the castle, foiling Dumbledore's two attempts to get Harry to Snape and Snape back to Dumbledore -- thereby ultimately resulting in Dumbledore's death. >Dana >Okay the second argument of many Snape fans is that Snape is doing this on DD's order to save Draco from becoming a murderer. This necessitates the question; DD's death is serving Draco how? Nikkalmati The idea is that Draco will not have to split his soul by killing an innocent helpless man. Sure, the details of what Draco will do now is going to be worked out in the next book. Will LV forgive him? Possibly Snape will advocate for him. Yes, Snape will have to give some excuse why he killed DD, but I suspect LV will be pretty happy overall. No, it seems way beyond the terms of the UV to assume Snape has to do any job LV assigns Draco in the future. Nikkalmati >Dana >So again I ask the question: how does this arrangement protect Draco? By the way, isn't it interesting that in the US version DD suggests something entirely different? Doesn't this suggest that if Snape and DD arranged this, then saving Draco was never part of it, why else suggest something different to th e boy if all as been arranged in the first place? It doesn't make sense to me that DD would ever want Snape to kill him to deliver Draco back to LV; and besides, also like Neri has suggested before, don't you think it would raise an awful lot of questions if Snape would still walk this earth while Draco died, and thus failing his task, and of course DD is not dead either; but if Snape kills DD than Draco can't be hidden away so... This sounds to me that DD was either not aware of the UV or did not care much for Snape keeling over for breaking the vow. At least it doesn't seem like DD has the same plan as Snape fans say he does if he ordered to have Snape kill him because he is more valuable alive (and in LV's camp), because if Draco had taken the offer it would be bye bye Snape. Even if the UV would not be broken Snape would still have to face LV and you can bet your *ss that Bella would bring Snape's head on a silver platter for having her sister and her nephew killed (as no one will tell her about it, she is to loyal to LV and if to many people know then there is too much risk for this plan to fail), and not finishing the job and it would have been the end of the plan. Doesn't sound really airtight to me this plan Snape fans are trying to sell me but than again I am not interested in a bridge either. (Sorry, could not resist promise will behave from now on) Nikkalmati Huh? I can't follow this at all. DD and Snape never planned for Draco to get a clear shot at DD or to get DEs into the castle. DD is trying to talk Draco out of killing him. At that point, there are quite a few options because the DEs and Snape are not there. DD could cook up a story about his having killed Draco and make him disappear. Would that trigger the UV? Not if killing DD wasn't "necessary." Enter DEs stage right and that plan collapses. Nikkalmati >Dana >Oh, but there is more of course, because Snape fans will say DD asked this of Snape because Snape is more important to Harry alive. How? So he can tell Harry what LV is going to do next? Or any of the members of the Order? Are they really going to listen to what he has to say? It was DD who trusted him, but he never explained to anyone why. I think it is a little too much to ask of anyone to still keep this in mind when the same person just killed the one who trusted him. Nikkalmati I think Jo can work this out. >Dana >By the way -- without the UV Snape could just go to LV and tell him he doesn't want to pretend he is working for DD anymore and that he wants to come out and be a proud DE. This does not require a dead DD -- Nakkalmati Maybe LV wouldn't want that? Nikkalmati >Dana > And beside when did Snape ever put his own life on the line for Harry? He certainly did not go to the MoM himself to make sure Harry was okay; he was the only one who knew and still found his cover more important and we are told he was ordered by LV to stay behind meaning he was privy to LV's plans, even before Harry's adventure to the DoM. He could have warned to MoM so the DE's would have been surprised by a dozen aurors instead of a couple of teenagers. For g*d sake, they were running around the MoM building: how hard would it have been for an auror to run into them without any risk to Snape's cover? Nikkalmati Why isn't his cover important? Also, why would he think Harry could get to the MOM? He checked on Sirius, went back to Umbridge's office (presumably) learned Harry, H and U were gone into the forest, checked the forest and then alerted the Order. If you recall, no one at Hogwarts was in good with the Ministry at that time or in a position to request Aurors. I really don't see a time gap. If Snape intended for the Order to arrive late, he sure messed up. I think Snape has general orders from LV not to take part in any actions. I doubt he was told about the attempt to lure Harry (remember he is lying to Bella IMHO) and even if he was, there was no reason to believe Harry could get to the MOM until he realized Harry was missing. How can he get away with lying to Bella? I don't think she (or anyone else) is in a position to question LV about what he is doing or whom he consults. He might take that amiss. Nikkalmati . >Dana >Many argue that Snape did not hurt Harry on the way out at the end of book 6, but apparently they forgot Snape was run over by a Hippogriff. Snape's so-called hurt expressed in that moment seem to me his hatred for Harry is coming to a climax when Harry called him a coward -- not because Snape just had done a brave thing, but because the whole Harry/ James issue has prevented Snape to live the life he wanted as he is still controlled by a Potter brat in his adult life, and that must really hurt. Nikkalmati Yeah, I'm sure it does hurt. But Snape had plenty of time in this scene to do damage to Harry or to petrify him and carry him off before Witherwings shows up. BTW you didn't mention Snape stopped the Crucio either directly or by advising the caster that it was forbidden. Nikkalmati >Dana >So what do I think DD asked of Snape in the argument in the forest? Well, I believe DD asked Snape to stop his spying days and help Harry in his task to defeat LV. This would be too much to ask of Snape now that LV trusts him, because if he now renounced LV, he will move up on the "to do list" of things LV needs to dispose of. This would be something I can see Snape arguing about with DD, and what DD would order Snape to do. Nikkalmati If DD asked Snape to go back to spying, why would he ask him to stop? Do you expect Snape to teach Harry DADA like he taught him Occlumancy? (BTW I believe canon makes it clear the failure of the lessons was primarily Harry's fault). >Dana > Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending Snape back to LV in GoF. I believe Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in DD. And I believe Snape's hate for James, Sirius and, eventually, Harry, is the cause of this. I believe Snape has grown to see DD as a substitute father and until Harry showed up everything was fine, and Snape was a happy camper getting the respect (or forcing it) from all who surrounded him, including DD: but then Harry shows up and in his first year he steals Snape's glory when he tries to expose Quirell, so DD's eyes are on Harry and not on Snape, and this must have brought back so many memories, for it was James who stole his glory when he himself was a student. From another angle, Jo clearly does not want us to know where Snape's loyalties lie. Isn't it likely that the most obvious interpretation is the one that will turn out to be wrong? >Dana >For those who might wonder why DD did not mention to Harry that Snape might have turned, and also why DD would never ask Snape to kill him in front of Harry, is because he knows what hate can do to you, that it can consume you and that it will drive all love out of you if you let it control you. Snape would not have died, not by UV or at the hands of LV, if he let DD die on his own accord (if he was really dying from the potion from the cave), so if Snape by legillimency saw DD was dying he could have stalled to let DD die because you cannot kill someone that is already dead, and the vow to do the task Draco was ordered to do would nullify at that same moment. Harry would not have hated Snape even more and Snape could still cross over to LV if that was really what DD wanted of him, and also order out the DE because DD's death was the end of the mission, end of story. Nikkalmati Well, isn't that exactly what happened? (Thanks for the alternative perspective)


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 11:57:02 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:27:02 +0530 Subject: Your information Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165945 Hi! The old document. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justasoliloquy at mail.com Mon Mar 12 04:32:17 2007 From: justasoliloquy at mail.com (pandatattoos) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:32:17 -0000 Subject: Fleur In-Reply-To: <001001c762ad$7cef72c0$2f01a8c0@Lana> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" wrote: > My sister and I were talking and she brought up something I hadn't > thought about. > Fleur... I am a bit bewildered that JK brought her back into the > storyline. Why?? It seems odd that someone of no apparent > relevance, to me anyway, would be brought back. While Fleur may not have shown her courage and strength during the Triwizard Tournament there was a reason for the goblet to choose her as the Beauxbatons champion. I think she'll prove herself to be a strong ally in the war against Voldemort. KC From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 04:49:57 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:49:57 -0000 Subject: Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165947 I was just wondering, what do you guys think will happen to Hagrid in the last book? He's very important to Harry when you think about it. After all, he has been his friend since book one. He was even the one who went and got Harry after his parents' death. What do you think his role will be in the final book? Irishshedevil From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 14:11:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:11:21 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165948 > >Dana > > Personally, I believe DD's biggest mistake about trusting Snape is sending > Snape back to LV in GoF. I believe Snape indeed turned in his loyalty and > the reason for this is not because he is LV's man, but because he lost faith in > DD. And I believe Snape's hate for James, Sirius and, eventually, Harry, is > the cause of this. > POV) > > Nikkalmati > > I see where your coming from, except that this is not the character I see > after 6 books. This character is immature, childish, insecure and petty. This > Snape was the one we saw in Book 1 and was still possible after Book 3, but > as the layers of the onion have been peeled away we have seen an increasingly > strong and powerful wizard who IMHO does not fit you description; coherent > as it may be,it is not the man Jo is writing. I certainly do not claim that > you are incorrect, only that I do not see it. > > DD was a reasonable judge of character, after all, he saw through LV from > the start. He knew the whole history of Snape from the time he was a child; > how could he have missed this and how could he have trusted Snape "completely", > if he knew this was the kind of man he was? > From another angle, Jo clearly does not want us to know where Snape's > loyalties lie. Isn't it likely that the most obvious interpretation is the one > that will turn out to be wrong? Alla: You do not see **petty, childish and immature** Snape after 6 books? To me he is right there on the Tower, screaming **you and your filfy father**, proudly pronouncing himself the **Half Blood Prince**, something he called himself in the childhood, no? For me Snape pettiness, childishness and immaturity did not go anywhere. I mean, of course he is a powerful wizard, who can argue with that? I just do not think that it precludes him from being stuck in his emotional development, being powerful that is. And of course Dumbledore being a good judge of character is amusing to me as well and disagreeable too. :) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Mar 12 14:49:51 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:49:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid References: Message-ID: <008a01c764b5$b0a41530$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 165949 >I was just wondering, what do you guys think will happen to Hagrid in > the last book? He's very important to Harry when you think about it. > After all, he has been his friend since book one. He was even the one > who went and got Harry after his parents' death. What do you think his > role will be in the final book? > > Irishshedevil Oh my gosh, you don't think that he could be one of the main characters who die, do you? Just to illustrate just how badly the war ends up going before the final showdown? As if Harry doesn't need another reason to off Voldemort already, I could see the death of one of his good friends giving Harry the hatred needed to do even the most unthinkable for him. Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 16:12:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:12:57 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: <008a01c764b5$b0a41530$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165951 Shelley wrote: > > Oh my gosh, you don't think that he could be one of the main characters who die, do you? Just to illustrate just how badly the war ends up going before the final showdown? As if Harry doesn't need another reason to off Voldemort already, I could see the death of one of his good friends giving Harry the hatred needed to do even the most unthinkable for him. > Carol responds: Hatred is the last thing Harry needs if he's supposed to defeat Voldemort through the mysterious power of Love. He needs to get beyond his hatred of Snape, not feel still more hatred. The theme of the dangers of revenge pervades the books, and I don't think that Harry is going in that direction. Nevertheless, I do think it's likely that Hagrid will die. He has a role to play yet, something to do with Grawp, possibly, and he's a source of information for Harry about Snape and about Godric's Hollow. And if there's a Battle of Hogwarts, as I think there will be, I think he'll play an important and heroic role. He has more than one grudge against Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and I think he'll fight to the death, maybe even being killed by Voldemort himself. Stunners bounce off him, but an AK won't. JKR has said that main characters will die, meaning good guys, so it's likely that Hagrid will be one of them. I think, however, that she always meant him to die and that he's not one of the two who were originally slated to live but end up dying. That sounds to me like the Weasley Twins. Carol, who figures that Harry has to lose someone important to him and would rather it be Hagrid (dying bravely) than Ron or Hermione From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 16:26:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:26:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165952 Alla wrote: > > For me Snape pettiness, childishness and immaturity did not go anywhere. > > I mean, of course he is a powerful wizard, who can argue with that? > > I just do not think that it precludes him from being stuck in his emotional development, being powerful that is. > > And of course Dumbledore being a good judge of character is amusing to me as well and disagreeable too. :) > Carol responds: Dumbledore also trusts another powerful wizard who demonstrates pettiness, childishness, and immaturity: Sirius Black (still using the schoolground nickname "Snivellus," still wishing that Severus had died in the so-called Prank, etc.). Clearly, Snape's inability to get past not one but two humiliating incidents, the "worst memory" and the much more dangerous and traumatic exposure to a werewolf, followed by the humiliation of having his life saved by his worst enemy) is not a reason to mistrust him in DD's view, nor is being stuck in adolescence because of twelve years in Azkaban a reason to mistrust Sirius Black. The immaturity, which shows up in Snape only in relation to the Marauders but in Sirius Black also in relation to Harry (wanting him to take risks for the fun of it) is a side issue. Whatever Dumbledore's reason(s) for trusting them both, he does so in spite of their shared fault. That aside, let's look at the people Dumbledore trusts (perhaps not as completely as he trusts Snape). We can start with Harry, whom he loves and admires and from whom he withholds information only because Harry is too young, not yet ready, or because the link with Voldemort is too strong (in OoP). By HBP, Dumbledore is telling Harry things that he's apparently told no one else, even trusting Harry to forcefeed him poison. And DD sldo trusts Ron and Hermione, to whom he allows Harry to confide the Prophecy and the existence of the Horcruxes. He trusts Hagrid with his life (but perhaps not with his secrets). He trusts the members of the Order with the knowledge that Voldemort is back before that becomes common knowledge and with helping him in the fight against LV. The Order members have their weaknesses, too, yet Dumbledore trusts them to remain loyal to him and to fight Voldemort in their own way. Lupin is secretive and withheld information that could have cost Harry his life in PoA if Black had really been out to murder him rather than Wormtail. Moody is paranoid and perhaps not entirely sane. Mundungus is a sneak thief, and Dumbledore *may* be wrong to trust him (we don't yet know what the incident with Aberforth and his arrest for impersonating an Inferius are all about). He doesn't trust Trelawney enough to make her an Order member apparently, but he keeps her at Hogwarts, even allowing her to share classes with Firenze, because it's the only way to protect her. His judgment of both Slughorn and Scrimgeour seems right on the money, based on the little we've seen of either, as does his assessment of Fudge at the end of GoF. He knows their strengths and their weaknesses, just as he knows those of the Order members, including Snape. He knows whom to trust and to what degree. But Dumbledore never trusted Tom Riddle, even as an eleven-year-old boy. So where and when has Dumbledore been wrong as a judge of character? I don't see it. (Let's look at those who question Dumbledore's judgement, aside from Harry, who questions it only with regard to Snape. Draco calls him "a stupid old man" and the Daily Prophet thinks from OoP onward that he's losing his grip. He loses his position as head of the Wizengamot, etc., because he believes Harry Potter's story that Voldemort is back. And it turns out that Dumbledore is right to trust Harry and believe his story.) The Order members, unlike the Daily Prophet, know that Dumbledore's judgment was sound. Now granted, the Order members (for the most part) claim that they trusted Snape only because Dumbledore did, but they're forgetting that Dumbledore had good reason to trust Snape, setting aside that as-yet-unrevealed "ironclad" reason. They're in shock, and all they can think of is Harry's version of events on the tower, beginning and ending with Snape killed Dumbledore. Understandably, they think that DD's trust in Snape was unjustified, but they're forgetting that they themselves have reasons to trust Snape. McGonagall knows perfectly well that Snape saved Harry's life in SS/PS. Lupin probably knows that Snape conjured stretchers to get HRH off the grounds when he was running around in werewolf form. McGonagall and Mrs. Weasley (who, BTW, says nothing about Snape that I recall since her attention is on Bill) saw Snape show Fudge his Dark Mark as proof that Voldemort was back--an act of courage that HRH also witnessed. All of them know that Snape sent the Order to rescue Harry from the Death Eaters. So Dumbledore's trust in Snape is not baseless. Neither is their faith in Dumbledore's judgement. It is still quite possible (very likely, IMO) that Dumbledore, the wise old man who's lived as long as McGonagall and Slughorn put together, has it right. BTW, Percy refers to Sturgis Podmore (in a letter to Ron in OoP), who has just been arrested for trying to break through a door in the MoM (we later learn that he was Imperiod by Lucius Malfoy) as a "great friend" of Dumbledore's. I wonder what that was about and whether we'll see more of Sturgis. I assume that Dumbledore's faith in Sturgis was justified. Carol, who can't imagine Draco's judgment of Dumbledore being validated From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 16:00:09 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:00:09 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > Luck runs out. There are warnings in some religions about taking the > hero's path to glory. It's a viable path; it's a short but amazing > journey. But you can't seem to have it both ways. The hero fights, > the hero wins, women adore him, men wish they could be him (turn it > around for a heroine, I'm too lazy to him/her this!). Meteoric - > streaking across the heavens for a split second, then dying in a > burst of flame. The smiling god is no longer smiling. The hero is > taken to Valhalla. > > So, I'm not so sure the favor of the gods is a good thing in life > overall. Well, that depends on what you mean by a good life. And we are deep in the midst of religion, psychology, and yes, superstition here, so any given person almost certainly has contradictory impulses on this topic, and the views of any given culture are so layered and paradoxical as to be appreciated best only in things like dreams and poems. What you say is very true. However, there are also plenty of instances in religion and history and literature and culture and, well, life, where the opposite is also quite true. That is, where the brief, flaming life that might serve an important, even if a minor, role in great events and ends in a blood body on a shield is seen as much preferable to an ordinary, long, peaceful existance ending with a coronary in one's sleep. Many see a brief life in the light, like that of James, as preferable and more admirable than a long life in shadows, like that of Severus. To press it even further, many deep in their hearts see a tragic but noble and powerful journey in the light, like that of James, as preferable to a long, honorable, and relatively peaceful life like that of Arthur Weasley. There is a reason that Achilles chose to go to Troy and embrace death when he had been promised a long and happy life if he stayed behind. So we are dealing here with contradictory tendencies so deeply rooted in the human soul that they can never be untangled. It is true that the ancient Chinese had as a curse "I hope you live in interesting times." It is also true that the worst curses that a Spartan could fling were "May you live forever" and "May you always know peace." Lupinlore, who thinks that the contradictions, whatever they may be in the end, with regard to these matters in the Potter saga will be no better and no worse than what you can read in the newspaper most mornings From jajaredor at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 16:27:44 2007 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voldemort's Patronus Message-ID: <363502.17515.qm@web61213.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165954 Hi, a newbie here. I'm not sure if this has been brought up, if it has, please let me know where to look. I'm just wondering if LV has his own Patronus, what could it be? Any help would be appreciated, thanks Jaja "Just because the ship has sailed doesn't mean it has sunk already" - Jade From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 12 17:15:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer Message-ID: <12348599.1173719731182.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165955 I'm currently rereading the series, but looking for something in particular: How much is Dumbledore manipulating the situation. For example, it is clear in the first book (Dumbledore as much as admits it) that he was manipulating Harry into stopping the theft of the Uncertain Adjective Stone. How much is not clear, but it would explain quite a few of the coincidences (and throughout the books). Dumbledore's initial goal is clear: to prepare Harry to fight and win against Voldemort. There are indications of other manipulating (the infamous eye glint in GOF, for example). Note that the Dursley's abuse was sufficient to make Harry hate bullies, but not quite enough to make him lose empathy with the victims. Only later is it clear how closely Dumbledore was watching (having a full-time spy practically on the premises). I think that the meeting up with the Weasley's was a happy coincidence, but I have a hunch that becoming friends with Hermione was not. Hermione just knew too much, more than she could get from books. She is locked into a rumor mill while Harry and Ron seem to be out of the loop; is it that she has so many friends, or is it that she is being fed info by Dumbledore and/or McG? She does seem to have an unusually close relation with McG (not just the time-turners, but the "you've been listening to Miss Granger" in OOP). Many of the too-convenient coincidences in the books can be explained by the fact that they were not coincidences at all, but manipulation on the part of Dumbledore to manipulate Harry into putting his nose where it does not belong, with visions of a greater good. While I don't think that Dumbledore ordered Snape to be nasty to Harry, he certainly took full advantage of Snape's dislike of Harry. Based on the later revelations of Snape's skills at Leglimancy, time after time Snape has caught Harry red-handed, and let him get away (for example, in COS, Snape knows damned well that Harry let off the firecracker in potions class, and lets it slide; although he has no physical proof, he DOES have probable cause to get it). Harry is manipulated through the books to break the rules if it serves a higher purpose, but not for personal gain or pleasure. In other words, he is being trained as an operative, but indirectly. When Dumbledore admits to loving the boy, it can be read that Dumbledore saw the manipulation as being necessary for Harry's protection, but, as time went on culminating in the OOP episode, he saw that, in being caring, he actually was working against Harry's best interests. It does serve to raise suspicions. Is Hermione a true friend? Is Hagrid smarter than he appears? How does Minerva the Cat fit into all of this? And does Professor Snape really want Harry gone, or is he just enjoying the role of Harry's antagonist a bit too much? Were Arthur and Molly enouraged to deepen their relationship with Harry? Did Dumbledore ever get a pair of wool socks for Christmas? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 17:18:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:18:45 -0000 Subject: Nagini / great but terrible / Homorphus / the DADA curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165957 Shelley wrote in > : > > << We see Wormtail needing to "milk Nagini"- milk is used for a baby, is it not? >> > Catlady: > Here in the Muggle real world, 'milk' is the verb for drawing venom from a snake, such as to use the venom to produce antivenin. Carol responds: Well, yes. But JKR, with her love of puns, is taking advantage of the verb "milk" in this sense to suggest that by "milking" Nagini, Wormtail provides Fetal!mort with sustenance, making Nagini a kind of surrogate mother. Not only does she provide figurative mother's milk to keep him alive (or to sustain his existence, since he's surviving rather than living per the Prophecy), her venom is also an ingredient, along with unicorn blood, in the potion that Wormtail brewed to create the fetal form in the first place. No wonder she's Voldemort's "dear Nagini." He owes as much to her as Harry does to Lily. Nagini represents, IMO, a perversion of the mother love theme in the books. And no doubt she'll end up sacrificing herself in a vain attempt to save her "child." I'm also curious about the whole snake/Slytherin/Voldemort connection (the first snake we see in the books, the python in the zoo, is not evil, and snakes are connected in mythology with healing--the caduceus of Hermes--as well as with deceit (the Garden of Eden). I don't know enough about the subject to see where JKR is going with it. I'm hoping to have a clearer idea after DH. > Carol earlier in > : > > << (Does Ollivander know about the Horcruxes? What else would qualify as "terrible but great"?) >> > > Maybe the curse on the Hogwarts DADA professorship -- it works in > quite a complicated way. Maybe making Inferii -- we don't know how > difficult that spell is. Maybe breaking through a protective spell > that was thought to be invulnerable. Maybe transforming some mighty > and magically protected building into a termite and all the people in it into bacteria in the termite's digestive system... Carol responds: LOL. But, seriously, I doubt that Ollivander knows about the curse on the DADA position though he may have heard the rumors. He's old enough to have taken the class before it was cursed. Inferi, maybe. In fact, I think that might actually qualify as a "great but terrible" feat in Ollivander's view (as would the Horcruxes, if he knew about them). But all the murders and Crucios and Imperios would hardly count or the imprisoned DEs would also be "great" wizards and I doubt that he holds that view. Whatever Voldemort has done has to be what has made him, in the eyes of the WW, the most powerful Dark wizard of the century. But seriously, what else could it be? What else besides Inferi might qualify as "great but terrible"? I still think that Ollivander, who knows how powerful that wand is and knows the symbolism or properties of the wood and cores that he uses, probably suspects that Voldemort created at least one Horcrux. Celia cdayr wrote in : > > << The Homorphus Charm: Hope for Remus and Bill? >> > Catlady: > I agree that the Homorphus Charm is real, because Lockhart stole his exploits, not invented them. I don't agree that the Homorphus Charm is a cure for lycanthropism, because if it were, someone would have tried it on Lupin by now, either his parents, who 'tried everything' or his clever friends who became Animagi for his sake. > > At first I thought it might put an end to the werewolf transformations permanently, but at the cost of tremendous brain damage to the person, but then I realized (as Carol has mentioned) that it might be the same spell that Black and Lupin used to make Pettigrew leave his rat form. > > So now I think that it turns the transformed human back into his/her human form for only a few moments. That's not a cure for lycanthropy, but it is long enough for the villagers to recognize one of their neighbors. Now that they know who the werewolf is, they can deal with him while he is still a mere human. Carol: Exactly. And the name of the charm supports this interpretation: Homorphus = homo (Latin for man or human being) plus morphus (pseudo-Latin from the Greek morphe, change or transform)--Can't do the long mark over the e from Yahoo groups, sorry. Houyhnhnm wrote in > : > > << The DADA position might bring out the worst in Snape, but making him head of Slytherin House wouldn't? Sending him back out as a spy among the Death Eaters wouldn't? >> > Catlady: > Rowling was being sneaky when she said that. At the time she said it, everyone assumed that Dumbledore meant that giving Snape the DADA job would be like giving an alcoholic a bartending job. Not until we read HBP did we learn that the curse on the DADA job was real, not just a student rumor, and had begun long before Harry discovered Hogwarts. There has been much discussion on list about how that curse works, apparently by using the person's own secret flaws against them. That's pretty clear for Lockhart, whose secret flaws were that he was a liar, a braggart, a thief of accomplishment, and not actually good at any magic except Memory Charms. And for Lupin, it exposed his secret of being a werewolf and his flaw of being careless about werewolf precautions. So when Dumbledore said he was afraid that the DADA position would bring out the worst in Snape, he meant that the curse on the DADA position would reveal ('bring out') Snape's secrets and flaws. > Carol: And yet, both Snape and Dumbledore appear to *want* people to think that DD won't give him the course for that reason. Snape tells Bellatrix, right before he actually receives the position (and, IMO, know that his receiving it depends only on Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position) almost exactly what JKR says in that misleading little interview segment: "He wouldn't give me the Defense Against the Dark Arts position. Seemed to think it might, ah, bring about a relapse . . . tempt me into my old ways" (27). The hesitation and the "seemed to think" suggest that Dumbledore doesn't think any such thing, and if he really did, he would certainly be foolish to give Snape the DADA position just as Voldemort is coming to power again. But we know that this story can't be true; Dumbledore trusts Snape "completely," and that trust includes giving him the cursed position just at the point when he mosts needs a really good teacher in the post. But he must have other motives as well since he knows he'll lose Snape at the end of the year (and he takes the precaution of hiring someone who can replace him not only as Potions master but as HoH of Slytherin once that happens). We see that the position does *not* bring out the worst in Snape or tempt him into his old ways. Far from teaching the students Dark magic or preventing them from learning useful defensive measures, he's teaching them exactly what they need to defend themselves against Voldemort and exactly what they're facing (the horrible posters on the walls, for one). Note that Hermione, who suggested that Harry form the DA in OoP because Umbridge was not teaching them to defend themselves, makes no such suggestion in HBP. Nor do any of the DA members, even Ron, suggest its continuance. Neville misses it but doesn't ask for Harry's help with DADA. Luna also misses it, not because she misses the DADA lessons but because the DA was "almost like having friends." So Snape's words to Bella, like JKR's to her questioner, are misdirection. Whatever Dumbledore is afraid of, it's not that putting Snape in that position will stir up old loyalties to Voldemort. IMO, he doesn't put Snape in that position until the need for his expertise is paramount, and until the need for his exposure as a supposedly loyal Death Eater becomes more important than keeping him at Hogwarts. (That his DE past is not public knowledge is shown by Rita Skeeter's article criticizing Dumbledore's hiring decisions. She mentions the werewolf, the half-giant, and the delusional ex-Auror, but she omits the ex-Death Eater. Surely, Snape would have topped the list if she'd known about him.) Carol, happy to have found so many things to respond to in a Catlady post! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 17:32:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:32:53 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Patronus In-Reply-To: <363502.17515.qm@web61213.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165958 Jaja Redor wrote: > > Hi, a newbie here. I'm not sure if this has been brought up, if it has, please let me know where to look. > > I'm just wondering if LV has his own Patronus, what could it be? > > Any help would be appreciated, thanks Carol responds: First there's the whole question of whether he can cast a Patronus at all, never having had what most of us would consider a happy experience and not really needing a Patronus either to communicate (only the Order members know how to do that) or to deal with Dementors. I do think, however, that he would have learned to cast a Patronus in NEWT DADA, if only to keep up his reputation as a brilliant student. So, on the assumption that he can cast a Patronus, it seems logical to me that it would be some sort of snake. Snakes are the symbol of his ancestor, Salazar Slytherin and Tom was in Slytherin House, so a snake Patronus would not have seemed all that odd or sinister to his DADA instructor, much less to his Slytherin classmates, who would undoubtedly have been impressed. The affinity with snakes is also shown through his ability to speak Parseltongue (a family trait). He can control the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets and he has what amounts to a mother/child bond (see my previous post) with his "dear Nagini." All in all, I can't imagine his Patronus being anything other than some kind of snake. Carol, noting that a Patronus seems to be a kind of protective spirit rather than the essence of the person himself, which is why Harry's Patronus is his father's Animagus form and Tonks's new Patronus is a werewolf symbolizing her love for Lupin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 17:40:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:40:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165959 > Alla wrote: > > > > For me Snape pettiness, childishness and immaturity did not go anywhere. > > > > I mean, of course he is a powerful wizard, who can argue with that? > > > > I just do not think that it precludes him from being stuck in his > emotional development, being powerful that is. > > > > And of course Dumbledore being a good judge of character is amusing > to me as well and disagreeable too. :) > > > Carol responds: > Dumbledore also trusts another powerful wizard who demonstrates > pettiness, childishness, and immaturity: Sirius Black (still using the > schoolground nickname "Snivellus," still wishing that Severus had died > in the so-called Prank, etc.). Clearly, Snape's inability to get past > not one but two humiliating incidents, the "worst memory" and the much > more dangerous and traumatic exposure to a werewolf, followed by the > humiliation of having his life saved by his worst enemy) is not a > reason to mistrust him in DD's view, nor is being stuck in adolescence > because of twelve years in Azkaban a reason to mistrust Sirius Black. > The immaturity, which shows up in Snape only in relation to the > Marauders but in Sirius Black also in relation to Harry (wanting him > to take risks for the fun of it) is a side issue. Whatever > Dumbledore's reason(s) for trusting them both, he does so in spite of > their shared fault. > Alla: Huh? Nowhere in my post I claimed that Snape's immaturity should **not** be the reason to trust him. Although now that you mentioned it, certainly I can see that it should play a role too. But to me there are plenty of other reasons to not do so. But the issue of Dumbledore not being a good judge of character ( which I am not going to argue now) is in my mind totally independent from Snape's childishness, pettiness and immaturity. I addressed two different points in the same post, that's all. ETA: Reposted to change this sentence: Of course I meant that Nowhere in my post I claimed that Snape's immaturity should **be** the reason to trust him. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Mar 12 17:56:38 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:56:38 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165960 Shelley wrote: > > Oh my gosh, you don't think that he could > > be one of the main characters who die, do you? > > Just to illustrate just how badly the war ends > > up going before the final showdown? Carol: > JKR has said that main characters will die, meaning > good guys, so it's likely that Hagrid will be one of > them. I think, however, that she always meant him to > die and that he's not one of the two who were originally > slated to live but end up dying. That sounds to me like > the Weasley Twins. houyhnhnm: At the time of the Richard and Judy show interview, most people seemed to assume that Rowling had made changes in the story as readers knew it--changes to the fate of characters as they appeared in the first book. That is not the way I interpreted her remarks. I thought she was speaking of changes in the story and the fates of her characters that took place between her original last chapter draft "in something like 1990" and the publication of PS around seven years later. For the identity of the character who gets a reprieve, I would look for one who was originally slated to play a larger role, but whose story ended up on the editing room floor. I think it is probably Dean Thomas. That means that Neville Longbottom, the character whose story superceded Dean's, is likely one the two who die "that I didn't intend to die". For the second I would look for someone else who started off as a minor character but whose roled evolved into a more important one by time the first book made it into print. I don't know who that would be, but I doubt that it is Hagrid. If Hagrid is slated to die, then I think his fate was sealed from the beginning. Somehow, though, I don't think Hagrid is going to die. I don't really have a reason. It's just a feeling. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 18:36:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:36:05 -0000 Subject: Snape, Voldemort and the DADA position (very long) (Not quite so Long reply) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165961 Carol earlier: > > He [Dumbledore] still needs Snape's Potions expertise, just as he has in previous years (the Potions riddle and curtains of fire in SS/PS, the Mandrake Restorative Potion in CoS, the Wolfbane Potion in PoA, Veritaserum in GoF, fake Veritaserum in OoP. Goddlefrood, questionint the Fake Veritaserum in OoP: > > The who or the what or the where now? (It was mentioned, but not > seen) and yes I know the one about Barty Crouch Jnr. being given > it > Carol: I'm not talking about Barty Crouch, I'm talking about Delores Umbridge, who invites Harry to take tea in her office (such a kind, friendly gesture) who tries to get Harry to talk about Sirius Black's whereabouts. Obviously, she's putting something in his tea: "'Well, now,' she said finally, setting down her quill and surveying him complacently, like a toad about to swallow a particularly juicy fly. 'What would you like to drink?' "'What?' said Harry, quite sure that he had misunderstood her. "'To drink, Mr. Potter,' she said, smiling still more widely. 'Tea? Coffee? Pumpkin juice?' . . . . "Nothing, thank you,' said Harry. "'I wish you to have a drink with me," she said, her voice becoming more dangerously sweet. 'Choose one.' "'Fine. Tea then,' said Harry, shrugging. "She got up and made quite a performance of adding milk with her back to him. She then bustled around the desk with it, smiling in a sinisterly sweet fashion. "'There,' she said, handing it to him. "'Drink it before it gets cold, won't you?'" (630) It could not be more obvious that Umbridge thinks that the liquid she's added to the tea along with the milk is real Veritaserum. Unfortunately, we can't tell from this scene whether the Veritaserum is real or fake since Harry doesn't actually drink the tea, so he's able to lie about not knowing Sirius Black's whereabouts in any case. But Snape must have told Dumbledore that the Veritaserum he supplied to Umbridge was fake, and it would be dangerous and foolhardy to lie to him on that point. We know that Snape is an enemy of Delores Umbridge. "You will receive private 9Occlumency] lessons once a week, but you will tell nobody what you are doing, least of all Delores Umbridge" (519). Later, Snape claims that he has no Veritaserum to give her: "'You took my last bottle to interrogate Potter,' he said coolly, surveying her through his greasy curtains of black hair. 'Surely, you did not use it all. I told you that three drops would be sufficient.' "'Umbridge flushed. 'You can make some more, can't you?' she said, her voice becoming more sweetly girlish, as it always did when whe was furius. "'Certainly,' said Snape with a curl of his lip. It takes a full moon cycle to mature, so I should have it ready for you in around a month.'" Umbridge insists that she needs it now and informs Snape that Harry has been using her fire to communicate with someone, at which point Snape pretends a lack of interest (Potter is always breaking school rules) but his eyes bore into Harry's. Umbridge angrily repeats that she wants to interrogate Harry, adding, "'I wish you to provide me with a potion that will force him to tell me the truth!' Snape repeats "smoothly" that he has "no further stocks of Veritaserum,' adding that he would happily supply her with poison, which unfortunately for her purposes would act too quickly to give Harry much time for truth-telling. Both Harry, who is still desperately trying to communicate with Snape, and Umbridge, who puts Snape on probation, understand that he's being, in Umbridge's words, "deliberately unhelpful." (743-744) Under the circumstances, and especially given Snape's attitude toward Umbridge as displayed in this second scene, I see no reason whatever to doubt that the Veritaserum he supplied Umbridge with was fake. Carol, who was simply noting ways in which DD relies on Snape's Potions expertise but thinks that these scenes also demonstrate his loyalty to Dumbledore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 18:36:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:36:51 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165962 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > ... > > > > Kim added: > > > > One question (to Carol), is why you think the > > dementors won't participate in the final battle? ... > > But ... I don't think Dementors would add much > > excitement to the final battles, ... > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure why I don't envision a Tolkien-style > battle with huge armies of wizards, trolls, goblins, > Dementors, giants, and House Elves. Maybe it's because > it's been done or it isn't JKR's style. bboyminn: As usual, I'm off on my own tagents here. For the moment, I do agree we are not going to see any great open-field clash of the Titans, Eragon/Eldest, LotR style battles, and further agree that great epic battles are not JKR style. If such battles do occur, I think they will be going on in the background while main characters battle it out in the forground. Still, I don't expect epic battles. > Carol continues: > > ... > > I could be wrong, but what would Dementors add to the > battle, assuming that the students learn to cast a > *real* Patronus and not just an imaginary one in DADA > practice? But my real question is how the wizards will > be able to kill each other without using AKs. ... > bboyminn: Now in a moment, I'm going to stray off on that tangent I promised you. But first to the assortment of available magical creatures and battles. Again, I don't see great Eragon/Eldest style battles. If magical creatures are used they will be used as a harrassment and terrorist technique to destablize the existing wizard world. This will happen in the story background as it did in HBP. To the issue of good wizards killing bad wizards, I don't think that is necessary. But I do have a huge bone to pick with the strategy and tactics used by the good wizards in the fight against evil. Of course, they are using the very same tactics that we see in most movies, TV shows, and in much literature; classic fiction good guy, but realistically stupid, tactics. For example, in the movies the good guy knocks out the bad guy, but never takes the bad guys weapon away. I guess we are just suppose to assume that when a good guy knocks you out, you politely stay knock out of the duration of the battle. So, to the point, why in the Ministry of Magic - Dept of Mysteries battle did Harry and friends not take the DE's wands away from them once those DE's had been cursed and disabled? Enquiring minds want to know. Also, it doesn't seem that hard to reverse a curse, and may even be possible that some curses are self-limiting. That is, if you are Stupified, the curse wears off on its own after half-hour and you are good to go again. Speculation, of course, but it illustrates my point. Why not use multiple curses? Why not hit someone with a Full-Body-Bind, then add to that a Stupify, then compound it again by adding an Incarcerous Rope Binding Spell? Now if for some reason the Body-Bind is released, the person is still Stupified and bound by ropes. OR if the Stupify wears off, then the ropes and the Body-Bind still hold them. Further, once you have a DE disabled, why not take, hide, snap, or otherwise get rid of the DE's wand. In the Ministry battle, frequently they were in offices. If they were too morally superior to do something as terrible as snap another wizard's wand, they could have stashed it in a drawer or behind some books on the shelves, or behind the actual shelves. I could fault the author for that lack of logic, but, as I said, it is a logic I see in most movies. Further note on dangerous and deadly spells, when McGonagall was cursed with several Stunning spells as she came to Hagrid's aid. The consensus was that it was a miracle that their combined force did not kill her. So, one Stupify or other substantial spell is bad, but the combined force of several Stunning Spells all at once is potentially deadly. Even if not deadly, it is certainly more difficult to overcome than a single Stunning Spell. So, once again, compound curses are a tactical and strategic advantage. As an example, first someone stuns a DE, then another person comes along and the two of them stun him together. The combined and collective force of all those spell would certainly disable a DE for a substantial amount of time, and would be difficult to reverse with a counter-spell. Now for an axe I've been grinding constantly in these forums. I can see no target in the wizard world that is more important nor more easily attacked than Hogwarts. Don't get me wrong, Hogwarts is not easy to attack, but from a strategic stand point what target is better? What target has a more vulnerable population? The books are constantly reminding us that Hogwarts was the one target that Voldemort never dared attack, and mainly because Dumbledore was there. Now Dumbledore is gone, and that pretty much leaves no excuse for Voldemort not to attack Hogwarts. Plus he does not need a force of a thousand or even a hundred to do it. He just needs stealth and treachery. Voldemort would be far more likely to win the war by taking over Hogwart than he would by taking over the Ministry itself. Politicians are expendable, plus nobody likes them anyway. But if you have the children of the wizard world, then you have everything. I can't think of anything that would make the wizard world fold faster than Voldemort holding their kids hostage. Of course, I don't see the wizard world folding immediately. They would make some effort to overcome the problem but it is not an easy problem to overcome. I give the wizard world about two weeks at the most before talk of surrender start making the rounds. Two weeks, that's just enough time for Harry and friends to sneak in an save the day. I could be wrong, but Hogwarts is such a glaring target, I just don't see how Voldemort can pass it up. So, it is there that the primary, though not necessarily the final, battle will be fought. And it will not be a battle of great walls of wizards clashing on the open moors of Scotland. I warned you I would be straying off on tangents. So, my two main points are, the fighting tactic being used in the battles we have documented, are, I believe, are not well thought out. And the inevitable attack, capture, and rescue of Hogwarts. Just rambling. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 19:36:51 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:36:51 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: <002e01c76277$87a6e300$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165963 > --Ronin: > Technically, any point made by either side is disputable. > I could say that Quirrell was just watching the Quiditch match and Snape was > really the one working the jinx. Just because Snape claimed he was trying to > help Harry doesn't make it true when their own (Ron's & Hermione's) eye > witness accounts portray Snape as the culprit. > > Number 7 is probably the most relevant point on the list because we KNOW > that Dumbledore himself has said that Snape was the only one who could help > him as he did when his hand was cursed. It was definitely Snape who kept the > curse from spreading and killing Dumbledore. > > Yes. The argument is STILL quite valid. a_svirn: Afraid not. Dumbledore's judgement proved to be unsound. The man he trusted so completely just killed him. And now everything he ever said about Snape is suspect. Hermione can only trust the information that came from the sources other than Dumbledore. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 19:56:55 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:56:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165964 > zgirnius: > I made no claim that every act on the list was irrefutably good, just > that these are the actions of Snape of which Hermione is aware which > one might consider good. It is *possible* that *she* may consider > some or all of them good, or not (except for saving Harry's life. She > has expressed her views on that in canon). I cannot help but believe > it is possible for a logical, intelligent person such as Hermione to > have the opinion that these actions are good, because that happens to > be *my* opinion. a_svirn: Well, actually I am not arguing with you here. Of course, she may. What intrigues me is whether she is doing it because she wants to believe in Dumbledore's judgement (which, in my opinion, wouldn't be at all smart in her position) or because of something else. As you said, the only thing she knows to Snape's credit (not from Dumbledore's words, I mean) is that he saved Harry's life in PS. Dumbledore, by the way, dismissed the whole episode by saying that it was just a payment of an old debt. Which, I might add, Snape could have done while still being an evil murderer. But then again, why should she believe Dumbledore at this point? Maybe he did it because it was just the right thing to do? > > > a_svirn: > > (And the seventh is certainly negated by his actions later on). > > zgirnius: > *ought not to have snipped my list* > 7) was "Snape saved Dumbledore's life". > This remains a fact, I do not see why his taking of the same life > later in the book negates the first action. a_svirn: Certainly makes it somewhat pointless. Besides, that's what Dumbledore said, and he appears to have been so spectacularly wrong about Snape, that you hardly can call it "a fact". > zgirnius: > Her comments in "The White Tomb", however, suggest to me that she may > have started to come out of that shock and be trying to reach an > unerstanding of their meaning by applying her considerable intellect > to the problem, rather than transitioning to a childish, kneejerk > return to the "Dumbledore can't be wrong" thinking of which you > accuse her. a_svirn: I don't. I said that *if* that's why she is so hesitant about the whole thing it's indeed childish. I by no means sure that this is the reason. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 20:03:16 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:03:16 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0703092316w36b02f1ai18ba82f81684100e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > a_svirn: > > Every time Harry started on Snape, his doubtful loyalties and > murky past what did she say to him? Come on, Harry, Dumbledore > trusts him, and Dumbledore knows best. But now this argument is no > longer valid, is it? Dumbledore has been proved wrong. > > Lynda: > > Has he been then? Irrevocably? There is more to the story, after all, that > we readers have not yet knowledge of. Yes. It may be as you say. Snape is > ESE and Hermione's statement will turn out to be just that, the statement of > a schoolgirl who has misjudged one of her professors that she trusts only > because her headmaster chose (wrongly) to trust him. Or there could be more > to the story. I choose to keep an open mind until JKR reveals the truth. > a_svirn: That's not what I am saying. As readers, we can think that Dumbledore might have been right after all. It would certainly be anticlimactic, to say the least, if it turns out that Dumbledore was simply a vain old food too trusting for his (and everyone's) good. But Hermione is not *reading* the story, she is *living* in it. For her to rely on Dumbledore's judgement at this point would be unreasonable. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 12 17:26:32 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:26:32 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165966 houyhnhnm: > > Your ellipsis in the portion of "Spinner's End" quoted above leaves out a couple of things that I feel may be fairly important to the interpretation of what exactly is going on in that scene. Dana now: I was not trying to downplay the importance of the entire scene. I just used this specific part to see if it could be determined who (DD or LV) he (Snape) was referring to, in his assessment about what might be expected of him. And with the addition of the sentence: - 'I think', to me indicates that, at that particular time, there was no arrangement of any sort. He had not received any particular orders from either one. He just *thought* it would be expected of him in the future. If he is taking a vow as part of a grand plan, why is he uncertain? And if he is uncertain, then why base his actions on this? If there is no plan then why agree to something so definitive, that it will influence ever decision you have to make afterwards? houyhnhnm: > These two factors make it perfectly plausible to me that Snape's first objective was to neutralize the threat posed by Bellatrix, and once he was secure of that, At least I see nothing that contradicts such an interpretation. Dana now: A devoted DE, like Bellatrix, is always a potential threat, even if the situation at hand is controlled. She might not actively go to LV to verify Snape's tale, but she will take any opportunity if it presents itself. And we see she actually does by talking to Draco. By goading Bella, he lost control over Draco. And just as much as she cannot rat him out for being part of the UV, neither can he. So the control over Bella is extremely limited as far as I can tell, and this makes telling lies to a person desperate for the favour of her Master, extremely dangerous. Better not leave things to chance by using something that can be verified. Not being able to call her Master on his skills directly, does not mean there will be no opportunities to seed doubts in LV's trust in Snape in the future. Especially if she can work herself up again by doing so. Anything you say can be used against you, and even for a clever liar like Snape, this will be ever so true. He might be able to support a lie by means of occlumency but it will not help him control the truth if it's right under their noses. houyhnhnm: > But I see little in that chapter of certain information Dana now: This chapter is extremely important, because whatever kind of Snape you want to support, the answers are in this chapter. Why? Because the action he takes here are directing everything that follows. houyhnhnm: > Why is that a valid assumption? Dana now: Because the only one who has everything to lose by being found out as a liar, is Snape. houyhnhnm: > We *know* that Snape already knows of the Dark Lord's plan because that's what he tells Bellatrix. Do we? I, for one, wouldn't trust anything any one of them says. Dana now: If he really doesn't know the plan, then how do you explain him taking, the most serious magical bond, one can commit to and leave everything to the chance it's more serious than he expected it to be? That would be plainly stupid. To risk everything on partial or unknown information can get you killed, and take a whole lot of people with you in the process. This is not the action an experienced agent would take. He's been dealing with intelligence strategies since VW I and suddenly is incapable of understanding the consequences if he gambles wrong. Although I do not put it past Snape as he likes to run his own show, you can bet this is not LV's or DD's strategy. houyhnhnm: > All three are either directly or indirectly involved in a company of outlaws run by a murderous, torture-loving megalomaniac who rules by instilling fear and distrust. That alone puts them in a perilous position. Dana now: Narcissa only cares about Draco. It doesn't matter to her if she is punished for it later, as long as Draco has a chance to live. If she loses Draco, her life has no meaning; coming to Snape is enough proof for that. She would not risk lying to Snape if it would mean she could lose his support. If Snape did not believe, himself, that he is on LV's good side, then she would not be able to lead him in the direction she wants. Overstepping or failing LV's plan will not win you any points; look at what happened to Bella, or why Draco is in this mess in the first place. Snape tells her, not *even* he can persuade the Dark Lord to change his mind, he knows this perfectly well. Bella is not presenting any information; she is just there because she wanted Narcissa to change her mind about asking Snape for help. The only thing (well, besides venting her suspicions about him) she calls Snape on, is his willingness to risk his own skin for a change, when he offers Narcissa he would be able to help her. I cannot see a potential lie in that but maybe you can. houyhnhnm: They're bluffing. They're lying. They're spinning. They're flattering. Dana now: The only one called on his bluff is Snape, and he takes it and he bluffs with the highest stakes one can bluff with: -his life (or that of DD). Narcissa is not bluffing at all, she truly wants Snape help to save her son. Bella is not bluffing about anything because there isn't anything in it for her. She cares enough about Narcissa to want her to change her mind, but she truly feels Draco should be proud to die in service of LV. Snape has nothing on her, because him talking to them seals the deal on the both sides, not just from Bella's side. If he rats out Bella or Narcissa, he is toast as well. The only one holding the cards on all of them is Wormtail. houyhnhnm: >I'm not absolutely certain that Bellatrix does at this point. Snape may know or he may be bluffing. Dana now: Bellatrix knows that Draco has orders to do something that can get Draco killed, and thinks he should be proud. At this point, it doesn't matter if she knows what the task itself is. She knows enough to call Snape on his bluff. Snape might not know, indeed, but there was nothing that forced him to agree on the third clause (Well, nothing but his own lie if he did not know, how ironic would that be). The UV is only sealed after he agrees on it, and only after Bella performs the last spell. We know, from Ron, that Arthur interrupted in the middle of the twins performing an UV on him, and if you can't back out before the completion, Ron would be dead. But still, there was no reason for him to take it at all because he has nothing to prove to Bella. She does not trust him more because of it, even did everything to make it more complicated. houyhnhnm: > I don't think we can make any other assumptions, especially about what Voldemort did or did not want. Dana now: Besides it being extremely important to Snape's health status and thus, if there was a plan, the entire plan is depended up on it, I think it would be far more interesting to ask the question: - Would DD be willing to not only risk Draco's, Harry's, all the Order Member's lives but even Hogwarts' safety, so Snape lives? DD has no way of knowing if LV will make an attempt to overrun Hogwarts, now that DD is no longer there to protect it. What will stop him from doing that? Snape? The Ministry? Is it worth the risk of getting everyone who resides there in danger, just so Snape can find some information? Don't you think Harry would be able to find the horcruxes without Snape's help? Because the question still remains: if Spinner's End was in service of DD and DD asked Snape to kill him, then how will this protect everyone that DD was responsible for? Is the information Snape might or might not be able to find so much more important than the actual safety of the people he is doing it for? This is not dependent on Snape taking the UV on orders or not, but everything happening afterwards IS. To dismiss this chapter because it gives a negative vibe about Snape is not doing the book any justice. It is trying to exclude parts of the book because they do not fit in the picture you have constructed about a character the books are not about. But for argument's sake: if Snape really takes the UV to find out what Draco's task is, then how come the DEs on the Tower know what Draco is failing to do and, more important, Draco never told him, so how could he have told DD for DD to ask him to kill him. And if Snape was told later, why take the UV to find out in the first place; if he expects LV to want him to finish the job, don't you think he is expecting to be told later (if he didn't already know as he claimed)? And of course, if he was never told, then how does he know what to do on the tower? Is he really that stupid to commit himself to an unknown task? And more important: do you really believe that DD would be ready to clean up his mess and risk everything he's been working on for more than 30+ years? Why train Harry about finding the horcruxes if Snape will be given the task? He could better have taken the time to train Harry how to dispose of them without getting hurt or die in the process; oh but maybe that is what he asked Snape to do and Snape refused. For Snape there is no turning back after this, he is at LV's mercy; and because I do not believe in an ESE!Snape, I believe this is not what he wanted, but got nevertheless. Dana From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 12 18:25:57 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:25:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165967 Carol responds: > Dumbledore also trusts another powerful wizard who demonstrates pettiness, childishness, and immaturity: Sirius Black (still using the schoolground nickname "Snivellus," still wishing that Severus had died in the so-called Prank, etc.). Dana now: Why is Sirius Black always dragged into the conversation to prove DD could not be wrong about Snape? DD was wrong about Sirius actually, but acted nevertheless on it by taking Harry out of his care. And this was before the confrontation with Wormtail. Apparently DD believed Sirius was capable of betraying James. And even if he did not believe it at that moment, he did not trust Harry could be protected by Sirius and decided a blood protection was the only way, and without consulting Sirius, I might add. He also did not believe in Sirius enough to ask him what happened. This so-called trust you believe DD had, only occurred after PoA, when DD was proved wrong about his judgment. Also, Sirius never says he wished him death. He says it serves him right, after Lupin states Sirius thought it would be amusing to tell Snape how to get past the WW but before Lupin mentions he could have run into a fully grown werewolf. If Snape got killed because he could not control his own curiosity, it would technically not be Sirius's fault. It was Snape's own choice to go in, after he was told how. Do you really believe that Snape would not understand that there was a very specific reason Lupin was left there once a month? If it wasn't anything serious, then why hide him in there? We are to believe Snape was so clever and a genius in the same year (the scribbles in the book) that the "prank" took place, but he was to dumb to understand this? Carol: >Clearly, Snape's inability to get past not one but two humiliating incidents, the "worst memory" and the much more dangerous and traumatic exposure to a werewolf, followed by the humiliation of having his life saved by his worst enemy) is not a reason to mistrust him in DD's view, Dana: And here, I believe, DD made a huge error in judgment because Snape IS driven by his inabilities to get past the past. He tries to get Sirius's soul sucked, guilty or not, for betraying James or killing Wormtail and 12 muggles. He breaks a promise to not tell Lupin's secret, and this action even gets a ruling in place so Lupin can't get any work. He can't teach Harry Occlumency, something that is so important, that it should not be dependent on Snape's hurt ego and even indirectly causes Sirius's death. Someone driven by his past pain IS a danger to anyone that rubs him the wrong way. He is even more a loose canon then Sirius because he only wants to risk his own life, not that of others. Dana From shamyn at pacbell.net Mon Mar 12 20:14:35 2007 From: shamyn at pacbell.net (Draeconin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:14:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F5B4AB.7020708@pacbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 165968 a_svirn wrote: > Afraid not. Dumbledore's judgement proved to be unsound. The man he > trusted so completely just killed him. And now everything he ever > said about Snape is suspect. Hermione can only trust the information > that came from the sources other than Dumbledore. Draeconin: Dumbledore's judgment has always been unsound in my opinion, as evidenced by most of the DADA teachers, Trelawny, and Professor Binns. The reasons for naming the DADA teachers are self-evident. Trelawney was, for the most part, a pretentious fake. Up to the point where Umbridge had her fired, she had only two genuine prophecies. The only reason I can see for Dumbledore hiring her was to keep track of her in case she had another prophecy after the first. Was that good enough reason to inflict her on students who might have actually learned something under another teacher? And Professor Binns: if he had been the least bit animated (no pun intended) and made an effort to make the subject matter interesting... I'm sure Harry and Ron weren't the only ones going to sleep in that class. How many received a substandard mark because the ghost just droned on and on. Not to mention he must have been like that in life as well. One can almost understand why he kept Snape on, since the man seems to have been a brilliant potions master and he needed a reason for Snape to be able to talk to him. But as a teacher, Snape's blatant bias against Gryffindor (who knows about the other Houses) and his favoritism towards Slytherins couldn't have led to a good learning environment - especially for the Gryffindors. So there are plenty of instances to show Dumbledore's poor judgment. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 20:28:09 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:28:09 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165969 > a_svirn: > Afraid not. Dumbledore's judgement proved to be unsound. The man he > trusted so completely just killed him. And now everything he ever > said about Snape is suspect. Hermione can only trust the information > that came from the sources other than Dumbledore. zgirnius: The reliability of Dumbledore's judgments of people are suspect on these grounds, but not his statements of fact. Let's review my proposed list of reasons Hermione might have for trusting Snape, just to see how many of them are independent of Dumbledore's judgment of Snape's character: > zgirnius, earlier: > 1) Saving Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS zgirnius now: Not tainted by possibility Dumbledore is bad judge of character. She saw Snape doing something with her own eyes, and Quirrell confirmed that *he* was hexing the broom. Not to mention that Harry can confirm it was Quirrell, and not Snape, who was after the Stone for Voldemort, so why would Snape be hexing Harry? So this fact remains one she can trust. > zgirnius: > 2) End of PoA - I think she would believe him sincere in his comments to her and Harry in the Shack - in other words, he was after Sirius because he was the traitor. zgirnius: Would rely on Hermione's own judgment. She was there and formed her own opinion, which she has not shared. It *could*, therefore, be favorable. At any rate, it has nothing to do with Dumbledore, who did not discuss his view of Snape's actions with Harry at all in PoA. > zgirnius: > 3) Revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge zgirnius: A fact witnessed by Harry, not subject to an error of interpretation by Dumbledore. > zgirnius: > 4) Teaching Harry Occlumency (I think she did read up on it, and has reason to believe Harry's reaction is typical in the early stages) zgirnius: Again, a fact. > zgirnius: > 5) Not providing Umbridge with Veritaserum in OotP zgirnius: She was in the office when he claimed to have none. If Hermione judged that he was lying to Umbridge, that would be a judgment based on her own impressions and logic. > zgirnius: > 6) Sending the Order to the MoM (and checking on Sirius) zgirnius: She knows someone sent the Order - she was there. Dumbledore is the source of the information that it was Snape, but who else could it have been? He was the only Order member at Hogwarts. For this to be false, Dumbledore would need to have lied AND there would have to be something complicated going on. > zgirnius: 7) Saving Dumbledore's life zgirnius: Dumbledore is quite possibly the most powerful, skilled, and knowledgeable wizard in the Potterverse. If he states that a powerful curse was killing him, I think that he is to be believed. If he states he was not able to save himself alone, that, too, must be believed. These are statements of fact in his area of expertise. Nothing we have seen suggests he was losing his touch as a wizard/expert on magic, even if he did misjudge the character and loyalties of one Severus Snape. That he still lived to tell the tale is a simple fact Hermione has verified for herself - she has seen and heard the Headmaster since he sustained the injury. Finally, that only Snape and Dumbledore treated the injury is a simple statement of fact about which Dumbledore could not be mistaken. I suppose he could lie about it, but I do not see to what end. (Nor do I believe he lies to Harry, or that Hermione would believe it of him.) It follows logically that Snape saved Dumbledore's life. You can say it doesn't matter (evil Snape reasons for doing this doubtless exist, even if I find them less than convincing), but it happened. > zgirnius: 8) Saving Katie Bell's life zgirnius: This is something Dumbledore tells Harry. I don;t see why he would lie about who treated Katie Bell, and Hermione could ask Madam Pomfrey about it if she had any doubts. It aslo seems likely in light of the fact (which Hermione knows) that McGonagall instructed the necklace be taken to Snape. I reiterate that none of these proves Snape is DDM!. Nor have I established that any of these other than 1) form a basis for Hermione's trust of Snape prior to the killing of Dumbledore. However, we do have her reluctance to call Snape evil, and her hesitation before agreeing to call Snape a murderer. I find the idea that she may have considered some or all of these and is experiencing some nagging doubt about the 'Snape is evil, he always planned to do it for Voldemort' explanation more convincing than suggesting she is reverting to a childish refusal to think for herself at all. From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Mon Mar 12 20:29:56 2007 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:29:56 +0000 Subject: Book Release Party at Sectus! Message-ID: <6493bc80703121329l35978d53r84309c62c81ed501@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165971 Sectus 2007 is pleased to announce the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Reading Party, in association with Fiction Alley, the web's largest archive of Harry Potter-specific fanfiction and art. To celebrate the release of the final Harry Potter book during the conference, the venue will be open from 10pm on Friday July 20th. In the run-up to midnight, there will be themed entertainments, including a last-minute theory competition. When the clock strikes midnight, the wait will finally be over and pre-ordered books, which are being delivered direct to the venue, will be handed out. The building will then remain open throughout the night, with various areas available for reading and discussing the book for those who want to dive straight in. Anyone attending Sectus can now order their copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows through the conference website, but hurry, because there is only a limited number available. We look forward to welcoming you to the ultimate book release party! Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries, or check out the forum at www.sectus.net/forum/ Regards Elanor Isolda Conference Chair Sectus 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sectus is a trading name of Sectus Ltd, registered in England and Wales. Registration number: 6130297 Registered Office: 11 Murray Street, London NW1 9RE [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 20:45:32 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:45:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165972 Carol: let's look at the people Dumbledore trusts (perhaps not as > completely as he trusts Snape). We can start with Harry, a_svirn: Does he, though? He kept Harry in the dark in OOP, never explaining anything to him about his destiny, never telling him *why* does he need lessons, *why* cannot Dumbledore teach him himself, never explaining him about the blood protection. And when he finally does explain (waaay too late) he does it in such a manner that I can only say (well, quote), "I wish that he would explain his explanation". And he certainly never trusted Harry enough to explain what was going on with Draco and Snape in HBP. In CoS he asks question alright but does he explain about the chamber? Does enlighten Harry as to the identity of "the heir"? And so on and so forth. Dumbledore had kept himself very much for himself through all six books which is good for suspense, but does not bespeak trustiness. Not even towards Harry. > Carol: whom he loves > and admires and from whom he withholds information only because Harry > is too young, not yet ready, or because the link with Voldemort is too > strong (in OoP). By HBP, Dumbledore is telling Harry things that > he's apparently told no one else, even trusting Harry to forcefeed him > poison. a_svirn: He is telling Harry things that are connected to his destiny. He does not do *because* he trusts him. He *has* to trust him because Harry is the Chosen One. But it wasn't Dumbledore who chose him > Carol: > The Order members, unlike the Daily Prophet, know that Dumbledore's > judgment was sound. a_svirn: Not always, as they are now they forced to admit. Not when it comes to Snape. Conjuring stretchers is a very good reason to give benefit of doubt to a man you don't like. It is entirely insufficient reason to trust a man who committed a murder, though. The only thing they know to Snape's credit is saving Harry's life in PS. But that was between the wars. And Dumbledore himself explained that it was just a qui pro quo thing. If we are to trust Dumbledore's judgement then, Snpe wouldn't do the same for, say, Oliver Wood. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Mon Mar 12 21:00:17 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:00:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F5BF61.8010308@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165973 What people seem to be failing to grasp is that this is not 'murder'.. This is a WAR with the DEs and Voldemort, not a tea party. In war, it is not uncommon for solders to be asked to kill a fellow solder who is in danger of being captured, to save that solder from torture or to prevent information from falling into enemy hands. In fact, I know someone who in the war, was stationed outside a communications point to kill OUR OWN PEOPLE if they were overrun, to prevent information those people had from falling into enemy hands. Dumbledore gave Snape an order as a solder in a war. Snape may not have liked it, but none of the others in the order would have been able to carry out such an order and would not have understood how vital it was that the order be carried out. Thats why the words 'coward' stung him so badly, as it was incredibly brave of him to do what he did and horribly painful. But if Snape had not carried out his orders, not only would the very weakened Dumbledore still be dead or captured/tortured, Snape would be dead, many students might be dead, Harry might be dead, etc. Snape carried out Dumbledore's orders then hustled the DEs out, blocking attempts to harm Harry on the way out and trying to teach him to close his mind. - Jazmyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 21:04:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:04:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: <45F5BF61.8010308@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: >> Dumbledore gave Snape an order as a solder in a war. Alla: And when we read in book 7 that this theory is a fact, Dumbledore giving Snape an order to kill him, then I will publicly apologise to Snape. :) and just as publicly condemn Dumbledore as the most rotten manipulator I have ever read about for the longest time. So far, it is not a fact. IMO. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 12 21:16:54 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:16:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165975 "justcarol67" wrote: > So where and when has Dumbledore > been wrong as a judge of character? Well, among other things: 1) Hiring Quirrell 2) Hiring Lockhart 3) Hiring the fake Mad Eye. 4) Trusting Snape (probably, we'll know for sure on July 21) > Snape sent the Order to rescue Harry > from the Death Eaters. Snape told the Order that Harry talked about Padfoot, but only after he had been captured by Umbridge and he figured (incorrectly) that information was no longer of any value. > he [Dumbledore] withholds information > only because Harry is too young And Dumbledore himself admits that was a HUGE error in judgment, an error that caused the death of Sirius Black. > Dumbledore never trusted Tom Riddle, > even as an eleven-year-old boy. Yes, I can't deny that, and it's to Dumbledore's everlasting credit. Think about it, a dirt poor boy born in tragic circumstances manages to rise above it all and become Head Boy; it's a wonderful story, an inspiring store, a story that begs to be believed. To top it off the boy was handsome, polite, charming and brilliant; and yet Dumbledore saw right through him. Dumbledore's judgment is not perfect, but it's not bad. Eggplant From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 21:28:23 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:28:23 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165976 > zgirnius: > The reliability of Dumbledore's judgments of people are suspect on > these grounds, but not his statements of fact. > > Let's review my proposed list of reasons Hermione might have for > trusting Snape, just to see how many of them are independent of > Dumbledore's judgment of Snape's character: zgirnius, earlier: > 1) Saving Harry from Quirrell in PS/SS zgirnius now: Not tainted by possibility Dumbledore is bad judge of character a_svirn: I did acknowledge that, didn't I? Though, as I said, Dumbledore himself cast a decidedly ignoble light on Snape's motives. You'd think it would have been enough that a student was in danger, wouldn't you. Apparently not: in Dumbledore's opinion Snape only saved Harry because of the old debt to his father. zgirnius: > 2) End of PoA - I think she would believe him sincere in his comments to her and Harry in the Shack - in other words, he was after Sirius because he was the traitor. zgirnius: Would rely on Hermione's own judgment. She was there and formed her own opinion, which she has not shared. It *could*, therefore, be favorable. At any rate, it has nothing to do with Dumbledore, who did not discuss his view of Snape's actions with Harry at all in PoA. a_svirn: He was also after revenge, which for Hermione would have been hard to miss. Until the end of HBP she might have believed that it wasn't the main motive, but after he killed Dumbledore? Hard to imagine why he should hate traitors as a class. zgirnius: > 3) Revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge zgirnius: A fact witnessed by Harry, not subject to an error of interpretation by Dumbledore. a_svirn: And what does it tell us? At the moment it looked like something to support Dumbledore, but he must have been equally convincing when he finally got to Voldemort. zgirnius: > 4) Teaching Harry Occlumency (I think she did read up on it, and has reason to believe Harry's reaction is typical in the early stages) zgirnius: Again, a fact. a_svirn: It is certainly an indisputable fact that the lessons were a failure. And that because of that failure Voldemort managed to possess Harry's mind. zgirnius: > 5) Not providing Umbridge with Veritaserum in OotP zgirnius: She was in the office when he claimed to have none. If Hermione judged that he was lying to Umbridge, that would be a judgment based on her own impressions and logic. a_svirn: So what? Umbridge might be vile, but she is not a DE. Why would Snape want to help her at all? If he did, he would have only upset Voldemort's well laid plans. zgirnius: > 6) Sending the Order to the MoM (and checking on Sirius) zgirnius: She knows someone sent the Order - she was there. Dumbledore is the source of the information that it was Snape, but who else could it have been? He was the only Order member at Hogwarts. For this to be false, Dumbledore would need to have lied AND there would have to be something complicated going on. a_svirn: ah, but there is a little question of timing. Just how long did Snape spend in the forest? In fact, did he go there at all? He certainly didn't waist his time on rescuing Umbridge. zgirnius: 7) Saving Dumbledore's life zgirnius: Dumbledore is quite possibly the most powerful, skilled, and knowledgeable wizard in the Potterverse. If he states that a powerful curse was killing him, I think that he is to be believed. If he states he was not able to save himself alone, that, too, must be believed. These are statements of fact in his area of expertise. Nothing we have seen suggests he was losing his touch as a wizard/expert on magic, even if he did misjudge the character and loyalties of one Severus Snape. a_svirn: Well, yes, there is that. Then again, Snape didn't quite cured him from that powerful curse. Dumbledore hand remained black and dead, and he himself acknowledged that his reflexes were not as they had been. Perhaps Snape actually sabotaged the treatment just a slightest bit? zgirnius: 8) Saving Katie Bell's life zgirnius: This is something Dumbledore tells Harry. I don't see why he would lie about who treated Katie Bell, a_svirn: And what does it prove? Of course, he did his best to save Katie, just the thing to be on a good wicket with Dumbledore. To prove his usefulness. I imagine he cured quite a number of death eaters as well and for the same reason. From mora at vbbn.com Mon Mar 12 21:00:37 2007 From: mora at vbbn.com (vinerider87) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:00:37 -0000 Subject: Percy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165977 Percy Weasley is one of those characters that we so easily push to the back of our minds. He is not and never has been very likeable. He has always worried about making himself #1. In the last couple of books it makes it seem like he has been given promotions, but they were only so that the MOM could get information from his family regarding the OOTP. Percy seems to have been made a fool for quite a while now. Does anyone else see him "going over to the dark side" just to get back at all the people that he feels have laughed at him and used him? I could see him joining up with LV and getting him information that could work against OOTP. I know this is a little off the wall, but I think it's worth exploring. vinerider87 From marchrpea at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 21:30:33 2007 From: marchrpea at yahoo.com (chris) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: <45F5B4AB.7020708@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <228705.585.qm@web53911.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165978 The only reason I can see for Dumbledore hiring her was to keep track of her in case she had another prophecy after the first. Was that good enough reason to inflict her on students who might have actually learned something under another teacher? Dumbledore kept Trelawney at Hogwarts to keep her safe. He didn't want her captured by LV because she had been the one who gave the original prophecy. Christie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 22:15:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:15:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: <12348599.1173719731182.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165979 > >>Bart: > I'm currently rereading the series, but looking for something in > particular: How much is Dumbledore manipulating the situation. For > example, it is clear in the first book (Dumbledore as much as > admits it) that he was manipulating Harry into stopping the theft > of the Uncertain Adjective Stone. How much is not clear, but it > would explain quite a few of the coincidences (and throughout the > books). Betsy Hp: And see, IMO, it makes *so* much more sense if Dumbledore *didn't* mean for Harry to go after the Stone. Because if Dumbledore did mean for Harry to stop the theft, he's not only a puppeteer; he's a moron. Which is a pretty scary combination. (I've discussed my view point on this many times, most recently here, for folks who care to look: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163921 I'd suggest going up and down that particular thread.) > >>Bart: > Dumbledore's initial goal is clear: to prepare Harry to fight and > win against Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: I also have issue with Dumbldore creating a soldier!Harry. For one, he does a horrible job. Harry is good at DADA, but he's not really the scariest guy with a wand. Heck, compared to the Marauders, young! Snape and young!Tom Riddle, Jr., Harry is downright backward. And honestly, the fact that Dumbldore doesn't teach Harry any magic at all during his little lessons in HBP (martial or otherwise) suggests to me that his goal isn't to create a warrior, and it never has been. It seems to me that for the most part Dumbledore is working to protect Harry, not really prepare him to face Voldemort. I think that it's not until OotP that Dumbledore really decides, reluctantly, that Harry is going to step onto the field. > >>Bart: > > I think that the meeting up with the Weasley's was a happy > coincidence, but I have a hunch that becoming friends with Hermione > was not. Hermione just knew too much, more than she could get from > books. She is locked into a rumor mill while Harry and Ron seem to > be out of the loop; ... Betsy Hp: I'd really like some examples of this. When does Hermione know stuff she couldn't have gotten from either books or her newspaper subscription? I'm also curious as to whether you mean Dumbledore somehow arranged for Hermione to get trapped in the bathroom with a troll (and for Ron and Harry to hear about it) or if you think she's a sleeper agent herself? > >>Bart: > Many of the too-convenient coincidences in the books can be > explained by the fact that they were not coincidences at all, but > manipulation on the part of Dumbledore to manipulate Harry into > putting his nose where it does not belong, with visions of a > greater good. Betsy Hp: Like what for example? > >>Bart: > While I don't think that Dumbledore ordered Snape to be nasty to > Harry, he certainly took full advantage of Snape's dislike of > Harry. Based on the later revelations of Snape's skills at > Leglimancy, time after time Snape has caught Harry red-handed, and > let him get away (for example, in COS, Snape knows damned well that > Harry let off the firecracker in potions class, and lets it slide; > although he has no physical proof, he DOES have probable cause to > get it). Betsy Hp: But what does Dumbledore *gain* from the enmity between Snape and Harry? It seems more that it's a burden for any plans Dumbledore might have had (the Occlumency fiasco, for example). > >>Bart: > Harry is manipulated through the books to break the rules if it > serves a higher purpose, but not for personal gain or pleasure. In > other words, he is being trained as an operative, but indirectly. > Betsy Hp: But what sort of operative? Not a martial one, it seems like. And Harry seems to have entirely the wrong personality to be a spy. So what sort of boy was Dumbledore trying to build? Betsy Hp (enquiring minds want to know! ) From jnoyl at aim.com Mon Mar 12 21:25:17 2007 From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:25:17 -0700 Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer Message-ID: <84729EE1-D0DA-4A4E-ABE5-08F400EA05D1@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165980 Bart Lidofsky brought up DoubleDumb the manipulator. Start right from the beginning for Harry--Hagrid picking him up. Harry knows nothing about being a wizard, so rather than introducing him to the WW by someone like McGonagall, he has Hagrid. Now, Hagrid is great, but how much of the WW and its traditions does he tell Harry about? All Harry really learns about is that his parents were killed by a megalomaniac who is intent on world domination, Harry somehow got rid of him when said psycho gave Harry that scar, and the psycho is most likely still out there somewhere waiting to come back and pick up where he left of. Then, he just drops Harry off at King's Cross without any instructions. So, we have an unloved child who has no friends and an upbringing that has ensured he is ignorant of both the WW and the MW who is being dropped off in a frightening world, full of DARK LORDS, with the absolute minimum knowledge of what is happening and left to fend for himself. While trying to figure out what is happening, he just happens to overhear a rather loud-mouthed mother complain about muggles and ask her children what the gate number is for the train. This is what--her 34th time coming to or arriving at gate 9 and 3/4? This is ingrained in her almost at the level of instinct. The only train she has probably ever taken was the HE. And she just happens to speak out loud so Harry can hear her? No, this is a set-up. It is very clear, just from this start, that Harry has been kept ignorant and isolated for a reason. Every where you look, Harry is left to fend for himself. How many times is he told to see the headmaster and not given the password? When has any adult ever explained things to him rather than just expecting him to do them. The only person in the series that explains things to Harry is DoubleDumb and his explanations are as clear as mud. Other than that, Harry is pretty much in the hands of DDs sycophants. JLyon From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Mon Mar 12 22:21:00 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:21:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: References: <002e01c76277$87a6e300$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: <004d01c764f4$bbee1a50$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165981 --a_svirn Wrote-- >>>Afraid not. Dumbledore's judgement proved to be unsound. The man he trusted so completely just killed him. And now everything he ever said about Snape is suspect. Hermione can only trust the information that came from the sources other than Dumbledore. <<< --Ronin's Comments-- Afraid So. You cannot state your opinion as fact until it's been proven by canon. We will see in book 7 whether or not Dumbledore's judgement was sound or not. Until then, if there were 100 people who'd witnessed the events of the tower, there'd be 100 different opinions of what had actually transpired. I choose to trust Dumbledore's judgment because I KNOW that Harry's interpretation of his reason for trusting Snape is not accurate. I KNOW this because Dumbledore never told Harry why he trusted Severus. Dumbledore was always adamant about avoiding this subject with Harry as we see at least twice in HBP. I may very well be wrong about Snape being on Dumbledore's side, but until we know for certain Hermione and I and anyone else are free to trust Dumbledore's judgement and in everything he ever said about Snape. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 22:40:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:40:21 -0000 Subject: DD's judgment WAS: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' In-Reply-To: <004d01c764f4$bbee1a50$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165982 > --a_svirn Wrote-- > >>>Afraid not. Dumbledore's judgement proved to be unsound. The man he > trusted so completely just killed him. And now everything he ever > said about Snape is suspect. Hermione can only trust the information > that came from the sources other than Dumbledore. > > --Ronin's Comments-- > Afraid So. > You cannot state your opinion as fact until it's been proven by canon. We > will see in book 7 whether or not Dumbledore's judgement was sound or not. > Until then, if there were 100 people who'd witnessed the events of the > tower, there'd be 100 different opinions of what had actually transpired. > I choose to trust Dumbledore's judgment because I KNOW that Harry's > interpretation of his reason for trusting Snape is not accurate. I KNOW this > because Dumbledore never told Harry why he trusted Severus. Dumbledore was > always adamant about avoiding this subject with Harry as we see at least > twice in HBP. > I may very well be wrong about Snape being on Dumbledore's side, but until > we know for certain Hermione and I and anyone else are free to trust > Dumbledore's judgement and in everything he ever said about Snape. Alla: Sure, I agree - everybody is free to trust DD judgment about Snape. I guess to me it is the question of , I don't know, the most straightforward interpretation again, which can be wrong of course? I mean, it is like saying ( to me of course) that when person drops dead - there are 100 interpretations of that event possible. I just disagree with that. To me the most ** obvious** interpretation of that is that person is just that - **dead**. Now, sure there are could be circumstances casting that event in the different light ( DD giving Snape the order to kill him seems to be the most common one), but I don't know - isn't what we saw was the man who DD trusted **killing** him? Sure, JKR can pull a rug in book 7, but DD is dead, no? I mean, yeah, as I said everybody can trust DD still, I just do not see **why**, if that makes sense, unless of course additional info becomes available in book 7. Oh, say for example DD would keep saying that Tom Riddle should be trusted and Tommy dear kills DD and DD would not disclose to us the reason. Would you still say that DD judgment is sound or would you say that DD got hoodwinked and badly ? > Betsy Hp: >> I'm also curious as to whether you mean Dumbledore somehow arranged > for Hermione to get trapped in the bathroom with a troll (and for Ron > and Harry to hear about it) or if you think she's a sleeper agent > herself? Alla: LOLOLOL. Me too. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Mar 12 22:46:06 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:46:06 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165984 Dana now: > A devoted DE, like Bellatrix, is always a potential > threat, even if the situation at hand is controlled. > She might not actively go to LV to verify Snape's tale, > but she will take any opportunity if it presents itself. > And we see she actually does by talking to Draco. By > goading Bella, he lost control over Draco. > So the control over Bella is extremely limited as far > as I can tell, and this makes telling lies to a person > desperate for the favour of her Master, extremely > dangerous. Better not leave things to chance by using > something that can be verified. Not being able to call > her Master on his skills directly, does not mean there > will be no opportunities to seed doubts in LV's trust > in Snape in the future. houyhnhnm: Bellatrix is dangerous to Snape and will remain so. I didn't mean to sugggest that the threat she posed was removed, only that by throwing her off balance, forcing her to admit she no longer has the Dark Lord's full confidence, suggesting by his litany of explanations that he has, Snape made it a little safer for himself to pursue Narcissa's reason for showing up on his doorstep. He is *temporarily* disarming her by playing on her own doubts, it seems to me. I don't see the danger of lying to her if he has already ascertained how much or how little she knows about his relationship with Voldemort, and also the fact that she no longer has the Dark Lord's ear. ("Have you discussed this matter with the Dark Lord?" asked Snape. "He ... lately, we ... I'm asking you Snape!") I think an obligatory scene has been set up between these two and I'm looking forward to it. Dana now: > Because the only one who has everything to lose > by being found out as a liar, is Snape. houyhnhnm: If he's DDM, he has everything to lose. And if he's DDM, he's got to keep lying successfully. Narcissa has her son's life at stake. She'll say anything it takes to get Snape to help her. ("... You are the Dark Lord's favorite, his most trusted advisor ...") I don't think we can take anything she says at face value. And Bella is trying to maintain her high status among the Death Eaters. ("He shares everything with me," said Bellatrix, firing up at once. " He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful--") She's just not very good at it. With Snape as an adversary, she's out of her league. There's no way any of these three are being candid with each other. Snape and Bella are each trying to catch the other one out in a disloyalty. Bella even attacks her own sister for suggesting that Voldemort has been unable to defeat --[whomever]. That was the point I was trying to make about the fog of tryanny. Dana now: > If he really doesn't know the plan, then how do you > explain him taking, the most serious magical bond, > one can commit to and leave everything to the chance > it's more serious than he expected it to be? houyhnhnm: That's easy. If he really doesn't know the plan, he agreed to the vow (not knowing that the third clause would be included) because it was the only way he thought he could find out without making Bellatrix more of an immediate danger to him than she already was. Try this on for size: Narcissa Malfoy shows up on his doorstep late at night, desperately seeking his help with Voldemort's latest plan, one which involves Draco. Snape doesn't know about the plan. Maybe he knows something is up, but hasn't managed to get any details out of Voldemort or anyone else. But he knows that if it involves Draco, it involves Hogwarts. If Voldemort is planning some kind of attack on Hogwarts, that information has got to be more important than anything else Snape has ever pursued. An attack on Hogwarts could even mean an attack on Harry. If Snape doesn't know about the plan, then he also doesn't know Dumbledore is the object. Of course, it's worth his life. Dana: > But for argument's sake: if Snape really takes > the UV to find out what Draco's task is, then how > come the DEs on the Tower know what Draco is failing > to do and, more important, Draco never told him, so > how could he have told DD for DD to ask him to kill him. houyhnhnm: Lumpy Amycus doesn't have to know anything about the Vow Snape made with Narcissa to know that Draco appears to be failing his task. He and the other DEs are *in* Hogwarts. They obviously know about the mission. They may even have orders to kill Draco if he fails. Dana: > And if Snape was told later, why take the UV to > find out in the first place; if he expects LV to > want him to finish the job, don't you think he is > expecting to be told later (if he didn't already > know as he claimed)? houyhnhnm: If Snape doesn't know about the task, then he also doesn't know that LV to wants him to finish the job. He's making it all up. The whole reason for my original reponse to your post (since I am not one who believes DD engineered the action at Spinners End. Who does believe that, actually?) is that, over and over, I see posters claiming the LV did or did not order this or did or did not want that, based on the conversation at Spinner's End. I don't think such a conclusion is justified. There's no way to know how much of what Snape tells Bellatrix is crapola. We do know *some* of it is. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Mar 12 23:20:30 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:20:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165986 > "justcarol67" wrote: > > > So where and when has Dumbledore > > been wrong as a judge of character? > eggplant107 wrote: > Well, among other things: > > 1) Hiring Quirrell > 2) Hiring Lockhart > 3) Hiring the fake Mad Eye. > 4) Trusting Snape (probably, we'll know for sure on July 21) > colebiancardi: 1. Quirell was, if I am not mistaken, on a leave of absence for a year and had been the DADA teacher the year before that. It seems that he was OK until he came back with VaporMort attached to him and it then became (cough, cough) problematic. Hagrid states in PS/SS Am Ed Hardcover, pg 70-71 "Oh yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while he was studyin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience...They say he met vampires in the Black Forest, and there was a nasty bit o' trouble with a hag -- never been the same since. Scared of the students, scared of his own subject --" 2. Lockhart - not going to argue with this one. Lockhart's one talent was Memory Charms & that could have clouded DD's judgement, as it is hard to check up on someone's creds if everyone is befuddled. I believe DD was scraping the bottom of the barrel with Lockhart. 3. Mad-Eye. DD hired the real Mad-Eye, not the Fake one. Barty explains all in GoF, Am Ed hardcover p687-689 "She {Bertha} told him the old Auror, Moody, was going to teach at Hogwarts... My Master conceived a plan, based upon the information Bertha had given me. He needed me. He arrived at our house near midnight... Wormtail & I did it. We had prepared the Polyjuice potion beforehand. We journeyed to his house. Moody put up a struggle. There was a commotion. We managed to subdue him just in time." 4. Snape - well we will have to agree to disagree. Snape has proven his trustworthness to DD throughout the series. And since I believe that DD asked Snape to release him from the ring curse which had been killing him all year long, I think that Snape was trustworthy in that respect as well. > "justcarol67" wrote: > > Snape sent the Order to rescue Harry > > from the Death Eaters. > eggplant wrote: > Snape told the Order that Harry talked about Padfoot, but only after > he had been captured by Umbridge and he figured (incorrectly) that > information was no longer of any value. > colebiancardi: well, of course - Harry didn't think of Snape UNTIL AFTER he was captured by Umbridge. And I am not sure what "he figured (incorrectly) that information was no longer of any value." this means. I don't know who "he is" and why "he" figured incorrectly >From OotP, Am Ed, hardcover p. 743: "He {Harry} had just realized something; he could not believe he had been so stupid as to forget it. He had thought that all the members of the Order, all those who could help him save Sirius, were gone -- but he had been wrong. There was still a member of the Order of the Phoenix at Hogwarts - Snape" > "justcarol67" wrote: > > he [Dumbledore] withholds information > > only because Harry is too young > eggplant wrote: > And Dumbledore himself admits that was a HUGE error in judgment, an > error that caused the death of Sirius Black. > colebiancardi: huh? I don't remember that error was the cause of the death of Sirius. DD does state that it is almost entirely his(DD) fault, but I am not sure I would go as far as stating that it was a HUGE error in judgement - but I could be wrong. I don't remember reading DD stating that exact quote colebiancardi(who messed up with her 1st 2 posts, deleted them, and totally lost everything and had to rewrite all over again!) From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 00:19:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:19:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F5EDFF.4070603@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165987 dumbledore11214 wrote: > And when we read in book 7 that this theory is a fact, Dumbledore > giving Snape an order to kill him, then I will publicly apologise to > Snape. :) and just as publicly condemn Dumbledore as the most rotten > manipulator I have ever read about for the longest time. Dumbledore is NOT a rotten manipulator. He is an EXCELLENT manipulator. Bart From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Mon Mar 12 23:32:41 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:32:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's judgment WAS: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' In-Reply-To: References: <004d01c764f4$bbee1a50$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: <006701c764fe$c2f67130$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 165988 --Alla Wrote-- >>>Sure, I agree - everybody is free to trust DD judgment about Snape. I guess to me it is the question of , I don't know, the most straightforward interpretation again, which can be wrong of course? I mean, it is like saying ( to me of course) that when person drops dead - there are 100 interpretations of that event possible. I just disagree with that. To me the most ** obvious** interpretation of that is that person is just that - **dead**. Now, sure there are could be circumstances casting that event in the different light ( DD giving Snape the order to kill him seems to be the most common one), but I don't know - isn't what we saw was the man who DD trusted **killing** him? Sure, JKR can pull a rug in book 7, but DD is dead, no? I mean, yeah, as I said everybody can trust DD still, I just do not see **why**, if that makes sense, unless of course additional info becomes available in book 7. Oh, say for example DD would keep saying that Tom Riddle should be trusted and Tommy dear kills DD and DD would not disclose to us the reason. Would you still say that DD judgment is sound or would you say that DD got hoodwinked and badly ?<<< --Ronin's Comments-- That's great. I can see that most people might choose to believe what they do about events based on what we read about the tower. And I can't hold that against anyone. It's just when someone tries to state their opinion as absolute fact and in an arrogant way that I have a problem. As we've both said, we won't know until book 7 if at all. As for interpretations of the events, it is a fact that people will interpret the same information differently. There've been studies and it's proven. I.E. 7 people see a man in a blue shirt with a baseball cap on and sunglasses snatch an old lady's purse and kick a dog. Every one of those people would recount the events and the description of the man differently. This is why police usually try to interview as many witnesses as possible, in order to piece together the actual events. 4 of the people said he was wearing a blue shirt, one said it was purple. Five people said he wore sunglasses, two said they were reading glasses. Six people saw him kick the dog, but only two saw him snatch the purse, etc. And so, the story is pieced together. Also, Hermione wasn't even an eye witness. The only people who were actually there were Snape, Draco, The DEs, Dumbledore and Harry. DD is dead and the only person left to give an account of what happened was Harry. Everyone already knows that Harry sees things his own way when it comes to Snape. So, his story or evidence is tainted. He cannot be objective because he's already emotionally subjective. Hermione knows this, Lupin knows this...they all know this. We know what we saw on the tower, but we also have to take into account events and information that we've gathered from before and after the event. So, we end up with various theories and differences of opinion. It seems we have a puzzle on our hands and we are missing a key piece. None of our theories have been proven or disproved yet. We know what we saw on the tower and the events we were allowed to glimpse leading up to it. We know the basic who, what, when & where but we're missing the crucial WHY. I have no doubt that if a trial were held given the facts we have seen, Snape would be found guilty of murdering Dumbledore. However, I don't think this has anything to do with Dumbledore's judgment or Hermione's trust in that judgment. Until we KNOW the WHY. This can be a very gray area as it is a war. In war, sacrifices are sometimes required, decisions are made and orders carried out for the good of the cause and not the individual. We weren't meant to understand the WHY yet. That is left for DH. But this is the reason I am on the side of trusting Dumbledore's judgment. I don't think your Tom Riddle analogy really fits here. I mean, Tom Riddle DID come to call at Hogwarts for the DADA position and was twice turned away. Dumbledore advised Dippet against it and then flatly declined Tom the second time, knowing that he had other motives. So, if anything this supports Dumbledore's good judgment of character. Dumbledore was already suspicious of Tom's character when he discovered the stolen items at the orphanage and heard the stories about his questionable behavior towards the other children. All of the other teachers thought highly of Tom, but Dumbledore never trusted him. Look how Tom turned out. He had everyone else fooled except for Dumbledore. Again, I may be wrong or we may both be wrong for that matter. But when I read and re-read HBP, I find myself asking WHY about so many things during the tower scene as well as the Flight of the Prince. Harry never does this because he thinks he has all the answers already. He thinks Snape is evil from the second he sees him. Just as he instantly begs the sorting hat to sort him into any house but Slytherin because of one encounter with Draco Malfoy (Before Draco has even been sorted into Slytherin himself). This is not meant to be a debate of who's right and who's wrong. I'm only trying to give you my point of view on the subject so that you can understand how I reach MY conclusion. I wouldn't say I've been hoodwinked if it turns out that Snape is truly evil, just that one of my many theories was wrong. But if I turn out to be right, "neener, neener, neener...I told you so". lol Just kidding. Oh. Whoever said the bit about Hermione meeting the troll in the girls bathroom. I believe she arranged the meeting and when Ron and Harry discovered her, she made it out to be an attack to avoid suspicion. I haven't decided yet if the meeting was for her covert DE operations or of a romantic purpose, but I'm sure she's up to no good either way. lol (I'll assume you know this is a joke) Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 00:42:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:42:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: <84729EE1-D0DA-4A4E-ABE5-08F400EA05D1@aim.com> References: <84729EE1-D0DA-4A4E-ABE5-08F400EA05D1@aim.com> Message-ID: <45F5F386.7070502@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165989 JLyon wrote: > Every where you look, Harry is left to fend for himself. How many > times is he told to see the headmaster and not given the password? > When has any adult ever explained things to him rather than just > expecting him to do them. The only person in the series that explains > things to Harry is DoubleDumb and his explanations are as clear as > mud. Other than that, Harry is pretty much in the hands of DDs > sycophants. Right now, I'm trying to figure out the significance of the other student whom Snape gives a horrible time; the other chosen one, Neville. But one thing that should be noted is the timeline; Snape's info is probably the reason why the Potters went into hiding. And, just perhaps, it was his delay that caused the Longbottoms to get tortured. Just an observation; I haven't quite figured out the significance yet. Bart From unicornspride at centurytel.net Tue Mar 13 01:59:12 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:59:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Fleur References: Message-ID: <014d01c76513$32442820$2f01a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 165990 >Lana >Okay, >My sister and I were talking and she brought up something I hadn't thought about. Fleur... I am a bit bewildered that JK brought her back into the storyline. Why?? It seems odd that someone of no apparent relevance, to me anyway, would be brought back. What are the theories surrounding her? Anyone care to speculate why she was brought back into play? Just seems odd to me unless she will play at least some role in the future battle. Maybe her "charm" as a veela or something? >Nikkalmati One of the themes of the books is unity and many listees >expect the houses of Hogwarts to be united, as well as the other magical creatures such as >centaurs, giants, and house elves to take part in the defeat of LV. In this context, the purpose of bringing Fleur and MM back into >the books is to show >unity within the WW.. Lana writes: While I agree with this, I am wondering more from an active stand. Just seems strange. Granted we see alot of united peoples, but that could have been done without marrying her off to Bill. Just seems there has to be more to it. >Shelley wrote: >I don't think there is any deep theory about her at all- she is what she is- someone >marrying into the Weasley family, and that she will only be the first of many >yet to come. I think Fleur paves the way for Harry to marry into the >family. Lana writes: Interesting point of view. I never thought of it that way. I still think there has to be more to it. Only because Harry really doesn't need his way paved. The Weasleys already basically consider him family. Just look at how Molly treated Hermoine when she thought that Harry got stiffed for Krum.. LOL > KC wrote: I think she'll prove herself to be a >strong ally in the war against Voldemort. Lana writes: Now this I can agree with totally. I think that there is definately something to this. I wonder if she wasn't brought in for some specialty. We know what the others possess, but what does she possess other than courage. Is she a curse breaker and hence something in common with Bill? Wondering.... . __,_._,_ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 00:56:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:56:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F5F6AF.2070505@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 165991 horridporrid03 wrote: > And see, IMO, it makes *so* much more sense if Dumbledore *didn't* > mean for Harry to go after the Stone. Because if Dumbledore did mean > for Harry to stop the theft, he's not only a puppeteer; he's a > moron. Which is a pretty scary combination. From HPSS, Hardcover, 1st American edition, page 297: "...As for the Stone, it has been destroyed." "Destroyed?" said Harry blankly. "But your friend --- Nicolas Flamel ---" "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You >did< do the thing properly, didn't you?" It was reading those lines that I realized that harry was manipulated into protecting the Stone, and Dumbledore knew exactly what he was doing when he hired Quirrel. Bart From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 01:07:29 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:07:29 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > To the issue of good wizards killing bad wizards, I don't > think that is necessary. But I do have a huge bone to > pick with the strategy and tactics used by the good > wizards in the fight against evil. > once you have a DE disabled, why not take, hide, > snap, or otherwise get rid of the DE's wand. zanooda: Does anyone happen to know why they never use transfiguration in battle? It was probably discussed before, but to me it's a mystery. Couldn't McGonagall, for instance, turn the DE that she fought in HBP into a bug or something? From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 13 01:25:38 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:25:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') References: <45F5B4AB.7020708@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <005e01c7650e$83e7e9f0$eb78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165993 > Draeconin: > > Dumbledore's judgment has always been unsound in my opinion, as > evidenced by most of the DADA teachers, Trelawny, and Professor Binns. > > The reasons for naming the DADA teachers are self-evident. Trelawney was, > for the most part, a pretentious fake. Up to the point where Umbridge > had her fired, she had only two genuine prophecies. The only reason I > can see for Dumbledore hiring her was to keep track of her in case she > had another prophecy after the first. Was that good enough reason to > inflict her on students who might have actually learned something under > another teacher? > > And Professor Binns: if he had been the least bit animated (no pun > intended) and made an effort to make the subject matter interesting... > I'm sure Harry and Ron weren't the only ones going to sleep in that > class. How many received a substandard mark because the ghost just > droned on and on. Not to mention he must have been like that in life as > well. > > One can almost understand why he kept Snape on, since the man seems to > have been a brilliant potions master and he needed a reason for Snape to > be able to talk to him. But as a teacher, Snape's blatant bias against > Gryffindor (who knows about the other Houses) and his favoritism towards > Slytherins couldn't have led to a good learning environment - especially > for the Gryffindors. > > So there are plenty of instances to show Dumbledore's poor judgment. Magpie: I think we're mixing together a lot of things under "poor judgement," though, to the point where it becomes meaningless. Dumbledore has absolutely made mistakes--big ones. And there are plenty of choices he's made that many of us don't agree with, from what he chose to do with Harry to not liking his choices for teachers (I can think of 4 permenant ones off the top of my head that many people want out). He can be wrong. But the kind of judgment we mean here refers to the times when Dumbledore takes the time to focus on someone and study them, give them a chance. When he does that he does seem to get a feel for them--a correct feel. He might still make mistakes with them, but he'll generally understand his mistakes afterwards and they'll not be about missing their core character. His mistake with Sirius wasn't that he didn't understand Sirius it was that he though he could deal with something better than he did--just as he claims he did with Snape and Occlumency. He wasn't surprised at Snape's reaction, he just hoped he'd do better. I suspect that if Dumbledore was absolutely needing to bank on either of them he wouldn't press to hard on those sore spots. That's why he can trust Snape completely and also not be surprised when he fails at something like teaching Occlumency after Harry saw into his Pensieve. Or can trust Hagrid with his life even after he blabbed about how to get past Fluffy. That's more the kind of thing, it seems to me, that we're talking about with Dumbledore's second chance with Snape. Could he be suckered in by a fake tale of remorse? That's the type of thing Dumbledore doesn't seem to fall for. Even when he's got fakes in the school like Fake!Moody and Lockhart it doesn't seem like Dumbledore's being played as gullible about their character. With Moody he's basing his judgment on actual Moody. Carol brought up Draco as someone who doesn't trust Dumbledore's judgment but I'd also add him under the list of people Dumbledore seems to get once he sets his mind to him. In that last scene, while Draco is unconvincingly claiming Dumbledore's the stupid old man, Dumbledore seems more confident and accurate in his understanding of Draco's character than Draco himself, who's a mess. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 01:47:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:47:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: <005e01c7650e$83e7e9f0$eb78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165994 > Magpie: > But the kind of judgment we mean here refers to the times when Dumbledore > takes the time to focus on someone and study them, give them a chance. When > he does that he does seem to get a feel for them--a correct feel. He might > still make mistakes with them, but he'll generally understand his mistakes > afterwards and they'll not be about missing their core character. His > mistake with Sirius wasn't that he didn't understand Sirius it was that he > though he could deal with something better than he did--just as he claims he > did with Snape and Occlumency. He wasn't surprised at Snape's reaction, he > just hoped he'd do better. I suspect that if Dumbledore was absolutely > needing to bank on either of them he wouldn't press to hard on those sore > spots. That's why he can trust Snape completely and also not be surprised > when he fails at something like teaching Occlumency after Harry saw into his > Pensieve. Or can trust Hagrid with his life even after he blabbed about how > to get past Fluffy. > > That's more the kind of thing, it seems to me, that we're talking about with > Dumbledore's second chance with Snape. Could he be suckered in by a fake > tale of remorse? That's the type of thing Dumbledore doesn't seem to fall > for. Even when he's got fakes in the school like Fake!Moody and Lockhart it > doesn't seem like Dumbledore's being played as gullible about their > character. With Moody he's basing his judgment on actual Moody. Carol > brought up Draco as someone who doesn't trust Dumbledore's judgment but I'd > also add him under the list of people Dumbledore seems to get once he sets > his mind to him. Alla: I think I see what are you saying here - distinguishing between DD's mistakes and his judgment on when he concentrated on somebody to study them. I mean, I do think that he was wrong about Snape obviously, but I think I understand your argument. But I am wondering where do you get that Dumbledore understood Sirius at all? Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that Dumbledore did precisely that - misunderstood Sirius' core characteristics, period, no? I mean, Dumbledore thought it possible that Sirius betrayed a man, whom he loved like a brother, thought so despite observing seven years of closeness between them, despite knowing that Potters took Sirius in, despite observing them ( supposedly) when they were in the Order ( the group of nearest comrades that DD supposedly lead). DD seemed to be so **sure** that Sirius is capable of betraying his brother and his family that he deemed it possible to give evidence at the hearing ( okay, we don't know that he was not subpoenaed, but it is possible that he came forward voluntarily, no?) And years after Dumbledore **still** seems to have no clue what Sirius is all about - not helping him somehow to be active on behalf of the Order, instead of being stuck in that House ( I do know that DD wanted Sirius alive, I do, I am just saying that Dumbledore seems to be very clueless of psychology, that Sirius' nature required something very different, etc) So, I do disagree that DD is usually right when he concentrates on somebody. I think he was clueless about Sirius, I really do. Ronin: He thinks Snape is evil > from the second he sees him. Alla: No, he does not. He thinks that Snape **had a gift** of keeping class quiet. That is before Snape attacks him IMO and despite that his scar hurt earlier. I think for eleven year old he was quite open minded personally. Ronin: > This is not meant to be a debate of who's right and who's wrong. I'm only > trying to give you my point of view on the subject so that you can > understand how I reach MY conclusion. I wouldn't say I've been hoodwinked if > it turns out that Snape is truly evil, just that one of my many theories was > wrong. > But if I turn out to be right, "neener, neener, neener...I told you so". lol > > Just kidding. > Alla: Oh, LOLOLOL. I would not say I had been hoodwinked either, if it is written well, believe me. You are hilarious, Ronin. It is a true pleasure disagreeing with you :) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 13 01:57:27 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:57:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') References: Message-ID: <009101c76512$f4876880$eb78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165995 > Alla: > > I think I see what are you saying here - distinguishing between DD's > mistakes and his judgment on when he concentrated on somebody to > study them. > > I mean, I do think that he was wrong about Snape obviously, but I > think I understand your argument. > > But I am wondering where do you get that Dumbledore understood > Sirius at all? > Could you elaborate on that? > > It seems to me that Dumbledore did precisely that - misunderstood > Sirius' core characteristics, period, no? > > I mean, Dumbledore thought it possible that Sirius betrayed a man, > whom he loved like a brother, thought so despite observing seven > years of closeness between them, despite knowing that Potters took > Sirius in, despite observing them ( supposedly) when they were in > the Order ( the group of nearest comrades that DD supposedly lead). Magpie: I was thinking of his speech at the end of OotP where he talks about Sirius. As much as he was out of line, I assumed that from JKR's pov Dumbledore was explaining Sirius to Harry and all of us. I didn't mean Dumbledore's previous mistakes with Sirius when he left him to rot in jail. That, to me, seemed like it was a case of Dumbledore *not* paying attention or caring enough to make Sirius a project. Which sounds awful--and it kind of is! But that's the kind of distinction I was making. Dumbledore wasn't depending on Sirius earlier, and him being the traitor was no better or worse than Peter being the traitor to him. Alla: > And years after Dumbledore **still** seems to have no clue what > Sirius is all about - not helping him somehow to be active on behalf > of the Order, instead of being stuck in that House ( I do know that > DD wanted Sirius alive, I do, I am just saying that Dumbledore seems > to be very clueless of psychology, that Sirius' nature required > something very different, etc) Magpie: That's the part where I think Dumbledore is supposed to have gotten him. He understood why Sirius was going crazy in the house. He still was wrong to do keep him there, but it wasn't a case of Dumbledore not understanding why it was hard for him. Same thing with Snape if Snape is DDM, regarding the Occlumency. He knew exactly why Snape had trouble and why things failed, so it wasn't a case of misjuding him, more like overestimating him. I think he felt he was taking a similar risk with Sirius--knowing why it would be hard for him, but letting him try to deal with it. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 02:27:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:27:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: <009101c76512$f4876880$eb78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165996 > Magpie: > I was thinking of his speech at the end of OotP where he talks about Sirius. > As much as he was out of line, I assumed that from JKR's pov Dumbledore was > explaining Sirius to Harry and all of us. > > I didn't mean Dumbledore's previous mistakes with Sirius when he left him to > rot in jail. That, to me, seemed like it was a case of Dumbledore *not* > paying attention or caring enough to make Sirius a project. Which sounds > awful--and it kind of is! But that's the kind of distinction I was making. > Dumbledore wasn't depending on Sirius earlier, and him being the traitor was > no better or worse than Peter being the traitor to him. Alla: But then we are back to DD poor judgment, I think. I mean, if you are saying that DD's judgment is correct when he concentrates on the person, makes the person his project, then how do we know when this happens? Are you saying that in order for DD to be correct about the person he must make the person his project, depend on him? Well, isn't Sirius being the part of the selected group of few is sort of a time to make him his project, really? I mean if you ask me, being DD's student should have been enough, but let's say it was not, DD has many students, but there had been only several fighters in OOP. So why did DD **not** make Sirius his project back then? I mean did he not depend on the order, on each and every one of them to implement his plans? I mean, it seems to me then that the distinction you are making is rather arbitrary, if that is the best word. To me DD concentrating on someone means working closely with that person. Did he not work with Sirius closely? Did he not work with Peter closely? I mean, personally, if you ask me, that is so very much the case of DD victim of the plot. Because for the sake of the story Harry just had to grew up without Sirius, etc. But it IS part of DD character now, whether I like it or not and DD shrewd judge of the character and DD giver of the second chances is just not there to me in his dealings with Sirius. > Magpie: > That's the part where I think Dumbledore is supposed to have gotten him. He > understood why Sirius was going crazy in the house. He still was wrong to do > keep him there, but it wasn't a case of Dumbledore not understanding why it > was hard for him. Same thing with Snape if Snape is DDM, regarding the > Occlumency. He knew exactly why Snape had trouble and why things failed, so > it wasn't a case of misjuding him, more like overestimating him. I think he > felt he was taking a similar risk with Sirius--knowing why it would be hard > for him, but letting him try to deal with it. Alla: Oh, you know I think I agree with you here, but then again how do we know that it was always the case with Snape, you know? I mean how do we know that DD **always** understood him and not just sometimes as he did with Sirius? What if when Snape came to DD with his tale of remorse, deepest one, DD was not concentrating on Snape enough to make him his project? From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 13 02:44:43 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:44:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') References: Message-ID: <00a601c76519$8fee85f0$eb78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 165997 > Alla: > > But then we are back to DD poor judgment, I think. I mean, if you > are saying that DD's judgment is correct when he concentrates on the > person, makes the person his project, then how do we know when this > happens? > > Are you saying that in order for DD to be correct about the person > he must make the person his project, depend on him? > > Well, isn't Sirius being the part of the selected group of few is > sort of a time to make him his project, really? > > I mean if you ask me, being DD's student should have been enough, > but let's say it was not, DD has many students, but there had been > only several fighters in OOP. So why did DD **not** make Sirius his > project back then? I mean did he not depend on the order, on each > and every one of them to implement his plans? > > I mean, it seems to me then that the distinction you are making is > rather arbitrary, if that is the best word. Magpie: It is a good word--and I think it is fairly arbitrary for just the reason you say later, which is that DD is being the victim of plot. DD the good judge of character couldn't be there for Sirius because Sirius was supposed to be in jail--it's almost as if Sirius didn't exist until he got out. But I still think it applies to Snape, because with Snape the text is highlighting DD the good guy who gave Snape a second chance when no one else would. So even though I agree that DD the excellent judge of character ought to have figured out Peter was the traitor and certainly know that Sirius, whom James trusted so much, wasn't, I think that's more something necessary for the plot than something we can apply to the Snape story. In fact it seems like the mistake with Sirius is written to be not Dumbledore's fault in any way. We're never really encouraged to ask why Dumbledore didn't defend him or look more into it. In that storyline it's like it's all about the evidence and the way things seemed to be. It's only after Sirius gets out of prison that Dumbledore's giving any explanations for him. >> Magpie: >> That's the part where I think Dumbledore is supposed to have > gotten him. He >> understood why Sirius was going crazy in the house. He still was > wrong to do >> keep him there, but it wasn't a case of Dumbledore not > understanding why it >> was hard for him. Same thing with Snape if Snape is DDM, regarding > the >> Occlumency. He knew exactly why Snape had trouble and why things > failed, so >> it wasn't a case of misjuding him, more like overestimating him. I > think he >> felt he was taking a similar risk with Sirius--knowing why it > would be hard >> for him, but letting him try to deal with it. > > > Alla: > > Oh, you know I think I agree with you here, but then again how do we > know that it was always the case with Snape, you know? > > I mean how do we know that DD **always** understood him and not just > sometimes as he did with Sirius? Magpie: We don't. I'm saying *if* Snape was DDM as was claimed in OotP itself--and that's a big "if"--then Dumbledore was making the same kind of mistake with both Sirius and Snape. Alla:> > What if when Snape came to DD with his tale of remorse, deepest one, > DD was not concentrating on Snape enough to make him his project? Magpie: I'd find that hard to believe, just because of the circumstances. He's trusting Snape himself, so he would be making him a project--that's the way he's been mostly presented to the Order. They all trust him because Dumbledore's got this big secret understanding of him. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 02:46:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:46:22 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165998 Lupinlore: > Well, that depends on what you mean by a good life. And we are deep in the midst of religion, psychology, and yes, superstition here, so any given person almost certainly has contradictory impulses on this topic, and the views of any given culture are so layered and paradoxical as to be appreciated best only in things like dreams and poems. Ceridwen: I said a good thing in life, but really, sure, I was also talking about a good life. It seems to me that the brilliant people, or the people some might envy because of wealth or position or "luck", die soon. Like Mozart, who had all that talent and died young. It was almost as if he had to have that talent and manifest it early because he wouldn't live out a normal lifespan. See? I can be superstitious, too! ;) Lupinlore: > What you say is very true. However, there are also plenty of instances in religion and history and literature and culture and, well, life, where the opposite is also quite true. That is, where the brief, flaming life that might serve an important, even if a minor, role in great events and ends in a blood body on a shield is seen as much preferable to an ordinary, long, peaceful existance ending with a coronary in one's sleep. Many see a brief life in the light, like that of James, as preferable and more admirable than a long life in shadows, like that of Severus. To press it even further, many deep in their hearts see a tragic but noble and powerful journey in the light, like that of James, as preferable to a long, honorable, and relatively peaceful life like that of Arthur Weasley. There is a reason that Achilles chose to go to Troy and embrace death when he had been promised a long and happy life if he stayed behind. Ceridwen: And yes, there are contradictions in culture for what is the good life. Epics and sagas tell glowing stories of heroes who have their burst of glory, then are borne home on their shields. On the other hand, cautionary tales talk about the merits of living wisely and well into a ripe old age. I think there is room for both the meteoric life and the long life, and that's why cultures have such contradictions. It is beneficial to the group to have heroes willing to die for the society, or the society itself dies. It is also beneficial to have survivors who live into their dotage, to pass on the wisdom they have learned through life, and pass down the wisdom that was passed to them by those who went before. So, to my mind, there is room for a James, a Severus, and a Dumbledore in society. James has lived his destiny, and really, at around 150 years old, Dumbledore's life was more behind him than ahead of him, even in PS/SS. Severus's story is still on-going. He might live to a ripe old age, imparting the lessons he has learned; or he might die in his capacity as a spy for whichever side you prefer. The interesting question about Snape here is, which does he prefer? Who does he envy more: James, for dying a hero's death, brought with laurels to his final bed? Or, Dumbledore, who lived his long life out, providing continuity and wisdom, and was honored on his funeral bier? Is he cautionary, or epic? Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 13 03:06:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:06:08 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 165999 > a_svirn: > > What intrigues me is whether she is doing it because she wants to > believe in Dumbledore's judgement (which, in my opinion, wouldn't be > at all smart in her position) or because of something else. Pippin: Perhaps what she has in mind is that she was perfectly sure that she had seen Snape hexing Harry's broom with her own eyes, and perfectly sure that no one but Draco Malfoy could be opening the Chamber of Secrets. Both times she was completely wrong. She doesn't seem to have as much confidence in the straightforward interpretation of events as you do. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Mar 13 03:19:05 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:19:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jazmyn Concolor wrote: >> Dumbledore gave Snape an order as a solder in a war. Alla: And when we read in book 7 that this theory is a fact, Dumbledore giving Snape an order to kill him, then I will publicly apologise to Snape. :) and just as publicly condemn Dumbledore as the most rotten manipulator I have ever read about for the longest time. So far, it is not a fact. IMO. Sherry now: no matter what supposed orders, a soldier who kills his general, his commander in chief is a traitor and faces a court martial and likely execution. I will not apologize to Snape for following such orders, if there were such orders, and I will join Alla in considering Dumbledore quite a vile manipulator, if he gave them. That is just not a good Snape scenario I can accept, and I don't think it's a very good one to put forth to the kids who will be reading this book. just my opinion though of course. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 13 03:23:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:23:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166001 Alla: > It seems to me that Dumbledore did precisely that - misunderstood > Sirius' core characteristics, period, no? > > I mean, Dumbledore thought it possible that Sirius betrayed a man, > whom he loved like a brother, thought so despite observing seven > years of closeness between them, despite knowing that Potters took > Sirius in, despite observing them ( supposedly) when they were in > the Order ( the group of nearest comrades that DD supposedly lead). > > DD seemed to be so **sure** that Sirius is capable of betraying his > brother and his family that he deemed it possible to give evidence > at the hearing ( okay, we don't know that he was not subpoenaed, but > it is possible that he came forward voluntarily, no?) Pippin: But someone close to the Potters was manifestly the spy. Someone who was believed by everyone to be loyal, who was trusted like a brother by the Potters, had to be the person who was betraying them. So, unfortunately, the fact that the Potters believed implicitly in Sirius's loyalty did absolutely nothing to establish Sirius's innocence. You seem to forget that the Potters trusted Pettigrew just as much. As far as Dumbledore knew, Sirius was the Secret-keeper, and the only one who *could* have betrayed the Potters. It's amusing that you think so little of the Order members for their second-hand trust in Snape, yet you fault Dumbledore for not having second-hand trust in Sirius. How was Dumbledore to know that Sirius would under no circumstances betray the Potters? Because James told him so? Do you think James ever explained to Dumbledore *why* he trusted Sirius so much? He can't have, because it would have meant explaining about the animagi and Lupin's furry little excursions outside the Shrieking Shack. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 03:06:17 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:06:17 -0600 Subject: HP read along groups References: Message-ID: <014c01c7651c$a39243f0$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166002 List elves, please notify me if I violate any list rules by doing this. Anyone rereading the series again from start to end before Book 7 comes out? I know I am. There are two groups that have a schedule for doing so: one on LiveJournal (read_hp), and one at Yahoogroups ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReadallHPbooks ). Both have the same reading schedule. Shelley From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 13 05:26:48 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:26:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > >>Bart: > > Dumbledore's initial goal is clear: to prepare Harry to fight and > > win against Voldemort. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I also have issue with Dumbldore creating a soldier!Harry. For one, > he does a horrible job. Harry is good at DADA, but he's not really > the scariest guy with a wand. Heck, compared to the Marauders, young! > Snape and young!Tom Riddle, Jr., Harry is downright backward. > > And honestly, the fact that Dumbldore doesn't teach Harry any magic > at all during his little lessons in HBP (martial or otherwise) > suggests to me that his goal isn't to create a warrior, and it never > has been. > > It seems to me that for the most part Dumbledore is working to > protect Harry, not really prepare him to face Voldemort. I think > that it's not until OotP that Dumbledore really decides, reluctantly, > that Harry is going to step onto the field. > Betsy Hp: > But what sort of operative? Not a martial one, it seems like. And > Harry seems to have entirely the wrong personality to be a spy. So > what sort of boy was Dumbledore trying to build? > > Betsy Hp (enquiring minds want to know! ) Quick_Silver: I don't think that Dumbledore is trying to build a soldier!Harry or Warrior!Harry...I'd say that he's trying to build a Great Wizard! Harry. The problem is that what makes Dumbledore a great wizard isn't what makes Voldemort a great wizard which isn't what makes Snape a great wizard, etc (you could include James, Moody, Lily and some others in the list). So there's no set blue print as to how to take this boy and turn him into someone that will strike fear into the hearts of Dark wizards. Even if Dumbledore taught Harry martial magic he'd basically be producing a under-aged auror and we know that the aurors have been trying to catch Voldemort 30 years (?) without any luck. However by allowing Harry a relatively normal Hogwarts education Dumbledore is ensuring that Harry's foundation in magic is solid. If Dumbledore had had some sort of training in mind for Harry he'd risk distorting that foundation. Although I am disturbed that Dumbledore hasn't taught Harry at the same time I think that it is the right decision. Dumbledore had 50 years to deal with the threat of Voldemort, he didn't, and if he were to teach Harry there's a risk that whatever held him back might be passed on to Harry (it could be anything...maybe even his prohibition against Dark Arts isn't always a good thing). The same applies to Snape, Sirius, Lupin, Moody, the Order, the Ministry, the Aurors, etc. I'd rather that Harry would seek out their knowledge and experience rather then simply have it dumped into him. Quick_Silver From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 06:20:34 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:20:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166004 "colebiancardi" wrote: > Quirell was, if I am not mistaken, > on a leave of absence for a year and > had been the DADA teacher the year > before that. That's news to me, and news to JKR too; or maybe you are indeed mistaken. > Lockhart's one talent was Memory > Charms & that could have clouded > DD's judgement Explaining why someone has crappie judgment does not make that judgment one bit less crappie. > DD hired the real Mad-Eye, not the Fake one. And for nearly a year could not tell the real from the fake. Sounds like crappie judgment to me. > Snape has proven his trustworthness > to DD throughout the series. I must say the fact that Snape murdered Dumbledore is enough to engender in my mind a tiny seed of doubt in your theory, but we will know the truth on July 21. > I am not sure what "he figured (incorrectly) > that information was no longer of any value." > this means.I don't know who "he is" "He" is Snape. > and why "he" figured incorrectly Snape figured Harry could never escape from Umbridge and make it all the way to the ministry, he (Snape) was wrong. > DD does state that it is almost entirely > his(DD) fault, but I am not sure I would > go as far as stating that it was a HUGE > error in judgemen If your error in judgment leads to the death of a good and innocent man I tend to think that error was on the rather large side. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 06:36:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:36:56 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166005 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > > To the issue of good wizards killing bad wizards, I > > don't think that is necessary. But I do have a huge > > bone to pick with the strategy and tactics used by > > the good wizards in the fight against evil. > > > once you have a DE disabled, why not take, > > hide, snap, or otherwise get rid of the DE's wand. > > > zanooda: > > Does anyone happen to know why they never use > transfiguration in battle? It was probably discussed > before, but to me it's a mystery. Couldn't McGonagall, > for instance, turn the DE that she fought in HBP > into a bug or something? > bboyminn: Actually, I don't recall that ever being discussed and I've been around here for a long time. The best I can do is speculate. Since Transfiguration is not used, then we must assume that there is a logical reason for that in the Potterverse. So what is that reason? I could be because Transfiguration is complex and therefore takes a great deal of concentration. In the heat of battle concentration is not a highly available commodity, therefore transfiguration would be unreliable. Also note from Hermione's comments in Transfiguration class, that Human transfigurations are very difficult. The more complex the object being tranfigured, the more difficult the transfiguration magic is. That somewhat confirms what I said above. Also, I speculate that the more different the pre- transfiguation and the post-transfiguation objects are, the more complex and unreliable the transfiguration is. For example a hedgehog into a pin cushion is not that different. Draco into a ferret also carries similarities. Ferret fits Draco's personality. But what about strangers in the heat of battle? There is no time to analyse the best and simplest 'object' to transform them into. As an example, it might be easier to transform Draco into a ferret or a weasel because they fit his personality than to transfigure him into a fox or a dog. Further, exactly what would you transform an enemy into? And to what extent while transformed would he/she retain themselves and their objectives? It doesn't do much good to turn someone into a dog only to then be attacked by the dog. It's a difficult question, perhaps if nothing else, I have given you some food for thought. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 07:36:48 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:36:48 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166006 - other quoted material > > Steve / bboyminn: > > - Not mine > > once you have a DE disabled, why not take, hide, > > snap, or otherwise get rid of the DE's wand. > zanooda: > > Does anyone happen to know why they never use transfiguration in > battle? It was probably discussed before, but to me it's a > mystery. Couldn't McGonagall, for instance, turn the DE that she > fought in HBP into a bug or something? Goddlefrood, without checking further down the list, yet:> If you took his wand he could just walk back into a wand shop and purchase another with a few galleons. So, what ultimate purpose would that serve? Many of the DEs we have seen in combat with the Order have been captured and sent to Azkaban anyway, and they don't allow wands there ;) If you mean why not permanently deprive said DE of his wand upon conviction, then I can only say that the WW rules are unknown to us and, without full access to their statutes, precedents, codes, statutory instruments and all and any other forms of law we can not say. Perhaps it depends on the severity of the crime? Or perhaps, as in Monopoly TM, when you go to jail you do not pass go nor collect any money, but upon release you are free to do as you wish once more. To Zanooda, I can't assist with why no one has transformed in battle, all I would say is to suggest that Transfiguration directed either towards oneself or another in the heat of battle may be impractical due to the length of time it takes and the fact that there's a battle going on :) Minerva may be many things, but she's no Barty Crouch Jnr., and possibly the most severe admonishment she has ever used against another adult in the series has been to say: "Moody, we *never* use Transfiguration as a punishment!" said Professor McConagall weakly. "Surely Professor Dumbledore told you that?" (emphasis not mine, but done differently from the book) (GoF, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, p. 182, Chapter: Mad-Eye Moody) Strong stuff for Minerva :| Goddlefrood From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 09:13:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:13:25 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166007 > vinerider87: - entire post as this is only for amusement. Goddlefrood: Perhaps it will all end up with the Weasley to whom you refer feeling a right Percy. JKR would know what I'm talking about;), being of a similar age and background. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 13 12:08:16 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:08:16 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > For example, in the movies the good guy knocks out the bad > guy, but never takes the bad guys weapon away. I guess we > are just suppose to assume that when a good guy knocks you > out, you politely stay knock out of the duration of the > battle. So, to the point, why in the Ministry of Magic - > Dept of Mysteries battle did Harry and friends not take > the DE's wands away from them once those DE's had been > cursed and disabled? Enquiring minds want to know. Pippin: Where in the Ministry battle do you see an opportunity to do this? By my reading, the only Death Eater whom they could have despoiled of his wand is Babyhead, but it wouldn't have been safe to approach him (remember the toddler who swelled the slug in GoF?) nor right to hurt a baby. Other DE's are stunned or paralyzed during the fight, but there's always some distraction that would keep our heroes from going after the wands. There's still the question of why JKR wrote the scenes this way. She might have her reasons for not wanting to draw our attention to the question of whether any of those present could do curses without their wands. Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Tue Mar 13 12:07:55 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:07:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166009 > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > Quirell was, if I am not mistaken, > > on a leave of absence for a year and > > had been the DADA teacher the year > > before that. > eggplant wrote: > That's news to me, and news to JKR too; or maybe you are indeed mistaken. colebiancardi wrote: nope, I am not mistaken - I quoted the passage that Hagrid stated that Quirell was the DADA teacher, then left for a year to go the Black Forest. Read upthread for the quote. colebiancardi: > > > Lockhart's one talent was Memory > > Charms & that could have clouded > > DD's judgement > eggplant: > Explaining why someone has crappie judgment does not make that > judgment one bit less crappie. > colebiancardi: I do think DD was scraping the bottom of the barrel with Lockhart - who else was there to teach DADA? Should they have cancelled the class? >colebiancardi: DD hired the real Mad-Eye, not the Fake one. > >eggplant: > And for nearly a year could not tell the real from the fake. Sounds > like crappie judgment to me. colebiancardi: true. But the point you were making was that DD was mistaken in hiring Fake Mad Eye, when in fact, he did not. > colebiancardi: > > I am not sure what "he figured (incorrectly) > > that information was no longer of any value." > > this means.I don't know who "he is" > > "He" is Snape. > > > and why "he" figured incorrectly > > Snape figured Harry could never escape from Umbridge and make it all > the way to the ministry, he (Snape) was wrong. > colebiancardi: that is one reading, I suppose. But it is your opinion, and I do not agree with it. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 12:23:00 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:23:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40703130523oea30982k6772923765f7e3a0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166010 Steve / bboyminn: > For example, in the movies the good guy knocks out the bad > guy, but never takes the bad guys weapon away. I guess we > are just suppose to assume that when a good guy knocks you > out, you politely stay knock out of the duration of the > battle. So, to the point, why in the Ministry of Magic - > Dept of Mysteries battle did Harry and friends not take > the DE's wands away from them once those DE's had been > cursed and disabled? Enquiring minds want to know. montims: re not just this past battle, but also the monumental one to come: to me, the point is, they are not "Enemy" as such - they have acquired bad ideas, and have done bad things, but they are family, and this is a civil war. The point of "civilised" warfare, surely, is to bring people round to right-thinking, where possible, not to exterminate them or kick them while they're down. America had its own civil war. When the war was over, people had to live with each other, and with the memory of what they had done. Maybe it's a British attitude thing, as well Steve - I always enjoy reading your comments, but this one had me puzzled, as did your other thread about the child actors - I don't see them going off the rails so much, and am happy for them to just do what they want to do, whether it be fishing, or cameo parts in tv programmes, or just squandering their wealth... The UK press will have no problem bringing any stupid behaviour to public notice, unfortunately, a la Charlotte Church, or pick any footballer or WAG... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 12:43:54 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:43:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002d01c7656d$47fe3070$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166011 --Steve/bboyminn Wrote-- >>>So, my two main points are, the fighting tactic being used in the battles we have documented, are, I believe, are not well thought out. And the inevitable attack, capture, and rescue of Hogwarts.<<< --Ronin's Comments-- I agree on most of your tactical points. I think it would make great sense to break or stash the wands away so that that is one less DE to worry about. In the MoM battle, obviously, the DEs end up bound and captured, but before that, wands are flying everywhere. If Harry or another DA member had held on to one of those wands or broken it, the owner would've been rendered almost helpless for the remainder of the battle. Another tactic they might consider is memory charms. Disarm a wizard, incapacitate them and then cast a memory charm. Look at how Lockhart ended up. He's harmless. Surely they have a charm that can do this even if only temporarily. My personal opinion on the matter of destroying evil wizards is that they must be killed. Azkaban is no longer an effective means of confinement with the dementors on Voldemort's side and DEs escaping easily. They're obviously beyond redemption after 14 years, immediately taking up their DE post again as soon as Voldemort returned. They are hardly innocent and in war, the enemy is usually killed. Or at least they should be somehow stripped of power. This is possible as we see in the case of Merope. She loses her power over time which makes me feel that there is a spell somewhere which can help this process along. (If not, there should be) But of course, they would probably just end up as criminals in the Muggle world. As for Hogwarts as a target, there are many factors which may contribute to why it hasn't been attacked yet. Mainly, Dumbledore. True, he is not there anymore (in life). But he is buried there. I wonder if that has something to do with the powerful protection spells he had placed upon the school. Aside from my curiosity over his burial request, we really weren't given much of a chance to see if Voldemort would make another attack on Hogwarts. DD was killed at the end of the year and the book ended right after the services. DH may well open with an attack on Hogwarts, but since DD has been gone there hasn't been time for such an attack yet. Although I would say that during DD's funeral would've been the ideal time for such an attack. One thing about Harry's dueling that gets to me is his willingness to use dark magic. There's a passage somewhere in HBP where DD tells Harry that part of his greatest power is that he has never even been interested in using dark magic. But the truth is that he tries to whenever the chance comes along. Aside from Sectumsempra (which I'm not counting for the mere fact that he didn't know what it did at the time) he has tried on many occasions to use Crucio on his enemies. He tried it on Bella and on Snape as well as attempting to use Sectumsempra on Snape AFTER he'd seen it's effects on Draco. Of all of the unforgivable and dark curses, he seems to prefer the ones which cause the most pain and suffering. Crucio is a torture curse, Sectumsempra causes severe physical trauma. An AK seems to cause a quick death and Imperio, IMO is no worse than Stupefy if used in a way as to temporarily immobilize the opponent. But Harry seems to want his opponent to suffer rather than to die. Anyway, I'm all for fighting fire with fire. Especially in war where the fate of the entire world rests upon your shoulders, you must win by any means necessary. But at the same time, Harry has to be careful to not become that which he is fighting against. This is why I feel like his duel against Snape in "Flight of the Prince" was more of a final lesson for him. Snape could've easily Cruciod Harry or done any number of things to him, but all he does is block him and give him instruction about not using unforgivable and keeping his mouth and mind shut. (Not to get into the Good Snape/Bad Snape debate again) It's very curious how Harry tries to use such spells so often when his emotions get the better of him. I think that if he were to actually succeed in using one of these dark spells, with intent behind it, it could ruin any chance he has against Voldemort in the final battle. Sorry to ramble on and I do hope this is somewhat coherent. It's early in the day and I'm not quite fully awake yet. These are all ramblings that are coming to mind in the moment about things I've had in the back of my mind for a long time. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 13:45:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:45:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's use of Dark Magic WAS: Battle Tactics... In-Reply-To: <002d01c7656d$47fe3070$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166012 > > --Ronin's Comments-- > One thing about Harry's dueling that gets to me is his willingness to use > dark magic. There's a passage somewhere in HBP where DD tells Harry that > part of his greatest power is that he has never even been interested in > using dark magic. But the truth is that he tries to whenever the chance > comes along. Aside from Sectumsempra (which I'm not counting for the mere > fact that he didn't know what it did at the time) he has tried on many > occasions to use Crucio on his enemies. He tried it on Bella and on Snape as > well as attempting to use Sectumsempra on Snape AFTER he'd seen it's effects > on Draco. > > Of all of the unforgivable and dark curses, he seems to prefer the ones > which cause the most pain and suffering. Crucio is a torture curse, > Sectumsempra causes severe physical trauma. An AK seems to cause a quick > death and Imperio, IMO is no worse than Stupefy if used in a way as to > temporarily immobilize the opponent. But Harry seems to want his opponent to > suffer rather than to die. > Alla: I think whenever chance comes along is a bit too broad statement, IMO of course. Harry tried the dark magic curses when his Godfather and his mentor were killed right in front of him and when he was defending himself from one of those nasty curses. That it NOT to defend his use of dark magic of course. I do think that if anybody turned him to the Ministry after him trying Crucio on Bella, he had a pretty good chance to end up in Azkaban. But **whenever chance comes along** I disagree with. As to DD statement, well, I do not have a book with me, but doesn't he say that Harry was never tempted by Dark, his soul was never tempted by dark magic? I can be wrong. And I thought that DD knew for sure that Harry tried to use Crucio on Bella when he said that to Harry and he said it anyway. So, believe me, I **am** curious why DD says that, while Harry obviously tried to use Unforgivables. It is to me either that **not enough intent** or another inconsistency in JKR's description of what Dark magic is. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 14:00:29 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:00:29 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: as a spy for whichever side you > prefer. > > The interesting question about Snape here is, which does he prefer? > Who does he envy more: James, for dying a hero's death, brought with > laurels to his final bed? Or, Dumbledore, who lived his long life > out, providing continuity and wisdom, and was honored on his funeral > bier? Is he cautionary, or epic? > > Ceridwen. > Well, I guess he would envy both of them for different things. He would envy James his glory and his "brightness," and DD the respect and veneration in which he is held, and likely the power he wields. He probably envies them other things as well -- things yet to revealed. Maybe he envies James Lily's love and Dumbledore ... well, who knows what? That this means he is deeply conflicted is surely not unrealistic. He envies James and Dumbledore for things that are mutually exclusive, perhaps, in that James' glory is partially from an early death and DD's veneration partly from a long life. But that is the way people are -- they yearn for opposed things, usually without admitting such to themselves. When you get down to it Snapey-poo probably doesn't KNOW what he really wants. But in that he isn't any different than anybody else, including DD if his speech at the end of OOTP is to be credited. Lupinlore, thinking that, come down to it, Harry in some ways is the least conflicted guy in the whole bunch From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 15:27:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:27:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') Message-ID: <33415823.1173799635938.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166014 Magpie: >I think we're mixing together a lot of things under "poor judgement," >though, to the point where it becomes meaningless. Dumbledore has absolutely >made mistakes--big ones. And there are plenty of choices he's made that many >of us don't agree with, from what he chose to do with Harry to not liking >his choices for teachers (I can think of 4 permenant ones off the top of my >head that many people want out). He can be wrong. Bart: However, to be fair, let's look at his alternatives. 1) Harry CAN defeat Voldemort. This does not mean that Harry is the ONLY one who can defeat Voldemort. 2) If Harry does not defeat Voldemort, he will die. Therefore, Harry, trained to defeat Voldemort, lives. Harry, NOT trained to defeat Voldemort, dies. It makes sense that Dumbledore puts Harry into real danger during his training; if he's not ready by the time of the Big Confrontation, then he's dead anyway. Bart From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 15:53:57 2007 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:53:57 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vinerider87" wrote: > > Percy Weasley is one of those characters that we so easily push to the > back of our minds. I could > see him joining up with LV and getting him information that could work > against OOTP. > I know this is a little off the wall, but I think it's worth exploring. > > Hi: I have actually given Percy a lot of thought. Can you imagine being next in line behind Charlie and Bill? I have always found him insecure but not a bad person. He's tried to make a name for himself, with others, by being Mr. Perfect. He believes that his families "imperfections" reflect badly upon him. I believe that in Book 7 Percy will realize that: (1) Dumbledore had more power as Hogwarts Headmasters than the Minister for Magic; and (2) His father is smarter and more courageous (and more respected) then he (Percy) has realized. I think these two revelations will cause Percy to wise up and join the OOTP. phyllisdbarnes From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 13 16:40:29 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:40:29 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166016 Ceridwen: > The interesting question about Snape here is, which does he > prefer? Who does he envy more: James, for dying a hero's death, brought > with laurels to his final bed? Or, Dumbledore, who lived his long life out, providing > continuity and wisdom, and was honored on his funeral bier? Is he cautionary, or epic? Jen: Very interesting question. The first thought that popped into my head was whether Snape longed to play the hero on the tower? (Presuming loyalty here). Was there a moment when he wanted to reveal his true side, finally prove all the disbelievers wrong and perhaps pull off the most amazing victory in the battle against Voldemort by attempting to save Dumbledore, Draco and Harry at the expense of his life? And Dumbledore, knowing Snape's heart's desire, was pleading, 'please Severus, the risk is too great, do what you must to salvage the situation.' Without knowing exactly how the Vow works it could be a possibility. Granted, I've never thought of Snape as wanting to play the hero and since he's such a logical person, he would have known the odds were almost nil for a good outcome. I tend to view him as a survivalist and attached to no one. But since I believe he is connected by loyalty to Dumbledore, perhaps DD is the one person Snape would want to save at the expense of his own life. It would explain a few things to me, like that fact that he can't get past James and Sirius even after their deaths and especially given how both died attempting to save others. Plus it could explain the look of hatred on Snape's face, knowing his last chance to be a hero was over once he AK'd Dumbledore. (I prefer to believe he did cast an AK because I want to see how JKR deals with all the moral implications.) Lupinlore: > That this means he is deeply conflicted is surely not unrealistic. > He envies James and Dumbledore for things that are mutually > exclusive, perhaps, in that James' glory is partially from an early > death and DD's veneration partly from a long life. But that is the > way people are -- they yearn for opposed things, usually without > admitting such to themselves. When you get down to it Snapey-poo > probably doesn't KNOW what he really wants. But in that he isn't any > different than anybody else, including DD if his speech at the end of > OOTP is to be credited. Jen: You've pretty much nailed my impression of Snape as conflicted about many things. My understanding from debates here is that he's meant to have almost no conflict in his particular literary role: Snape cast his lot with Voldemort and when the proper motivation caused him to realize he was on the wrong side, he embraced Dumbledore's cause and never looked back. To me he will always be an uneasy Dumbledore soldier, never seeing himself in the other Order members, preferring the likes of the Malfoys as companions and favoring what were meant to be the original values of Slytherin, i.e., heritage and family ties, over the values of the other houses and doesn't give a flying fig how Slytherin is viewed in the post-Voldemort age. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 16:56:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:56:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him Message-ID: <25390442.1173805018418.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166017 From: Sherry Gomes >no matter what supposed orders, a soldier who kills his general, his >commander in chief is a traitor and faces a court martial and likely >execution. I will not apologize to Snape for following such orders, if >there were such orders, and I will join Alla in considering Dumbledore quite >a vile manipulator, if he gave them. Bart: Once again, there is at least one valid reason for Dumbledore to give Snape an order to kill him: If, no matter what Snape did, Dumbledore was about to die anyway. There was an elaborate version of this at the end of the TV series, ANGEL. An internal plot caused one of the core characters to die (her body was possessed, so the actress kept her job). Angel figures out how to make her death count, by pretending that he was behind it. This got him into the inner circle of baddies, which gives him the opportunity to get the intelligence needed to destroy it. If Dumbledore was going to die, possibly within minutes, anyway, having Snape kill him allowed his death to have meaning. Otherwise, he sacrificed his life for a fake horcrux. Bart From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 17:02:59 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:02:59 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166018 > > a_svirn: > > > > What intrigues me is whether she is doing it because she wants to > > believe in Dumbledore's judgement (which, in my opinion, wouldn't be > > at all smart in her position) or because of something else. > > Pippin: > Perhaps what she has in mind is that she was perfectly sure that > she had seen Snape hexing Harry's broom with her own eyes, and > perfectly sure that no one but Draco Malfoy could be opening the > Chamber of Secrets. Both times she was completely wrong. > > She doesn't seem to have as much confidence in the straightforward > interpretation of events as you do. > a_svirn: She was right about Harry being hexed. She suspected the wrong man, it's true, but here and now there seems to be no room for doubt ? it was Snape who killed Dumbledore. As for Draco, she wasn't "perfectly sure". She homed on Draco because he was an obvious suspect, and she carried out investigation as best as she could. Perfectly sensible thing to have done. The same way Harry suspected Draco in HBP and carried out investigation the best way he could. And again, it was perfectly sensible thing for him to do. Hermione, on the other hand, wasn't sensible at all on that occasion. But what's for her to investigate now? She knows how Dumbledore died (unless she questions it too?) and she knows how the death eators got into the castle. From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 17:03:41 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:03:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's use of Dark Magic WAS: Battle Tactics... In-Reply-To: References: <002d01c7656d$47fe3070$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: <006c01c76591$a82f3d80$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166019 --Alla Wrote-- >>>I think whenever chance comes along is a bit too broad statement, IMO of course. Harry tried the dark magic curses when his Godfather and his mentor were killed right in front of him and when he was defending himself from one of those nasty curses. That it NOT to defend his use of dark magic of course. I do think that if anybody turned him to the Ministry after him trying Crucio on Bella, he had a pretty good chance to end up in Azkaban. But **whenever chance comes along** I disagree with. As to DD statement, well, I do not have a book with me, but doesn't he say that Harry was never tempted by Dark, his soul was never tempted by dark magic? I can be wrong. And I thought that DD knew for sure that Harry tried to use Crucio on Bella when he said that to Harry and he said it anyway. So, believe me, I **am** curious why DD says that, while Harry obviously tried to use Unforgivables. It is to me either that **not enough intent** or another inconsistency in JKR's description of what Dark magic is.<<< --Ronin's Comments-- I digress. Perhaps "whenever he gets the chance", is a bit of an exaggeration. To me, using unforgivable curses or dark magic AT ALL is too much (if it really has a bearing on the condition of the main weapon against the bad guys; Harry's soul). But my wording was a bit off since he's only really used it on 3 occasions so far. During the MoM duel, when Harry attempts Crucio against Bella, I believe DD was still dealing with the DEs in the chamber with the archway. Harry has his little fight with Bella and then Voldemort shows up. They talk a bit about what happened with the prophecy and then Bella warns her master that "He's here", meaning DD. That's when DD and Voldemort throw down. lol So anyway, my point here is that I don't think DD knew about Harry's attempts at Crucio. He must surely have been informed of the Sectumsempra against Draco though. Not an unforgivable curse, but dark magic nonetheless. As to Dumbledore's statement, I've found the quote in the book and I feel I was only partly correct. "It is essential that you understand this!" said Dumbledore, standing up and striding about the room, his glittering robes swooshing in his wake; Harry had never seen him so agitated. "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, incidentally, 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!" "Of course I haven't!" said Harry indignantly. "He killed my mum and dad!" "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly. "The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality or riches. Harry, have you any idea how few wizards could have seen what you saw in that mirror? Voldemort should have known then what he was dealing with, but he did not! "But now he knows it now. You have flitted into Lord Voldemort's mind without damage to yourself, but he cannot possess you without enduring mortal agony, as he discovered in the ministry. I do not think he understands why, Harry, but then, he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole." - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (1st American Edition, Hardcover, pgs. 510 - 511) So, from this re-reading, I devise that Harry hasn't been seduced by the Dark Arts enough that he'd want to change sides. He would never want to use the Dark Arts to gain riches, power or immortality. But the logic seems a little off to me, that it's okay for him to use the Dark Arts for revenge. I also question the bit at the end about Harry's soul being untarnished. Certainly, it is still whole, but is it really in the same condition as when he was eleven? I don't think so. But I suppose if he had been successful in using one of those Crucios, that would have made the difference in the condition of his soul. One last note which I thought of when re-reading this bit; I found it interesting that Dumbledore says that Harry was able to see the means to thwart Voldemort in the mirror. Was he referring to that particular instance, regarding the stone? Or, was he referring to thwarting Voldemort in the final battle? Because, if memory serves me correctly, all that Harry could see in the mirror was his mum and dad. I don't really have any theories as to what this could mean at the moment. I just found it interesting that he would bring Harry's vision from the mirror into the equation. Unless, like with the stone, Harry could use the mirror to see the horcruxes and gain access to them perhaps. Just my thoughts. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 17:12:48 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:12:48 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP read along groups Message-ID: <6250579.1173805968330.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166020 From: k12listmomma >Anyone rereading the series again from start to end before Book 7 comes out? >I know I am. Bart: I am. However, I am looking for several specific things in the books: 1) What do we KNOW about Snape? 2) How much does Dumbledore know about what's going on while it's going on? 3) Is Hermoine being used as a front for someone else? If so, then who? Bart From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 17:17:58 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:17:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: <005e01c7650e$83e7e9f0$eb78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166021 > Magpie: Could he be suckered in by a fake > tale of remorse? That's the type of thing Dumbledore doesn't seem to fall > for. Even when he's got fakes in the school like Fake!Moody and Lockhart it > doesn't seem like Dumbledore's being played as gullible about their > character. With Moody he's basing his judgment on actual Moody. Carol > brought up Draco as someone who doesn't trust Dumbledore's judgment but I'd > also add him under the list of people Dumbledore seems to get once he sets > his mind to him. a_svirn: Well, actually, we know of at least two people who definitely didn't trust in Dumbledore's judgement ? James and Sirius. Though I am compelled to admit that they are both dead now, because their own judgment had proved to be even faultier. From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 17:13:31 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:13:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: <25390442.1173805018418.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <25390442.1173805018418.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <007a01c76592$ecfe2e20$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166022 --Bart Wrote-- >>>Once again, there is at least one valid reason for Dumbledore to give Snape an order to kill him: If, no matter what Snape did, Dumbledore was about to die anyway. There was an elaborate version of this at the end of the TV series, ANGEL. An internal plot caused one of the core characters to die (her body was possessed, so the actress kept her job). Angel figures out how to make her death count, by pretending that he was behind it. This got him into the inner circle of baddies, which gives him the opportunity to get the intelligence needed to destroy it. If Dumbledore was going to die, possibly within minutes, anyway, having Snape kill him allowed his death to have meaning. Otherwise, he sacrificed his life for a fake horcrux. <<< --Ronin's Comments-- This is almost exactly my line of thought on the matter. Especially when I consider Dumbledore's little comments in OotP and HBP about some things being far worse than death and how Harry's blood is worth more and how he's a tired old man, etc. It was as if he was saying that he's done all he can and as a final act he was going to sacrifice himself because he was less valuable than others might be. The other thing to factor in is that, his order may have seemed horrible, but he was going to be killed by someone. Better the one he trusted than to be ripped to shreds by Fenrir Greyback, not to mention the two innocents who might have been endangered if something wasn't done with a sense of urgency. These are just my thoughts and I know some will probably be appalled by my opinions for some reason, but they are just that. Opinions. Cheers, Ronin PS- I loved Fred and really miss her and the show. Shame it's over, but all good things must come to an end I suppose. At least they went out with a bang. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 18:05:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:05:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166023 colebiancardi: > I do think DD was scraping the bottom of the barrel with Lockhart - who else was there to teach DADA? Should they have cancelled the class? Carol responds: The alternative was Snape, whether or not he applied for the position. I've already expressed my view that he didn't want to lose Snape by placing him in that position, and with Voldemort still vapor, he didn't really need a highly talented DADA teacher. (Save Snape till he really needs him.) There's also his knowledge of the jinx on the position. Could manipulator!Dumbledore have a secondary objective of exposing a fake? Or did he think that the students might actually learn something from the books even though the author is taking credit for other people's exploits? Did Dumbledore even know when he hired Lockhart that Lockhart was a phony? Would he have used Legilimency on a teacher with such an impressive resume, suspecting him of lying? Maybe he really thought that Lockhart was as brilliant as he claimed to be--at least until Lockhart actually started teaching. I'm sure that the story of the Cornish Pixies made the rounds rather quickly. Assuming that Dumbledore saw through him from the job interview onward, if there was a job interview (maybe he was just hired based on his application and supposed credentials), should he have cancelled the class rather than hire a man who might not be as qualified as he claimed to be? I don't think the MoM or the parents would allow that. The students, especially those in NEWT or OWL year, needed *some* instruction in that class. (At least, many students, including HRH, learned Expelliarmus from Snape in the short-lived duelling club!) Dumbledore had to hire somebody. It wasn't yet time to hire Snape. The only applicant (or only *other* applicant, as you prefer) was Lockhart. Ergo, Lockhart was hired. And, of course, the plot required an inept DADA teacher who would end up with his own Memory Charm deflected onto him by Ron's broken wand. We can hardly blame Dumbledore for JKR's plot needs. colebiancardi: > > > I am not sure what "he figured (incorrectly) that information was no longer of any value" means. I don't know who "he is" > > Eggplant: > > "He" is Snape. colebiancardi: > > > and why "he" figured incorrectly > > Eggplant: > > Snape figured Harry could never escape from Umbridge and make it all the way to the ministry, he (Snape) was wrong. > > > colebiancardi: > that is one reading, I suppose. But it is your opinion, and I do not agree with it. Carol responds: I don't agree, either. Snape did determine inform the Order that Harry thought Sirius Black was being held hostage in the MoM and determined that it was false. That in itself suggests that he's on the Order's side. And why *would* he think that Harry would actually try to go to the MoM? After all, he's communicated his message to Snape. The wise thing to do would be to come back to Snape once he escaped from Umbridge and ask Snape what he discovered. Of course, there was the whole question of whether he *could* escape from Umbridge, but when Snape went back to check, he discovered Draco et al. covered in hex marks and learned from them that Harry and Hermione had gone into the forest with Umbridge. So he would straighten out the mess with the hexes, hear the whole story, send the IS to the hospital wing and wait for Harry to come back from the forest. After all, he would know that there was no "weapon" and that Hermione had lied to Umbridge. He would know that Harry's broom had been confiscated by Umbridge and that Hermione didn't have one. He would know that you can't Apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds even if Harry and his friends knew how to do it. How, exactly, is Harry supposed to get there? Surely, Snape could not have anticipated that six kids, three of whom can't even see the Thestrals, would ride those fearsome-looking beasts to the MoM? When Harry didn't return, Snape realized that there were two possibilities. Either, against all odds (and common sense), they had somehow gone to the MoM after all, or they were still in the forest with Umbridge, perhaps held captive by the centaurs. So he did the only things he could do, alert the Order and search the forest himself. And possibly, he alerted Dumbledore as well, given that he knew DD would be arriving at Order HQ immediately. Most likely, Snape asked him to go there. That they were in touch that night is apparent from everything Dumbledore knew about Snape's actions, not all of which he could have obtained from Kreacher. Carol, who thinks that Snape's delay in informing the Order that Harry had gone to the MoM is easily explained by the unlikelihood that Harry had actually done so From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 18:05:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:05:44 -0000 Subject: Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40703130523oea30982k6772923765f7e3a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > Steve / bboyminn: > > For example, in the movies the good guy knocks out the bad > > guy, but never takes the bad guys weapon away. I guess we > > are just suppose to assume that when a good guy knocks you > > out, you politely stay knock out of the duration of the > > battle. So, to the point, why in the Ministry of Magic - > > Dept of Mysteries battle did Harry and friends not take > > the DE's wands away from them once those DE's had been > > cursed and disabled? Enquiring minds want to know. > montims: > re not just this past battle, but also the monumental one to come: > to me, the point is, they are not "Enemy" as such - they have > acquired bad ideas,and have done bad things, but they are family, > and this is a civil war. The point of "civilised" warfare, surely, > is to bring people round to right-thinking, where possible, not to > exterminate them or kick them while they're down. America had its > own civil war. When the war was over, people had to live with each > other, and with the memory of what they had done. zanooda: What you say about a civil war in general may be right, but I don't understand why you consider taking wands (weapons, in other words) from temporarily disabled opponents being equal to "exterminating them" or "kicking them while they are down". IMO, Steve just suggests that disarming an opponent prevents him from taking further part in this particular battle, nothing more. I hope I understand Steve correctly (sorry if I'm not, Steve, and thank you for your ideas on transfiguration, BTW:)), and in this case I don't see anything cruel in his suggestion at all. As for "bringing people round to right-thinking", I'm not sure it would work for DE's, but even if it would, it can't be done during battle, when they are shooting curses at you, right? During battle we only think about winning it and staying alive, all the rest comes after. Take care, Janette :-)! zanooda, who doesn't see anything "dark" in Steve's suggestions From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 13 18:11:00 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:11:00 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Battle Tactics... (was: Re: How can you kill a wizard? ) Message-ID: <11757951.1173809460219.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166025 From: Steve >Further, exactly what would you transform an enemy into? Bart: A lightbulb, of course. But that, of course, brings up the question, "How many wizards and witches does it take to change a lightbulb?" Apologies to the List Elves.... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 13 18:12:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:12:21 -0000 Subject: On being Lucky (was On lying and cheating) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166026 Magpie: > I *don't* think the idea here is that the Marauders were all punished for their sins by > the universe. On the contrary, it seems more like they all had genuinely good qualities > but still this is the way things happened to turn out. Not as punishment but > just...because. Jen: I did think that's what you meant Magpie, from what you said about the Marauders being favored by the gods and suffering sad fates. So I'm glad to know the context you intended. Magpie: > One of the tragic things about Snape is the way he can't even enjoy that. He doesn't > seem to be able to really look at them and let go of his hatred even when seeing them > suffering or dead. Jen: My first thought was 'that isn't tragic, it's Snape enjoying his hatred and acting cruel and selfish!' Then I started thinking more about why he can't get past the Marauders, particularly James and Sirius now that they're dead. It could be he resents never getting whatever satisfaction he sought out of the situation, besting them in some way or perhaps getting revenge. You'd think having them *die* would cover whatever ill he wished them though, so I'm discounting that possibility myself. Instead, I'm growing to believe this hatred and resentment is the linchpin of Snape's character, if you took that away from him the character would fall apart. It's the motivation hidden in plain site, meaning Snape joined Voldemort due to hatred for the Marauders after the Prank and his rage toward Dumbledore for how he handled it. Then the life debt to James (and seething resentment for having that debt) was the spark for Snape turning to Dumbledore, if not the reason for his remorse or continued loyalty. And finally, his hatred colored his view of Harry before Harry ever set foot in Hogwarts and that set the stage for all the conflict between them. Even if I'm off-base about the rest of his story, I feel pretty certain Snape's rage over the Prank had something to do with joining Voldemort and it IS tragic since he lost promising parts of his life due to hatred and rage and has never been able to completely retrieve them in his attempts to redeem himself. Jen: > Do the means matter or only the end? I'm not sure what JKR is saying > about that concept yet. > Magpie: > I don't know what she's saying about it either. I don't think it's a case of only the end > mattering--at least I hope not. That seems like a really silly brand of ethics! I could > more easily believe that she just likes driving her fictional personalities and sees certain >consequences of their actions. Jen: The more I think about how efforts in the right direction--no matter how small-- matter in JKR's ethical system, the more I agree with your assessment. For instance, Draco lowering his wand even if he returned to Voldemort in the interim appears to be significant. Slughorn attmepting to defy Voldemort by running and hiding was looked down on by Harry initially, but ultimately led to Slughorn putting himself in grave danger (I believe) by giving up the real memory. Those were two examples of the means mattering very much for the direction a character chose or will choose. > Magpie: > True, though I'm not really talking here about subjectively liking a character better--I > could have phrased that better. Whether or not somebody likes Sydney Carton, he's the > one who says "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far > better rest that I go to than I have ever known." Jen: Sorry 'bout that. ;) You did make that transition in your original post when discussing the 'narrative' and I read it a different way. > Jen earlier: I'm not exactly sure why, but Harry talking sarcastically to Narcissa in HBP > bothered me more than anything he's done and physically attacking Mundungus was a > close second. I wouldn't mind discussing those if anyone has thoughts about those two > events.) > Magpie: > (I am interested in hearing your thoughts on those two incidents with Harry also--it's > always kind of cool which things push our buttons, especially when they're objectively > not as bad as other things.) Jen: I suddenly wanted to understand why the incidents bother me after making that comment. I've come to the preliminary idea that JKR is trying to depict Harry as growing up with these interactions and if that's the case, then Harry is actually regressing in the interactions with Narcissa and Mundungus from my perspective. Taunting Narcissa like he does Draco? Physically manhandling Mundungus? I didn't read 'adult' there, I read a boy on the cusp of manhood trying to take matters into his own hands and doing a poor job. Hmm, maybe that's what she was trying to get at with these incidents? That Harry isn't quite an adult yet or hasn't had enough pratice to get it exactly right. > Magpie: > I wasn't actually saying that Harry was being hindered by the god's favor. I was saying > that in the abstract, being a character favored by the gods can lead to bad things as well > as good, just as Slughorn points out that being addicted to luck can make you reckless. > So the fact that Harry is lucky doesn't automatically lead to his actions always being > good in themselves. There's plenty of times when Harry's actions *are* good in >themselves, judged on their own merit. Since Lupinlore was talking about being lucky > being a good thing, a mark of almost being part of the elect, it reminded me that HBP > contained Liquid Luck and that that Potion came with some warnings. Jen: Ah, I get what you are saying now and would have to agree. There have been instances where Harry was *not* favored by the gods, didn't have everything he touched turn to gold. Most notably when he believed the visions about Sirius were real and rushed off to the DOM. I found OOTP jarring because prior to that I would have agreed with Lupinlore, somehow Harry always managed to save the day and it appeared his luck would never run out. I suppose Harry mentioning that very thing in OOTP, about how he'd defeated Voldemort so far in part due to luck, could be read as foreshadowing for the ending--Harry's luck did run out. And then having the Felix show up in HBP was a continuation of that theme, luck isn't always enough to save the day. Magpie: > Actually, I think one could make a case for all four Potions in > Slughorn's class that first day being the dangerous ones. Love > Potions can cause tragedy (as they did with Merope and Tom), > Polyjuice can be badly misused (as it was by Crouch), Felix > Felicitas can lead to recklessness, Veritaseum causes people to tell > the truth, which could also lead to serious consequences in the > wrong hands. Jen: I thought it particularly clever how Slughorn mentioned Amortentia creates obsession and then the danger of obsession was one of the themes of HBP, included in the stories of Merope, young Riddle, Draco with his task/Harry following Draco, Trelawney with her cards and even, in my opinion, Dumbledore with the Horcruxes. He seemed to be taking some incredible risks looking for them on his own and focusing on his search to the detriment of watching the school more closely. In my opinion all the examples involved a person coveting something or someone and that need, once fulfilled, proved to have disastrous consequences. Jen R. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 18:33:23 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:33:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's use of Dark Magic WAS: Battle Tactics... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166027 Alla: *(snip)* > So, believe me, I **am** curious why DD says that, while Harry > obviously tried to use Unforgivables. It is to me either that **not > enough intent** or another inconsistency in JKR's description of what > Dark magic is. Ceridwen: What about not the *proper sort of intent*? When Harry tries to Crucio Bellatrix, he is hurting and lashing out. He is angry, a hot sort of anger - he's being a "hothead". Of course, it's understandable that he is angry and upset. But this isn't the sort of intent, to make someone hurt the way you're hurting, that is needed to perform a Crucio. Crucio, to me, needs a cold and calculating intent. The caster has to want to do some real damage, not just a magical equivalent of tripping the guy as he goes by or slapping him in the face. I think it's an "old Klingon proverb" that revenge is a dish best served cold: planned for, desired, dreamed of, brought about with chilling dispassion. I don't think Harry has this sort of icy resolve, at least to the end of Half-Blood Prince. I think this is the sort of thing Dumbledore didn't see in Harry. I don't see it either. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 19:35:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:35:19 -0000 Subject: Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166029 Pippin wrote: > > Perhaps what she has in mind is that she was perfectly sure that she had seen Snape hexing Harry's broom with her own eyes, and perfectly sure that no one but Draco Malfoy could be opening the Chamber of Secrets. Both times she was completely wrong. > > > > She doesn't seem to have as much confidence in the straightforward interpretation of events as you do. > > > > a_svirn: > She was right about Harry being hexed. She suspected the wrong man, it's true, but here and now there seems to be no room for doubt ? it was Snape who killed Dumbledore. But what's for her to investigate now? She knows how Dumbledore died (unless she questions it too?) and she knows how the death eators got into the castle. > Carol responds: But these two events are not the only ones that have been misinterpreted. Hermione knows that most of the students (and some of the staff, notably Filch and possibly Snape) suspected Harry of being the Heir of Slytherin after he spoke Parseltongue to Draco's conjured snake, supposedly encouraging it to attack Justin Finch-Fletchley, who soon afterwards is found Petrified. That Hermione and Ron knew he was innocent does not change the fear and suspicion of the Hufflepuffs toward him. And, of course, the entire WW, including even Dumbledore, believed for twelve long years that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths and killed twelve Muggles and a wizard, based on the eyewitness reports of many Muggles and the disappearance of Peter Pettigrew, of whom there seemed to be nothing left but a bloody finger. The Muggles *saw* what happened. They just didn't understand what they saw. The Hufflepuffs and others *saw* Harry egging on the snake. They just didn't know that he was really telling it to stop. We see over and over again in the HP books that appearances are deceiving, not only with eyewitnesses misinterpreting what they see and hear (Harry thinking that Snape made his scar hurt and that Snape was threatening Quirrell because *he* wanted the Sorceror's Stone) but even with characters' true identity (Scabbers seems to be an ordinary rat, "Moody" seems to be helping Harry because he's Dumbledore's old friend). We need to read the books very carefully to see the hints that all is not as it seems. Given JKR's track record in this respect, I'd say the odds are very much in favor of Harry having missed some key observations (Snape seeing the brooms, Snape and Dumbledore communicating through eye contact, the abnormal aspects of the AK) and misinterpreting others (the look of hatred and revulsion). Hermione wasn't there, of course, but if Harry ever gives her a fuller and more objective account of events on the tower, just enough to get her started with questioning Dumbledore's murder in connection with the Snape she knows--the Snape who saved Harry's life, whom Dumbledore trusted, who conjured the stretchers (without which there would have been no Time-Turned Harry and Hermione), who saved Katie and Draco and Dumbledore earlier in the year, who taught them about Bezoars and Expelliarmus, who sent the Order to the MoM, who showed his Dark Mark to Fudge, who spied for Dumbledore at great risk to himself before Godric's Hollow and after the TWT, who might have succeeded in teaching Harry Occlumency if Harry hadn't been trying to have that dream and hadn't entered the Pensieve, who taught them DADA as it should have been taught from the beginning, who made the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin for a whole year until Lupin himself blew his cover and acted irresponsibly--maybe Harry can be made to understand that "evil" really is too strong a word to use for Snape and there's more to the scene and to Snape's motives than he currently understands. Also, Harry gave Hermione a full account of the eavesdropping on Snape and Draco, so she *knows* that Snape didn't know that Draco was working on the Vanishing Cabinets to get the DEs into Hogwarts. She knows that Snape was looking for information, and she, like Lupin and Mr. Weasley, has already figured out that "helping" Draco doesn't necessarily mean helping him complete his mission for Voldemort. She's already tried to figure out what "your master" means. Now that she knows that it does refer to Voldemort, she may pick up on "your" as opposed to "our"--i.e., Draco's master as opposed to Draco's and Snape's. (Hermione remembers what she hears as well as what she reads, for example, Dumbledore's speeches and Harry's remarks on DADA.) She knows about the Unbreakable Vow to *protect* Draco (but neither of the other clauses). Carol, actually hoping that a_svirn is right and that Hermione has reasons other than Dumbledore's word to suspect that Snape is not evil From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 19:52:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:52:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166030 Sherry wrote: > > no matter what supposed orders, a soldier who kills his general, his commander in chief is a traitor and faces a court martial and likely execution. I will not apologize to Snape for following such orders, if there were such orders, and I will join Alla in considering Dumbledore quite a vile manipulator, if he gave them. That is just not a good Snape scenario I can accept, and I don't think it's a very good one to put forth to the kids who will be reading this book. just my opinion though of course. Carol responds: I think we agree that Harry's life is essential to the defeat of Voldemort. *If* Snape saw the two brooms and correctly deduced that Harry was on the tower in his Invisibility Cloak, and *if* he knew from an exchanged glance with Dumbledore that killing Dumbledore himself (rather than letting the DEs do it) was the *only* way to get Harry (and Draco) safely off the tower (and the DEs out of Hogwarts), how could Snape's action not be the right thing to do? I'm not talking about Snape's value as a spy or any other reasons why DD might want Snape to live, nor am I talking about any "plan" to have snape kill or seem to kill Dumbledore; I'm just saying that *if* Snape's killing Dumbledore himself was the *only* way to save Harry's life, and therefore the only way to insure Voldemort's defeat in the long run, surely it was the right thing to do? Or, at any rate, surely it's what Dumbledore would want Snape to do? Please note that I'm not taking my position for granted. But *what if* there was no other way to save Harry? Surely, taking the hatred of the WW onto himself to save Harry from the Death Eaters would be what was right rather than what was easy. Wouldn't *saving Harry's life* justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable? Carol, asking Sherry to please answer only the hypothetical point, the "what if", and not argue that this wasn't Snape's only option, which is not the point of the post P.S. I'm half-afraid that my P.S. will detract from my post, which I really want an answer to, but what kind of "good Snape scenario" *would* you accept? From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Mar 13 20:09:06 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:09:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP read along groups References: <6250579.1173805968330.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <013a01c765ab$775f3650$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166031 From: k12listmomma Anyone rereading the series again from start to end before Book 7 comes out? I know I am. Bart: I am. However, I am looking for several specific things in the books: 1) What do we KNOW about Snape? 2) How much does Dumbledore know about what's going on while it's going on? 3) Is Hermoine being used as a front for someone else? If so, then who? Humm, the first two I can see. Quite valid points, for those answers make all the difference in the world at the end of Book 6, and have profound implications for Book 7. But the third......Hermione as a front for someone else? Have I missed an important theory here? I guess I have never heard it said (I confess that my time is limited and so I can't read every post ever written about Harry Potter) that Hermione was anything else other than who she is. Could you elaborate on that one? Me, I am rereading with just an open mind. Letting new insights flow and pop up where they may. Shelley From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 20:47:08 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:47:08 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166032 "Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes" wrote: > I have always found him [Percy] insecure but not a bad person. Would you say that if he had another last name? Just as good people can come from bad families (Serious Black), bad people can come from good families. Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted to destroy a boy and send him to Azkaban, a boy who had always been kind to him and who saved his sister's life. Percy tried to destroy the friendship between Ron and Harry. Percy refused his mother's Christmas present and didn't visit his father in the hospital when he was near death or even ask about him, then he called Umbrage "delightful". And besides, a black sheep would be fun, our story does not need another good Weasley, an evil Weasley is much more interesting. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Tue Mar 13 21:12:46 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:12:46 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment In-Reply-To: <1173789363.1244.42085.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1173789363.1244.42085.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C933CB7B72A088-8B0-30BA@WEBMAIL-MC05.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166033 Alla: But then we are back to DD poor judgment, I think. I mean, if you are saying that DD's judgment is correct when he concentrates on the person, makes the person his project, then how do we know when this happens? Are you saying that in order for DD to be correct about the person he must make the person his project, depend on him? Julie: I think that DD made Snape his project first and only *later* came to trust and depend on Snape so "completely." I.e. Snape earned that full and complete trust over the years, he didn't necessarily have it all initially. Dumbledore obviously did see *potential* for Snape to change, as he sees potential for Draco to change for the better (and he didn't see that same potential in Tom), but that doesn't mean the trust was set from the beginning. Certainly not as strongly as it is by HBP. I also think it's a case of comparing apples and oranges here. In the case of Sirius as a young man, DD had no reason to look so closely because he was taking Sirius at face value, just as he was taking Peter, Lupin, etc at face value. He had no reason to distrust Sirius, especially as he would have relied strongly on James' evaluation of his own friends, given James knew them so much better than Dumbledore could hope to. He had reason to distrust Snape, Draco, and Tom Riddle. In those cases he made a judgment call, chose whether to make each one his "project", i.e., whether each deserved a "second chance", and he decided Tom did not, while Snape and Draco did. His judgment not to extend a "second chance" to Tom was correct, and I suspect his judgment to extend second chances to Snape and Draco will turn out to be correct also. I hope that makes sense. Julie, who doesn't discount new revelations in DH adding more reasons for Dumbledore's greater knowledge of and trust in Snape. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 21:44:46 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:44:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: <45F5F6AF.2070505@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166034 > >>Betsy Hp: > > And see, IMO, it makes *so* much more sense if Dumbledore > > *didn't* mean for Harry to go after the Stone. > > > >>Bart: > From HPSS, Hardcover, 1st American edition, page 297: > > "...As for the Stone, it has been destroyed." > "Destroyed?" said Harry blankly. "But your friend --- Nicolas > Flamel ---" > "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite > delighted. > "You >did< do the thing properly, didn't you?" > > It was reading those lines that I realized that harry was > manipulated into protecting the Stone, and Dumbledore knew exactly > what he was doing when he hired Quirrel. Betsy Hp: I interpert those lines differently. Dumbledore is pleased that Harry was thorough, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he's pleased that Harry was *thorough in a task Dumbledore set*. Because honestly, Harry didn't *protect* the Stone; he *exposed* it. Without Harry, Quirrel!Mort could never have released the Stone from the mirror. And once Harry had the Stone, Quirrel was able to take him down. Harry sank into a three day coma (IIRC) and it's only Dumbledore's arrival that kept disaster at bay. Which is why I really hope this wasn't some grand plan on Dumbledore's part. (Though yeah, the text is maddingly ambiguous.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > I also have issue with Dumbldore creating a soldier!Harry. > > > >>Quick_Silver: > I don't think that Dumbledore is trying to build a soldier!Harry or > Warrior!Harry...I'd say that he's trying to build a Great Wizard! > Harry. The problem is that what makes Dumbledore a great wizard > isn't what makes Voldemort a great wizard which isn't what makes > Snape a great wizard, etc... > However by allowing Harry a relatively normal Hogwarts education > Dumbledore is ensuring that Harry's foundation in magic is solid. > > Although I am disturbed that Dumbledore hasn't taught Harry at the > same time I think that it is the right decision. Dumbledore had 50 > years to deal with the threat of Voldemort, he didn't, and if he > were to teach Harry there's a risk that whatever held him back > might be passed on to Harry (it could be anything...maybe even his > prohibition against Dark Arts isn't always a good thing). > Betsy Hp: I had a hard time snipping here, because I so totally agree with you! IMO, Harry *isn't* supposed to be this sort of superhero, Spartan warrior, uber-wizard. (Though golly, I likes me some Spartan warriors, *if* you know what I mean *and* I think you do. ) Gosh, he's not even supposed to be a sainted love muffin. In some ways I think his very ordinariness may be his secret weapon. It certainly makes a nice difference to Tom "I AM LORD VOLDEMORT" Riddle and his abhorrence of all things ordinary. (Huh. Might bring new meaning to a Tom who hates his ordinary name, being beaten by a Harry who doesn't. Does this mean Harry's kid'll be called Richard?) And I also agree that Dumbledore is probably highly aware that he's been unsuccessful in stopping Voldemort, himself. Which may explain some of the free rein he gives Harry. Not so much manipulative as realistic, I guess. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 21:45:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:45:52 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes" wrote: > > > I have always found him [Percy] insecure but not a bad person. > Eggplant wrote: > Would you say that if he had another last name? Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted to destroy a boy and send him to Azkaban, a boy who had always been kind to him and who saved his sister's life. Percy tried to destroy the friendship between Ron and Harry. Percy refused his mother's Christmas present and didn't visit his father in the hospital when he was near death or even ask about him, then he called Umbrage "delightful". > > And besides, a black sheep would be fun, our story does not need another good Weasley, an evil Weasley is much more interesting. Carol responds: As Hermione says, evil is a strong word. Percy has not yet killed anybody, or performed any Unforgiveable Curse, or joined the Death Eaters. All he has done is sided with the Ministry, sharing their view that Dumbledore has become a doddering old fool and that Harry is unstable and possibly violent. (Granted, he should know better, but if Fudge doesn't believe that Voldemort is back, why should Percy? I don't think he knows exactly *how* Harry saved Ginny from the monster in the Chamber of Secrets. Harry's killing the Basilisk isn't common knowledge, as one of the Ravenclaws makes clear in the Hog's Head chapter of OoP. I wonder exactly how much Percy *does* know about what happened in the CoS, actually.) Yes, Percy calls Umbridge "delightful," but possibly his letter to Ron is being read by his superiors and he wants to be sure it gets through. Or possibly he, being a bit pompous and very pro-Ministry, doesn't see through her as Harry does. (Good for him not to judge her based on her toadlike appearance, but not so good to be fooled by her poisoned-honey voice and her seeming concern for all those helpless, foolish little children at Hogwarts whom she wants to protect from "lies" about Voldemort.) BTW, forgive a sidenote but I want to sneak it in here since I'm on my last post of the day. Umbridge's werewolf legislation is passed *two years* before OoP, according to Sirius Black (somewhere in chapter 14) and therefore predates Snape's revelation to his students that Lupin is a werewolf. In fact, it has nothing specifically to do with Lupin except that it may be one of Dumbledore's reasons for hiring Lupin at the beginning of Harry's third year, and nothing whatever to do with Snape. To return to Percy, I think that Ron is spot on in calling him "the world's biggest git" (also OoP). Not being British, I don't know whether gitiocy is curable, but in Percy's case, I think it is. Many young people have hurt their parents' feelings with gestures that resemble Percy's returning the jumper that Molly knit for him. Many have walked out of the house and refused to speak to their fathers after misunderstandings and quarrels. (Percy expected to be praised for his promotion and instead is accused of being hired to spy on his family. I don't know how you would act if that were the case, but if I were Percy, and not yet twenty, I'd have acted just as he did. But if I'd been Arthur, I'd have acted as he did. And I feel sorry for Molly and empathize strongly with her feelings. Everyone is perfectly in character, and all their actions and reactions are understandable under the circumstances, IMO.) I know that Percy is pompous and rule-centered and overly concerned with his own advancement. I know that , like Ron and the Twins, he's annoyed by the family's (relative) poverty and wants to escape it. (What's wrong with that?) Like Fudge, who (IMO) is also under Umbridge's influence throughout OoP, he's not a very good judge of character. But I also remember his wading out into the water to embrace a thoroughly embarrassed Ron after the second task in GoF. Percy loves his family, and he'll remember it before the end (I predict). And he may be Scrimgeour's man as he was Crouch's, but Scrimgeour in his own way is an opponent of Voldemort. He's no Death Eater, and neither is Percy. I think we'll see a change in Percy now that he knows that Voldemort is really back and that Dumbledore is dead. Carol, who thinks that the last thing the books need is a wicked Weasley s From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 21:53:07 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:53:07 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <9poqef+p6c2@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166036 "lhlhoward" Wrote: > I feel that Percy is the person who > is going to dye. I agree, and I predict Percy will be killed by a member of his own family; such things happen all the time in civil wars. Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer > Ah -- so you're willing to believe that > Ron is *right* about this? Hermione certainly > doesn't think Ron has accurately pegged > his big brother Yes I do think Ron is right about this. True, Hermione is smarter than Ron, but not on this subject, on this one subject Ron is not the comic relief, on this he is the wise expert. Ron understands exactly what sort of person his brother is, this is the quote and it is chilling: "Wonder if Percy knows all that stuff about Crouch?" Ron said as they walked up the drive to the castle. "But maybe he doesn't care . . .It'd probably just make him admire Crouch even more. Yeah, Percy loves rules. He'd just say Crouch was refusing to break them for his own son." "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career .. . Percy's really ambitious, you know. ..." > he comes wading into the lake to help > pull Ron out in GoF Yes, and in 6 books that's the only time I've seen him do something human, something that wasn't done just to advance his career. In 6 books that's it. lake4fam Wrote: > Percy absolutely will not go over to > the Voldemort camp. I disagree, I think Percy will become a Death Eater, but not because he has any great love for Voldemort; he just thinks The Dark Lord can advance his career more than the ministry can. Percy is not immoral he is amoral. I can see Percy pretending to be sorrowful and apologize to his family so they will not be on their guard around him and then when Harry isn't looking Percy would stun him in the back and turn him over to the Death Eaters. I can then see him saying something like this to Harry: "I couldn't talk them out of it, they're going to kill you Harry but not before they've tortured you for a few days I'm afraid. It's a real shame, nobody regrets this unfortunate situation more than me but it can't be helped. I was too closely linked to Fudge and now that he has been proven to be disastrously wrong my chance for advancement within the ministry is extremely small; Schrimshaw only puts up with me because of the inside information about my family I can give him. It's clear to me that my best bet is now with the Dark Lord's team. Nothing could improve my standing with that organization more than to hand you over to He Who Must Not Be Named. I hope you understand Harry that my leading you to your death wasn't personal; I never had any animosity toward you, in fact I rather liked you but a opportunity like this doesn't come along every day, I couldn't just ignore it now could I. It was strictly a business decision not personal. Well, it looks like the Death Eaters are about ready to start working on you and as I have a rather weak stomach I'd rather not witness that, so I'll leave you now. Goodbye Harry, I don't expect we'll meet again." And then I think Percy is entirely capable of turning around walking away without another word and sleeping soundly the next night. Eggplant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 22:05:05 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:05:05 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166037 > >>Eggplant: > > Just as good people can come from bad families (Serious Black), bad > people can come from good families. > > And besides, a black sheep would be fun, our story does not need > another good Weasley, an evil Weasley is much more interesting. Betsy Hp: Heh, just to throw a different view point in here: Since I'm not a fan of the Weasley clan (especially *as* a clan) I have a rather forlorn hope that their "black sheep" will show them all wrong. Yup, I'm a fan of superspy!Percy, already working for the Order, in deep cover reporting on what the Ministry gets up to. It'd be wonderful for Arthur to have to eat his words. If there's going to be an evil!Weasley, I'd love for it to be one of the "we torture small animals for sport!" twins. Ooh, and if Percy is the one to uncover the sordid mess, extra loveliness! But yeah, not much text support, unfortunately. Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Mar 13 22:08:54 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:08:54 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166038 Eggplant: > Would you say that if he had another last name? Just as good people > can come from bad families (Serious Black), bad people can come from > good families. Hickengruendler: I certainly agree that Percy being a Weasley is no prove of him belonging to the good side, but this: > Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted > to destroy a boy and send him to Azkaban, (Eggplant) is simply not true. There is nothing in the text that suggests, that Harry ahould have been sent to Azkaban, except Harry's admittingly understandable fear when the OWL arrived. but this fear was just that and was proven wrong. Azkaban wasn't mentioned during the hearing! You would think, that if the plan was to throw him into prison, they would have mentioned it during the Hearing. Nonetheless, there are still some doubtful decisions by the ministry (to put it mildly), but we don't how much Percy was involved in this, or was he involved at all. At the very least, he doesn't seem to have the capability to question authority, and if some redemption is in store (which I think it is), he somehow needs to gain this. Eggplant: > Percy tried to destroy > the friendship between Ron and Harry. Hickengruendler: This can be seen as a misguided attempt to protect Ron. The letter cetrainly wasn't nice, but is no proof of any evilness. Eggplant: Percy refused his mother's > Christmas present and didn't visit his father in the hospital when he > was near death or even ask about him, then he called Umbrage "delightful". Hickengruendler: His behaviour towards Molly is certainly nasty. But we don't know that he didn't ask for Arthur. His family was probably not the only source he had, he could as well have asked someone from the ministry about his father's conditions, or, for that matter, asked a healer from St. Mungo's. By the way, I don't think this was what happened, I just wanted to mention othe rpossibilities, I think he simply was too pride/stubborn/hurt to ask for Arthut. A friend of my parents, who I always knew as one of the persons with the biggest heart I knew (I have yet to see this woman putting herself above others and not helping, when necessary), told me, that she was that stubborn as a youth/ young adult, that she refused to speak with her father for months. The father slapped her for something she didn't do (and later it turned out, that she really didn't do it) and she simply ignored him and didn't even visited him, after he became seriously ill and was in hospital for quite some time. She was not proud of her behaviour and said she later lost this stubborness, but that at this time she simply couldn't bear to talk with her father, because she felt wronged by him. Of course this reminded me of Percy (for obvious reasons). So Percy not visiting Arthur is certainly not a nice act, but by no means proves anything about his "evilness", nor does it mean, that he can't change. And we don't know how Umbridge acted in the ministry. Fudge was still her superior and I'm sure she treated him differently, than she treated Harry, Hagrid or, say, Trelawney. Therefore Percy very likely saw a completely different side of Umbridge then the inhabitants of Hogwarts. A side Umbridge only pretended to have, probably, but nonetheless a different side. Also, JKR knows how to write completely evil characters. Think Voldemort, Umbridge or Lucius Malfoy. If she wants characters to make irredeemably bad, she can make them so. Yet she has given Percy several sympathetic moments within the series, most notably his grief for Ginny and Penelope in CoS, him fighting the Death Eaters in GoF and Percy running in the lake for Ron after the Second Task. On another level, the rift in the Weasley family is symbolical for the rift within the Wizarding World after Voldemort's return. According to DUmbledore (who in this scene certainly was JKR's mouthpiece) at the end of GoF, "We are as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided". And if even JKR's "perfect family" can overcome their differences, it looks indeed very bad for the Wizarding World. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 22:23:16 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:23:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: <00a601c76519$8fee85f0$eb78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166039 > >>Magpie: > ...DD is being the victim of plot. DD the good judge of > character couldn't be there for Sirius because Sirius was supposed > to be in jail--it's almost as if Sirius didn't exist until he got > out. > > In fact it seems like the mistake with Sirius is written to be not > Dumbledore's fault in any way. We're never really encouraged to ask > why Dumbledore didn't defend him or look more into it. In that > storyline it's like it's all about the evidence and the way things > seemed to be. It's only after Sirius gets out of prison that > Dumbledore's giving any explanations for him. Betsy Hp: Something I've sort of set up in my head is that Dumbledore has a bit of a block when it comes to Slytherins. I'm not sure that I can point to any explicit examples (though the infamous cup grab in PS/SS is probably a good one), but it does seem that Dumbledore sort of lets the Slytherins fall through the cracks until he actually needs them. (Young!Snape and Draco spring to mind.) And because Sirius comes from such a Slytherin heavy family, perhaps it was easy for Dumbledore to believe that blood told in the end. So he didn't question as maybe he would have done for say, Lupin. One way this makes a sort of thematic sense to me, is the House unity thing. I'm pretty sure we're going to need the Houses unified for Voldemort to be defeated. It seems like the Sorting Hat has been giving this advice for ages. And it also seems like Dumbledore failed to bring the Houses together. Maybe because his own bias was too strong? Just a thought. And on a completely OT note: > >>Ronin: > PS- I loved Fred and really miss her and the show. Shame it's over, > but all good things must come to an end I suppose. At least they > went out with a bang. Betsy Hp: One of my best all time favorite closing lines ever: "Well, personally, I kinda want to slay the dragon." Betsy Hp (also loved Fred. Fred!) From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Wed Mar 14 01:01:04 2007 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:01:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's use of Dark Magic WAS: Battle Tactics... In-Reply-To: <006c01c76591$a82f3d80$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166040 > --Ronin's Comments-- > > One last note which I thought of when re-reading this bit; > I found it interesting that Dumbledore says that Harry was able to see the > means to thwart Voldemort in the mirror. Was he referring to that particular > instance, regarding the stone? Or, was he referring to thwarting Voldemort > in the final battle? Because, if memory serves me correctly, all that Harry > could see in the mirror was his mum and dad. > Joe: I understood DD's comments to mean that love was the means that Harry was able to thwart LV. Harry saw his loving parents in the mirror and it was thoughts of love that drove LV from possessing Harry in the MoM. LV hated his father enough to kill him and his feelings towards his mother never struck me as loving. I recall JKR saying in an interview that LV has never loved anyone in his life. Somehow Harry's ability to love will conquer LV in the end. From jrbb96 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 01:22:01 2007 From: jrbb96 at yahoo.com (BECKY BROWN) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:22:01 -0000 Subject: DD's comments to Harry WAS: Re: Harry's use of Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166041 > Joe: > I understood DD's comments to mean that love was the means that Harry > was able to thwart LV. Harry saw his loving parents in the mirror and > it was thoughts of love that drove LV from possessing Harry in the > MoM. LV hated his father enough to kill him and his feelings towards > his mother never struck me as loving. I recall JKR saying in an > interview that LV has never loved anyone in his life. Somehow Harry's > ability to love will conquer LV in the end. > Becky: DD did tell Harry on several occasions that love was the one thing that Voldemort could not feel or understand. He instructed Harry that he needed to keep his friends and loved ones close. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Mar 14 01:08:18 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:08:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > I think we agree that Harry's life is essential to the defeat of > Voldemort. *If* Snape saw the two brooms and correctly deduced that > Harry was on the tower in his Invisibility Cloak, and *if* he knew > from an exchanged glance with Dumbledore that killing Dumbledore > himself (rather than letting the DEs do it) was the *only* way to get > Harry (and Draco) safely off the tower (and the DEs out of Hogwarts), > how could Snape's action not be the right thing to do? Dana: *If* Snape was thinking of Draco and DD when he ran from his office to the tower, if he indeed did not know Harry was there, then he should have allowed members of the Order to follow him. But he did not, he made sure that no one could offer any assistance and thus making a decision based on his previous actions, taking out Flitwich and asking Hermione and Luna to take care of him and not allowing anyone to follow him, he specifically *choose* to endanger Draco, Harry and DD. This does not make his decision to take out DD, to rescue them, more noble because he had options *before* he reached the tower. Carol: > I'm not talking about Snape's value as a spy or any other reasons why > DD might want Snape to live, nor am I talking about any "plan" to have > snape kill or seem to kill Dumbledore; Dana now: *If* there was no plan and DD never asked Snape to kill him, then Snape did the most horrible thing a person can do to another human being; - take his life. This is never noble and it isn't even noble in a combat situation in the Potterverse, as we have never heard of one person, in the entire series, that died at the hand of an Order member (traitors excluded). If DD did not ask Snape, than it was not Snape's decision to make. Besides I believe that DD would rather have died at the hand of another than at the hand of someone he trusted because that person's soul would be more important to DD, then his own life. Also DD did everything to prevent fueling Harry's hate for Snape and suddenly it would not be important enough because he would rather be killed by Snape then people he considered unredeemable. Snape had options but again he *chose* not to take them before he entered the scene. Carol: > Wouldn't *saving Harry's life* justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable? Dana: No, because Harry's presence was unknown to the DEs and therefore his life was not in immediate danger because only if DD died, was Harry free to move, not before. He could have re-armed DD, who I am sure even in a weakened state could take them on with ease, especially with Snape's help (were it not for that pesky UV). Draco was not in immediate danger because the Order did not know his task and that it was he who let the DE in and the DEs were there to assist Draco so they were not going to do anything to him either. The Order was not losing the battle so what makes you assume that getting the DEs out as quickly as possible was the only way to keep everyone safe? Someone could have notified the MoM and help would have been arriving soon. He had many options but he specifically chose this one, and therefore it would never be justifiable and neither would it be if DD asked Snape to kill him. And like I said in a previous post if DD was already dying than Snape could have stalled killing him by talking to Draco and let DD die on his own. DD would never ever make Harry witness his murder if he could have prevented it. And I am very sure that DD did not expect to die from the potion because he would never have asked Harry to accompany him to the cave, I am very sure that he thought he could be saved with Snape's help and therefore it indicates to me, he had not expected the DE invasion that night. If he had died from it then it would have been something Harry could have overcome because it was DD's own choice to ask Harry to assist him and the situation at hand prevented DD to get the proper medical care. It would have been considered an unfortunate accident but Harry could not overcome a murder committed by someone DD trusted. What if Harry lost faith in DD because of it? Harry trusting DD is very important for what Harry has to do next, if Harry cannot trust the information he is given by DD then he could very well fail in his mission. Harry losing faith in DD would undermine everything he has been working for and by the way Harry's raging hate could undermine the task at hand as well because it poisons the heart. It was not DD who betrayed that trust but Snape. This is why DD was shocked Harry found out it was Snape who relayed part of the prophesy to LV. Carol: > Carol, asking Sherry to please answer only the hypothetical point, the > "what if", and not argue that this wasn't Snape's only option, which > is not the point of the post Dana now: I am not Sherry but it is unfair to ask someone to answer a hypothetical point if you cannot argue the man's options, because existence of other options is the only thing that makes the hypothetical point invalid. If you can only argue the hypothesis with points that validate it, it is an erroneous hypothesis. You can not validate something by looking at it from only one direction. Carol: > P.S. I'm half-afraid that my P.S. will detract from my post, which I > really want an answer to, but what kind of "good Snape scenario" > *would* you accept? Well a really "good Snape scenario" does not exist because murder is considered an act of evil. You can only look at the true intentions behind his actions. Was he always ESE or did he let himself get into something that proved beyond his control. Makes me think of a quote Movie!Sirius made (not canon of course); "Brilliant, Snape - once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion". Dana From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Mar 14 02:09:43 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:09:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's judgment (WAS Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166043 Betsy Hp: > Something I've sort of set up in my head is that > Dumbledore has a bit of a block when it comes to > Slytherins. I'm not sure that I can point to any > explicit examples (though the infamous cup grab > in PS/SS is probably a good one), but it does seem > that Dumbledore sort of lets the Slytherins fall > through the cracks until he actually needs them. > (Young!Snape and Draco spring to mind.) > And because Sirius comes from such a Slytherin > heavy family, perhaps it was easy for Dumbledore > to believe that blood told in the end. So he didn't > question as maybe he would have done for say, Lupin. > One way this makes a sort of thematic sense to me, > is the House unity thing. I'm pretty sure we're > going to need the Houses unified for Voldemort to > be defeated. It seems like the Sorting Hat has been > giving this advice for ages. And it also seems like > Dumbledore failed to bring the Houses together. > Maybe because his own bias was too strong? houyhnhnm: I think it was "And now, Harry, let us step into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure." that really brought it home to me that Dumbledore was himself a Gryffindor. I have been thinking about how that fact might have contributed to his failure to bring the houses together. I think Dumbledore is a little like my parents and others of their generation who fought for desegregation, but could still say things that make you cringe today. ("I don't see color.") They deserve to be given credit for being in the moral vanguard of the times they lived in. But they could only get so far along the road to enlightenment and it was up to the next generation to carry the torch further. Dumbledore deserves credit for being the most progressive Wizard of his age and for having a vision of unity in diversity for the wizarding World. But he has only gotten so far along the road. Dumbledore cherishes unity among the houses as an intellectual ideal, but I don't think he is able to fully empathize with the worldviews that the other Houses symbolize. Or at least accept the fact that they are as valid as his own whether he can empathize with them or not. Without being conscious of it, he stills sees the Gryffindorian into-the-teeth-of-the-storm, live-for-the-moment* style of being as the best way to be a Wizard. His way of dealing with students and their problems may be fine for Gryffindors, but not so good for students from other Houses. (Like the way he dealt with the conflict between Snape and the Marauders) I don't think he fully appreciates the Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw nature, either, but it is Slytherin that most respresents the Other. I have puzzled and puzzled over Dumbledore's list of Slytherin virtues at the end of CoS. "A certain disregard for the rules"? Does that sound like any of the Slytherins we've seen? Does it not sound like almost all of the Gryffindors? It must be projection, pure and simple. Maybe Sirius was a mixture of the two influences (because he was sorted into Gryffindor, but came from a Slytherin family) and that made him difficult for Dumbledore to "get". (*I like to think of Gryffindors as living in the moment, Slytherins in the past, Hufflepuffs in the future, and Ravenclaws in a world of their own.) From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Mar 14 02:10:36 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:10:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166044 Carol: Please note that I'm not taking my position for granted. But *what if* there was no other way to save Harry? Surely, taking the hatred of the WW onto himself to save Harry from the Death Eaters would be what was right rather than what was easy. Wouldn't *saving Harry's life* justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable? Sherry: Ok, Carol, since you asked. No. it is not justifiable to me. I'm sorry. This is deeply ingrained in my psyche, life is always preferable. Where there's life there's hope and all that. My doctors told me that in my childhood, to help me learn to live with a seriously disabling disease. Well, it did not seriously disable me, well, some, yeah, but I'm still kicking. And that's neither here nor there to this discussion, just explaining part of my outlook. I cannot believe there was *no* other option. It is just something I cannot accept, and I'm sure I will not be able to accept it on a philosophical sort of way, if it turns out to be the facts of the book. I will never have peace with it. It doesn't make sense for Dumbledore just to give up. So, maybe, I have more faith in Dumbledore than I thought I did, because I think he could have pulled something far better than murder out of his hat. Dana actually made some very good points in a response to this, and I won't repeat them here, except to say I agree with nearly everything she said. Carol, asking Sherry to please answer only the hypothetical point, the "what if", and not argue that this wasn't Snape's only option, which is not the point of the post Sherry: Ok, but my answer is still no. I can't really argue against a hypothetical without considering other options. Since I do not believe Snape's only option was to murder Dumbledore, I can't just say, ok since there was no other option, sure go commit murder. But even if I could, my answer would still be no. I've read many wonderful books, great histories or historical fiction, in which the good guys have to kill. But they do not kill their own; they kill the bad guys, the enemies of their land or their home, or the oppressors taking away their freedoms. They don't then turn around and off their own people, not and still claim to have a noble and honorable cause. If there have been true historical people who have killed someone like that in the course of a war, or a spy killing his own leaders to prove something to the bad guys, or to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on that person, well, that still does not excuse it for me. It's still an act of cowardice and unacceptable. Carol: P.S. I'm half-afraid that my P.S. will detract from my post, which I really want an answer to, but what kind of "good Snape scenario" *would* you accept? Sherry: There's only one or two good Snape scenarios I can easily live with. 1. If Dumbledore was actually dead and it can be proven that he was, and if he was dead by something besides the potion in the cave, and Snape realized it and faked the murder. I can accept that, but there had better be proof. 2. If Snape is OFH, made a stupid decision to save his own skin on the tower, and then regrets the dastardly deed later and does all he can to help Harry and rid the WW of Voldemort, I can accept that, though not totally forgive the murder. Sherry, knowing this is an absolutely emotional argument, but still, even in fiction I have no other answer. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0It09A/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/s4wxlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST _READ Yahoo! Groups Links From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 02:56:18 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:56:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703131956l45cb08c7m93fe2bd4eb751d50@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166045 a_svirn: That's not what I am saying. As readers, we can think that Dumbledore might have been right after all. It would certainly be anticlimactic, to say the least, if it turns out that Dumbledore was simply a vain old food too trusting for his (and everyone's) good. But Hermione is not *reading* the story, she is *living* in it. For her to rely on Dumbledore's judgement at this point would be unreasonable. Lynda: Hermione simply trusts the opinion of her headmaster, a wizard that is as powerful as Voldemort, and who has been for the wizarding world trusted, with a short time period of exception, to the utmost by the wizarding public, minus a few who are malcontents or some form of busybody, so trusting him, on the part of a muggle born witch who is still in school is not so terribly illogical, whether she is right or wrong. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 03:00:10 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:00:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703132000p347aca4chc650dfce9282c147@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166046 vinerider87: Percy Weasley is one of those characters that we so easily push to the back of our minds. He is not and never has been very likeable. He has always worried about making himself #1. In the last couple of books it makes it seem like he has been given promotions, but they were only so that the MOM could get information from his family regarding the OOTP. Percy seems to have been made a fool for quite a while now. Does anyone else see him "going over to the dark side" just to get back at all the people that he feels have laughed at him and used him? I could see him joining up with LV and getting him information that could work against OOTP. I know this is a little off the wall, but I think it's worth exploring. vinerider87 Lynda: >From my first reading of SS, yes, I've expected/dreaded this. I hope I am wrong, though. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Mar 14 03:06:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:06:08 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Legislation (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166047 Carol: > BTW, forgive a sidenote but I want to sneak it in here since I'm on my last post of the > day. Umbridge's werewolf legislation is passed *two years* before OoP, according to > Sirius Black (somewhere in chapter 14) and therefore predates Snape's revelation to his > students that Lupin is a werewolf. In fact, it has nothing specifically to do with > Lupin except that it may be one of Dumbledore's reasons for hiring Lupin at the > beginning of Harry's third year, and nothing whatever to do with Snape. Jen: I find it more believable the legislation was proposed due to public outcry after the Lupin incident than saying it happened earlier in the year for no particular reason. Just as owls were winging their way to Dumbledore to complain about hiring a teacher who was a werewolf, owls were likely flying to the MOM and Fudge with complaints about werewolves working in the public sector, or even proposed bans on werewolves obtaining paid work due to their inferior status. I used to think Snape might be the impetus behind the legislation, but he didn't appear to know Umbridge at all. More likely Umbridge seized on the scandal at Hogwarts to further her own agenda and perpetuate the stigma against werewolves. Jen, willing to take Sirius at his word, but not JKR when it comes to exact timing of events. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 03:41:58 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:41:58 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166048 Dana: *(snip)* >Are you suggesting that JKR only reads the essays written by children and young teens? Also is this not a little bit condescending towards the very young that they cannot come up with a decent theory? Ceridwen: I said that children and teens may not have read as extensively as adults, so the various scenarios which are possible in certain types of books or stories are harder for them to guess. I don't think that is condescending. Children and teens haven't been alive long enough to have read as extensively as adults. It isn't a fault, they shouldn't feel guilty. I didn't say they can't come up with decent theories. I do think children in particular, less so teens, are less likely than adults to start poking around in the minutae and start noticing quirks and flaws. In my opinion, children, and less so teens, are more likely to trust things in the way they are presented to them. They lose this trust as they get older and learn how to question. I do think that the young are less likely to question JKR's pronouncements on her stories. Take the now-infamous explanation for Snape not being given the DADA post. It was an "ah-hah!" moment for some teens and young twenties I knew at the time on the internet. I even accepted it myself, since I couldn't think of a different possibility, and couldn't find any canon to dispute this - and I haven't been a teen or in my twenties in a long time. *g* It did niggle at me, and now I completely believe JKR was speaking to the books as they stood at the time, and not giving away future plot. But, for lack of a better explanation, I and people that I knew on-line had to accept it until it was disproven. I still maintain that, due to lack of time to read as extensively as an adult old enough to be their parent, children and teens are less likely to guess the various possible scenarios simply because they haven't had enough time for exposure to those scenarios. I do think that children and teens are more capable of understanding nuances, and of performing tasks, than people give them credit for. I also think that, because people don't think children and teens can handle certain ideas, they never write those ideas for them. This again takes away that reading experience when it comes to guessing scenarios. Rowling doesn't write to a mythical least common denominator child, she writes a good story. Having Harry attacked by Dementors isn't something she deemed as being too horrible for children to think about; having his relations treat him badly wasn't something she decided not to do because some child might get upset. And so on. This has been a very big thing with me for a long time, and I really shouldn't bore people with my rants! ;) Dana: > Interesting because what use will it be to Snape to misdirect Bella about LV? He might gloat a little that he is in the know more than she is but misdirecting another DE can be a very dangerous business, especially one that is competing for the Dark Lord's favor. Better not mess with information that can be checked with LV himself. Ceridwen: Others have answered this and included canon, so I'll just mention that Snape seems to have been careful to probe Bellatrix's current status with LV before going on about things. Dana: Bella is not stupid, she even made sure Draco did not let Snape help him and wipe his own slate clean. So far it doesn't seem that Snape's misdirection is working very well now is it. Apparently Bella perceived Snape's words exactly as many readers do as being misdirection, so it missed the point entirely and I do not believe Snape is that dumb, but who knows? Ceridwen: Yes, Bellatrix got her dig in by subverting Draco! I love this observation! IF, as some others have speculated, the DADA curse falls into place during this chapter, then Snape can really do nothing right. Maybe that's why this is called "Spinner's End" - the spinning has run out, the curse has fallen, and so all spinning - all misdirection - is at an end. Dana: *(snip)* So we are to assume while the conversation is about what the Dark Lord wants, Snape is suddenly referring to what Dumbledore wants? And he isn't even sure? And Snape would take the risk going against LV's orders and kill Dumbledore when he just referred twice to the fact that LV's orders are law and he is not stupid enough to even try and persuade LV to change his mind about using Draco for the task? Ceridwen: When I read this scene, even on my first read, I wondered who Snape meant. It seemed, to me, to be one of those muttered things people say that have less to do with the immediate situation, but more to do with that same situation overall. A Real Life example might be, talking about buying shampoo, then suddenly thinking of shopping and saying, "Oh, that reminds me, I should pick up a head of lettuce." The only thing in common would be making a purchase. Of course, for the ambiguous reading of Snape suddenly dropping a reference to Dumbledore in the middle of this scene, he would have to know Draco's mission, and he would have to have already informed Dumbledore about that mission. Since he doesn't mention a name, he could get away with saying later, if questioned by LV or even Bellatrix at that point, that he meant LV, that he thought LV wanted him to complete Draco's task in the end. Which would make sense. Snape was sent to get a position at Hogwarts, he is on the scene. If the primary goal is to get rid of Dumbledore, then there would need to be some back-up, and at this point Snape doesn't know about the cabinet ploy to get the DEs into Hogwarts, so he can easily believe that LV means for him to be Draco's back-up if he fails, along with believing that DD would rather he do it than Draco. Of course, this is just my opinion. Dana: *(snip)* If DD is not planning to die, and will never ask this of Snape, then he has a little problem on his hands there as well. But this then goes against what all Snape fans say that the hate on Snape's face is because he has to do something he really doesn't want to do. If you are correct and Snape did what he did in Spinner's End because it is what he thinks DD wants him to do then again the argument in the forest can be no proof DD is asking this of Snape because Snape would not go against what he already suspected DD wanted from him. I still fail to see the Snape killed DD on DD's orders scenario working here. Ceridwen: To me, DD was setting his affairs in order from the first time we see him in the book. He makes sure that Harry will be able to return to the Dursleys one last time in that scene, and he tells the Dursleys what he thinks of the way they've raised both Harry and Dudley. I think - and of course this is my own opinon now, not just things I've read - that Dumbledore believed he would be dead by summer. The injury to his hand has already occurred. It doesn't heal throughout the book, and by the various wordings used, I'm not sure if the damage is keeping to his hand, or if it is slowly creeping up his arm. I'm probably trying to read too much into the book, but JKR is very good at sneaking things by us. I'm also not sure that Dumbledore and Snape have it planned all year that Snape will kill Dumbledore. Snape may believe that he must do it in the end, and that DD will want it, but that doesn't mean there is a plan all laid out to that effect. He may just be speculating based on what he knows of Dumbledore after working with him for fifteen years, and having been his student before that. I personally don't see the logic in having a firm plan in place when events might veer too radically from a hypothetical situation. I think that, if Dumbledore did indeed want this in the end, then that was actually when he did want it - when events made it necessary, and not before. Dana: I am not an ESE!Snaper because they believe he was evil from the start and I do not. I believe Snape is not an LV man either and I do not even believe he is out for his own self anymore or at least not as part of grabbing the bone when the other two top dogs are fighting for it. I believe Snape is driven by his feelings of hate that are raging inside him and he cannot control. I believe he is looking for acceptance so desperately that he lets himself be driven by it and yes at this moment I believe he's disappointed in DD for not choosing him over the, in his mind, not special at all, Harry, which has driven him to the other side where at this moment LV is giving him the acceptance he is graving so badly. Ceridwen: Still, these are points that ESE!Snapers mention when discussing Snape's actions in HBP. So, I do think you understand the position, even if you are not suggesting that Snape was always ESE. I totally agree that Snape is not about to grab for the bone when the two top dogs are fighting for it. And, I love that image! I'm not convinced that Snape is so completely driven by his feelings to the exclusion of everything else. I do think he has feelings you have mentioned, that he does see Harry as a sibling rival, but I don't think this overrides other things like logic or due consideration. There are times when he can't control his feelings. We've seen examples in the books. But when he is emotional, he is very obviously emotional. It is a striking difference from his normal behavior. I agree with you that Snape, to this point, has wanted to live, and has wanted to be admired for his skills and talents. But by this point, having actively been a spy and kept things from LV thorugh Occlumency (given DDM!Snape here) for two years, he may be wishing for an end. It can become very stressful, and a person can change his mind as the stress piles up. No canon support for this, just a possibility based on Real Life stresses and reactions to stress. So I don't think we can say for sure that he is not tired of walking the tightrope. Saying that he could remain at Hogwarts to fulfill his spying duties is not necessarily saying that he looks forward to doing that. By the way, for Carol, I'm the one who mentioned having read suggestions that Snape wants to go out in a blaze of glory. I don't think I've read those suggestions here, but I have read them, so I mentioned this as one thing I have seen said by DDM!Snapers. Dana: *(snip)* > Snape would never do this for Draco if he had not expected he would be ordered to do it in the end. Because if LV does not want Snape to do it he might get killed for overstepping LV's orders. I do not believe Snape's friendship with Lucius goes that deep. Ceridwen: Yet, he makes a UV to protect Draco and watch over him. The only canon we have says that the UV will kill you if you break it. I don't personally think this is the case, but I have no canon. So, staying strictly to what we have in the books, Snape has placed his life on the line and tied it to Draco's well-being. Whether the third provision was expected, should have been expected, or not has nothing to do with the first two provisions. If something happens to Draco while Snape is bound to protect him, then Snape is dead. And as we saw in the book, something does happen to Draco: he almost dies. This is a very profound thing to do for a friend's child. I would say that the friendship is that deep. I disagree that Snape will have to continue to clean up after Draco's messes. I think the wording was clear enough to mean the particular task LV set for his sixth year. There is only one task that LV has ordered Draco to do by the time the UV is made. It is by default the only task Snape has to do if Draco cannot. I may very well be wrong, along with others who may agree with me. We'll find out in Deathly Hallows (only three more months!). Dana: I am not going to argue about what a UV can or can't do but I do not believe that JKR meant anything other than for it to mean the most serious magical bond one can commit to. Why have it in the first place if it means nothing serious will happen to you if you disregard it? If it can be overlooked that easily why would Bella be so surprised Snape would take it after she accuses him of always saving his own skin and hiding behind his orders. Ceridwen: I agree completely that the UV is set up as a very serious magical bond. Maybe not the only one, but one that should not be entered into lightly. I personally don't think you can disregard a UV once you have taken it. I think that 'Unbreakable' means that it cannot be broken. But again, no canon. Whatever the actual consequences are, then yes, it is a very serious Vow. IF I am correct and Snape could not break the Vow, then Bellatrix would be surprised that he has placed himself into such a position. To her, he has 'slithered out' of just about every disagreeable task other DEs have had to do. Now here he is, effectively forcing himself to do something disagreeable if the circumstances warrant. He cannot slither out of this one, IF I am correct. Dana: That we have not seen any of their bodies tells us nothing about their current health status. We have been told of many of the Order who disappeared without a trace. Yes, they could all be hiding but some are gone for more than 20 years and did not even resurface after LV was presumed dead. I am not saying I believe they are dead or anything because I do not believe they are, but we also do not know if LV was pleased enough to not Crucio Draco just for the fun of it. Ceridwen: True, they may all be dead. I believe that LV would want their bodies to be found, though. It would serve as a warning to other DEs - Snape the guy who killed Dumbledore and was supposed to be "honored above all others"; Bellatrix, the most loyal; Narcissa and Draco, under a cloud from the moment Lucius failed to retrieve the prophecy and for having misused an LV artifact - dead at the hands of the master. If these people can be killed, so can ordinary DEs. Also, they could die from something else. Or, Snape could. He was being attacked by *ahem* Witherwings before he Apparated away - he may have sustained fatal injuries, something which will not be discovered right away since there will be no Dark Mark above his body. We could also hear of their deaths at the beginning of Deathly Hallows. And, this could be a misdirection, given Dumbledore's offer to Draco on the tower. The Order could, outside of our narrator's knowledge, have hidden Draco and Narcissa at least and made it look like they had been killed. Or, this could be completely true. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 03:45:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:45:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166049 > Sherry: > There's only one or two good Snape scenarios I can easily live with. > > 1. If Dumbledore was actually dead and it can be proven that he was, and if > he was dead by something besides the potion in the cave, and Snape realized > it and faked the murder. I can accept that, but there had better be proof. zgirnius: I have been following the discussion with some interest. Why would the potion in the Cave killing Dumbledore not be a Good Snape scenario you could live with? Surely it would have nothing to do with Snape? Or is it the involvement of Harry that you would then find unaccaptable? He did not know what the potion did, for sure. He believed Dumbledore. Dumbledore himself did not know (he says, and I believe him, except when I am admiring Pippin's cool idea that Snape made the potion.) From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Mar 14 03:56:37 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:56:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166050 -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Zara Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:46 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him > Sherry: > There's only one or two good Snape scenarios I can easily live with. > > 1. If Dumbledore was actually dead and it can be proven that he was, and if > he was dead by something besides the potion in the cave, and Snape realized > it and faked the murder. I can accept that, but there had better be proof. zgirnius: I have been following the discussion with some interest. Why would the potion in the Cave killing Dumbledore not be a Good Snape scenario you could live with? Surely it would have nothing to do with Snape? Or is it the involvement of Harry that you would then find unaccaptable? He did not know what the potion did, for sure. He believed Dumbledore. Dumbledore himself did not know (he says, and I believe him, except when I am admiring Pippin's cool idea that Snape made the potion.) Sherry: It is the involvement of Harry. Because he would feel it was his fault Dumbledore died, and I don't think he could live with that or ever come to terms with it. The guilt would haunt him to the end of his life. He's 17, he doesn't need a burden like that. Besides, he's the hero. He's an innocent boy, stuck with a miserable destiny to kill an evil being, something he didn't sign up for. I think he has enough burdens to bear. I don't think Harry should be one who kills, even accidentally. Sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 03:58:39 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:58:39 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166051 "hickengruendler" Wrote: > There is nothing in the text that suggests, > that Harry ahould have been sent to Azkaban Oh I think I can find a thing or two to suggest Harry was on the razor's edge of being sent to Azkaban. From the book: "How was he supposed to refuse to surrender his wand without doing magic? He'd have to duel with the Ministry representatives, and if he did that, he'd be lucky to escape Azkaban, let alone expulsion." Or perhaps you'd like this quote: "Would the matter of where he went next be decided for him? Had his breach of the International Statute of Secrecy been severe enough to land him in a cell in Azkaban? Whenever this thought occurred, Harry invariably slid off his bed and began pacing again." And then there is the fact that Harry was judged by the FULL Wizardmon, something that has not happened in many years, something I do no believe a overdue library book would merit, something Author Weasley was flabbergasted to discover. And in all that time there was Percy, smugly taking notes. Yes, evil is a strong word, but I believe Percy is evil. We will learn if I am right or wrong on July 21. > you would think, that if the plan was to > throw him into prison, they would have > mentioned it during the Hearing. Yes you would think so, that would be the logical thing, but consider, in the American system of "justice" jurors are expected to pretend they don't know what the ultimate penalty for murder is. It's only after he is found guilty of murder are you supposed to start thinking about whether he should live or die. It's all nonsense of course, almost as stupid as Wizard law. Eggplant From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 06:03:01 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:03:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703132303g52405d87u2b2701a78f1d4e41@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166052 > "hickengruendler" Wrote: > > > There is nothing in the text that suggests, > > that Harry ahould have been sent to Azkaban > > eggplant replied: Oh I think I can find a thing or two to suggest Harry was on the > razor's edge of being sent to Azkaban. From the book: > > "How was he supposed to refuse to surrender his wand without doing > magic? He'd have to duel with the Ministry representatives, and if he > did that, he'd be lucky to escape Azkaban, let alone expulsion." > > Or perhaps you'd like this quote: > > "Would the matter of where he went next be decided for him? Had his > breach of the International Statute of Secrecy been severe enough to > land him in a cell in Azkaban? Whenever this thought occurred, Harry > invariably slid off his bed and began pacing again." Kemper now: That is a great quote of Harry's barely 15-year-old perspective. At this point in time he is only personally aware of Sirius and Hagrid stint in Azkaban. Sirius, wrongly accused, does not attempt to defend himself accepting Azkaban as a personal punishment. Hagrid was thought to be involved with killing Myrtle and unleashing Salazar Slytherin's monster 50 years later which resulted in some scariness in Harry's second year. ... Stan Updike's seemingly wrongful imprisonment of being a Death Eater (someone who supports murder, torture and violations of privacy) hasn't happened yet... Harry performed a corporeal Patronus. The Patronus did not kill 15 or however many Muggles as Sirius was suppose to have killed. Nor did it petrify Dudley or anyone else. Dudley didn't even see it, iirc. Harry also performed a nonverbal 'lumos', or so it seemed. And while technically in the presence of a Muggle, it's a spell that's hella not scary nor violent > eggplant: And then there is the fact that Harry was judged by the FULL > Wizardmon, something that has not happened in many years, something I > do no believe a overdue library book would merit, something Author > Weasley was flabbergasted to discover. Kemper now: I can see where a FULL court could lead one to believe that Harry was in jeopardy of Azkaban. But my impression of the scene, is that Fudge is trying to get Harry expelled from attending Hogwarts, to shut him up from telling tales of Voldemort's return. This seems to be true as Umbridge attempts shutting him up as well. She was following Fudges example, to a vile degree, bleeding the boy with lines of 'I must not tell lies'. > eggplant: And in all that time there was > Percy, smugly taking notes. Yes, evil is a strong word, but I believe > Percy is evil. We will learn if I am right or wrong on July 21. Kemper now: Evil? Really? Cold evil like Voldemort? Or crazy evil like Bellatrix? Or questionable evil like Snape? Does anyone know of any online gaming odds yet? Because I'll bet my knuts that Percy isn't evil. > unattributed quote: > > you would think, that if the plan was to > > throw him into prison, they would have > > mentioned it during the Hearing. > > eggplant: Yes you would think so, that would be the logical thing, but consider, > in the American system of "justice" jurors are expected to pretend > they don't know what the ultimate penalty for murder is. It's only > after he is found guilty of murder are you supposed to start thinking > about whether he should live or die. It's all nonsense of course, > almost as stupid as Wizard law. > Kemper now: While you will have no fights with me about the death penalty, I don't think JKR is considering the American justice system. I don't think Wizard Law is stupid. It's the enforcers or interpreters of the Wizard Law that may be stupid. Much like the some enforcers or interpreters of American Laws. Kemper, thinking he may be aligned with eggplant's politics but not eggplant's Potter thoughts From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 06:32:37 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:32:37 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <700201d40703132303g52405d87u2b2701a78f1d4e41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166053 Kemper wrote: > I can see where a FULL court could > lead one to believe that Harry was > in jeopardy of Azkaban. But my > impression of the scene, is that > Fudge is trying to get Harry expelled > from attending Hogwarts, to shut him > up from telling tales of Voldemort's return. When Harry received his first protest letter from the ministry it said he was already expelled and wizards would be arriving soon to destroy his wand, and then they said this: "we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth of August." Clearly somebody at the ministry thought expulsion and a broken wand was not sufficient punishment. I have no doubt Umbridge would love to send Harry to Azkaban for life, Fudge too probably; and when the Dementors were dragging the boy who saved his sister's life away to suffer a hideous fate I have no doubt Percy would just smile at Fudge and say "very good minister". let me ask again a question that I received no answer to, would anyone bother to mount such a ferocious defense of Percy if he had a different last name? > Evil? Really? Yes, really. Eggplant From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Mar 14 10:05:39 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:05:39 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166054 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > When Harry received his first protest letter from the ministry it said > he was already expelled and wizards would be arriving soon to destroy > his wand, and then they said this: > > "we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a > disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth > of August." > > Clearly somebody at the ministry thought expulsion and a broken wand > was not sufficient punishment. I have no doubt Umbridge would love to > send Harry to Azkaban for life, Fudge too probably; and when the > Dementors were dragging the boy who saved his sister's life away to > suffer a hideous fate I have no doubt Percy would just smile at Fudge > and say "very good minister". Hickengruendler: There weren't any Dementors during the hearing. So they hardly could have dragged Harry away. I can't help but find your reading a very extreme one of the situation. Harry's fears might be understandable given his situation, but seeing that nobody even mentioned Azkaban, even though Fudge several times mentioned Harry's expulsion from Hogwarts, there is nothing in the books that confirms his fear. "Disciplinary hearing" also doesn't sound like Azkaban to me. > Eggplant: > let me ask again a question that I received no answer to, would anyone > bother to mount such a ferocious defense of Percy if he had a > different last name? > Hickengruendler: Yes, I would. Because even if his name wasn't Weasley, he would still be the guy, who ran into the lake after Ron, who fought the Death Eaters after the Quidditch Worldcup, etc. These are doubtless some positive character moments for Percy, and why should JKR have written them, if Percy is evil through and through? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 11:39:41 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:39:41 -0000 Subject: Pointless Azkaban quotes & Small points on Percy (Was Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: <700201d40703132303g52405d87u2b2701a78f1d4e41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166055 > > Eggplant (unless something like e. e. cummings in which > > case apologies;)) quoting from canon : > > "How was he supposed to refuse to surrender his wand without > > doing magic? He'd have to duel with the Ministry > > representatives, and if he did that, he'd be lucky to escape > > Azkaban, let alone expulsion." > > "Would the matter of where he went next be decided for him? > > Had his breach of the International Statute of Secrecy been > > severe enough to land him in a cell in Azkaban? Whenever > > this thought occurred, Harry invariably slid off his bed > > and began pacing again." -Kemper's comments and balance of post Goddlefrood Comments: The first of these quotes is a thought that runs through Harry's mind, nothing more, nothing less. Any possibility of following it through was negated by the fact that NO ONE from the Ministry arrived and the later arrival of the advance guard. It is, in any event, out of CONtext as Private Eye might say ;). A fuller look at the text will clarify what I mean. Eggplant's first quote is (in the edition I have) on page 31 OotP, A Peck of Owls. (All my quotes from Bloomsbury Hardback Edition). It follows on from this: 'Harry - Dumbledore's just arrived at the Ministry and he's trying to sort it all out. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR AUNT AND UNCLE'S HOUSE. DO NOT DO ANY MORE MAGIC. DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR WAND. Arthur Weasley Dumbledore was trying to sort it all out ... what did that mean? How much power did Dumbledore have to override the Ministry of Magic? Was there a chance that he might be allowed back to Hogwarts, then? A small shoot of hope burgeoned in Harry's chest, almost immediately strangled by panic -' At this point the first of the above quotes by Eggplant comes in. Quite different when you read it all. Something like a film review saying: "I hated this film it was the most pointless, dull, feckless one I have seen for a long time, not recommended." And then seeing on the marquee "This film ... Recommended" - Reviewer ;) Still, it was a good point though :) Regarding the second quote, here's what precedes it, this time from p. 45, Chapter The Advance Guard: 'What if they ruled against him? What if he *was* expelled and his wand was snapped in half? What would he do, where would he go? He could not return to living full-time with the Dursleys, not now he knew the other world, the one to which he really belonged. Might he be able to move into Sirius's house, as Sirius had suggested a year ago, before he had been forced to flee from the Ministry? Would Harry be allowed to live there alone, given that he was still underage? Or' And then the second portion of what Eggplant quoted. Even more out of context than the first quote IMO. What it shows is a typical thought process of a worried young man. JKR helps me here, back to p. 31 again: "His mind was racing ... he could run for it and risk being captured by the Ministry, or stay put and wait for them to find him here. He was much more tempted by the former course, but he knew Mr. Weasley had his best interests at heart ... and after all, Dumbledore had sorted out much worse than this before." Which, coincidentally follows Eggplant's first quote. Even if we took it to its logical conclusion it would not mean that he would actually end up in Azkaban. On that matter I agree with and commend what Kemper said in reply to Eggplant's post. > In a later post (166053) Eggplant said, in response to > Kemper: > Let me ask again a question that I received no answer to, > would anyone bother to mount such a ferocious defense of > Percy if he had a different last name? Goddlefrood: You'll see my view on this matter most clearly from the sign out to this post. I, for one do think that Percy would have a right to a defence, no matter what his background or what he had done. Anticipating the obvious comeback to this I have to mention that I am well aware of how WW law does not operate similarly to our own, either under a Common Law system or a Codified system, such as in France or Germany, particularly if someone of the ilk of Barty Crouch Snr. was supervising it. A quote from Voltaire in his *Essay on Tolerance* that is quite apposite is this: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Which has been paraphrased or morphed, if you like, into this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Which I would apply to Percy, even if he were a Malfoy, by further paraphrasing: "I disapprove of what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it." Goddlefrood, not trying to be pedantic, merely trying to place matters in their proper context and perspective. Still also believing that the Weasley referred will turn out to feel like a right Percy, but is not evil, just misguided. Here I'm thinking of his following orders blindly, particularly throughout a good part of GoF. BTW: I felt like a right percy for walking into my work singing, "You've got a breadstick on you." -=#:-) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 11:55:05 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:55:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore: Puppeteer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166056 > > > Betsy Hp: > > > And see, IMO, it makes *so* much more sense if > > > Dumbledore *didn't* mean for Harry to go after the > > > Stone. > > > > > Bart: > > - Quoting from the hallowed text ;): > > "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding > > quite delighted. > > "You >did< do the thing properly, didn't you?" > Betsy Hp: > I interpret those lines differently. Dumbledore is > pleased that Harry was thorough, but it doesn't necessarily > mean that he's pleased that Harry was *thorough in a task > Dumbledore set*. > Which is why I really hope this wasn't some grand plan on > Dumbledore's part. (Though yeah, the text is maddeningly > ambiguous.) Goddlefrood, with a brief analysis of matters in PS he prepared some time back , for his own amusement, without any intention of posting it in support of a theory devised regarding Dumbledore as ultimate puppeteer, it's in the archives, post entitled "A Bizarre Theory on a Grand Scale" for any interested, although I couldn't advise it: In Philosopher's Stone Harry and his crew are given the necessary information by Dumbledore [Mirror of Erised] or one of his close associates (Hagrid [Fluffy], Pomona Sprout [Devil's Snare] and Filius Flitwick [Wingardium Leviosa ? although not necessary as events in the labyrinth turned out]) to retrieve the Stone from LV's clutches and send him back to the furry animals for sustenance. Harry and his friends also confirm their innate abilities in overcoming the other three tasks, a fact that Dumbledore would rely on, he does not want to completely guide his charges without their learning something after all. Other threats to Harry throughout Philosopher's Stone are largely taken care of by Severus Snape ostensibly due to his life debt to James Potter. This behaviour is rather odd and would not repay the life debt, but I do not propose to go into it further here. It may be addressed in future when my other current theory that should be borne in mind ? that is that Snape is evil ? is put up. (Yes, I am aware I say I believe Snape to be good above, but the other possibilities cannot be altogether overlooked). A small interjection for clarification ? I believe Dumbledore is well aware of what has been happening with LV in whatever guise since the time Harry arrived at Hogwarts and probably well before. He did tell us that he had reports of LV being in Albania and he appears to know what LV is up to at every turn. This makes me suspect that we have not yet met all the spies and JKR has all but admitted this (about the multiplicity of spies) in interviews. His whole thing is to prepare Harry for what only he can do ? which is to neutralise LV with the tools LV himself has given to Harry. That's what I wrote only in respect of PS, there was more on the other five books, which I certainly will not get into here. Too much work for those who read this far :) This it may or may not help Bart and Betsy Hp, I put it up for the sake of posterity. Goddlefrood ~~~~~8} in the grass From robert_talamini at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 04:03:54 2007 From: robert_talamini at hotmail.com (bob) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:03:54 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "garybec" wrote: > > In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and > > Harry and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility > > cloak, why does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with > > his cross bow? Who was he expecting that he felt he needed > > to be armed? > > Karen > Becki responded: > I have always had many questions about our big friend, but I > always thought that he was armed because there was the "Monster > from the Chamber" loose on the school. Bob adds: Hagrid is also waiting for the Minister and DD to come to remove him from the grounds and take him to Azkaban where he does not want to go to again. From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Wed Mar 14 12:40:20 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:40:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004301c76635$edb12d60$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166058 --Eggplant Wrote-- >>>Yes you would think so, that would be the logical thing, but consider, in the American system of "justice" jurors are expected to pretend they don't know what the ultimate penalty for murder is. It's only after he is found guilty of murder are you supposed to start thinking about whether he should live or die. It's all nonsense of course, almost as stupid as Wizard law. <<< In American law there are various penalties for murder. Most commonly is life in prison, assuming that we are talking about murder of the 1st degree. (Murder with premeditation) The Death Penalty is only carried out in a few states and that depends upon those specific State's laws. In a case of this magnitude, there is first a trial to decide guilt or innocence. Then a trial to decide upon the sentence. After this series of trials, there can be appeals which can go on for years. It is in fact in very few instances that anyone is put to death. Even most serial killers end up dying of old age in prison or being murdered by other inmates, etc. In 2006 in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, there were over 365 murders in that city alone. How many of these murderers were sentenced to death? 0 That's right...NONE of them. Jeffrey Dahlmer killed something like 15 people before he was arrested and tried. He had brutally murdered people and cannibalized their remains. He was sentenced to several consecutive life terms in prison where he was killed by another inmate about 15 or 20 years into his first sentence. I am not saying that the death penalty is right or wrong and I think that the American Justice system is far from perfect (especially where current political figures are concerned), but it is not like a slaughterhouse where every criminal is automatically sentenced to death because that is VERY RARE. And the jury that decides a person's guilt or innocence may very well have NO IDEA what the sentence will be. It's just as corrupt and problematic as every other court system. The odd thing with Harry's case is that it was such an insignificant and misdemeanor event that it shouldn't have required a full court. It could've been tried in a mediation hearing. Nobody was hurt or killed and Fudge himself shrugged off Harry's blowing up his aunt two years prior. I'd like to know why Umbridge wasn't tried after she admitted to sending the dementors after Harry to begin with. I think that the full court worked to Harry's advantage though since honest and honorable voices like Amelia Bones were there to help keep things fair. At any rate, I don't think that Percy is working secretly for the Order. I think he's just a smarmy little prat who takes whichever side he thinks will advance him. In spite of what is right or wrong, he will do whatever it takes for gaining power. I think he will end up as a DE, if they'll even have him. From what I remember about Percy from the beginning, all he's ever cared about was being in a position of authority. He's like the hall monitor who wants to be a Principal or the security guard who wants to be a detective. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Mar 14 14:15:49 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:15:49 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <004301c76635$edb12d60$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166059 Ronin: > At any rate, I don't think that Percy is working secretly for the Order. I > think he's just a smarmy little prat who takes whichever side he thinks will > advance him. In spite of what is right or wrong, he will do whatever it > takes for gaining power. I think he will end up as a DE, if they'll even > have him. From what I remember about Percy from the beginning, all he's ever > cared about was being in a position of authority. He's like the hall monitor > who wants to be a Principal or the security guard who wants to be a > detective. Magpie: That's interesting, because to me that seems totally unlike Percy. He seems completely *unable* to do whatever it takes to earn power no matter whether it's right or wrong. He's a stickler for rules and regulations, including safety precautions. One problem he seems to have is that once an authority figure earns his respect he gives it too much respect. He is ambitious and seemingly very sensitive, and he's got a lot of ego bound up with his job. He seemed to want his job to give him respect, but instead it made him even more of a joke and got his brothers sending him dragon dung at work. When Crouch stopped coming into the office and communicated through notes he was, it seems, pleased to have the running of the department to himself, and he didn't do a bad job. If I worked at the Ministry I would suspect nothing out of order if Percy got promoted--he's very hard working, takes his job seriously, genuinely looks up to his superiors and is interested in doing a lot of jobs well that other people find boring. Yet when he is promoted his father acts like it's transparently to spy on him, as if Percy is the slacker, and years of anger from Percy at Arthur come out. (Ironically, Harry himself thinks that Percy could hardly have been said to do a good job during GoF because he failed to notice Crouch was possessed by Voldemort, but doesn't seem to think less of Dumbledore for not noticing Moody actually *was* DE!Crouch, when there's no reason Percy should have noticed. He's not a friend of Crouch's, and why would he question his boss' working from home, especially since as far as we know, Percy wasn't being asked to do anything out of line?) Anyway, Percy seems to have become a true Company Man, happy to believe that the Ministry is always doing the right thing. That includes being *against* Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Even when they were against Harry it was because he was supposedly a troublemaker--it wasn't a plot to help Voldemort, it was a short- sighted attempt to protect their own denial. So Percy, who iirc went off to fight the DEs at the QWC who were causing trouble, has never been pro-Voldemort. If someone has the same loyalty to the Ministry as he does and works hard, he takes them for being a good person with good intentions. I think he probably was convinced that his letter to Ron was a good, smart thing (though I think he does resent Harry a bit underneath and wants one of his siblings on his side, even if he might not admit it--of all the Weasleys it's Ron who always seems worried about being thought of as "like Percy" and it's usually not for bad reasons). I would question eggplant's original idea that this is a civil war. It's not, that I can see. If it were Percy hasn't sided against his family in it, since they are both against Voldemort. That seems like saying that if you've got a family that have opposing views on the current administration they are in a Civil War and should kill each other. Percy's type of attitude and loyalty to the Ministry may be helpful to Voldemort at times, but not intentionally so, and probably not always so. After all, Arthur works for the Ministry just as much as Percy does. Presumably at this point they're both spending their days in work that is trying to help protect people against Voldemort and DEs and ultimately bring him down. We know that the better way to do that seems to be personal loyalty to Dumbledore the man (which is a bit dodgy, after all) but people can have really wrong ideas about things like this. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 14 14:32:22 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:22 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and the Dementors (was Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: <004301c76635$edb12d60$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: > I'd like to know why Umbridge wasn't tried after > she admitted to sending the dementors after > Harry to begin with. Geoff: Because of who heard it. Consider the facts. Umbridge admits her involvement at the following point: ''What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him," said Umbridge... ..."He never knew I ordered Dementors to go after Potter last summer but he was delighted to be given the chance to expel him, all the same." "It was you?" gasped Harry. "You sent the Dementors after me?" "Somebody had to act." breathed Umbridge as her wand came to rest pointing directly at Harry's forehead. "They were all bleating about silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the only one who actually did something about it..."' (OOTP "Out of the Fire" p.658 UK edition) Who is present to hear this admission? Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Luna, Neville and a number of Slytherins, members of the Inquisitorial Squad. I doubt that the Slytherins would feel any great urge to report Umbridge for what she had said since she had created a power base for them. What if the Gryffindors tried? Look back at what Dumbledore said on a previous occasion: 'But Dumbledore held up his hand to stem the flood of explanations. "It is your turn to listen and I beg you will not interrupt me, because there is very little time," he said quietly. "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."' (COS "Hermione's Secret", p.287 UK edition) Substitute 'fifteen-year-old' and add in that Umbridge is certainly not going to admit this to an adult. Fudge is not going to give Potter supporters the time of day and, sadly, she walks away without any comeback. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Mar 14 13:33:45 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:33:45 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: >. My adding the comment about JKR saying she hadn't seen anything that came close was not so much to go into a discussion about it being a children's book, but I added it because for me the solution to any riddle can be found in the simplest of answers, not in the most difficult. I missed the point by a couple of miles, I guess. And I have only myself to blame by going into a debate about the details and then presenting the actual logic for why these theories do not work for me. The Snape theories out there are about the most difficult answer one can possibly think of. It calls for disregarding everything we've been told, it calls for a lying and puppetmaster DD, a stupid Harry and a plot so difficult to understand it makes you even wonder if JKR is able to keep track of it. It is not logical, not by any means. JKR has laid out her cards in these 6 books, everything you need to understand the end of the story is there. Snape is not her lead character and thus she will not make HIM the most important in the last book, even if he does add to the bang of the resolution. He directed the story in book 6 and that is as far as he will go as being in the lead. He is not needed to solve Harry's quest, even if he does something that will help Harry move forward. Just because people have chosen to make Snape their most important character in the books does not mean JKR will do the same. Actually she will not because Harry is the most important in JKR's world. And maybe Harry has grown so much that even though he has been wrong in the past, he is now the only one who is right. He has to overcome his hate but he does not have to do that by being proven wrong one more time. He just needs to understand that hatred is a toxic emotion and that not even Snape is worth poisoning the heart for. Harry still might not have the best ability to reason but the kid has great instincts to understand things, actually it is even better than thinking with the mind because it'll take you too long and you will be dead by the time you think of an answer. Most of you think it would be conning if Sirius would come back. While she indeed wrote his death very ambiguous, not explaining the Veil at all. But to you it would not be conning to have DD order Snape to kill him or to fake the murder because DD died just a millisecond (because a second he did not have) before Snape killed him? To me it would be because, like Harry, I had great trouble understanding falling through the Veil means you die and, like Harry, I saw Snape kill DD. The question is not did he kill DD but why did he let it come to that? The simple answer because he *thought* he could control the situation and he could not and as a result he chose his own life over that of DD and betrayed the man who put so much faith in him. He made a choice for what was easy instead of what was right and if he never intended it to go this far, then he paid with the ultimate price; -a split soul and a dead friend. Harry not wanting to talk about Sirius' death is not because he came to terms with it but because talking about it makes it final. We see him talk about DD's death because seeing DD's body made it final. That makes the big difference to me. I tried to take in all the information about Sirius' death to actually believe he died, but I failed miserably (call it denial, but believe me I have tried to come to terms with it and accept it as fact) and I used all the information to see if there would be any logic to Snape fans' claims, that it was all a grand conspiracy, so Snape can be presumed a DDM and again be lifted from all responsibilities for his actions, and I failed to see that too. Because to me she would be conning Harry if it would turn out DD made Harry believe Snape murdered him or make the boy believe he can't trust his own eyes by faking it, but I do not find it conning if Harry finds out Sirius is stuck alive behind the Veil and Harry could help him get back (or whatever, I am not married to the theory that he needs to come back; yes, I do, I do, I do Okay regained some control here... moving on). I would find it conning if Harry finds out he never went through the Veil and made Harry believe he had fallen through it or that Lupin caused him to fall through or no, better yet, have DD do this as well. I snipped the rest of your post to prevent me from writing too long a post and cause those fantastic house-elves the anxiety of having to spend their precious time making sense of it all. Dana From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Wed Mar 14 14:28:05 2007 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:28:05 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166062 > Eggplant: > Let me ask again a question that I received no answer to, would anyone bother to mount > such a ferocious defense of Percy if he had a different last name? > Hickengruendler: > Yes, I would. Because even if his name wasn't Weasley, he would still be the guy, who > ran into the lake after Ron, who fought the Death Eaters after the Quidditch Worldcup, > etc. These are doubtless some positive character moments for Percy, and why should > JKR have written them, if Percy is evil through and through? Carla: I can't completely address the Percy issue. I'm torn on that one. Frankly, I don't think we know enough yet to make a call. I think authority impresses him and since his Father doesn't have that much authority within the Ministry, he chooses to align with those who do. I would like to see Percy come back to his family, but I think it will happen because of a great tragedy that opens his eyes. As for the Azkaban question. Yes, I believe that sending Harry to Azkaban was a very real threat. Here is why. The very people trying to silence Harry by sending Dementors after him in the first place are the very ones holding the trial. Umbridge sent the Dementors and since she works for Fudge, it may have been on his orders. If Umbridge would submit a child to the torture of a Dementor's Kiss, do you think for a minute she would hesitate to push for his imprisonment in Azkaban? Silencing Harry was the whole objective. Not to mention, we may not have seen Dementors at the hearing, but that doesn't mean they weren't waiting in the wings somewhere. Carla From Vexingconfection at aol.com Wed Mar 14 14:32:40 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:40 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166063 I believe Percy's adherence to rules and unwillingness to bend will cause him to become a victim of the Death Eaters. Not sure if Molly will die, but Percy will. He's not a coward at all. In GOF he fought the DE's with his brothers and father. This was actually one of my favorite parts of GOF. Father and sons fighting to protect their family and own. Coming from a military family and now being a retired soldier- it was something very romantic about the notion of men fighting together for the protection of their family. vexingconfection From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 14:50:53 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:50:53 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <004301c76635$edb12d60$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: >The odd thing with Harry's case is that it was such an insignificant and misdemeanor >event that it shouldn't have required a full court. It could've been tried in a mediation >hearing. Nobody was hurt or killed and Fudge himself shrugged off Harry's blowing up > his aunt two years prior. I'd like to know why Umbridge wasn't tried after she admitted >to sending the dementors after Harry to begin with. I think that the full court worked to >Harry's advantage though since honest and honorable voices like Amelia Bones were >there to help keep things fair. Well, I believe that Arthur himself expressed surprise and dismay that Harry faced the full court. He seemed to expect, even given the evident unfairness of the charge, that Harry would be dealing with some kind of magistrate's hearing. I think we are meant to see this as an example of Fudge vastly over-reaching. Certainly Arthur found even the magistrate's hearing he was evidently expecting greatly excessive. Given the example of Harry's aunt, I guess we could infer that the usual way the Ministry would handle minor matters like this (i.e. where no real harm is done) would be to have an officer look into the situation and then pass it on if need be, with most cases ending in the officer either dismissing the matter or at worst delivering a scolding. The real key to the corruption here is that there is not separation of power and functions. Fudge, the executive, is evidently in charge of the judiciary, at least in the case of Harry's trial. He also brings the charges, thus creating a situation where the chief judge is also the prosecutor. The courts in the WW seem to function as an appendage to the Ministry bureaucracy. Which explains why Umbridge wasn't charged. As JKR says, "she has contacts at the Ministry." No bureaucracy investigates or polices itself effectively, if they manage to do it at all. In other words, the best way to think of Wizarding Britain is as a reasonably well-functioning banana republic set alongside Modern Britain. Which gets us into problems of why half-bloods and muggleborns put up with such things, but that is a continuing problem that strains credulity throughout the series. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 14 15:03:24 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:03:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166065 Zgirnius: > I have been following the discussion with some interest. Why would > the potion in the Cave killing Dumbledore not be a Good Snape > scenario you could live with? Surely it would have nothing to do with > Snape? > > Or is it the involvement of Harry that you would then find > unaccaptable? He did not know what the potion did, for sure. He > believed Dumbledore. Dumbledore himself did not know (he says, and I > believe him, except when I am admiring Pippin's cool idea that Snape > made the potion.) Pippin: Huh? Where does Dumbledore say he didn't know what the potion would do? He frowns slightly at the emerald liquid "evidently thinking hard." Then he says, "Undoubtedly[...]this potion must act in a way that will prevent me from taking the horcrux. It might paralyze me, cause me to forget what I am here fore, create so much pain I am distracted, or render me incapable in some other way." It might be that he's only guessing, but is he? The potion did appear to do just those things, although not in the order Dumbledore mentions them. > Sherry: > > It is the involvement of Harry. Because he would feel it was his fault > Dumbledore died, and I don't think he could live with that or ever come to > terms with it. The guilt would haunt him to the end of his life. He's 17, > he doesn't need a burden like that. Besides, he's the hero. He's an > innocent boy, stuck with a miserable destiny to kill an evil being, > something he didn't sign up for. I think he has enough burdens to bear. I > don't think Harry should be one who kills, even accidentally. Pippin: Friends die, sometimes friends that might not have died if we'd done things differently. I don't know of any way to avoid that except not having friends at all. Harry's already decided that he can't go to pieces when his friends die. I don't know where he's going to find the strength once he realizes that pushing his guilt onto Snape isn't going to work, but I think JKR does. (Assuming DDM!Snape, that is.) Harry saw that Dumbledore had to accept that he was helpless to save his friends Nicholas and Perenelle. He knows that Dumbledore did not blame anyone for that, even though if it weren't for Harry, the Stone might have remained hidden in the Mirror. But if giving up on the Flamels was murder, then Dumbledore was a murderer twice over. Pippin From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 15:08:03 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:08:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40703132303g52405d87u2b2701a78f1d4e41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40703140808o3390224fk5300c685096441f9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166066 > eggplant: > When Harry received his first protest letter from the ministry it said > he was already expelled and wizards would be arriving soon to destroy > his wand, and then they said this: > > "we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a > disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth > of August." > Kemper now: A diciplinary hearing is different than a judicial hearing. (I could be wrong. What do the British call judicial hearings?) To me, it sounds like Harry might have to pay a fine... maybe do some community service. It doesn't sound like Harry will spend a second in Azkaban. > > eggplant: ... and when the > Dementors were dragging the boy who saved his sister's life away to > suffer a hideous fate I have no doubt Percy would just smile at Fudge > and say "very good minister". Kemper now: That scene didn't happen. If it had, I think Percy would second guess his choice of political alliance. > eggplant: > let me ask again a question that I received no answer to, would anyone > bother to mount such a ferocious defense of Percy if he had a > different last name? > > > kemper earlier: Evil? ... Evil like Voldemort? > > eggplant: Yes.... Kemper now: Your read of Voldemort is someone who would rush into the lake concerned about his brother (if he had one)? From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Mar 14 15:47:21 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:47:21 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166069 Given the way Percy has turned out, it seems strange that Rowling had him be the most enthusiastic supporter of Dumbledore that Harry encountered on his first night at Hogwarts. "Mad?" said Percy airily. "He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes. Potatoes, Harry?" Surely it is significant. Rowling could just as easily have put those words in the mouth of either Fred or George. houyhnhnm (edited to get rid of all those poor pitiful orphans. Grrrrr! Well, what can you expect from a Yahoo?) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 16:17:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:17:03 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <700201d40703132303g52405d87u2b2701a78f1d4e41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166070 Eggplant wrote: Oh I think I can find a thing or two to suggest Harry was on the razor's edge of being sent to Azkaban. > > > > "How was he supposed to refuse to surrender his wand without doing magic? He'd have to duel with the Ministry representatives, and if he > did that, he'd be lucky to escape Azkaban, let alone expulsion." > > > > Or perhaps you'd like this quote: > > > > "Would the matter of where he went next be decided for him? Had his breach of the International Statute of Secrecy been severe enough to land him in a cell in Azkaban? Whenever this thought occurred, Harry invariably slid off his bed and began pacing again." > > Kemper now: > That is a great quote of Harry's barely 15-year-old perspective. At this point in time he is only personally aware of Sirius and Hagrid stint in Azkaban. Carol responds: Exactly. Harry has no clear idea of what he's really facing (although Mafalda Hopkirk's note mentioned expulsion and having his wand broken, which ought to indicate the full extent of the contemplated penalties). Azkaban comes into Harry's distorted mental picture when he thinks of fighting the Aurors and stays there, but it's an exaggerated fear. It's exactly like the time when he disobeyed Madam Hooch and went after Draco Malfoy (except that this time he's not going to be rewarded for his rule-breaking). McGonagall comes after him, looking fierce. He's been threatened with expulsion if he gets on his broom. McGonagall asks Flitwick for Wood and Harry wonders if Wood is a cane that she's going to beat him with. And in PoA, he also fears that he'll be sent to Azkaban: "He had broken the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Magic so badly, he was surprised Ministry of Magic representatives weren't swooping down on him where he sat" (PoA Am. ed. 31). Instead, of course, Fudge meets him in person to be sure he's all right and gets him a room at the Leaky Cauldron. Circumstances have changed--Harry is no longer, in the view of the Ministry, an innocent boy in danger of being murdered by a Voldemort supporter. He's now, in their view, a deluded liar who has broken two laws. (Only Umbridge knows about the Dementors at this point.) There is, however, no question of Azkaban, which is not mentioned at either the hearing itself or in the notes to Harry in "A Peck of Owls.") As for Percy, he, like Fudge, is under the delusion that Dumbledore is trying to take over the Ministry, using Harry's "lies" as part of his plan. But "deluded" and "evil" are not synonymous. eggplant: And then there is the fact that Harry was judged by the FULL Wizardmon, something that has not happened in many years, something I > do no believe a overdue library book would merit, something Author Weasley was flabbergasted to discover. > > Kemper now: > I can see where a FULL court could lead one to believe that Harry was in jeopardy of Azkaban. But my impression of the scene, is that Fudge is trying to get Harry expelled from attending Hogwarts, to shut him up from telling tales of Voldemort's return. Carol responds: Yes, that's my impression as well. He's tried before the entire Wizengamot, but Fudge is not in charge of sentencing, Madam Bones is. And Madam Bones, as Tonks states earlier, is strict but fair. Once she understands that real Dementors are involved, there's no chance for Harry's conviction. The law still allows minors to perform magic in front of Muggles in self-defense. The charges are dropped because the law itself still provides an escape clause. As for Azkaban, that idea exists only in Harry's mind. Fudge doesn't mention it, and it's unlikely to have occurred to Percy, who would have been happy to see Harry expelled and wandless, but only because he doesn't believe that Voldemort is really back. A wandless Harry facing Voldemort is another matter altogether. Lucius Malfoy would enjoy it, but I doubt that Percy would. Carol, who thinks that Fudge has learned his lesson and that Percy will do so as well From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 17:03:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:03:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166071 Carol earlier: > > > > I think we agree that Harry's life is essential to the defeat of Voldemort. *If* Snape saw the two brooms and correctly deduced that Harry was on the tower in his Invisibility Cloak, and *if* he knew from an exchanged glance with Dumbledore that killing Dumbledore himself (rather than letting the DEs do it) was the *only* way to get Harry (and Draco) safely off the tower (and the DEs out of Hogwarts), how could Snape's action not be the right thing to do? > Dana responded: > *If* Snape was thinking of Draco and DD when he ran from his office to the tower, if he indeed did not know Harry was there, then he should have allowed members of the Order to follow him. But he did not, he made sure that no one could offer any assistance and thus making a decision based on his previous actions, taking out Flitwich and asking Hermione and Luna to take care of him and not allowing anyone to follow him, he specifically *choose* to endanger Draco, Harry and DD. This does not make his decision to take out DD, to rescue them, more noble because he had options *before* he reached the tower. > Carol again: Forgive me, but you're deliberately avoiding the question. His reasons for not "allowing" Order members to follow him are irrelevant as they could not have gone through the barrier. (Lupin tried, remember?) Moreover, Snape could not possibly have anticipated the circumstances on the tower--a weakened, wandless Dumbledore whom he could not try to save without being killed by the vow or the Death Eaters and Harry hiding beneath the Invisibility Cloak. We don't know what Snape intended, or hoped, to do when he got to the tower because what he expected to find and what he actually found are different. Also, and this is the key point, I am not considering Snape's motives here. I am posing a moral dilemma that only DDM!Snape would face, assuming that he figured out from the brooms that Harry was under the Invisibility Cloak. (ESE!Snape would have let Harry rush out from the Invisibility!Cloak to be killed by the Death Eaters--or killed him himself, or taken him to Voldemort. OFH!Snape would probably have let the DEs kill him, thinking that with Dumbledore dead, Voldemort had won.) But DDM!Snape faces a moral dilemma. He not only has a duty and a moral obligation to protect Draco, which he cannot fulfill if he's killed by the vow (or the DEs), he has an obligation to protect Harry. If Harry dies, the WW is lost. And if Snape dies, there will be no one to get the Death Eaters off the tower (a feat that Snape accomplishes by sending DD's body over the ramparts and giving them no reason to stay). If someone other than Snape kills Dumbledore, Harry will rush out and be killed or captured. Snape, assuming that he isn't killed by the vow for failing to "do the deed," can't protect Harry because he'll be revealed as an enemy of the Death Eaters and killed by them, leaving the boys with no protection. His only options are to kill the dying Dumbledore himself, which enables him to save the boys, or die and take the boys with him (or allow the DEs to capture them, which amounts to the same thing. Now I realize that there may be holes in this scenario, but suppose, for the sake of the moral dilemma I'm presenting, that there aren't. Suppose that this is really the position in which DDM!Snape finds himself. That being the case, should he choose to murder the one man who has trusted him because there is no other way to save the boys, or should he choose to die "nobly" and "heroically" (actually futilely), leaving the boys to the nonexistent mercies of the Death Eaters? If Draco dies, Snape has failed in his duty, failed as a friend and protector. If Harry dies, the WW has no one to protect it from Voldemort. (DDM!Snape knows the first half of the Prophecy. He knows that Harry is the Chosen One. And he's been protecting Harry all this time. Why stop now?) I understand that Sherry can't get her head around this proposition because to her, murder is never justified. But I can't get my head around the opposite, that it would be right for Snape to let Harry (or Draco) die. That, I'm sure, is why Dumbledore is pleading--not for his life, or for Snape's, but for the boys and especially for Harry. He's saying, IMO, that unless Snape kills him and fulfills the vow, there will be no one to protect them and they will die. So Snape, furiously and against his will, commits murder to save a boy he hates so that boy can save the WW. It's an act not of cowardice but of courage. But nobility aside, *if* Snape knew that Harry was there and was acting to save him as well as Draco, surely that was the right choice. Carol earlier: > > Wouldn't *saving Harry's life* justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable? > > > Dana: > No, because Harry's presence was unknown to the DEs and therefore his life was not in immediate danger because only if DD died, was Harry free to move, not before. He could have re-armed DD, who I am sure even in a weakened state could take them on with ease, especially with Snape's help (were it not for that pesky UV). Carol again: Yes--"were it not for that peksy UV," which makes rearming DD not an option. If Snape does any such thing, he will die. So kindly look at the circumstances as they are. The only reason that Harry's presence remains unknown to the DEs is that Snape gets them off the tower before Harry unfreezes, in time for Harry to hit one of them in the back, but not in time for him to fight them. And Draco is also in grave danger. Even if the DEs haven't been ordered to kill him if he fails, Voldemort has promised to do so, and only Snape has a chance of talking him out of it. (Snape does, at least, get Draco safely off the grounds, the necessary first step to saving his life.) So, for the purposes of this post, the question is, which is the right choice, to commit murder and save Harry, keeping hope alive for the WW, or to keep his soul intact and die along with Dumbledore and the boys? I cannot for the life of me see letting Harry and Draco (especially Harry) die as the right choice, nor do I think that Dumbledore would see it that way. BTW, not all DDM!Snape theories require a manipulative Dumbledore, and I am not positing a manipulative Dumbledore here, only a Dumbledore who knows that Snape and only Snape must kill him because only Snape can save the boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. Carol, still posing her ethical dilemma and not interested *for the purposes of this post* in what might have been if Snape hadn't taken the UV or in anything that happened before he discovered the situation on the tower From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Mar 14 17:24:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy Message-ID: <2597368.1173893094397.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166072 From: eggplant107 >And then there is the fact that Harry was judged by the FULL >Wizardmon, something that has not happened in many years, something I >do no believe a overdue library book would merit, something Author >Weasley was flabbergasted to discover. And in all that time there was >Percy, smugly taking notes. Yes, evil is a strong word, but I believe >Percy is evil. We will learn if I am right or wrong on July 21. Bart: Evil, or so enamoured by the rules that he cannot tell the difference, so he sees following the rules to the letter to be good, and any violation to be evil. Of course, few evil people think of themselves as that way. In the Green Lantern comics of the 90's, the creators did an interesting turn on that. Green Lanterns (a sort of interstellar ranger) had two major qualifications: That they are "born without fear" and that they are honest. Part of reasoning behind these requirements was that it was thought that they would be incorruptible, because they chose the path of honesty without fear as a motivation. So, when it was decided to create an origin for the one renegade Green Lantern, it was decided that his reason for turning evil was an overdevotion to duty; stopping evil in his sector by becoming the absolute dictator. >Yes you would think so, that would be the logical thing, but consider, >in the American system of "justice" jurors are expected to pretend >they don't know what the ultimate penalty for murder is. It's only >after he is found guilty of murder are you supposed to start thinking >about whether he should live or die. It's all nonsense of course, >almost as stupid as Wizard law. Bart: First of all, it's not "the American system of justice". Some states have it, some states don't. And it did make sense at one point. The idea was that juries decided matters of fact, not matters of law. The jury decided if the accused was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not. Since the penalty phase had not yet occurred, the jury could not decide whether the accused was guilty based on the penalty. However, in recent years, there has been a lot less leeway with penalties, which means that, in at least one well-publicized case, jurors might be trying to slap the defendant on the wrist, and end up sending him to jail for a deacde or more. Still, the idea of Azkaban is really terrible; that people could be sent there on suspicion, with no trial (Hagrid, COS), when it could easily be a death sentence. Bart From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Mar 14 17:36:32 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:36:32 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166073 > > Carla: > As for the Azkaban question. Yes, I believe that sending Harry to Azkaban was a very real threat. Here is why. The very people trying to silence Harry by sending Dementors after him in the first place are the very ones holding the trial. Umbridge sent the Dementors and since she works for Fudge, it may have been on his orders. Hickengruendler: No, it wasn't. Umbridge did this on her own. She said so in the chapter "Out of the Fire", in response to Hermione telling her, that Fudge wouldn't like if Umbridge Crucioed Harry. The answer was: "What Cornelius doesn't know, won't hurt him". And then she admitted, that she sent the Dementors and that Fudge didn't know about this, either. Sadly I haven't the book with me to tell you the page, but it definitely is in the book. Fudge did not know about Umbridge sending the Dementors, and therefore Percy to 99% didn't know either. From Vexingconfection at aol.com Wed Mar 14 16:33:47 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:33:47 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166074 "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Given the way Percy has turned out, it seems > strange that Rowling had him be the most enthusiastic > supporter of Dumbledore that Harry encountered on his > first night at Hogwarts. > > "Mad?" said Percy airily. "He's a genius! Best wizard > in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes. Potatoes, Harry?" > > Surely it is significant. Rowling could just as > easily have put those words in the mouth of either Fred or George. I don't think anyone is pure evil in the book but Lord Voldemort and Greyback. Even Draco shows he is at times confused but not totally evil. Umbridge is just plain mad, as is Crouch, Jr. How much we can put into this is unknown right now-Hitler was a very gracious and appreciative in-law. I like what you said about Percy. He did admire Dumbledore and accepted his madness. Dumbledore's madness was not as nefarious as in other characters. Do you think it's possible that JKR is distancing her readers emotionally from his character so we don't mourn his loss? vexingconfection From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Wed Mar 14 16:11:16 2007 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:11:16 -0000 Subject: Harry in Azkaban (was Percy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166075 > eggplant: > When Harry received his first protest letter from the ministry it said he was already > expelled and wizards would be arriving soon to destroy his wand, and then they said > this: > > "we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at the > Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth of August." Kemper: A disciplinary hearing is different than a judicial hearing. (I could be wrong. What do the British call judicial hearings?) To me, it sounds like Harry might have to pay a fine... maybe do some community service. It doesn't sound like Harry will spend a second in Azkaban. Carla: I found these posts orginally in the Percy thread, but thought it was an interesting topic. Some people felt that Harry was at no risk at being sent to Azkaban. I tend to disagree and want to repeat the message I posted in an appropriately titled thread. As for the Azkaban question. Yes, I believe that sending Harry to Azkaban was a very real threat. Here is why. The very people trying to silence Harry by sending Dementors after him in the first place are the very ones holding the trial. Umbridge sent the Dementors and since she works for Fudge, it may have been on his orders. If Umbridge would submit a child to the torture of a Dementor's Kiss, do you think for a minute she would hesitate to push for his imprisonment in Azkaban? Silencing Harry was the whole objective. From Vexingconfection at aol.com Wed Mar 14 16:45:33 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:45:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Dumbledore also trusts another powerful wizard who demonstrates > pettiness, childishness, and immaturity: Sirius Black > That aside, let's look at the people Dumbledore trusts (perhaps not > as completely as he trusts Snape). We can start with Harry, whom he > loves and admires and from whom he withholds information only > because Harry is too young, not yet ready, or because the link with > Voldemort is too strong (in OoP). And DD sldo trusts Ron and > Hermione, to whom he allows Harry to confide the Prophecy and the > existence of the Horcruxes. He trusts Hagrid with his life (but > perhaps not with his secrets). He trusts the members of the Order > with the knowledge that Voldemort is back before that becomes > common knowledge and with helping him in the fight against LV. > He doesn't trust Trelawney enough to make her an Order member > apparently, but he keeps her at Hogwarts, even allowing her to > share classes with Firenze, because it's the only way to protect > her. > But Dumbledore never trusted Tom Riddle, even as an eleven-year-old > boy. So where and when has Dumbledore been wrong as a judge of > character? I don't see it. Absolutely brilliant! Well thought out and particularly insightful. I think JKR is very keen in regard to human nature. Just being immature does not mean a person is untrustworthy. What I would be interested in knowing is how can Dumbledore, who is so intelligent that he surprises himself, always be so trusting? You mentioned Tom Riddle-DD gave him a chance. Why? Trelawny has made several actual forecasts, yet he does not trust her. Why? And, just because, I want you to explain something else to me: why did every prediction made by Ron and Harry in GOF come true? Is it a testament to friendship or something that will be used in this coming book or just something thrown in to make it interesting? Thanks for your patience. Vexingconfection From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 18:24:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:24:40 -0000 Subject: DD death and Harry WAS: Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166077 > > Sherry: > > > > It is the involvement of Harry. Because he would feel it was his fault > > Dumbledore died, and I don't think he could live with that or ever come to > > terms with it. I > > don't think Harry should be one who kills, even accidentally. > > > Pippin: > Friends die, sometimes friends that might not have died if we'd > done things differently. I don't know of any way to avoid that except > not having friends at all. > > > Harry's already decided that he can't go to pieces when his friends die. > I don't know where he's going to find the strength once he realizes that > pushing his guilt onto Snape isn't going to work, but I think JKR does. > (Assuming DDM!Snape, that is.) > Alla: I am not Sherry, but I do not think that Sherry was saying that she would not accept that Harry has to accept that his friends die. I believe she was saying that she would not accept Harry being complicit in Dumbledore's murder. That is not to say that JKR would not do it obviously, I mean maybe she indeed likes Snape so much that she would decide to make him completely innocent of DD's murder and Harry a guilty one (I mean, it is still would be following DD's orders, but nothing to escape of - Harry is the one who fed DD that drink) I think it would be more than not saving Flammels, far more personally. Is it possible? Sure, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that it is not what happened. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Mar 14 18:27:03 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:27:03 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166078 vexingconfection: > Do you think it's possible that JKR is distancing > her readers emotionally from his character so we > don't mourn his loss? houyhnhnm: I don't think Rowling would do that. Judging from her interviews (I'm too lazy at the moment to hunt down the exact quotes) I believe she would consider it dishonest, immoral even, to soften the impact of a death by making us indifferent to the victim. After all, she has already killed off two beloved characters. I think Percy serves two purposes. One is that he mirrors Sirius Black as someone who goes in a different direction from the rest of his family. I like Bart's analysis of Percy as someone who is so enamoured of the rules that he cannot make good moral judgements. This is another way of going wrong. Rowling gives us, in Crouch, Sr. and Umbridge, a couple of examples of adults who do wrong and advance the cause of evil even though they are not on the dark side. Percy is a youthful character whom we get to see in the developmental stages of becoming an Umbridge. That is his second function. From Vexingconfection at aol.com Wed Mar 14 16:51:16 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166079 Trelawney always thought that Dumbledore hired her because he saw the difference between her and Snape,who was listening from behind a door. After that Dumbledore brought them both to Hogwarts. Why? To keep an eye on them or because they were actually skilled? Hogwarts is supposed to be the best school-but the teachers seem questionable. Is the reason Snape didn't get DADA really a trust issue? vexingconfection From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 19:00:41 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:00:41 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166080 Goddlefrood: > 'Harry - Dumbledore's just arrived at the Ministry and he's trying to sort it all out. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR AUNT AND UNCLE'S HOUSE. DO NOT DO ANY MORE MAGIC. DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR WAND. Arthur Weasley eggplant: > And then there is the fact that Harry was judged by the FULL Wizardmon, something that has not happened in many years, something I do no believe a overdue library book would merit, something Author Weasley was flabbergasted to discover. Kemper: > I can see where a FULL court could lead one to believe that Harry was in jeopardy of Azkaban. But my impression of the scene, is that Fudge is trying to get Harry expelled from attending Hogwarts, to shut him up from telling tales of Voldemort's return. Carol: > Yes, that's my impression as well. He's tried before the entire Wizengamot, but Fudge is not in charge of sentencing, Madam Bones is. And Madam Bones, as Tonks states earlier, is strict but fair. Once she understands that real Dementors are involved, there's no chance for Harry's conviction. The law still allows minors to perform magic in front of Muggles in self-defense. The charges are dropped because the law itself still provides an escape clause. Ceridwen: So, Arthur Weasley tells Harry, after he receives his letters from the Ministry, not to leave Privet Drive, and not to surrender his wand, because Dumbledore is trying to sort it all out. When Harry comes to the Ministry, he is interviewed by the entire Wizengamot, not a three-judge panel, and not a Ministry panel. He is not silenced, because Amelia Bones wishes to hear evidence. Mrs Figg's testimony is allowed. Harry is exhonorated by the fact that he and Dudley, the Muggle witness to Harry's magic, were indeed under attack by Dementors. Harry is free to return to Hogwarts, his wand is not broken, he is not even censured or ordered to do community service because he hasn't done anything wrong. So, did Dumbledore fail to sort things out because there was a full hearing of the Wizengamot? Or was he successful? It worked out well, and Madam Bones being "strict but fair" was a large part of that. Since it's the Wizengamot, Fudge is not in charge. It seems to me that a full court was the best and fairest thing for Harry. Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:08:08 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:08:08 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166081 > Magpie: > Yet when he is promoted his father acts like it's transparently to > spy on him, as if Percy is the slacker, and years of anger from > Percy at Arthur come out. a_svirn: I think that it was Ron's and the twins' interpretation of theevents, and they are not what you'd call impartial when it comes to Percy. I must say, it doesn't quite make sense to me. Suppose Fudge promoted him so that he would spy on his family. First of all, it would have been smarter for him to dangle the promotion as a payment for Percy's services at first -- this way he could motivate Percy without arousing Arthur's suspicions. (Now ? if Ron's to be believed ? it seems Percy got his promotion for free.) Second, if his family trusted him they could have used *him* to spy on *Fudge*. If they didn't they could have used him to mislead Fudge about their plans and activities. Either way there was no reason for the shouting match and subsequent estrangement. In all likelihood, it was the other way round ? Arthur wanted Percy to become another Dumbledore's man in the ministry, and Percy ? being a loyal civil servant ? refused. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:11:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:11:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166082 Carol earlier: > > Dumbledore also trusts another powerful wizard who demonstrates pettiness, childishness, and immaturity: Sirius Black > > That aside, let's look at the people Dumbledore trusts (perhaps not as completely as he trusts Snape). We can start with Harry, whom he loves and admires and from whom he withholds information only because Harry is too young, not yet ready, or because the link with Voldemort is too strong (in OoP). And DD also trusts Ron and Hermione, to whom he allows Harry to confide the Prophecy and the existence of the Horcruxes. He trusts Hagrid with his life (but perhaps not with his secrets). He trusts the members of the Order with the knowledge that Voldemort is back before that becomes common knowledge and with helping him in the fight against LV. > > > He doesn't trust Trelawney enough to make her an Order member apparently, but he keeps her at Hogwarts, even allowing her to share classes with Firenze, because it's the only way to protect her. > > > But Dumbledore never trusted Tom Riddle, even as an eleven-year-old boy. So where and when has Dumbledore been wrong as a judge of character? I don't see it. > > Vexingconfection responded: > > Absolutely brilliant! Well thought out and particularly insightful. Carol again: Thank you very much. Not everyone agrees with us, but I appreciate the compliment. And with regard to Sirius Black, I'm talking, of course, about post-PoA. Dumbledore did, of course, believe that Black was the Secret Keeper who betrayed the Potters and guilty of multiple murders, but perhaps that's one of the mistakes he regrets. As for believing him to be in danger from both the Ministry and the Death Eaters if he rashly leaves the house in OoP, he's absolutely right. (I wonder why Black didn't choose to go back to the tropical paradise he was hiding in before rather than staying at 12 GP with only Kreacher and Buckbeak for company.) > Vexingconfection: > I think JKR is very keen in regard to human nature. Just being immature does not mean a person is untrustworthy. What I would be interested in knowing is how can Dumbledore, who is so intelligent that he surprises himself, always be so trusting? Carol: As his mistrust of Tom Riddle indicates, he isn't *always* so trusting. I think that he trusts people who have shown that they deserve his trust--not quite the same thing as granting second chances, which provide the *opportunity* to earn the trust. I don't see him offering a second chance to Lucius Malfoy, for example. Vexingconfection: > You mentioned Tom Riddle-DD gave him a chance. Why? Carol: Probably because he was eleven years old and not a hardened criminal yet. But he never showed remorse or regret for his actions, unlike snape, so he didn't get a second chance. Vexingconfection: Trelawny has made several actual forecasts, yet he does not trust her. Why? > Carol: That's a good question. Note that I said he "apparently" doesn't trust her enough to make her a member of the Order, and certainly he hasn't told her about her role in the Prophecy. Evidently, he thinks she'd be in even more danger if she knew. Possibly, not telling her is another of Dumbledore's mistakes. But I think he thinks that she's unstable and flighty, and he's certainly afraid of what Voldemort would do to her if she fell into his hands, so he's protecting her, letting her teach even though he has no respect for her subject (it's not required, but some students will want to take it to prepare for their OWLs and NEWTs). But to make her a member of the Order would place her in danger, and I can't see her infiltrating a group or being a spy. At any rate, her two real Prophecies are no grounds for trust in themselves because she doesn't even know that she's made them. They are, however, a very good reason to protect her from Voldemort. vexingconfection: > And, just because, I want you to explain something else to me: why did every prediction made by Ron and Harry in GOF come true? Is it a testament to friendship or something that will be used in this coming book or just something thrown in to make it interesting? > > Thanks for your patience. Carol: Oh, my! That's a tall order since I'd have to check every single prediction that Ron and Harry make in GoF before I could give my opinion on the question. Do you have any specific predictions in mind? My general impression is that some of the comic predictions unexpectedly come true, and I recall George predicting that Ron would become a Prefect, an idea that he vehemently rejected at the time, but I don't recall any others offhand except the silly ones that Ron and Harry made up for Trelawney's class, most of which obviously didn't come true. Anyway, I'm afraid that I can't provide an intelligent answer without more information. Carol, who would welcome other views on whether DD trusted Trelawney and why or why not From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:21:57 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:21:57 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166083 ---> > Carol: > > Yes, that's my impression as well. He's tried before the entire > Wizengamot, but Fudge is not in charge of sentencing, Madam Bones is. > . > Ceridwen: > > So, did Dumbledore fail to sort things out because there was a full > hearing of the Wizengamot? Or was he successful? It worked out > well, and Madam Bones being "strict but fair" was a large part of > that. Since it's the Wizengamot, Fudge is not in charge. It seems > to me that a full court was the best and fairest thing for Harry. Errrm...Madam Bones in charge, of sentencing or anything else in the Wizengamot session? It seemed quite apparent that it was FUDGE who WAS in charge, as much as anyone was, both bringing the charges and acting as chairman of the gathering. Madam Bones seemed only one member of the Wizengamot ... albeit a witch of very strong personality. And it may well be that DD used the full Wizengamot as a way of countering Fudge, hoping that his influence with Madam Bones and his few remaining friends on the tribunal would sway the day. But it seems much more likely that Fudge was inflating the charges to a full trial situation in order to pack in as many supporters as possible and bring the full weight of official power squarely down on Harry, and by extension Dumbledore. We certainly have evidence of such an escalation in DD's own words. He reminds Fudge that when the Minister (or his flunkies) had summarily expelled Harry that he "had to remind you that the Ministry does not expel students from Hogwarts" (paraphrase). Given that Fudge had been balked in using "administrative" measures, it is likely that his next move was to bump everything up to the Wizengamot, where he felt he could sway matters his way. And he almost succeeded, as well, were it not for some rehearsed and risky perjury on the part of Mrs. Figg (pretending she could see dementors when we are told later she cannot) and the timely defiance of Fudge by Madam Bones. Lupinlore, thinking DD would be taking an awfully dumb risk if it was his idea to go to a full trial -- what if there was somebody on the panel (maybe one of the new members since DD's expulsion) who had more knowledge of squibs than he realized? Also pointing out that we have another gap in logic, here, as both DD and Mrs. Figg have handed Fudge a legal and political broadsword he could use against them (and Harry) were Fudge or his supporters ever to find out that squibs actually CAN'T see dementors. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:24:14 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:24:14 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166084 Dana: > The Snape theories out there are about the most difficult answer one can possibly think of. It calls for disregarding everything we've been told, it calls for a lying and puppetmaster DD, a stupid Harry and a plot so difficult to understand it makes you even wonder if JKR is able to keep track of it. It is not logical, not by any means. Dana: > The question is not did he kill DD but why did he let it come to that? The simple answer because he *thought* he could control the situation and he could not and as a result he chose his own life over that of DD and betrayed the man who put so much faith in him. He > made a choice for what was easy instead of what was right and if he never intended it to go this far, then he paid with the ultimate price; -a split soul and a dead friend. zgirnius: OK, I just decided I *have* to dive in to this Snape debate. Enough lurking... I disagree that DDM!Snape requires "disregarding everything we've been told, it calls for a lying and puppetmaster DD, a stupid Harry and a plot so difficult to understand it makes you even wonder if JKR is able to keep track of it." My view on what happened is quite simple. I share your opinion (roughly) of the Unbreakable Vow, in that "he (Snape) *thought* he could control the situation" when he took the Vow. Where, if I have understood your position correctly, we part ways, is *how* he tried to control it. It is my view that Snape fully apprised Dumbledore of the events of Spinner's End and the fact that Draco's task was to kill Dumbledore. This is neither confirmed nor negated in the text, but there are passages that can be intrepreted to support my position. Dumbledore claims he knew all about Draco's task on the Tower (this would be from Snape, as I see it), repeatedly suggests to Harry that Draco is not Harry's problem to solve, and when Harry tells him about Snape's Vow, Dumbledore says both that the information does not worry him, and implies that he understands better than Harry about the Vow, which again could be because Snape did tell him all about it. In my view, then, Dumbledore and Snape *together* were attempting to manage the situation. The security precautions at the school would have been part of this, Dumbledore's order to Snape to keep an eye on Draco would be as well, as might the presence of Order members anytime Dumbledore left the school. And on the Tower, the solution Dumbledore devised is made plain: to get Draco to give up his task and go into hiding under Dumbledore's protection with his family. *BUT* the plan went haywire. As Dumbledore admits to Draco, he did not believe it was possible to get Death Eaters into the school. I believe that for this reason, he and Snape did not plan for this eventuality. When Snape showed up on the Tower, Dumbledore knew that their plan to control the situation had failed. It was the moment Snape would have to kill him, or die himself, a fact Dumbledore knew because he knew all about the Vow. To me, the only thing that explains Dumbledore's *immediate* pleading, alarming reaction to the appearance of Snape, whom he "trusts completely", is that Dumbledore wanted Snape to save himself, and feared that Snape would not. So, he made a mysterious, unstated request to Snape. It is my opinion that this was for Snape to kill him, not according to any plan, but because it was Dumbledore's assessment of the tactical situation on the Tower that Snape's death would be wasted - he (Dumbledore) would still die. Snape could have understood the request better than Harry and the DEs, because Snape is a Legilimens. (The text includes a reference to Snape approching Dumbledore and 'gazing' at him. It is my opinion htis indicates Snaep was using Legilimency to divine Dumbledore's wishes.) This is not suggesting either I or Dumbledore believe Snape to have a deathwish. Snape thought he could control the situation when he took the Vow, and he worked to keep the situation under control during the year, both actions suggesting he places some value on his life. However, it is one thing to try and preserve one's life by taking various precautions, and another to do so by killing an innocent bystander. I believe that it was Dumbledore's opinion that Snape is not a person who would kill an innocent to save himself. Snape's hesitatiom until Dumbledore said please and the way his expression mirrors Harry's feelings in the Cave, suggest to me that he complied unwillingly, as do his emotions in FLight of the Prince. (Though, except for the mirror with Harry, I can see how your interpretation fits these indicators as well.) From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Mar 14 19:29:05 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:29:05 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166085 > > Magpie: > > > Yet when he is promoted his father acts like it's transparently to > > spy on him, as if Percy is the slacker, and years of anger from > > Percy at Arthur come out. > > a_svirn: > I think that it was Ron's and the twins' interpretation of theevents, > and they are not what you'd call impartial when it comes to Percy. Magpie: True, they're not impartial when it comes to him at all. In that case I considered them fine witnesses in terms of who said what to who: Percy says he got a promotion, Arthur said X, Percy said Y. (The years of anger is probably my interpretation so I probably shouldn't put it on Ron--Percy responded this way and it could have been an in-the-moment thing). Their interpretation after the fact seems totally against Percy and unsympathetic to him. Harry, too, responds to the story, iirc, by saying, "He really said that?" regarding Percy accusing Arthur of being at fault for their financial situation. That seemed to be what they all focused on out of the fight as being proof that Percy was awful--and of course they also saw Percy as bragging about his promotion iirc. a_svirn: I > must say, it doesn't quite make sense to me. Suppose Fudge promoted > him so that he would spy on his family. First of all, it would have > been smarter for him to dangle the promotion as a payment for Percy's > services at first -- this way he could motivate Percy without > arousing Arthur's suspicions. (Now ? if Ron's to be believed ? it > seems Percy got his promotion for free.) Second, if his family > trusted him they could have used *him* to spy on *Fudge*. If they > didn't they could have used him to mislead Fudge about their plans > and activities. Either way there was no reason for the shouting match > and subsequent estrangement. In all likelihood, it was the other way > round ? Arthur wanted Percy to become another Dumbledore's man in the > ministry, and Percy ? being a loyal civil servant ? refused. Magpie: I have a lot of misgivings about Arthur's interpretation--that is, I believe Ron when he says that Arthur gives this interpretation to Percy that night of the fight, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's what made the fight read, to me, like a family fight where it wasn't really about the facts. Maybe I just had been sympathetic to Percy for a while before that, but I found myself more focused on Percy hearing he was a patsy than Arthur hearing he wasn't supporting his family well. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:32:57 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:32:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character (Was:Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166086 > Zgirnius: > > Dumbledore himself did not know (he says, and I > > believe him, except when I am admiring Pippin's cool idea that Snape > > made the potion.) > > Pippin: > Huh? Where does Dumbledore say he didn't know what the potion > would do? He frowns slightly at the emerald liquid "evidently thinking > hard." Then he says, "Undoubtedly[...]this potion must act in a way > that will prevent me from taking the horcrux. It might paralyze me, > cause me to forget what I am here fore, create so much pain I am > distracted, or render me incapable in some other way." zgirnius: To me the most straightforeward reading of the quoted text is that yes, Dumbledore is guessing a list of possible unpleasant effects of the green goo. The blanket statement "or render me incapable in some other way" especially. I do agree, though, that he is making no definitive statement about his lack of knowledge, hence my willingness to consider your theory. He is surely a master of concealing the truth without lying. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:42:45 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:42:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166087 > Dana: > No, because Harry's presence was unknown to the DEs and therefore > his life was not in immediate danger because only if DD died, was > Harry free to move, not before. He could have re-armed DD, who I am > sure even in a weakened state could take them on with ease, especially > with Snape's help (were it not for that pesky UV). zgirnius; There is no evidence for your claim, that Dumbledore would have been able to take the DEs on with ease. That he could in OotP, before the injury to his hand and not having drunk the potion, is canon. But whether he could have on the Tower is speculation. As someone who believes Dumbledore's last request of Snape was for Snape to save himself and the boys by killing him, I would point out that *Dumbledore himself* was the best judge of his capabilities at that moment, and we see what he chose. If simply being rearmed was the issue, surely Fawkes the phoenix could have managed that, in all the time Dumbledore spent talking with Draco (and showing signs of an increasing physical weakness). He has in the past protected DD as far away as London, and brought far heavier objects (the Sword of Gryffindor) from futher away (DD's office to the Chamber) to those in need (Harry, in CoS). From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 19:55:53 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:55:53 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166088 > Magpie: > I have a lot of misgivings about Arthur's interpretation--that is, I > believe Ron when he says that Arthur gives this interpretation to > Percy that night of the fight, but it doesn't really make a lot of > sense to me. It's what made the fight read, to me, like a family > fight where it wasn't really about the facts. a_svirn: But if wasn't not about facts what *was* it about? Yes, Percy is not Arthur's favourite child, but even so, it's really unforgivable to accuse your son in spying without even meaning it. Arthur is a decent and level-headed man; I can't imagine him being this unjust. What I can imagine is him trying to recruit his son for the Order. As one of the top ministry officials Percy could have been of service to Dumbledore. I think Arthur took it for granted that he would side with the rest of the family. But Percy must have taken a very dim view on Dumbledore's secret activities and refused. At least, that's what looks to me like a plausible scenario. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 20:26:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:26:51 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166089 Carol earlier: > > > Yes, that's my impression as well. He's tried before the entire Wizengamot, but Fudge is not in charge of sentencing, Madam Bones is. > > . > > > Ceridwen: > > > > So, did Dumbledore fail to sort things out because there was a full hearing of the Wizengamot? Or was he successful? It worked out well, and Madam Bones being "strict but fair" was a large part of that. Since it's the Wizengamot, Fudge is not in charge. It seems > > to me that a full court was the best and fairest thing for Harry. > > > Errrm...Madam Bones in charge, of sentencing or anything else in the Wizengamot session? It seemed quite apparent that it was FUDGE who WAS in charge, as much as anyone was, both bringing the charges and acting as chairman of the gathering. Madam Bones seemed only one member of the Wizengamot ... albeit a witch of very strong personality. And it may well be that DD used the full Wizengamot as a way of countering Fudge, hoping that his influence with Madam Bones and his few remaining friends on the tribunal would sway the day. But it seems much more likely that Fudge was inflating the charges to a full trial situation in order to pack in as many supporters as possible and bring the full weight of official power squarely down on Harry, and by extension Dumbledore. Carol responds: Madam Bones, who holds the same position as Crouch Sr. did before he was "shunted sideways" into the Department for international Magical Cooperation, *is* in charge of the hearing: Mr. Weasley tells Harry, "The hearing's on my floor, in Amelia bones's office. She's Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and she's the one who'll be questioning you." Tonks adds, "Amelia Bones is okay, Harry. She's fair, she'll hear you out" (123). And Sirius Black helpfully notes, "And if it's not [fine], I'll see to Amelia Bones for you" (OoP am. ed. 123). Now granted, the hearing is moved to the Wizengamot's interrogation chamber and the time has been changed, which has to be Fudge's doing since Dumbledore didn't know about it (139). Presumably, Fudge's intention was to prevent DD from acting as witness for the defense. And Fudge has added himself and his undersecretary, Delores Umbridge, to the list of interrogators (138), along with Amelia Bones. (Percy is just the scribe.) However, it's still Amelia Bones's job to determine the facts, which she succeeds in doing despite Fudge's interference. When Harry mentions his Patronus, Madam Bones takes over the questioning from Fudge, and she takes Harry's statement about Dementors seriously. To be sure, it's Dumbledore who makes sure that a witness, Mrs. Figg, is heard (her testimony is only partially perjured; she didn't *see* the Dementors, but she knows full well they were there and that Harry conjured the Patronus in self-defense--"that was what happened" is the truth). DD addresses Madam Bones, not Fudge, when he makes the request for Mrs. Figg to be heard and Madam Bones grants it. Both Fudge and Madam Bones question her, and Madam Bones contradicts Fudge when he says that Mrs. Figg was not a convincing witness. Umbridge gets in her two cents with regard to Dementors being sent by the Ministry (she, of course, is the one who sent them, but we don't know that and neither do the other characters). After a long digression, DD reminds Fudge that the Ministry doesn't have the authority to expel Hogwarts students, or to confiscate wands without proof of guilt (that, not Azkaban, would have been the consequence of the disciplinary hearing). DD reminds Fudge that the purpose of the hearing is to determine Harry's guilt or innocence on a particular charge. Then Madam Bones asks for a show of hands" "Those in favor of clearing the witness of all charges?" (Erm, "witness"? Shouldn't that be "the accused"? A Flint here?) "And those in favor of conviction?" (150). Madam Bones, who is in charge of the proceedings, doesn't vote, but Fudge does. He is, however, overruled by the majority of the Wizengamot. Fudge does say, "Very well, very well, cleared of all charges," but technically, that line should go to Madam Bones. If I were to characterize their roles here, I would call Fudge the prosecuting attorney, with Umbridge as his assistant, and Madam Bones as the judge and the Wizengamot as the jury. Carol, agreeing with Lupinlore that Fudge, not DD, arranged for the "full criminal trial" before the Wizengamot (as opposed to a disciplinary hearing) and with Ceridwen that the trial turned out to be a good thing for Harry (though I think a hearing before Amelia Bones alone would have achieved the same results had the plot not required Umbridge's and Fudge's presence) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 23:54:04 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:54:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703141654o2d598f60va15aa2acedd21758@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166090 vexingconfection: Hogwarts is supposed to be the best school-but the teachers seem questionable. Lynda: Trelawney certainly seems questionable as a teacher, as do Professor Binns and Hagrid. The others, however, although some of them are unlikeable, seem to be competent or more than competent at their skill set, and yes, the students do learn, so neither are they poor teachers, at least not for all of their students. Yes I know that Quirrel, Lockhart, Lupin and the fake Moody all had their problems, but they were hired to a position that had a definate time limit that DD at least realized was evident. Slughorn also seems to be a good enough teacher, although he has his predilections... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Thu Mar 15 00:08:46 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:08:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008301c76696$2609c310$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166091 -- zgirnius Wrote-- >>> There is no evidence for your claim, that Dumbledore would have been able to take the DEs on with ease. That he could in OotP, before the injury to his hand and not having drunk the potion, is canon. But whether he could have on the Tower is speculation. As someone who believes Dumbledore's last request of Snape was for Snape to save himself and the boys by killing him, I would point out that *Dumbledore himself* was the best judge of his capabilities at that moment, and we see what he chose. If simply being rearmed was the issue, surely Fawkes the phoenix could have managed that, in all the time Dumbledore spent talking with Draco (and showing signs of an increasing physical weakness). He has in the past protected DD as far away as London, and brought far heavier objects (the Sword of Gryffindor) from futher away (DD's office to the Chamber) to those in need (Harry, in CoS). <<< I agree. Being wandless is far from the only factor disabling Dumbledore on the tower. Just previously, he had to rely on Harry to apparate and could barely stand on his own, let alone take on 4 Death Eaters while worrying about the safety of Draco and Harry. I also believe that it was only a matter of time before the Death Eaters would've realized that someone else was present. The two brooms were visible (Draco had already questions this) and Fenrir Greyback probably would be able to pick up a scent. Especially with Harry bleeding from his wounded arm. The invisibility cloak can not hide scent. I'm really surprised that Fawkes didn't show up at some point during the tower scene. The DDM!Snape theory you brought up in your previous, very long post was great. I must say that I agree with your theory. It's probably the most plausible theory I've read so far and I don't really see any canon to refute what you've said. Not without adding my own personal opinions and values to it. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 00:24:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:24:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: <008301c76696$2609c310$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166092 Ronin: > The DDM!Snape theory you brought up in your previous, very long post was > great. I must say that I agree with your theory. It's probably the most > plausible theory I've read so far and I don't really see any canon to refute > what you've said. Not without adding my own personal opinions and values to > it. > Alla: Except of course there is that "murder splits the soul" assertion in canon and a question whether Dumbledore would have asked **anyone** especially one of his own to split that soul, benefits for WW or not, necessity to save other people or not. And of course the question for mebecomes even bigger whether Dumbledore would have asked especially Snape, whose soul theoretically is already damaged by the previous membership in DE club to do so. If Dumbledore supposedly did **everything** he could to save Draco soul during the HBp to prevent him from becoming a murderer, the question arises for me does he value Snape's soul so little? But really it all comes down for me to how you see Dumbledore. If you believe that Dumbledore indeed would have asked that of Snape, then sure the theory stands strong. JMO, Alla From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 01:33:11 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:33:11 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166093 houyhnhnm wrote: > > Given the way Percy has turned out, it seems > strange that Rowling had him be the most enthusiastic > supporter of Dumbledore that Harry encountered on his > first night at Hogwarts. > > "Mad?" said Percy airily. "He's a genius! Best wizard > in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes. Potatoes, Harry?" > > Surely it is significant. Rowling could just as > easily have put those words in the mouth of either Fred or George. I don't think it's strange, so much as the poignant beginning of the revelation of Percy's character. Percy puts all his faith into his authority figures. He has done so since childhood, and since childhood, and right into his first year working for the Ministry, this outlook on life had been consistently affirmed by those authority figures through the granting of good grades, material rewards, and positions of responsibility. For a long time, I really felt for Percy. On the surface, his philosophy seemed to be working very well, making it hard for one so young and inexperienced to see the need to question it. At the end of GoF, he finally did have a reason to question it, but found it too easy to transfer his loyalty to the next Authority instead. After all, so he might tell himself, the Crouch disaster was Voldemort's fault, not his, right? But by now we see that Percy clings doggedly to his childhood outlook on life: a slavish loyalty to authority figures which has probably become inextricably entwined with the presumption of reward and advancement. This in spite of the fact that his new Authorities have turned him against his old ones -- and he is now willing to hurt people rather than consider a fundamental change in philosophy. It not just an innocent foible anymore. Annemehr From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 01:46:18 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:46:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166094 > Alla: > > Except of course there is that "murder splits the soul" assertion in > canon and a question whether Dumbledore would have asked **anyone** > especially one of his own to split that soul, benefits for WW or > not, necessity to save other people or not. > But really it all comes down for me to how you see Dumbledore. If > you believe that Dumbledore indeed would have asked that of Snape, > then sure the theory stands strong. zgirnius: It also depends on what one believes tears the soul apart. Personally, I think we are to understand Sluggie's explanation to mean that mere *killing* does not. Whether accidental killings, killings in self-defense or the defense of others, killings in war, or other killings that don't quite reach the level of murder. The definition of murder I believe is relevant is killing with malicious intent (rather than any particular legal definitions, which vary in time and jurisdiction and thus in my opinion cannot govern a magical phenomenon that presumably exists in all times and places). If Snape killed Dumbledore for the same reasons as Dumbledore requested it, I disagree that he murdered Dumbledore, and thus, I disagree that it would cause permanent damage to his soul. To me, this theory actually portrays Dumbledore in a positive light. It posits that he chose to die rather than fight for a slim chance to live, in order to ensure that Harry, Draco, and Snape might live. I find this admirable, and I consider it to fit in with the theme of self-sacrifice I see in the series. It is one reason I don't hold his alleged failings in arranging Harry's custody and general happiness against him. I believe he loved Harry, and was willing to share the dangers of the fight against Voldemort into which he was leading his followers, as he demonstrated by the manner of his death. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 15 01:48:18 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:48:18 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > OK, I just decided I *have* to dive in to this Snape debate. Enough > lurking... > > I disagree that DDM!Snape requires "disregarding everything we've > been told, it calls for a lying and puppetmaster DD, a stupid Harry > and a plot so difficult to understand it makes you even wonder if JKR > is able to keep track of it." > > My view on what happened is quite simple. > > I share your opinion (roughly) of the Unbreakable Vow, in that "he > (Snape) *thought* he could control the situation" when he took the > Vow. Where, if I have understood your position correctly, we part > ways, is *how* he tried to control it. > > It is my view that Snape fully apprised Dumbledore of the events of > Spinner's End and the fact that Draco's task was to kill Dumbledore. > This is neither confirmed nor negated in the text, but there are > passages that can be intrepreted to support my position. Dumbledore > claims he knew all about Draco's task on the Tower (this would be > from Snape, as I see it), repeatedly suggests to Harry that Draco is > not Harry's problem to solve, and when Harry tells him about Snape's > Vow, Dumbledore says both that the information does not worry him, > and implies that he understands better than Harry about the Vow, > which again could be because Snape did tell him all about it. > > In my view, then, Dumbledore and Snape *together* were attempting to > manage the situation. The security precautions at the school would > have been part of this, Dumbledore's order to Snape to keep an eye on > Draco would be as well, as might the presence of Order members > anytime Dumbledore left the school. And on the Tower, the solution > Dumbledore devised is made plain: to get Draco to give up his task > and go into hiding under Dumbledore's protection with his family. Quick_Silver: This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole Dumbledore Snape thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an incredible resemblance to Sirius's plan to protect the Potters. Not in details but in...essence...you have a plan that requires someone to risk their life (Sirius and Snape), there's an underestimation of a key component of the plan (Peter and Draco), someone who should have been in on the plan is left out (Dumbledore and Harry), and the person that dies is not as planned (James and Dumbledore). And then you have Snape at the end of HBP, seemingly losing it, which bears a resemblance to Sirius's infamous bout of the crazies. Plus you have the fact that Snape seems to be alone among the enemy rather like what happened when no one believed that Sirius was innocent. Quick_Silver From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 01:57:11 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:57:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) References: Message-ID: <007201c766a5$3ff07a30$6998400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166096 > Quick_Silver: > This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole > Dumbledore Snape thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an > incredible resemblance to Sirius's plan to protect the Potters. Not > in details but in...essence...you have a plan that requires someone > to risk their life (Sirius and Snape), there's an underestimation of > a key component of the plan (Peter and Draco), someone who should > have been in on the plan is left out (Dumbledore and Harry), and the > person that dies is not as planned (James and Dumbledore). And then > you have Snape at the end of HBP, seemingly losing it, which bears a > resemblance to Sirius's infamous bout of the crazies. Plus you have > the fact that Snape seems to be alone among the enemy rather like > what happened when no one believed that Sirius was innocent. Magpie: I'm trying hard to make this not just a "me too" but whoa--that's brilliant! And I think you're right. It may not be something that JKR sat down and planned, but I tend to think that writers naturally come up with similar situations because on some level it relates to the way that they see the world. I think JKR could very much be drawn to situations just like these, where there's a perfect plan but it all goes wrong because of things like this--although of course with JKR nothing is ever a literal repeat. Actually, I remember years ago after GoF where people would always ask "who's this generation's Peter?" and talk about Neville, which never made sense to me. Neville and Peter seemed to have only the most superficial things in common. And the only person I could really come up with as an alternative (if there was one, which there didn't have to be) was Draco, because why shouldn't there be a trade the other way this time, with someone brought up in the "bad" camp switching sides? That type of change gives very different meaning to the situation, of course. Underestimating Peter led to disaster in ways underestimating Draco might lead to something better. (Of course, underestimating Peter led to the whole Boy Who Lived thing, which is a step towards destroying LV, but this could be part of a more decisive victory.) And of course Snape is not Sirius, so he's going to make different choices etc. Now's the time to make things right, and it's kind of brilliant if this scenario plays out again. Excellent catch! -m From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 02:17:31 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:17:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's dilemma (Was: Dumbledore as a judge of character) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166097 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol again: > Yes--"were it not for that peksy UV," which makes rearming DD not an > option. If Snape does any such thing, he will die. Valky: I find no fault with the scenario you've put forward, Carol. As you know, I am quite comfortably entrenched in my DDM!Snape beliefs, and mostly for the reasons which you gave in your post. This little bit that I have quoted above, is a part which tends to wax incomplete, for me. Snape could very well have died nobly to re-arm Dumbledore, it may even be a choice he would have made, I don't think it is impossible nor inconceivable that DD even in his weakened state, with a wand in his hand, could toast the ugly twins and Fenrir a nice shade of crispy with minimum collateral damage all on his clever lonesome. That is, right before he died of the curse that in all likelihood only one trustworthy and readily available friend was blessed with the incredible talent and knowledge to cure ( that would be the the dead friend... ) leaving Draco and his family completely alone in the cold sinister grip of a madman, Harry in his youthful naievete prematurely alone at the head of the battle, and everyone else... completely in the dark to boot. At additional risk to all involved, Snape could have died for Dumbledore. Dumbledore could have engaged the bad guys, if necessary brought Harry into the mellee to stun a one or two, and escaped with all innocent parties (minus DDM!Snape) relatively unharmed and no worse for the wear than when they arrived on the tower.. but how was it that Dumbledore arrived on the tower? Doubly cursed by Voldemort, saved from the effects of one of those curses by mysterious magical handiwork of Severus Snape which we cannot say for sure would remain effective beyond his death, dying of the second that we can be pretty sure needs to be taken care of by someone highly intelligent and knowledgable in a field that DD is not, to compare with Voldemort, and to complement extremely trustworthy, before DD would allow it rather than die himself. With Snape dead who does that leave, and how much time does DD have to find that person? It occurs to me that Dumbledore decided for himself, in the moment he realised only he or Snape could live, that Snape's life was the one that the world needed, and his own life took second priority, and I believe he gave the order to Snape, to live and not spare him in doing it. JMHO. Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 02:24:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:24:59 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: <007201c766a5$3ff07a30$6998400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166098 > > Quick_Silver: > > This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole > > Dumbledore Snape thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an > > incredible resemblance to Sirius's plan to protect the Potters. > Magpie: > I'm trying hard to make this not just a "me too" but whoa--that's brilliant! > And I think you're right. It may not be something that JKR sat down and > planned, but I tend to think that writers naturally come up with similar > situations because on some level it relates to the way that they see the > world. I think JKR could very much be drawn to situations just like these, > where there's a perfect plan but it all goes wrong because of things like > this--although of course with JKR nothing is ever a literal repeat. > > And of course Snape is not Sirius, so he's going to make different > choices etc. Now's the time to make things right, and it's kind of brilliant > if this scenario plays out again. Excellent catch! Alla: I loved that too, Quick Silver. Very cool parallel. But of course as Magpie said with JKR it is never an exact repeat, but repeat with twist, so time to make things right it can be now, but it cannot be the time to make things completely right IMO, since DD is already dead. So who knows, maybe the twist is indeed that while Sirius was innocent and worked to escape Azkaban, Snape is **not** an innocent party, who just participated in the plan got wrong, but a guilty one. Maybe the twist would be in Snape realising how wrong he was and working to correct it. :) From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 02:26:02 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:26:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0703141926ke281029oe0ff8bc7b0a65461@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166099 Eggplant: Percy is not immoral he is amoral. I can see Percy pretending to be sorrowful and apologize to his family so they will not be on their guard around him and then when Harry isn't looking Percy would stun him in the back and turn him over to the Death Eaters. [snip] And then I think Percy is entirely capable of turning around walking away without another word and sleeping soundly the next night. Debbie: ::splutter:: Nooooo! Here's a clue to whether Percy could sleep soundly after betraying Harry, or his family. From HBP ch. 16 (A Very Frosty Christmas): "Rufus Scrimgeour paused in the doorway . . . 'Percy and I were in the vicinity -- working, you know -- and he couldn't resist dropping in and seeing you all.' But Percy showed no sign of wanting to greet any of the rest of the family. He stood, poker-straight and awkward-looking, and stared over everybody else's heads. Mr Weasley, Fred and George were all observing him, stony-faced." What this tells me is that Percy cares what his family think. A person who could betray Harry and sleep soundly would be able to look at his family defiantly. Percy is embarrassed at Scrimgeour's excuse, and he knows his family knows it's not true. He can't look them in the eye; his pain is apparent. Eggplant: Would you say that if he had another last name? Just as good people can come from bad families (Serious Black), bad people can come from good families. Debbie: Yes. I have a great deal of sympathy for Percy. JKR uses him as a comic straight man in every book (that letter in OOP, with it's reference to the delightful Umbridge, was so god-awfully over the top it was comical, but the joke was on him). In the Christmas scene in HBP, Fred, George, or Ginny (or maybe all three) dealt with Percy's discomfort by flinging mashed parsnip at him until he stormed from the house. Well, I'd storm out, too, if I was subjected to that kind of abuse, particularly if they had been heaping that kind of humiliation upon him throughout his life. This is one reason Fred & George are my least favorite Weasleys and my prime candidates for Dark Weasleys, though I agree with Betsy that it ain't gonna happen. JKR loves them, and their humor, too much. It would be a shame if JKR does not have time to write the redemption of Percy into DH, because she's set the stage for it very well, not only be creating a very believable, though damaging family dynamic and then showing how much Percy cares about his family and their opinion of him, even a year and a half after his estrangement. There's one other clue I see in the Very Frosty Christmas: Ron did not join Fred, George and Ginny in the parsnip toss. I think this is significant. Ron is actually a lot like Percy; both are very sensitive and the twins' antics had a significant effect on both of them. Percy's response was to overachieve, and Ron (with the benefit of Percy's example) opted for underachievement. Both are capable of poor judgment. And both are loyal (though Percy's loyalties are misplaced at times). Despite his comment later, in which Ron merely echoes the sentiments of the Parsnip Trio (whose good side he wants to be on), I think Ron does have sympathy for Percy. And Percy must have noticed where the attack was (and was not) coming from. Houyhnhnm: I like Bart's analysis of Percy as someone who is so enamoured of the rules that he cannot make good moral judgements. This is another way of going wrong. Rowling gives us, in Crouch, Sr. and Umbridge, a couple of examples of adults who do wrong and advance the cause of evil even though they are not on the dark side. Percy is a youthful character whom we get to see in the developmental stages of becoming an Umbridge. That is his second function. Debbie: I would rephrase that to say that Percy is a youthful character we see in the developmental stages that would lead to becoming another Crouch Sr. He, like Percy, was overly focused on adherence to the rules, and was widely reputed to have sacrificed his family for his career. Yet, in the end, he sacrificed everything to save his unworthy son. Houyhnhnm: Given the way Percy has turned out, it seems strange that Rowling had him be the most enthusiastic supporter of Dumbledore that Harry encountered on his first night at Hogwarts. "Mad?" said Percy airily. "He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes. Potatoes, Harry?" Surely it is significant. Rowling could just as easily have put those words in the mouth of either Fred or George. Debbie: Perhaps this is simply our first illustration of Percy's approach to loyalty. When he says this, he is a 5th year student, and Dumbledore is his headmaster. As he does later under Crouch Sr., under Umbridge and (presumably) under Scrimgeour, Percy grants his leader unswerving admiration and obedience. Thus, when his current boss tells him his former headmaster is a dangerous element, Percy sees this as new information which, together with his understanding of Dumbledore as a mad genius, allows him to give credence to Umbridge's odious insinuations. Perhaps Percy's dash into the lake may also be foreshadowing. Ron may be in significant danger in DH, and Percy may be in a position to do something about it. I think that family loyalty will ultimately prevail, just as it did with Crouch Sr., and Percy may sacrifice everything to save his family. Debbie who's too overwhelmed with RL to post much now, but couldn't resist discussing Percy, who remains one of her favorite characters [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 02:47:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:47:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) References: Message-ID: <009101c766ac$41e65290$6998400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166100 Alla: > Maybe the twist would be in Snape realising how wrong he was and > working to correct it. :) Magpie: LOL! But that's supposedly what he already did the first time--he was wrong in passing on the Prophecy, and then worked to correct it by telling Dumbledore and trying the secret keeper plan. That didn't work out to well, as we know. But when I said "make this right" you're right, Dumbledore's already dead. I was thinking about Voldemort specifically. The mistake the first time got Voldemort evaporated, but didn't destroy him. I think the mistakes this time might lead directly to Voldemort being destroyed, because they will all be part of DH, which is Harry's victory. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 15 02:57:37 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:57:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: <2795713f0703141654o2d598f60va15aa2acedd21758@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0703141654o2d598f60va15aa2acedd21758@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45F8B621.2010409@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166101 Lynda Cordova wrote: > Trelawney certainly seems questionable as a teacher, as do Professor Binns > and Hagrid. I think that Trelwaney and Binns say more about JKR than they do about the Potterverse. Trelawney can be understood, to some extent. Accurate forecasting of the future is a killer to fiction. Of course, JKR could have worked it so that WW prognostication techniques do not take into account human (and intelligent non-human) free will, which means that they are only accurate at the moment they are made, and the fact that they are already made in and of themselves makes them false. That way, they would be about as useful as Muggle weather forecasting, financial forecasting, etc. But JKR chooses to depict her as a parody of a Muggle New Ager. Similarly, I suspect that Binns is modeled after her own schooling. Now, I don't know about Great Britain, but, in the United States, history has been politicked down to, well, Professor Binns. Instead of fascinating stories, teaching of how events connect to each other, and resulted in our world today, it is all too frequently taught as a series of disjointed names and dates (for example, how many people here heard anything in pre-college history courses the many connections between the European discovery of the Americas in 1492, and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation a scant 20 years later?). Hagrid, on the other hand, is quite talented. If it weren't for Draco's interference, he might have made an excellent teacher. But, after being framed twice, he is a little too leery of authority. With some guidance, he could have become a first rate teacher. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 03:21:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:21:20 -0000 Subject: Hagrid as teacher WASRe: Dumbledore as a judge of character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166105 Magpie: > So Hagrid would have been an excellent teacher of adolescents if only he > hadn't had to teach actual 13-year-olds. (Hey, Draco would have been a model > student if not for Hagrid, one might as well say. He seems to do just fine > with other teachers.) Hagrid has his own talents, but his lack of talents as > a teacher > are all his own and can't be blamed on Draco or any other mildly > disagreeable child--that's part of the job of being a teacher. His > shortcomings as an authority figure are also his own, and have been since > the beginning of the series. I don't think Luna's "We in Ravenclaw think > he's a bit of a joke" have anything to do with residual trauma over Draco > whispering in class that day. On the contrary, when the Trio have trouble > with Hagrid's teaching it usual revolves around things they consider all > Hagrid. Alla: Why I always feel compel to defend Hagrid whom I find rather bland character, I do not know, but I do. I think Hagrid has plenty of his own shortcomings as a teacher, independent of Draco or anybody else, absolutely. But I also think that what Draco did to him cannot be underestimated IMO of course. That was malicious frame up I believe and as Bart said second frame up in Hagrid life. The first one caused him magical education, the second one, well we all know what it caused Hagrid. So, **regardless** of Hagrid's own problems as teacher, yeah, I believe he was traumatised a plenty by what Draco did during that lesson and later on that year. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 03:22:00 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape References: <2795713f0703141654o2d598f60va15aa2acedd21758@mail.gmail.com> <45F8B621.2010409@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <00ce01c766b1$18c385e0$6998400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166106 Bart: > Hagrid, on the other hand, is quite talented. If it weren't for Draco's > interference, he might have made an excellent teacher. But, after being > framed twice, he is a little too leery of authority. With some guidance, > he could have become a first rate teacher. Magpie: So Hagrid would have been an excellent teacher of adolescents if only he hadn't had to teach actual 13-year-olds. (Hey, Draco would have been a model student if not for Hagrid, one might as well say. He seems to do just fine with other teachers.) Hagrid has his own talents, but his lack of talents as a teacher are all his own and can't be blamed on Draco or any other mildly disagreeable child--that's part of the job of being a teacher. His shortcomings as an authority figure are also his own, and have been since the beginning of the series. I don't think Luna's "We in Ravenclaw think he's a bit of a joke" has anything to do with residual trauma over Draco whispering in class that day. On the contrary, when the Trio have trouble with Hagrid's teaching it usual revolves around things they consider all Hagrid. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 15 04:02:11 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:02:11 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166107 > Quick_Silver: > This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole Dumbledore Snape > thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an incredible resemblance to Sirius's > plan to protect the Potters. Not in details but in...essence...you have a plan that requires >someone to risk their life (Sirius and Snape), there's an underestimation of a key > component of the plan (Peter and Draco), someone who should have been in on the plan > is left out (Dumbledore and Harry), and the person that dies is not as planned (James > and Dumbledore). And then you have Snape at the end of HBP, seemingly losing it, > which bears a resemblance to Sirius's infamous bout of the crazies. Plus you have the > fact that Snape seems to be alone among the enemy rather like what happened when no > one believed that Sirius was innocent. Jen: I like this as a loose parallel; there are just a couple of things I'm not certain about. Are you saying Dumbledore/Snape planned the events of HBP from the beginning, before the UV and including the cave? And I wasn't sure what you meant about 'the person who dies is not as planned' when you said James. Well, and also Dumbledore--who was supposed to die that night? (I really hope this is not a 'duh' question and I'm missing something very obvious ). I get that Peter didn't guess LV would become vapor--is the parallel that Draco didn't realize he wouldn't be able to kill Dumbledore? Now Sirius and Snape I understand. Re: their connection, even if the Princes are never found to be on the Black tapestry, I see more between these two than the connection JKR draws between Snape and James. I've wondered if Snape despises Sirius in part because Sirius threw away what had been handed to him on a silver platter: pure-blood family, famous Slytherin connections, magical prowess, intelligence, etc. He and Regulus *could* have been a set in Slytherin if Sirius had chosen the 'right' path. There would be something very ironic about both Snape and Sirius falling prey to their own plans, though neither would ever see it (meaning Snape wouldn't and Sirius wouldn't if he could). That's a good idea, Quick_Silver, I'll have to think more about it. I know you are just proposing an idea and not saying it's all laid out like a theory! I was just trying to figure out how the pieces connected. Jen R. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 15 04:27:18 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:27:18 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: I like this as a loose parallel; there are just a couple of things I'm not certain about. > Are you saying Dumbledore/Snape planned the events of HBP from the beginning, before > the UV and including the cave? And I wasn't sure what you meant about 'the person who > dies is not as planned' when you said James. Well, and also Dumbledore--who was > supposed to die that night? (I really hope this is not a 'duh' question and I'm missing > something very obvious ). Quick_Silver: Sorry that's probably my fault. The whole point of Sirius's plan was that he, Sirius, would be the one in danger (as the decoy for Peter) and not James. But when everything went down James ended up dying. In HBP Snape takes the risk of dying (the now infamous UV) but Dumbledore ends up dead. As for planning everything out...I'd say that Dumbledore and Snape did have a plan. For this parallel I'd say that the UV was definitely planned out before had...not as a plan to get information but to save Draco. I don't think that the Tower scene was planned out...that's where the underestimation of Draco comes in...Dumbledore honestly didn't think that he could get Death Eaters into the Tower. This is really the only way that I can make sense of the UV...as a means for Dumbledore and Snape to save a student (from himself). > I get that Peter didn't guess LV would become vapor--is the parallel that Draco didn't > realize he wouldn't be able to kill Dumbledore? Quick_Silver: Actually I meant that James and Sirius underestimated Peter in the sense that they never thought that he'd turn to Voldemort (or be capable of blowing up a street). On the other hand Dumbledore (and maybe, big maybe, Snape) underestimated Draco's ability to bring Death Eaters into the castle (I believe Dumbledore says as much on the Tower). Quick_Silver From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 05:27:31 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:27:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry in Azkaban (was Percy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703142227n32dc298mdcaaec3f638c5a74@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166109 > > eggplant: > > When Harry received his first protest letter from the ministry it said he was already > > expelled and wizards would be arriving soon to destroy his wand, and then they said > > this: > > > > "we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at the > > Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth of August." > > Kemper earlier: > A disciplinary hearing is different than a judicial hearing. (I could be wrong. What do the British call judicial hearings?) > > To me, it sounds like Harry might have to pay a fine... maybe do some community service. It doesn't sound like Harry will spend a second in Azkaban. > > Carla: > I found these posts orginally in the Percy thread, but thought it was an interesting topic. Some people felt that Harry was at no risk at being sent to Azkaban. I tend to disagree and want to repeat the message I posted in an appropriately titled thread. > > As for the Azkaban question. Yes, I believe that sending Harry to Azkaban was a very real threat. Here is why. The very people trying to silence Harry by sending Dementors after him in the first place are the very ones holding the trial. Umbridge sent the Dementors and since she works for Fudge, it may have been on his orders. If Umbridge would submit a child to the torture of a Dementor's Kiss, do you think for a minute she would hesitate to push for his imprisonment in Azkaban? Silencing Harry was the whole objective. > Kemper now: The FULL Wizengamot was there in the hopes that Fudge could discredit Harry. By discrediting Harry, Fudge could have gained some political advantage: the government/Ministry is in control and wizarding live safely in a Voldemort-free Britain. If Dumbledore missed the meeting and Harry was sufficiently discredited, the ministry would not have put Harry in Azkaban. In a first world Wizarding government, it is easier and more cost effective to discredit or ignore a powerful, famous and dissident Wizard voice than it is to martyr the Wizard. The Chinese MoM could run Harry over with a broom in Tienanmen Square, but that sorta thing wouldn't happen in Britain. Kemper From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 06:18:38 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:18:38 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Quick_Silver: > > This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole Dumbledore Snape > > thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an incredible resemblance to Sirius's > > plan to protect the Potters. > > Jen: I like this as a loose parallel; there are just a couple of things I'm not certain about. > Are you saying Dumbledore/Snape planned the events of HBP from the beginning, before > the UV and including the cave? And I wasn't sure what you meant about 'the person who > dies is not as planned' when you said James. Well, and also Dumbledore--who was > supposed to die that night? Valky: Hi Jen! I think if we are running with the parrallel quicksilver makes, then Snape = Sirius and Dumbledore = James... and Sirius's willful decision to die if he had to in order to protect James, translates loosely into Snape's decision to follow the order given by DD in GOF, and go back to the DE's to his peril, to help in the cause. So for the most way through the plan it is Snape who is likely to die and willing to die, and out there risking it as the target so DD can do the job in secret. It is then that Draco (parrallel Peter) jumps in the deep end and becomes a spanner in Snape's good works; not by joining with Voldemort or by being a young fool on a destructive path, but, like Peter, by being smarter and more capable than he was estimated to be and actually sticking Snape feet first in the s***t despite his best effort to stay out of it. When Sirius decided his plan to make Peter the Secret Keeper was clever, he was assuming, as he said, that Peter was weak and harmless and nobody would guess James would choose him, so therefore noone would go after him, they would chase Sirius instead and James secret would stay safe. IWhen Snape is taking the UV, I don't think he is believing it was clever to do so, I think he knows he might be making a mistake. But I would guess that it is in fixing or controlling that mistake he (and DD) came up with something that parallels Sirius's plan, hinging primarily on the assumption that Draco was really no match for Hogwarts, it would always come down to Snape. And Snape, like Sirius, would always rather die than do the deed. And then Draco outsmarted everyone, and the rest is history. :) Valky From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 11:08:48 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:08:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Euthanasia (Was Re: Snape's dilemma) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166111 > > Alla: > > Except of course there is that "murder splits the soul" > > assertion in canon and a question whether Dumbledore would > > have asked **anyone** especially one of his own to split > > that soul, benefits for WW or not, necessity to save other > > people or not. > zgirnius responded, in part: > It also depends on what one believes tears the soul apart. > Personally, I think we are to understand Sluggie's explanation > to mean that mere *killing* does not. > The definition of murder I believe is relevant is killing with > malicious intent. - But with some comments to be made on snipped parts;) Goddlefrood wades in: It is correct to state that the supreme act of murder splits the soul, but you don't have to believe me, here's what Uncle Horace said, trying not to be out of context:): "' ... Splitting it is an act of violation. It is against nature.' 'But how do you do it?' 'By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion ... '" Now, effectively what that means is that murder splits the soul. I doubt very much if JKR had anything less than killing with malice aforethought in mind when she wrote this line. It would be the typical understanding of the term by the average Englishman would have. No offense is meant by the use of Englishman to describe JKR, it is the convention and I'm far from PC, I'm afraid;) Simple killing would not. However, this is not my point, and the title should give you a clue. I postulate here that this was an act of voluntary euthanasia. It is perhaps something JKR contemplated on when her mother was so ill :(, which was during the planning of the series. zgirnius has knowledge of my views on Snape;), about whom I am ambivalent, in that I really want him to turn out good but have a nasty feeling he will turn out otherwise. I put up these few thoughts to perhaps assist in development of the argument that Dumbledore chose to die. He really wouldn't have minded, you know;) Goddlefrood From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Mar 15 09:02:40 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:02:40 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: >> > Quick_Silver: > Actually I meant that James and Sirius underestimated Peter > in the sense that they never thought that he'd turn to > Voldemort (or be capable of blowing up a street). On the > other hand Dumbledore (and maybe, big maybe, Snape) > underestimated Draco's ability to bring Death Eaters into > the castle (I believe Dumbledore says as much on the Tower). Dana: To be honest I do not see the parallel at all. I even see a big flaw because Draco was ordered to kill LV and *if* Snape took the UV to protect DD, and he was planning to die, then where does that leave Draco? Because not finishing, his task, would get him killed. And LV letting him live is still a big question mark. Personally I think Snape never took the UV to protect Draco, he took it because Bella accused him of being a coward, always hiding behind his orders. She calls him on his bluff and he, thinking he could control everything, took it. For me the idea that Snape did everything on DD's orders is stretching believability to such an extent that it makes it highly improbable because it makes assumptions that DD knew that Narcissa would come to Snape for help. Or that without the UV Draco could not be saved or that the only way to save Draco was by taking the UV. Or even that the only way to save Draco would be for either Snape or DD to die. Better yet I believe that it was Snape who provided the information for LV to decide to go after DD and this is why; Pg 36 UK ed. paperback: 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. He since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower then they once were.' End quote from canon. This is information that you never ever tell to your enemy because it puts holes in your defence system. And if he is DDM then Bella is the enemy and although she was not the one who told LV, as the order for Draco already stood at that time, I am pretty sure LV knows this information as well. Although we have no canon that Snape told LV, him telling Bella indicates (to me) he did because it would be information LV could use. And maybe why he chose Draco for the task or why he suddenly changed his focus to DD. Maybe he didn't change it at all but figured DD was the only one standing between him and the one who made the prophecy - Trelawney - and with DD at his weakest, he finally had a chance to eliminate him. DD has a way of knowing things or realizing that he might indeed be next, especially because he knows the prophecy is the most important thing to LV in his quest to eliminate Harry and at this moment Harry knowing it in full is his advantage over LV. And I am to believe that DD chose to die and risk losing this advantage? The big problem in all of your theories, that Snape will be able to help Harry from LV's side, is that Snape will not and never be able to change LV's plans. Snape keeps telling Bella and Narcissa even he can't change the Dark Lord's mind which means that whatever LV is planning to do next after DD is gone, Snape will not be able to influence it. This means if LV goes after Trelawney next, then there will be no one to stop him from doing so. So now we are to believe that everything that happened in OotP just a few weeks before is now meaningless because Snape has to save the day and be the key to Harry's victory. And DD protecting her by given her a job and keeping her in the castle for 16 years is no longer important and neither is Harry's safety if LV gets hold of the entire prophecy. You all make assumptions that DD considers Snape the key to Harry's victory while he isn't even able to help prevent the kid from being lured to the DoM (with or without alerting the Order), you make assumptions that Snape knows about the Horcruxes and DD gave him the task to find them or provide the necessary information for Harry, while Harry is trained the entire year to be able to locate them. And the inconvenience of not being able to give the information to anyone is not a problem? No, right, of course DD told someone of the plan and he will make Harry believe Snape. If Snape is so important to the Order then why does no one know why DD trusted Snape? Don't you think this would be important for this plan to work? Is that really so dangerous to his cover that besides DD someone else knows why Snape CAN be trusted. Oh, of course, again there will be someone else who knows and although a lying DD according to you is not necessary, we have to believe he lied to Harry about Snape being sorry he relayed the prophecy to LV and DD believing it WAS the REASON for his return. Just because Snape turned before GH and the death of the Potters doesn't mean LV hadn't already made his decision about which family he was going to take out. Snape having a lifedebt to James probably figured, he could get rid of it by providing DD with this information, save James and make the debt even, but the SK change caused a different outcome and, although not known to Snape, he still blames James for dying as a result of putting his trust in Sirius and messing up his chance to get rid of the debt *before* LV would find a way to get to Harry. So logically there is nothing that contradicts DD's claim to Harry about Snape regretting how LV interpreted the prophecy and DD thinking it was his reason to return to the side of good. Snape had worked as a teacher for 14 years by Harry's fifth year making Harry about 1 year old when Snape started his job. GH happens when Harry is 1 year and 3 months. Although this can be read both ways, as an ESE, or as a Snape who truly defected to the other side. I do not for one minute believe that DD would lie to Harry. There might be more to it and he might have other reasons DD didn't mention but a lying DD to make a more plausible Snape as DDM is not plausible in my book and neither is putting others at risk by making Snape take a UV and ordering him to kill DD. Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 12:54:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:54:44 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166113 > Dana: > > You all make assumptions that DD considers Snape the key to > Harry's victory while he isn't even able to help prevent the > kid from being lured to the DoM (with or without alerting the > Order), you make assumptions that Snape knows about the > Horcruxes and DD gave him the task to find them or provide the > necessary information for Harry, while Harry is trained the > entire year to be able to locate them. And the inconvenience > of not being able to give the information to anyone is not a > problem? Alla: To not make it a complete me too, I just want to say that I certainly do not make assumptions that Snape knows about horcruxes. Now he **may** know about them, since he treated ( well or not - different story) DD from the ring curse, but I certainly do not think that it is a given that DD informed Snape of them. DD may have just said - I was hit with nasty curse, help me Severus. IMO. Dana: > Just because Snape turned before GH and the death of the Potters > doesn't mean LV hadn't already made his decision about which > family he was going to take out. Snape having a lifedebt to > James probably figured, he could get rid of it by providing > DD with this information, save James and make the debt even, > but the SK change caused a different outcome and, although not > known to Snape, he still blames James for dying as a result of > putting his trust in Sirius and messing up his chance to get > rid of the debt *before* LV would find a way to get to Harry. > > So logically there is nothing that contradicts DD's claim to > Harry about Snape regretting how LV interpreted the prophecy > and DD thinking it was his reason to return to the side of > good. Alla: Oh, my goodness. This is brilliant Dana, this also makes Harry story to the members of the Order after the DD death to be **not** inconsistent at all. Dana: > Snape had worked as a teacher for 14 years by Harry's fifth > year making Harry about 1 year old when Snape started his job. > GH happens when Harry is 1 year and 3 months. Although this > can be read both ways, as an ESE, or as a Snape who truly > defected to the other side. I do not for one minute believe > that DD would lie to Harry. There might be more to it and he > might have other reasons DD didn't mention but a lying DD to > make a more plausible Snape as DDM is not plausible in my book > and neither is putting others at risk by making Snape take a UV > and ordering him to kill DD. Alla: DD omits information for plot purposes for sure. I certainly think that "truth is a great and terrible thing" ( paraphrase) was not meant to hint at lying manipulator DD, just the victim of plot necessity DD, but it certainly IMO can be seen how DD often hides the truth and by extension lies about it. Even though I am with you. Alla, who is thinking that this post was at least expanding some on Dana's points, hopefully :) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 14:37:53 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:37:53 -0000 Subject: Percy. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166114 Kemper Wrote:: >A diciplinary hearing is different than a judicial hearing. Dumbledore thought it was much more than a disciplinary hearing, more than a judicial hearing even; this is what he had to say on the subject: "In the few short weeks since I was asked to leave the Wizengamot, it has already become the practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple matter of underage magic!" A Full CRIMINAL Trial. Dumbledore certainly thought the matter was serious and Harry thought the matter of Azkaban was a real possibility; if they think it's that's serious I don't see why we readers should think otherwise, and there is no reason Percy should either. But of course Percy did know Harry could end up in Azkaban, he just didn't care. And as I pointed out before, if they only had in mind expelling Harry then that first protest message from the Ministry makes no sense. Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 15:12:42 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:12:42 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166115 > > Quick_Silver: > > Actually I meant that James and Sirius underestimated Peter > > in the sense that they never thought that he'd turn to > > Voldemort (or be capable of blowing up a street). On the > > other hand Dumbledore (and maybe, big maybe, Snape) > > underestimated Draco's ability to bring Death Eaters into > > the castle (I believe Dumbledore says as much on the Tower). > > Dana: > > To be honest I do not see the parallel at all. > > I even see a big flaw because Draco was ordered to kill LV and > *if* Snape took the UV to protect DD, and he was planning to > die, then where does that leave Draco? Because not finishing, > his task, would get him killed. And LV letting him live is > still a big question mark. Magpie: Snape was not necessarily planning to die. He *would* die if it was necessary--any UV involves the person risking their life to a certain extent. But the idea in this case is that Snape was planning to control Draco and not have to die. If Draco was spirited away by DD and thought to be dead, presumably that would have taken care of it. So there would be no question of LV killing him. The situation on the Tower ruined that plan by putting all of them on the spot. Dana: > Personally I think Snape never took the UV to protect Draco, > he took it because Bella accused him of being a coward, > always hiding behind his orders. She calls him on his bluff > and he, thinking he could control everything, took it. Magpie: He is vowing to protect Draco, and he honestly doesn't seem too upset by Bellatrix calling him a coward. She's the one who's desperate in the situation, it seems to me. He's not bothered by her claims that he's slithered out of action. On the contrary, he gets a great line about how useless her time in Azkaban was compared to his years at Hogwarts. I honestly don't Snape portrayed as at all acting defensively against Bellatrix in the scene. How is ESE!Snape thinking he can control everything? DDM!Snape is presumably taking a very calculated risk and planning, with Dumbledore's help, to get Draco and his family into a Wizard Witness Protection Program. I don't see how this other Snape plans to control anything. Doesn't he have to kill Dumbledore in the end? And if so, why does he wait until the Tower to do it? Why not just kill Dumbledore a better way and make it look like an accident, especially once Draco starts making it dangerous? Dana:> > For me the idea that Snape did everything on DD's orders is > stretching believability to such an extent that it makes it > highly improbable because it makes assumptions that DD knew > that Narcissa would come to Snape for help. Or that without > the UV Draco could not be saved or that the only way to save > Draco was by taking the UV. Or even that the only way to > save Draco would be for either Snape or DD to die. Magpie: That's one of the many mysteries of the Vow scene, yes. I've never thought that Dumbledore could have known that Narcissa would come to Snape. I've always assumed most theories that Dumbledore and Snape are working together only assume that Dumbledore knew about the Vow after the fact and that Dumbledore was okay with Snape's decision to take the Vow, which is the type of thing he hints at to Harry when Harry brings up the question. I don't see the UV as being the only way to save Draco either--but then, neither was Peter as the Secret Keeper the only way to save James. The point is just that Snape decided to take the Vow and that he and Dumbledore were also trying to protect and neutralize Draco. Dana: > > Better yet I believe that it was Snape who provided the > information for LV to decide to go after DD and this is why; > > Pg 36 UK ed. paperback: > > 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. > The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. He since sustained a > serious injury because his reactions are slower then they once > were.' > > End quote from canon. > > This is information that you never ever tell to your enemy > because it puts holes in your defence system. And if he is > DDM then Bella is the enemy and although she was not the one > who told LV, as the order for Draco already stood at that time, > I am pretty sure LV knows this information as well. Magpie: It's not putting holes in your defense system if you're trying to draw the enemy to attack in a way for which you're prepared. Dumbledore himself isn't trying to hide his damaged hand. I would think that making the enemy think Dumbledore is weaker than he is would be an advantage. Dumbledore is not "shaken" by his duel with Voldemort, and his injury possibly did not come at all from slow reflexes. Snape throughout the scene, to me, reads as someone encouraging the DEs in their completely wrong, dismissive view of Dumbledore because it's better if they don't take him as seriously as they could. Dana: > Although we have no canon that Snape told LV, him telling > Bella indicates (to me) he did because it would be information > LV could use. And maybe why he chose Draco for the task or why > he suddenly changed his focus to DD. Magpie: Canonically, he chose Draco for the task to get Draco killed and punish Lucius. LV's plan never hinged on DD being weak or not. Had Draco confronted DD when he hadn't just drunk a lot of poison, he probably wouldn't have been in danger. Dana: Maybe he didn't change it > at all but figured DD was the only one standing between him > and the one who made the prophecy - Trelawney - and with DD at > his weakest, he finally had a chance to eliminate him. DD has a > way of knowing things or realizing that he might indeed be next, > especially because he knows the prophecy is the most important > thing to LV in his quest to eliminate Harry and at this moment > Harry knowing it in full is his advantage over LV. And I am to > believe that DD chose to die and risk losing this advantage? Magpie: LV is *not* targetting DD in HBP. He's targetting Draco. He doesn't expect Dumbledore to die. He may indeed one day want Snape to kill Dumbledore, as Snape seems to imply in Spinner's End, but his plan for sixth year probably isn't based on information that Dumbledore is weak because it assumes that Dumbledore is strong--certainly strong enough to easily take care of a would-be assassin like Draco. Dana: > > The big problem in all of your theories, that Snape will be > able to help Harry from LV's side, is that Snape will not and > never be able to change LV's plans. Magpie: I don't think it's necessarily a problem with the theory. It's an unknown. We just don't know what Snape and Dumbledore might hope to do after this. There would be no surprise to what happened next if we could really strategize this well for the good side. There's plenty of ways Snape could be used to help Harry from his current position if you use your imagination. Anyone loyal to DD in LV's camp could be helpful. (Aren't we waiting for something along those lines from Peter?) Dana: > > Snape keeps telling Bella and Narcissa even he can't change the > Dark Lord's mind which means that whatever LV is planning to do > next after DD is gone, Snape will not be able to influence it. > This means if LV goes after Trelawney next, then there will be > no one to stop him from doing so. So now we are to believe that > everything that happened in OotP just a few weeks before is now > meaningless because Snape has to save the day and be the > key to Harry's victory. And DD protecting her by given her a > job and keeping her in the castle for 16 years is no longer > important and neither is Harry's safety if LV gets hold of the > entire prophecy. Magpie: Actually, I don't see why getting a hold of the entire prophecy would insure victory for Voldemort. I still don't see why Snape must be so useless and all these things must suddenly happen because of the events of HBP. Dumbledore is clearly preparing for his death throughout HBP, so hopefully he didn't think everything would fall apart after he was gone. Snape's possibly being helpful from the position he's in now doesn't have to depend on his being able to change LV's mind about something or passing information to the Order. When, after all, have the books ever really turned on that sort of thing? We know that Lupin is spying for the werewolves but so far it's more just something he's been given to do that sounds useful and dangerous--same thing with Snape. The only time information from him seemed to be important was possibly with Draco in HBP. Dana: > You all make assumptions that DD considers Snape the key to > Harry's victory while he isn't even able to help prevent the > kid from being lured to the DoM (with or without alerting the > Order), you make assumptions that Snape knows about the > Horcruxes and DD gave him the task to find them or provide the > necessary information for Harry, while Harry is trained the > entire year to be able to locate them. And the inconvenience > of not being able to give the information to anyone is not a > problem? > > No, right, of course DD told someone of the plan and he will > make Harry believe Snape. If Snape is so important to the > Order then why does no one know why DD trusted Snape? Don't > you think this would be important for this plan to work? Is > that really so dangerous to his cover that besides DD someone > else knows why Snape CAN be trusted. Magpie: Here I agree. I am making no assumptions about exactly what Snape's role in the victory is supposed to be according to Dumbledore or anyone else. But that's also why I don't think DDM!Snape is discounted just because Snape can no longer spy on LV and bring back information to the Order, or work with Harry the way he has before. I still believe that Snape could potentially have reasons for what he did on the Tower, and that Dumbledore wanted him to do it, and that it ties into bringing LV down. Snape can be important without being the one to help Harry destroy Horcruxes or work with him in that way. Personally, I don't tend to be drawn to theories about how Harry will be working with Snape in HBP, because they seem to go against my own instincts that say that Harry's confrontation with Snape ought to be a climax. Having Snape quickly reveal himself to be working with the Order early on in the book seems to undo the situation JKR set up in HBP where Harry absolutely hates him and refuses to work with him because Snape's a murderer--of Dumbledore, no less. That's also why it seems backwards to me to think Snape is going to cause Harry to consider working with Draco. Draco is the little bad, the one Harry's already hating a bit less and has reason to think differently about--it makes far more sense to me for Harry to work up to more important Snape through Draco than vice versa. That would be anti-climactic, imo. Dana: Oh, of course, again there > will be someone else who knows and although a lying DD according > to you is not necessary, we have to believe he lied to Harry > about Snape being sorry he relayed the prophecy to LV and DD > believing it WAS the REASON for his return. Magpie: I think the important information here isn't the reason for his return but the reason that Dumbledore trusted him completely. Also, I believe that Dumbledore says he *believes* that Snape's remorse was the reason for his return...and is cut off after that. Never assume in HP you know exactly what somebody is going to say. Dumbledore could actually be saying that Snape's remorse was great and he believes that's the reason he returned to LV as a spy, for all we know. Regardless, it's clearly separated from the real question, which is why Dumbledore trusts him. First he's trying to impress on Harry how badly Snape regretted passing on the Prophecy. He *believes* it's his greatest regret. But when Harry asks him how he can be sure he can trust him Dumbledore goes silent and does not tell him. This more important piece of information is one he's concealing--unlike his opinions about Snape's remorse. The reason for his return to the good side is not as important as why Dumbledore trusts that he truly has returned. Harry mixes them up together later, coming up with the same story Snape tells Bellatrix. It's a story that rests on Dumbledore being too ready to believe the good in people, something I don't think is true about him based on what I've seen. Dana:> > Snape had worked as a teacher for 14 years by Harry's fifth > year making Harry about 1 year old when Snape started his job. > GH happens when Harry is 1 year and 3 months. Although this > can be read both ways, as an ESE, or as a Snape who truly > defected to the other side. I do not for one minute believe > that DD would lie to Harry. There might be more to it and he > might have other reasons DD didn't mention but a lying DD to > make a more plausible Snape as DDM is not plausible in my book > and neither is putting others at risk by making Snape take a UV > and ordering him to kill DD. Magpie: DD doesn't have to lie. He gives an opinion and then doesn't give an answer. He said something which Harry turned into more of an answer than it was. There is, it seems, more to it. But I think Quick_Silver's parallel, if Snape is DDM, is still very strong. Snape is taking the danger on himself, yet Dumbledore ends up dying. Everyone depends on Peter being incompetent and he surprises them, just as Draco does. Snape winds up the murderer, just as Sirius did (although in Sirius' case he was innocent). It's a very similar set up with a deceptive plan resting on a lot of manipulation that wound up completely blowing up in everyone's faces due to underestimating a central figure chosen specifically because it was thought he couldn't be underestimated. -m From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 13:50:51 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:50:51 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166116 > a_svirn: > But if wasn't not about facts what *was* it about? Yes, Percy is not Arthur's favourite > child, but even so, it's really unforgivable to accuse your son in spying without even >meaning it. Arthur is a decent and level-headed man; I can't imagine him being this > unjust. What I can imagine is him trying to recruit his son for the Order. As one of > the top ministry officials Percy could have been of service to Dumbledore. I think Arthur > took it for granted that he would side with the rest of the family. But Percy must have > taken a very dim view on Dumbledore's secret activities and refused. At least, that's > what looks to me like a plausible scenario. I think it is fruitful to look at this in the context of another breakdown in OOTP, the breakdown in communication between Harry and Dumbledore. As DD says in his infamous end-of-OOTP speech, the old sometimes don't remember what it is like to be young, and the young can't understand how the old think. Arthur isn't as old as DD and Percy isn't as young as Harry, but nevertheless it is impossible for a nineteen year old just into his first real job to understand how a fifty year old father and veteran bureaucrat thinks. Now, Arthur should have been able to remember what it was like to be nineteen, but that he did not is a failure all too common among even the best of fathers. Both Arthur and Dumbledore faced a situation where a beloved "child" was in danger in ways readily evident to them but invisible to the child in question. Now there the analogy breaks down, as DD was deliberately witholding information from Harry and Percy's ignorance is a matter of perspective and experience. Nevertheless, both "father" figureswere faced with protecting a "child" from danger while also dealing with large external crises. Given that, they fell back on the parent's ultimate line of defense -- "because I say so." That is, they both moved automatically to take actions that they believed were clearly in the best interest of the child in question, neglecting to consider how said child might percieve their words and/or actions. Once again, the analogy breaks down somewhat as DD is worried about Harry's Voldy connection whereas Arthur's actions seem more to be motivated by an attitude of "Listen, son, when you're older you'll understand these things, but right now listen to me and quit being such a big dummy." Once again, not the best of tacks to take, but one even the best of fathers find themselves using in moments of stress and frustration. Thus does raise an interesting possibility -- one which I very much doubt Rowling would use, but interesting nonetheless. It provides a way where Harry could be an agent in reconciling Percy with his family, Arthur in particular. As both had experience of problems with their "father" figures at about the same time for broadly similar reasons, Harry might be able to help Percy understand that Arthur only meant to protect him, however badly it turned out. Or maybe (probably in fact) not. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 14:18:30 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:18:30 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166117 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > However, it's still Amelia Bones's job to determine the facts, which > she succeeds in doing despite Fudge's interference. Is it, or is it the job of the Wizengamot as a whole? It depends on the theory of law under which the WW operates. But all that, interesting as it is, is beside the point. She does, whatever her role -- and I am not at all sure she is actually acting as the Judge here or simply a particularly forceful member of the tribunal -- defy Fudge -- who is after all her superior and could presumably bounce her from her job -- and swing things in the right way. When Harry > mentions his Patronus, Madam Bones takes over the questioning from > Fudge, and she takes Harry's statement about Dementors seriously. To > be sure, it's Dumbledore who makes sure that a witness, Mrs. Figg, is > heard (her testimony is only partially perjured; she didn't *see* the > Dementors, but she knows full well they were there and that Harry > conjured the Patronus in self-defense--"that was what happened" is the > truth). Except she indignantly exclaims, in response to Fudge's query about whether squibs can see dementors "Yes, we can!" (paraphrase) which is a flat out lie. Her description of seeing the dementors is also a flat out lie, regardless of whether they were there or not. Therefore she has lied under "oath," and flagrantly at that, as her testimony of seeing the dementors is not open to arguments of interpretation but is simply and completely an untruth. It is an untruth that works, but it is nevertheless incredibly dangerous. Had there been anyone on the Wizengamot with personal knowledge of squibs three gooses would have been cooked (Harry, Dumbledore, and Mrs. Figg). Come to that, had anyone hostile to Dumbledore learned the facts about that during the next months, gooses could have been cooked retroactively. This is yet again, an example of DD giving Harry clear, if unspoken, messages about behavior. We go on and on about Harry lieing by omission concerning an old potions book, yet DD, no less than the former head of the Wizengamot, gives him a perfect example of dishonesty during nothing less than a legal proceeding (perjury, coaching witnesses, etc). Sure, the Wizengamot hearing is a much more intense situation where arguably more is at stake, but Harry's activity over the potions book was arguably not dishonest at all, so the relative comparison holds. Sure, the Wizengamot is packed and unfair, but so in Harry's experience has potions been. So, what would happen if, as some might have wished, Harry had been called on the carpet in front of DD about his behavior in potions. Would not a logical - if controversial - response have been, "Oh, lieing is only acceptable at the Wizengamot? Oh, I get it, it was RIGHT but HARD to lie to the Wizengamot? Ahh, looked real hard to me. Not that I'm ungrateful, mind you, but give me a break!" Lupinlore, who finds DD's arguable hypocrisy on the right-vs-easy question most amusing From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 16:51:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:51:50 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166119 Dana wrote: > > Just because Snape turned before GH and the death of the Potters doesn't mean LV hadn't already made his decision about which family he was going to take out. Snape having a lifedebt to James probably figured, he could get rid of it by providing DD with this information, save James and make the debt even, but the SK change caused a different outcome and, although not known to Snape, he still blames James for dying as a result of putting his trust in Sirius and messing up his chance to get rid of the debt *before* LV would find a way to get to Harry. > > > > So logically there is nothing that contradicts DD's claim to Harry about Snape regretting how LV interpreted the prophecy and DD thinking it was his reason to return to the side of good. > > Alla: > > Oh, my goodness. This is brilliant Dana, this also makes Harry story to the members of the Order after the DD death to be **not** inconsistent at all. > Carol responds: I don't see your logic here. Snape was spying "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow, as Dana admits ("Snape turned before GH"). How, then, can Harry's story that Snape's remorse occurred *after* the Potters' deaths not be inconsistent with the facts already presented in canon? As Dana points out in the post you quoted, Snape first spies, then becomes a teacher, then, two months into his teaching career, the Potters are killed. Harry's version omits the spying career and the two months of teaching and jumps immediately to Godrics' Hollow. It transforms "how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy" (which Snape apparently reported to DD before he began spying) into "Voldemort killed the Potters." Carol, who actually agrees with Dana here (except the part implying that Snape wanted LV to get to Harry) but not with your interpretation of her second paragraph From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 15 17:08:15 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:08:15 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy Message-ID: <30635688.1173978495451.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166120 From: Annemehr >But by now we see that Percy clings doggedly to his childhood outlook >on life: a slavish loyalty to authority figures which has probably >become inextricably entwined with the presumption of reward and >advancement. This in spite of the fact that his new Authorities have >turned him against his old ones -- and he is now willing to hurt >people rather than consider a fundamental change in philosophy. Bart: Our society, and hence, our literature, is due to the dual roots of Western culture: the Judeo/Christian roots and the Greco/Roman roots. Unlike the Taoist vs. Confucian roots in China, however, the difference is not as well marked, or even necessarily known. In the case of Percy, he is running into a place where the roots are in conflict. He follows the Greco-Roman example of always obeying your superior, and assuming that they know best. Note that between the authoritarian Molly, and Arthur, who is held back from advancement because he follows his whims rather than the rules (although he seems to be quite happy where he is), not to mention the Public School system followed by Hogwarts (note that, historically, the system of prefects was a cost-cutting regimen, by having the students do work that the school would otherwise have to hire someone to do, normally paid for with a few extra privleges that cost the school virtually nothing). However, in the Greco-Roman culture, you follow your superior practically no matter what (not as bad as the Japanese Samurai system, where the true test of a Samurai is said to be the ability to follow a bad master). In the Judeo-Christian culture, God comes first; generally, you are expected to ruin your life to follow God's will (although Judaism limits rules that you are expected to die before breaking to a number you can count on the fingers of one hand). In any case, most of the Weasley family see the danger of Voldemort to be more important than following the Ministry, to the point of risking what little they have to do what they can to stop Voldemort. Percy considers following the Ministry to be so important that he appears to be Orwellian in the way he follows them, in denying evidence he has seen with his own eyes. I don't think he sees his family as evil as much as he sees his parents as horribly misguided. I would tend to trust Arthur's judgement on Percy's promotions, however, as he has been in the system for decades, and has a far better idea of how it works. Arthur would agree with Vir Cotto's assessment in Babylon 5, when Morden, the representative of the Shadows, asks him what is it he wants, and Vir replies, "I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?" Let's hope Percy can get a look at Morden's head before the end of Book 7. Bart From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 17:18:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:18:58 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166122 > Dana: > I even see a big flaw because Draco was ordered to kill LV and > *if* Snape took the UV to protect DD, and he was planning to > die, then where does that leave Draco? Because not finishing, > his task, would get him killed. And LV letting him live is > still a big question mark. zgirnius: Snape knew that Dumbledore would be willing to help Draco out by hiding him from the Dark Lord's wrath. If Snape's statements at Spinner's End are to be believed, he knew Draco's task before the two sisters ever showed up on his doorstep, and even had reason to believe "he wants me to do it in the end". Even if Snape was bluffing, as some DDM! folks propose ("we all" are a diverse group, Dana!, there are *many* theories of the DDM! flavor about Snape) , I don't think it is a stretch for Snape to suppose that Dumbledore would try to help Draco in some way. And even if Snape is wrong, how would his taking the Vow make thinks *worse* for Draco? And, even if preventing the murder of Dumbledore *did* make things worse for Draco, surely it would still be the right thing to do? Dana: > Better yet I believe that it was Snape who provided the > information for LV to decide to go after DD and this is why; > > Pg 36 UK ed. paperback: > > 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. > The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. He since sustained a > serious injury because his reactions are slower then they once > were.' > > This is information that you never ever tell to your enemy > because it puts holes in your defence system. zgirnius: I am certain Snape reported the injury promptly, and in exactly the same terms he used to Bella. Dumbledore's black hand is a highly visible proof that something has happened which all the students and staff at Hogwarts, and tons of others, will see. Dumbledore is a public figure, after all. As a spy, Snape can never fail to report promptly something that is going to become public knowledge sooner or later. The story he (and I presume, Dumbledore) cooked up for Bella, Voldemort, and any other DE who might ask, has the virtue of hiding all that Snape knows. Even if Snape does not know about the Horcruxes, if he were to report in exact detail the precise symptoms of the curse he healed (a curse Voldmemort devised, presumably), and other circumstances such as the presence of a black ring on Dumbledore's hand, Voldemort would be on to the Horcrux hunt. I can't prove that he didn't, in fact, report these details, any more than you can prove he did. What we *know* he did report is far less damaging to the Order than what he *could have* reported. Dana: > The big problem in all of your theories, that Snape will be > able to help Harry from LV's side, is that Snape will not and > never be able to change LV's plans. zgirnius: Please do try to be more precise in addressing your comments. Whose theories do you mean by "all of your theories"? My responses to your posts posit no such thing. Dumbledore chose to die, so that three others would live. Full stop. That this might have other benefits is nice, but not necessary. That said, who says Snape's usefulness would be in changing Voldemort's plans? Sabotaging them through direct action, reporting them to others, or working to subvert Death Eaters (such as the Malfoys) are also options for DDM!Snape in Voldemort's camp. As is simply being there and taking whatever action seems necessary and opportune, if Harry and/or others end up in the vicinity of Voldemort and in need of help. This last is a popular idea even outside the DDM! camp. Neri's theory of LID! (Life-Indebted) Snape has Snape saving Harry at some point to avoid the nasty consequences Neri supposes befall persons who fail to honor a life-debt, as do theories that Snape is OFH! but will come to feel guilty about his murder of Dumbledore, or wants Voldemort dead for his own reasons and so will help Harry. Dana: > This means if LV goes after Trelawney next, then there will be > no one to stop him from doing so. zgirnius: Snape could warn someone. And yes, I know nobody would trust *him*, but the Potterverse offers a wealth of possible ways he could do so anonymously. If he, as the murderer of Dumbledore and current star DE, is assigned this task, he would even have the option of sabotage through direct action. Dana: >Don't you think this would be important for this plan to work? zgirnius: What plan? "We" don't all agree there was a plan. Dana: > Is that really so dangerous to his cover that besides DD someone > else knows why Snape CAN be trusted. zgirnius: I believe that Dumbledore did give Harry the true reason for Snape's return, his remorse. The question is, why did Dumbledore believe in it, when Harry and others find this reason laughable? A possible simple reason is that Dumbledore has known Snape from the age of 11, and based on this extensive knowledge is simply sure Snape is worthy of his trust. Why do you trust your friends? I know my reason for that would have to be either "Just because", or a long recitation of our past history together. That DD opted for "just because" ("I trust Severus Snape completely") instead of a long account of what he seesn as his reasons for trusting Snape is explained by his desire to spend the night getting a Horcrux, not having a long argument about Snape with Harry. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 15 17:24:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:24:35 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166123 Dana: > 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is > growing old. The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. > He since sustained a serious injury because his > reactions are slower then they once were.' > This is information that you never ever tell to > your enemy because it puts holes in your defence > system. And if he is DDM then Bella is the enemy > and although she was not the one who told LV, as > the order for Draco already stood at that time, I > am pretty sure LV knows this information as well. > Although we have no canon that Snape told LV, him > telling Bella indicates (to me) he did because it > would be information LV could use. [snip] > Snape keeps telling Bella and Narcissa even he can't > change the Dark Lord's mind which means that whatever > LV is planning to do next after DD is gone, houyhnhnm: What information is Snape sharing with the enemy? It seems more like disinformation to me. There is no evidence in HBP that, before drinking the cave potion, Dumbledore's reactions are slowed or that his magical powers are in any way diminished. His blackened hand is already, or will soon become, common knowledge. It must be accounted for in a way that will not lead to suspicions of what DD is actually up to (hunting for horcruxes) and if it is possible to make the Dark side underestimate DD by giving a false report of his weakness, so much the better. Snape's behavior in this instance accords exactly with what a loyal spy would do, it seems to me. Just about everybody has, at some time or other, wanted to be a fly on the wall or own an invisibility cloak or a pair of extendable ears, or have a magic potion that allows us to change into someone else, in order to find out what "they" are really saying behind our backs. Added to that universal human trait is the curiosity that built up from the time Snape walked out of the hospital wing in GoF with a pale face and glittering eyes. All through OotP we wondered what Snape was doing for the Order, what he told Voldemort when he returned to him, what really goes on when DEs get together. And then, in the second chapter of Half Blood Prince, at last the chance comes. Oh, boy! Sure enough, we see a markedly different Snape. We see not the pompous, irrascible, slightly ridiculous overgrown bat of Hogwarts, but Snape in his own house playing the suave host. This is the real deal. We're finally going to learn the truth about Snape and his relationship with the Dark Lord. But is it? Is "Spinner's End" truly The Big Reveal, or is it just a large succulent bait that readers have been primed to pounce on? There are a few facts that can be deduced from "Spinner's End", I believe. One is the front that Bellatrix puts on about being one of Voldemort's chosen confidants. Snape pretty well demolishes that pose. He doesn't just trick her into admitting that the outcome of the battle at the MoM has resulted in her falling out of favor. I have been thinking more of the long list of answers Snape gives Bellatrix to "save tedious interruptions". I am starting to see that as another technique on Snape's part for extracting information. "He shares everything with me, " claims Bellatrix. Snape asks, "Does he /still/, after the fiasco at the Ministry?" I ask did he *ever* share everything with Bella, at least since she escaped from Azkaban? As Snape gives his long list of answers to Bella's questions, does she stop him at any time to say "Yes, I've heard all that, but ..." Do we get a single hint that she has heard any of it before? Why not? Bellatrix broke out of Azkaban in January. The battle at the MoM took place six months later. Apparently, in all that time before she fell out of favor, Voldemort never told her anything of Snape's story, nor did she dare to ask. Another piece of information that we get in "Spinner's End" is the way *Snape* presents himself to the DEs, as Voldemort's closest, most trusted, etc., etc. But since there is no independent evidence in canon to verify Snape's account of himself to Bella and Narcissa, there is no way to know that his boasts are not as empty as Bella's or Wormtail's or those of any other DE. We do know how much of the truth he leaves out when he is talking to the two sisters: saving Harry's life, alerting the Order to the DEs presence at the Ministry, saving Dumbldore from the ring curse. A lot more that sounds like hooey: his happiness in his soft life at Hogwarts, the "sixteen years" of information, his evaluation of Harry as a mediocre wizard. So Snape claims he can't change the Dark Lord's mind. This is information? *I* could say that. Knowing Voldemort, it's a pretty safe bet. He's the Decider. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 15 17:24:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:24:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape Message-ID: <14133677.1173979497129.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166124 From: Magpie Bart: >> Hagrid, on the other hand, is quite talented. If it weren't for Draco's >> interference, he might have made an excellent teacher. But, after being >> framed twice, he is a little too leery of authority. With some guidance, >> he could have become a first rate teacher. Magpie: >So Hagrid would have been an excellent teacher of adolescents if only had to >teach actual 13-year-olds. (Hey, Draco would have been a model student if >not for Hagrid, one might as well say. He seems to do just fine with other >teachers.) Hagrid has his own talents, but his lack of talents as a teacher >are all his own and can't be blamed on Draco or any other mildly >disagreeable child--that's part of the job of being a teacher. His >shortcomings as an authority figure are also his own, and have been since >the beginning of the series. I don't think Luna's "We in Ravenclaw think >he's a bit of a joke" have anything to do with residual trauma over Draco >whispering in class that day. On the contrary, when the Trio have trouble >with Hagrid's teaching it usual revolves around things they consider all >Hagrid. Bart: First of all, when I referred to Draco's interference, I mean his faking the severity of an injury, and his family influence being used to get the Board of Governors and the Ministry on Hagrid's case. The latter was a major blow to Hagrid's already fragile self-confidence; had Hagrid had more time to get used to the position, or had Draco's injuries been treated like getting splashed by an exploding potion in Snape's class, Hagrid would probably not become as self-doubting. In addition, to all appearances, none of the other teachers chose to mentor him (and Dumbledore didn't think to ask any of them to do so). Some experienced advice would have put Hagrid over the hump as well. Professor Sprout in particular would have been very useful in helping him set up lesson plans; apparently, in Hogwarts, there's no such thing as lesson plans (well, Hermione said in P/SS that the WW people are very poor when it comes to logic, although I wonder what they study in Arithmancy if that is the case. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 17:34:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:34:02 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166125 Dana wrote: > For me the idea that Snape did everything on DD's orders is stretching believability to such an extent that it makes it highly improbable because it makes assumptions that DD knew that Narcissa would come to Snape for help. Carol: I actually agree with you here. It makes no sense for Snape and Dumbledore to have planned the UV though Snape could have had some more general order, such as "do whatever is necessary to protect Draco." But Dumbledore would not, IMO, have suggested that Snape deliberately place his life on the line in such a way. Nor do I think, as some people have suggested, that the idea came from Voldemort since Narcissa is clearly going behind his back. It seems to be her own idea, not part of a plan or she would have deliberately brought Bellatrix with her rather than being followed by Bellatrix, who is trying to prevent her from going to Snape, but a last-minute inspiration to bind Snape to his promise to protect Draco. I do think that Dumbledore and Snape had a long-range plan that included his taking the DADA class (if DD could get Slughorn to teach Potions) and returning to the DEs at the end of the year, but their plans were modified first by the knowledge that Draco was asssigned to kill Dumbledore (as Snape must have told him; hence, the extra protections on Hogwarts in Harry's sixth year) and then by the UV itself (DD tells Harry that perhaps he knows more about these matters than Harry does, meaning, IMO, that Snape has told him about the interview with Draco and everything that preceded it). But, as I see it, the only motive Snape could have had for taking the vow in the first place was to protect Draco without exposing his true loyalties. (Making Bellatrix the bonder prevents her from reporting their act of disloyalty to LV; she's implicated, too.) Dana: > Better yet I believe that it was Snape who provided the information for LV to decide to go after DD and this is why; > > 'I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. > The duel with the Dark Lord shook him. He since sustained a > serious injury because his reactions are slower then they once > were.' > > This is information that you never ever tell to your enemy because it puts holes in your defence system. And if he is DDM then Bella is the enemy and although she was not the one who told LV, as the order for Draco already stood at that time, I am pretty sure LV knows this information as well. > Carol: Here I disagree completely. Not only is it Snape's job as double agent to report some true information to Voldemort (otherwise, he'd be rather useless as a spy and Voldemort would know his true loyalties and kill him), but this particular piece of information would be rather hard to conceal. Voldemort would find out from Draco or some other Death Eater's child that Dumbledore has a blackened hand--he's not keeping it secret and in fact exposes it to the whole school at the welcome banquet (HBP Am. ed. 165). Snape mentions it as a "serious injury," but note that he doesn't describe it to Bellatrix and Narcissa. More important, he attributes it to slowed reactions-- exactly the cause that Slughorn suggests and Dumbledore goes along with (67). IMO, Snape and Dumbledore *want* Voldemort and his henchmen to think that Dumbledore is weaker than he really is, to lure them into a false security. A similar objective is gained when Snape refers to Harry as "mediocre to the last degree" (31). Voldemort underestimates Harry, and, IMO, Snape wants him to keep doing so. It's possible, however, that Dumbledore really is seriously weakened though still a powerful wizard who could easily take on Draco and probably several Death Eaters at this point. (I don't think that Snape sees any danger to *Dumbledore*, who will not allow Draco to murder him, only the danger to Draco for failing to complete his task.) If so, that weakness, along with the blackened hand, which will soon be public knowledge, requires an explanation. Slowed reactions sounds to me like a cover story that Snape and Dumbledore have agreed upon, one that Voldemort will believe given Dumbledore's immense age and the battle at the MoM. But Snape can hardly tell Voldemort or his loyal followers the real story, that Dumbledore was struck by a curse when he destroyed one of Voldemort's Horcruxes (and I don't see how Snape, whom DD trusts completely, could not know the cause of the curse) and that Snape himself saved his life. Snape, as always, is dealing in half-truths here, telling them as much of the truth as they need to know but concealing anything that will reveal his true loyalties (and, in this case, IMO, the full extent of Dumbledore's power, which is still great despite the injured hand). Dana: And maybe why he chose Draco for the task or why he suddenly changed his focus to DD. Maybe he didn't change it at all but figured DD was the only one standing between him and the one who made the prophecy - Trelawney - and with DD at his weakest, he finally had a chance to eliminate him. Carol responds: Dumbledore has always been "the only one that Voldemort ever feared" and he's always wanted to eliminate him. And after Dumbledore defeated Voldemort at the MoM, LV wouldn't need Snape or anyone else to make Dumbledore his number-one priority. Dumbledore stands between him and *Harry* (Trelawney is small potatoes) and must be eliminated, and the humiliating defeat at the MoM makes that more necessary in LV's view than ever. As for LV's choosing Draco to "do the deed" (with DE backup), that choice allows him to use someone at Hogwarts who's eager to prove himself, someone who wants revenge himself for his father's arrest (see my quotes in another thread), someone who happens to know a secret way into Hogwarts if he can manage to get the cabinets fixed. And if Draco fails, Voldemort still has the satisfaction of sweet revenge against Lucius Malfoy for failing to obtain the Prophecy. None of this has anything to do with Snape, who knows that Draco has been assigned to kill Dumbledore but obviously doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinets or the plan to get DEs into Hogwarts. (He could be bluffing, pretending to know Draco's job, but the protections on Hogwarts, the interview with Draco that Harry overhears, and Dumbledore's attitude suggest otherwise.) Dana: > The big problem in all of your theories, that Snape will be able to help Harry from LV's side, is that Snape will not and never be able to change LV's plans. Carol: And Snape knows that. He tells Narcissa exactly that, as you point out yourself. He has to work *around* Voldemort's plans. Of course, he can't change them. But he can, and does, report them to Dumbledore, whose complete trust in him must be partly the result of the excellent job he is doing of providing information about Voldemort's plans. ("It is not your job to find out what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters." "That's your job, isn't it?" "Yes, Potter. That is my job." Quoted from memory from the "Occlumency" chapter of OoP)) > Dana: > Snape keeps telling Bella and Narcissa even he can't change the Dark Lord's mind which means that whatever LV is planning to do next after DD is gone, Snape will not be able to influence it. Carol: Of course. It would be dangerous to lie to them on that point, wouldn't it? But Snape is subtle, and it's just possible that he can distract Voldemort from his real danger, Harry, as he was distracted by the Prophecy in OoP. He can influence and advise the Dark Lord, but, of course, he can't change LV's mind once it's made up. Dana: > You all make assumptions that DD considers Snape the key to Harry's victory while he isn't even able to help prevent the kid from being lured to the DoM (with or without alerting the Order), Carol: You also make assumptions. No doubt we all do. However, I believe that it was Harry who entered the Pensieve and disrupted the Occlumency lessons, Harry who wasn't trying hard at Occlumency because he hated Snape and wanted to have that dream, Harry who believed the vision that was implanted in his mind despite Hermione's pointing out its unlikelihood, Snape who understood Harry's garbled message (and perhaps the mental message as well) and verified that Sirius Black was safe, Snape who discovered that Harry hadn't returned from the forest and sent the Order to the MoM. . . . Dana: you make assumptions that Snape knows about the Horcruxes Carol: That is, admittedly, an assumption. However, it's based on canon. Dumbledore trusts Snape *completely*, Snape saved him from the ring Horcrux (it would be odd if he didn't know what the cursed object was), Snape is an expert in Dark Arts *and* healing--DD chooses him rather than Madam Pomfrey to deal with the ring curse for those reasons. I would be very surprised if Snape didn't know about the Horcruxes or figure out on his own how Voldemort managed to survive the deflected AK at Godric's Hollow. Dana: and DD gave him the task to find them or provide the necessary information for Harry Carol: We "all" make this assumption? I certainly have never done so, nor do I know of anyone who has. I could be wrong, but we do not *all* make any such assumption. And, if I may, I'd like to suggest that you not lump all DDM!Snape theorists together as if we all held identical views. We disagree with each other on many key points, for example, how much Snape knew at Spinner's End, why he took the UV, whether he actually killed DD (some think that he died from the poison or the "unstoppered" ring curse), what's going on with the AK. And none of us knows any more than you do what will happen in DH. At any rate, I suggest that you deal with us as individuals rather than as a group, without *assuming* that we hold identical views, which is manifestly false. Dana: > And the inconvenience of not being able to give the information to anyone is not a problem? Carol: Of course, it's a problem, and here we're relying on JKR to provide a credible solution. Most of us are counting on Harry's forgiveness of Snape as a key step in Harry's development. He has to defeat Voldemort through Love, and his desire for revenge (in which he resembles Snape himself, Sirius Black, and even Voldemrot) is, in the view of most DDM!Snapers, holding him back. We are, of course, reduced to speculation at this point. Plausible suggestions have been made, such as a changed Patronus (foreshadowed in canon by Tonks' changed Patronus) or a secret contact who knows of the UV and its possible consequences and will still accept information from Snape. Snape's status as outcast is certainly an obstacle but not an insurmountable obstacle. There's also the undeniable fact that he knows more about Dark magic and the healing of dark curses (shown through the ring Horcrux, the opal necklace, and Sectumsempra) than anyone else in the Order. JKR must have brought the knowledge into HBP for a reason. I will be very surprised if it doesn't play out in DH. Dana: I do not for one minute believe that DD would lie to Harry. Carol: Nor do I (though he does conceal information from him at various points). Dumbledore trusts Snape completely, but the reason he does so is still, as he told Harry in GoF, "a matter between Professor Snape and myself." Remorse for the Potters' deaths can't be the reason because Snape was spying on LV "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow. That he became a teacher between being a spy for DD and Godric's Hollow makes it unlikely that he was present at Godric's Hollow and, IMO, indicates that Dumbledore was happy to keep him safe at Hogwarts in the uncursed Potions position. It is certainly not evidence that Snape's loyalties lie with Voldemort. Dana: There might be more to it and he might have other reasons DD didn't mention but a lying DD to make a more plausible Snape as DDM is not plausible in my book Carol: And which of us DDM!Snapers is positing a lying Dumbledore? I'm not. A Dumbledore who keeps information to himself is, of course, canon, as is a Dumbledore who encourages false rumors such as the Shrieking Shack's being haunted. But lie to Harry, as opposed to telling him only as much as DD thinks he needs to know? When have we said that? DDM!Snape does not depend on Dumbledore's lying to Harry. It's Dumbledore's honest opinion. He trusts Snape completely. And, being someone who trusts Dumbledore's judgement, I trust Snape, too. (Just a hint. You might try making a few concessions rather than blocking out the possibility of DDM!Snape altogether. It would make your arguments more credible. Otherwise, you sound as if you've closed your mind and believe what you want to believe.) Dana: > and neither is putting others at risk by making Snape take a UV and ordering him to kill DD. Carol: And here we agree. DDM!Snape is not dependent on any such argument. Carol, hoping that Dana will look at actual assertions that other posters have made and not generalize about some imaginary shared conception of DDM!Snape Reposted to add page numbers and tone down the sarcasm, which was prompted by the tone of the post to which I was responding From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 17:39:15 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:39:15 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166126 "lupinlore" wrote: > what would happen if, as some might have > wished, Harry had been called on the carpet > in front of DD about his behavior in potions. > Would not a logical - if controversial > response have been, "Oh, lieing is only > acceptable at the Wizengamot? Yes, it's what I would say if I were Harry, except that I don't think Dumbledore would ever call him on the carpet for that. > Oh, I get it, it was RIGHT but HARD to > lie to the Wizengamot? Exactly, the Wizengamot was full of intelligent and wise old wizards and witches, it would not be easy to tell a convincing lie to them, but Figg and Dumbledore pulled it off. I congratulate them! Telling a lie to the enemy is no vice, it's a virtue, if you can do it well. > Lupinlore, who finds DD's arguable hypocrisy > on the right-vs-easy question most amusing You can find good things that are hard, and good things that are easy, and bad things that are easy, and bad things that are hard; Dumbledore said it's important to be able to sort that out. I can find no hypocrisy there. Eggplant From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 15 17:51:10 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:51:10 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0703141926ke281029oe0ff8bc7b0a65461@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166127 Annemehr: > Percy puts all his faith into his authority figures. > He has done so since childhood, and since childhood, > and right into his first year working for the Ministry, > this outlook on life had been consistently affirmed > by those authority figures through the granting of > good grades, material rewards, and positions of responsibility. Debbie: > Perhaps this is simply our first illustration of > Percy's approach to loyalty. When he says this, he > is a 5th year student, and Dumbledore is his headmaster. houyhnhnm: I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I could not understand how Percy could turn on Dumbldore the way he did. But if his admiration was not for Dumbldore as an individual, but only for the office of headmaster, I can see it. Debbie: > I would rephrase that to say that Percy is a youthful > character we see in the developmental stages that would > lead to becoming another Crouch Sr. He, like Percy, > was overly focused on adherence to the rules, and was > widely reputed to have sacrificed his family for his > career. Yet, in the end, he sacrificed everything to > save his unworthy son. houyhnhnm: Crouch, Sr. is a better grown-up version of Percy than Umbridge who has no family as far as we know. Do you think it is a clue to Percy's fate? Will he sacrifice himself to save a family member? And will the analogy hold up so far as having one of the other Weasley's turn out to be unworthy? From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 15 17:57:30 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:57:30 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) Message-ID: <14782882.1173981450370.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166128 From: quick_silver71 >Actually I meant that James and Sirius underestimated Peter in the >sense that they never thought that he'd turn to Voldemort (or be >capable of blowing up a street). On the other hand Dumbledore (and >maybe, big maybe, Snape) underestimated Draco's ability to bring >Death Eaters into the castle (I believe Dumbledore says as much on >the Tower). Bart: That's a nice addition to DDM!Snape. First of all, Snape's attitude during the Spinner's End scene implied that he was not promising to do anything that he wasn't planning to do anyway (while he could be Occluming, this point of view fits in with ESE or DDM). Given DDM!Snape, his promise to help Draco could also mean making sure the plan goes off at a time of Dumbledore's choosing. Also, note there is no time limit on finishing the task. Assuming that Snape is key to Dumbledore's life support system (and we've gone over all the hints, numerous times), then, unless Dumbledore dies by unnatural causes elsewhere, Snape would eventually be the one to "pull the plug". Using an AK instead of withdrawing treatment is, in my mind, a technicality (although I know it is not to a lot of readers here). Yet, it is a standard (albeit illegal) practice among physicians with near-death terminal patients to raise the level of painkillers, resulting in a peaceful overdose rather than a painful removal of life support. Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Mar 15 18:07:46 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:07:46 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166129 > Carol responds: > I don't see your logic here. Snape was spying "at great personal risk" > before Godric's Hollow, as Dana admits ("Snape turned before GH"). > How, then, can Harry's story that Snape's remorse occurred *after* the > Potters' deaths not be inconsistent with the facts already presented > in canon? Dana now: I did not base my assessment on how Harry interprets what DD said to him. DD tells Harry that Snape regretted the way LV interpreted the prophecy and that he knew the people it involved and if he indeed did then he must be sorry they are dead too right? Harry is oversimplifying but he is not wrong. I see no contradiction in what DD said and what he thought was Snape's reason to turn. > > As Dana points out in the post you quoted, Snape first spies, then > becomes a teacher, then, two months into his teaching career, the > Potters are killed. Harry's version omits the spying career and the > two months of teaching and jumps immediately to Godrics' Hollow. It > transforms "how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy" (which Snape > apparently reported to DD before he began spying) into "Voldemort > killed the Potters." Where is it canon that he spied first and then took up the job? He couldn't have spied without the job because defecting was no option, he needed to hide behind LV's orders to go to DD and be a spy for him, otherwise he would have been considered a traitor. Karkarov's hearing we saw in GoF was after LV's down fall not before. He wanted out of Azkaban after spending more then a year there and turned over information to get out. So if I missed anything and this is not the scene you are referring to, please point it out to me. I never got the impression Snape was already spying for DD before he started working at Hogwarts. > > Carol, who actually agrees with Dana here (except the part implying > that Snape wanted LV to get to Harry) but not with your interpretation > of her second paragraph Climbing back on my chair Dana From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 15 18:21:47 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:21:47 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166130 Carol: > He could be bluffing, pretending to know Draco's > job, but the protections on Hogwarts, the interview > with Draco that Harry overhears, and Dumbledore's > attitude suggest otherwise.) houyhnhnm: What I wouldn't give to be able to log on to some kind of "Watch What Happens" after-the-show show for "Spinner's End". When that "rope, like a fiery snake" cooled down, what happened next? Snape couldn't very well say, "What is it I'm supposed to do, now?" even if he didn't know Draco's task beforehand (as I believe) because he had already convinced the sisters that he knew. But it is possible that he had gained enough of their trust by making the Vow to draw out Narcissa, at least, in the conversation that ensued. Surely the two women didn't just get up and leave with no words spoken. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 18:25:44 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:25:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: <14133677.1173979497129.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166131 > Magpie: > >So Hagrid would have been an excellent teacher of adolescents if only had to > >teach actual 13-year-olds. (Hey, Draco would have been a model student if > >not for Hagrid, one might as well say. He seems to do just fine with other > >teachers.) Hagrid has his own talents, but his lack of talents as a teacher > >are all his own and can't be blamed on Draco or any other mildly > >disagreeable child--that's part of the job of being a teacher. His > >shortcomings as an authority figure are also his own, and have been since > >the beginning of the series. I don't think Luna's "We in Ravenclaw think > >he's a bit of a joke" have anything to do with residual trauma over Draco > >whispering in class that day. On the contrary, when the Trio have trouble > >with Hagrid's teaching it usual revolves around things they consider all > >Hagrid. > > Bart: > First of all, when I referred to Draco's interference, I mean his faking the severity of an injury, and his family influence being used to get the Board of Governors and the Ministry on Hagrid's case. The latter was a major blow to Hagrid's already fragile self- confidence; had Hagrid had more time to get used to the position, or had Draco's injuries been treated like getting splashed by an exploding potion in Snape's class, Hagrid would probably not become as self-doubting. In addition, to all appearances, none of the other teachers chose to mentor him (and Dumbledore didn't think to ask any of them to do so). Some experienced advice would have put Hagrid over the hump as well. Professor Sprout in particular would have been very useful in helping him set up lesson plans; apparently, in Hogwarts, there's no such thing as lesson plans (well, Hermione said in P/SS that the WW people are very poor when it comes to logic, although I wonder what they study in Arithmancy if that is the case. Magpie: After six books of very consistent Hagrid, I just can't conceive of how he would become a significantly better teacher if he hadn't had a run-in with the Malfoys in PoA and if only he'd had a mentor. He'd be different if everything was different, but so would everyone. I don't see self-confidence as always being a problem with Hagrid, though where it is it's in a way that's consistent since Book I. It was bad luck for him that the student that got injured had a parent who would want the animal destroyed (I don't think Draco's milking of the incident mattered to him one way or the other--I think most of the kids there were far more influenced by what they saw than anything else), but years later it's Draco whose behavior has directly changed due to what actually happened. He's still insulting, but he's also jumpy and makes sure to listen to everything Hagrid says--Hagrid won, after all, didn't he? In the end the message certainly was, just as it was to Draco in first year, that if he doesn't like something Hagrid's doing he's going to have to just deal. Hagrid himself still makes Harry nervous in a way Harry wishes he would fix, and he gets defensive and annoyed at questions about safety. Harry feels guilty for thinking the substitute is a better teacher. Hermione actually does try to help Hagrid with lesson plans, and he doesn't listen to her. His troubles in GoF seem to be along the same lines--it's not that he lacks self-confidence, although he does, iirc, seclude himself in response to Rita's articles, but that he's disconnected from the experience of the actual kids in the class. Iirc, there's a scene where the kids are all getting frustrated and burned by the Skrewts that they can't control and Hagrid watches and fondly says "they're having fun," which Harry knows refers to the Skrewts and not the kids. I'm sure a lot of teachers would improve with a mentor, but they're all in the same boat on that score. Nobody seems to be helping Binns or Trelawney or Snape either. They all seem to have problems as teachers that are reflected in their basic personality. Hagrid's problems on that score are so consistently reflected in his personality I don't see how he could be any different any more than I can imagine Snape differently as a teacher. The younger characters all treat Hagrid as a sort of quasi-adult not because he lacks confidence but because that's often the way he acts. JKR has said regarding Snape that kids "see through" somebody abusing the power of their position, and to me Hagrid has always seemed like a real double for Snape as a teacher, only with different issues. The kids "see through" him too. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 18:28:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:28:47 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166132 Carol earlier: > > However, it's still Amelia Bones's job to determine the facts, which she succeeds in doing despite Fudge's interference. > > Is it, or is it the job of the Wizengamot as a whole? It depends on the theory of law under which the WW operates. But all that, interesting as it is, is beside the point. She does, whatever her role -- and I am not at all sure she is actually acting as the Judge here or simply a particularly forceful member of the tribunal -- defy Fudge -- who is after all her superior and could presumably bounce her from her job -- and swing things in the right way. > Carol responds: Ah. I should have included one more quote in my original post. There are only three interrrogators, Fudge, Madam Bones, and Umbridge: Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing" (not trial, BTW) inquiring into offenses against two statutes by Harry James Potter of number four Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey, and adds: "Interrogators: Cornelius Oswald Fudge, Minister of Magic; Ameila Susan Bones, Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement; Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister. Court Scribe, Percy Ignatius Weasley" (OoP Am. ed. 138-39). Percy, of course, simply takes notes. Fudge, who has taken advantage of his position as Madam Bones's superior to add himself and Umbridge to the list of interrogators, which would normally be the job of Madam Bones alone (see my previous post in this thread and cf. Barty Crouch Sr. in the Peniseve scenes in GoF), shares the questioning with Madam Bones, who nevertheless influences the outcome of the hearing with her remarks about the Patronus, the Dementors, and Mrs. Figg's reliability. The other members of the Wizengamot act exactly as they did in the Pensieve scene, listening to the evidence and voting at the end. (Madam Bones calls for the vote but does not raise her own hand.) So I stand by my analogy that Fudge is acting as prosecuting attorney, with Umbridge as his assistant, and Madam Bones is acting as judge, with a bit of cross-examination mixed in. Dumbledore, the ostensible witness for the defense, is as close as we come to a defense attorney. The members of the Wizengamot take no part in the proceedings except to act as a jury and determine the outcome. (Fudge and Umbridge, rather unfairly, act as jury members as well as interrogators, but, fortunately for Harry and Dumbledore, are outvoted.) On a sidenote, Dumbledore seems to have been ousted not only from his position as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot but even from membership in the Wizengamot ("in the few short weeks since I was asked to leave the Wizengamot, OoP Am. ed. 149). He doesn't vote (though, like Madam Bones, he certainly influences the outcome). If anyone has taken his place as Chief Warlock, that person also took no part in the interrogation (as DD takes no part, except to stand up in defense of Snape, in the hearings or trials in the GoF Pensieve scenes). Carol, who doesn't think that getting the facts straight, even on a minor matter, is beside the point From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 15 18:34:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:34:27 -0000 Subject: Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166133 > houyhnhnm: > > Crouch, Sr. is a better grown-up version of Percy than > Umbridge who has no family as far as we know. Do you > think it is a clue to Percy's fate? Will he sacrifice > himself to save a family member? And will the analogy > hold up so far as having one of the other Weasley's > turn out to be unworthy? > Pippin: If we're expecting Percy to have a change of heart, then how do we know he hasn't had it already? I suppose it wouldn't take Percy long to realize that his dad was right and the Ministry was hoping to use him to spy on his family. What if he turned the tables on them and became the Order's spy instead? It would be hard, because neither Arthur nor Molly would be capable of treating their son as a traitor to the family if they knew he was secretly loyal. So sweaters got sent back, and Arthur went unvisited at the hospital, and Percy had to endure getting parsnips tossed at his head. Have you noticed that Dumbledore seems to know an awful lot about what's going on in the Minister's offices? How is it that he found out so quickly that the Ministry was going to arrest Harry and confiscate his wand? Arthur's owl advising Harry that Dumbledore is aware of the situation arrives within moments of the Ministry's. Also, *somebody* got word to Dumbledore that the time of the hearing had been changed. If Dumbledore wanted to spy on the Minister's office (and you can bet he did) is anyone better fixed than Percy? Percy's letter to Ron is indeed over the top. It's written, IMO, to convince Umbridge that she has nothing to fear from collusion between those two. Remember, Ron has written to Percy before, seeking information about what his boss is up to. Spy!Percy would need to make sure Ron doesn't rouse Umbridge's suspicions by trying that again. And he knows that she reads people's mail. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 18:42:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:42:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166134 > Magpie: > After six books of very consistent Hagrid, I just can't conceive of > how he would become a significantly better teacher if he hadn't had > a run-in with the Malfoys in PoA and if only he'd had a mentor. He'd > be different if everything was different, but so would everyone. Alla: I absolutely can conceive of that happening. That is no guarantee, for sure, but what I had saw on that lesson was Hagrid being enthusiastic and genuinely wanting to teach ( mistakes and all), I do see him losing his enthusiasm **after** that lesson. I think it is conceivable that it influenced him that much. If what Luna said was before that lesson, I would have given it more weight, but for all I know that lesson indeed traumatised Hagrid that badly that he gave up. Should he gave up that fast? Of course not IMO. Should he let Malfoy's family to get under his skin that much? Not IMO again and maybe indeed that means that he does not have a stamina to be a teacher in Hogwarts, but that does not mean that what Malfoys did did not hurt Hagrid a lot. IMO. Magpie: > I don't see self-confidence as always being a problem with Hagrid, > though where it is it's in a way that's consistent since Book I. It > was bad luck for him that the student that got injured had a parent > who would want the animal destroyed) Alla: I think bad luck for Hagrid was that said student came to the lesson from the start with the intent to sabotage that lesson. I think bad luck for Hagrid was that said student was erm exaggerating his injury for whole year to help Lucius make sure that Hagrid will be fired and Buckbeak as you said destroyed. Magpie: (I don't think Draco's milking > of the incident mattered to him one way or the other--I think most > of the kids there were far more influenced by what they saw than > anything else), but years later it's Draco whose behavior has > directly changed due to what actually happened. He's still > insulting, but he's also jumpy and makes sure to listen to > everything Hagrid says--Hagrid won, after all, didn't he? Alla: Um, Draco's milking accident did not matter to Hagrid? And I am not sure Hagrid knows that he as you said, won. Damage IMO is done. Magpie: In the end > the message certainly was, just as it was to Draco in first year, > that if he doesn't like something Hagrid's doing he's going to have > to just deal. > Alla: Um, certainly if he is not injured enough to warrant the death of animal and the firing of the teacher, he should just **deal** and not behave as he did. I agree with that. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:05:24 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166135 Carol earlier: > > I don't see your logic here. Snape was spying "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow, as Dana admits ("Snape turned before GH"). How, then, can Harry's story that Snape's remorse occurred *after* the Potters' deaths not be inconsistent with the facts already presented in canon? > > > Dana now: > I did not base my assessment on how Harry interprets what DD said to him. DD tells Harry that Snape regretted the way LV interpreted the prophecy and that he knew the people it involved and if he indeed did then he must be sorry they are dead too right? Harry is oversimplifying but he is not wrong. > > I see no contradiction in what DD said and what he thought was Snape's reason to turn. > Carol again: Nor do I. I was disagreeing with Alla's interpretation of your post, not with your points, which I stated that I essentially agree with. (I do think that the life debt was Snape's *primary* motive for wanting to save the Potters, and I agree with you that he resented James Potter's "arrogance" in trusting Sirius Black over Dumbledore.) But the idea that Snape wanted Harry dead is simply not supported by canon. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here. It was Alla who brought in Harry. I didn't. Carol earlier: > > As Dana points out in the post you [Alla] quoted, Snape first spies, then becomes a teacher, then, two months into his teaching career, the Potters are killed. Harry's version omits the spying career and the two months of teaching and jumps immediately to Godrics' Hollow. It transforms "how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy" (which Snape apparently reported to DD before he began spying) into "Voldemort killed the Potters." > Dana: > Where is it canon that he spied first and then took up the job? He couldn't have spied without the job because defecting was no option, he needed to hide behind LV's orders to go to DD and be a spy for him, otherwise he would have been considered a traitor. > > So if I missed anything and this is not the scene you are referring > to, please point it out to me. I never got the impression Snape was > already spying for DD before he started working at Hogwarts. Carol: He couldn't have spied *on Dumbledore* (as he's ostensibly doing for Voldemort) without the job, true. But I'm talking about spying *on Voldemort* "at great personal risk," which he can hardly do while he's at Hogwarts. The spying has to precede the teaching. Here's the canon, which you appear to have missed: "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side *before Voldemort's downfall* and turned spy *for us*, at great personal risk. He is now now more a Death Eater than I am" (GoF Am. ed. 591). Here's the timeline as I see it: Snape overhears the Prophecy sometime before Harry's birth and reveals it to Voldemort. The weather indicates that it's either fall, winter, or spring. Trelawney's "almost sixteen years" suggests the fall before Harry's birth. Snape learns how Voldemort interprets the Prophecy and goes to Dumbledore. Obviously, Harry (and Neville) must have been born at this point or Snape could not know the people involved (according to LV's interpretation). Snape begins spying on Voldemort "at great personal risk." Logically, he would do so immediately after going to Dumbledore, and logically, he must do so before he begins teaching at Hogwarts. Snape applies for the DADA post and receives the Potions position instead. He would begin teaching on September 1, the usual start of term. At this point, he is ostensibly spying *on Dumbledore* for Voldemort, which means that he would spend most if not all of his time at Hogwarts, as his teaching duties would also require. Spying on Voldemort "at great personal risk" is no longer either possible or necessary. The Potters are killed at Godric's Hollow on October 31, two months after Snape begins teaching at Hogwarts. The spying "at great personal risk" unquestionably precedes the deaths of the Potters, as does young Snape's remorse and defection. I'm quite sure that their deaths *increased* his remorse, but they did not initiate it. That, says Dumbledore, was caused by his realizing how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy. Harry's version of Snape's defection is simply wrong. He is telescoping events to fit with his view of Snape as evil and ignoring what he already knows from the Pensieve scene in GoF. Carol, who again is not arguing with Dana's earlier post but with Alla's deduction from it and who hopes that Dana isn't injuring herself by jumping on and off of chairs Carol From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 19:27:05 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:27:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's spying in VW1 (WAS: Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166136 > Dana now: > Where is it canon that he spied first and then took up the job? He > couldn't have spied without the job because defecting was no option, > he needed to hide behind LV's orders to go to DD and be a spy for > him, otherwise he would have been considered a traitor. zgirnius: Snape did not need to defect to spy on Voldemort. In fact, doing so would have prevented him from being an effective spy, since he would not longer receive confidential information from Voldemort or his fellow Death Eaters. To be a spy, all he needed to do was go to Death Eater meetings, associate as before with his Death Eater friends, and then tell Dumbledore all about what he learned in secret. Dangerous if discovered, sure, but Dumbledore indicated as much in his GoF testimony. >Dana: > Karkarov's hearing we saw in GoF was after LV's down fall not before. > He wanted out of Azkaban after spending more then a year there and > turned over information to get out. zgirnius: Here is Dumbledore's testimony at that hearing: > GoF, "The Pensieve": > "Snape has been cleared by this council," said Crouch disdainfully. "He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore." > "No!" shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains that bound him to the chair. "I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!" > Dumbledore had gotten to his feet. > "I have given evidence already on 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." zgirnius: This establishes that Dumbledore believed Snape was spying *for him* before the Potters died. (An event that coincided with "Lord Voldemort's downfall"). If he started only after he began to teach, that was less than 2 months before the Potters died. To some, myself included, it seems unlikely that Dumbledore would describe spying for a few weeks from the relative safety of Hogwarts as involving "great personal risk". Nor does it seem likely that, if this is indeed what Dumbledore means here, that the likes of Barty Crouch Sr. would be at all inclined to clear Snape of all charges based on such testimony. What useful info would Snape have obtained there in such a short time anyway? Spying for a longer term and from within Voldemort's camp is a different kettle of fish. It is undeniably dangerous. Also, the number of dead or captured DEs on Karkaroff's list suggests that somehow, the Ministry or the Order was having success capturing DEs before Voldmeort's fall. Karkaroff was captured and sentenced to a term in Azkaban before Voldemort fell. The hearing was after, when Karkaroff decided to buy his freedom. One possible reason for that success, is if someone internal to the organization was feeding them information. If that someone were Snape, it would explain the Ministry's willingnerss to clear him. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 20:06:25 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:06:25 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166137 Lupinlore: >So, what would happen if, as some might have wished, Harry had >been called on the carpet in front of DD about his behavior in > potions. Would not a logical - if controversial - response have > been, "Oh, lieing is only acceptable at the Wizengamot? Oh, I > get it, it was RIGHT but HARD to lie to the Wizengamot? Ahh, > looked real hard to me. Not that I'm ungrateful, mind you, but > give me a break!" > Lupinlore, who finds DD's arguable hypocrisy on the right-vs-easy > question most amusing Amiable Dorsai: So, let me see if I've got this correct: you're saying that allowing a malicious prosecutor to railroad an innocent person is "right", and that risking one's position, reputation, and freedom to prevent that from happening is "easy". These are definitions of the words "right" and "easy" with which I was not previously familiar. Amiable Dorsai From muellem at bc.edu Thu Mar 15 20:33:07 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:33:07 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166138 "Dana" wrote: > > Where is it canon that he spied first and then took up the job? He > couldn't have spied without the job because defecting was no option, > he needed to hide behind LV's orders to go to DD and be a spy for > him, otherwise he would have been considered a traitor. > colebiancardi here: I don't have my books in front of me, but I think it was in HBP when Harry confronts DD about Snape being the "listener" at the door - for the prophecy. And in OotP, we get a timeline of how long Snape has actually worked at Hogwarts and in GoF, we know that Snape turned before October 31st, 1981, according to DD - RE: the trial in the Pensive. Snape was not a teacher at Hogwarts prior to Fall of 1981 - DD never hired him any earlier, according to the years of service we learned in OotP. So Snape HAD to have spied first - which was at the door at Hogs Head - and then later, he turned. DD gave him a job as the Potions Master that began in the Fall of 1981. Snape, prior to Harry's birth in July 1980, was spying for LV and trying to get in with DD at Hogwarts. It doesn't mean he was a teacher at Hogwarts and spying, but that he was a spy. LV wanted him to get a job at Hogwarts, but Snape failed to get that job in 1979/1980. However, by 10/31/1981, we know he was no longer an agent of LV's, but working for DD and he is now a professor at Hogwarts. colebiancardi (I am sure someone else will find those exact passages - but hey, not bad for working without the books!!) From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 15 21:26:35 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:26:35 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco / Why Dumbledore did not ask Snape to kill him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166139 > > Magpie: > > After six books of very consistent Hagrid, I just can't conceive of > > how he would become a significantly better teacher if he hadn't had > > a run-in with the Malfoys in PoA and if only he'd had a mentor. > He'd > > be different if everything was different, but so would everyone. > > Alla: > > I absolutely can conceive of that happening. That is no guarantee, > for sure, but what I had saw on that lesson was Hagrid being > enthusiastic and genuinely wanting to teach ( mistakes and all), I do > see him losing his enthusiasm **after** that lesson. I think it is > conceivable that it influenced him that much. > If what Luna said was before that lesson, I would have given it more > weight, but for all I know that lesson indeed traumatised Hagrid that > badly that he gave up. Magpie: I don't think he gave up. Luna is speaking in OotP, where Hagrid is still teaching away making the Trio as uncomfortable as ever for the same reasons. Sure he's not as enthusiastic as he was on the first day, but most teachers probably aren't. Alla:> > Should he gave up that fast? Of course not IMO. Should he let > Malfoy's family to get under his skin that much? Not IMO again and > maybe indeed that means that he does not have a stamina to be a > teacher in Hogwarts, but that does not mean that what Malfoys did did > not hurt Hagrid a lot. IMO. Magpie: We can speculate that it did--we know Hagrid doesn't like the family and certainly he was upset at the whole ordeal. But if he really did just give up as a teacher that first year because of it then no, he shouldn't be a teacher and that's due to his own issues. Though I don't see him giving up. Sixth year he's trying to guilt Harry about not taking his class and Harry's having none of it. Fifth year Harry wishes he were more popular than he is. Fourth year, iirc, there's a marked difference between Hagrid losing interest due to the Rita Skeeter articles and confident Hagrid who wants everybody to come after school to look at the Skrewts he enjoys showing them. > Magpie: > > I don't see self-confidence as always being a problem with Hagrid, > > though where it is it's in a way that's consistent since Book I. It > > was bad luck for him that the student that got injured had a parent > > who would want the animal destroyed) > > Alla: > > I think bad luck for Hagrid was that said student came to the lesson > from the start with the intent to sabotage that lesson. Magpie: Whatever Draco may or may not have come to the class to do, there's no sabotage plot uncovered in canon. He's muttering to his friend when Hagrid says the thing about insulting Buckbeak and whether he was muttering about how to ruin the class or not (as Harry imagines) he follows the directions he's heard well enough and there's no indication he insults Buckbeak in order to get himself hurt. That would be a bit much. If I'm looking for a student who actually sabotages a lesson I'm going to have to go with something more clearly sabotage, like Harry throwing a firecracker into another student's cauldron to create a distraction. Having a kid in your class who's predisposed to be resistant to you as a teacher is I think pretty standard for a new teacher. The way Hagrid set up the class it didn't need sabotage. Alla: > > I think bad luck for Hagrid was that said student was erm > exaggerating his injury for whole year to help Lucius make sure that > Hagrid will be fired and Buckbeak as you said destroyed. > Magpie: > (I don't think Draco's milking > > of the incident mattered to him one way or the other--I think most > > of the kids there were far more influenced by what they saw than > > anything else), but years later it's Draco whose behavior has > > directly changed due to what actually happened. He's still > > insulting, but he's also jumpy and makes sure to listen to > > everything Hagrid says--Hagrid won, after all, didn't he? > > Alla: > > Um, Draco's milking accident did not matter to Hagrid? Magpie: I don't think it mattered that much. It may have annoyed Hagrid, but not as it would if, say, he was worried about Draco. He's worried about Buckbeak. I don't think he's much bothered by Draco's wincing manfully to Pansy Parkinson. Alla: And I am not > sure Hagrid knows that he as you said, won. Damage IMO is done. Magpie: What all does he need, then? To have Draco not have gotten hurt at all? That isn't going to happen--and Hagrid's partially responsible for it. Responsibility is part of being a teacher. Why would he think he didn't win? Buckbeak's alive, he didn't lose his job. He might not have been awarded an extra good prize, but he didn't lose anything. He's not entitled to popularity as a teacher. He had a bad time of it his first year, but he gets a second chance. > Magpie: > In the end > > the message certainly was, just as it was to Draco in first year, > > that if he doesn't like something Hagrid's doing he's going to have > > to just deal. > > > > Alla: > > Um, certainly if he is not injured enough to warrant the death of > animal and the firing of the teacher, he should just **deal** and not > behave as he did. I agree with that. Magpie: Sure it would have been better if he didn't behave as he did, but that's got nothing to do with Hagrid. Draco, in the end, is not the one who's got the power at school. Hagrid has more. So he doesn't also get to be the only child and the victim. He got his hippogriff and his job. He has not managed to also get the respect of the many students he teaches. I'm not going to blame that on other people, especially when even the Trio who are trying to like him as a teacher don't trust him. Draco's behavior throughout third year is his own problem and it doesn't seem to be fooling anybody. Hagrid's behavior is his own problem. However Hagrid feels, Draco's watching out for himself in later classes. > Quick_Silver: > This is just an interesting side note but when you describe the whole Dumbledore Snape > thing throughout HBP it comes across as bearing an incredible resemblance to Sirius's > plan to protect the Potters. Not in details but in...essence...you have a plan that requires >someone to risk their life (Sirius and Snape), there's an underestimation of a key > component of the plan (Peter and Draco), someone who should have been in on the plan > is left out (Dumbledore and Harry), and the person that dies is not as planned (James > and Dumbledore). And then you have Snape at the end of HBP, seemingly losing it, > which bears a resemblance to Sirius's infamous bout of the crazies. Plus you have the > fact that Snape seems to be alone among the enemy rather like what happened when no > one believed that Sirius was innocent. Jen: I like this as a loose parallel; there are just a couple of things I'm not certain about. Are you saying Dumbledore/Snape planned the events of HBP from the beginning, before the UV and including the cave? And I wasn't sure what you meant about 'the person who dies is not as planned' when you said James. Well, and also Dumbledore--who was supposed to die that night? (I really hope this is not a 'duh' question and I'm missing something very obvious ). Magpie: Not my theory but I love it so I'm jumping in.:-) I would say that Dumbledore and Snape do not have to have planned the events of HBP from before the UV. Once the UV is in place, which could only happen after Draco had been given this assignment, that's when I think they're arranging things. After all, Narcissa showing up is not something they could count on. They may have worked out a general plan about protecting Draco once Snape learned about the task, and Snape may have in his mind taken the UV as part of that. The cave (in terms of DD being weakened when Draco confronted him) was *not* planned--that's part of the whole snafu at the end. The cave was just part of destroying the Horcruxes. It unfortunately occurred the night Draco also surprised them all by getting DEs into the castle. That was never supposed to happen. No one was supposed to die that night, just as no one was supposed to die with Sirius' Secret Keeper plan. Snape was drawing the danger on to himself just as Sirius was drawing the danger to himself. No one was supposed to die, and the person who did die was not the person who thought he was in the most danger--Sirius and Snape. Jen: I get that Peter didn't guess LV would become vapor--is the parallel that Draco didn't realize he wouldn't be able to kill Dumbledore? Magpie: I think the parallel is that Sirius et al. didn't guess that Peter was a competent Death Eater rather than an inconsequential friend of James. Snape and Dumbledore didn't realize Draco could get DEs into the castle. It's not Peter and Draco who were unpleasantly surprised by the people putting together the plan. -m From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Mar 15 20:38:18 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:38:18 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166140 > Carol earlier: > > > I don't see your logic here. Snape was spying "at great personal > risk" before Godric's Hollow, as Dana admits ("Snape turned before > GH"). How, then, can Harry's story that Snape's remorse occurred > *after* the Potters' deaths not be inconsistent with the facts already > presented in canon? > > > > > > > Carol again: > Nor do I. I was disagreeing with Alla's interpretation of your post, > not with your points, which I stated that I essentially agree with. (I > do think that the life debt was Snape's *primary* motive for wanting > to save the Potters, and I agree with you that he resented James > Potter's "arrogance" in trusting Sirius Black over Dumbledore. Dana now: Well but I was the one that made the assessment that Snape would not have cared if LV have gotten to Harry *after* he had settled his debt with James. Because *if* it is the life-debt that made him turn then one could also conclude without it he would never have. That doesn't make it clear cut and the only true possibility but it very well could be. Even if Harry understood that Snape was passing information on LV about the Potters then he would still not ever see this other than Snape saving his own skin and not because he truly cared about James and Lily. There is no inconsistencies between what Harry said on the hospital wing and what DD told him and therefore there is no need for Hermione to notice this inconsistency to make Harry see he is wrong about Snape. Harry oversimplified but it is not Harry's explanation that is important but what DD said to Harry. So Harry does not need anyone explaining it to him because he already knows what DD said and his conclusion that DD's reason for trusting Snape therefore might be invalid might very well be correct, except on one account. That Snape would indeed not harm Harry himself or be able to actively participate in something that could cause Harry's death but Snape could still be a very real threat to other Order members. I am not saying that he was but it is not by definition that Harry will be proven wrong if he understands that Snape turned before GH. It is still possible that his spying at great personal risk did not go further then trying to keep the Potters safe. But again this does not have to be the only reason DD trusted Snape but the only reason he gave Harry without lying. The only problem is we never get another hint it is anything more and although JKR could have considered this too revealing you would think she would put it in there somewhere (and maybe she did but I am not clever enough to find it ;o)) > Carol: > > He couldn't have spied *on Dumbledore* (as he's ostensibly doing for > Voldemort) without the job, true. But I'm talking about spying *on > Voldemort* "at great personal risk," which he can hardly do while he's > at Hogwarts. The spying has to precede the teaching. > Dana now: And what has he been doing the last two years? Yes, he rejoined before LV's down fall but no where in canon is it proven that he did so for long periods of time. He could have indeed be spying during the Summer before starting his job at Hogwarts and that could mean he only worked as a spy for about 4 months. It is still before LV's down fall and it is still at great personal risk. I am not saying you can't be right but it is not canon that he worked as a spy longer than being a teacher. It is also not canon that LV made up his mind long before he got a chance to strike. JKR suggests Harry's christening was hurried because they were ready to go into hiding but this does not have to be because LV made a choice but as a result of DD suggesting this because he knew LV got a part of the prophecy and Harry (and Neville) meeting the criteria. I am not arguing you on this (absolutely not) because for me it is very plausible that Snape indeed turned for other reasons too but it remains speculation and it is not canon that Snape actually worked as a spy longer then he was a teacher. Dana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 21:39:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:39:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166141 > > Alla: > > > > Um, certainly if he is not injured enough to warrant the death of > > animal and the firing of the teacher, he should just **deal** and > not > > behave as he did. I agree with that. > > Magpie: > Sure it would have been better if he didn't behave as he did, but > that's got nothing to do with Hagrid. Draco, in the end, is not the > one who's got the power at school. Hagrid has more. So he doesn't > also get to be the only child and the victim. He got his hippogriff > and his job. He has not managed to also get the respect of the many > students he teaches. I'm not going to blame that on other people, > especially when even the Trio who are trying to like him as a > teacher don't trust him. Draco's behavior throughout third year is > his own problem and it doesn't seem to be fooling anybody. Hagrid's > behavior is his own problem. However Hagrid feels, Draco's watching > out for himself in later classes. Alla: My only point is that Hagrid's hipogriff and his job were not supposed to be in danger in the first place IMO. Yes, Hagrid got them, but **not** in any thanks to Draco, no? In fact only thanks to Trio and Dumbledore IMO. I am also not sure what you mean that Draco's behaviour has nothing to do with Hagrid? Hagrid is the one who suffers **because** of Draco's behaviour, no? Draco's behaviour directed **towards** Hagrid and Buckbeak. And it really did not seem to me that Hagrid had more power than Malfoys. It seemed to me that but for Harry and Hermione ( and of course DD) Buckbeak would have been dead and Hagrid fired. As I said again, I do not think that Hagrid is a good teacher, but do I think that he could have been at least decent but for what hapened to him? Yes, I do. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 21:58:53 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:58:53 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166142 > >>Alla: > > I think bad luck for Hagrid was that said student was erm > exaggerating his injury for whole year to help Lucius make sure > that Hagrid will be fired and Buckbeak as you said destroyed. Betsy Hp: Actually, the amount of time it took for Draco's injury to heal had nothing to do with Buckbeak getting destroyed. IIRC, the WW law was, a hippogriff attacks a human, that hippogriff is put down. Just by being injured (which Draco legitimately was, as evidenced by the copious amount of blood) Buckbeak's life was forfeit. Which was Hagrid's fault in the end. If he knew the law (and by taking responsiblity for so many hippogriffs, he *should* have) Hagrid should have exercised some care regarding the sort of environments he thrust his hippogriffs into. But Hagrid, while claiming to love animals, strikes me as the sort of "animal lover" who crams 50 cats into one room, and as animal control comes to take the half-starved, flea crawling, miserable creatures away, cries to the news cameras about the evil people stealing their "babies". IOWs, Hagrid pleases himself without a thought about his animals. Which is why he tries to raise a dragon in a small cottage, an acromantula in a closet, and sets a herd of hippogriffs loose amongst children. Oh, and lets not forget his "experimental" breeding. It was Buckbeak's bad luck to wind up in Hagrid's care. He's just lucky he got away before Hagrid could put him to mounting a thestral. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 15 22:13:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:13:09 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166143 > Dana: > > For me the idea that Snape did everything on DD's orders is > stretching believability to such an extent that it makes it > highly improbable because it makes assumptions that DD knew > that Narcissa would come to Snape for help. Pippin: In an earlier post you said that Harry would have to rely on instinct because reason is not quick enough. That's why people who know they might find themselves in crisis situations learn to do their thinking *in advance.* Do you think that Dumbledore and Snape never discussed what Snape should do if a DE wanted his help? Or wouldn't discuss which DE's might be most likely to ask for it? And Snape and Dumbledore would also have had to consider what Snape would do if Voldemort commanded him to take a UV. While I can't imagine Voldemort subjecting himself to a procedure that forces him to kneel while someone holds a wand on him, it wouldn't be out of character for him to demand that Snape undertake a UV with someone else. I can imagine that Snape would be told that if the situation arose he should take the vow as commanded and Dumbledore would do his best to find a way around it. What other choice would there be? If Snape refused, he would still die. So DDM!Snape would not have to think very long when Narcissa asked for the vow -- his questions to himself would not be, Will Dumbledore approve of my risking my life to save a student, or, What if I'm forced into a situation where I have to betray Dumbledore or die, because Snape would have considered those things already. Nor would he ask himself "What do I have to lose?" Smart risk takers ask, "What am I trying to gain?" By agreeing to take the vows, there is a reasonable chance that Snape will gain the life of at least one student and silence the rumors that are threatening his position with LV. Voldemort will not long tolerate his Death Eaters whispering that one of their number has managed to hoodwink him. By refusing, Snape gains nothing -- both he and Dumbledore are already in mortal peril, The Plan is already underway, and refusing the vow will not change any of it. Voldemort had tried to kill Dumbledore already -- which means vow or no vow, his life expectance was no better than Karkaroff's. I don't know what Dumbledore's plan for Snape was, but we can believe the mission involves more than finding out what the Dark Lord was telling his Death Eaters. That must be Snape's cover story, because that's the part that Snape admits to freely in the presence of someone whose mind is an open book to Dumbledore and Voldemort alike. But most of us have realized that Harry cannot possibly defeat Voldemort in the final confrontation without backup. In this kind of story, the hero may bravely set out to take on the villain alone, but victory usually comes because someone else, quite unexpectedly, shows up and helps. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Mar 15 22:28:41 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:28:41 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character/ Trelawney and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166144 > Alla: > > I absolutely can conceive of that happening. That is no guarantee, > for sure, but what I had saw on that lesson was Hagrid being > enthusiastic and genuinely wanting to teach ( mistakes and all), I do > see him losing his enthusiasm **after** that lesson. I think it is > conceivable that it influenced him that much. Hickengruendler: I only agree with you as far as PoA goes. i do think that him showing Flobberworms to the class showed, that he had become overly careful and lost most of his enthusiasm. Basically, he went from one extreme (showing the Kids Hippogriffs during their first lesson), to another (showing them something completely boring). But in the later books, he was back to his old enthusiasm (as the Nifflers, Thestrals and Blast-Ended Skrewts showed). The Skrewts, in particular, didn't even really exist. They were cross-bred by Hagrid. The students will never met any Blast Endes Skrewts outside of Hagrid's classes. (The one in the maze doesn't count. If Hagrid hadn't "invented" them, there would have been none to put in the maze). Therefore what else could be Hagrid's reason to show them the class if not his enthusiasm for them? He had his newest hobby and he didn't even consider, that the students might share it. And he's honestly surprised, that nobody wanted to continue the subject? I wouldn't have either. That said, I don't think Hagrid is all bad as a teacher. The lessons with the Nifflers and the Thestrals (until Umbridge arrived, that is), were IMO very good ones and showed, that he has some real Potential. What he needed was some guidance, and even though I don't want to blame Dumbledore for everything, seeing that he was the one hiring Hagrid, he also was in some responsibility to give him some guidance. But I want to come back to a few mentioned examples about Dumbledore's so called bad judgement, because I didn't agree with even half of them. I will mention the ones, where I didn't agree with. - I will leave Snape out. Because he wa sthe reason for this debate, and using him as an example now seems just wrong. I think most of you know anyway, that I think Dumbledore was correct in trusting Snape. - Binns was mentioned, but we don't know if Binns was hired by Dumbledore. Maybe he is teaching history since Armando Dippet's times or even longer, and Dumbledore can't fire him. (Thouih it does make me wonder, if there's any chance that the students might get a decent history teacher). - Another example was Trelawney. But Dumbledore never misjudged her. I think he saw her for what she was from the very beginning. He even mentioned that he didn not want to hire her until she made the prophecy. Giving her the position was solely to protect her and the prophecy from Voldemort. This might have been a doubtful decision. In fact, I agree with what Alla wrote some time ago, that this is a prome example for the problem for Dumbledore's character, that he has to fill two shoes as the leader of the good guys and Headmaster of a school. As Headmaster, his decision to hire Trelawney was simply wrong, but as leader of the good side, it's not only understandable, but really necessary, that he acted, like he did. And I think in this case JKR saw the problem as well and explaine dit somehow, in having Dumbledore mention, that he thought about not continuing the subject anyway, meaning he didn't expect the students to learn much from Divination at all. But no matter if we agree with Dumbledore's choice to hire Trelawney in spite of her doubtful abilities, he still did not misjudge her and recognized her as mostly a fraud from the very beginning. - Lockhart was said to be the only choice. That's the explanation within the books. I know there are some problems. (Why not giving Snape the post, who at least knew something about the subject? Why not asking Lupin or Moody a year earlier? Etc, etc.) But the explanation given was that Dumbledore had to hire Gilderoy, because nobody else wanted to teach this subject anymore. Hickengruendler From muellem at bc.edu Thu Mar 15 22:38:15 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:38:15 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166145 > Dana wrote: > Well but I was the one that made the assessment that Snape would not > have cared if LV have gotten to Harry *after* he had settled his debt > with James. Because *if* it is the life-debt that made him turn then > one could also conclude without it he would never have. That doesn't > make it clear cut and the only true possibility but it very well > could be. > > Even if Harry understood that Snape was passing information on LV > about the Potters then he would still not ever see this other than > Snape saving his own skin and not because he truly cared about James > and Lily. > > There is no inconsistencies between what Harry said on the hospital > wing and what DD told him and therefore there is no need for Hermione > to notice this inconsistency to make Harry see he is wrong about > Snape. Harry oversimplified but it is not Harry's explanation that is > important but what DD said to Harry. So Harry does not need anyone > explaining it to him because he already knows what DD said and his > conclusion that DD's reason for trusting Snape therefore might be > invalid might very well be correct, except on one account. That Snape > would indeed not harm Harry himself or be able to actively > participate in something that could cause Harry's death but Snape > could still be a very real threat to other Order members. > > I am not saying that he was but it is not by definition that Harry > will be proven wrong if he understands that Snape turned before GH. > It is still possible that his spying at great personal risk did not go further then trying to keep the Potters safe. > > But again this does not have to be the only reason DD trusted Snape > but the only reason he gave Harry without lying. The only problem is we never get another hint it is anything more and although JKR could have considered this too revealing you would think she would put it in there somewhere (and maybe she did but I am not clever enough to find it ;o)) > colebiancardi here: Yes, I do believe we did get another hint and it was brought up a few years back: From GoF, Am Ed hardback, p 603-604 "The Pensive" Harry: "Er", he said, "Mr Bagman..." "...has never been accused of any Dark activity since," said Dumbledore calmly. "Right," said Harry hastily, staring at the contents of the Pensive again, which were swirling more slowly now that Dumbledore had stopped adding thoughts. "And...er..." But the Pensive seemed to be asking the question for him. Snape's face was swimming on the surface again. Dumbledore glanced down into it, and then up at Harry. "No more has Professor Snape," he said. Harry looked into Dumbledore's light blue eyes, and the thing he really wanted to know spilled out of his mouth before he could stop it. "What made you think he'd really stopped supporting Voldemort, Professor?" Dumbledore held Harry's gaze for a few seconds, and then said, "That, Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and myself." Based on that quote, there is something more than just the Potter's and Snape's life-debt to James that made Snape stop supporting Voldemort. Because Harry already knows about the life-debt that is owed to his father. If Snape's turning had anything to do with Harry's parents, then it IS Harry's business. But DD makes it quite clear that it is not any of Harry's business the reason why Snape turned against Voldemort. colebiancardi (who believes there is more to Snape's turning spy than just the Potters - I believe it has to do with Regulus) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Mar 15 22:46:42 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:46:42 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166146 Betsy: > > It was Buckbeak's bad luck to wind up in Hagrid's care. He's just > lucky he got away before Hagrid could put him to mounting a thestral. > > Betsy Hp > Hickengruendler: Ah, but don't forget, Buckbeak, eh Witherwings, is back now. So there's still time. ;-) Anyway, I disagree that Hagrid is an animal abuser. There's nothing wrong with how he treated the Hippogriffs. And regarding Norbert, Hagrid came to his senses pretty soon, as I suspect he would have with Aragog as well. The real problem is, that he lacks the comment sense to see what a danger the creatures could be to other humans, like when he sent Harry and Ron to the spiders. But this has nothing to do with the treatment of the animals themselves. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Mar 16 00:26:11 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:26:11 -0000 Subject: Tangent: The Christening (was Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166147 Dana: > I am not saying you can't be right but it is not canon that he worked as a spy longer than being a teacher. It is also not canon that LV made up his mind long before he got a chance to strike. JKR suggests Harry's christening was hurried because they were ready to go into hiding but this does not have to be because LV made a choice but as a result of DD suggesting this because he knew LV got a part of the prophecy and Harry (and Neville) meeting the criteria. Ceridwen: Here's something I think about from time to time. We've discussed the christening on the board before. If the Potters followed the usual time frame, Harry would have been christened when he was still a babe in arms, as most children are, yet LV didn't attack the Potters until Harry was fifteen months old, well out of his christening dress and into his toddler age. The Potters had only been in hiding with the Secret Keeper in place for a week when they were attacked and killed. If they were ready to go into hiding at the time of Harry's christening according to JKR, the Creatrix of this universe, then how were they hiding before Peter Pettigrew became their Secret Keeper? Or did they wait a while before having Harry christened? I have a few possibilities to throw out which might support a later christening date. I'm not advocating any of them, just playing around with this odd timeline. 1) At the time when Harry normally would have been christened, there was some family emergency which made it necessary to postpone the rite. Maybe this is when James's parents, or surviving parent, died. Maybe this is when Lily's parents, or surviving parent, died. 2) The Potters were waiting in the hope that Voldemort would be defeated and they could have a normal christening, with all their friends and family. But as time went on, they realized that Voldemort wasn't going away any time soon, so had it done quietly and quickly with just themselves and Sirius in attendance. 3) The Potters weren't going to have a christening, but after they found out that Voldemort might be trying to hunt them down, they changed their minds and arranged for a quiet ceremony to ensure Harry's place in the Afterlife, just in case Voldemort did catch up to them and kill the child. It would also provide for a godfather to raise Harry. We've talked about this before. Does anyone else have suggestions to add? Anyone who might have possible explanations for the Potters in hiding before they made Peter their SK? Ceridwen. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 16 00:50:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:50:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45F9E9C2.8040806@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166148 Betsy Hp: > Actually, the amount of time it took for Draco's injury to heal had > nothing to do with Buckbeak getting destroyed. IIRC, the WW law was, > a hippogriff attacks a human, that hippogriff is put down. Just by > being injured (which Draco legitimately was, as evidenced by the > copious amount of blood) Buckbeak's life was forfeit. Bart: I don't have the book handy, but if that were the case, Buckbeak would have been put down almost immediately, and Malfoy wouldn't have had to use his influence, and Hagrid would not have gotten appeals. Even in Muggle law, in general, an animal has to attack a human twice, causing severe injury, unprovoked, before getting destroyed. Buckbeak was provoked, attacked once, and, by WW standards, what Draco got was a scratch; he lied, pretending it was much worse. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 01:18:29 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:18:29 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166149 > >>Betsy: > > > > It was Buckbeak's bad luck to wind up in Hagrid's care. He's > > just lucky he got away before Hagrid could put him to mounting a > > thestral. > >>Hickengruendler: > Ah, but don't forget, Buckbeak, eh Witherwings, is back now. So > there's still time. ;-) Betsy Hp: Hee! Fly, Buckbeak, fly! > >>Hickengruendler: > Anyway, I disagree that Hagrid is an animal abuser. There's nothing > wrong with how he treated the Hippogriffs. Betsy Hp: He brought 12 animals that if not treated just so will attack, and if they attack are liable to be put down, in amongst a group of adolescents. The lack of responsiblibity Hagrid showed was staggering. Buckbeak nearly died because Hagrid couldn't handle the responsibility of being his owner. So yeah, I'd say Hagrid isn't all that good to the beasties that fall into his hands. He's like a bad circus guy. (Hagrid would have totally ended up having to kill Dumbo's mother. ) > >>Hickengruendler: > And regarding Norbert, Hagrid came to his senses pretty soon, as I > suspect he would have with Aragog as well. Betsy Hp: Eh, not how I remembered it. Didn't the Trio have to practically twist Hagrid's arm? (This *after* Ron was badly injured -- Hagrid certainly could care less about child saftey.) And Hagrid does keep Aragog in the Forbidden Forest, introducing an entirely foreign species into that environment. IIRC, the centaurs were still a bit miffed about that. > >>Hickengruendler: > The real problem is, that he lacks the comment sense to see what a > danger the creatures could be to other humans, like when he sent > Harry and Ron to the spiders. But this has nothing to do with the > treatment of the animals themselves. Betsy Hp: But it's got *everything* to do with his treatment of the animals. Hagrid doesn't have the commen sense to keep them safe. Hippogriffs are dangerous because of what sort of animals they are, and he should be aware of that. By putting the hippogriffs in a situation where they are likely to hurt humans, he's risking their lives, and that's what's abusive. Betsy Hp From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 02:05:03 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:05:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tangent: The Christening (was Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703151905p5bd183a6x9141b77f089a75e8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166150 > Ceridwen: > If they were ready to go into hiding at > the time of Harry's christening ... > then how were they hiding before Peter Pettigrew > became their Secret Keeper? Or did they wait a while before having > Harry christened? > > I have a few possibilities to throw out which might support a later > christening date. I'm not advocating any of them, just playing > around with this odd timeline. > > ... snipped possibilities ... > > We've talked about this before. Does anyone else have suggestions to > add? Anyone who might have possible explanations for the Potters in > hiding before they made Peter their SK? > Kemper now: Okay, I got a suggestion/scenario. Harry and Lily had Harry Christened when Harry was swaddling sized. Sirius' comes up with a great plan, use a Time Turner to move /forward/ fourteen or fifteen moons. Sirius plays dumb with everyone, especially that ever so evil, moon lovin' Lupin. Sirius meets up with Potters at Godric's Hollow after the 14/15 months of real time. The hopes of throwing Voldemort off his dark game doesn't work. Even though James and Lily can Time Turner forward again, they know that realize that it is better to live life than run from it. They are Gryffindors. Sirius missed them and has a better idea: perform the Fidelius Charm using Peter as the SK. The rest is history. Of course this would make Harry younger than he is in canon, but he is small for his age, right? Kemper From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 02:26:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:26:08 -0000 Subject: Tangent: The Christening (was Re: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166151 > Ceridwen: > We've talked about this before. Does anyone else have suggestions to > add? Anyone who might have possible explanations for the Potters in > hiding before they made Peter their SK? zgirnius: My suggestion, all of what follows is just my opinion: They were planning to have the christening on schedule in the early months of Harry's life, when Snape came to Dumbledore with the news that Voldemort was planning to come after Harry and/or Neville because of the prophecy. They then did the christening in haste and went in to hiding. Because the death of the SK makes the secret permanent, hiding people under that charm is a big deal, and not to be undertaken lightly. They tried to hide using less extreme measures, but because a spy close to them was reporting their movements to Voldemort (statement by Fudge in PoA), they had a scary close call or two and decided to use the FC. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 16 04:03:06 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:03:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <010201c76780$013b8060$279e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166152 >> Magpie: > >> Sure it would have been better if he didn't behave as he did, but >> that's got nothing to do with Hagrid. Draco, in the end, is not the >> one who's got the power at school. Hagrid has more. So he doesn't >> also get to be the only child and the victim. He got his hippogriff >> and his job. He has not managed to also get the respect of the many >> students he teaches. I'm not going to blame that on other people, >> especially when even the Trio who are trying to like him as a >> teacher don't trust him. Draco's behavior throughout third year is >> his own problem and it doesn't seem to be fooling anybody. Hagrid's >> behavior is his own problem. However Hagrid feels, Draco's watching >> out for himself in later classes. > > Alla: > > My only point is that Hagrid's hipogriff and his job were not > supposed to be in danger in the first place IMO. Yes, Hagrid got > them, but **not** in any thanks to Draco, no? Magpie: No, not in any thanks to Draco. Draco can be judged for his behavior, but so can Hagrid. They are both reacting to each other, but they're not 100%responsible for what the other person does. Alla: > In fact only thanks to Trio and Dumbledore IMO. I am also not sure > what you mean that Draco's behaviour has nothing to do with Hagrid? Magpie: I meant that if Draco is acting like an ass that doesn't force Hagrid to do anything, especially not years later. Nobody would say Draco helped Hagrid hang onto his job, but he wasn't able to take it from him either. Alla:> > Hagrid is the one who suffers **because** of Draco's behaviour, no? > Draco's behaviour directed **towards** Hagrid and Buckbeak. Magpie: Yes, Hagrid suffers due to Draco's--well, really more Lucius', but Draco is egging him on--actions. But if Draco is going to act like an ass Hagrid still has to choose what he's going to do. Especially four years later, I'm not seeing Hagrid's shortcomings as a teacher being controlled by Draco. The Malfoy plot is an early example of the fact that Hagrid finds it hard to teach well when he's under stress, and we'll see more later. That's one issue with Hagrid as a teacher. If it wasn't seen in PoA it would have been seen in GoF I would think. Alla:> > And it really did not seem to me that Hagrid had more power than > Malfoys. It seemed to me that but for Harry and Hermione ( and of > course DD) Buckbeak would have been dead and Hagrid fired. Magpie: Dumbledore is a powerful ally-Hagrid's power all comes from his position at the school, of course. Same with all the teachers. Draco could not get Hagrid fired. Years later Hagrid's the one with the authority in class and Draco's still under his authority. Just as in first year Draco was under Hagrid's authority in the forest. With authority comes responsibility. Alla: > > As I said again, I do not think that Hagrid is a good teacher, but do > I think that he could have been at least decent but for what hapened > to him? Magpie: I don't see what the difference would be given what the students' complaints about Hagrid in canon are. How would Hagrid's not having a scare his first year due to an accident in class when he brought in dangerous animals and the ensuing legal proceedings make Hagrid somebody who isn't still making students annoyed and nervous by bringing in monsters and seeming to underestimate their danger? Hagrid's personality, including the way he deals with stress, doesn't seem to me to have changed before and after third year. The exact issues everyone has with Hagrid as a teacher seem to me to be right there in PS/SS. It's the same wacky Hagrid before and after the Malfoy plot in PoA. The experience that Hagrid has been effected by the Malfoys (as well as other people), but it's much more been about himself. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 11:36:32 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070316113632.70988.qmail@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166154 horridporrid03 wrote: But Hagrid, while claiming to love animals, strikes me as the sort of "animal lover" who crams 50 cats into one room, and as animal control comes to take the half-starved, flea crawling, miserable creatures away, cries to the news cameras about the evil people stealing their "babies". IOWs, Hagrid pleases himself without a thought about his animals. Which is why he tries to raise a dragon in a small cottage, an acromantula in a closet, and sets a herd of hippogriffs loose amongst children. Oh, and lets not forget his "experimental" breeding. Katie responds: I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. I agree that he is often less than concientious about his "pets", but I don't think he's an abusive, off-balanced animal hoarder. Let's consider this - if Hagrid were so awful and abusive, would his "pets" be so loyal to him? Aragog and Buckbeak love Hagrid and are loyal and faithful to him. Aragog even goes so far as to defy the laws of his race to make sure Hagrid is safe coming to visit. I doubt that the wretched and sick animals kept by an animal hoarder are so positively disposed to their abuser. And it's not some case of them loving Hagrid because he's ausive or some psychobabble...he truly loves these creatures and his love is returned. Now, Hagrid ISN'T always very careful or thoughtful about the dangers these creatures pose, but he seems to take good care of the animals themselves. As the Trio often laments, Hagrid's biggest problem is that he never sees a monster as a monster...he's too loving and accepting. But...he's also often right...not with Aragog, but certainly Buckbeak turned out to be a wonderful companion and friend, not only for Hagrid and Sirius, but for the Trio as well. And Grawp is coming around...I know he isn't a pet, but he's a big, dangerous giant that Hagrid underestimates the danger of...however, Hagrid was right to think that Grawp could be more than a beast, and it seems that's happening. So, in the end, I think that Hagrid is definitely NOT an animal abuser, just a well-intentioned, but often thoughtless, man who really likes wierd pets. People keep tarantulas and snakes as pets...I prefer cats, but who's to say! JMHO, Katie . --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sam2sar at charter.net Fri Mar 16 14:16:30 2007 From: sam2sar at charter.net (Stephanie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:16:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166155 > > > Betsy Hp: > He brought 12 animals that if not treated just so will attack, and if > they attack are liable to be put down, in amongst a group of > adolescents. The lack of responsiblibity Hagrid showed was > staggering. Buckbeak nearly died because Hagrid couldn't handle the > responsibility of being his owner. So yeah, I'd say Hagrid isn't all > that good to the beasties that fall into his hands. He's like a bad > circus guy. (Hagrid would have totally ended up having to kill > Dumbo's mother. ) > > > >>Hickengruendler: > > And regarding Norbert, Hagrid came to his senses pretty soon, as I > > suspect he would have with Aragog as well. > > Betsy Hp: > Eh, not how I remembered it. Didn't the Trio have to practically > twist Hagrid's arm? (This *after* Ron was badly injured -- Hagrid > certainly could care less about child saftey.) And Hagrid does keep > Aragog in the Forbidden Forest, introducing an entirely foreign > species into that environment. IIRC, the centaurs were still a bit > miffed about that. > > > >>Hickengruendler: > > The real problem is, that he lacks the comment sense to see what a > > danger the creatures could be to other humans, like when he sent > > Harry and Ron to the spiders. But this has nothing to do with the > > treatment of the animals themselves. > > Betsy Hp: > But it's got *everything* to do with his treatment of the animals. > Hagrid doesn't have the commen sense to keep them safe. Hippogriffs > are dangerous because of what sort of animals they are, and he should > be aware of that. By putting the hippogriffs in a situation where > they are likely to hurt humans, he's risking their lives, and that's > what's abusive. > > Betsy Hp > Everyone seems to forget that the is Care of Magical Creatures. The students are supposed to learn about a variety of creatures, some of them quite dangerous. What would happen to a student that meets a Hippogriff without learning how to approach it. They would most likely die. Hagrids job is to prepare the students in his charge to learn about and care for dangerous and benign creatures alike. Sam From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 16 14:32:37 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:32:37 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: <20070316113632.70988.qmail@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166156 Katie responds: > I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. > I agree that he is often less than concientious > about his "pets", but I don't think he's an abusive, > off-balanced animal hoarder. Let's consider this > - if Hagrid were so awful and abusive, would his > "pets" be so loyal to him? Aragog and Buckbeak love > Hagrid and are loyal and faithful to him. houyhnhnm: It is impossible to say whether or not Hagrid is an animal abuser in a real life sense because there are no real animals in HP (even the non-magical ones) , only anthropomorphic cartoon animals. Real owls are not smart, for instance. It's one of my biggest annoyances with HP, but it is a characteristic of most children's literature. I thought it was dumb even as a child and I've never understood what the point is supposed to be. Teaching very young children to regard animals as having thoughts and feelings exactly like their own is supposed to encourage empathy, I suppose, but a great many people never evolve beyond it and learn to respect the fact that animals have their own natures which are very different from those of humans. As a high school science teacher, I find that anthropomorphic attitudes persist into adolescence and are almost impossible to eradicate. In the real world, anthropomorphism does lead to animal abuse. How many pets are abandoned every year because their owners expect them to understand and respond as human beings would? How many are beaten or made sick by improper diets for the same reason? Hagrid's affection for his pets would clearly be anthropomorphic if they were real animals (Norbert's teddy bear, for instance), but since they are not, maybe we can't judge him by RL standards. Firenze commends Hagrid for the care he shows all living creatures. Maybe in the Potterverse, we are not supposed to look beyond that. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Mar 16 15:21:33 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:21:33 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166157 Sam: > Everyone seems to forget that the is Care of Magical Creatures. The > students are supposed to learn about a variety of creatures, some of > them quite dangerous. What would happen to a student that meets a > Hippogriff without learning how to approach it. They would most > likely die. Hagrids job is to prepare the students in his charge to > learn about and care for dangerous and benign creatures alike. > > Sam > Hickengruendler: I think if someone forgot this, it was Hagrid himself. Otherwise he wouldn't have shown the students some creatures that actually exist, instead of some, that were bred by him, like the Blast Ended Skrewts. I do see your point about the Hippogriffs, but nonetheless they are not the right animal to start with. He has to show the younger students some easier to handle creatures at first. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 16 15:42:51 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:42:51 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166158 "justcarol67" wrote: > Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing"(not trial, BTW) Fudge calls it a disciplinary hearing, Dumbledore calls it a full criminal trial. Who are you going to believe, fudge or Dumbledore? So let's review, Harry (twice!) thinks about being sentenced to Azkaban, AFTER that we learn it is a full criminal trial and he is being judged by the full Wizengamot, something that is very rare; and yet you think JKR expects her readers to believe Harry's fears were overblown and the thought of Harry going to Azkaban never entered Percy's head. I don't buy it. > Percy, of course, simply takes notes. Fudge Yes, he was just following orders, but I would maintain it's imposable to read that chapter and not know exactly what side Percy is on. The man is evil. Eggplant From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Mar 16 14:51:18 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:51:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... References: Message-ID: <005301c767da$8e7aea60$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166159 >> >>Hickengruendler: >> Anyway, I disagree that Hagrid is an animal abuser. There's nothing >> wrong with how he treated the Hippogriffs. > > Betsy Hp: > He brought 12 animals that if not treated just so will attack, and if > they attack are liable to be put down, in amongst a group of > adolescents. The lack of responsiblibity Hagrid showed was > staggering. Buckbeak nearly died because Hagrid couldn't handle the > responsibility of being his owner. So yeah, I'd say Hagrid isn't all > that good to the beasties that fall into his hands. He's like a bad > circus guy. (Hagrid would have totally ended up having to kill > Dumbo's mother. ) Shelley: I just think it's way off base to consider Hagrid an animal abuser, and to put him in the same light as a bad circus guy. We have to remember that the Wizarding community has animals and plants that are much different than our own. Many of their plants bite, sting, strangle, KILL and so forth. Just look at the ones considered safe enough for school kids to study even! Mandrakes that Even being a herbologist could get you killed in the wizarding world. Then you start to look at the animals, and some of them are the same types of dangerous, too weird for Muggles such as ourselves, must exercise caution when handling, creatures. In the past, it wasn't considered unusual for wizards to breed and keep dragons, yes, dragons, as pets in their back yard. No wonder why Hagrid wants a dragon- it's in his blood, his heritage as a wizard. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to put Hagrid on the same level as a Muggle animal abuser today who has no clue of an animal's natural needs. The wizarding world is a different world from our own, and we must not forget that when we make judgments. These animals exist normally in the wizarding world, and the wizards share their habitats. Some wizards have professions breeding and caring for these creatures. Had Hagrid not been expelled in his third year, his gift with animals would have been a great, and not unusual for a wizard, career choice for him. But because he was expelled, his only avenue of taking care of animals is by keeping the grounds of Hogwarts, and by extension, the forbidden forest. I would say he's got a great relationship with those animals that he tends and is a protector of. To say that Hagrid is an animal abuser is to run around and point fingers at every mother today and accuse them of being a child abuser. It just doesn't logically follow, and I don't think Rowling gives us any canon to say otherwise. Aragog- Hagrid does find a home for this creature in the forbidden forest. He cared so much for him that he found him a WIFE, so that he could breed and live a normal spider life. When he is sick and nearing the end of his life, who is there to try and nurse this spider back to health? Why it's Hagrid, his old friend. Buckbeak is only on trial because of Malfoy's sick desire to get Hagrid sacked as a teacher, to destroy what's at Hogwarts. We don't see any of the other students suing when one of the plants in herbology stings or bites them, when they get red hot boils in potions class when a potion has gone off badly, nor when they get stung by the screwts, nor after they've been spanked by the whomping willow, or gotten broken arms, wrists and noses in Quiddich. Hogwarts is full of daily dangers, and Malfoy only makes an issue of it to get what he wants. If that Care of Magical Creatures class teacher had been a Slytherin, and Malfoy got chosen first to go and did it wrongly, and thus got the same (minor!)scrape on arm, I highly doubt that any of us would be even debating this issue. Hagrid is not to be blamed for Malfoy's cocky attitude and stupidity. Shelley From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 16 15:52:45 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:52:45 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166160 > Quick_Silver: > Sorry that's probably my fault. The whole point of Sirius's plan was that he, Sirius, would > be the one in danger (as the decoy for Peter) and not James. But when everything went > down James ended up dying. In HBP Snape takes the risk of dying (the now infamous UV) > but Dumbledore ends up dead. > As for planning everything out...I'd say that Dumbledore and Snape did have a plan. For > this parallel I'd say that the UV was definitely planned out before had...not as a plan to > get information but to save Draco. Jen: Thanks for elaborating, I couldn't quite put it together the other night. I do see the parallel now. My only objection--if JKR is conciously setting up these two scenarios in a similar way--would be comparing the Fidelius to the Unbreakable and the reasons both were taken. It's difficult for me to equate pledging to risk your own life out of loyalty and a desire to protect good friends and vowing to potentially kill another person in order to protect someone. It's not that I think Dumbledore would care, or that he would doubt his immense brainpower could prevent a bad situation from occurring (or Snape believing the same), it's more a problem from the perspective of JKR's moral universe. She places value on courage, friendship, sacrifice & good magic. The Unbreakable appears to be counter to those values. I think protecting Draco is meant to be a good thing in this moral universe, and that Snape potentially risking his own life is meant to be a good thing. Are those reasons good enough for the choice Snape made? Is it morally okay to agree to potentially kill someone via a dark magic vow even if the reason a person is doing so is good and the man whose life is in question doesn't mind? I'm not certain where she would place this situation on her continuum of morally correct behavior and I'm certain the Fidelius is intended to be seen as a morally good plan. Magpie: > I don't see the UV as being the only way to save Draco either--but then, neither was > Peter as the Secret Keeper the only way to save James. The point is just that Snape > decided to take the Vow and that he and Dumbledore were also trying to protect and > neutralize Draco. Jen: The comparison would be between the original plans though, the Fidelius with Sirius and the UV with Snape. Fudge said Dumbledore believed the Fidelius was the 'best chance' to safeguard the Potters; the Potters then agreed to the plan and chose Sirius. It's not canon that the UV was directly or indirectly agreed to by Dumbledore, nor whether Dumbledore believed it was the best possible plan to protect Draco. It's possible Snape made this choice entirely on his own. I don't see the UV as comparable to Peter taking over as Secret Keeper because the Potters agreed to the change and they were the ones at risk. Magpie: > LV is *not* targetting DD in HBP. He's targetting Draco. He doesn't expect Dumbledore > to die. He may indeed one day want Snape to kill Dumbledore, as Snape seems to imply >in Spinner's End, but his plan for sixth year probably isn't based on information that >Dumbledore is weak because it assumes that Dumbledore is strong--certainly strong >enough to easily take care of a would-be assassin like Draco. Jen: Targeting Draco and punishing Lucius is sweet revenge for LV, but it's equivalent to Lucius enjoying a spot of Muggle torture at the World Cup, an activity Voldemort derides by saying, 'Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master?' (GOF, chap. 33, p. 640, Scholastic) HBP is comparable in some ways to the structure of GOF, with the exception that Harry had some additional information about the Riddle House scene via his dream and he knows nothing about Spinner's End. The deduction throughout GOF was that someone wanted to hurt or kill Harry, not that Voldemort's plan was to regain his body in order to kill Harry himself. I'm expecting something similar to be revealed in DH--LV had more on the table than targeting Draco and Lucius. I put forward one possible plan here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165257 Jen R. From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 16 16:09:51 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... Message-ID: <9656075.1174061391871.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166162 From: houyhnhnm102 >Hagrid's affection for his pets would clearly be >anthropomorphic if they were real animals (Norbert's >teddy bear, for instance), but since they are not, >maybe we can't judge him by RL standards. Firenze >commends Hagrid for the care he shows all living >creatures. Maybe in the Potterverse, we are not >supposed to look beyond that. He may have given Norbert a teddy bear, but he also knew, in detail, how to properly incubate the egg, how imprinting works, what to feed him, etc. In other words, he really DOES know how to care and train magical creatures. And it IS a dangerous subject; consider that Dumbledore implied that the last Care of Magical Creatures professor lost at least one limb permanently (check his official intro for Hagrid in POA). That is why I thought that Dumbledore should have asked Sprout to give Hagrid some help; Herbology seems to be similarly fraught with danger, with the books mentioning several times student injuries from the class. Going back to anthropomorphic animals, I also note that one of the problems in the WW is the attitude towards intelligent so-called "magical creatures", as sub-humans (even those who are capable of mating with humans and producing fertile offspring). Of course, Voldemort is taking advantage of this, but, as you point out, the "animals are not really different than humans and should have the same rights" theme is poking its head through. Luckily, most of the kids reading the books will probably not have occasion to have unsupervised contact with, say, owls or boa constrictors. And JKR seems to be savvy enough to make the animals with whom kids might have unsupervised contact act more like the real thing. At least in the United States, with more and more contact between suburban dwellers and deer (aka rats with antlers), bears, wild geese, coyotes, hawks, falcons, etc. making them to appear to have human like intelligence would, as you point out, endanger both the children and the animals. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 16:23:13 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:23:13 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166164 > Jen: > Thanks for elaborating, I couldn't quite put it together the > It's difficult for me to equate pledging to risk your own life out of loyalty and > a desire to protect good friends and vowing to potentially kill another person in order to > protect someone. zgirnius: The parallel is only present if Snape's intention in taking the Vow was DDM!. Some combination of he believed he could get out of it with Dumbledore's help, he believed it would help shore up his spying role, he believed it would help protect Draco, and he believed it could help control Draco's plot by winning the trust of Draco and Cissy. If he never planned to carry out the third clause, he was putting his own life on the line for loyalty and the protection of friends. Jen: > Is it morally okay to agree to potentially > kill someone via a dark magic vow even if the reason a person is doing so is good and the > man whose life is in question doesn't mind? zgirnius: What makes this possible in my eyes is the possibility that Snape knew he was lying when he took the Vow. The twitch could indicate a recognition that since he would certainly not kill Dumbledore, his consent to the the final clause of the Vow could mean his own death. > Jen: > It's not > canon that the UV was directly or indirectly agreed to by Dumbledore, nor whether > Dumbledore believed it was the best possible plan to protect Draco. It's possible Snape > made this choice entirely on his own. I don't see the UV as comparable to Peter taking > over as Secret Keeper because the Potters agreed to the change and they were the ones at > risk. zgirnius: I think Snape did make the Vow on his own initiative. There was only a plan (to deal with Draco) after he made it. Dumbledore had the choice in the sense that when Snape told him what he had done (promptly, before the school year even started) Dumbledore had the choice of how to handle the problem. The choice he made was not the only way it could have been managed, and Snape accepted his decision on that. If Snape had no intention of killing Dumbledore, the plan chosen by Dumbledore posed potential dangers for Snape. Specifically, if Dumbledore was wrong about Draco, and Snape did his best to stop Draco from succeeding, he'd wind up dead. (This is actually what I believe the argument in the Forest was about - Snape's worry about the plan, which Dumbledore dismissed with a 'you agreed to do it'.) My opinion on what the plan was hinges on the Tower scene. From what we see there, the plan appears to have been for Snape to try and keep Draco from hurting anyone else, but leave Draco free so he would be forced to face Dumbledore alone. No Death Eaters, because *surely* Draco could not insert them into the situationn no Crabbengoyle because Snape would interfere with them. Then Dumbledore would convince Draco that he is 'not a killer' and hide him and his family from Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 16:28:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:28:52 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166165 Katie wrote: I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. I agree that he is often less than concientious about his "pets", but I don't think he's an abusive, off-balanced animal hoarder. > Let's consider this - if Hagrid were so awful and abusive, would his "pets" be so loyal to him? Aragog and Buckbeak love Hagrid and are loyal and faithful to him. Aragog even goes so far as to defy the laws of his race to make sure Hagrid is safe coming to visit. I doubt that the wretched and sick animals kept by an animal hoarder are so positively disposed to their abuser. And it's not some case of them loving Hagrid because he's ausive or some psychobabble...he truly loves these creatures and his love is returned. > Now, Hagrid ISN'T always very careful or thoughtful about the dangers these creatures pose, but he seems to take good care of the animals themselves. As the Trio often laments, Hagrid's biggest problem is that he never sees a monster as a monster...he's too loving and accepting. But...he's also often right...not with Aragog, but certainly Buckbeak turned out to be a wonderful companion and friend, not only for Hagrid and Sirius, but for the Trio as well. And Grawp is coming around...I know he isn't a pet, but he's a big, dangerous giant that Hagrid underestimates the danger of...however, Hagrid was right to think that Grawp could be more than a beast, and it seems that's happening. > So, in the end, I think that Hagrid is definitely NOT an animal abuser, just a well-intentioned, but often thoughtless, man who really likes wierd pets. Carol responds: I agree with you. Except for the Flobberworms, which, IIRC, die from being fed too much lettuce and the Skrewts, which kill each other off, and the poor Bowtruckles burned in the fire (not Hagrid's fault), he takes pretty good care of his pets. It's the students who are in danger (of boredom, in the case of the Flobberworms). I think--and, please don't accuse me of racism or speciesism against half-giants--that Hagrid is so big and his skin so tough that he can endure injuries (including attacks from Grawp and burns from Skrewts) that are much more serious for normal-sized people, even witches and wizards. He isn't really thinking about the possible danger to the kids. Even when Norbert burns eleven-year-old Ron, he's more concerned about the baby dragon than the child, as if it's the child's fault. (And even if it were, the child still needs to have his burn treated.) I don't know how Hagrid learned about animals, but I suspect he was taught one-on-one by Ogg (the gamekeeper before Hagrid, according to Mrs. Weasley)--an expert teaching a very strong, very eager thirteen-year-old. That's another thing Hagrid doesn't understand--not everyone, in fact, hardly anyone--shares his intense interest in "interestin' creatures," the more dangerous, the better. Not only does he illegally breed Skrewts, he has (before he began teaching) found Aragog a "wife" (whose name escapes me) so that the Forbidden Forest now hold hundreds or thousands of huge, venomous, human-eating spiders, some of them six feet tall! (No wonder it's Forbidden.) And his so-called lesson plans have not been thought out. If Professor Grubbly-Plank can teach a Ministry-approved curriculum that prepares students for their OWLs and NEWTs in COMC, so could Hagrid. Admittedly, unlike Grubbly-Plank, who presumably took both exams and did exceedingly well in COMC, at least, Hagrid never got to OWL year, but he could still easily ask, say, Charlie Weasley, or the retired Professor Kettleburn, which animals the kids will be tested on or order a Ministry-approved textbook instead of the useless and dangerous "The Monster Book of Monsters." COMC is supposed to be about caring for magical creatures that a witch or wizard might actually want to keep as a pet--Nifflers and Knarls and Krups or even Unicorns, if they're really good at creature-keeping and have a forest for the Unicorns to run in--or creatures that they might encounter in the WW and need to know how to deal with, such as Bowtruckles. Even if Hippogriffs are in the curriculum, and, somehow, I can't see the examiners bringing a Hippogriff to the school even for the NEWT students, you don't start your first class with them. You start with something more interesting than Flobberworms but not much more dangerous--Knarls, Krups, Bowtruckles--that's likely to be on the exam and work up, saving the more dangerous or scary creatures, such as Hippogriffs and Thestrals, for the advanced students who intend to stay with the subject. It isn't just that Hagrid has no training as a teacher, or that he's easily upset and brought to tears (which is one reason why Draco Malfoy holds him in contempt). He simply has no common sense, no understanding of the way other people's minds work, no capacity for planning or logic. While I think it's great that Snape, who knows what he's doing and takes precautions in his class, always having the necessary antidote on hand, is teaching his students potions that the Ministry thinks are too advanced for their level, it's different with Hagrid. He has no teaching experience, not even a complete education, and he doesn't realize the dangers he's exposing his students to. Admittedly, he did warn the students that Hippogriffs are "proud" and that they can hurt you, but it was dangerous and foolish to present them as a first lesson to thirteen-year-olds with no previous experience in the subject. And exposing fourth-years to the dangerous and illegal Skrewts, which they would never encounter elsewhere in the WW, was simply irresponsible. Snape doesn't need a textbook because he has all the potions in his head, but in Hagrid's case, a Ministry-approved textbook comparable to the one Lupin uses for DADA (also focusing on magical creatures, albeit mildly Dark ones) would have been a real boon. It would at least provide a logical sequence of creatures that the students would need to know about in real life and in their exams. It might even provide lesson plans if there's a teacher's edition (not likely, but possible). All Hagrid would then have to do is obtain the creatures for the lessons, explain their characteristics, and let the students actually care for them, which, after all, is what Care of Magical Creatures is supposed to be about. Carol, who thinks that McGonagall should hire Grubbly-Plank to teach COMC and demote Hagrid back to just plain gamekeeper and Keeper of the Keys, whatever that means From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 16 16:37:11 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:37:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166166 > Sam > > Everyone seems to forget that the is Care of Magical Creatures. The > students are supposed to learn about a variety of creatures, some of > them quite dangerous. What would happen to a student that meets a > Hippogriff without learning how to approach it. They would most > likely die. Hagrids job is to prepare the students in his charge to > learn about and care for dangerous and benign creatures alike. Magpie: LOL--we pretty much saw what might happen in that particular "what if" in his first class! Katie responds: > I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. > I agree that he is often less than concientious > about his "pets", but I don't think he's an abusive, > off-balanced animal hoarder. Let's consider this > - if Hagrid were so awful and abusive, would his > "pets" be so loyal to him? Aragog and Buckbeak love > Hagrid and are loyal and faithful to him. houyhnhnm: It is impossible to say whether or not Hagrid is an animal abuser in a real life sense because there are no real animals in HP (even the non-magical ones) , only anthropomorphic cartoon animals. Real owls are not smart, for instance. It's one of my biggest annoyances with HP, but it is a characteristic of most children's literature. I thought it was dumb even as a child and I've never understood what the point is supposed to be. Teaching very young children to regard animals as having thoughts and feelings exactly like their own is supposed to encourage empathy, I suppose, but a great many people never evolve beyond it and learn to respect the fact that animals have their own natures which are very different from those of humans. Magpie: Trying not to make this a "me too" but you just described exactly what I was going to say was going on with Hagrid. The reason his animals love him is because they can--the author has them be people when they are around Hagrid. His attitudes actually are what Betsy describes in the real world, anthropomorphizing the animals even while also admiring things about it that are purely beasty. In the real world that does often lead to bad care of animals. Once he's "come to his senses" about Norbert, what's supposed to happen to Norbert? It's the Trio who arranges him to go to a proper home, one like many animal rescues who take care of pets their owners weren't prepared to or couldn't care for. There's a huge herd of giant spiders in the forest who are dangerous because of another of Hagrid's pets. He's not working the right balance between loving animals for their own sake, loving pets, and thinking about the other people around But in canon, it's very hard to say whether we should judge it this way, because canon is always on Hagrid's side. Buckbeak likes and dislikes people on what seem to be human terms (even when he's being kept in a bedroom!). Animals love Hagrid because Hagrid loves them-- and on the same terms. In real life that's exactly what doesn't happen, and in canon it sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. To the point where talking about it in fandom becomes difficult too, because things slip back and forth between being an animal and not being an animal. On the flipside, Hagrid's got his presumably human but "savage" brother tied up in the forest to train him. Err...is that disturbing? Can't say. Shelley: In the past, it wasn't considered unusual for wizards to breed and keep dragons, yes, dragons, as pets in their back yard. No wonder why Hagrid wants a dragon- it's in his blood, his heritage as a wizard. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to put Hagrid on the same level as a Muggle animal abuser today who has no clue of an animal's natural needs. Magpie: Is this canon? I don't remember anything like this. How could a Wizard ever have kept a dragon for a pet when they're wild animals? There do seem to be people who breed them etc., but isn't Hagrid's attitude towards the dragons "mental" in Ron's words? Shelley: To say that Hagrid is an animal abuser is to run around and point fingers at every mother today and accuse them of being a child abuser. It just doesn't logically follow, and I don't think Rowling gives us any canon to say otherwise. Magpie: I think Betsy was clear how it did follow and Rowling doesn't quite say we can't say otherwise. Betsy's point was that he put them into environments where they would be likely to get in trouble and she was right. If the Trio hadn't gotten rid of Norbert by giving him to a good home, he might very well have had to have been put down once he got too big and Hagrid couldn't hide him anymore. I'm not seeing any connection betwen a mother and a child. Betsy was making the connection to a person with a pet tiger who is a dangerous mixture of knowledge about actual tigers and good care, and inappropriate situations and care. (I was just reading a story about a girl whose house was suddenly broken into by a bear who attacked her mother. It turned out it belonged to a man four houses away who kept large animals--they didn't even know it. The mother was badly injured but lived. The owner had to shoot the bear. I think that's related to the type of thing Betsy is saying about having big exotic pets.) There do seem to be differences between reality and the WW, but I don't think Betsy's comparison was so illogical. Lots of people love animals and yet are not responsible owners. (Ironically, doesn't JKR say Dudley is abused?) She's not implying that Hagrid intentionally mistreats his animals or doesn't know anything about the way they live, imo. Shelley: Hagrid is not to be blamed for Malfoy's cocky attitude and stupidity. Magpie: Absolutely not. He should only be blamed for his own cocky attitude and stupidity, which unfortunately in this case put him on a collision course with Malfoy's. And if he can't make allowances for cocky attitudes and stupidity in others, he seriously needs to reconsider teaching high school, because it must be part of the job description. Jen: Jen: The comparison would be between the original plans though, the Fidelius with Sirius and the UV with Snape. Fudge said Dumbledore believed the Fidelius was the 'best chance' to safeguard the Potters; the Potters then agreed to the plan and chose Sirius. It's not canon that the UV was directly or indirectly agreed to by Dumbledore, nor whether Dumbledore believed it was the best possible plan to protect Draco. It's possible Snape made this choice entirely on his own. I don't see the UV as comparable to Peter taking over as Secret Keeper because the Potters agreed to the change and they were the ones at risk. Magpie: I don't think it has to be exactly parallel. I thought the parallel was far more general. Draco is the one at risk, and he's not agreeing to any of it. Dumbledore is also at risk, and he seems to have agreed after the fact to Snape's UV. But it's not about setting up exact parallels to the original people, just a more general case, for me, of plans to protect people by controlling others going wrong because of the underestimated person and turning out as a disaster. I'm not making exact parallels with the original plans. Magpie: > LV is *not* targetting DD in HBP. He's targetting Draco. He doesn't expect Dumbledore > to die. He may indeed one day want Snape to kill Dumbledore, as Snape seems to imply >in Spinner's End, but his plan for sixth year probably isn't based on information that >Dumbledore is weak because it assumes that Dumbledore is strong-- certainly strong >enough to easily take care of a would-be assassin like Draco. Jen: Targeting Draco and punishing Lucius is sweet revenge for LV, but it's equivalent to Lucius enjoying a spot of Muggle torture at the World Cup, an activity Voldemort derides by saying, 'Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master?' (GOF, chap. 33, p. 640, Scholastic) HBP is comparable in some ways to the structure of GOF, with the exception that Harry had some additional information about the Riddle House scene via his dream and he knows nothing about Spinner's End. The deduction throughout GOF was that someone wanted to hurt or kill Harry, not that Voldemort's plan was to regain his body in order to kill Harry himself. I'm expecting something similar to be revealed in DH--LV had more on the table than targeting Draco and Lucius. Magpie: But so far, in HBP alone, that's how it's presented is as a spot of Muggle Torture (though in this case it's DE torture) for LV. Snape and Dumbledore *don't* take Draco's life so lightly, and are trying to control things so that LV can't just dispose of Draco easily. DH could certainly reveal new information on this score, but as it stands now LV gave Draco this assignment expecting him to die to punish Lucius. Whatever else LV might have had in mind, bringing Draco into it has only ever been explained through his bit of torturous revenge, and Dumbledore and Snape seem to be taking that very seriously in its own right. That aspect might not change due to more information about what Voldemort wanted. Again, I don't think the plan and the situation has to be an exact match for the parallels to be important. Whatever Voldemort was trying to do it seems like Snape and Dumbledore came up with a plan that took certain risks and relied and other constants, and in the end what they thought was safe turned out to be the risk and the person putting himself up to risk was not the person who wound up dead. -m From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 16:59:25 2007 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:59:25 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. I agree that he is > often less than concientious about his "pets", but I don't think he's > an abusive, off-balanced animal hoarder. > [snip] > > So, in the end, I think that Hagrid is definitely NOT an animal > abuser, just a well-intentioned, but often thoughtless, man who really > likes wierd pets. > > Carol responds: > I agree with you. Except for the Flobberworms, which, IIRC, die from > being fed too much lettuce and the Skrewts, which kill each other off, > and the poor Bowtruckles burned in the fire (not Hagrid's fault), he > takes pretty good care of his pets. > > It's the students who are in danger [snip] > > Snape doesn't need a textbook because he has all the potions in his > head, but in Hagrid's case, a Ministry-approved textbook comparable to > the one Lupin uses for DADA (also focusing on magical creatures, > albeit mildly Dark ones) would have been a real boon. It would at > least provide a logical sequence of creatures that the students would > need to know about in real life and in their exams. It might even > provide lesson plans if there's a teacher's edition (not likely, but > possible). All Hagrid would then have to do is obtain the creatures > for the lessons, explain their characteristics, and let the students > actually care for them, which, after all, is what Care of Magical > Creatures is supposed to be about. > > Carol, who thinks that McGonagall should hire Grubbly-Plank to teach > COMC and demote Hagrid back to just plain gamekeeper and Keeper of the > Keys, whatever that means > Lyra: I have to agree with both of you. Hagrid is not an animal abuser, the kind of guy who keeps 25 cats in a single room. While he keeps Aragog in a box when he's small, Hagrid has the advantage of the vast forest where he can release his "pets" when they get big. I expect that Norbert would have ended up there, as well, if Charlie hadn't found a place for him in Romania, and probably the Skrewts too, had they survived. (And I'm sure the Centaurs wouldn't have been happy about either.) Hagrid's failings result because he both underestimates the dangers of the animals and overestimates the students' ability to handle dangerous creatures (or the injuries that can result). Hagrid does seem to have a gift of dealing with animals, which the animals sense (from Aragog to the Centaurs, they all have a certain respect for the way he treats them) -- a gift most students don't have, and Hagrid doesn't seem aware that students lack that ability. As for textbooks, aside from the year of the disasterous "Monster Book of Monsters," I think they use "Fantastic Beasts" (At least in OOTP, Harry carries Firenze's message "it's not working" to Hagrid by pretending to have left his copy of "FB" after class.) But again, Hagrid simply ignores or understimates the MOM ratings of the animals he chooses out of that book. So, yeah, I agree Carol, let Grubbly-Plank teach COMC and let Hagrid keep the grounds, and everyone would be happy in that little corner of Hogwarts. Lyra From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 17:36:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:36:15 -0000 Subject: Percy again (Was: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166169 Carol earlier: > > Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing" (not trial, BTW) > Eggplant" > Fudge calls it a disciplinary hearing, Dumbledore calls it a full criminal trial. Who are you going to believe, fudge or Dumbledore? So let's review, Harry (twice!) thinks about being sentenced to Azkaban, AFTER that we learn it is a full criminal trial and he is being judged by the full Wizengamot, something that is very rare; and yet you think JKR expects her readers to believe Harry's fears were overblown and the thought of Harry going to Azkaban never entered Percy's head. I don't buy it. > Carol earlier: > > Percy, of course, simply takes notes. > Eggplant: > Yes, he was just following orders, but I would maintain it's imposable to read that chapter and not know exactly what side Percy is on. The man is evil. > Carol responds: Fudge, who doesn't know that Umbridge summoned the Dementors, or that any Dementors were actually involved, and who thinks (under Umbridge's influence, IMO) that Dumbledore is trying to take over the Ministry, changes the time and place of the hearing and brings in the Wizengamot as jurors (which turns out to be a good thing) and himself and Umbridge (who says very little) as interrogators. Madam Bones, who gives Harry a fair trial, is still in charge. Percy, as scribe, takes notes and smirks. No one, not Mafalda Hopkirk in her notes to Harry, not Fudge in the hearing or trial, call it what you will, mentions anything about Azkaban. It's already been established (by Dumbledore) that the Wizengamot/MoM can't expel Harry. At worst (and admittedly, it's a fairly bad "worst"), he could lose his wand (which the MoM was prepared to take from him *before* the hearing in an Alice-in-Wonderland, sentence-first, trial-afterwards travesty of justice) before Dumbledore stepped in. Percy, who (unless he's pretending) believes Fudge and the Daily Prophet and has been taken in by Umbridge's facade of sweetness, is simply taking notes. His loyalty, he has stated, is to the Ministry. He believes in authority, in laws and rules. He has no more idea, before the hearing, that Harry was defending himself and Dudley against real Dementors in Little Whinging than Fudge does. It's possible that he still doesn't believe it after the Wizengamot clears Harry of all charges. There is no evidence whatever that Percy thinks that Harry will be sent to Azkaban. That thought occurs to *Harry* twice before the Order comes to rescue him. After that, his only fear is expulsion (he hopes that Sirius Black will let him stay at 12 GP if he's expelled). That Percy still believes that Dumbledore is trying to take over the Ministry and that Harry is a possibly disturbed attention seeker seems clear from Percy's letter to Ron and his presence with Fudge in Dumbledore's office when Umbridge summons them regarding the DA. Percy has somehow (perhaps because he's so proud of his promotion, so ambitious, so devoted to the Ministry) swallowed the official line regarding not only DD and Harry but Voldemort. He does not believe that Voldemort is really back. In HBP, we see a chastened and demoted Fudge, who knows now that Dumbledore was right. He looks "miserable" at Dumbledore's funeral. It's possible that Percy has learned, or will learn, a similar lesson. The difference is that Percy is, as of the beginning of DH, only twenty years old, still barely a man, still young enough to find admitting that he's wrong difficult and painful, especially to the family that he probably feels has rejected him. Percy has plenty of faults (though I have some sympathy for him because of the way his family treats him). He's ambitious, stubborn, and almost wilfully deluded. But evil? Until and unless he joins the Death Eaters, which seems highly unlikely given his devotion to the Ministry, or stands by Umbridge knowing that she sent the Dementors to Little Whinging and tried to Crucio Harry (as no one except Harry and a smattering of students now knows), I refuse to consider him evil. Carol, who thinks that Percy's actions are determined in part by what he knows and believes, and as of OoP, he does not know the truth and he believes the wrong people From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 16 17:38:08 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... Message-ID: <15032385.1174066688615.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166170 From: hickengruendler >I do see your point about the Hippogriffs, but nonetheless they are >not the right animal to start with. He has to show the younger >students some easier to handle creatures at first. Bart: Let's see now. The incredibly difficult to handle hippogriffs: don't insult them, bow first, if they don't bow back, back off. I grew up a city kid, and I learned how to handle a horse when I was 7 years old. First thing I learned: Never walk behind a horse within kicking range. A major problem with Hagrid, I think, is that when he did work with students (like dententions), it was usually just a handful at a time. And he wants to be liked. Other professors might say: "Now, pay attention please. Malfoy, Crabbe? Are you trying to see how many points you can lose for Slytherin?" "Everybody who wishes to end up in the hospital after class, keep whispering among yourselves." "15 points from Slytherin for talking when you should be listening. Do you want to try for detention too? The stables need cleaning." As one who has not yet properly developed dark sarcasm in the classroom, he SHOULD have said: "Students! Come on, it's my first day! Please don't make me take points from yer houses! Besides, this is important stuff I'm tellin' yer!" Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 17:45:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:45:10 -0000 Subject: Hypogriffs WAS: Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: <15032385.1174066688615.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166171 > Bart: > Let's see now. The incredibly difficult to handle hippogriffs: don't insult them, bow first, if they don't bow back, back off. > > I grew up a city kid, and I learned how to handle a horse when I was 7 years old. First thing I learned: Never walk behind a horse within kicking range. Alla: YES. Oh my goodness, yes. I said something to that effect in the post that Yahoo ate yesterday ( but I think that waiting more than 12 hours is enough and posting it anyway) I think it is quite possible that hypogriffs dangerous classification is exaggerated for some reason yet unknown and not used to be like that in the past. I keep thinking of that witch who kept hypogriff as house pet. And of course the only person who got hurt was the one who did insult hypogriff when being told not to. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 16 17:49:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy.) Message-ID: <4637380.1174067364633.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166172 From: eggplant107 >Yes, he was just following orders, but I would maintain it's imposable >to read that chapter and not know exactly what side Percy is on. The >man is evil. Bart: Not evil. Unquestioning of authority. Learned a long time ago that if you just follow orders from authority, then everything will go OK, and you never have to actually THINK about anything. Doublethink is possible if, and only if, you don't see the inherent contradictions in your thoughts. If Percy is told, "There's a water shortage. Go to all the toilets and flush them immediately!" he will do so. It takes thought to realize that flushing the toilets make water shortates worse. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 18:08:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:08:39 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166173 Carol earlier: > > > Snape doesn't need a textbook because he has all the potions in his head, but in Hagrid's case, a Ministry-approved textbook comparable to the one Lupin uses for DADA (also focusing on magical creatures, albeit mildly Dark ones) would have been a real boon. It would at least provide a logical sequence of creatures that the students would need to know about in real life and in their exams. It might even provide lesson plans if there's a teacher's edition (not likely, but possible). All Hagrid would then have to do is obtain the creatures for the lessons, explain their characteristics, and let the students actually care for them, which, after all, is what Care of Magical Creatures is supposed to be about. Lyra responded: > As for textbooks, aside from the year of the disasterous "Monster Book of Monsters," I think they use "Fantastic Beasts" (At least in OOTP, Harry carries Firenze's message "it's not working" to Hagrid by pretending to have left his copy of "FB" after class.) But again, Hagrid simply ignores or understimates the MOM ratings of the animals he chooses out of that book. Carol again: Thanks. I'd forgotten that. But FB doesn't solve the problem I was pointing out because it doesn't present the animals in a least-dangerous to most-dangerous sequence and therefore set up a logical sequence of lessons for Hagrid to follow. It lists the creatures alphabetically, starting with the extremely dangerous Acromantula. Nor does it focus on animals that the students would actually be caring for in later life or tested on in their exams (many of them are Dark creatures more properly belonging to DADA or extremely dangerous animals that only Hagrid would want to care for). I doubt, for example, that any of them will want Manticores as pets or that the care and handling of Lethifolds will be part of their OWLs or NEWTs. Nor should Merpeople and Centaurs, IMO, be included in a COMC class since both are intelligent near-humans capable of caring for themselves. FB is an interesting bit of light reading, but it doesn't, in my view, qualify as a useful textbook for COMC. It is, however, a step up from "The Monster Book of Monsters." BTW, and this point is completely OT but occurred to me as I was glancing at the entry on Kneazles, I wonder if Crookshanks's lack of reaction to Snape in both PoA and OoP is an indication that Snape is *not* an "unsavoury or suspicious character" (FB 24). Carol, who just realized that she's been misspelling "Crups" but is at least pretty sure that she hasn't accidentally referred to Voldemort as Dumbledore in this thread! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 18:25:42 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:42 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166174 --- "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > Sam: > > > Everyone seems to forget that the is Care of Magical > > Creatures. The students are supposed to learn about > > a variety of creatures, some of them quite dangerous. > > ...Hagrids job is to prepare the students in his > > charge to learn about and care for dangerous and > > benign creatures alike. > > > > Sam > > > > Hickengruendler: > > I think if someone forgot this, it was Hagrid himself. > Otherwise he wouldn't have shown the students some > creatures that actually exist, instead of some, that > were bred by him, like the Blast Ended Skrewts. > > I do see your point about the Hippogriffs, but > nonetheless they are not the right animal to start with. > He has to show the younger students some easier to > handle creatures at first. > bboyminn: First, I reject the idea that Hagrid /abuses/ animals; that's just absurd. Everyone including the animals themselves seem to respect Hagrid for the care and compassion he has shown to magical creatures and other creatures of the forest. Second, I think Sam has the right idea, it is Hagrid's job to show the students a wide range for magical creatures and teach them how to handle them and care for them. But here is Hagrid's problem, first and foremost, Hagrid is not a formally trained teacher. I honestly don't think he understands what his job is, and I think Dumbledore is content to let him feel his way through it and hopefully and eventually figure it out for himself. That implies that the first few years ARE going to be rough and rocky. I think, to some extent, Dumbledore is of the belief that the lessons we learn best are the ones we teach ourself. I think he believes and allows this because it creates people who are self-determined and free thinking. If Dumbledore intervened too early and too often, Hagrid would never accomplish anything nor would he learn anything; he would just continually defer to other people. So, Hagrid's problem is that he doesn't understand his job. Hagrid is fastinated with creature, or as some might say monsters, so he assumes that's what he should do, show everyone fastinating creatures. In Hagrid's mind, his class is '...magical creatures', but in reality, his class should be about 'care of...'. I think Hagrid is learning from his mistakes. Certainly, in bringing the Hypogriphs in so early, he went too far. Logically, he should start younger students with simplier and less dangerous creatures and leave the more dangerous ones to the older more experienced students. As the CoMC classes go on, I see Hagrid getting better. I seem him gradually settling down and focusing on what the students /need/ to know rather than what Hagrid thinks will impress them. Of course, just as Hagrid is pulling his lessons together, Harry and the gang are out of his classes, but I project that farther down the road, Hagrid will get his classes a little more organized and structured, and predict that, once he settles down, his class will become a favorite of the students. Dumbledore is letting Hagrid feel his way through what it means to be a teacher and what it means to teach this subject, and is doing so because he knows that eventually this will lead to those classes being far better than they would be if Dumbledore or anyone else tried to microm-manage them. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 21:32:47 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:32:47 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166176 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing" > >(not trial, BTW) > Eggplant: > > Fudge calls it a disciplinary hearing, Dumbledore > calls it a full criminal trial. Who are you going to > believe, fudge or Dumbledore? Fudge calls it a 'disciplinary hearing' because that is what it is. Dumbledore calls is a 'criminal trial' to point out to Fudge the absurdity of wasting the entire courts time on such a trivial matter. There was an element of sacasm to Dumbledore's statement. Fudge is clearly using the entire court as a means of intimidating Harry, and within limits, it works. Harry is scared, so scared that Fudge is able to cut off every statement Harry tries to make in his own defense. Until Dumbledore arrives and takes control of the situation, Harry is clearly going to be intimidated and railroaded into a conviction with little or no chance to defend himself. Further as we see from Fudge's actions, Fudge has every intent to ridicule and discount any defense Harry might manage to squeeze in. > Eggplant: > > So let's review, Harry (twice!) thinks about being > sentenced to Azkaban, AFTER that we learn it is a full > criminal trial and he is being judged by the full > Wizengamot, something that is very rare; and yet you > think JKR expects her readers to believe Harry's fears > were overblown and the thought of Harry going to Azkaban > never entered Percy's head. I don't buy it. > bboyminn: No certainly you can't buy it in the framework you are presenting it, but I don't think that is an accurate framework. Again, Fudge is trying to intimidate Harry with the overwhelming /face/ of authority. Certainly, Harry THINKS he MIGHT be sent to Azkaban, and in the worst situation, any reasonable person would think the worst. Further, I suspect if Fudge thought he could pull if off, he might have even tried to send Harry to Azkaban. These really aren't the fairest of trails by any standard. But I think the rest of the court and the rest of the wizard world would have been outraged by so harsh a sentence for such a minor crime. Keep in mind that the muggle in question was Dudley who already knew about magic, the wizard world, Harry, and Harry's parents. There was no real breach of security here. So, Azkaban is a reasonable fear on Harry's part, but it is not a reasonable or likely outcome of the actual events. > > Carol: > > Percy, of course, simply takes notes. Fudge > Eggplant: > > Yes, he was just following orders, but I would maintain > it's imposable to read that chapter and not know exactly > what side Percy is on. The man is evil. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: Without a doubt Percy is an annoying simpering sycophant suck-up who deserves a swift kick in the *cough*cough*. But Percy is doing what he thinks is right. He is not evil because he is not acting for the betterment of preceived evil. Percy is siding with the existing authority. He is siding with his government in the face of what is preceived to be a minor insurrection. Not wanting to get too political here, but that is exactly what our country did when Bush started making a case for war. In bars and pubs up and down the country side, you could not speak a word against the President for fear of reprisal, and understandably so, the people were rallying support for the elected authority, for the people who are in a position to know things that ordinary citizens couldn't know. It doesn't matter if at this later date, those people, including the President, were right or wrong, the point is, in times of crisis, you support your government. That is what I see Percy doing. He is supporting his government when it appears that outside influences are trying to destablize that government. He supports his government and trusts them to have a accurate assessment and to act wisely for the greater good. My purpose here is not to criticize Bush but to show the universality of Percy's actions. Plus, how many other citizens are following Percy's lead and leaving it up to the legitimate authority and elected government to solve a problem that is too big for individual citizens to solve on their own? Of course, anyone who is not so young and naive knows better than to give absolute trust to a bunch of back- stabbing self-serving bureaucrats. But on the other hand, our government and the armies they control are our only source of security. In times of crisis, not matter how corrupt or incompetent they may be, they are the only people we have to represent us, so we stick by them, just as Percy is doing. So, I flat out reject any claim that Percy is or will become evil. Percy is misguided, and I have to hope he will see that good citizens do not absolutely trust their government. They maintain a middle ground between absolute trust and complete anarchistic distrust. I have to hope that he will see that government represents the will and needs of the people, and it it up to the people to ensure that said government represents the people fairly, and to further understand that when government does not, it is up to the people to force the government back in line with the founding and guiding precepts of the community. Again, Percy is naive and misguided, but he is honestly trying to do what he believes is right, but I trust that at some point, he will gradually come to see that the government is not automatically and universally the sole purveyor of truth and wisdom in the wizard world, and that it is the duty of each citizen to influence the governement toward that objective. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 16 21:37:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:37:10 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166177 Looking at the interaction between Hagrid and Draco where the Hippogriff is introduced to the class, a few thoughts occurred to me while I was looking at our two protagonists. Firstly, I look on Hagrid as having enthusiasm, expertise but sadly lacking in experience. Let me draw some real world parallels. I believe that Hogwarts is modelled on the typically English public boarding school but these still have a lot in common with the state sector, in which I taught for 32 years. Until a few years ago, anyone with a University degree could teach in a school without further teaching qualifications. This, as I know from first-hand experience could land you with a highly-qualified teacher who was a complete dunderhead in the classroom. If you did not have a degree, it was compulsory for you to have a teaching qualification. Today, a person holding a degree will take a Post-Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE). Now, what is the situation in the Wizarding world? Hagrid has no qualifications; we know he was e xpelled. Yet Dumbledore appointed him as a teacher. Was there no system whereby he ran names past a central authority for clearance? Or did he bring Hagrid in almost without advising anyone? There is evidence that there is some control over what he can and cannot do as Headmaster. We know that he personally can be censured or removed by the governors . `"The appointment ? or suspension ? of the Headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge," said Mr. Malfoy smoothly.' (COS "Cornelius Fudge" p.194 UK edition) We also know that the Ministry can interfere in the running of the school `MINISTRY SEEKS EDUCATIONAL REFORM DOLORES UMBRIDGE APPOINTED FIRST EVER HIGH INQUISITOR . In a surprise move last night, the Ministry of Magic passed new legislation giving itself an unprecedented level of control at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry' (OOTP "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor" p, 274 UK edition) `BY ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF MAGIC Dolores Jane Umbridge (High Inquisitor) has replaced Albus Dumbledore as Head of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.' (OOTP "Snape's Worst Memory" p.550 UK edition) So, first, it is very interesting and perhaps highly questionable that Hagrid is even in post because of his background. Hagrid is enthusiastic and has expertise. That we know. He was always very keen to tell individuals and classes about the various creatures to which they were introduced and, as has been observed in this discussion, he has the expertise to look after the handling and welfare of these different beasts. However, where he comes unstuck is in the area of experience. He is not a trained teacher. He is quite good with individuals or small groups of students, like the Trio, but the organisation and handling of larger groups is way off. Likeable as he is, Hagrid is a bit of a blunderer and often possesses the tact and grace of an African elephant! He does not appear to think ahead of his actions and consider consequences. Examples away from the class include such things as telling a stranger how to subdue Fluffy when the dog is being used to protect the approaches to the Philosopher's Stone or planning to secrete a full-grown dragon around the place after he has reared it. And he is totally inexperienced in dealing with a class in an outdoor situation. When I was involved in games, if I was out on the playing field, I would constantly be scanning the class, especially the "smart alec" pupils to see what they might be up to on the edge of the group. Which brings us to Draco. I think there are a number of factors to be considered about him on that day. At the outset, I do not believe that he intended harm to Buckbeak; that was just a spin-off to events. Initially, his expressed attitude was contempt for Hagrid who isn't a pureblood for starters. `"God, this place is going to the dogs," said Malfoy loudly. "That oaf teaching classes, my father'll have a fit when I tell him ?"' (POA "Talons and Tea Leaves" p.87 UK edition) Then, when Harry goes into the paddock, jealousy and irritation begins to surface as Harry makes friends with the Hippogriff. `He (Harry) patted the beak several times and the Hippogriff closed his eyes lazily, as though enjoying it. The class all broke into applause, all except for Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, who were looking deeply disappointed.' (ibid. p.89) After Harry's flight, the remaining students go into the paddock and approach the animals but, of course, Draco allows himself to think that it is easy because Harry succeeded and thus heignores Hagrid's warning about insulting them. Up to this point, Draco has merely been driven by a desire to verbally belittle Hagrid and Harry and perhaps prove himself better than the latter. Getting rid of Buckbeak only becomes an issue in the aftermath of the injury. And that is Draco's own fault. Although I have said that Hagrid is disorganised and inexperienced, I agree with him and other contributors to these threads that he is right to introduce the classes to these Magical creatures. It is the way in which he does it which is open to question. It is paramount that the idea is knocked into the thickest ? or most patronising ? head present that they can be dangerous if wrongly handled. When you get a teacher who is not schooled in the art of handling classes coming into collision with an arrogant, selfish student who thinks that he knows best, the stage is set for trouble. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Mar 16 21:30:12 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:30:12 -0400 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: <1174048823.1503.72061.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1174048823.1503.72061.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C936296A0E2AE3-94C-C8C@webmail-me17.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166178 Pippin wrote: So DDM!Snape would not have to think very long when Narcissa asked for the vow -- his questions to himself would not be, Will Dumbledore approve of my risking my life to save a student, or, What if I'm forced into a situation where I have to betray Dumbledore or die, because Snape would have considered those things already. Nor would he ask himself "What do I have to lose?" Smart risk takers ask, "What am I trying to gain?" By agreeing to take the vows, there is a reasonable chance that Snape will gain the life of at least one student and silence the rumors that are threatening his position with LV. Voldemort will not long tolerate his Death Eaters whispering that one of their number has managed to hoodwink him. By refusing, Snape gains nothing -- both he and Dumbledore are already in mortal peril, The Plan is already underway, and refusing the vow will not change any of it. Voldemort had tried to kill Dumbledore already -- which means vow or no vow, his life expectance was no better than Karkaroff's. Julie: Excellent points, Potioncat. Given how little we still know about Snape and his motivations, I have to say my main reasons for believing so strongly in DDM!Snape have to do with Dumbledore. Not only how sound his judgment of others is (I think it is very sound), but the fact that he is the most powerful wizard in the WW, the only one Voldemort fears and cannot easily kill. Thus from the beginning of HBP I was convinced that Dumbledore could only be "killed" if he ALLOWED it to happen. It doesn't matter whether the culprit is Draco, Snape or even Voldemort himself. If Dumbledore doesn't accept his death, it isn't going to happen. This doesn't mean Dumbledore was suicidal or wanted to die. I suspect he was already dying from the beginning of HBP. So it might be more accurate to say he chose *when* to die rather than "to die." The most interesting question might be what exactly Dumbledore was thinking when he went after that ring horcrux, if that's indeed what was killing him. Did he know the curse on it was likely to be fatal? If so, why did he think that was the right time to set his death in motion? Because he knew Voldemort was determined he die, because he knew Harry couldn't fulfill the prophecy until Voldemort got rid of this final obstacle? Or did the curse come as a surprise to Dumbledore, and once he understood his fate he planned the contingencies from that point? 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 horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 22:01:11 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:01:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: <20070316113632.70988.qmail@web52711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166179 > >>Katie: > I think you're taking a hard line against Hagrid. > Betsy Hp: I *am* taking a hard line, I agree. Is it too hard for the books? As Magpie and houyhnhnm pointed out, it's hard to tell. Which is actually fairly normal when it comes to Hagrid, honestly. At least, IMO. On the one hand, kids absolutely love his character, and he's totally loyal to Harry. On the other hand, he's a bigot, a pretty hard drinker (how often do the Trio come across him while he's in his cups?), and as per RL standards anyway a menace to the very creatures he claims to love. And yes, that includes his brother. Of course, I absolutely reject the idea that Hagrid was doing just fine and Draco screwed everything up for him. The insanity of bringing *twelve* highly dangerous beasts to intermingle with children (and the children were all intermingling with the hippogriffs at once) was mind-boggling to me. > >>Bart: > > I grew up a city kid, and I learned how to handle a horse when I > was 7 years old. First thing I learned: Never walk behind a horse > within kicking range. > Betsy Hp: Me too. I'm curious as to how you were taught that particular lesson? For me, a group of us kids (about 6 or so) were taken inside a stable, our teacher stood with the horse and told us all the finer points, and then, one by one, we were encouraged to pet and brush the horse. Over time we were left more and more unsupervised, in that we'd each care for the horse we rode, but there were always at least two responsible adults around. Oh, and the horses used were calm friendly sorts that were used to children. If Hagrid had been in charge, there'd have been about 20 children (not all of them thrilled to be there) given a quick run down on how to handle horses, and then he'd have scattered twelve highly strung thoroughbreds amongst the children and left them to it while he chatted with the three kids he really liked. No wonder no ones takes CoMC unless they absolutely have to. (Including Harry, Ron and Hermione.) Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 16 22:16:43 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:16:43 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: <8C936296A0E2AE3-94C-C8C@webmail-me17.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166180 Julie: > Thus from the beginning of HBP I was convinced that > Dumbledore could only be "killed" if he ALLOWED it > to happen. It doesn't matter whether the culprit is > Draco, Snape or even Voldemort himself. If Dumbledore > doesn't accept his death, it isn't going to happen. > [...] > So it might be more accurate to say he chose *when* > to die rather than "to die." houyhnhnm: ******* Fawkes the phoenix looked around, his bright black eyes gleaming with reflected gold from the sunset beyond the windows. Dumbledore was standing at the window looking out at the grounds, a long black traveling cloak in his arms. ******* Something about that passage from "The Seer Overheard" has given me the feeling that Dumbledore was saying goodbye, to his office and to his school, ever since I read HBP the second time. He knew. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 17 01:34:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:34:26 -0000 Subject: The uses of beast fable, was Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166182 > houyhnhnm: > > It is impossible to say whether or not Hagrid is an > animal abuser in a real life sense because there are > no real animals in HP (even the non-magical ones) , > only anthropomorphic cartoon animals. Real owls are > not smart, for instance. > > It's one of my biggest annoyances with HP, but it is > a characteristic of most children's literature. I > thought it was dumb even as a child and I've never > understood what the point is supposed to be. Teaching > very young children to regard animals as having thoughts > and feelings exactly like their own is supposed to > encourage empathy, I suppose, but a great many people > never evolve beyond it and learn to respect the fact > that animals have their own natures which are very > different from those of humans. > > As a high school science teacher, I find that > anthropomorphic attitudes persist into adolescence > and are almost impossible to eradicate. Pippin: I think you've got the cart in front of the horse. Ascribing agency and mind to animals, not to mention inanimate and even incorporeal entities such as sticks or ghosts, occurs universally across cultures. Children don't have to be taught this; they learn it as naturally as they learn to speak. That probably means it's an evolved behavior which helped our ancestors make up their minds quickly that the rustle in the bushes might be a hyaena and predict what it might do next. By exaggerating the extent to which animals can be like us, beast fable can actually educate children *away* from this point of view. I think Rowling expects readers to realize that Hagrid's desire to make a pet out of Norbert is absurd and dangerous. She's satirizing Hagrid's attitude, not promoting it. He's lovable, but he's not always right. After all, he projects his own characteristics onto the kids as well, expecting them all to share his not only his enthusiasm and concern for the animal world, but his insane disregard for its dangers, much to the Trio's continued dismay. They love him, they forgive his faults, but they don't ignore them. I don't think he can entirely be blamed for the Aragog debacle, however. I'm sure thirteen year old Hagrid didn't obtain an acromantula egg all by himself. I'd bet a certain Slytherin prefect had something to do with it. I also think if Dumbledore wanted the acromantula colony removed, it would have been. It turns out their venom is useful so he may have more reasons that consideration for Hagrid to tolerate them. As for the skrewts, magical breeds hybridize freely, as we can see by Hagrid's own existence. I doubt that wizards see anything innately disgusting about it, except for pureblood fanatics like Umbridge. Since all the TWT obstacles were planned and approved by the Ministry, we must assume that the skrewt breeding program was as well. Of course Hagrid wouldn't have been able to say so, since the objects in the maze were to be a secret. JKR shows that Hagrid's behavior can be appropriate and helpful with Grawp, who despite appearances is no animal. He's Hagrid's closest relative and might reasonably have a nature which is similar to his. Canon implies that his violence was a response to his environment not his nature. As for Hedwig she comes from a magical creatures shop -- she's clearly not supposed to be a real owl. I think the movies blur this by often using real trained owls to play her part, but JKR is not to blame for that. Another use of beast fable is to teach children about human characteristics without frightening them unduly or pointing a finger at the neighbors. Psychopaths are rare enought that you wouldn't want your child wondering if everyone he meets might be one. OTOH, children do need to be warned that some people who might profess to love them are no more capable of it than a snake. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 17 02:21:03 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:21:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid and Draco References: Message-ID: <006f01c7683a$ea149dc0$a892400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166183 Geoff: Hagrid is enthusiastic and has expertise. That we know. He was always very keen to tell individuals and classes about the various creatures to which they were introduced and, as has been observed in this discussion, he has the expertise to look after the handling and welfare of these different beasts. After Harry's flight, the remaining students go into the paddock and approach the animals but, of course, Draco allows himself to think that it is easy because Harry succeeded and thus heignores Hagrid's warning about insulting them. Magpie: Right. Hagrid is enthusiastic but doesn't really seem to get a big part of his job as a teacher, which is not just talking about the animals he loves with kids who love them, but controlling a lot of kids. Some of this is the kind of thing you can probably only get from experience. Given the choice between Hagrid who knows animals so much and Lupin who doesn't, I'd choose Lupin as a teacher, because he's the better teacher, as long as he can stay a step ahead of the class. Personally, I've always been intimidated by the mere thought of teaching because for me, this is what it seems to all be about! One extra thing I would add to Hagrid's problem is that Draco quite possibly isn't *ignoring* his instruction, which would be intentionally dangerous and I don't think he believes he's taking that risk. He possibly didn't hear it because Hagrid said it in the beginning in a moment when Draco wasn't listening. I would agree with Betsy's earlier post about horses there--very often when discussing Hagrid people will refer to their own lessons with horses and how well they learned safety, and surely they all learned these lessons so well not because they were smart but because anyone working with kids and animals stresses safety--unless they, too, got attacked. Hagrid doesn't, because he doesn't understand the danger. I think JKR is well aware of this. Years later when Hagrid is no longer a new, inexperienced teacher and has settled into being just one more quirky Hogwarts professor the kids have made a negative judgment on, still showing the same kind of carelessless and disconnect with the class. (He also still doesn't deal well with being challenged etc.) I think JKR has stressed this in the text. Not only does every member of the Trio make references to Hagrid's careless attitude with dangerous attitudes, I was just today re-reading CoS Chapter six (I do one a week). This is when the kids are first shown the Mandrakes. Sprout is a competent teacher introducing dangerous plants. The kids have spent an entire year in Greenhouse 1, and only in second year visit the more dangerous plants in 3. Going from memory, Sprout starts off asking questions about what Mandrakes are and why they are dangerous. Once she's established their cry is deadly, she tells everyone to put on their earmuffs, taking care to tell them to make sure their ears are covered. She says only when she gives them the signal should they take them off. Then she demonstrates with the Mandrakes. Then she reveals that these Mandrakes are not yet deadly, but tells them *again* to be sure their earmuffs are covering their ears completely, and explains exactly what will happen if they don't--days in the infirmary. It's a quick scene, but I think JKR is subtly and smoothly establishing Sprout as a good teacher for all these reasons. An author isn't going to repeat things unnecessarily, but she intentionally has Sprout repeat herself and concentrate on safety, I think because it's just natural to how it's done. I'm sure had a student like Draco been in the class he would still be arrogant, he might still want to show Harry up, but I doubt he'd be whipping off his earmuffs and knocking himself out by accident. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 06:29:04 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:29:04 -0000 Subject: DD death and Harry WAS: Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166184 > > > Sherry: > > > > > > It is the involvement of Harry. Because he would feel it was > > > his fault Dumbledore died, and I don't think he could live > > > with that or ever come to terms with it. > > > > > > I don't think Harry should be one who kills, > > > even accidentally. > > > Alla: > > > I believe she was saying that she would not accept Harry being > complicit in Dumbledore's murder. > > That is not to say that JKR would not do it obviously, Mike: I'm feeling compelled to point out that Dumbledore was the one to *voluntarily* drink the green goo. I must also point out that DD finished about third of the basin *before* Harry had to help him to drink the rest. I can't say definitively whether Harry (or JKR for Harry) would feel responsible for DD's death if DD did indeed die from the potion. So let's examine the evidence, shall we? :) For the sake of discussion, let's assume that DD died from the green goo. In my book, DD killed himself. In no way can we say that DD would not have died had he only drank a third of it. It is far more likely that if the stuff is going to kill someone, it is only a matter of how long one could hold out, if one only drank some of it. That is, maybe DD could have lasted an extra 2 hours if he only drank a portion of the potion, but he *will* die if the stuff is poisonous. So Harry feeding him the remaining 2/3rds of the stuff only hastens the result, it did not *change* the result. Plus, there is the not inconsequential fact that without Harry there to feed DD, there would also be no Harry there to *rescue* DD. DD would have succumbed to the third of a basin's worth and been stuck in the cave to die. (Of course, I can't say this for a fact, but it reads that way to me) How can we, and more importantly Harry, feel it would be Harry's fault that DD died? Surely DD drank enough by himself to die from it. And I don't think Harry *would* blame himself for DD's death. Sure, he was repulsed at having to force DD to drink the rest of it. But that is distinctly different than being responsible for the decision to drink it in the first place. " Only one thing mattered: This was not a Horcrux. Dumbledore had weakened **himself** by drinking that terrible potion for nothing." < HBP p. 610, US Scholastic, Sep 06 printing, emphasis mine> The narrator speaking from Harry's perspective gives no indication that Harry feels it was his fault that DD drank the goo. On the contrary, by this reading, it seems Harry knows full well it was DD's decision and therefore DD's fault for drinking the stuff "himself". I find no other passage where Harry reflects upon the drinking of the potion, so I submit that this is Harry's last word on the subject. In the hypothetical world of Dumbledore dying from the green goo in the cave, it is all on Dumbledore's shoulders for coming to that ridiculous "I can only conclude that this potion is supposed to be drunk." Mike, who still thinks the cave scene is too contrived, but alas, that's been beaten up enough. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 07:33:14 2007 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:33:14 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser (was:Hagrid and Draco WAS:Re: Dumbledore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166185 > Betsy Hp: > I *am* taking a hard line, I agree. Phoenixgod2000 Death to Hagrid but all the breaks in the world for Draco :) I love this forum ;) Is it too hard for the books? > As Magpie and houyhnhnm pointed out, it's hard to tell. Which is > actually fairly normal when it comes to Hagrid, honestly. At least, > IMO. On the one hand, kids absolutely love his character, and he's > totally loyal to Harry. On the other hand, he's a bigot, He's a lot less bigoted than say Snape or Draco. He doesn't like the Slytherin House all that much but I don't recall him singling out Slytherins in his class the way Snape does. I would use the term mild dislike. a pretty > hard drinker (how often do the Trio come across him while he's in his > cups Wasn't it only about twice, after hours in his own cabin at the edge of the school grounds? > Of course, I absolutely reject the idea that Hagrid was doing just > fine and Draco screwed everything up for him. The insanity of > bringing *twelve* highly dangerous beasts to intermingle with > children (and the children were all intermingling with the > hippogriffs at once) was mind-boggling to me. I could never quite understand the hate that so many characters have for Hagrid. He pretty much does everything that I was taught good teachers do in my credential classes. Hands on work, interesting examples, the chance to do something real instead of theoretical, I think his class sounds like loads of fun. His class is dangerous, but no more so than upper level Defense classes or Snape's Potion class. Working with chemicals and acids which when improperly (or properly) mixed can melt the Cauldrons and desks and probably students are at least as dangerous as Hagrids class. And every student in that class was specifically given instructions on what to do and what not to do. Draco disobeyed willfully because he was disrespectful to Hagrid and was injured because of it. Certainly a more conscious decision than Neville messing up in potions and creating something potentially lethal. Yet you don't blame Snape for bring such dangerous ingredients to class. Every class in Hogwarts is hands on, dangerous, and relies on Students doing what their teacher tells them. Hagrid told them what to do, Harry did it and was fine, Draco didn't and was hurt. Ironically, the hippogriff, IIRC, was one of the most successful of Hagrids classes. I recall the students being pretty thrilled about the beast after Harry was able to ride one. I could be wrong of course, (shrug) its been a long time since I read PoA. No wonder no ones takes > CoMC unless they absolutely have to. (Including Harry, Ron and > Hermione.) Haven't they used the knowledge Hagrid taught them repeatedly in the books? Seems like for a bad teacher his lessons get dusted off more than once in the series. I just think the students are outgrowing him, the way you outgrow a favorite babysitter and it doesn't say anything about him. On a side note, as much as I love the character of Luna I was never more disappointed than when she spoke badly about Hagrid. I would have guessed if anyone outside the Trio would have liked the big guy it would have been her. It almost seemed OOC for she of the perpetually open mind to dislike Hagrid. phoenixgod2000, who has the ultimate question: In a Sarcasm contest, who would win, Snape or Dr. House (awesome tv character for those who don't know who he is)? Inquiring minds want to know! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 17 10:55:42 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:55:42 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Draco In-Reply-To: <006f01c7683a$ea149dc0$a892400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Geoff: > Hagrid is enthusiastic and has expertise. That we > know. He was always very keen to tell individuals and > classes about the various creatures to which they were > introduced and, as has been observed in this discussion, > he has the expertise to look after the handling and > welfare of these different beasts. > > Magpie: > Right. Hagrid is enthusiastic but doesn't really seem to get a big part of > his job as a teacher, which is not just talking about the animals he loves > with kids who love them, but controlling a lot of kids. Some of this is the > kind of thing you can probably only get from experience. Geoff: This is precisely the point I am making. You may have missed my first reference but in about the fourth or fifth line of my post, I wrote: "Firstly, I look on Hagrid as having enthusiasm, expertise but sadly lacking in experience." And then, at the beginning of the paragraph just after the extract you quoted, I again wrote: "However, where he comes unstuck is in the area of experience." Part of being trained as a teacher is how to tackle the question of dealing with students collectively and individually. You cannot afford yourself the luxury of just talking to little groups whom you like or who ask all the questions. Particularly if you are working in separate groups, you need to move around to see what they are getting up to, to encourage and advise. As I said in my previous post, this is especially necessary if you are working outside, When I was helping out with games (which was a second string to my main subject of Maths at that time) I often had sole charge of maybe 25 lads who might be doing two or three activities so I had to keep moving around to make sure that all was well - and that a couple of the "clever" pupils hadn't slipped off to have a fag behind the toilet block. Magpie" > One extra thing I would add to Hagrid's problem is that Draco quite possibly > isn't *ignoring* his instruction, which would be intentionally dangerous and > I don't think he believes he's taking that risk. He possibly didn't hear it > because Hagrid said it in the beginning in a moment when Draco wasn't > listening. Geoff: Here, I would disagreee with you. I believe that Draco was ignoring his instructions. 'Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle had taken over Buckbeak. He had bowed to Malfoy who was now patting his beak, looking disdainful. "This is very easy," Malfoy drawled, loud enough for Harry to hear him. "I knew it must have been if Potter could do it.... I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he said to the Hippogriff. "Are you, you ugly great brute?"' (POA "Talons and Tea Leaves" p.90 UK edition) To me, that suggests that Draco was deliberately trying to prove that Hagrid's warning was exaggerated. This is of course a demonstration of a fact known to all teens - that they are immortal. We were all probably immortal in our teens. Accidents were something that happened to other people. Reality was a post-teen phenomenon, even to Hpgwarts students. Hence one could safely insult a Hippogriff. :-) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 13:02:14 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:02:14 -0000 Subject: DD death and Harry WAS: Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166187 Sherry: > > > > It is the involvement of Harry. Because he would feel it was his fault Dumbledore died, and I don't think he could live with that or ever come to terms with it. > > > > I don't think Harry should be one who kills, even accidentally. Alla: > > > > I believe she was saying that she would not accept Harry being complicit in Dumbledore's murder. > > That is not to say that JKR would not do it obviously, Mike: > I'm feeling compelled to point out that Dumbledore was the one to *voluntarily* drink the green goo. I must also point out that DD finished about third of the basin *before* Harry had to help him to drink the rest. I can't say definitively whether Harry (or JKR for Harry) would feel responsible for DD's death if DD did indeed die from the potion. So let's examine the evidence, shall we? :) > For the sake of discussion, let's assume that DD died from the green goo. *(snip)* " Only one thing mattered: This was not a Horcrux. Dumbledore had weakened **himself** by drinking that terrible potion for nothing." < HBP p. 610, US Scholastic, Sep 06 printing, emphasis mine> *(snip)* Ceridwen: I agree with Mike: that alliteration is great. Also, I agree that, if DD died from the goo, then it was DD's call to make. He wrung a promise from Harry to do everything he said without question, even to the extent of leaving him and fleeing, if that was what DD required of him. Dumbledore is the expert in this scene, not Harry. If Dumbledore says the potion will not kill right off, then Harry, novice that he is with this stuff, has to consider DD's word to be the expert's decision on the subject. Okay, quick tangent: If DD had ordered Harry to leave him in the cave, how would this have affected the events surrounding the UV? /tangent. Thanks for the quote. I've read it, but totally missed that implication. However, we've seen Harry thinking things over and coming to very emotional conclusions. He felt guilty over things he absolutely had no reason to feel guilt. This is an emotional response, not a logical one, and the sort of response Harry has at times. Maybe the enormity of his upcoming task will keep him busy enough not to think about the events surrounding Dumbledore's death, but maybe not. I think it would be best if whoever tries to help Harry deal with any misgivings he may have, keeps in mind that Harry was not the expert, he was the pupil, and he was following his master's orders ('master' used to mean teacher, master of the subject), and stresses this every time Harry brings it up or seems preoccupied (assuming that he has already expressed feeling guilt in the matter before being preoccupied - of course no one can assume that he's thinking about DD if he hasn't mentioned dwelling on the cave, the goo, and his own possible involvement in weakening DD). Emotions can cripple as much as injury can, if they're allowed to run free in someone's mind. Logically, Harry may very well know he didn't do anything in the end but follow Dumbledore's orders, as he should have, being the novice in the situation. The quote you provided shows that he already knows this. But in the dark nights, when he's done as much as he could do at that point, the questioning emotions can come creeping, ready to hamstring him. I'm not discounting the possibility that Deathly Hallows will show us a Dumbledore dead or worse (turning Inferus? LV's soul portion released from his withered hand?), absolving Snape from culpability in DD's death. This could very well cause an emotional crisis in Harry, which he will have to overcome with the help and strict logic of his friends. This will also result in a crisis of soul for Harry - his hatred of Snape for the killing of DD will have to be reassessed, and this will be more difficult for him, I believe, than even contemplating his own possible involvement, innocent though it was, in Dumbledore's death. But his feelings for Snape have been deteriorating since the first book. So, to have Dumbledore die from the goo rather than from Snape's AK will tie two threads together: Harry's emotional guilt for events over which he had no control, and Harry's growing hatred for Snape. Many of us have speculated that he will have to get over his hatred for Snape in order to unleash his Love Power, since Love cannot exist in its perfect state along with hatred: maybe Harry will have to stop second-guessing events and casting himself as the guilty party, too, before he is completely free to face LV with this Love. If he thinks he's guilty for things like Sirius's or Dumbledore's deaths, he won't have the ability to love *himself* enough to unleash this power. Ceridwen, merely speculating. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 13:16:22 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:16:22 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166188 Goddlefrood, donning his wig and gown before stepping before the Court :) It appears that certain members have been mixing up some legal terms. It's OK now; I'm here to give a short (ish) legal lesson, with, naturally, ties to canon. I am taking the liberty of posting this as a stand alone due to the fact that it would only confuse you further not to do so ;), at least at the point those members discussing, hem hem, these issues have reached. These comments are for clarification only and I will *not * be engaged on any legal issues I raise, only on matters related to canon, should these cause discussion. I do have many years practice as a barrister under my belt (that's similar to an Attorney for our American members, and somewhat like an Advocate for our Continental European ones). Qualifications can be supplied on request, but I couldn't advise it (to quote Jeeves for zgirnius's benefit if she reads this ;)). There is no malice intended in what I say, just a cold, legal analysis. Should anyone feel offended know that it is not meant on my part. All quotes from fellow members, that is including Kemper, are in the Percy thread, but other than Kemper they are in a spin off to the Percy thread entitled "Perjury, Dumbledore and Right v Easy Once Again" started by Lupinlore. This has all gone too far, people, and must be stopped. ;) Let's start with Kemper, not on spin off to thread referred, lost reference to Yahoomort, could not locate, apologies :( : Kemper Wrote: A disciplinary hearing is different than a judicial hearing. Goddlefrood: Court, and other proceedings, 101 (not my preference) starts here, a disciplinary hearing is different from a judicial hearing you say. Not really, it's only the constitution of the presiding body that differs. A person subject to a disciplinary hearing would typically, although not always, attend before a Tribunal. This is a body that most usually would have a Chairman and two assistants to the Chairman (this varies). The person to be disciplined would be represented either by a member of a Trade Union (in a situation where he / she were a member), or anyone at all actually, could be a Barrister, or could be personally represented. The disciplinary charge would be put before the Tribunal by the equivalent of a prosecutor. Not all the people mentioned above as being involved in the disciplinary hearing would necessarily be qualified legal practitioners, but mostly would be, and that is the only difference between a disciplinary hearing and a judicial one, which would only ever have people qualified as legal practitioners presiding, presenting and opposing (except in unusual circumstances, that I won't get into and the case of personal representation) and be further up the legal feeding chain, as it were. Such a Tribunal would be comprised for situations such as breach of Police or Military statutes, breaches of regulations and guidelines in larger corporations and perhaps even for some schools. In other words breaches of discipline. A judicial hearing is much the same, but typically, although not always, before a Court, rather than a Tribunal. Not so very different, I think you can agree. On to Lupinlore, here's some choice morsels, with my interspersed comments: From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166117 > > Carol earlier > > However, it's still Amelia Bones's job to determine the facts, > > which she succeeds in doing despite Fudge's interference. > Lupinlore responded, in part: > Is it, or is it the job of the Wizengamot as a whole? It depends on the theory of law under which the WW operates. I am not at all sure she is actually acting as the Judge here or simply a particularly forceful member of the tribunal Goddlefrood, still enrobed, and just checking OotP: The constitution of the panel (my word for the moment, it will interchange with others) is in fact, getting the quote, and with a nod to Carol (I'm coming to your bit, don't worry ;): "Interrogators: Cornelius Oswald Fudge, Minister of Magic; Ameila Susan Bones, Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement; Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister. Court Scribe, Percy Ignatius Weasley -" (OotP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition [all my further references from same, book and chapter that is, until noted otherwise], p. 127 - The Hearing), which apparently appears at pps. 138-39 of the Scholastic Edition - not sure if hardback or paperback) This tells me that the presiding body (Lupinlore kindly note;)) consists of three people, Fudge, Ms. Bones and, hem hem Ms. Umbridge. From this: "'The Chair recognises Dolores (note spelling please) Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister,' said Fudge." (p. 134) (No American references this time, or for any subsequent, but it's a short chapter so no more than eleven or advanced [not sure what font Scholastic uses, so this could be imprecise]) (My interjection in brackets during the quote) I take it from this that Fudge was the first amongst equals on the presiding body and the Chairman, so somewhat more like a Tribunal than a Court (although as mentioned the distinction is a quite fine one), and does not lead to any concession on terms (my preference being presiding body). This is confirmed to me by the fact that Fudge reads the charge at the beginning (p. 128), and, at the end of the hearing announces the not guilty decision. "Cleared of all Charges" (p. 138). Ms. Bones's function appears to be that of legal expert (reference - p. 131), not factual judge, she is, after all, the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. The entire Wizengamot, when the vote is taken is the arbiter (now there's a word for you) of fact. She certainly *is not * there as an arbiter of fact herself, except insofar as she is a member of the Wizengamot and has a single vote. I form this view due to two snippets from "The Hearing", the first of which is: "'I may be wrong,' said Dumbledore pleasantly, 'but I am sure that under the Wizengamot Charter of Rights, the accused has the right to present witnesses for his or her case? Isn't that the policy of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, Madam Bones?' he continued, addressing the witch in the monocle. 'True,' said Madam Bones. 'Perfectly true.' (p.31) And the second: "'Then undoubtedly the Ministry will be making a full inquiry into why two Dementors were so very far from Azkaban and why they attacked without authorisation.' 'It is not for you to decide what the Ministry of Magic does or does not do. Dumbledore!' snapped Fudge, now a shade of magenta of which Uncle Vernon would be proud. 'Of course it isn't,' said Dumbledore mildly, ' I was merely expressing my confidence that this matter will not go uninvestigated.' He glanced at Madam Bones, who readjusted her monocle and stared back at him frowning slightly.' (p. 135) Note he looked at Madam Bones, implicitly because she is the legal expert present, and also because he is showing her that he is well aware that she is being overridden on certain matters by Fudge (outside the presiding body for the hearing). Hopefully that sorts out that one, and I will now move on, from the same post referred last. > Lupinlore: > Except she indignantly exclaims, in response to Fudge's query about whether squibs can see dementors "Yes, we can!" (paraphrase) which is a flat out lie. Her description of seeing the dementors is also a flat out lie, regardless of whether they were there or not. Therefore she has lied under "oath," and flagrantly at that, as her testimony of seeing the dementors is not open to arguments of interpretation but is simply and completely an untruth. Goddlefrood: It is not a paraphrase, but the exact words she says (p. 131). On the issue of perjury now, it's a rather tricky one legally speaking, but I'm prepared to give an explanation. It is a lie, but one that ultimately benefits the person (Harry) under examination (getting to hearing / trial business later). It is in its essence not far removed from the truth, which IMHO, is that she (Mrs. Figg) is well aware of the effects of Dementors (coldness etc.) and can clearly apprehend when one or two are about, as she did when she came across the aftermath of the Dementor attack. In those circumstances, and given the hostility of two of the presiding panel, it is fair to conclude that had she said something along the line of "Well, I have knowledge as to the effects of Dementors", as opposed to what she did say, then Fudge may have been able to swing the verdict against Harry, with the consequence that he would have been expelled from Hogwarts and his wand taken away. My views on the danger of going to Azkaban have been expressed in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166055 I do not propose to repeat them here. Eggplant, do note, that in the current post I come to praise you, not to bury you :), which will come later. This perjury business, hmmm. Well Lupinlore, as far as I can ascertain from my Bloomsbury Hardback Edition there is nothing in the nature of an oath to tell the truth taken. I do not have the Scholastic Edition, or any translations, so if it is in one of those I await your enlightenment. It is too strong a word to use in the situation under examination (by me - not a reference to the proceedings before the Wizengamot). No oath, no perjury. Simple as that, and also refer my comments above. I can only suggest a closer reading of the text. > Lupinlore: > So, what would happen if, as some might have wished, Harry had been called on the carpet in front of DD about his behavior in potions. Goddlefrood: This is merely a little levity on my part :), but allow me to congratulate you for using an expression of which I was previously unaware, that being "called on the carpet". The meaning itself is not in issue, it is perfectly clear, but the phrase is puzzling. For anyone interested here is a link I found to enlightenment: http://www.takeourword.com/TOW141/page2.html As to the question raised, my views can be determined from the post of mine referred above (166055). I now proceed to the next quote, Eggplant this time: In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166126 > Eggplant: > Exactly, the Wizengamot was full of intelligent and wise old wizards and witches, it would not be easy to tell a convincing lie to them, but Figg and Dumbledore pulled it off. I congratulate them! Telling a lie to the enemy is no vice, it's a virtue, if you can do it well. Goddlefrood: Very much in line with the view I have formed, both as a professional who accepts that people can and do lie, and as a Harry Potter reader. It was extremely well done on the part of Dumbledore and Mrs. Figg, and in no way perjury (I think I may have mentioned this). However, from the chapter currently under consideration, we can only determine that there were "about 50" (p. 126) wizards present. We cannot, unfortunately, determine whether all of them were *voting* members or indeed how old they were (although I can concede that it is a fair assumption [another tricky word to me - hate assumptions, prefer facts, but I digress]. I suggest that the cote was quite close, due to this passage: "Their were hands in the air, many of them ... more than half! Breathing very fast, he tried to count, but before he could finish, Madam Bones (not in any role as Chairman) had said, 'And those in favour of conviction?' Fudge raised his hand; so did half a dozen others, including the heavily-moustached wizard and the frizzy-haired witch in the second row." (p. 138) It takes a moment, as implied by the three dots, for Harry to determine that more than half had voted in favour of his being cleared of all charges, and from that I conclude that it was relatively close. We know for a fact from the passage quoted immediately above 7 members voted for conviction. I propose, based on this, that not all the "about 50" (q. v.) wizards and witches present were actually *voting* members of the Wizengamot for the purposes of Harry's trial (I am getting to this matter shortly, that is the whole hearing / trial business). My next quote comes from In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166132 > Carol: > Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing" (not trial, BTW) inquiring into offenses against two statutes by Harry James Potter of number four Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey, and adds: "Interrogators: Cornelius Oswald Fudge, Minister of Magic; Ameila Susan Bones, Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement; Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister. Court Scribe, Percy Ignatius Weasley" (OoP Am. ed. 138-39). > So I stand by my analogy that Fudge is acting as prosecuting attorney, with Umbridge as his assistant, and Madam Bones is acting as judge, with a bit of cross-examination mixed in. Goddlefrood: This seems to be a small bone of contention, I still have my robes on, and I will now tell you about hearings and trials. They are one and the same. Surprised? It is a simple matter of terminology and semantics. The two words are used interchangeably, there is no real difference between them. Having said that, consider this: "Harry attended his hearing" "Harry attended his trial" "Harry was on trial" "Harry was on hearing" - makes no sense, so would not be used. "Harry was heard at his trial" Conversely I may say "I have a hearing to attend on Monday, criminal matter", whereas my imaginary client would probably say "My trial is on Monday", but could equally well reverse for me to say "I have to conduct a trial on Monday", with my imaginary client saying "My hearing is on Monday". Confused? If you can explain the difference to me then I will give up legal practice immediately, now there is a happy thought :) For the other small snippet of Carol's quoted material I refer to my comments on the constitution of the presiding body and say that it is not a fair analogy that you make ;). I hope the explanation is clear. Back to Eggplant in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166158 > Eggplant: > Fudge calls it a disciplinary hearing, Dumbledore calls it a full criminal trial. Who are you going to believe, Fudge or Dumbledore? Goddlefrood: Both, actually as just outlined in my response to Carol, with the repeated injunction mentioned therein. A later post by Carol in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166169 > Carol: > There is no evidence whatever that Percy thinks that Harry will be sent to Azkaban. That thought occurs to *Harry* twice before the Order comes to rescue him. Goddlefrood: As I mentioned in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166055 this is correct. Thank you Carol. :) In that post I was partially commending Kemper for his views expressed in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166052, and which I commend to you here again Finally we come to Steve/bboyminn, and for what its worth, I address some points as found in: In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166176 > Steve/bboyminn: > Fudge calls it a 'disciplinary hearing' because that is what it is. Dumbledore calls is a 'criminal trial' to point out to Fudge the absurdity of wasting the entire courts time on such a trivial matter. >Fudge is clearly using the entire court as a means of intimidating Harry, and within limits, it works. Goddlefrood: On this, kindly refer to my comments regarding the verdict. I suspect the decision was close. Perhaps I could suggest here, as I did not earlier, that the *voting* members of those "about 50* (op. cit) wizards and witches present was 20. Just a guess, I find it unrealistic that there would have been a pause in Harry's mind, as there was (refer previously quoted material from canon), if about 43 members voted for clearing all charges against him. The other matters indicative from this quote of Steve / bboyminn have been adequately addressed already. There is one small matter, however, it's this: "Breathing hard and fast, Harry looked around him. Not one of the witches and wizards in the room (and there were at least two hundred of them) was looking at him" (GoF, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, p. 508 - The Pensieve) About two hundred note. Still not enough to go on to conclude precisely how many *voting* members the Wizengamot has. It is enough, though, to conclude that the room has some facility for *spectators*. On that point my case is now rested. There is a little more. > Steve/bboyminn later: > Certainly, Harry THINKS he MIGHT be sent to Azkaban, and in the worst situation, any reasonable person would think the worst. > Fudge is clearly using the entire court as a means of intimidating Harry, and within limits, it works. > So, Azkaban is a reasonable fear on Harry's part, but it is not a reasonable or likely outcome of the actual events. Goddlefrood: Sorry, but it simply is not. I repeat my view on this issue is in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166055, and I will not repeat those views here. I have concluded that Harry NEVER faced any real prospect of landing in Azkaban, and once again thank Kemper (166052). Well, that is all, I can now safely remove my wig and gown and resume normal life. Goddlefrood, hoping that this makes a clear and coherent argument and that it may assist with legal terminology for those struggling with it, together of course, with giving a clearer idea of "The Hearing". ;) "I felt a right Percy when I one day walked into the ladies dressing room with soap in my eyes and no towel" - my new motif, to explain my view on Percy that he will NOT turn out evil. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Mar 17 14:53:16 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:53:16 -0000 Subject: The uses of beast fable, was Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166189 Pippin: > I think you've got the cart in front of the horse. > Ascribing agency and mind to animals, not to mention > inanimate and even incorporeal entities such as sticks > or ghosts, occurs universally across cultures. Children > don't have to be taught this; they learn it as naturally > as they learn to speak. That probably means it's an > evolved behavior which helped our ancestors make up > their minds quickly that the rustle in the bushes might > be a hyaena and predict what it might do next. > By exaggerating the extent to which animals can be like > us, beast fable can actually educate children *away* > from this point of view. I think Rowling expects readers > to realize that Hagrid's desire to make a pet out of > Norbert is absurd and dangerous. She's satirizing Hagrid's > attitude, not promoting it. He's lovable, but he's not > always right. > [...] > As for Hedwig she comes from a magical creatures shop > -- she's clearly not supposed to be a real owl. > [...] > Another use of beast fable is to teach children about > human characteristics without frightening them unduly > or pointing a finger at the neighbors. houyhnhnm: It is true that animation of inanimate objects is a behavior seen in young apes as well as in children, so it probably is an evolutionary adaptation. And oral tradition, which includes beast fable, precedes literature of any kind by who know how many thousands of years. I am assuming that is what you mean by putting the cart before the horse. A beast fable (I am thinking of Aesop's fables right now) uses animals to stand in for human beings in order to teach a moral lesson or to teach about human characteristics in a non-threatening way, as you say. But in such stories, the animals behave in ways that real animals clearly do not and that helps define the difference between fantasy and reality. That seems like a different thing to me from showing animals behaving outwardly as ordinary animals, but attributing human motivations to them. Hedwig and Pigwidgeon behave like normal owls in many ways. They sleep during the day. They go out hunting at night for mice and other small animals. They regurgitate pellets. They don't sit down at a table with knife and fork as they would in a fable. But they also feel pride in carrying packages. They show off. They feel resentment when they are not chosen. It had never occurred to me to think of the owls in HP as magical creatures. Maybe they are; I just never thought of it that way. I assumed that Eeylops Owl Emporium was a different establishment from the magical creatures shop in which Hermione acquired Crookshanks. Pippin: > I think the movies blur this by often using real > trained owls to play her part, houyhnhnm: Well, thank goodness! A hundred mechanical Bubos streaming into the Great Hall would be a little hard to take. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 16:54:03 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:54:03 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > > Amiable Dorsai: > So, let me see if I've got this correct: you're saying that allowing a > malicious prosecutor to railroad an innocent person is "right", and > that risking one's position, reputation, and freedom to prevent that > from happening is "easy". > > These are definitions of the words "right" and "easy" with which I was > not previously familiar. > > Amiable Dorsai > And yet, that is probably exactly the definition of right vs easy that many people might invoke. Certainly, to use a historical example, an ancient Roman might well see things that way, not to mention the previously described issue of a medieval Japanese samurai. Within the Potterverse, it is arguable that Percy might use exactly those definitions. And, in the real world, perjury is a crime, even if invoked for the "right" reasons, such as to defeat a malicious and unfair prosecutor. The point is that right and easy do not have clear points of reference, and that various images of Dumbledore bid well to make him a hypocrite on this question according to arguable positions. Or, actually the real nub of the situation, is that we have spent quite a while arguing back and forth about right vs easy when it comes to Harry "lieing" in potions class, with all sorts of arguments that lying is WRONG and taking the easy way out. Well, if that is the case, then Dumbledore has clearly taken the easy way out, here. Granted, its an extreme situation in which DD tells an extreme lie, but potions class is a mild situation in which Harry tells a mild "lie" so the comparison holds. I agree that Dumbledore helping Harry was the right thing to do -- albeit that the methods he used were, as usual, incredibly stupid to the point of near contemptible incompetence. I also think that Harry didn't do anything wrong in potions class, or if he did it is such a petty issue as to make fretting over it utterly ridiculous. Frankly, I don't think the whole right vs easy construct is very useful. It is so utterly vague that it can be used to justify just about any course of action in any situation. As Magpie points out, just about all the time what is "right" but not "easy" turns out to be whatever is in keeping with a given character's personality and thus what they want to do, anyway. Right versus easy only means "what I, DD/Harry/whoever think is right and what I, DD/Harry/whoever, think is easy." DD probably would say what he did in the hearing was choosing right over easy, but Percy and Umbridge would certainly say he did what was easy (i.e. subverted the system according to his own morality) over what was right (i.e. obeying the law even when it gives a result you don't like). Many people say that Harry was choosing easy (using the textbook) over right (following the rules even when they gave a result he didn't like) in potions. But Harry has the example of Dumbledore that subverting unfair and nonsensical rules isn't wrong if it agrees with your own sense of what is fair and right. If Harry is in the wrong then DD is arguably a hypocrite. If DD is in the right then arguably so is Harry. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 17 15:59:21 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:59:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables References: Message-ID: <006601c768ad$3b054320$3e92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166191 Phoenixgod: > I could never quite understand the hate that so many characters have > for Hagrid. He pretty much does everything that I was taught good > teachers do in my credential classes. Hands on work, interesting > examples, the chance to do something real instead of theoretical, I > think his class sounds like loads of fun. Magpie: I think canon addresses this. The kids obviously don't have a problem with dealing with dangerous things. They do in many classes. The problem in Hagrid's class is that they don't trust Hagrid because he doesn't have the same views on the danger--and, as Luna says, they just think he's a joke as a teacher. That's what Betsy, I thought, was pointing out here. Most teachers deal with dangerous things. The way Hagrid jumps into the class is far less controlled. Phoenixgod: And every student in that class was specifically given > instructions on what to do and what not to do. Draco disobeyed > willfully because he was disrespectful to Hagrid and was injured > because of it. Certainly a more conscious decision than Neville > messing up in potions and creating something potentially lethal. > Yet you don't blame Snape for bring such dangerous ingredients to > class. Magpie: Actually Hagrid's instructions weren't very specific on the subject of insults. He just started, iirc, by saying "don't insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do" when Draco possibly wasn't listening. Not listening was certainly Draco's own decision, but it's also not unusual. A teacher more in control, like Sprout, is more specific and repeats it to make sure all the kids understand the exact danger. So Draco is at fault, but all the kids--including the Trio--see the danger in the class as excessive and connected to Hagrid himself as well. They don't feel that way about Professor Grubbly-Plank. Draco's provoking the hippogriff isn't necessarily any more conscious than Neville blowing up his cauldrons. He, too, is given instructions--his on the board, I think--and doesn't follow them. That happens in classes. (And if any kid is going to be insulting it's obviously Draco--if hippogriffs attacked upon being corrected I would have been hovering over Hermione knowing her nature.) The students seem to unanimously not feel about Snape the way they do about Hagrid in this particular regard, even if they like Neville and despise Draco. (Ron, of course, has already had a run in with Hagrid of this sort and sometimes seems to have the least patience about it.) Phoenixgod: > Every class in Hogwarts is hands on, dangerous, and relies on > Students doing what their teacher tells them. Hagrid told them what > to do, Harry did it and was fine, Draco didn't and was hurt. > > Ironically, the hippogriff, IIRC, was one of the most successful of > Hagrids classes. I recall the students being pretty thrilled about > the beast after Harry was able to ride one. I could be wrong of > course, (shrug) its been a long time since I read PoA. Magpie: It was a success until it wasn't. But it also went right to the heart of their issues with Hagrid. Having Harry riding the thing etc. made hippogriffs look fun. The part Harry demonstrated everyone followed (even if Neville was running back and forth in a panic, left on his own, which in the real world would probably have made him the most likely to get hurt). Even Hagrid went pale when the attack happened. But still, that was one class years ago. Every student in the books isn't basing their negative ideas on Hagrid on that one incident. They feel nervous because they're not really sure in the class what the realistic level of danger is. Hagrid's still annoyed at questions about danger, isn't really realistic about the way he puts it across and loves it himself. Phoenixgod: > On a side note, as much as I love the character of Luna I was never > more disappointed than when she spoke badly about Hagrid. I would > have guessed if anyone outside the Trio would have liked the big guy > it would have been her. It almost seemed OOC for she of the > perpetually open mind to dislike Hagrid. Magpie: Why would her thinking Hagrid was a bad teacher mean she couldn't like him as a person or that she had a closed mind? The Trio like Hagrid and consider him a very flawed teacher even when they wish they felt otherwise. Luna's also described as stating "uncomfortable truths." Geoff: This is precisely the point I am making. You may have missed my first reference but in about the fourth or fifth line of my post, I wrote: "Firstly, I look on Hagrid as having enthusiasm, expertise but sadly lacking in experience." And then, at the beginning of the paragraph just after the extract you quoted, I again wrote: "However, where he comes unstuck is in the area of experience." Magpie: Yes, I did know that was your point. I was trying to acknowledge it while still disagreeing with the idea that this is important for Hagrid's whole career as a teacher because Hagrid's no longer inexperienced and has shown that most of these flaws aren't about lack of experience but things more central to his character. Just as one might have said, if one was witnessing Snape's first class, that his lack of experience made him not understand that being sarcastic was not necessary to get control of the class. Fourteen years later that doesn't seem to just be about the lack of experience. Hagrid and Snape both have patterns for how they keep control of the class that reflect the way they deal with people in general. Geoff: Here, I would disagreee with you. I believe that Draco was ignoring his instructions. 'Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle had taken over Buckbeak. He had bowed to Malfoy who was now patting his beak, looking disdainful. "This is very easy," Malfoy drawled, loud enough for Harry to hear him. "I knew it must have been if Potter could do it.... I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he said to the Hippogriff. "Are you, you ugly great brute?"'(POA "Talons and Tea Leaves" p.90 UK edition) To me, that suggests that Draco was deliberately trying to prove that Hagrid's warning was exaggerated. Magpie: I based my idea on being told, iirc, that Malfoy was talking to someone else when Hagrid said the thing about insulting. Many people take it as a fact that Malfoy did not hear him because of that. I can take it as ambiguous, though, that maybe it was as you describe here. As is mentioned above regarding Neville, it's not unusual for kids in a class to not follow directions. But I don't think the seemingly very widespread negative opinions we hear about regarding Hagrid's class and Hagrid as a teacher come down to all kids thinking they're immortal and blaming Hagrid. On the contrary, they're more aware of their mortality than he is. Malfoy learns that he must listen to everything Hagrid says and that it would probably be a good idea to consider the danger more extreme than Hagrid makes it sound if he didn't get the danger here (and at the risk of being accused of defending Draco too much, I do think that Hagrid's delivery of that instruction was intentionally--on the part of the author--far too casual for a teacher in this situation). Draco does show signs of doing that rather comically when he's frantically asking people if he missed anything. Whatever malicious ways he tried to get revenge on Hagrid, and however much he wants to keep bringing it up against him, the action and consequence lesson was clear--he got cocky, missed something, got hurt. He won't admit it, but he did learn one good lesson from it because he knows he's got to take care of himself in class that way. That seems to be the attitude of all the kids in the class. Malfoy, too, was inexperienced the first day. Hagrid needed to learn to make the danger a priority, and he doesn't really do that because, as others have pointed out, he just doesn't understand the pov of people who have this problem. He's not very able to adjust, so the kids adjust to him. houyhnhnm: But in such stories, the animals behave in ways that real animals clearly do not and that helps define the difference between fantasy and reality. That seems like a different thing to me from showing animals behaving outwardly as ordinary animals, but attributing human motivations to them. Magpie: I was reading something recently that pointed out that humans are almost incapable of really understanding animal behavior in that way. Not that there aren't people who do study and learn animals on their own terms, but it's very hard for a human to conceive of a mind without language and many of the other things we take for granted. It's hard, even in an experiment, to know exactly why an animal is doing a thing on its own terms. In HP that's clearly not the case, imo. The animals do seem to think like people in a way flattering to people. I forget who, for instance, earlier mentioned Hagrid as understanding imprinting as evidenced by how he is with Norbert, but iirc Hagrid refers to Norbert as "knowing his mummy," which is plainly anthropomorphizing the process. When he does things so that the animal will have the "right life" that he wants as an animal, it's usually also based on things that reflect human understanding--Aragog wants "a wife" and must be given a funeral, and he respects Hagrid as a sort of father figure. Real spiders...would not do that. Grawp, too, needs to be "civilized" in a strange way, because according to Hagrid's Tale he already comes from a civilization. Only where the other giants come across like some sort of primitive warrior culture who are nonetheless obviously people, Grawp is almost more like an anthropomorphized ape. -m (who was recently reading a really cool article about spiders that compared them to a world of tiny supervillains all with their own amazing powers!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 17 18:24:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:24:38 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166192 Lupinlore: > The point is that right and easy do not have clear points of > reference, Pippin: Exactly. Right versus easy is a personal yardstick, a moral reality check. It isn't to be used to derive moral standards but to remind us to check our behavior against them. If something is difficult for us, we're going to be looking for reasons not to do it, and any moral objections there might be are likely to surface. But if it's easy, then there's a danger of taking our moral right to do it for granted. Lying was clearly difficult for Mrs. Figg. She won't have decided to do so lightly. But Harry often lies without a second thought, and only begins to feel uncomfortable after the fact, when he starts thinking he might get caught. Submitting to authority is easy for Percy, not at all easy for Sirius. So Percy risks taking the morality of submission for granted, but he is not likely to rebel with no moral justification. For Sirius, the situation is reversed. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 17 18:39:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:39:08 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166193 > zgirnius: > The parallel is only present if Snape's intention in taking the Vow was DDM! Some > combination of he believed he could get out of it with Dumbledore's help, he believed it > would help shore up his spying role, he believed it would help protect Draco, and he > believed it could help control Draco's plot by winning the trust of Draco and Cissy. If he > never planned to carry out the third clause, he was putting his own life on the line for > loyalty and the protection of friends. Jen: If this is the case, then there wouldn't really be a parallel, or no parallel with Snape and Sirius. Come to think of it, there never was one since Sirius never actually took the Fidelius, it was Peter, and he was lying when he took it. So if Snape is lying, then the parallel is Snape and Peter, both took a vow/oath and lied about what they were planning to do. > Jen before: > Is it morally okay to agree to potentially kill someone via a dark magic vow even if the > reason a person is doing so is good and the man whose life is in question doesn't mind? > > zgirnius: > What makes this possible in my eyes is the possibility that Snape knew he was lying > when he took the Vow. The twitch could indicate a recognition that since he would > certainly not kill Dumbledore, his consent to the the final clause of the Vow could mean > his own death. Jen: That could be, I see that possibility. Even if this is true, I still see an ethical dilemma if Snape agreed to take an Unbreakable, a risky Vow even before he heard all the clauses, when he had a perfect excuse not to since his loyalty is (supposedly) pledged to the Dark Lord above the DE's. Snape can't guarantee a good outcome by lying and planning not to carry out the clauses. > zgirnius: > I think Snape did make the Vow on his own initiative. There was only a plan (to deal with >Draco) after he made it. Dumbledore had the choice in the sense that when Snape told >him what he had done (promptly, before the school year even started) Dumbledore had > the choice of how to handle the problem. Jen: Do we know when Snape told DD? All I remember is the talk after Christmas break between Dumbledore and Harry. Back to the parallel with the Secret Keeper, I was pointing out the ethical difference between the two scenarios: Snape making a unilateral choice which could potentially involve killing Dumbledore, even if Snape didn't intend to and was lying, is different from the Fidelius. In that scenario Dumbledore presented the Fidelius as the 'best chance' to save the Potters and they made an informed choice. Cleaning up after the fact is not the same as informed or indirectly informed consent. zgirnius: > The choice he made was not the only way it could have been managed, and Snape > accepted his decision on that. If Snape had no intention of killing Dumbledore, the plan > chosen by Dumbledore posed potential dangers for Snape. Specifically, if Dumbledore > was wrong about Draco, and Snape did his best to stop Draco from succeeding, he'd > wind up dead. (This is actually what I believe the argument in the Forest was about - > Snape's worry about the plan, which Dumbledore dismissed with a 'you agreed to do it'.) Jen: I'm uneasy if JKR takes the route of Snape choosing the Vow with the idea that he wouldn't ever carry out the clauses, and then placing the responsibility for his choice squarely in Dumbledore's lap (if Snape was ordered to kill him). I would need to find out there was another motivation for the UV, some reason Snape took the Vow besides just thinking everything would work out okay and he might learn information for the good side. That's his job anyway, he doesn't need a dark vow to ensure getting information. Meaning the UV would need to be a trap Snape knew he wouldn't be able to spring and he chose the Vow as the better of several awful choices (options JKR would hopefully lay out in explicit detail). zgirnius: > My opinion on what the plan was hinges on the Tower scene. From what we see there, > the plan appears to have been for Snape to try and keep Draco from hurting anyone > else, but leave Draco free so he would be forced to face Dumbledore alone. No Death > Eaters, because *surely* Draco could not insert them into the situationn no > Crabbengoyle because Snape would interfere with them. Then Dumbledore would > convince Draco that he is 'not a killer' and hide him and his family from Voldemort. Jen: But they didn't need the UV for that plan! That's a fine plan, a good plan. The UV was an error on Snape's part, not because of the poor outcome, but because there was no need for it in the first place (given the information we have). Everything is dependent on why Snape took the UV in my opinion. I hope JKR has a very good, morally consistent motivation for an unnecessary dark vow besides just needing a way to kill Dumbledore and make Snape appear to be a bad guy. Jen R. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 18:39:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:39:55 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables In-Reply-To: <006601c768ad$3b054320$3e92400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166194 > Magpie: > Actually Hagrid's instructions weren't very specific on the subject of > insults. He just started, iirc, by saying "don't insult 'em or it's the last > thing you'll do" when Draco possibly wasn't listening. Not listening was > certainly Draco's own decision, but it's also not unusual. A teacher more in > control, like Sprout, is more specific and repeats it to make sure all the > kids understand the exact danger. Alla: Yes, more experienced teacher would have repeated, probably. But even with what Hagrid said, all kids understood clear enough, no? And I am really not sure how more specific Hagrid could have been. Do not insult them or you get hurt, for example sounds to me less specific than what he said, because he pretty much IMO implied that you get hurt badly Magpie: So Draco is at fault, but all the > kids--including the Trio--see the danger in the class as excessive and > connected to Hagrid himself as well. They don't feel that way about > Professor Grubbly-Plank. Draco's provoking the hippogriff isn't necessarily > any more conscious than Neville blowing up his cauldrons. He, too, is given > instructions--his on the board, I think--and doesn't follow them. Alla: I disagree. Draco to me does not **want** to follow the instructions and Neville wants, but cannot, so to me Draco's not following is much more deliberate than Neville. You big ugly brute to me sounds like wanting to insult Buckbeak. But I am glad we agree that Draco was at fault. :) Magpie: That > happens in classes. (And if any kid is going to be insulting it's obviously > Draco--if hippogriffs attacked upon being corrected I would have been > hovering over Hermione knowing her nature.) Alla; LOLOLOL. That happens yes, but indeed it happened only to Draco, everybody else listened and managed okay, no? > Magpie: > I based my idea on being told, iirc, that Malfoy was talking to someone else > when Hagrid said the thing about insulting. Many people take it as a fact > that Malfoy did not hear him because of that. I can take it as ambiguous, > though, that maybe it was as you describe here. As is mentioned above > regarding Neville, it's not unusual for kids in a class to not follow > directions. Alla: Ambiguous? Malfoy was talking to someone else, so he did not hear. How can it be ambiguous description? You mean he was listening to Hagrid and talking at the same time? I guess that can be, but from my experiences personally if I am talking to someone else, I am very unlikely to hear teacher's instructions. IMO of course. Magpie: But I don't think the seemingly very widespread negative > opinions we hear about regarding Hagrid's class and Hagrid as a teacher come > down to all kids thinking they're immortal and blaming Hagrid. On the > contrary, they're more aware of their mortality than he is. Alla: Here I agree. As I keep repeating I believe Hagrid is a very flawed teacher, I am just rather convinced that whatever potential he may have had, was killed rather nicely by Malfoy behaviour during that lesson and afterwards. Maybe that means that potential was not that high in the first place, if that took one little bastard to do that, but given Hagrid's history I am not surprised that it did happen ( IMO of course). Magpie: > Malfoy learns that he must listen to everything Hagrid says and that it > would probably be a good idea to consider the danger more extreme than > Hagrid makes it sound if he didn't get the danger here (and at the risk of > being accused of defending Draco too much, I do think that Hagrid's delivery > of that instruction was intentionally--on the part of the author-- far too > casual for a teacher in this situation). Alla: Good for Malfoy that he learns that. :) Would be nice if he came to class with the mindset to learn something and not sabotage the teacher. It is of course an interpretation, but I believe that since we have nothing else to go on, his remark is a valid indication that he intended to do that. And as to Hagrid's instruction, see above. I do not believe it was too casual, but maybe he needed to repeat, that is what mentor would have helped, yes IMO. But here I agree that DD left him to his devices, just as he did Snape. Not liking that, at all. Magpie: Draco does show signs of doing that > rather comically when he's frantically asking people if he missed anything. > Whatever malicious ways he tried to get revenge on Hagrid, and however much > he wants to keep bringing it up against him, the action and consequence > lesson was clear--he got cocky, missed something, got hurt. He won't admit > it, but he did learn one good lesson from it because he knows he's got to > take care of himself in class that way. That seems to be the attitude of all > the kids in the class. Malfoy, too, was inexperienced the first day. Alla: Malfoy had the bad attitude towards Hagrid since his first year IMO. I find it hard to believe that his attitude on that lesson was due to inexperience. I think it was malicious through and through, not just in part. IMO of course. Magpie: > Hagrid needed to learn to make the danger a priority, and he doesn't really > do that because, as others have pointed out, he just doesn't understand the > pov of people who have this problem. He's not very able to adjust, so the > kids adjust to him. Alla: True, he did not learn that. I believe it was in part because he was hurt too deeply that year, that is all. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 18:47:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:47:10 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166195 Goddlefrood wrote: > The constitution of the panel (my word for the moment, it will interchange with others) is in fact, getting the quote, and with a nod to Carol (I'm coming to your bit, don't worry ;): > > "Interrogators: Cornelius Oswald Fudge, Minister of Magic; Amelia Susan Bones, Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement; Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister. Court Scribe, Percy Ignatius Weasley -" (OotP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition [all my further references from same, book and chapter that is, until noted otherwise], p. 127 - The Hearing), which apparently appears at pps. 138-39 of the Scholastic Edition - not sure if hardback or paperback) > Carol responds: Page numbering is the same for the hardback and paperback versions of the American edition, which is why I always refer to "Am. ed." without specifying hardback or paperback. (It's shorter than "Scholastic ed." and clearer for those who don't know that the American publisher is Scholastic.) Goddlefrood: > This tells me that the presiding body (Lupinlore kindly note;)) consists of three people, Fudge, Ms. Bones and, hem hem Ms. Umbridge. >From this: > > "'The Chair recognises Dolores (note spelling please) Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister,' said Fudge." > (p. 134) > > I take it from this that Fudge was the first amongst equals on the presiding body and the Chairman, so somewhat more like a Tribunal than a Court (although as mentioned the distinction is a quite fine one), and does not lead to any concession on terms (my preference being presiding body). This is confirmed to me by the fact that Fudge reads the charge at the beginning (p. 128), and, at the end of the hearing announces the not guilty decision. "Cleared of all Charges" (p. 138). > > Ms. Bones's function appears to be that of legal expert (reference - p. 131), not factual judge, she is, after all, the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. The entire Wizengamot, when the vote is taken is the arbiter (now there's a word for you) of fact. She certainly *is not * there as an arbiter of fact herself, except insofar as she is a member of the Wizengamot and has a single vote. Carol responds: If you'll look back at my previous posts, quotes and all, you'll see that Fudge has taken advantage of his position as Minister for Magic to include himself and Umbridge as interrogators. The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed to be Madam Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s alone (with no interference from the then-current Minister for Magic) in the GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was originally supposed to take place in Madam Bones's office. See also the remarks from Tonks et al. on Madam Bones' fairness. All quotes can be found upthread. Nor does Madam Bones vote on the question of whether to drop the charges or declare Harry guilty. (Note that, as she poses the question, an innocent verdict is not an option. She's making it possible to clear Harry of charges altogether. I appeal to Goddlefrood's expertise here as to whether that means that his hearing is not a matter of public record, as it would be if he'd been found innocent.) She *calls for* a vote, and *Fudge* votes, but Madam Bones apparently doesn't, which is why I see her as judge rather than a member of the jury (the Wizengamot as a whole). "Fudge raised his hand; so did half a dozen others, including the heavily-moustached wizard and the frizzy-haired witch in the second row." (p. 138, Bloomsbury edition.) There is no corresponding reference to Madam Bones, who, after all, would be influencing the vote she's calling for if she voted. Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with his ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor. (Since Fudge doesn't behave this way even at the end of GoF, when he refuses to believe that Voldemort is back, but now thinks that DD is trying to take over the Ministry, I think that he's increasingly under Umbridge's influence.) BTW, and this aside has no real importance, I wonder who the mustached wizard and frizzy-haired witch who voted with Fudge are. Allies of Umbridge who may appear again or just background characters added for realism? Carol earlier: > > There is no evidence whatever that Percy thinks that Harry will be sent to Azkaban. That thought occurs to *Harry* twice before the Order comes to rescue him. > Goddlefrood: > > As I mentioned in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166055 this is correct. Thank you Carol. :) Carol: You're welcome. Glad we agree on that point. Carol, also agreeing with Goddlefrood that Percy will not turn out evil (though I fear that he'll end up dying to save Ron or some such thing) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 19:08:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:08:50 -0000 Subject: The uses of beast fable, was Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166196 houyhnhnm wrote: > > > Hedwig and Pigwidgeon behave like normal owls in many ways. They sleep during the day. They go out hunting at night for mice and other small animals. They regurgitate pellets. But they also feel pride in carrying packages. They show off. They feel resentment when they are not chosen. > > It had never occurred to me to think of the owls in HP as magical creatures. Maybe they are; I just never thought of it that way. I assumed that Eeylops Owl Emporium was a different establishment from the magical creatures shop in which Hermione acquired Crookshanks. Carol responds: I think that Eeylops Owl Emporium sells magical owls trained, as Hedwig was, to be post owls. I don't think that any old owl would magically know how to send a package, not to mention how to find the sender without an address, as Hedwig does with Sirius Black when he's in Africa or whereever he's hiding before he returns to England in GoF. Hedwig also magically knows that Harry is staying at the Leaky Cauldron in PoA and arrives there before he does. We know that the world of HP contains "ordinary garden rats" that live only three years, in contrast to Animagus!Scabbers, who has managed to live twelve years (at least) without ever showing any magical properties, and in contrast to the magical black rats that play jumprope with their tales. It seems clear to me that some animals, e.g. Hedwig and the other post owls, including even Pigwidgeon, are magical, and others, such as Lavender's bunny, Binky, are not. Mrs. Figg's part-Kneazle cats are magical, as is Crookshanks (and Mrs. Norris, apparently), but it's not clear whether all cats are magical. The same, IMO, applies to snakes. It appears that Nagini's venom has magical properties and that she is herself a magical creature (as the Basilisk certainly is, given its ability to kill or Petrify with a look), but I don't think that the python in SS/PS is magical. (Harry can talk to it only because of *his* magical gift of Parseltongue.) Crups are magical; ordinary Jack Russell terriers are not. Fluffy is presumably magical, given his three heads and the effects of music on him, but Fang has no magical properties that we know of. He's just a big, slobbery boarhound. Trevor might have magical properties as a potion ingredient, but we've never seen him demonstrate any magical abilities as a pet. Anabraxan Flying Horses and Thestrals are magical, but the horses on a Muggle farm most likely are not. All this is to say that some animals, including post owls, have magical abilities in JKR's world, and some are just ordinary animals. I fear that it's the ordinary ones that get Vanished or turned into pincushions. Carol, now wondering whether Hagrid "flew" to the hut on the island in SS/PS on a Thestral, which flew back to the Forbidden Forest after dropping him off From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 17 19:19:12 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:19:12 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166197 > zgirnius: > > My opinion on what the plan was hinges on the Tower scene. From what we see there, the plan appears to have been for Snape to try and keep Draco from hurting anyone > > else, but leave Draco free so he would be forced to face Dumbledore alone. No Death > > Eaters, because *surely* Draco could not insert them into the situationn no > > Crabbengoyle because Snape would interfere with them. Then Dumbledore would > > convince Draco that he is 'not a killer' and hide him and his family from Voldemort. > > Jen: But they didn't need the UV for that plan! That's a fine plan, a good plan. The UV was an error on Snape's part, not because of the poor outcome, but because there was no need for it in the first place (given the information we have). Everything is dependent on why Snape took the UV in my opinion. I hope JKR has a very good, morally consistent motivation for an unnecessary dark vow besides just needing a way to kill Dumbledore and make Snape appear to be a bad guy. Pippin: It's right there in the text. Narcissa is at the end of her rope, ready to attack her own sister, openly defying her master's commands, literally tearing her hair in desperation. If Snape won't intercede for her and won't give her the only assurance she'll accept that he'll help her, what will she do? Passively accept her fate? If she was going to do that, she wouldn't have gone to Snape in the first place. None of the fine, good plan can come to pass unless Draco shows up at Hogwarts and if Snape refuses Narcissa, who's to say that he will? In the end, running away or appealing to Voldemort directly wouldn't save Narcissa or her son, but if she panics she won't be thinking about that, and she's on the verge of panic already. What's interesting to me about the SecretKeeper/UV comparison is whether we are headed for an echo of the Shrieking Shack scene, with Harry now taking the part played by Snape, so adamant in his refusal to think he might have made a mistake that he refuses to even consider the evidence. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 20:26:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:26:50 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166198 Alla wrote: > > As I keep repeating I believe Hagrid is a very flawed teacher, I am just rather convinced that whatever potential he may have had, was killed rather nicely by Malfoy behaviour during that lesson and afterwards. Carol responds: My apologies for responding to only one portion of your post, but I don't agree that Draco's injury and its aftermath did Hagrid, or his teaching, any permanent damage (though if Buckbeak had been executed, it might have done so). Hagrid survived two months (IIRC) in Azkaban in CoS and comes back essentially unchanged. He lets Rita Skeeter's article and the public reaction to it upset him in GoF, but he recovers from that, too. Unlike Snape, who starts the students out with a simple potion (SS Am. ed. 138); Sprout, who starts with relatively harmless plants in Greenhouse 1; Flitwick, who assigns a new, grade-appropriate book each year; and McGonagall, who starts with a beginner's textbook and progresses through intermediate to advanced, Hagrid starts off with a fairly dangerous animal classified as XXX by the MoM, rather than with, say, Bowtruckles (XX). (To be sure, his first students are third-years, not first-years, but they still have no previous experience with the class.) After the Draco incident (which, of course, was partly Draco's fault and which Draco blew out of all proportion), he loses his confidence and stays with Flobberworms (X), perhaps the least dangerous and least interesting of magical creatures. But once Buckbeak's life has been saved (unfortunately for the students, at the end of the school year), he is back to his old self again, excitedly "teaching" the students to care for the extremely dangerous Blast-Ended Skrewts, demonstrating much more concern for the Skrewts' welfare than for that of the students. After the Skeeter article, he becomes despondent and refuses to teach. When he recovers, he seems to have learned a bit about the proper subject matter for the class, taking over Grubbly-Plank's lessons on Unicorns (of course, by this time, there are only two Skrewts left, GoF Am. ed. 484). From there, he progresses to Nifflers (XXX), warning the students (slightly belatedly) to remove any jewelry or valuables (543). In OoP, after his disastrous expedition to the giants, he's back to teaching dangerous beasts (it's impossible to determine the MoM rating for Thestrals from FB because they're lumped under Winged Horses, XX-XXXXX, but I would guess that they're at the dangerous end or the range). The mere fact that they're invisible to most of the students makes them terrifying, if not dangerous if properly handled. (Not that the students will be able to plop down half a dead cow in front of creatures that most of them can't see.) However, Hagrid does a fairly good job with this lesson considering that Umbridge is standing there treating him like an idiot and trying to make him slip up, and he does tell HRH before class that he's saved the Thestrals for their fifth year, suggesting that he realizes that they'd be inappropriate for his third- and fourth-years. So, while Hagrid remains an inconsistent teacher, gifted with magical animals but not very aware of or concerned about his students' psychology or their educational needs and more driven by what he considers interesting or exciting than by what they need to learn, he does seem to be making progress. (And meanwhile, Draco Malfoy has learned from hard experience to listen in that class). At any rate, I still think that Hagrid would have benefitted from using a Ministry-Approved textbook to suggest a sequence of lessons tied in with students' actual needs and the creatures they would be tested on for OWLs and NEWTs, but I don't think for a moment that he is permanently harmed by Draco's behavior in the Buckbeak incident. His crying and his drinking and his attitude toward animals and his blatant favoritism of HRH remain as they always were. Carol, noting that incompetent teachers are as much a part of life as sarcastic ones and wondering whether Umbridge even bothered to inspect Binns since she'd have a hard time firing a ghost From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 20:32:45 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:32:45 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166199 Goddlefrood: I try to be precise and believe I was. A cheery wave to the list reader and a cheery smile at the elves for illegal top posting There are a few points raised by Carol in her response, which I will now address. > Carol responded to my earlier, none of which will be edited in here: > If you'll look back at my previous posts, quotes and all, You'll see that Fudge has taken advantage of his position as Minister for Magic to include himself and Umbridge as Interrogators. The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed to be Madam Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s alone (with no interference from the then-current Minister for Magic) in the GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was originally supposed to take place in Madam Bones's office. See also the remarks from Tonks et al. on Madam Bones' fairness. All quotes can be found upthread. Goddlefrood, since you asked, but not about to put my wig and gown back on: I read the entire sub thread thank you Carol. The points that I apprehended were in issue were addressed in my on list post here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166188. It appeared to me that intervention was required as some comments made, were, to say the least, a little close to the knuckle. It is true, as you say that Fudge forced the inception of "The Hearing", but I wanted only to deal with that (the hearing itself). My interpretation FWIW, as I said in my earlier on list, is that the constitution of the panel for the presiding body was in its nature somewhat similar to a Tribunal (and I define that, I believe). The closest legal system to what we see of the Wizengamot is probably either what's called a Star Chamber, or akin to how inquisitions were conducted during the Spanish Inquisition (if interested on latter suggest Rafael Sabatini - Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition). Google may also assist. In fact it is also not dissimilar to the French or German legal proceedings either, but I'm no expert on inquisitorial law, I'll admit, having never practiced in such jurisdictions. I will say this, based on my analysis it is clear that JKR did a great deal of research into legal proceedings. She is, probably, not as expert as I am (and I mean no conceit), but she certainly knows her stuff. To Carol's points then. It may well be the case that the *original* intention was to have a closed door (in camera) hearing before Ms. Bones. It did not end up that way. I deal with it in my previous from what *actually* happened and did not care to address hypotheticals for the purpose of my analysis. It is, though, Carol, as you suggest a fair extrapolation (assumption defeated - note to self) that the previous hearings we have been privileged to see *brief* parts of were different from Harry's. I allude to this in my earlier. Aware as I am that the quote (p.27 of my edition - we ALL should know the publisher, we are grown ups ;)) mentions Interrogators I can not suggest that you then infer this equates with the word Judges. All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that the hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body with the format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and another undefined role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use of the word Inquisitors, which I am not comfortable with accepting. > Carol: > Nor does Madam Bones vote on the question of whether to drop the charges or declare Harry guilty. (Note that, as she poses the question, an innocent verdict is not an option. She's making it possible to clear Harry of charges altogether. I appeal to Goddlefrood's expertise here as to whether that means that his hearing is not a matter of public record, as it would be if he'd been found innocent.) She *calls for* a vote, and *Fudge* votes, but Madam Bones apparently doesn't, which is why I see her as judge rather than a member of the jury (the Wizengamot as a whole). "Fudge raised his hand; so did half a dozen others, including the heavily-moustached wizard and the frizzy-haired witch in the second row." (p. 138, Bloomsbury edition.) There is no corresponding reference to Madam Bones, who, after all, would be influencing the vote she's calling for if she voted. Goddlefrood: It is not clear whether she does or not. Here, for your further edification is one plausible interpretation. As a preface I apprehend that she did vote. My reasoning? : "'Those in favour of clearing the witness of all charges?' said Madam Bones's booming voice. Breathing hard and fast, Harry looked around him. Not one of the witches and wizards in the room (and there were at least two hundred of them) was looking at him" (GoF, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, p. 138 - The Pensieve) (and yes Carol that was a mistyping on my account originally :)) It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in favour of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed voting not guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable). We just were nit shown it. Another Marauder's Map incident in my humble submission. She was a member of the panel of Inquisitors (JKR's term, not mine for preference) and as Fudge and Umbridge both voted against in it a not unreasonable conclusion to propose that she DID vote. Your point on record keeping is an interesting one. In the real world records of most, if not entirely all, proceedings, whether held in open court or otherwise, are kept. Typically for no less than 12 years in common law jurisdictions. My view is that the WW, particularly the MoM, being the rampant bureacracy it is portrayed as would almost certainly retain records of any proceedings. I will not hazard a guess as to how long such imaginary records are kept. > Carol: > Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with his ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor. On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I concluded that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon quotes are there. It is *always* part of the function (please not job) of a Chairman in a proceeding to announce the verdict, however reluctant he or she may be, and of course Fudge appeared reluctant. He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may have done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they were convened he *was* the Chairman and carried out the expected function of one. The same comments apply equally well to Dolores, although her exact function in the proceedings is unclear, sorry I can't be more helpful on that. > Carol > BTW, and this aside has no real importance, I wonder who the moustached wizard and frizzy-haired witch who voted with Fudge are. Goddlefrood: Yes, Carol, it is intriguing. They are both also mentioned during the course of Mrs. Figg's testimony (p. 132) as well as during the voting. This is no speculative piece, I'll save that for another time (not this point on these two btw, other matters), but I will say that they are of interest. Whether we will find out any more about them I will not, as opposed to can not, get into. Perhaps simply a little food for thought. These are obviously my own interpretations, but I did mention that I am qualified to assert them, did I not? Goddlefrood, still battling mosquitoes ;) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 20:34:53 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:34:53 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166200 > Jen: If this is the case, then there wouldn't really be a parallel, or no parallel with Snape > and Sirius. Come to think of it, there never was one since Sirius never actually took the > Fidelius, it was Peter, and he was lying when he took it. So if Snape is lying, then the > parallel is Snape and Peter, both took a vow/oath and lied about what they were planning > to do. zgirnius: Snape's position is parallel to Sirius's not because they were both the targets of a spell, but because they both took on a role which places them in jeopardy. The idea of the secret SK switch was that everyone would believe Sirius was the SK, and thus it is he, not Peter, who would be in the most danger. If Snape swore a vow to carry out a task he had no intention of performing, Snape likewise put himself at risk. > Jen: That could be, I see that possibility. Even if this is true, I still see an ethical dilemma > if Snape agreed to take an Unbreakable, a risky Vow even before he heard all the clauses, > when he had a perfect excuse not to since his loyalty is (supposedly) pledged to the Dark > Lord above the DE's. Snape can't guarantee a good outcome by lying and planning not to > carry out the clauses. zgirnius: Snape can't guarantee a good outcome, period. I don't understand your objection. Snape can prevent the worst outcome in the worst case scenario by simply not killing Dumbledore (he thinks). > Jen: Do we know when Snape told DD? zgirnius: We don't even know that he did, ever. There are other explanations for the bits of canon I think suggest he did. The parallel Quick Silver suggested, however, was inspired by the Snape theory I expounded, in which Snape tells him soon after taking the Vow. Jen: > Back to the parallel with the Secret Keeper, I was pointing > out the ethical difference between the two scenarios: Snape making a unilateral choice > which could potentially involve killing Dumbledore, even if Snape didn't intend to and was > lying, is different from the Fidelius. zgirnius: I guess I think about ethics differently than you do. What makes Snape's choice bad here, it seems to me, is circumstance, which is not something on which I judge the rightness or wrongness of a previous action. I recognize your opinion may differ on this. Snape did not think his Vow would ever lead to his killing Dumbledore because he knew what he was going to do if the Vow kicked in - nothing. In my opinion, this was a reasonable assumption to make. Jen: > Cleaning up after > the fact is not the same as informed or indirectly informed consent. zgirnius: Dumbledore did not ask to be the target of an assassination plot any more than James did. That's where I see the parallel. And that is the part that made the plan necessary, not the Vow. (As you point out below, the Vow was not necessary to the plan to protect Draco; the flip side is that the plan for Draco was necessary, even without the Vow). > Jen: I'm uneasy if JKR takes the route of Snape choosing the Vow with the idea that he > wouldn't ever carry out the clauses, and then placing the responsibility for his choice > squarely in Dumbledore's lap (if Snape was ordered to kill him). zgirnius: I'm not. I'm not sure why you are based on your post...I'm being dense today, I fear. At any rate, Snape is free to disregard Dumbledore's wishes. (As, it would seem based on his 'pleading' tone, Dumbledore is well aware). He is also in a position to understand and agree with Dumbledore's reasons for the request. There could be, as you suggest, more to the story behind Snape's initial decision to take the Vow. If so, I have no idea what. I'm trying to put together the pieces we have in a way that makes the most sense to me. Jen: > That's his job anyway, he doesn't need a dark vow to ensure getting > information. zgirnius: It's his job anyway, so he should not do anything at all shady in its performance? If he does not do things actively to improve his chances of getting information, presumably he will get less of it than he otherwise would. The Vow is a lie if he does not intend to keep it, and I would imagine, not his first. Other than that, it seems to endanger him, which seems a risk he has the right to take on if he finds the possible rewards worth it. Especially if "he means me to do it in the end, I think" is a correct perception with he=Voldemort, Snape is already seeing a kill Dumbledore or die situation in his future. > Jen: But they didn't need the UV for that plan! That's a fine plan, a good plan. The UV was > an error on Snape's part, not because of the poor outcome, but because there was no need > for it in the first place (given the information we have). zgirnius: I don't have a problem with the idea that the Vow was an error. However, I do see a purpose for a Vow of some sort in the plan. If Snape has been told about Draco's task by Voldemort, he can't be seen interfering with it to save Dumbledore. The Vow gives him a cover for his involvement in the guise of helping Draco, and a motive for doing so (the risk to him if Draco fails). Note Draco does not doubt that Snape is asking him questions and trying to give him advice for selfish, yet loyal to Voldemort, reasons (stealing the glory). I believe that is the motive Bella ascribes to him, and explained to Draco during his summer lessons with her. If there were no Vow, I'm guessing the idea she would have been trying to plant in the minds of anyone who would listen is that Snape's interference proves he is a spy. She's not, because the Vow convinced her (and anyone else who may know about it). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 21:35:36 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:35:36 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166201 > >>Magpie: > > Actually Hagrid's instructions weren't very specific on the > > subject of insults. He just started, iirc, by saying "don't > > insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do" when Draco possibly > > wasn't listening. > > > >>Alla: > Yes, more experienced teacher would have repeated, probably. But > even with what Hagrid said, all kids understood clear enough, no? Betsy Hp: Well, no, actually. The attack on Draco occurs pretty quickly into the lesson so we've no idea if another student might have run the same risk. > >>Alla: > And I am really not sure how more specific Hagrid could have been. > Betsy Hp: "Hippogriffs can actually understand English, or at least, insults given in English. If you direct any towards them they will attack. Please note their claws here, etc. etc." Then maybe follow up with a "Would someone like to list the best ways to aggravate a Hippogriff?" And (and frankly this is the no-brainer portion of the lesson for me) bring only *one* hippogriff for the class to interact with. > >>Alla: > > Draco to me does not **want** to follow the instructions and > Neville wants, but cannot, so to me Draco's not following is much > more deliberate than Neville. You big ugly brute to me sounds like > wanting to insult Buckbeak. > Betsy Hp: And yet, I insult my cat all the time and she eats it up. Like a character in a Jack London book, I tend to cuss my beasties while I love on them. So yeah, I'd have not gotten along with a hippogriff. Honestly, Draco's words never really struck me as all that insulting. My sister regularly refers to her bulldog as a drooling mutt, and he loves it. It's kind of what you do with animals. That hippogriffs won't stand for it is a little weird to me. It's not something I'd just nod my head in a "ah yes, no insults" sort of way. I'd need to know exactly what was meant. (I'm probably being far too Muggle here. ) And I *would* link Draco and Neville together, honestly. Draco is distracted (outdoor class, friends to chat too, teacher he's got no respect for, etc.) and doesn't pay close attention to instructions. Neville is stressed (he's no good at magic, a failure to his name, a teacher he's scared of, etc.) and doesn't pay close attention to instructions. Draco gets mauled by a massive predator; Neville gets close, personal attention from Prof. Snape. I know which class *I'd* prefer. But the main point is, teachers aren't graced with perfect little students who love them and their subject matter to bits. It's part of the challenge. Hagrid failed it. Draco was the result, not the cause, as later classes and Hagrid's extreme unpopularity (one of the *most* unpopular teacher at Hogwarts) show. > >>Alla; > LOLOLOL. That happens yes, but indeed it happened only to Draco, > everybody else listened and managed okay, no? Betsy Hp: No. Neville was already in trouble, and who knows what else may have gone wrong? Students walked away from Hagrid's lessons injured and resentful all the time. (See the blast-ended screwts lessons.) > >>Magpie: > > I based my idea on being told, iirc, that Malfoy was talking to > > someone else when Hagrid said the thing about insulting. Many > > people take it as a fact that Malfoy did not hear him because of > > that. I can take it as ambiguous, though, that maybe it was as > > you describe here. > > > >>Alla: > Ambiguous? Malfoy was talking to someone else, so he did not hear. > How can it be ambiguous description? You mean he was listening to > Hagrid and talking at the same time? I guess that can be, but from > my experiences personally if I am talking to someone else, I am > very unlikely to hear teacher's instructions. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: I think what Magpie was saying is that while she reads the text as Draco chatting with friends and therefore missing the essential instructions, other prefer to read it that Draco *did* hear the instructions but deliberately chose to not follow them. I agree with Magpie and Alla, that Draco just didn't hear the instructions, so it wasn't a malicious attempt at sabotage that led to Draco insulting Buckbeak. > >>Alla: > Good for Malfoy that he learns that. :) Would be nice if he came to > class with the mindset to learn something and not sabotage the > teacher. > Betsy Hp: But students don't always like their teachers, or the subject matter for that matter. Hagrid is unable to handle anyone without his level of enthusiasm, and he's unable to *give* his students reason to become enthusiastic. It's unrealistic to think *all* of his students would become enthralled with CoMC, but it's sad that instead *all* of his students are turned off of that particular subject. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I *am* taking a hard line, I agree. > >>Phoenixgod2000 > Death to Hagrid but all the breaks in the world for Draco :) > Betsy Hp: I don't want Hagrid *dead*, but he's not my favorite character, true. (Not my least favorite either, for that matter.) But honestly, I do tend to give more breaks to children than I do to adults. Children are easier to correct. And Draco's flaws are so wonderfully straightforward and understandable. He's seems quite open to being corrected. Whereas Hagrid is who he is, and seems completely unable to change a thing. (Draco changes his approach to CoMC for example, while Hagrid doesn't.) But in the end, I don't think it's so much Hagrid vs. Draco for me. It's more Hagrid vs. his animals. I don't think Hagrid does them any favors. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 17 22:10:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:10:47 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166202 Goddlefrood: > It is true, as you say that Fudge forced the inception of "The Hearing", but I wanted only to deal with that (the hearing itself). > > My interpretation FWIW, as I said in my earlier on list, is that the constitution of the panel for the presiding body was in its nature somewhat similar to a Tribunal (and I define that, I believe). The closest legal system to what we see of the Wizengamot is probably either what's called a Star Chamber, or akin to how inquisitions were conducted during the Spanish Inquisition (if interested on latter suggest Rafael Sabatini - Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition). > To Carol's points then. It may well be the case that the *original* intention was to have a closed door (in camera) hearing before Ms. Bones. It did not end up that way. I deal with it in my previous from what *actually* happened and did not care to address hypotheticals for the purpose of my analysis. > > It is, though, Carol, as you suggest a fair extrapolation that the previous hearings we have been privileged to see *brief* parts of were different from Harry's. > > Aware as I am that the quote (p.27 of my edition ) mentions Interrogators I can not suggest that you then infer this equates with the word Judges. Carol responds: I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your argument here. I'm not suggesting that "interrogators" is synonymous with "judges." I was referring to my own earlier post, in which I suggested that the "interrogators" were part judge, part prosecuting attorney, whereas Dumbledore is part witness for the defense, part defense attorney (using American terminology). As I understand it, a judge presides over a hearing or trial and asks the jury for a verdict afterwards. So, to that extent, Madam Bones, like Crouch Sr. before her, seems to be acting as a judge. I realize that judges do not normally interrogate witnesses or defendants (that would be the job of the various lawyers or attorneys or whatever term you prefer)--unless it's just a small, informal hearing like the one that Tonks, Lupin, and Black apparently anticipated. And the hearing *was* originally scheduled to be held in Madam Bones's office. That is not a presumption on my part. It's canon. My point is that since Madam Bones holds the same office as Barty Crouch Sr. does in the Pensieve scenes, it seems likely that she would have similar powers (minus authorizing Unforgiveable Curses) and generally follow similar procedures (though he, fortunately for him, didn't have to deal with the Minister's interference in the proceedings). At any rate, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I was just bringing up points that I had previously addressed and referring to the canon previously cited rather than repeating the quotations. I am, however, interested in your reference to the Inquisition. I'm not sure that it applies to Harry's hearing or trial (I had thought that a trial involved a judge and jury and a hearing involved only a judge; also, that a trial involved guilt or innocence whereas a hearing was a preliminary conducted to determine whether a trial was necessary, but I defer to your expertise), but the appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor certainly *does* suggest the Spanish Inquisition. (I've previously tried to compare Umbridge with Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor and received a resounding silence in response.) It seems to me that, for example, the Ministry is protecting itself against heretical views just as the Roman Catholic Church was (and later Umbridge subjects students to torture for what she considers to be their own good). If anyone is more familiar than I am with that period in history and wants to explore the parallels and implications, I'd be interested. > Goddlefrood: > All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that the hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body with the format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and another undefined role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use of the word Inquisitors, which I am not comfortable with accepting. Carol: Okay, now I'm confused again. No one in the previous posts in this thread used the word "Inquisitors." Nor does JKR (via Fudge) use that term in "The Hearing." Fudge refers to himself, Umbridge, and Madam Bones as "interrogators" (and they certainly do interrogate Harry and Mrs. Figg, or at least Fudge and Madam Bones do--Umbridge just questions Dumbledore with regard to the Dementors--and we know why she's interested in that particular topic). But, now that you mention it, I do think we're supposed to see a connection between what the Ministry is doing and an Inquisition. If we look at the literal meanings, don't "interrogator" and "Inquisitor" mean the same thing--one who questions or inquires? Granted, "interrogate" implies a systematic inquiry and "inquisitor" implies harshness because we associate it with the various Inquisitions (particularly, the Spanish Inquisition) but in terms of literal meaning, there's not much difference. Which raises the question, why is Umbridge's position (later in the book) given that particular title? What, exactly, is she questioning? Is she interrogating everybody, teachers and students alike, or is she investigating Hogwarts itself, questioning Dumbledore's authority? Or both? I think her job is to suppress heretical thinking, and that's where the job title comes in. But like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, she believes, or pretends to believe, that she's acting to protect the poor, helpless peasants/students. > Goddlefrood: > It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in favour of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed voting not guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable). We just were nit shown it. Carol: I disagree. I think that, like the chairman of an organization following Robert's Rules of Order (Parliamentary procedure), she merely asks for a vote rather than voting herself. Had she actually voted, surely Harry would have noticed, and the narrator, seeing from his pov, would have commented. Obviously, neither of us can prove the other wrong, but it's obviously not "inconceivable" because I'm "conceiving" it. (IMO, Fudge is usurping her role by announcing the verdict, but he's rather flustered at the moment and has been bending or altering the rules, in any case. At least, he doesn't dispute the conclusion that the jury--the Wizengamot or its voting members--has reached.) I'm also wondering why Madam Bones refers to Harry as "the witness" rather than "the defendant," which sounds to me like a Flint. Carol earlier: > > > Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with his ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor. > Goddlefrood: > On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I concluded that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon quotes are there. It is *always* part of the function (please not job) of a Chairman in a proceeding to announce the verdict, however reluctant he or she may be, and of course Fudge appeared reluctant. > > He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may have done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they were convened he *was* the Chairman and carried out the expected function of one. Carol: But as I see it, it's Madam Bones whose "function" ought to be that of the Chairman. As I said, her job is exactly the same as that of Barty Crouch Sr. *She* calls for the vote (the chairman's job). Fudge is overstepping his bounds, taking advantage of the fact that as Minister for Magic, he's her superior. He does the same thing by changing the time and veue of the hearing and appointing himself and Umbridge as interrogators. Carol, who had another point to make but has forgotten what it was From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 17 22:56:35 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:56:35 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166203 > > Betsy Hp: > But students don't always like their teachers, or the subject matter > for that matter. Hagrid is unable to handle anyone without his level > of enthusiasm, and he's unable to *give* his students reason to > become enthusiastic. It's unrealistic to think *all* of his students > would become enthralled with CoMC, but it's sad that instead *all* of > his students are turned off of that particular subject. > Pippin: CoMC is an elective. Since Hagrid is evidently still teaching, I think it's safe to say that not *all* his students have been turned off. I also think that none of the Trio would have taken NEWT level CoMC even if Professor Grubbly-Plank had been teaching it. They really do need the room in their schedules for studying. > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > I *am* taking a hard line, I agree. > > > >>Phoenixgod2000 > > Death to Hagrid but all the breaks in the world for Draco :) > > Pippin: I have to go with Phoenixgod this time. Hagrid's actions don't deserve the A word, IMO, at least where the animals are concerned. You could make a case that he abused his *power* -- but that would just mean he wasn't setting a great example as a teacher, period. Nothing to do with the beasts. IIRC, no creatures have suffered any damage while in his care except for the Skrewts. There was nothing Hagrid could have done to prevent that -- if they hadn't eaten each other, they'd have starved. It was a failed experiment, obviously. But clearly the wizarding world doesn't think experimental breeding (with the proper permissions) is wrong, or there wouldn't *be* proper permissions. Taking Norbert to hatch was ill-advised, but what was the alternative? Do you think Quirrell (or whoever was under that hood) was going to find the egg a good home if Hagrid had turned it down? Also, I think it's a mistake to say that Hagrid hasn't changed his attitude at all. Azkaban changed him -- In PoA he says he's afraid to break the law and he proves it by not hiding Buckbeak in the forest the way he hid Aragog. In HBP he recognizes that it would be too dangerous for the Trio to help him nurse Aragog. He also recognizes that Professor Grubbly-Plank is a better teacher than he is, (though the Trio loyally and falsely deny it) so clearly he does realize there's room for improvement. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 18 00:20:38 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:20:38 -0000 Subject: The uses of beast fable, was Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166204 Carol: > It seems clear to me that some animals, e.g. Hedwig > and the other post owls, including even Pigwidgeon, > are magical, and others, such as Lavender's bunny, > Binky, are not. Mrs. Figg's part-Kneazle cats are > magical, as is Crookshanks (and Mrs. Norris, apparently), > but it's not clear whether all cats are magical. The > same, IMO, applies to snakes. It appears that Nagini's > venom has magical properties and that she is herself > a magical creature (as the Basilisk certainly is, given > its ability to kill or Petrify with a look), but I don't > think that the python in SS/PS is magical. (Harry can > talk to it only because of *his* magical gift of > Parseltongue.) Crups are magical; ordinary Jack Russell > terriers are not. Fluffy is presumably magical, given > his three heads and the effects of music on him, but > Fang has no magical properties that we know of. He's > just a big, slobbery boarhound. Trevor might have magical > properties as a potion ingredient, but we've never seen > him demonstrate any magical abilities as a pet. Abraxan > Flying Horses and Thestrals are magical, but the horses > on a Muggle farm most likely are not. > All this is to say that some animals, including post > owls, have magical abilities in JKR's world, and some > are just ordinary animals. I fear that it's the > ordinary ones that get Vanished or turned into pincushions. houyhnhnm: Well, duh! (slaps head) Other species besides humans are divided into magical and Muggle populations. It's clear now. I just never saw it before, even with the evidence of the black rats and Trevor the very ordinary toad, as well as Fang the ordinary dog, right in front my face. I knew the mythological (and made up) beasts were magical, but I assumed all the other animals were supposed to be real animals and I thought it was stupid the way Rowling had them behaving. Just goes to show, you can always learn something new. Carol: > Carol, now wondering whether Hagrid "flew" to the > hut on the island in SS/PS on a Thestral, which > flew back to the Forbidden Forest after dropping him off houyhnhnm: It is about the only possibility. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 00:40:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:40:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables/ Draco and Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166205 > > >>Alla: > > And I am really not sure how more specific Hagrid could have been. > > > > Betsy Hp: > "Hippogriffs can actually understand English, or at least, insults > given in English. If you direct any towards them they will attack. > Please note their claws here, etc. etc." Then maybe follow up with > a "Would someone like to list the best ways to aggravate a > Hippogriff?" And (and frankly this is the no-brainer portion of the > lesson for me) bring only *one* hippogriff for the class to interact > with. Alla: Okay, fair enough. > Betsy Hp: > And yet, I insult my cat all the time and she eats it up. Like a > character in a Jack London book, I tend to cuss my beasties while I > love on them. So yeah, I'd have not gotten along with a hippogriff. > Alla: But if you knew that your cat **will** be insulted at your words and may hurt you because of that, you would not have insulted her, no? > Betsy Hp: > > > Honestly, Draco's words never really struck me as all that > insulting. My sister regularly refers to her bulldog as a drooling > mutt, and he loves it. It's kind of what you do with animals. That > hippogriffs won't stand for it is a little weird to me. It's not > something I'd just nod my head in a "ah yes, no insults" sort of > way. I'd need to know exactly what was meant. (I'm probably being > far too Muggle here. ) Alla: I think what matters is that these words were insulting for Buckbeak and they really did struck me as **very** insulting. Now I read with interest the discussion about writing about animals as humans in children books, and I am not sure what I think about it yet, BUT I certainly think that Hypoggrifs are portrayed as intelligent animals. Oh, and about RL animals, I think what also matters here is tone. I certainly see saying something insulting to animal, but in different tone, if it makes sense. But again, I think Hypoggrifs are exhibiting humanlike reaction here, for sure and I think in that case Draco's words are incredibly disgusting. I think it supposed to add the gravity to Draco afterwards actions. I think ( and I am not saying you should, it is just what I think JKR implies) we supposed to assume that hypoggrifs are sentient beings of the sort. Not quite like humans maybe, but like Crookshanks IMO. And Draco **laughs** when he talks about his upcoming execution. I cannot express how very disgusting I find it and I also can tell you that it was no surprise to me that Draco graduated from helping the attempts to execute a hypoggrifs to the preparing the execution of the human being in HBP. That was very natural progression for me. And here is another thing. I am convinced as I mentioned to Magpie that there was **nothing** innocent or even careless in Draco's behaviour during that lesson. I am convinced of that mainly because of his remarks about Hagrid in his first year without even meeting Hagrid. If I did not read those remarks, I may have thought otherwise. As of it is, I view it as continious grudge towards Hagrid. BUT even if Draco was simply careless on that lesson, for his behaviour afterwards he in my mind deserves much more than one slap from Hermione. "Harry took Malfoy's shrivelfig as Ron began trying to repair the damage to the roots he now had to use. Harry skinned the shrivelfig as fast as he could and flung it back across the table at Malfoy without speaking. Malfoy was smirking more broadly than ever. "Seen your pal Hagrid lately?" he asked them quietly. "None of your business," said Ron jerkily, without looking up. "I'm afraid he won't be a teacher much longer," said Malfoy in a tone of mock sorrow. "Father's not very happy about my injury --" "Keep talking, Malfoy, and I'll give you a real injury," snarled Ron. "- he's complained to the school governors. And to the Ministry of Magic. Father's got a lot of influence, you know. And a lasting injury like this" -- he gave a huge, fake sigh -- "who knows if my arm'll ever be the same again?" "So that's why you're putting it on," said Harry, accidentally beheading a dead caterpillar because his hand was shaking in anger. "To try to get Hagrid fired." "Well," said Malfoy, lowering his voice to a whisper, "partly, Potter. But there are other benefits too. Weasley, slice my caterpillars for me." _ PoA, p.125, paperback. JMO, Alla From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 00:42:34 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:42:34 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166206 > Carol responds: > I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your argument here. I'm not suggesting that "interrogators" is synonymous with "judges." I was referring to my own earlier post, in which I suggested that the "interrogators" were part judge, part prosecuting attorney, whereas Dumbledore is part witness for the defense, part defense attorney (using American terminology). Goddlefrood, enrobed once more ;) You're not a lawyer ;), we use some relatively technical language, on the whole. Very familiar with how your (flawed IMHO) system in America works, or actually virtually does not. (For many anyway). Oh, and it was not really an argument, only an attempt to place some facts before those interested, as you seem to be :) Here's what you wrote in previous, no editing: > > Carol: > > The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed to be Madam Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s alone (with no interference from the then-current Minister for Magic) in the GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was originally supposed to take place in Madam Bones's office. Goddlefrood: We do not actually know this for a fact. That is that the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement presides over the Wizengamot, which is what we are dealing with. To reinforce this I put before you the fact that Dumbledore was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, and my previous submission on Cornelius Fudge as being Chairman for Harry's proceedings in OotP. A small aside: elsewhere in cyberspace it has been pointed out that the Wizengamot is similar to the House of Lords (the highest appeal body in the United Kingdom (distinct from the Privy Council before any one asks. On that basis the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot would be analogous to the Lord Chancellor, a link for those interested: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048949/lord-chancellor By placing the interrogatory after Judge (typically capitalised) in the brackets, my view was that you were querying the term and I wanted to assist with that. When I give legal rambles I tend to express myself in so-called legalese. If it is still not clear then do please check what I mentioned about an Inquisitorial system. I'll even give you a couple of links this time, research being important for reasoned argument, which I have now turned to: http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/star-chamber.htm (On The Court of Star Chamber I had in mind in previous) http://www.thenagain.info/Webchron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html (On Spanish Inquisition) Surprisingly similar to the Wizengamot, I believe you may find. WW stuck in Medieval Times, as it were. WW, after all, did not evolve exactly parallel to our own in terms of its Institutions, couldn't really, different world altogether, fictional for a start. The point I was making disregarded the fact that the hearing was supposed to have originally taken place in Ms. Bones's office. It is a fact that it was to have been somewhat informal and in camera (private). It did not turn out that way and I merely took the view that irrelevancies should be overlooked, as I do in my professional life. Makes it easier for me :) > Carol: > As I understand it, a judge presides over a hearing or trial and asks the jury for a verdict afterwards. So, to that extent, Madam Bones, like Crouch Sr. before her, seems to be acting as a judge. I realize that judges do not normally interrogate witnesses or defendants (that would be the job of the various lawyers or attorneys or whatever term you prefer). Goddlefrood: Well, in the real world a Judge does preside over a hearing or trial (and may I say I am glad that point seems clearer :)) If it were a pure judicial trial, which I have analysed it as having not been, then your understanding is far from the same as mine. A Judge does preside, but he is the arbiter of law, the jury is the arbiter of fact. When the jury decides on the facts, based on the law that the Judge would tell them in his summing up of the case, after all witnesses have been heard and Counsels or Attorneys made their submissions, it decides the outcome of the trial. It can only adjudicate on the facts of the case and must bear in mind whatever the Judge has told them about the law in his summing up. Should it not then the verdict would be easily defeated on appeal, where there would be no jury, only cold, analytic appeal Judges, or if you prefer Justices of Appeal. Oh, and Judges can, and do, question witnesses if there is any point that is not clear to them. This has the rider that if such questions are asked then the Counsels or Attorneys can cross-examine once more, but only in respect of the udge's questions, not on any new points they may have forgotten in the original examination in chief, cross examination or re examination. It is all, even just based on this portion, very different from what is seen of the Wizengamot in both incarnations of which we have been made aware in canon (here I'm lumping all the trials glimpsed in GoF into one). I state panel in my first post in this matter and I maintain that view. There are similarities to Judge Advocates, as the US Military for instance have. In that sense, but it is clearly distinct from a Judge, you could use Judge, but with the added Advocate :). Here's a further link for those still with me: http://12.170.132.252/default2.asp?selected=1054&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C - I believe maters in snip already addressed, prepared to listen to contrary view ;) > > Goddlefrood earlier: > > All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that the hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body with the format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and another undefined role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use of the word Inquisitors, which I am not comfortable with accepting. > Carol: > Okay, now I'm confused again. No one in the previous posts in this thread used the word "Inquisitors." Nor does JKR (via Fudge) use that term in "The Hearing." Fudge refers to himself, Umbridge, and Madam Bones as "interrogators" (and they certainly do interrogate Harry and Mrs. Figg, or at least Fudge and Madam Bones do--Umbridge just questions Dumbledore with regard to the Dementors--and we know why she's interested in that particular topic). Goddlefrood: I used it there, so must have referred to something else, not prepared to look right now. The links already provided may assist with these points. Also should help with the next bit I've snipped out. :) Here are some more links to further potential enlightenment: http://www.allwords.com/word-interrogation.html (Aware it's interrogation, but useful) http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0197200.html (Interrogate, yes, but Interrogator also there) http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0157800.html (For Inquisitor) Note please, Carol. At this stage I am not prepared to go into any more than just Harry's hearing. I do not propose to address points relative to Dolores's later role as High Inquisitor. Links may also help with this, if you want to run with it, I do not, thank you for the invitation though :) > > Goddlefrood: > > > > It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in favour of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed voting not guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable). We just were not shown it. > Carol: > I disagree. - invalid argument, I'm afraid Your are entitled to. One of the beauties of law actually. I am not swayed by your reasoning and refer back to my own, most of which Carol has snipped in her reply. The point on Ms. Bones voting was argued (that part was argued ;)) from a purely logical point of view, subjective of course, difficult to be otherwise. It is supported by my knowledge of the system. Quite frankly, though, I do not expect this point (Ms. Bones voting or otherwise) to actually be revealed in DH, as it is in my submission only relevalt to historical matters (with reagrd to the series that is) > Carol: > I'm also wondering why Madam Bones refers to Harry as "the witness" rather than "the defendant," which sounds to me like a Flint. Goddlefrood: This point I can assist with. When a person on trial is called to give evidence on his own account, as Harry is, he is spoken of as a witness. At all other times during the proceedings, that is while not giving evidence he is spoken of as a defendant, subject to the nature of proceedings. Hope that is clear. Not a Flint, depth of research on JKR's part. > > > Carol earlier: > > > Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with his ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor. - Carol's snip > > Goddlefrood: > > On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I concluded that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon quotes are there. It is *always* part of the function (please not job) of a Chairman in a proceeding to announce the verdict, however reluctant he or she may be, and of course Fudge appeared reluctant. > > He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may have done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they were convened he *was* the Chairman and carried out the expected function of one. - one of Carol's again > Carol: > But as I see it, it's Madam Bones whose "function" ought to be that of the Chairman. Goddlefrood: One line of exposition on this one. "Ought to be" not "is" from which perspective I was writing to show that Fudge was actually the Chairman in Harry's hearing howsoever he came to the position. Carol, as indicated by your queries I am glad you enjoyed it and trust the list is also enjoying. BTW I will not post again on this subject for some time. I have some things to look after, they're called the wife and kids. Enjoy the remainder of St. Patrick's Day and the balance of the weekend, where applicable :) Goddlefrood, happy that the mosquitoes have now abated and with his bill for fees in the post ;) From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Mar 18 00:56:36 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:56:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables/ Draco and Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166207 Alla: I think what matters is that these words were insulting for Buckbeak and they really did struck me as **very** insulting. Now I read with interest the discussion about writing about animals as humans in children books, and I am not sure what I think about it yet, BUT I certainly think that Hypoggrifs are portrayed as intelligent animals. Oh, and about RL animals, I think what also matters here is tone. I certainly see saying something insulting to animal, but in different tone, if it makes sense. Sherry: This is something I know a great deal about, because it has everything to do with how I work with my guide dog. Voice inflection, body language, those things matter far, far more than the words I say. If I say, Oh Bianca you are such a good girl, and I say that in an angry voice, no smile, angry posture, she will not be wagging her tail and getting all silly. On the other hand--should I say paw--if I say, oh Bianca, you are such an ugly bad girl in a high cutesy loving happy voice and I am acting affectionately, she thinks I'm paying her compliments and gets all wiggly and happy. It's the same when I give her working commands. If I want to tell her lie down, I make the inflection of my voice go down, and if I want her to sit, I make it go up. When I ask her to go forward, the command is given in a confident but questioning tone, as if I'm saying, please move ahead if it is safe to do so, because in guide work, she may choose to disobey a command if it is not safe. She understands my tone and attitude far more than the dozens of words I say. I've always thought it was the same with Draco and Buckbeak. Buckbeak probably wouldn't have attacked if the tone was whatever he understood to be respectful. yeah, I realize he's a fictitious animal, so I don't understand how he understands respect and attitude, but I've always assumed that was the case. Buckbeak *knew* that Draco's motives and attitude were insulting, and didn't go on the exact words. Of course, in a world where owls understand language and know where to go with only a name, nothing surprises me. Sherry, whose silly guide dog is snoring beside her chair. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 18 02:05:32 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:05:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables References: Message-ID: <00ec01c76901$ebf0a950$3e92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166208 > Alla: > > Yes, more experienced teacher would have repeated, probably. But > even with what Hagrid said, all kids understood clear enough, no? > > And I am really not sure how more specific Hagrid could have been. > Do not insult them or you get hurt, for example sounds to me less > specific than what he said, because he pretty much IMO implied that > you get hurt badly Magpie: But that's not specific. "...or it's the last thing you'll do" is commonly used as an exaggeration and empty threat. More importantly, he's not specific about insults, especially since we're talking about an animal. In the movie, I believe, Draco's big insult is given to Hagrid as a term of affection, which is the way a line like that would usually be spoken to an animal. You pointed out that if we knew an animal would attack in response to the things we say to it (like affectionately calling your bulldog a drooling mutt) you wouldn't do it. But most people wouldn't know it straight off that the animal doesn't like it. I could easily imagine that Hagrid himself may have learned from his own experience what hippogriffs considered an insult when he tried to call him something affectionately. If we're looking at the line in retrospect sure, we can see what it means. But when you're talking about something as vague as not insulting something that has a serious effect? You'd go over it, make it very clear,. I would imagine a serious teacher would specifically say that includes joke insults, or things you don't mean in a bad way--I always imagine Draco is crooning when he insults Buckbeak the same way I'd be in that situation. Let's face it, the kids would probably be told to keep their mouth shuts period if they could possibly offend the creature.You might then explain in detail how this animal responds when insulted in graphic detail. Of course that wouldn't be as good for the story. But I really do think JKR set up Hagrid as a bit of a menace on purpose. I think she used it to create the conflict as much as much as she used Draco's own charming personality. > Alla: > > I disagree. Draco to me does not **want** to follow the instructions > and Neville wants, but cannot, so to me Draco's not following is > much more deliberate than Neville. You big ugly brute to me sounds > like wanting to insult Buckbeak. Magpie: I don't think he wants to be attacked. If he didn't hear Hagrid's instructions he can't be consciously disobeying them. He is shown following some directions. Alla: > But I am glad we agree that Draco was at fault. :) Magpie: Draco and Hagrid, yes. Draco's obviously the one who makes the mistake of insulting the hippogriff. > Magpie: > That >> happens in classes. (And if any kid is going to be insulting it's > obviously >> Draco--if hippogriffs attacked upon being corrected I would have > been >> hovering over Hermione knowing her nature.) > > Alla; > > LOLOLOL. That happens yes, but indeed it happened only to Draco, > everybody else listened and managed okay, no? Magpie: Draco happens to be the person who got hurt and then the class ends and it's no longer an issue. Perhaps nobody else would have gotten hurt. But it seems like some kind of logical loop to say that Hagrid's instructions were clear because no one got hurt, and when faced with someone who did get hurt, he doesn't count because he was the only one. Even if Draco didn't get hurt I'd consider Hagrid's first class amateurishly handled, an accident waiting to happen. If I were there I probably would have been more worried about Neville, who was having trouble. Draco was at particular risk in this lesson because he's so often insulting, but if the lesson had called for not showing fear to a hippogriff I think Neville would have been attacked. > >> Magpie: >> I based my idea on being told, iirc, that Malfoy was talking to > someone else >> when Hagrid said the thing about insulting. Many people take it as > a fact >> that Malfoy did not hear him because of that. I can take it as > ambiguous, >> though, that maybe it was as you describe here. As is mentioned > above >> regarding Neville, it's not unusual for kids in a class to not > follow >> directions. > > Alla: > > Ambiguous? Malfoy was talking to someone else, so he did not hear. > How can it be ambiguous description? You mean he was listening to > Hagrid and talking at the same time? I guess that can be, but from > my experiences personally if I am talking to someone else, I am very > unlikely to hear teacher's instructions. IMO of course. Magpie: That's the way I read it too. The other poster felt that Draco's line about Buckbeak not being dangerous meant that he thought Hagrid was exaggerating. So I was allowing that interpretation--though I mentioned that many people do consider that line to make it a fact that Draco wasn't listening. If he wasn't listening, then his disobeying is just as unconscious as Neville's not following directions in Snape's class. He's trying to follow directions--he's bowed etc.--but he misses one. > Alla: > > Here I agree. As I keep repeating I believe Hagrid is a very flawed > teacher, I am just rather convinced that whatever potential he may > have had, was killed rather nicely by Malfoy behaviour during that > lesson and afterwards. > > Maybe that means that potential was not that high in the first > place, if that took one little bastard to do that, but given > Hagrid's history I am not surprised that it did happen ( IMO of > course). Magpie: Right, and I disagree because I see Hagrid being the same teacher three years later that he was that first day. I think we see how Hagrid acts when he's effected badly by something else. > Alla: > > Malfoy had the bad attitude towards Hagrid since his first year IMO. > I find it hard to believe that his attitude on that lesson was due > to inexperience. I think it was malicious through and through, not > just in part. IMO of course. Magpie: I didn't say his attitude was due to inexperience--he already had reason to dislike Hagrid and Hagrid didn't like him either. The inexperience I referred to was experience with animals and the dangers involved. He learned from his experience that way. > Magpie: >> Hagrid needed to learn to make the danger a priority, and he > doesn't really >> do that because, as others have pointed out, he just doesn't > understand the >> pov of people who have this problem. He's not very able to adjust, > so the >> kids adjust to him. > > Alla: > > True, he did not learn that. I believe it was in part because he was > hurt too deeply that year, that is all. Magpie: And I don't buy that. Hagrid's inability to adjust to others and understand the dangers of animals is part of his core personality laid out since Book I. I don't see any evidence that he was on the verge of learning anything before he was just hurt too deeply. If anything, one might think that kind of deep hurt ought to have gotten through to him, as Draco's physical hurt did to him. We see Hagrid bounce right back to the way he was before. Why would he have had to learn if his first lesson hadn't had someone hurt and he hadn't had the stress that followed? It seems like he'd have even less reason to learn that. Hagrid has plenty of classes where he's teaching things that are not dangerous, of course. Carol's done an overview of the animals he teaches--the one addition I would make is that while he does save Thestrals for fifth year he also gets caught dismissing their danger when he dismisses their danger and then allows that they'll "take a piece out of you if you annoy 'em." Alla: But again, I think Hypoggrifs are exhibiting humanlike reaction here, for sure and I think in that case Draco's words are incredibly disgusting. Magpie: Well, there's the problem of human/animal again. Buckbeak certainly hasn't been acting like a human up until this point, so one wouldn't expect humanlike reactions from him. And if his reaction is supposed to be a human one than he deserves to be punished (but not executed). Instead he seems to exist in a grey area where he's human in that Draco's insult is offensive, but he's an animal so he was just acting on instinct and isn't responsible. Alla: And Draco **laughs** when he talks about his upcoming execution. I cannot express how very disgusting I find it and I also can tell you that it was no surprise to me that Draco graduated from helping the attempts to execute a hypoggrifs to the preparing the execution of the human being in HBP. That was very natural progression for me. Magpie: Yes, it is a progression, but one that's as much about ignorance as cruelty. Every book has some reference to death being not real to Draco, making it easier to say horrible things about it. (Though people who are attacked by animals often do demand it be put to sleep, even if they are usually not people like Draco.) Sherry: I've always thought it was the same with Draco and Buckbeak. Buckbeak probably wouldn't have attacked if the tone was whatever he understood to be respectful. yeah, I realize he's a fictitious animal, so I don't understand how he understands respect and attitude, but I've always assumed that was the case. Buckbeak *knew* that Draco's motives and attitude were insulting, and didn't go on the exact words. Of course, in a world where owls understand language and know where to go with only a name, nothing surprises me. Magpie: Your experience, like mine, is that it's all in the tone. Yet Buckbeak, imo, is reacting the opposite way. Draco is, iirc, petting him as he says this. I always assumed he was, as I said above, speaking in a sort of crooning way. There's definitely no indication that Draco's words suddenly sound threatening. But Buckbeak attacks him because he reacts to the words. Which is why I've always assumed Draco was surprised and possibly feels like he really was attacked by an animal without deserving it. As I said above, it puts Buckbeak in a comfortable grey area for himself, because if he's reacting to the words and therefore as a human than he intentionally hurt a person because he felt insulted. What makes him innocent is that he's supposed to be an animal acting on instinct, more like a horse who kicked someone who walked behind him or a dog reacting to a physical gesture that it read as threatening. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 02:55:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:55:51 -0000 Subject: Buckbeack and Draco WASRe: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables In-Reply-To: <00ec01c76901$ebf0a950$3e92400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166209 > Sherry: > I've always thought it was the same with Draco and Buckbeak. Buckbeak > probably wouldn't have attacked if the tone was whatever he understood to be > respectful. yeah, I realize he's a fictitious animal, so I don't understand > how he understands respect and attitude, but I've always assumed that was > the case. Buckbeak *knew* that Draco's motives and attitude were insulting, > and didn't go on the exact words. Of course, in a world where owls > understand language and know where to go with only a name, nothing surprises > me. > > Magpie: > Your experience, like mine, is that it's all in the tone. Yet Buckbeak, imo, > is reacting the opposite way. Draco is, iirc, petting him as he says this. I > always assumed he was, as I said above, speaking in a sort of crooning way. > There's definitely no indication that Draco's words suddenly sound > threatening. But Buckbeak attacks him because he reacts to the words. Which > is why I've always assumed Draco was surprised and possibly feels like he > really was attacked by an animal without deserving it. Alla: If Buckbeak reacts to tone, meaning reacts as RL animal, it does not have to be limited to **threatening tone** IMO. I thought Sherry was rather descriptive in different varieties of tone her dog reacts to ( and I don't know about your experiences, so I only refer to Sherry's) I think it is a very reasonable interpretation that Draco's tone is perceived as **insulting**, demeaning, I don't know, something like that, even if not as a **threatening** one, so I think it is reasonable if hypoggriff would react to such tone. Magpie: > As I said above, it puts Buckbeak in a comfortable grey area for himself, > because if he's reacting to the words and therefore as a human than he > intentionally hurt a person because he felt insulted. Alla: Um, yes, if he is a sentient being, certainly he hurt Malfoy because he felt insulted , I agree. It still would not translate to me that he should necessarily be punished as you said above. If Buckbeack reacts as human and was provoked by Malfoy, he may have a defense of being provoked IMO. Magpie: What makes him > innocent is that he's supposed to be an animal acting on instinct, more like > a horse who kicked someone who walked behind him or a dog reacting to a > physical gesture that it read as threatening. Alla: As I said, I can see both possibilities and in both of them, I think Buckbeak is completely innocent - whether he reacts to the tone or to the implication of what **big ugly brute** means. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 03:21:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:21:56 -0000 Subject: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166210 Carol earlier: > > > > The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed to be Madam > Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of Magical Law > Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s alone (with no > interference from the then-current Minister for Magic) in the > GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was originally supposed to > take place in Madam Bones's office. > > Goddlefrood: > > We do not actually know this for a fact. Carol: If you mean that we don't know that the hearing was supposed to take place in Madam Bones's office, yes, we do. Mr. Weasley tells Harry, "The hearing's on my floor, in Amelia Bones's office. She's Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and she's the one who'll be questioning you" (123). Tonks follows with the statement that Madam Bones is fair and will hear Harry out. It's Fudge, perhaps under the influence of Dolores Umbridge, who changes the time and venue of the hearing, informing both Harry and Dumbledore at the last minute. That is that the Head > of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement presides over the Wizengamot, which is what we are dealing with. To reinforce this I put before you the fact that Dumbledore was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, and my previous submission on Cornelius Fudge as being Chairman for Harry's proceedings in OotP. Carol responds: I'm not talking about ordinary meetings of the Wizengamot. I'm talking about trials or hearings before the Wizengamot, over which the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement presides. As I noted, it's Madam Bones who asks for a vote (the chairman's job according to Robert's Rules of Order). Look at the GoF hearing/trial scenes. No one except Barty Crouch Sr. is presiding or acting as "interrogator" there. First, Sirius Black tells HRH that "Barty Crouch used to be Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement" (Amelia Bones's exact job title) and that he "gave the order to send me {Sirius black] to Azkaban" (GoF Am. ed. 526). Later he mentions that Barty sentenced his own son to Azkaban (528). Setting aside Crouch's abuse of power, including authorizing Aurors to use Unforgiveables, we see in GoF how the system works, with Crouch acting as what I would call a judge--call it a chairman, if you prefer, but the problem there is that he wasn't the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. Mr. Crouch stands in the middle of the bench and addresses the various defendants: "Igor Karkaroff, you have been brought from Azkaban to present evidence . . ." (587). "Ludo Bagman, you have been brought here before the Council of Magical Law to answer charges. . . ." (592). And again, with the unnamed four accused of Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity,"You have been brought before the Council of Magical Law so that we may pass judgment on you. . . ." (594). In passing, I wonder if the Council of Magical Law is a committee within the Wizengamot that determines the verdict and passes the sentence. Just a suggestion-- a variant on your Tribunal idea. The hearings are for different purposes, but in each of them, Crouch is very much in charge. In what appears to be a closed hearing (no reporters), he asks Karkaroff for names and comments on the names presented. Although DD and Moody talk to each other, no one else participates in the hearing except for DD standing up to defend Snape. Crouch says, "Very well, Karkaroff. I shall review your case" (590). In Ludo Bagman's case, the hearing is public, almost a spectator event, with Rita Skeeter present to report it to her readers. Crouch tells Bagman that the council has heard the evidence against him and is about to reach a verdict. Bagman gets in a word in his defense (he knows he's been a bit of an idiot) before Crouch says that he was caught passing information to Voldemort's supporters and suggests a prison sentence. The crowd protests, and Bagman speaks up again in his own defense. Crouch says, "It will be put to a vote. *The jury* will please raise their hands. Those in favor of imprisonment--" (593). The jury, which does not include Crouch, who seems to be acting as presiding judge, is presumably the previously mentioned Council of Magical Law. It certainly is not the whole audience, which includes at least one reporter and apparently a large number of spectators. Harry identifies the jury as a group on the right-hand side of the dungeon, not one of whom votes to imprison Bagman. (Dumbledore, sitting near to Crouch, doesn't vote, either.) In the case of the Lestranges and Barty Jr., Crouch tells them that "we" (the Council) have heard the evidence against them and goes into some detail about their crime, ignoring the shrieking pleas of his son, then asks "the jury" (presumably the same Council of Magical Law) to raise their hands if they believe as he does that the crime deserves a life sentence in Azkaban" (595). Again, not being a member of the jury, he does not vote, but the "witches and wizards along the right-hand side of the dungeon"--the jury--raise their hands in unison (595). As with the Bagman case, Crouch specifies the sentence and the jury votes for or against it. That, I imagine, is the way that Harry's trial was supposed to work, even with the change of venue and the Wizengamot as jury, except that normally Madam Bones alone would act as "interrogator" and as judge (not proposing a sentence because no verdict had been reached, but asking for a vote to clear all charges or declare the "witness" guilty). For Fudge (and Umbridge) to intervene in a court proceeding, even "a full criminal trial" involving the Wizengamot, is evidently an alteration of the normal protocol. A breach of the Restriction for Underage magic, even with the Statute of Secrecy brought in because it involved a Muggle, should simply have involved a disciplinary hearing in Madam Bones's office. And even with the change to the same dungeon, chained chair and all, where the Pensieve scenes took place, Madam Bones, as Head of the Office of Criminal Law Enforcement, should have been in charge. It's as if the U.S. President had suddenly stepped in to interfere with a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (or the Muggle Prime Minister had done the same in the House of Lords). Goddlefrood: > A small aside: elsewhere in cyberspace it has been pointed out that the Wizengamot is similar to the House of Lords (the highest appeal body in the United Kingdom (distinct from the Privy Council before any one asks. On that basis the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot would be analogous to the Lord Chancellor, a link for those interested: Carol: But the problem is, there appears to be no Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot now that Dumbledore has been demoted, nor did the Chief Warlock play any role in the Pensieve hearings (unless the CW was Dumbledore, who spoke up for Snape but did not conduct the proceedings). The Minister for Magic, if he was present at any of the hearings, played no role at all. Fudge is supposed to head the *executive* branch of government, not the legislative or judicial branches, however confused those two appear to be. (And however flawed our judicial system in the U.S., we do at least have separation of powers.) Goddlefrood: > A Judge does preside, but he is the arbiter of law, the jury is the arbiter of fact. When the jury decides on the facts, based on the law that the Judge would tell them in his summing up of the case, after all witnesses have been heard and Counsels or Attorneys made their submissions, it decides the outcome of the trial. > > Oh, and Judges can, and do, question witnesses if there is any point that is not clear to them. Carol: In that case, I stand by my contention that Crouch is the judge and the Council of Law the jury, and that something similar ought to have occurred with Madam Bones as judge and no "interrogators" from the executive branch interfering with the system of justice, such as it is in the WW. And i am quite sure that, like Crouch in the GoF scenes, she did not vote. The judge does not vote with the jury, at least not in our flawed American system. He asks the jury for their verdict. You may think that my reasoning is flawed, but my canon is not. Fudge is the Minister for Magic, not the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement or the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, and IMO, he had no business acting as "chairman" or judge or "interrogator" in that hearing, not by my standards or even by the usual procedure of the WW itself. Carol, thanking Goddlefrood for clearing up her confusion over the reference to Harry as a witness at his own hearing and hoping that someone else will pick up on the Inquisition inquiries in my previous post to this thread From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 18 03:39:23 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:39:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Buckbeack and Draco WASRe: Hagrid the animal abuser/The uses of beasts in fables References: Message-ID: <011801c7690f$06206240$3e92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166211 > Alla: > > If Buckbeak reacts to tone, meaning reacts as RL animal, it does not > have to be limited to **threatening tone** IMO. I thought Sherry was > rather descriptive in different varieties of tone her dog reacts to > ( and I don't know about your experiences, so I only refer to > Sherry's) > > I think it is a very reasonable interpretation that Draco's tone is > perceived as **insulting**, demeaning, I don't know, something like > that, even if not as a **threatening** one, so I think it is > reasonable if hypoggriff would react to such tone. Magpie: If he's human-like, sure. But not if he's an animal. Animals don't react to "demeaning" or "insulting" in human terms. If Buckbeak can respond to it there's even more reason to make that clear, because now the animal is going to get upset if it considers your tone demeaning. Now he's even less like an animal and more like a sensitive gang-banger with something to prove!:-) > Magpie: >> As I said above, it puts Buckbeak in a comfortable grey area for > himself, >> because if he's reacting to the words and therefore as a human > than he >> intentionally hurt a person because he felt insulted. > > > Alla: > > Um, yes, if he is a sentient being, certainly he hurt Malfoy because > he felt insulted , I agree. It still would not translate to me that > he should necessarily be punished as you said above. If Buckbeack > reacts as human and was provoked by Malfoy, he may have a defense of > being provoked IMO. Magpie: Why wouldn't he be deserving of punishment? He certainly would if he were human. Malfoy said "You're not dangerous at all are you, you big ugly brute?" in a tone he considered condescending, and he attacked him with a blade and made a deep gash in his arm. The "defense" goes far beyond the provocation. In fact, it's not defense. It's anger. The animal defense depends on his not being human so he can't be held responsible for his actions the same way-he can't even understand the human terms. If you have it both ways he's a person until there's consequences, then he's an animal. > Magpie: > What makes him >> innocent is that he's supposed to be an animal acting on instinct, > more like >> a horse who kicked someone who walked behind him or a dog reacting > to a >> physical gesture that it read as threatening. > > Alla: > > As I said, I can see both possibilities and in both of them, I think > Buckbeak is completely innocent - whether he reacts to the tone or > to the implication of what **big ugly brute** means. Magpie: An animal is innocent because it's acting on instinct and animal understanding of behavior. If Buckbeak is acting on an animal instinct, like a horse kicking something that walks behind it or a dog mistaking a gesture for a threat and lashing out or being trained to attack certain things, then he's innocent the same way those animals are. If he's reacting as a human then he's not acting as an animal. He holds humans liable for their subtle motivations, but can't be held liable for his own. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 18 04:57:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:57:16 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166212 > zgirnius: > Snape's position is parallel to Sirius's not because they were both the targets of a spell, > but because they both took on a role which places them in jeopardy. The idea of the > secret SK switch was that everyone would believe Sirius was the SK, and thus it is he, not > Peter, who would be in the most danger. If Snape swore a vow to carry out a task he had > no intention of performing, Snape likewise put himself at risk. Jen: I'm finally getting this portion of the parallel. It's hard for me to agree completely (more below), but thank you for explaining. I initially did see this point and then got confused again when I remembered Sirius didn't actually take the Vow. > zgirnius: > I guess I think about ethics differently than you do. What makes Snape's choice bad > here, it seems to me, is circumstance, which is not something on which I judge the > rightness or wrongness of a previous action. I recognize your opinion may differ on this. > > Snape did not think his Vow would ever lead to his killing Dumbledore because he knew > what he was going to do if the Vow kicked in - nothing. In my opinion, this was a > reasonable assumption to make. Jen: I'm sorry if I implied my opinions are about my or anyone else's personal ethical system. I gave my interpretation of JKR's moral universe as the framework in my first post, then failed to be clear about my intentions in the second one. The Fidelius appears to be 'good' magic, the very name implies loyalty and trust and in its intended form, a person is agreeing to hide within himself the fate of someone he cares about enough to risk his life for. The Secret Keeper makes the choice up front knowing exactly what he/she is being requested to do and agreeing to the risk. I'm guessing if a person decides to be the SK and changes his mind midway through the 'immensely complex' spell, there would be no punishment for stopping the proceedings. The Unbreakable is requested by someone who doesn't care if another person dies, it symbolically ties the hands of those involved and takes away choice and freedom from the one taking the Vow. Given the nature of the Vow ceremony and the name, as well as Ron's description, my guess is the person in Snape's position is unable to change his/her mind once the Vow begins and therefore is at the mercy of the other person re: what he will be asked to do. This is more what I meant by an 'ethical difference'. Snape chose to enter into a Vow that seems questionable to me from the perspective of Potterverse morality and the implications about dark magic, and his choice has consequences for everything that follows. Deciding to lie during the Vow is not a problem to me or something I can't grasp, it's just secondary to what I'm considering the most important factor. > Jen before: I'm uneasy if JKR takes the route of Snape choosing the Vow with the idea > that he wouldn't ever carry out the clauses, and then placing the responsibility for his > choice squarely in Dumbledore's lap (if Snape was ordered to kill him). > zgirnius: > I'm not. I'm not sure why you are based on your post...I'm being dense today, I fear. At > any rate, Snape is free to disregard Dumbledore's wishes. (As, it would seem based on > his 'pleading' tone, Dumbledore is well aware). He is also in a position to understand > and agree with Dumbledore's reasons for the request. Jen: It would be consistent with JKR's choice theme if the UV is important in its own right and not because of the outcome; I think JKR will place a moral weight and significance on the UV as well as the tower. I would prefer that option to the UV as simply the means to get from point A to point B. Plus it's consistent with JKR's typical structure, a decision is made at a pivotal moment early on and everything transpires from there, i.e., Sirius deciding to go after Peter when he sees the picture of Scabbers or Voldemort deciding to go after the prophecy. I see the UV as the driving force behind the events of HBP, or perhaps the UV in connection with Dumbledore's injury via the Horcrux since both were the jumping-off point for major storylines. > zgirnius: > It's his job anyway, so he should not do anything at all shady in its performance? If he > does not do things actively to improve his chances of getting information, presumably > he will get less of it than he otherwise would. The Vow is a lie if he does not intend to > keep it, and I would imagine, not his first. Other than that, it seems to endanger him, > which seems a risk he has the right to take on if he finds the possible rewards worth it. Jen: LOL, no, I'm sure he's done plenty shady, as has half the Order (unauthorized people in the DOM hiding under the Invisibilty Cloak??). I do think JKR made a big production about the UV and I read it as more than shady. > zgirnius: > I don't have a problem with the idea that the Vow was an error. However, I do see a > purpose for a Vow of some sort in the plan. If Snape has been told about Draco's task by > Voldemort, he can't be seen interfering with it to save Dumbledore. The Vow gives him a > cover for his involvement in the guise of helping Draco, and a motive for doing so (the > risk to him if Draco fails). Jen: Nothing Snape said in 'The Unbreakable Vow' would have been different except he wouldn't have mentioned taking the UV and instead would have left it at, 'I swore to your mother I would protect you.' Pippin: > It's right there in the text. Narcissa is at the end of her rope, ready to attack her own > sister, openly defying her master's commands, literally tearing her hair in desperation. > If Snape won't intercede for her and won't give her the only assurance she'll accept that > he'll help her, what will she do? Passively accept her fate? If she was going to do that, > she wouldn't have gone to Snape in the first place. None of the fine, good plan can > come to pass unless Draco shows up at Hogwarts and if Snape refuses Narcissa, who's > to say that he will? Jen: So far Potterverse characters tend to act at pivotal moments because they know specifically what another character is planning to do (even if they are making a wrong assumption) or they have an emotional reason to act. A motivation like Neri proposed with ACID POPS, or even a toned version of that to say Snape acted because he loved Narcissa as a friend, would be a complete motivation in the moment without conjecture about future events. Snape being aware of a specific plan Narcissa intended to carry out if Snape didn't take the UV could work. Snape assuming Narcissa was about to go off the deep end and do something rash or that she had the ability to keep Draco from Hogwarts (which I don't think she did from Draco's actions in HBP), is a very vague scenario in my opinion. I don't think Snape's motivation for the UV is clearly printed on the page yet. Jen R. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 10:16:20 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:16:20 -0000 Subject: A Postscript (Was: Re: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166213 Goddlefrood snipping Carol's latest post on this matter in it's entirety, due to my suspicion that if you are getting this current post, you will have read all previous posts in this thread ;) In respect of the issue raised by Carol on my statement of fact, my point in my previous was simply that we have insufficient data to determine what the function of the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement is in respect of that office's position vis a vis the Wizengamot. I suspect (awful word, but often used) that like a majority of Courts or Tribunals the Chairmanship (or President, or howsoever your preference is to express it) changes. I also apprehend that I point to the fact that at the time of the hearings seen in GoF it is a reasonable extrapolition that the hearings had only recently been reinstituted (remembering what happened to poor Sirius only a year or so earlier). On Umbridge now, I have not analysed her position (s) at Hogwarts. This is largely because she is not a character of whom I am fond. I could, but probably will not. I believe JKR when she says that she will allow us to meet Dolores again, so that she (JKR) can have some torturous fun (paraphrase of her). I look forward to it from a reader's perspective :) The only issue in respect of Dolores that I have not seen explored adequately, and I haven't read all of fandom, so say this advisedly, is that Dolores may in some way have a connection to the Longbottoms, but will say no more just now except for the word "toad". ;) It is a fact, as Carol points out, that the hearing was originally to have taken place in Madam Bones's office. I addressed that point in 166206 - briefly "ought to be" not "is", as I believe I put it and my analysis was only in respect of what *did* happen, not in respect of what *ought to have* happened. Seems I also addressed Carol's point regarding the Chairman's function in my earlier, notwithstanding what Robert's Rules of Order may say. I looked at a site containing a precis of these http://www.robertsrules.org/ and it is, as I knew, relative to Parliamentary Procedures. I wanted to refresh my memory and confirm my suspicion that it was not relevant for the purposes of my previous post.There are, as I am sure you know, three branches of Government in the RW, the judiciary is but one. The said Rukes relate to legislative matters and procedures for their conduct (a Parliament, in the US the Congress and Senate, being the legislative branch). So I chose not to engage further as I was writing from a judicial perspective, hope that satisfies. I am aware that the Congress and Senate in US conduct quasi-judicial proceedings, before I am engaged on that. As I also mentioned in 166206 (or perhaps in one of the earlier), the trials seen in GoF appear dissimilar from Harry's hearing. I leave that point there, while again stating that there is not enough evidence in canon to go on to form an adequate conclusion (for me) and refer to other comments above. The other matters raised in Carol's latest on list post suggest that our views differ and that my explanations were less than opaque. My outline of the mechanics of the hearing are in my four (now) posts on the matter (a busy day for me) on the list, and I can only commend them to you. There is no Council of Law as such, as Carol put it, other than legal reporting services, of which I am aware, so I fail to see where that came from. There was no jury, it was a Wizengamot. I say this because there was no one present with the Judge's function of arbiter of law, IOW no one explained to the Wizengamot's members anything in respect of the relevant law under which the hearing was conducted. Madam Bones was, however, cast in the role of legal adviser to the proceedings, as I mention elsewhere. The word "Decree" in canon also suggests to me that there is no distinct legislature in the WW, unlike in the RW. I say this from deep knowledge of decrees. Also, due to certain matters in canon alluded to by Carol, there is a clear indication that the Wizengamot makes the WW's laws, as well as hearing complaints and charges under those laws and, therefore, is less than independent, as a judicial body should be. Hope that point is clear. It appears that the WW has no independent branches of Government, and at the end of the day, this appears to be why it's legal system, insofar as we have been shown, is in a mess (not a typical legal word ;)). (Thinking of Sirius again and some of the Draconian powers of Barty Crouch as exemplars). Fudge had obviously had matters manipulated for his own purposes but how that happened, whether he or Dolores did the necessary manoeuvering to alter the conduct of the proceedings against Harry, I will not speculate on. That it *was* done is clear, at least to me. Goddlefrood, without malice and now disrobing once more, having forgotten to do so in the course of his previous. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 13:56:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:56:27 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166214 > Jen: > The Unbreakable is requested by someone who doesn't care if another person dies, it > symbolically ties the hands of those involved and takes away choice and freedom from the > one taking the Vow. Given the nature of the Vow ceremony and the name, as well as Ron's > description, my guess is the person in Snape's position is unable to change his/her mind > once the Vow begins and therefore is at the mercy of the other person re: what he will be > asked to do. zgirnius: Oops, sorry, I had forgotten this was your view of the way the Vow works. I am supposing that Ron's reporting of Arthur's account of what a UV does is complete and accurate - in other words, the Vow does not take away the free will of the Vower (since this was not mentioned - if Ron's account was incompletle, this is of course a possibility). But if the Vower fails to carry out the terms of the Vow, he or she dies. Jen: > This is more what I meant by an 'ethical difference'. Snape chose to enter into a Vow that > seems questionable to me from the perspective of Potterverse morality and the > implications about dark magic, and his choice has consequences for everything that > follows. Deciding to lie during the Vow is not a problem to me or something I can't grasp, > it's just secondary to what I'm considering the most important factor. zgirnius: Even in my version of how precisely the Vow works, I see the diference in the books' internal ethical system between the FC and the UV that you are pointing out. And I agree. However, in this case I see this difference as telling us something about the *users* of the two spells. (Especially if Lily was the caster of the FC, with that swishy wand of hers that was good for Charms work. I already get a sense of compare and contrast with her and Cissy.) The caster of the FC believes in the loyalty of a friend, the future Secret Keeper, enough to entrust to him/her the keeping a very important secret. The person requesting a UV obviously does not trust the Vower, she wants to make sure the agreement she extracts is enforced with deadly consequences for a breach. I agree that if the Vow is really just an Imperius Curse with the consent of the victim, Snape's agreeing to take one is more problematic than I give it credit for being. I just don't believe it is, so I don't see his taking one as necessarily reflecting badly on him. As a spy, he associates and passes among people who do this and worse on a regular basis; the Vow seems part and parcel of that to me. < Jen: > It would be consistent with JKR's choice theme if the UV is important in its own right > and not because of the outcome; I think JKR will place a moral weight and significance > on the UV as well as the tower. Zgirnius: You posit that Snape is literally unable to prevent himself from accomplishing the third clause of the Vow. He is not making a choice on the Tower, he is mechanically acting out a choice he made at the start of the year. Your way moves all the weight to `Spinner's End', it seems to me. > Jen: Nothing Snape said in 'The Unbreakable Vow' would have been different except he > wouldn't have mentioned taking the UV and instead would have left it at, 'I swore to your > mother I would protect you.' zgirnius: My argument is that Draco's attitude might have been different. Draco never suspects the possibility that Snape might be interfering with him because he's really working for the Order's side. I think if Bella suspected such a motive, she would have tried to communicate it to Draco along wiuth Occlumency and whatever else she taught him. The Vow proved to her that Snape will further the success of the plan, which left her with the 'steal Draco's glory' explanation of his actions. A point about your view on how the Vow works - Is it your speculation that Snape did not tell Dumbledore everything about the Unbreakable Vow? Because if he did, I am wondering what the meaning of Dumbledore's pleading at the end is to you. He can't be asking either to be killed, or to be spared, if he knows and the Vow works as you speculate. Snape has no free will at that moment, at least not regarding that topic. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 18 15:56:05 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:56:05 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166215 > > Jen: Ihe Unbreakable is requested by someone who doesn't care if another person dies, it symbolically ties the hands of those involved and takes away choice and freedom from the one taking the Vow. Given the nature of the Vow ceremony and the name, as well as Ron's description, my guess is the person in Snape's position is unable to change his/her mind once the Vow begins and therefore is at the mercy of the other person re: what he will be asked to do. Pippin: I'd be wary of assuming the vow has some sort of special dark mojo just because Narcissa and Bella are DE's. In its inflexible nature the vow seems no different than the other magical contracts in canon. The Goblet of Fire and Hermione's scroll also were also binding notwithstanding changes in circumstance, ignorance of the consequences of a breach, or lack of genuine consent. The consequence of breaking the UV is particularly dire, but that's a difference of degree, not kind. The dire consequence explains Arthur's reaction without assuming the Twins were about to perform some horrible dark ritual. Where on earth would they have learned enough to make it work? And if it wouldn't have worked, what reason was there for Arthur to be angrier than Ron had ever seen him? Since the tongue of fire leaps out *after * the vower says, "I will" the vower should be able to refuse before that. Snape's hand twitch shows, IMO, that he considers breaking things off when he guesses what Narcissa is going to ask next. Yes, the vow is a big production, but so is Trelawney's utterance of the prophecy, and yet that turned out not to be important in a symbolic sense, but only as a way to get Voldemort from point A to point B. He's superstitious and so he reads omens as important, but to Dumbledore such predictions are rare and interesting, but not necessarily accurate. I think JKR wants her readers not to be swayed by superstition; just because something looks impressive doesn't mean it's important. > Jen: So far Potterverse characters tend to act at pivotal moments because they know specifically what another character is planning to do (even if they are making a wrong > assumption) or they have an emotional reason to act. > Snape assuming Narcissa was about to go off the deep end and do something rash or that she had the ability to keep Draco from Hogwarts (which I don't think she did from Draco's > actions in HBP), is a very vague scenario in my opinion. I don't think Snape's motivation > for the UV is clearly printed on the page yet. Pippin: It's unclear to us because we're not in a position to know or guess what Narcissa would do if Snape turned her down. But Snape is. He seems to know Narcissa pretty well. He also knows what other DE's did when the Dark Lord's commands became too much for them -- they got themselves killed. Narcissa had already done something rash by going to Snape in the first place. Whenever we've seen her before, she's always seemed in command of herself, but now she's on the verge of emotional and physical collapse. Whatever other options for herself and Draco she might be considering, in so far as she can consider anything in such a state, she wasn't likely to think of any that were better than relying on Snape. Yet she wouldn't have asked for the vow if she thought she could trust him without it. It reminds me of the situation in LOTR where Frodo tricks Gollum into coming to him. Frodo couldn't explain the situation honestly because Gollum would never have trusted that Faramir's men would spare him if he surrendered. He'd have staked his chances on flight, and he'd have been killed. Pippin who wonders if little wizard kids point their fingers at each other and shout "Avada Kedavra!" all the time, with no more consequence than saying, "Bang! You're dead." From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 18 16:58:07 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:58:07 -0000 Subject: DD death and Harry WAS: Re: Dumbledore as a judge of character ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166216 Ceridwen: > Thanks for the quote. I've read it, but totally missed that > implication. However, we've seen Harry thinking things over and > coming to very emotional conclusions. He felt guilty over things he > absolutely had no reason to feel guilt. This is an emotional > response, not a logical one, and the sort of response Harry has at > times. Maybe the enormity of his upcoming task will keep him busy > enough not to think about the events surrounding Dumbledore's death, > but maybe not. > > Emotions can cripple as much as injury can, if they're allowed to run > free in someone's mind. Logically, Harry may very well know he > didn't do anything in the end but follow Dumbledore's orders, as he > should have, being the novice in the situation. The quote you > provided shows that he already knows this. But in the dark nights, > when he's done as much as he could do at that point, the questioning > emotions can come creeping, ready to hamstring him. > Pippin: Yes. Harry's emotional need to blame himself for things which are beyond his control is already crippling him. It is rooted in fear and anger, emotions he will have to overcome if he is to defeat Voldemort with the power of love. I think he will have to do more than realize it wasn't his responsibility to keep Dumbledore from drinking the goo. I think he needs to look at why he needs to feel responsible for it. Why does he want to feel that he was able to see dangers to which the much older and wiser Dumbledore was blind? Speculating... Ever since he first came Hogwarts, Harry has had a sort of superstition that nothing bad could happen to him while Dumbledore was looking out for him. "Harry could have laughed out loud with relief. He was safe. There was simply no way that Snape would dare to try and hurt him if Dumbledore was watching." _PS/SS ch13 But in OOP, that notion became untenable. Dumbledore admitted that he had watched Harry in dark and difficult times. The comforting illusion began to disintegrate, and Harry, IMO, is trying to defend it by positing that Dumbledore never saw as much as he thought he did. Losing the illusion was scary, because like any loss, it provokes anger, and Harry was afraid to be angry at Dumbledore. All through HPB, Harry feared that if he provoked Dumbledore, Dumbledore would leave him behind. The kid's got abandonment issues, you know. And now it has happened. Dumbledore is gone. Harry is extremely vulnerable to the sort of magical thinking Molly displayed in GoF, where she seemed to fear that her anger at the Twins would be punished by their deaths at the hands of the DE's. As long as Harry can manage to blame himself or someone else for Dumbledore's loss, he doesn't have to feel angry at Dumbledore for leaving him, or for being weaker than Harry Imagined him to be. He doesn't have to deal with the thought that his anger somehow made Dumbledore die, which in its turn is an escape from the truth: that death is ultimately beyond anyone's control. Harry needs to learn that anger doesn't make anything happen all by itself. IMO, he needs to learn not to fear his anger. _Pace_ Star Wars, It's not good or bad to be angry, it's just a feeling. Like the fire that Gryffindor symbolizes, it's a useful servant but a poor master. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 18 17:06:23 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Mar 2007 17:06:23 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/18/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1174237583.19.61357.m50@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166217 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday March 18, 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 SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Sun Mar 18 17:07:15 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:07:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C93797034B4C06-15C8-E60F@WEBMAIL-RE06.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166218 1. Do you find the Patil Twins' and Seamus' parents' attitude reasonable or overprotective? Although the school has been penetrated by death eaters there is no mention of extra security measures taken or Aurors posted. Do you suppose there weren't any? Oryomai: I suppose they're being reasonable. Magical parents know what happened last time, and they are going to be even more protective this time around. There probably weren't any extra security measures taken -- I think JKR would've mentioned to us if there were. 2. What do you think of Bill's part-transformation? Do you find it sinister? Oryomai: I think it's fabulously sinister. We've heard about the prejudice against the half-bloods before, but we have never even run into someone like this! Bill does not belong with the werewolves, yet he doesn't belong with the humans either! Add that to the fact that he's marrying a quarter Veela, and we have no idea where this is going... 4. It has been discussed extensively, but still. Is Harry right in thinking that Snape followed the same pattern as Voldemort? Does proclaiming oneself a Half-Blood Prince mean renouncing one's muggle heritage? Oryomai: I don't think that Harry's making sense at this point. If Severus were trying to follow LV's path, he would *totally* forsake his muggle heritage. If you call yourself the Half-Blood Prince, it implies that the other half of your blood is something else. I don't see the name HBP as being as sinister as some of my fellow listees do. I think it's more about Severus' fantasy world, and this is the name that he made up for himself in it. Who of us hasn't been guilty of this? I know I have -- Oryomai isn't my real name! 6. Why does Hermione object to the word "evil"? Incidentally, the words she actually uses can be at best described as understatements ? "nasty sense of humour" indeed! Why is she being so guarded? Oryomai: I think Hermione realizes that the world isn't just black and white. Harry is so quick to judge people as either good or evil without realizing there are many, many shades of gray for people to be. IMO, Hermione also realizes the brilliance behind creating new spells -- we haven't heard about anyone at Hogwarts doing anything like this yet. She is trying to credit the work while at the same time attempting to not just see the world in black and white anymore. Harry's been seeing the world in black and white since he first got to the WW ("There's not a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin"), and it's about damn time he stopped! 7. Here is another thing that has been much discussed but should to be addressed again. The chapter is about a funeral, but what kind of funeral is this? A Christian funeral? A secular one? Something else? The "little man in black robes" may or may not be a minister or a priest ? Rowling's description of him seems deliberately ambivalent. It is as though she wants us to wonder about the status of religion in the Potterverse, and is never going to enlighten us on the subject. Now, why is that? Oryomai: I don't think it was about what religion is was. This was about Dumbledore. Harry and the rest of the WW lost someone very important to them personally and to the fight against evil. At this point, who cares if they're Christian or not? It wasn't about that. 9. Did the funeral go as planned? Some, at least, of the onlookers were genuinely shocked when Dumbledore's body combusted. And another thing, did it ignite all by itself, or did somebody set fire to it? Oryomai: I'd like to think that this was Dumbledore's last trick. If you believe, as I do, that the AK did not kill him, then you believe that DD has had his funeral planned. IMO, DD had this set up himself. I'm sure he didn't tell anyone else what was going on (if anyone, he told Hagrid). 10. This has been discussed a lot, but must be asked again here. What about that white smoke taking the shape of a phoenix? Was it Fawkes? Was it the essence of Dumbledore, for want of a better word? Or something (-one) else? Oryomai: Was it his soul? Alot of civilizations have believed that our souls have some personification...maybe this phoenix was Dumbledore's. 11. In a way the White Tomb is the true "magic brethren" monument. Virtually everyone came to pay their respects to Dumbledore, the entire Ministry, the denizen of Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, the representatives from the WW abroad, the centaurs, the merpeople, even the Castle ghosts. Yet there were few conspicuous absences. Goblins did not come, and no mention has been made about house-elves. Do you think that is significant? Oryomai: I think the goblins did not come because they've decided to side with Voldemort. He's apparently offered them a better deal. The house elves are a trickier subject. They are bound to serve the headmaster of Hogwarts IIRC. Does this mean that they are going to follow McGonagall now? More importantly, does their loyalty depend on the school remaining open? If Hogwarts does not re-open, what will happen to them? 12. From what Scrimgeour let slip, one might conclude that some kind of investigation is going on. Can the captured death eater be of any use in book 7? Oryomai: It depends on who it is. If it's just some low-level Death Eater, then they probably won't know too much about LV and his organization. If it's someone higher up, they will. I have a sneaking suspicion that Harry and Company are going to get this Death Eater. I don't think Harry will just sit around and let the Ministry have whoever it is. 13. Why is Scrimgeour so adamant about Stan Shunpike's fate? Surely his release is a small price to pay for Harry's cooperation? Oryomai: It's about admitting they were wrong. If Scrimgeour lets Stan go, then they have to admit that they were wrong. Governments generally do not like to do that. Maybe the government is using Stan for something else -- maybe he's doing undercover work for them, and they do not want anyone to know about it. Oryomai Who apologizes if the formatting is messed up...AOL hates me and keeps throwing in and taking out spaces. ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 18 17:35:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:35:56 -0000 Subject: Madam Bones, Crouch Sr., and legal proceedings in the WW (Was: A Postscript ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166219 Goddlefrood wrote: > > It is a fact, as Carol points out, that the hearing was > originally to have taken place in Madam Bones's office. I addressed that point in 166206 - briefly "ought to be" not "is", as I believe I put it and my analysis was only in respect of what *did* happen, not in respect of what *ought to have* happened. Carol responds: Yes, it's a fact. And I infer from that fact that Fudge, whose role ought to be purely executive, is interfering in judicial matters. (It seems that the WW already has no separation of powers with regard to the legislative and judicial branches. Fudge, possibly under Umbridge's influence, is making matters worse in OoP.) I keep forgetting to mention that Voldemort must have wanted Madam Bones dead not so much because she was a powerful witch as because she was fair and objective, possibly incorruptible, and held a powerful position. Fudge, in contrast, was easily manipulated, both by Umbridge (whose motives remain unknown but who does not seem to be a Death Eater) and by Lucius Malfoy, who definitely was/is a Death Eater. I remain convinced that, under Umbridge's influence, he took advantage of his position as Madam Bones's superior to share or take over some of her duties. She *ought to have been* in charge of Harry's hearing, with no interference from Fudge or his Assistant Undersecretary, and she did, like Crouch before her, ask the jury (the Wizengamot?) for its vote. In the GoF Pensieve scenes, the jury (and, yes, the term is used twice) is the witches and wizards on the right-hand side of the room. In Harry's hearing, it's less clear who is voting and who isn't. But Fudge, the Minister of Magic, ought not to be voting--or even present at a judicial function like a hearing. Madam Bones, acting as judge/chairman, asks for a show of hands, as Barty Crouch Sr. does in the GoF Pensieve scenes, but neither votes, as far as I can see. (It's exactly like any organization that operates under Robert's Rules of Order. The chairman does not vote.) Pathetic as the legal system is in the WW, they do at least seem to have an established procedure, as shown in the Pensieve scenes--three separate trials or hearings--which Fudge is doing his best to disrupt or interfere with. Goddlefrood: > The other matters raised in Carol's latest on list post suggest that our views differ and that my explanations were less than opaque. Carol: Forgive me, but I think you mean "less than clear." They *were* opaque, which is why I found them difficult to understand. Goddlefrood: There is no Council of Law as such, as Carol put it, other than legal reporting services, of which I am aware, so I fail to see where that came from. Carol responds: Yes, there is. I certainly did not invent the term. It's mentioned twice in the Pensieve scenes that I quoted upthread. To refresh your memory, here are the relevant quotes again (Barty Crouch Sr. is speaking in both instances): "Ludo Bagman, you have been brought here before the *Council of Magical Law* to answer charges. . . ." (GoF Am. ed. 592). And again, with the unnamed four accused of Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity, "You have been brought before the *Council of Magical Law* so that we may pass judgment on you. . . ." (594). Now, exactly what this council is and how it relates to the Wizengamot is not clear, but apparently it's the same group as the jury that Crouch also mentions (and again, you've snipped the relevant quotes). Goddlefrood: > There was no jury, it was a Wizengamot. Carol: There certainly *is* a jury, identified as such, in the GoF Pensieve scenes. To quote again, Crouch says with regard to Bagman, "It will be put to a vote. *The jury* will please raise their hands. Those in favor of imprisonment--" (593). In the case of the Lestranges and Barty Jr., Crouch says, "I now ask *the jury* to raise their hands if they believe as I do that these crimes deserve a life sentence in Azkaban" (595). The jury is specifically identified as "the witches and wizards along the right-hand side of the dungeon" (595). In Harry's case, the jury is harder to identify, but it's clearly the group of people whom Madam Bones asks to vote "in favor of clearing the witness of all charges" or "in favor of conviction" (OoP Am. ed. 130). As in the scenes with Crouch, the vote is by a show of hands (130). Goddlefrood: > The word "Decree" in canon also suggests to me that there is no distinct legislature in the WW, unlike in the RW. Also, due to certain matters in canon alluded to by Carol, there is a clear indication that the Wizengamot makes the WW's laws, as well as hearing complaints and charges under those laws and, therefore, is less than independent, as a judicial body should be. Hope that point is clear. Carol responds: Here, I agree with you. The legislative and judicial functions are oddly jumbled together. However, the executive branch (the Minister and his staff) seems not to interfere in judicial proceedings in GoF. In OoP, the Minister is certainly interfering with established procedure, as indicated by the original location of the hearing (Madam Bones's office) being changed to the dungeon courtroom, chained chair and all, with Harry sitting where Igor Karkaroff and Ludo Bagman sat for their hearings and three interrogators rather than one (the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement (Crouch in the Pensieve scenes, Madam Bones in OoP). BTW, the term "Wizengamot" almost certainly derives from "witenagemot," meaning "meeting of wise men," a council that advised the Anglo-Saxon kings. The witenagamot had only advisory powers; it was not equivalent to a modern parliament or legislature. "Gemot" (changed by JKR to "gamot") means "a public meeting or local judicial assembly in Anglo-Saxon England." "Wizen," like the real word "wizard," derives from "wis" or "wys" meaning "wise," so its etymology closely resembles that of "witenagemot." I'm not sure how the Wizengamot operates in relation to the rest of the government, but it does seem to be primarily a legislative body, as you state. However, the Educational Decrees in OoP are signed by the High Inquisitor herself, with no indication that they have been presented to the Wizengamot or even to the governing board of Hogwarts, which I believe is independent of the Wizengamot. So the Ministry is not only "interfering at Hogwarts," as Hermione states, but extending and abusing its authority. ("Laws can be changed," says Fudge in "The Hearing.") It was also Umbridge who drafted the anti-werewolf legislation (two years before OoP, according to Sirius Black, and therefore not directly connected with Remus Lupin, OoP 302), but whether she was Fudge's undersecretary or a member of the Wizengamot at the time is unclear. Nor is it clear what Dumbledore's duties were as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. As I've noted, he had no role in conducting the hearings in the GoF Pensieve scenes. That was Barty Crouch Sr.'s job, erm, "function." Goddlefrood: > Fudge had obviously had matters manipulated for his own purposes but how that happened, whether he or Dolores did the necessary manoeuvering to alter the conduct of the proceedings against Harry, I will not speculate on. That it *was* done is clear, at least to me. Carol: Yes. That was part of my point. They have altered the procedures, and the time and place of the hearing. Fudge talks about changing laws as well and then sends Umbridge to Hogwarts to indoctrinate the students and spy on the staff. But if you look at Fudge's normal personality, revealed in PoA and HBP, as compared with the deluded and angry petty tyrant in OoP, it strongly *appears* that he has been manipulated by a poisonous toad named Dolores Umbridge. Carol, hoping that the cited canon shows that she did not invent the Council of Magical Law or imagine the juries in the Pensieve scenes > > Goddlefrood, without malice and now disrobing once more, > having forgotten to do so in the course of his previous. > From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 14:55:02 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups]The Umbridge/Longbottom Connection (was: A Postscript ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <352804.93087.qm@web35015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166220 Goddlefrood wrote: The only issue in respect of Dolores that I have not seen explored adequately, and I haven't read all of fandom, so say this advisedly, is that Dolores may in some way have a connection to the Longbottoms, but will say no more just now except for the word "toad". ;) deborah writes: I am intrigued by how you might connect Umbridge with the Longbottoms. Might you be willing to share more of your thoughts with the board? (Please don't make Trevor an animagus...) --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 18:05:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:05:18 -0000 Subject: A Postscript: ...on Trial / Hearing...Conflict of Authority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166221 --- "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > ... > > In respect of the issue raised by Carol on my statement > of fact, my point in my previous was simply that we > have insufficient data to determine what the function > of the Head of the Department of Magical Law > Enforcement is in respect of that office's position > vis a vis the Wizengamot. > > I suspect ... that like a majority of Courts or > Tribunals the Chairmanship ... changes. I also > apprehend that I point to the fact that at the time > of the hearings seen in GoF it is a reasonable > extrapolition that the hearings had only recently been > reinstituted .... > > ... bboyminn: Just a side note of my own. I think what we have in this case is a conflict of authority. I suspect that the Minister is a member of the Wizengamot, but that his positions is mostly symbolic. Rarely would a normal Minister every waste his time on hearings and trials when he has people to do that for him. Is a sense, what we have is the equivalent to the President inserting himself into a case being heard by the Supreme Court. Not a likely or possible occurance but it illustrates my point nicely. Now with the President there, we have to wonder who is in charge. In some respects the President has general authority over the Chief Justice, but in matters of Law, the Chief Justice is in his realm of expertise and it is his court afteral. So, we see Mdm Bones deferring to Fudge on procedural matters. Fudge makes a big show of calling things to order and reciting the charges, etc..., but Mdm Bones is not going to let Fudge run roughshod over her court. When the hearing is underway, she makes sure all the evidence comes out and all the witnesses are fairly heard. She asserts herself in matters of law and evidence, and rightly calls for a judgement before everything gets bogged down in politics. As to the difference between a hearing and a trial; in the USA, a hearing is usually related procedural matters. For example, a pre-trial evidencery hearing is nearly always called, and in which the defending attorney challenges whether the prosecuting attorney indeed has enough VALID evidence to proceed to trial. The Trial is when the evidence is hear, each side makes its case, and the guilt or innocents is determined. However, that does not necessarily carry over to a tribunal. A (military) tribunal does not follow the same procedures nor is it bound to the same requirements as a trial. For example, in a military tribunal, the defendant is not necessarily represented by legal council. True he has some limited right to an advocate, but frequently rather than being someone from the Army's legal office, it is a officer selected at random, and most likely someone with no experience or knowledge in military law or procedure. The 'hearing' is usually presided over and judged by a panel of officers; again, none of who are necessarily trained in military law. Now the above analogies don't quite work out relative to the wizards court. The President could never insert himself into the Supreme Court, and military trials are only similar to wizard trials. But I think it nicely illustrates that Fudge and Bones were having a conflict of authority. Bones had to defer to Fudge because he was her boss, but she was only going to let that deferment go just so far. She was not going to let having her boss there get in the way of getting at the truth and evaluating the evidence with an open mind which afteral is her job. Just a few thoughts, for what they are worth. Steve/bboyminn From mueckelein at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 15:07:32 2007 From: mueckelein at yahoo.com (Ingrun Wauben) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <402361.95381.qm@web62203.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166222 houyhnhnm: > I have a lot of trouble remebering all of Harry's > dreams and even making sense of them when I read > them. Yet I know they must be important. I had > a vested interest in tracking this one down, though, > because if it ocurred in GoF, that spoiled my > hypothesis that it was Harry's blood in Voldemort > that changed the nature of the connection between > them. > > Now I have to find the dream in which Slughorn changes > into Snape. I don't even remember reading it, but I > ran across a reference to it today. Ingrun: I cannot remember that either but in the first night Harry spends at Hogwarts (Ps/SS) Harry dreams that Quirrel's turban is speaking to him, it changes into Malfoy, then into Snape and in the end into the cold high voice implicating Voldemort. Harry does not remember the dream the next day but I am sure it will be of importance. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Mar 18 18:55:42 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid the animal abuser In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FD8B2E.6040805@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166223 horridporrid03 wrote: >>>>Bart: >>I grew up a city kid, and I learned how to handle a horse when I >>was 7 years old. First thing I learned: Never walk behind a horse >>within kicking range. > > Betsy Hp: > Me too. I'm curious as to how you were taught that particular > lesson? For me, a group of us kids (about 6 or so) were taken inside > a stable, our teacher stood with the horse and told us all the finer > points, and then, one by one, we were encouraged to pet and brush the > horse. Over time we were left more and more unsupervised, in that > we'd each care for the horse we rode, but there were always at least > two responsible adults around. Oh, and the horses used were calm > friendly sorts that were used to children. Bart: I was taught pretty much the same way you were. As I and others have pointed out, Hagrid's experience was mostly on VERY small groups (probably no more than 4 at a time). As the Hogwarts Gamekeeper, he probably assisted other magical creatures teachers; I would not be surprised if he had helped train a few, as well. But I suspect that everybody who he had worked with in the past was motivated: either they were really interested in learning, or they were under detention, and didn't want to make things any worse. As has been pointed out, he probably doesn't even think that it's possible that one or more of his students are NOT eager to learn. We are not the only ones who have complained about the basic teaching skills of the Hogwarts professors; note Snape's complaints when he took over Lupin's classes in POA (not the fact that he was complaining; the substance of the complaints, such as no written lesson plans). Bart From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 18 19:38:36 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:38:36 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: <402361.95381.qm@web62203.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166224 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ingrun Wauben wrote: houyhnhnm (Message #165723): > Now I have to find the dream in which Slughorn changes > into Snape. I don't even remember reading it, but I > ran across a reference to it today. Ingrun (Message #166222): > I cannot remember that either but in the first night Harry > spends at Hogwarts (Ps/SS) Harry dreams that Quirrel's turban > is speaking to him, it changes into Malfoy, then into Snape > and in the end into the cold high voice implicating Voldemort. > Harry does not remember the dream the next day but I am sure > it will be of importance. > "K": Here are the two dreams, which I also believe will be of importance. Half-Blood Prince Chapter 21 The Unknown Room The only sounds were the crackling of the fire and Ron scratching out one last paragraph on dementors using Hermione's quill. Harry had just closed the Half-Blood Prince's book yawning, when --- Harry's mind worked feverishly and his dreams, when he finally fell asleep, were broken and disturbed by images of Malfoy, who turned into Slughorn, who turned into Snape... pgs 450-456 us ---------- Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 7 The Sorting Hat 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. He rolled over and fell asleep again, and when he woke next day, he didn't remember the dream at all. pg 130 From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Mar 18 19:32:37 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:32:37 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > Zgirnius: > You posit that Snape is literally unable to prevent himself from > accomplishing the third clause of the Vow. He is not making a choice > on the Tower, he is mechanically acting out a choice he made at the > start of the year. Your way moves all the weight to `Spinner's End', > it seems to me. Dana: I agree completely with Jen. To me indeed he is not making a choice on the tower but I will not go as far as saying he made the decision in the beginning of the year but he made the choice the moment Flitwick entered his office and I tell you why. (which is of course absolutely influenced by a decision he made in the beginning of the year) To me his actions before he reaches the tower makes this clear to me; 1) He takes out Flitwick, instead of giving him orders to alert the MoM, 2) he never talks to anyone or does anything in his run to the tower. 3) he does not ask for any assistance while he does not know what to expect when he gets there. 4) He takes only one minute to explore the scene and take DD out; he never stalls to really think hard if it indeed is his only option. 5) On his way out he does not make sure all threats are eliminated for instance by taking out the big blond. I know Carol has debated the fact that no one could follow him on the tower, due to the spell but I disagree because he never asked anyone to follow him and then finding out they couldn't. I am pretty sure Snape would have known how to break the spell and it would have taken him only a second to do so but he never tries to take someone with him because he had already decided what he was going to do if it would come to it. Maybe he hoped that Draco already succeeded when Flitwick tells him the Dark Mark is shining above the tower but I am still pretty sure he made his choice before he got on the tower not on the tower itself. Why? Because if you are going to take out a friend you want to be very sure that it is indeed the only option you have and you try to stall and win yourself some time but he does not. He swoops the scene and takes DD out, that's it. He also does not eliminate the biggest treat on the battlefield not on his way in and not on his way out; the big blond DE and we see Harry has to duck to not get hit by an AK thrown by the guy. He could have died then and there but Snape doesn't seem to care not only to keep Harry safe but neither to keep any of his supposed allies safe. As DDM what would he care that the guy ends up in Azkaban, he even lets the guy attack Hagrid and set fire to his cabin without intervening. He only says no when someone turns on Harry but apparently all other people DD cared about or even someone that always stood up for Snape is not his concern. Snape being so excellent in non-verbal spells, as he mocks Harry, is not able in his passing by to take out this guy without anyone noticing? The main problem is that you base your assessment of what happened in Spinner's End on the idea that Snape was ready to die himself but that DD prevented him from doing so. Well self-sacrifice in the Potterverse is indeed seen as a highly noble thing but the problem is you cannot sacrifice self by ordering someone else to take your life. If DD would feel this is indeed necessary, then he went against his own moral code and Snape would still be at fault for that because him taking the vow would call for such measures. Personally I do not believe that DD asked/ ordered this of Snape and Snape made his own decision to choose his own life over DD. I also found it very interesting re-reading the shrieking shack incident that Lupin is able to disarm both Harry and Hermione (who was holding two wands) with one spell. Pg 252 UK ed. paperback: "Expelliarmus!" Lupin shouted. Harry's wand flew once more out of his hand; so did the two Hermione was holding. Lupin caught them all deftly, then moved into the room, staring at Black, who still had Crookshanks lying Protectively across his chest. End quote from canon. Sure this needs an element of surprise but wasn't that precisely what Snape had. You might argue Greyback was not holding a wand, which makes the amount of enemy wands equal to Lupin's situation. Snape had no problem taking out Lupin with a flick of his wand and making sure he could not do anything so I do not see Greyback being a larger challenge and with the others disarmed, they could not have done much about it. So here goes the defense Snape could not possibly take on 4 DEs and control the scene, give DD time to re-arm himself and make sure Draco and Harry were safe. It is no longer valid to make the assumption Snape's only option was to take DD out. > zgirnius: > My argument is that Draco's attitude might have been different. Draco > never suspects the possibility that Snape might be interfering with > him because he's really working for the Order's side. I think if > Bella suspected such a motive, she would have tried to communicate it > to Draco along wiuth Occlumency and whatever else she taught him. The > Vow proved to her that Snape will further the success of the plan, > which left her with the 'steal Draco's glory' explanation of his > actions. Dana: Bella does suspect such a move and therefore she takes every precaution to make it impossible for Snape to control Draco, someone Draco trusted for years, who thought himself his favorite student. You could even argue that Bella made sure it would be Snape who finished the job as it was discussed in length that Draco would not be able to do it anyway. Makes you wonder how much LV knows about the vow doesn't it. Would be indeed very handy information to assure Snape's loyalties. It was of course Bella who requested the vow in the first place and who called Snape a coward for always hiding behind his orders. Besides Bella's explanation to Draco was enough, one has to wonder what made Draco lose his trust in Snape over such a simple excuse as Bella presents to him and if Bella was convinced by the vow then why mess with Draco in the first place. I am still pretty sure DD expected that LV would order Snape to finish the job as Snape expected himself; therefore I still believe that DD ordered Snape out of LV's grip, not further in, but Snape could not get out due to the vow because he already knew that if push came to shove LV's side would be the only one left. You know Jen's plan made me think of something. What if LV blamed Snape for the DoM fiasco or more importantly that he blames Snape for his comeback being known to the WW before he had all the cards in hand? Many will argue that LV could not have known Snape was the one sending the Order but there is one problem. Snape claims to have contributed to Sirius' death which means he so much as declares it was HIM who sent the Order. If he told LV the same thing then he pretty much spun his own web. > zgirnius: > A point about your view on how the Vow works - > Is it your speculation that Snape did not tell Dumbledore everything > about the Unbreakable Vow? > Because if he did, I am wondering what the meaning of Dumbledore's > pleading at the end is to you. He can't be asking either to be > killed, or to be spared, if he knows and the Vow works as you > speculate. Snape has no free will at that moment, at least not > regarding that topic. Dana: Personally I believe he did not tell DD about the vow but I do believe DD knew more than he let on but he left Snape with his own choice as he has been doing with everyone the entire series, but I believe he was pleading with Snape to make the right choice and that was not killing him. This is another reason I could never believe that DD would order Snape to take his life. Snape had free will, before taking the vow and on the tower but he made his choice. If he had a death wish he could have defied LV the moment the plan to use Draco to kill DD was known, it would have been as quick and as sure as the UV and he because he knew of the plan he could still help Draco. Dana (who really likes Jen's possible plan but thinks DD out smarted LV by removing Trelawney from the castle himself as he might have realized she was to be the target, the moment Harry tells him about his encounter with her and that a murder attempt on his life might be the distraction LV needed with or without Draco succeeding). From muellem at bc.edu Sun Mar 18 20:23:05 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:23:05 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166226 "Dana" wrote: > > So here goes the defense Snape could not possibly take on 4 DEs and > control the scene, give DD time to re-arm himself and make sure Draco > and Harry were safe. It is no longer valid to make the assumption > Snape's only option was to take DD out. colebiancardi here: The UV - the Unbreakable Vow. The UV will kick in and kill Snape - he will not have time to take out anyone, as Draco failed in his attempt to kill DD. >From HBP, UK edition hardback, page 41 "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 deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" >From same book, page 305 "Well, you can't break an Unbreakable Vow...." "I'd worked that much out for myself, funnily enough. What happens if you break it then?" "You die," said Ron simply. Snape would die if he did not carry out the deed that Draco was supposed to do. Draco had the moment to kill DD and failed. Snape had to do it for him or Snape would die. colebiancardi(who thinks Snape is a very powerful wizard who got trapped - it happens to the best of us - and he would have never been able to kill any of the DE's if he broke the vow, as he would have been dead.) From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 18 20:45:02 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:45:02 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: <402361.95381.qm@web62203.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166227 Ingrun: > I cannot remember that either but in the first night > Harry spends at Hogwarts (Ps/SS) Harry dreams that > Quirrel's turban is speaking to him, it changes into > Malfoy, then into Snape and in the end into the cold > high voice implicating Voldemort. Harry does not remember > the dream the next day but I am sure it will be of importance. houyhnhnm: zanooda was kind enough to e-mail me off list with the page number for Harry's dream in which Malfoy turns into Slughorn who turns into Snape (p. 456, Am. ed.). I was especially interested in that one because of my belief that many people in HBP will be revealed to have been someone else, including, possibly, the person Harry chased across the lawn in "Flight of the Prince". Except for the ones which are clearly due to the Voldemort connection, I tend to take the dreams at face value when I read them, seeing them only as descriptions of Harry's mental turmoil that parallel the description of his visceral reactions (to which we are treated in clinical detail throughout the books). It is only when someone else points it out, that I look for symbolism related to the plot. The dream you cited, for instance, I saw as Harry's unconscious recognition of the fact that the WW wasn't going to be the fairy tale happily-ever-after place his waking consciousness believed it to be. It took place on his first night in the wonderful magical castle, but already there were indications that at least two people were going to be inimical to him. Looking back at it, though, there is no psychological reason for p-p-poor, st-stuttering P-Professor Quirrell's turban to be involved. That part is pure premonition. The hp-lexicon has a discussion of Harry's dreams. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/dreams.html Reading it today, I found another I didn't pay too much attention to when I first read it, but which in retrospect appears to contain an obscure pointer to something that happens later in the book. On the night Harry was sprung from Dudley's second best bedroom by the Weasley brothers, Harry dreamed that he was on show in a zoo with a sign saying UNDERAGE WIZARD on it attached to his cage. He lay on a bed of straw being stared at by people and also by Dobby, who refused to help him, responding instead that "Harry Potter is safe!" Then the Dursleys were staring at him and rattling the bars of his cage. When he woke up, Ron was outside his window, shaking the bars to get his attention. Reading it today, I was struck by the similarity of Harry in the dream cage to the snake in the zoo in PS. It turns out, in CoS, that Harry is like the snake in the zoo because he is a Parselmouth. The one that really intrigues me is Harry's dream at the end of HBP, in which Dumbledore offered him a rope ladder that turned into snakes the moment he began to climb. Could it be that however DD manages to communicate with Harry from beyong the veil in DH, whether through portraits, letters, or Pensieve memories, for surely he will, DD will be telling him to turn to the Slytherins for help in defeating Voldemort? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 21:04:59 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:04:59 -0000 Subject: Snape on the Tower (was:Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166228 > >>Dana: > I agree completely with Jen. To me indeed he is not making a choice > on the tower but I will not go as far as saying he made the decision > in the beginning of the year but he made the choice the moment > Flitwick entered his office and I tell you why. (which is of course > absolutely influenced by a decision he made in the beginning of the > year) > > To me his actions before he reaches the tower makes this clear to > me; > 1) He takes out Flitwick, instead of giving him orders to alert the > MoM, Betsy Hp: I do think Snape is choosing to behave as Dumbledore's Man here, yes. He's elects to continue his role as spy and keep any innocents (Flitwick, Hermione, Luna) out of it. > >>Dana: > 2) he never talks to anyone or does anything in his run to the > tower. Betsy Hp: A combination of time constraints and the fact that there's no one to talk too. I don't know who else is in on Snape's job as spy *except* for Dumbledore and Snape. But if there were someone, the last thing Snape should do at this time is point them out to all and sundry by stopping to chat about contingency plans > >>Dana: > 3) he does not ask for any assistance while he does not know what to > expect when he gets there. Betsy Hp: Why wouldn't Snape know? I'm sure Flitwick said "Death Eater's in the castle!" What else is there to find out? And Snape's double role is his strength at this point. > >>Dana: > 4) He takes only one minute to explore the scene and take DD out; he > never stalls to really think hard if it indeed is his only option. Betsy Hp: Well, that's because Snape is so very, very intelligent. He's able to figure out what to do (with a prompt from Dumbledore) in a short period of time. > >>Dana: > 5) On his way out he does not make sure all threats are eliminated > for instance by taking out the big blond. Betsy Hp: Snape eliminates the threats by telling the Death Eaters that it's over and they need to go. Which also helps him keep his cover. (See? Clever. ) > >>Dana: > > He swoops the scene and takes DD out, that's it. Betsy Hp: Except that's not true. Snape arrives; he takes in the scene; he's spoken to by a Death Eater and then by Dumbledore; he pushes Draco out of the way; he looks at Dumbledore for a moment; Dumbledore speaks again; Snape throws his curse. And *then* that's it. Well, you know, there's some exit stuff. > >>Dana: > > Snape being so excellent in non-verbal spells, as he mocks Harry, is > not able in his passing by to take out this guy without anyone > noticing? Betsy Hp: Considering Snape is leading all the fleeing Death Eaters? I think the chances are fairly slim. > >>Dana: > > Personally I believe he did not tell DD about the vow but I do > believe DD knew more than he let on but he left Snape with his own > choice as he has been doing with everyone the entire series, but I > believe he was pleading with Snape to make the right choice and that > was not killing him. > Betsy Hp: So why is Dumbledore not surprised or hurt or whatever? Why don't we get any sort of reaction to suggest that Dumbledore has just been betrayed? Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 18 21:11:10 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:11:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) References: Message-ID: <007101c769a1$f485a980$7686400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166229 > Dana: > I agree completely with Jen. To me indeed he is not making a choice > on the tower but I will not go as far as saying he made the decision > in the beginning of the year but he made the choice the moment > Flitwick entered his office and I tell you why. (which is of course > absolutely influenced by a decision he made in the beginning of the > year) > > To me his actions before he reaches the tower makes this clear to me; > > 1) He takes out Flitwick, instead of giving him orders to alert the > MoM, > 2) he never talks to anyone or does anything in his run to the tower. > 3) he does not ask for any assistance while he does not know what to > expect when he gets there. > 4) He takes only one minute to explore the scene and take DD out; he > never stalls to really think hard if it indeed is his only option. > 5) On his way out he does not make sure all threats are eliminated > for instance by taking out the big blond. Magpie: His actions definitely do seem to be something he plans from the first moment--but that doesn't mean he can't be DDM. I would think DDM/Spy!Snape would act exactly this way. The Order is just there protecting the castle from intruders. Snape would know far more what was really going down and know to get to Dumbledore and Draco. Dana: > I know Carol has debated the fact that no one could follow him on the > tower, due to the spell but I disagree because he never asked anyone > to follow him and then finding out they couldn't. I am pretty sure > Snape would have known how to break the spell and it would have taken > him only a second to do so but he never tries to take someone with > him because he had already decided what he was going to do if it > would come to it. Magpie: Again, I agree that Snape is not asking anyone to follow him--though I don't know whether he could necessarily break the spell or not, at least not quickly. But even not knowing what the DDM!Snape plan might be, it seems like it would probably involve him behaving the same way. We know that he is not reacting to the situation by rushing in to take out as many DEs as possible, declare himself DDM and alert the police (the Order is already there), but his not doing that doesn't make it impossible that he's DDM. The main thing for me is that I don't think that any of us yet have the information to talk about why Snape did or didn't do everything he did. Both DDM and ESE Snape are doing things that go against the straight-line of pro-LV or pro-DD. Dana: > He also does not eliminate the biggest treat on the battlefield not > on his way in and not on his way out; the big blond DE and we see > Harry has to duck to not get hit by an AK thrown by the guy. He could > have died then and there but Snape doesn't seem to care not only to > keep Harry safe but neither to keep any of his supposed allies safe. > As DDM what would he care that the guy ends up in Azkaban, he even > lets the guy attack Hagrid and set fire to his cabin without > intervening. He only says no when someone turns on Harry but > apparently all other people DD cared about or even someone that > always stood up for Snape is not his concern. Magpie: If Snape is acting the part of a DE here, which he is whether or not he's truly a DE, this is asking quite a lot of him for him. I doubt no matter what Snape's loyalties are that he considers it a priority to keep every single person who liked Dumbledore from being harmed at all. It seems again like the problems I had with some of the complaints about Snape's sending the Order to the MoM, that yeah, he's not doing what a real DE should be doing, and he is at points acting against that, but since he isn't making himself the big hero of the hour concerned with the smallest hurt Harry or his friends might have, he's suspicious. Dana: > > Snape being so excellent in non-verbal spells, as he mocks Harry, is > not able in his passing by to take out this guy without anyone > noticing? Magpie: Which guy? At many points in the scene I do think it would be very hard for Snape to take somebody out without somebody noticing--though some think it was Snape who threw the Petrificus that stunned Greyback when Harry was attacked (this is when everything is confusing, which would maybe give him cover). I'm not saying there's proof that Snape *is* DDM, but if he's in his mode as DE, I would not expect him to take too many risks like that. Dana: > The main problem is that you base your assessment of what happened in > Spinner's End on the idea that Snape was ready to die himself but > that DD prevented him from doing so. > > Well self-sacrifice in the Potterverse is indeed seen as a highly > noble thing but the problem is you cannot sacrifice self by ordering > someone else to take your life. If DD would feel this is indeed > necessary, then he went against his own moral code and Snape would > still be at fault for that because him taking the vow would call for > such measures. Magpie: I don't see how it would go against Dumbledore's own moral code to tell Snape that *if* it came down to a situation like the one he faced he should kill Dumbledore. Why can't you sacrifice yourself by asking somebody else to take your life? I'm not saying that's what Dumbledore can be proved to have done, but it doesn't seem like it's against the rules. (And when I say "a situation like the one he faced" I'm not basing that on the assumption that Snape had to take out DD because it was impossible to take out the four DEs etc., though I don't think he could have. I think it would have to go beyond that with connections to a more overall plan against LV.) Dana: > Bella does suspect such a move and therefore she takes every > precaution to make it impossible for Snape to control Draco, someone > Draco trusted for years, who thought himself his favorite student. > You could even argue that Bella made sure it would be Snape who > finished the job as it was discussed in length that Draco would not > be able to do it anyway. Makes you wonder how much LV knows about the > vow doesn't it. Would be indeed very handy information to assure > Snape's loyalties. It was of course Bella who requested the vow in > the first place Magpie: Was it? I don't have the book in front of me, but I thought it was Narcissa who actually brought up the Unbreakable Vow, with Bellatrix just saying that in general he won't take action. But I could be wrong. Dana: and who called Snape a coward for always hiding > behind his orders. Besides Bella's explanation to Draco was enough, > one has to wonder what made Draco lose his trust in Snape over such a > simple excuse as Bella presents to him and if Bella was convinced by > the vow then why mess with Draco in the first place. Magpie: Draco hasn't "lost his trust" in Snape, exactly. He thinks that Snape is trying to steal his glory. There's a slight difference. The lack of trust is, imo, defined by the world they are both supposedly in--DEs can't ever completely trust each other when it comes to currying favor with the Dark Lord. The story that Bellatrix has given him is simple, but that's why it's so believable. It *is* exactly what DE!Snape would be doing. Draco's response to Snape in HBP is perfectly logical given his internal and external situation, and Snape is unable to do really defend himself at all.because he's supposed to be exactly who Draco thinks he is. The breakdown between Snape and Draco does involve suspicion and the destruction of trust, but I think it still fits into their generally caring relationship. Draco is rebelling and challenging Snape as the person he's always looked up to (Draco's age alone is part of his changing attitude towards Snape), but when he's hurt in the bathroom or is frozen on the Tower, he instinctively allows himself to be put into Snape's arms. I would also suggest that Draco doesn't have to be completely driven by the thought that Snape is trying to steal is glory--that accusation may be the one he chooses to stand for everything underneath. Basically, the story of Draco in HBP is not primarily about Draco being anti-Snape and thinking Snape is a bad guy. Dana: > I am still pretty sure DD expected that LV would order Snape to > finish the job as Snape expected himself; therefore I still believe > that DD ordered Snape out of LV's grip, not further in, but Snape > could not get out due to the vow because he already knew that if push > came to shove LV's side would be the only one left. Magpie: Dumbledore needs to do some explaining here, then, because why did he send Snape to spy in the first place, then? Killing Dumbledore was always the most obvious job for Snape given where he was. Why send him back in GoF in a dramatic scene to a year later hold it against Snape that he's not getting himself out of it? And why does he suddenly want him out of it when things are heating up? Isn't that counter-intuitive? You don't pull your spy out when the enemy starts targetting you. Dana: > You know Jen's plan made me think of something. What if LV blamed > Snape for the DoM fiasco or more importantly that he blames Snape for > his comeback being known to the WW before he had all the cards in > hand? Many will argue that LV could not have known Snape was the one > sending the Order but there is one problem. Snape claims to have > contributed to Sirius' death which means he so much as declares it was > HIM who sent the Order. If he told LV the same thing then he pretty > much spun his own web. Magpie: We don't know what Snape said to LV, but Snape claiming credit for Sirius' death doesn't necessarily mean he's admitting to sending the Order--in fact, he specifically *doesn't* admit to that when telling his story. Many assume Snape's taking credit for giving Voldemort background about Harry and Sirius' relationship. > Dana: > Personally I believe he did not tell DD about the vow Magpie: We do know that Dumbledore knows of some possibility of a Vow, because Harry tells him--we just don't know if Dumbledore thinks it's real, and if so, if he knows all the things Snape has Vowed to do. Dana: but I do > believe DD knew more than he let on but he left Snape with his own > choice as he has been doing with everyone the entire series, but I > believe he was pleading with Snape to make the right choice and that > was not killing him. Magpie: But why is he pleading? If Dumbledore *knows* that Snape is ESE he's behaved very strangely--more strangely than Snape--throughout the book by telling everybody he trusted him completely, not taking Harry's concerns seriously, and calling for Snape at the last minute, not to mention relying on Snape to heal everyone who gets hurt, including himself. How does he go from trusting Snape completely to pleading with Snape as if his mere presence makes him feel endangered with no change, no realization, no betryal? If he wasn't sure, he's got no reason to plead when he does. He starts pleading the second Snape appears. Dana: This is another reason I could never believe > that DD would order Snape to take his life. Snape had free will, > before taking the vow and on the tower but he made his choice. If he > had a death wish he could have defied LV the moment the plan to use > Draco to kill DD was known, it would have been as quick and as sure > as the UV and he because he knew of the plan he could still help > Draco. Magpie: He could have defied LV on the Tower, sure. But if that mean defying Dumbledore as well, he might not have done it. Taking the UV, I agree, remains a complete mystery, but one that I don't think is answered by him being ESE either. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 21:30:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:30:49 -0000 Subject: The Eagle Owl/Re: Harry's dreams in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166230 "K" wrote: > > Here are the two dreams, which I also believe will be of importance. > > Harry's mind worked feverishly and his dreams, when he finally fell asleep, were broken and disturbed by images of Malfoy, who turned into Slughorn, who turned into Snape... HBP 450-456 us > > ---------- > > 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. > > He rolled over and fell asleep again, and when he woke next day, he didn't remember the dream at all. > pg 130 > Carol responds: I think these dreams are simply indicative of Harry's state of mind at the time of the dreams. In SS/PS, he's concerned that the Sorting Hat considered putting him in Slytherin, he's just felt his scar hurt for the first time and associates it with Snape's look (a red herring, of course), and he associates Slytherin and therefore both Snape and Draco Malfoy, with Dark wizards and Voldemort ("There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't from Slytherin," as Hagrid says, quoted from memory). In HBP, he's worried about getting the memory (associated with Voldemort) from Slughorn and thinks that Draco (whom he rightly suspects of being up to something dangerous) is plotting with Snape (who is actually, as we know, trying to find out what Draco is up to and to protect and watch over him). I can't see either of these dreams having further importance since the mysteries involved (not, however, the Great Snape Mystery in general) have been solved. Moreover, the first dream is immediately forgotten, and Harry knows much more now regarding the green light. Slytherin, Snape, Draco, and Voldemort are still tied together in Harry's mind (not sure about Slughorn), but I can't see the dreams themselves playing a part again. Harry has similar dreams relating to other people who are on his mind. for example, in OoP, right before the vision of the snake biting Mr. Weasley, Harry is dreaming of Cho and Dobby and the DA room, with Umbridge and Cedric mixed in and Christmas baubles mixed in. Cho turns into Hermione, who suggests that Harry give Cho his Firebolt, which he can't do because Umbridge has it (462). IOW, his subconscious mind is mixing everything he's thinking about together. Snape has given way to Umbridge as Harry's bete noire for this book, and consequently doesn't appear. Or that's how I read it. There may be more to the non-Voldemort dreams (readers have attributed alchemical symbolism to the crowns that Ron and Hermione wear in the dream Harry has at 12 GP after they've been made prefects), but with all the loose ends to tie up relating to Snape and Horcruxes and Godric's Hollow and everything else, I can't see squeezing the dreams into the plot. Carol, whose dreams resemble Harry's in being a distortion of everyday life mixed with memories (and bits and pieces of HBP) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 22:15:40 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:15:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups]The Umbridge/Longbottom Connection (was: A Postscript ) In-Reply-To: <352804.93087.qm@web35015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <352804.93087.qm@web35015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0703181515k372cbd65nf14dcf26b32e19c8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166231 Goddlefrood: The only issue in respect of Dolores that I have not seen explored adequately, and I haven't read all of fandom, so say this advisedly, is that Dolores may in some way have a connection to the Longbottoms, but will say no more just now except for the word "toad". Lynda: Well...I keep thinking that the possible connection of Umbridge's toadlike appearance is that she really is a hag! Wouldn't that be something she'd like to keep quiet and would explain part of her antipathy toward part humans if she was hiding something herself. Similar to the halfbloods who are trying to convince people they're purebloods. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 18 22:20:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:20:21 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166232 I was thinking that it would have taken a brave bureaucrat to pardon Bucky. If there had ever been another attack, that official would be held accountable. I suppose Draco denied that he'd ever insulted the thing. Hagrid couldn't have heard him do it or he'd have put a stop to it. Harry's evidence, if he'd been called to give it, wouldn't have done much good. Everyone knows he's got it in for Draco. Then I remembered that Buckbeak did attack again. He went at Snape, chasing him out of Hogwarts in HBP. Now, since we all know Bucky is not a mad hippogriff and Snape hadn't been insulting him, what made Buckbeak attack? Any ideas? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 22:34:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:34:47 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > I was thinking that it would have taken a brave > bureaucrat to pardon Bucky. If there had ever been another attack, > that official would be held accountable. I suppose Draco > denied that he'd ever insulted the thing. Hagrid couldn't > have heard him do it or he'd have put a stop to it. Harry's evidence, > if he'd been called to give it, wouldn't have done much good. > Everyone knows he's got it in for Draco. > > Then I remembered that Buckbeak did attack again. > He went at Snape, chasing him out of Hogwarts in HBP. Now, since > we all know Bucky is not a mad hippogriff and Snape hadn't been > insulting him, what made Buckbeak attack? Any ideas? Alla: You asked. :) Buckbeack has a sixth sense that allows him to recognise bad people, sort of like Crookcshanks does. That is why he attacked Snape. That and the fact that he thought Harry was in danger. Too bad Buckbeack did not manage to catch him. That's my idea anyways. JMO, Alla. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Mar 18 22:53:29 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:53:29 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166234 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > You asked. :) Buckbeack has a sixth sense that allows him to recognise > bad people, sort of like Crookcshanks does. That is why he attacked > Snape. That and the fact that he thought Harry was in danger. > > Too bad Buckbeack did not manage to catch him. > > That's my idea anyways. > colebiancardi(taking the other side now ;) ) well, my take on it is that Buckbeak was trying to defend Harry, who was under attack from someone else - he chased Snape because Snape was the closest one to Harry. However, Crookshanks has never behaved in an ill-manner towards Snape - we never see it and Crookshanks does live at Hogwarts & roams freely around the grounds. JMO colebiancardi From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 18 23:13:50 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:13:50 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: <007101c769a1$f485a980$7686400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166235 Dana: > > It was of course Bella who requested the vow in the first place Magpie: > Was it? I don't have the book in front of me, but I thought it was Narcissa who actually brought up the Unbreakable Vow, with Bellatrix just saying that in general he won't take action. But I could be wrong. Ceridwen: Narcissa asks for the Vow. On page 35 of HBP, chapter two, Spinner's End, U.S. hardcover: "If you are there to protect him . . . Severus, will you swear it? Will you make the Unbreakable Vow?" "The Unbreakable Vow?" Snape's expression was blank, unreadable. Bellatrix, however, let out a cackle of triumphant laughter. "Aren't you listening, Narcissa? Oh, he'll *try*, I'm sure . . . The usual empty words, the usual slithering out of action . . . oh, on the Dark Lord's orders, of course!" Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 23:17:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:17:50 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166236 > > Zgirnius: > > You posit that Snape is literally unable to prevent himself from > > accomplishing the third clause of the Vow. He is not making a > choice > > on the Tower, he is mechanically acting out a choice he made at the > > start of the year. > Dana: > I agree completely with Jen. To me indeed he is not making a choice > on the tower but I will not go as far as saying he made the decision > in the beginning of the year but he made the choice the moment > Flitwick entered his office and I tell you why. (which is of course > absolutely influenced by a decision he made in the beginning of the > year) > > To me his actions before he reaches the tower makes this clear to me; zgirnius: To clarify, is it your position that Snape on the Tower had no more choice that Rosmerta, a victim of the Imperius Curse? (That is what Jen is proposing about how the Vow works). Are you suggesting that he was equally powerless to prevent the five actions you list him as taking? If so, I'll just stop here and say that I disagree. It is my opinion that Ron told us the correct information. The Vowee has a choice to break the Vow, he or she simply dies if that is their choice. I have not given much thought to what I think about Snape under Jen's hypotheses, because while I grant she may be right, I don't believe it myself. > Dana: > I am still pretty sure DD expected that LV would order Snape to > finish the job as Snape expected himself; therefore I still believe > that DD ordered Snape out of LV's grip, not further in, but Snape > could not get out due to the vow because he already knew that if push > came to shove LV's side would be the only one left. zgirnius: Surely that would depend on Snape's choice? Dumbledore s not an easy man to kill. Dana: > You know Jen's plan made me think of something. What if LV blamed > Snape for the DoM fiasco or more importantly that he blames Snape for > his comeback being known to the WW before he had all the cards in > hand? Many will argue that LV could not have known Snape was the one > sending the Order but there is one problem. Snape claims to have > contributed to Sirius' death which means he so much as declares it was > HIM who sent the Order. If he told LV the same thing then he pretty > much spun his own web. zgirnius: This is actually what I believe (though not because Snape said anything to LV, simply because he was the only Order member present at Hogwarts at the time). I think Snape's position is not 'most trusted advisor' (Cissy has ample motive to flatter Snape) but 'highly suspect person' at the start of HBP. Hence the need for a dramatic gesture of loyalty to shore up his standing, if he is to remain a spy at all. Of course, this is one of the things I would point to indicating Snape was still loyal in OotP - that he did expose himself to this suspicion by Voldemort when he thought Harry was in danger. > Dana: > Personally I believe he did not tell DD about the vow but I do > believe DD knew more than he let on but he left Snape with his own > choice as he has been doing with everyone the entire series, but I > believe he was pleading with Snape to make the right choice and that > was not killing him. zgirnius: My point in asking this question is that your interpretation is ionconsistent with the knowledge/deduction that Snape has taken a Vow, if Jen is right about the Vow. Snape *has no choice* about killing Dumbledore of Jen is right. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 18 23:28:31 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:28:31 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166237 Pippin: > Then I remembered that Buckbeak did attack again. He went at Snape, chasing him out of Hogwarts in HBP. Now, since we all know Bucky is not a mad hippogriff and Snape hadn't been insulting him, what made Buckbeak attack? Any ideas? Ceridwen: Since I have the book out, page 604, chapter Flight of the Prince, HBP, U.S. hardcover: "And he (Snape) slashed the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backward into the ground. Spots of light burst in front of his eyes and for a moment all the breath seemed to have gone from his body, then he heard a rush of wings above him and something enormous obscured the stars. Buckbeak had flown at Snape, who staggered backward as teh razor- sharp claws slashed at him. As Harry raised himself into a sitting position, his head still swimming from its last contact with the ground, he saw Snape running as hard as he could, the enormous beast flapping behind him and screeching as Harry had never heard him screech -" Ceridwen: Buckbeak attacks Snape when Snape attacks and downs Harry. Since Harry is Buckbeak's friend, I think that downing Harry is insulting to Buckbeak. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 18 23:36:06 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:36:06 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166238 Jen: > The Unbreakable is requested by someone who doesn't care if another person dies, it > symbolically ties the hands of those involved and takes away choice and freedom from > the one taking the Vow. > zgirnius: > Oops, sorry, I had forgotten this was your view of the way the Vow works. I am > supposing that Ron's reporting of Arthur's account of what a UV does is complete and > accurate - in other words, the Vow does not take away the free will of the Vower (since > this was not mentioned - if Ron's account was incompletle, this is of course a > possibility). But if the Vower fails to carry out the terms of the Vow, he or she dies. Jen: Ack, no, I didn't mean it that way! I was rolling up a couple of different aspects into 'free will', but not trying to say the UV somehow magically affects a person. One part is that you can't change your mind and back out, you carry it out or die. Another point is that Narcissa's clauses were vague and open to intepretation, so how is it determined if Snape is protecting Draco 'to the best of his ability'? I don't think Snape's opinion about his performance would be the deciding factor, it would be the Vow itself somehow. That's similar to the diary 'thinking for itself' in that the Vow has some type of sentient ability. The vowee (?) has no control over the terms or outcome. There's likely a way to undo the Fidelius because you would want a normal life back if the danger passed. It follows that if a Secret Keeper suddenly decided, 'you know what, I love this person but I can't take the risk anymore,' then the secret could be removed. And there's nothing subjective to the magic, you either give the information to someone or you don't. > zgirnius: > However, in this case I see this difference as telling us something about the *users* of > the two spells. (Especially if Lily was the caster of the FC, with that swishy wand of hers > that was good for Charms work. I already get a sense of compare and contrast with her > and Cissy.) The caster of the FC believes in the loyalty of a friend, the future Secret > Keeper, enough to entrust to him/her the keeping a very important secret. The person > requesting a UV obviously does not trust the Vower, she wants to make sure the > agreement she extracts is enforced with deadly consequences for a breach. Jen: I would like to see a comparable scene with the Fidelius. About the users, yes, there is a difference and that may be the important information. > zgirnius: > My argument is that Draco's attitude might have been different. Draco never suspects > the possibility that Snape might be interfering with him because he's really working for > the Order's side. I think if Bella suspected such a motive, she would have tried to > communicate it to Draco along wiuth Occlumency and whatever else she taught him. > The Vow proved to her that Snape will further the success of the plan, which left her > with the 'steal Draco's glory' explanation of his actions. Jen: Ah, okay, I get your point here. I don't think of Bella as having much influence over the DE's at the moment because she's out of favor with the Dark Lord. She does appear to have influence over Draco however, so perhaps she would turn him away from Snape in a different way than Draco is already turning away, something other than the 'stealing the glory' thoughts. Sorry to snip out the rest, zgirnius, but since I don't think the Vow as compelling Snape to do anything, I couldn't really answer any of the questions! Jen R., who has some more thoughts on the subject but sees the thread is taking a new direction so she'll have to catch up. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 23:41:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:41:03 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Croockshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166239 > colebiancardi(taking the other side now ;) ) > > well, my take on it is that Buckbeak was trying to defend Harry, who > was under attack from someone else - he chased Snape because Snape was > the closest one to Harry. > > However, Crookshanks has never behaved in an ill-manner towards Snape > - we never see it and Crookshanks does live at Hogwarts & roams freely > around the grounds. > Alla: Oh, of course Buckbeak attacks because Harry is his friend as well ( nods to Ceridwen as well :)). I just believe that he also recognised that his friend was attacked by bad person, hehe. Interesting about Croockshanks never behaving in ill manner towards Snape, actually. I am not sure if that was ever mentioned that Croockshanks came to be in close proximity with Snape, or did he? I mean, Croockshanks would only react if bad person is close by, did he not? From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Mar 18 23:55:37 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:55:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Croockshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166240 Alla: Interesting about Croockshanks never behaving in ill manner towards Snape, actually. I am not sure if that was ever mentioned that Croockshanks came to be in close proximity with Snape, or did he? I mean, Croockshanks would only react if bad person is close by, did he not? Sherry now: I don't remember one occasion when Snape and Crookshanks are in the same room together. However, I don't think it is that Crookshanks knows a bad person when he sees him. Wasn't it that he knew Scabbers was a wizard? That's different than knowing that wizard was a bad one I think. Sherry, who agrees with Alla that Buckbeak attacked Snape to protect Harry From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Mar 19 00:04:58 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:04:58 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166241 Pippin: >> Then I remembered that Buckbeak did attack again. >> He went at Snape, chasing him out of Hogwarts in >> HBP. Now, since we all know Bucky is not a mad >> hippogriff and Snape hadn't been insulting him, >> what made Buckbeak attack? Any ideas? Alla: > You asked. :) Buckbeack has a sixth sense that > allows him to recognise bad people, sort of like > Crookcshanks does. houyhnhnm: It's interesting that in the Shrieking Shack, Crookshanks, who was ready to defend Sirius from Harry with his life, remains purring on the bed while Snape is threatening Sirius with summary justice. I can think of two possible reasons for Buckbeak's attack on Snape. 1. If Buckbeak is intelligent enough to recognize an insult even when delivered with friendly body language, then he is intelligent enough to know that Harry saved his life. He has a life debt to Harry. He attacked when Snape switched from defensive spells to an agressive curse. 2. He is responding to the attack on Hagrid and Hagrid's cottage. But by the time Buckbeak got free from wherever he was tethered, Snape was the only one left. Draco and the DEs had already passed through the gates. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 00:10:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:10:19 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Croockshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166242 > Alla: > Interesting about Croockshanks never behaving in ill manner towards Snape, > actually. I am not sure if that was ever mentioned that Croockshanks came to > be in close proximity with Snape, or did he? > > I mean, Croockshanks would only react if bad person is close by, did he not? > > > Sherry now: > I don't remember one occasion when Snape and Crookshanks are in the same > room together. > > However, I don't think it is that Crookshanks knows a bad person when he > sees him. Wasn't it that he knew Scabbers was a wizard? That's different > than knowing that wizard was a bad one I think. > > Sherry, who agrees with Alla that Buckbeak attacked Snape to protect Harry > Alla: Hee, I believe these quotes implies that it is both - that Crookshanks certainly recognised Scabbers as wizard, but also recognised his true nature. It is said in "Fantastic beasts" that Kneazle "has an uncanny ability to detect unsavoury or suspicious characters and can be relied upon to guide its owner safely home if they are lost" - p.24 "This cat isn't mad," said Black hoarsely. He reached out a bony hand and stroked Crookshanks's fluffu head. "He's the most intelligent of his kind I've ever met. He recognised Peter for what he was right away. And when he met me he knew I was no dog. It was a while before he trusted me.... Finally, I managed to communicate to him what I was after and he's been helping me" - PoA. P.364. You know, I do wonder something else now. Why exactly Crookshanks decided to help Sirius? Did he hate Scabbers that much? Did he like Sirius that much? What I am wondering is why deciding to get involved? Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 00:18:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:18:11 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks WAS: Re: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166243 > houyhnhnm: > > It's interesting that in the Shrieking Shack, > Crookshanks, who was ready to defend Sirius from Harry > with his life, remains purring on the bed while Snape > is threatening Sirius with summary justice. > > Alla: Well, yeah. Snape is not going to kill Sirius right away, after all. He would much rather deliver him to dementors to be killed by them. Harry is more immediate danger initially, IMO. BUT that is certainly Crookshanks being in close proximity to Snape. I do wish though to see Crookshanks in close proximity to Snape in HBP ( if he did not decide to betray DD in PoA yet). From muellem at bc.edu Mon Mar 19 00:44:01 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:44:01 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks WAS: Re: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166244 > > houyhnhnm: > > > > It's interesting that in the Shrieking Shack, > > Crookshanks, who was ready to defend Sirius from Harry > > with his life, remains purring on the bed while Snape > > is threatening Sirius with summary justice. > > > > > > Alla: > > Well, yeah. Snape is not going to kill Sirius right away, after all. > He would much rather deliver him to dementors to be killed by them. > Harry is more immediate danger initially, IMO. > > BUT that is certainly Crookshanks being in close proximity to Snape. I > do wish though to see Crookshanks in close proximity to Snape in HBP ( > if he did not decide to betray DD in PoA yet). > colebiancardi: well, one could say that Harry was not in immediate danger from Snape in HBP, either. Snape stated that Harry was for the Dark Lord, so Snape wasn't going to kill Harry. Personally, I think Crookshanks is just *smarter* than Buckbeak - hey I love Bucky, but Crookshanks is called very smart by Sirius. I don't know if Buckbeak has ever been called that, but I could be wrong. but thanks to houyhnhnm for finding the reference - I knew there was a scene with Snape & Crookshanks and I couldn't remember which book it was in. I just remember that Crookshanks doesn't hiss or spit at Snape. colebiancardi From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Mar 19 01:16:01 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:16:01 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks WAS: Re: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166245 Alla: >> Well, yeah. Snape is not going to kill Sirius right >> away, after all. He would much rather deliver him >> to dementors to be killed by them. Harry is more >> immediate danger initially, IMO. colebiancardi: > well, one could say that Harry was not in immediate > danger from Snape in HBP, either. Snape stated that > Harry was for the Dark Lord, so Snape wasn't going > to kill Harry. Personally, I think Crookshanks is > just *smarter* than Buckbeak - hey I love Bucky, but > Crookshanks is called very smart by Sirius. houyhnhnm: ****************** With a roar of rage, Black started toward Snape, but Snape pointed his wand straight between Black's eyes. "Give me a reason," he whispered. "Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will." (PoA, Am. Ed. p. 359) ****************** Appearances would suggest that Sirius was in a lot more immediate danger from Snape than Harry was. Crookshanks *is* a very smart cat. ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 01:29:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:29:05 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166246 Alla wrote: > > Oh, of course Buckbeak attacks because Harry is his friend as well (nods to Ceridwen as well :)). > > I just believe that he also recognised that his friend was attacked by bad person, hehe. > > Interesting about Croockshanks never behaving in ill manner towards Snape, actually. I am not sure if that was ever mentioned that Croockshanks came to be in close proximity with Snape, or did he? > > I mean, Croockshanks would only react if bad person is close by, did he not? > Carol responds: First, with regard to Crookshanks, he is in close proximity to Snape at least twice in the books, once in the Shrieking Shack in PoA and once in OoP. Crookshanks's hair stands on end for *Wormtail* (PoA M. ed. 366) and he sinks his claws into *Harry's* arm to prevent him from attacking Sirius Black (341), also sitting on Black's chest to protect him from Harry (342-44), but not once does he react to Snape (357-61). He merely sits on the bed next to Ron (361). However, when Wormtail appears, Crookshanks starts "spitting and snarling on the bed; the hair on his back was standing up" (366). There can be no doubt that Wormtail qualifies as "an unsavoury and untrustworthy character" in Crookshanks' view. In the scene where Black and Snape confront each other over the Occlumency lessons, Crookshanks has just knocked over some chess pieces when Mrs. Weasley announces that Professor Snape is in the kitchen to talk to Harry (OoP Am. ed. 519). A few minutes later, while Snape is still present, Hermione and the Weasleys enter the room (521). It's not clear whether Crookshanks is with them, but his reaction is not mentioned, and he's definitely in the house. I wonder, BTW, whether *Kreacher's* references to "traitors and werewolves and thieves" might be more relevant as a basis for judging snape since he would certainly consider Snape as a traitor to the Dark Lord, in contrast to his adored Bellatrix. To return to Buckbeak: Although I agree with you that Buckbeak attacked Snape because Harry is Buckbeak's friend, it's odd that he didn't attack earlier when the DE was Crucioing Harry. That was a definite case of an evil person close by--and a friend being hurt--but no sign of Buckbeak at that point. As for Buckbeak's recognizing that his friend was attacked by a bad person, there's no indication either in canon or FB that Hippogriffs possess any such ability. They seem only concerned, from what we read, about perceived insults to themselves. To switch for a moment to another person you consider bad who is attacked by Buckbeak, let's look at what happened to Draco in PoA (again). According to FB, "Bowing shows good intentions." Draco, who ended up bleeding from Buckbeak's claws (in contrast to Snape, who, AFAWK, is only chased to the gates), did bow to Buckbeak, presumably showing good intentions (or at least following Hagrid's directions on that point) and Buckbeak bowed to him, recognizing those (apparent) good intentions--at which point Draco brilliantly decided that Buckbeak wasn't dangerous and it was safe to insult him. FB also says, "If the Hippogriff returns the greeting, it is safe to draw closer" (21)--which is not quite the case with Draco, but presumably most people who know enough to bow to a Hippogriff also know not to insult them. (Draco, I think we agree, wasn't listening.) From there, FB talks about the mating habits of Hippogriffs and how long it takes the egg to hatch, etc.--not a word about being able to "detect unsavoury or suspicious characters" as Kneazles can (24). Not much help on the reasons why Hippogriffs attack, which leaves us with Hagrid's statements that they're "proud" and "easily offended" (PoA 114), which explains the attack on Draco but not the one on Snape. It's clear, however, that Buckbeak didn't instantly perceive Draco as "bad" or instinctively reject his attentions. Snape has, of course, been in the same house not only with Crookshanks, as I mentioned earlier, but with Buckbeak (who admittedly was kept upstairs in his room--surely, he would have been happier with Hagrid, but misery loves company). We have no indication of Buckbeak's reaction to snape's presence at 12 GP; probably he neither knew nor cared that Snape was there. Aside from Crookshanks, who shows no signs of the behavior he shows with Wormtail--growling, hair standing on end, etc.--when Snape is nearby, the only other magical indicator of Snape's trustiworthiness that I can recall is Fake!Moody's Foe Glass, which shows him, like McGonagall and DD, as an enemy of Fake!Moody. The real Moody's Sneakoscopes, unfortunately, were all disabled and don't help us one way or another with regard to Snape. Nor do the instruments in DD's office appear to include Dark detectors or they'd have gone off when Fake!Moody was in the office. To return to the topic at hand, my feeling is that Buckbeak is just acting on instinct, attacking someone he thinks is hurting Harry (and he is, but the stinging hex or whatever it is, is short-lived and nowhere near the intensity of a Crucio) without knowing who the person is. Also, I think that the attack is possibly the last vestige of the DADA curse, forcing Snape off the Hogwarts grounds. It also provides almost comic gratification for the anti-Snape faction to see him losing his dignity in such a fashion (exit pursued by a Hippogriff). However, IMO, the whole incident is misleading, presenting Snape as a villain getting his comeuppance (like Umbridge with the Centaurs). It ignores Snape's real predicament as fugitive and outlaw, as well as the mental anguish we glimpse earlier in the scene, which appears to be a great deal worse than being pursued (but not injured) by a Hippogriff. To me it seems almost as if Buckbeak's fury, like the striking clock in the PoA Time-Turning segment, is a signal to Snape to hurry up and leave. He has ordered the Death Eaters out; now he's being forced out himself. His career at Hogwarts has ended. He can do no more as Harry's teacher, only disarm him (with a bit of pain in retaliation for the charge of cowardice) and run. It's time to return to Voldemort, to whatever he has to do. Carol, who thinks that, however we judge Snape, we should do so based on his own actions, not Buckbeak's From catlady at wicca.net Mon Mar 19 02:18:44 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 02:18:44 -0000 Subject: vetting MoM/Hagrid/Trelawney/9-3/4 /Killing/Tienanmen/Hypocrisy/Hiding/Legal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166247 I dunno what's gotten into me this weekend, but it seems almost all my comments are nit-picks. I hope I don't sound like a know-it-all or a scold and no one thinks I'm criticizing them. Pippin wrote in : << IMO, the curse does not tamper with fate. I agree with Catlady that it simply forces its victim to divulge whatever secrets make him unworthy of his office. That would make it the perfect tool of revenge for Voldemort, denied the position because he was unworthy. But it wouldn't work on, say, the Minister of Magic, or the Headmaster, because candidates for those offices are (one presumes) vetted far more thoroughly, and the skeletons in their closet are found out in the selection process. >> The idea that all Headmasters of Hogwarts and all Ministers of Magic were adequately vetted seem quite optimistic to me. In our Muggle Real Life, there are constant scandals about people in high position having done something that one would expect to have been turned up in the vetting process -- the recent death of Thomas Eagleton (I hadn't realised he was from Missouri) inspired media attention to his short tenure as George McGovern's running mate in 1972, which came to an abrupt end because journalists immediately discovered and reported that he had received professional treatment for depression. Something which McGovern's politicos should have learned and told him BEFORE the selection. Some old Dems took that as more evidence of the incompetence of McGovern's campaign leaders, who had shut out all the loyal long-time party hacks who had supported other candidates in the primaries. But it keeps happening to more competent politicos as well. And not just politicos -- Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen kept passing security checks. And I'd expect lack of adequate vetting to be even more prevalent in the wizarding world, which seems to have quite a lack of investigative journalism, reducing the motivation to learn things BEFORE the newspapers do, and also seems to have quite a lack of public political campaigns -- it seems that the Minister of Magic is selected by a small group of insiders (behaps the Wizengamot) and of course the Headmaster of Hogwarts is selected by a small group, the Board of Governors. As the members of the small group know personally all the candidates, they are much less likely to be swayed by the fruits of "opposition research". Was Armando Dippet 'worthy' to be Headmaster of Hogwarts? We know that he was easily fooled and he seemed indecisive, but he may have been excellent at attracting skilled teachers and keeping them from quarrelling with each other. Was Cornelius Fudge "worthy" to be Minister of Magic? It appears he was dim-witted and arrogant and put far too much value on so-called purity of blood. Maybe he was chosen because maybe he had previously insisted on trials, in contradiction to Bartemius Crouch, and in risk to his political career while Crouch was ascendent, or maybe he was chosen because his patron Lucius Malfoy greased the electors. Irishshedevil wrote in : << I was just wondering, what do you guys think will happen to Hagrid in the last book? >> The stages of the alchemical transformation that produces the Philosopher's Stone were called nigredo (blackening), albedo (whitening), and rubedo (reddening). According to John Granger's alchemical theory of HP, OoP was the nigredo book (in which Harry, like the ingredients, was confined in a pressure cooker and tortured by being cooked dry) and Sirius BLACK died in that book; then HBP was the albedo book (IIRC the material is mixed with water and distilled) and ALBUS Dumbledore died; so 7 will be the rubedo book and RUBEUS Hagrid will die. I would prefer him to marry Madame Olympe and move to Beauxbatons and care for her Abraxan horses. There's no reason he needs to stay at Hogwarts now that DD is dead. That would also please the people who want someone else to be COMC professor at Hogwarts. Draeconin wrote in : << The only reason I can see for Dumbledore hiring [Trelawney] was to keep track of her in case she had another prophecy after the first. Was that good enough reason to inflict her on students who might have actually learned something under another teacher? >> It is possible that some students, for example Lavender and Parvati, did learn fortune-telling from Trelawney. I find her personal style (being 'pretentious' and a 'fake') very annoying, but other than that, she sounded more like a teacher than many of the other Hogwarts professors do. "Now, I want you all to divide into pairs. Collect a teacup from the shelf, come to me, and I will fill it. Then sit down and drink, drink until only the dregs remain. Swill these around the cup three times with the left hand, then turn the cup upside down on its saucer, wait for the last of the tea to drain away, then give your cup to your partner to read. You will interpret the patterns using pages five and six of Unfogging the Future. I shall move among you, helping and instructing." JLyon wrote in : << a rather loud-mouthed mother complain about muggles and ask her children what the gate number is for the train. This is what -- her 34th time coming to or arriving at gate 9 and 3/4? This is ingrained in her almost at the level of instinct. >> But isn't asking questions to which one already knows the answer the normal way of making conversation with children (in this case, Ginny)? Dana wrote in : << as we have never heard of one person, in the entire series, that died at the hand of an Order member (traitors excluded). >> In GoF, in the Pensieve scene, Karkaroff named Evan Rosier as a Death Eater. ""Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were, too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly, and was killed in the struggle." "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's right. Harry looked around once more, and saw him indicating the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore." Moody was an Order member as well an Auror in the first war against Voldemort, and that bit of dialog strongly suggests that he killed Rosier. Kemper wrote in : << In a first world Wizarding government, it is easier and more cost effective to discredit or ignore a powerful, famous and dissident Wizard voice than it is to martyr the Wizard. The Chinese MoM could run Harry over with a broom in Tienanmen Square, but that sorta thing wouldn't happen in Britain. >> You are assuming a high degree of similarity between the wizarding and Muggle society in any given geographic area. Of course, there is some similarity due to Muggle-borns, half-bloods, and mixed marriages, but there is no innate reason for wizarding countries to have the same governmental system or even the same geographic borders of the Muggle countries of the same name -- there is absolutely no logical reason why North American wizards should be the only wizards in the world who play Quodpot instead of Quidditch except that JKR thought it was a cute parody. Lupinlore wrote in : << So, what would happen if, as some might have wished, Harry had been called on the carpet in front of DD about his behavior in potions. Would not a logical - if controversial - response have been, "Oh, lieing is only acceptable at the Wizengamot? Oh, I get it, it was RIGHT but HARD to lie to the Wizengamot? Ahh, looked real hard to me. Not that I'm ungrateful, mind you, but give me a break!" >> I guess this is all an example of Dumbledore's (and presumably JKR's) belief in the usefulness of certain 'Slytherinish' actions by 'chivalrous' Gryffindors. Ceridwen wrote in : << The Potters had only been in hiding with the Secret Keeper in place for a week when they were attacked and killed. If they were ready to go into hiding at the time of Harry's christening according to JKR, the Creatrix of this universe, then how were they hiding before Peter Pettigrew became their Secret Keeper? Or did they wait a while before having Harry christened? >> I believe the Potters tried a number of methods of hiding before resorting to Fidelius. Perhaps their first attempt was pretty feeble, just renting a Muggle flat under the names of James and Lily Potter and pretending to be Muggles (with forged money and documents). Maybe they quickly learned, either from DD's spy network or by being attacked by DEs, that they had been found. Then they might have tried again to pretend to be Muggles, this time changing their names and faces and using other magic. (In one of her Q and As, JKR said that the reason that the Ministry couldn't find Sirius in GoF by sending him an owl and following it was that there was an Unplottable Spell on Sirius. If true, the Potters could do the same.) When they again were quickly found, perhaps they tried a forest cave (but with more food than the one Sirius used). I figure, every time they hid, they told Sirius and Remus and Peter and DD and Hagrid how to visit them and bring supplies, and also kept sneaking out themselves in disguise or under Invisibility Cloak to do work for the Order. Since one of those trusted people was LV's spy, LV would quickly learn how to find them in the new hiding place. But it would take them a while to admit that there was a spy, claiming that instead the DEs had been able to find them because they went out on missions. Goddlefrood explained the legal system in and mentioned: << This is merely a little levity on my part :), but allow me to congratulate you for using an expression of which I was previously unaware, that being "called on the carpet". The meaning itself is not in issue, it is perfectly clear, but the phrase is puzzling. For anyone interested here is a link I found to enlightenment: >> Thank you for the interesting post AND the etymological link. I love etymology websites. Carol wrote in : << wondering whether Hagrid "flew" to the hut on the island in SS/PS on a Thestral, which flew back to the Forbidden Forest after dropping him off >> Could be, but I've been wondering since before we met the Threstrals, since JKR said that clever readers could figure out where the flying motorcycle is now, whether Hagrid rode the flying motorcycle to that islet and left it there at least until DH. Carol wrote in : << wondering whether Umbridge even bothered to inspect Binns since she'd have a hard time firing a ghost >> If Umbridge was 'magical enough' to be a student at Hogwarts, she probably had Binns as a teacher and remembers that his students were in no danger of learning anything from him. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 19 02:19:38 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 02:19:38 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166248 Alla wrote: > > Oh, of course Buckbeak attacks because Harry is his friend as > > well (nods to Ceridwen as well :)). > > > > I just believe that he also recognised that his friend was > > attacked by bad person, hehe. Carol responds: > Although I agree with you that Buckbeak attacked Snape because Harry > is Buckbeak's friend, it's odd that he didn't attack earlier when > the DE was Crucioing Harry. That was a definite case of an evil > person close by--and a friend being hurt--but no sign of Buckbeak at > that point. ...my feeling is that Buckbeak is just acting on > instinct, attacking someone he thinks is hurting Harry (and he is, > but the stinging hex or whatever it is, is short-lived and nowhere > near the intensity of a Crucio) without knowing who the person is. > Carol, who thinks that, however we judge Snape, we should do so based > on his own actions, not Buckbeak's SSSusan: It's interesting to me, for a number of reasons, that my instinctual reaction to Buckbeak's attack on Snape (as opposed to the DE who had earlier thrown a Crucio Harry's way) was that Buckbeak must have considered Snape *more dangerous* to Harry. I say that that's interesting to me because, not only do I have nothing to back it up by way of "proof" (as you've said, there's nothing in FB which tells us that hippogriffs have the ability kneazles have to detect unsavoury characters), but also because I believe Snape to be DDM! That is, I believe he is on the side of defeating Voldy and therefore it purposely trying to get Harry out of harm's way in this scene, trying to teach him even, when he could be killing him or hustling him off to Voldemort. So, while in actuality I believe Snape to be less dangerous to Harry than the DEs who'd been on the grounds, somehow my impression was that Beaky attacked Snape because *he* believed Snape was more dangerous. This makes little sense when one thinks about the earlier Crucio, though, so I'm wondering if houyhnhnm's 2nd possibility might be the right one: > 2. He is responding to the attack on Hagrid and Hagrid's cottage. > But by the time Buckbeak got free from wherever he was tethered, > Snape was the only one left. Draco and the DEs had already passed > through the gates. SSSusan: Perhaps that's all there is to it? Beaky had just then gotten free and was, thus, only then *able* to go help Harry. Perhaps he would have attacked the DE who crucioed earlier, if he'd been able to, and it only SEEMS to have been about Snape because... well... we have a tendency to make everything about Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 02:28:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 02:28:56 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166249 > Carol responds: > > First, with regard to Crookshanks, he is in close proximity to Snape > at least twice in the books, once in the Shrieking Shack in PoA and > once in OoP. Alla: Yes, Shrieking Shack was mentioned and discussed upthread. No, I do not buy that in OOP Crookshanks was near by Snape. To me closeby means in the same room for the purpose of Crookshanks radar working. Criteria may differ of course and may be incorrect one. I do not think that Crookshanks can read Snape's mind and not sure if he was even aware of Snape's presence, while he is in another room. IMO of course. > Carol, who thinks that, however we judge Snape, we should do so based > on his own actions, not Buckbeak's > Alla: I think that animal reactions are valid canon analysis ever since JKR introduced Crookshanks into canon From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Mar 19 05:57:06 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:57:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166250 In a message dated 3/16/07 11:07:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: > , it's different with Hagrid. He has no > teaching experience, not even a complete education Sandy, who apologizes for so liberally snipping Carol's post: This, to me, was *the* most ridiculous thing in the entire series. How can someone who has not completed their own education become a teacher? I am surprised that, Rowling being a former teacher herself, took this tack. Just because you know of or about something doesn't mean you are qualified to teach it. I had my own real life experience with this. I took Spanish my first two years in high school, over four decades ago. However, my teacher was *not* a teacher. She was a Cuban refugee, having come to the U.S. after Castro took power, and was an architect by trade. She and her husband had a very prestigous architect business in Cuba. She, of course, spoke Spanish, but she was not qualified to teach it and had no teaching credentials, and she often sat in the classroom crying over the situation in Cuba and the loss of her business and wealthy lifestyle. I *really* wanted to learn how to speak Spanish, and think how helpful it would be now, but I came away from two years in a Spanish class knowing only how to count to 10 and wish you a Merry Christmas in Spanish, but I could tell you a lot about pre-Castro Cuba. To bring this back on topic, the Hogwarts students suffered the same fate with Hagrid as their COMC teacher. They didn't learn what they needed to and should have, their teacher was morose, and their textbook was more dangerous than some of the actual creatures. Wonder if Hagrid got them in Knockturn Alley? I can't think he got them at Flourish and Blotts. Those books belonged in the restricted section of the Library. I like Hagrid, but he should never have been made a teacher, and I am with Carol in thinking that the job should be Grubbly-Planks'. Any speculation as to why DD gave the job to Hagrid when he had a fully qualified teacher available? Sandy ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 06:18:08 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:18:08 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166251 > Jen: Ack, no, I didn't mean it that way! I was rolling up a couple of different aspects into > 'free will', but not trying to say the UV somehow magically affects a person. One part is > that you can't change your mind and back out, you carry it out or die. Another point is > that Narcissa's clauses were vague and open to intepretation, so how is it determined if > Snape is protecting Draco 'to the best of his ability'? I don't think Snape's opinion about > his performance would be the deciding factor, it would be the Vow itself somehow. That's > similar to the diary 'thinking for itself' in that the Vow has some type of sentient ability. > The vowee (?) has no control over the terms or outcome. zgirnius: Oops, sorry. Someone in another thread has proposed the "Vow will *make* him do it" theory, and I thought you were agreeing. The Vower does have control in the sense that he can choose to carry out the specific actions he has promised to, or not. Snape could have watched Draco bleed to death, were he so inclined, a decision I assume would have resulted in his own death. In the case of a vaguely worded Vow, I suppose the Vower would be limited by his lack of knowledge of what exactly is required, but I don't find the actual Vow Snape took to be all that difficult to understand. Snape would know when he took the Vow that there would be circumstances under which he could avoid killing Dumbledore and live. He could try to act to bring them about. However, if he failed to, he'd still have a choice. Jen: > There's likely a way to undo the Fidelius because you would want a normal life back if the > danger passed. It follows that if a Secret Keeper suddenly decided, 'you know what, I love > this person but I can't take the risk anymore,' then the secret could be removed. And > there's nothing subjective to the magic, you either give the information to someone or you > don't. zgirnius: If the Vow's magic is what determines whether someone lives or dies, I presume it is objective as well. (Unlike if it depends on Snape's beliefs, Cissy's beliefs, or Bella's beliefs - in which case, Snape has even more control over his situation, either by knowing exaclty when he will come up against the limits of the Vow, or by having the option to deceive Bella/Cissy). We have no canon that either the UV or the FC can be removed. However, I would guess both can be. In the case of the UV, I suspect the threesome could get together, Cissy could declare herself satisfied, and that would be that. Jen: > Sorry to snip out the rest, zgirnius, but since I don't think the Vow as compelling Snape to > do anything, I couldn't really answer any of the questions! zgirnius: Oh, no problem. My misunderstanding. From leahstill at hotmail.com Mon Mar 19 09:53:26 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:53:26 -0000 Subject: Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > This, to me, was *the* most ridiculous thing in the entire series. How can > someone who has not completed their own education become a teacher? I am > surprised that, Rowling being a former teacher herself, took this tack. Just because > you know of or about something doesn't mean you are qualified to teach it. The problem is that we have been given no indication of any institution in the Wizarding World comparable with a university, teacher training college or college of further education. After Hogwarts, everything seems to be learnt on the job. Therefore, I suspect that Hagrid is not in any way unusual among the teaching staff at Hogwarts, or indeed any other wizarding schools. Putting people straight into the classroom was the way teachers learnt before teacher training colleges were established, and that method went on in British public (ie private)schools for rather longer than it did in the state sector. Of course the idea that because you know something you are qualified to teach it persists or persisted at universities for a long time, where being talented enough in a subject to carry out original research into it, also meant that you were required to teach undergraduate students. I believe that there are now lecturing courses, but I, and I am sure many people on this board, have memories of being lectured both brilliantly and appallingly under that 'you know it so you can teach it' system. As has been pointed out on many occasions, the Wizarding World seems rather old-fashioned in its approach in a number of areas, and I am not surprised to see Hogwarts functioning as an old fashioned private school in the area of teacher training (or not). (snipped) I like Hagrid, but he should never have been made a teacher, and I am with > Carol in thinking that the job should be Grubbly-Planks'. Any speculation as to > why DD gave the job to Hagrid when he had a fully qualified teacher available? > > Sandy I don't think Grubbly-Plank is qualified in the technical sense (see above). However, she clearly is someone with teaching skills, and, we can probably assume from her age, a lot of experience. I agree she would make a much better teacher, certainly up to OWL level, than Hagrid. I think DD wanted to give Hagrid a chance to prove himself. Of course, Grubbly-Plank herself might not be available for full time teaching- she might have another job, be a breeder of some sort of fantastic beast, or just be enjoying a quiet life in the country. (I have seen suggestions that Grubbly-Plank is someone in disguise, possibly the late Regulus Black, but if that were the case, I think DD much more likely to have made her a permanent teacher at Hogwarts, Trelawney-style.) Moving back on topic, I think there would be some argument that at NEWT level, students would gain more from Hagrid's innate understanding of his subject matter and the experience he has gained. As someone pointed out before, COMC is not a core subject, and I imagine that those students who do well in it and pursue it to NEWT level have some innate talent for it or great interest in it(could see Luna doing it for example). I think it's also worth pointing out that Hagrid's predecessor, Professor Kettleburn, retired to spend more time with his remaining limbs, which doesn't suggest a trouble-free teaching environment. Leah > > > > > ************************************** > AOL now offers free email to everyone. > Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Mar 19 11:51:22 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:51:22 -0000 Subject: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166253 > Alla: > > I think that animal reactions are valid canon analysis ever since > JKR introduced Crookshanks into canon > Hickengruendler: But Crookshanks is Crookshanks and Buckbeak is Buckbeak. Crookshanks is part Kneazle and we know from "Fantastic Beasts" that they have the ability to detect unsavoury characters. We know nothing like this about Hippogriffs, neither from Hagrid nor from "Fantastic Beasts". So I would argue that it is in Crookshanks' nature to detect traitors, while it isn't in Buckbeak's. About the question asked by Carol, why Buckbeak didn't attack the other DE's, just Snape. (Even if one thinks Snape is evil, I think we all agree that the other Death Eaters are as well, therefore Buckbeak definitely had a reason to attack them, since they were evil and a danger to Harry.) I thought it was, because Snape stopped them. We don't know, what Buckbeak wanted to do, maybe he thought it wasn't necessary to attack the Death Eaters, since Snaped saved harry. But once Snape attacked Harry as well, Buckbeak reacted. From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Mon Mar 19 11:45:26 2007 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:45:26 +0200 Subject: Deathly Hallows Message-ID: <016d01c76a1c$18111630$020aa8c0@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 166254 Isn't time we started seeing some teasers of the book cover, etc? Last time we had some wonderful discussions about the 2 clasped hands (which absolutely no-one guessed correctly!) as well as the back cover. I'm starting to feel just a teeny bit desperate. July is too far away!! Sharon From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 19 11:33:47 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:33:47 -0000 Subject: Crookshanks WAS: Re: Musing on Buckbeak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166255 > colebiancardi: > > > well, one could say that Harry was not in immediate > > danger from Snape in HBP, either. Snape stated that > > Harry was for the Dark Lord, so Snape wasn't going > > to kill Harry. Personally, I think Crookshanks is > > just *smarter* than Buckbeak - hey I love Bucky, but > > Crookshanks is called very smart by Sirius. > > houyhnhnm: > > ****************** > With a roar of rage, Black started toward Snape, but > Snape pointed his wand straight between Black's eyes. > > "Give me a reason," he whispered. "Give me a reason > to do it and I swear I will." (PoA, Am. Ed. p. 359) > ****************** > > Appearances would suggest that Sirius was in a lot > more immediate danger from Snape than Harry was. > Crookshanks *is* a very smart cat. ;-) > Dana: Maybe Crookshanks did not react to Snape because Sirius was not afraid of Snape. Sure he was afraid of the dementors but he tells Harry, he should have left Snape to him. I think Sirius did fear Harry would try to kill him and not because he was afraid of dying but for Harry to becoming a killer for the wrong reasons and for him not knowing the truth and Peter still being a threat. Dana From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 12:35:01 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:35:01 -0000 Subject: An Aside on Older Potters (Was: Re: The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166256 > Goddlefrood earlier: > > I may be wrong, and often am, but I recall JKR mentioning somewhere that there was a bug or sickness that devastated the wizarding population in the late seventies. If I come across the quote I will supply. Goddlefrood of the present: I may not be the fastest man alive, but I do get there eventually. I looked up the quote I had in mind, here is the relevant portion: "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." From: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm 16 June 2005 Of interest in that JKR had never previously proferred an explanation for Harry's grandparents death. Could not, I'm afraid find reference to devastation of the WWW, but interesting nevertheless. I drew a partial conclusion in respect of what I said in the earlier quote above due to the similarity in dates of death in some instances throughout canon and associated material, such as the Tapestry. There may be something further out there somewhere in cyberspace regarding this, which I could happen upon during the course of my current research relative to our favourite books. This catch was incidental to that. "Toad" JKR has mentioned elsewhere, and this time I'm sure of it, but would be open to contrary persuasion, that we will learn more of Harry's family background during the course of DH. This may assist anyone wanting to develop any theories on that. > Goddlefrood earlier: > Again, didn't JKR say that these Potters were James's parents and again I will supply the reference if I find it. > As I say I may be wrong, and it would be interesting to get as much detail as possible in Deathly Hallows. Goddlefrood of the present: Also came across another one, this time not canon as such, but interesting speculation, not on my part. It appears towards the end of this: http://www.answers.com/topic/james-and-lily-potter One possible connection between Charlus and Dorea Potter and their namesake James Potter. It may be of interest and will undoubtedly come up in DH again. In that we should discover more background on the more senior Potters and Evans. This was consequential to what may appear by the weekend. Goddlefrood, also contemplating a further analysis in respect of the trials in GoF and their mechanics. :) From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 19 11:48:21 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:48:21 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166257 > > zgirnius: > To clarify, is it your position that Snape on the Tower had no more > choice that Rosmerta, a victim of the Imperius Curse? (That is what > Jen is proposing about how the Vow works). Are you suggesting that he > was equally powerless to prevent the five actions you list him as > taking? > If so, I'll just stop here and say that I disagree. It is my opinion > that Ron told us the correct information. The Vowee has a choice to > break the Vow, he or she simply dies if that is their choice. I have > not given much thought to what I think about Snape under Jen's > hypotheses, because while I grant she may be right, I don't believe > it myself. Dana now: Well Snape might indeed have been a victim of his own stupidity in taking the vow but that is not actually what I meant. He had a lot of choices but he chose not to do any of these things (the 5 point I mentioned). Personally I believe the vow is only sealed after the vowee says "I will" and the last spell is performed. So I believe Snape could have pulled out before the third clause was sealed if he had chosen to do so. The big question is (or at least I think so) would Snape have died if someone other then Draco killed DD? I do believe the vow would have nullified the moment DD died on his own because Draco cannot kill someone that is already dead and therefore technically he would not have failed his task but what about someone else doing the deed? That would make Draco fail his task. I also believe that as long as Draco is still there and not walking away he is still in the moment of performing his task. So, what if someone else killed DD would Snape still have died for failing to live up to the third clause of the vow? My problem with the whole Snape ordeal isn't so much the possibility that Snape was caught in his own web but the suggestion that DD would WANT Snape to kill him. I believe Snape did what he did out of his own free will even if it was limited by the vow. I still believe that if he was ready to die himself, that different choices leading up to the tower scene would have made it possible for him to die and still save Draco, Harry and DD. It is my opinion but I still am not convinced that Snape was prepared to die himself. > > zgirnius: > Surely that would depend on Snape's choice? Dumbledore > s not an easy man to kill. Dana: I agree but Snape did not battle with DD, now did he? He killed a wandless and defenseless DD. One could argue that Snape could not have known this but I believe he could because DD would want to have Draco come to his own choices and that he would never battle it out with Draco. (And maybe this also increased the risk of someone else killing DD and Snape still dying as a result and why he was in such a hurry) > zgirnius: > This is actually what I believe (though not because Snape said > anything to LV, simply because he was the only Order member present > at Hogwarts at the time). Dana: How would LV have known that there was no one else present at Hogwarts that could not have alerted the Order? Besides Snape being the only Order member, someone else could have notified DD when Harry went missing. And if Snape is DDM wouldn't you think he would have kept the names of the Order members a secret as much as possible? zgirnius: >I think Snape's position is not 'most > trusted advisor' (Cissy has ample motive to flatter Snape) > but 'highly suspect person' at the start of HBP. Hence the need for a > dramatic gesture of loyalty to shore up his standing, if he is to > remain a spy at all. Dana: Well personally I do believe that LV himself made Snape think he was, even if he wasn't because if Snape would already suspect that LV was on to him then letting himself get caught into his own web would not have worked because DD alive would have been his only chance to live. I do understand where you are coming from but I do not for one moment believe that if Snape did not believe LV trusted him that he would have risked it all, not even for a dramatic gesture. The thing I can't get my head around is that it seems, when you look at the scene in the hospital wing, that most of the Order members at one point have asked DD about Snape's loyalties but it never made Snape do anything to convince them why he is truly loyal to them but we see him bend over backwards (lying or not) to assure the DEs will believe him. What is the difference? Or why is it different at all. The DEs could not touch him as long as LV believes in him and the Order members did not question his information because they trusted DD. LV is not someone that can be made to think someone is not trustworthy if he believed the person is loyal to him, LV trusts is highly conditional anyway. Order members would not interfere with Snape out of respect for DD but DEs would not do anything out of fear because you do not tell LV, he is too stupid to see Snape is double crossing him and you do not take out LV's spy if he did not gave you a personal order to do so either. Snape's only concern would be LV no one else so why go to the trouble of explaining himself to Bella? Maybe there is a very good answer for it but at this moment I am stuck in my conclusion that it meant more to Snape that people in LV's camp believed him. zgirnius: > Of course, this is one of the things I would point to indicating > Snape was still loyal in OotP - that he did expose himself to this > suspicion by Voldemort when he thought Harry was in danger. Dana: Well was Harry really in danger? LV wants Harry for himself, why go to all the trouble of getting the prophecy by luring Harry to the DoM if he had given the order to finish Harry off right then and there. Harry's friends where the only ones really in danger, because they could be used to convince Harry to hand over the prophecy. I do not think it is an indication that Snape was still loyal to DD in OotP, he might have thought he would lose his cover to DD if he did not do anything. There were too many witnesses for him to do nothing. But, and of course this is speculation, LV might have expected Snape to stay out of it completely, when he ordered him to stay behind. I still think the time delay in notifying the Order IS significant because maybe Snape felt confident, that raising the alarm late, would give the DEs enough time to finish the job and get out. Maybe he thought he could get away with it. I personally believe Snape is a man who likes his options open and that he might have indeed chosen LV's side but was still reluctant to close the door behind him completely. And I think this changed in HBP when LV made the decision to have DD killed and with DD gone the door would automatically close on that side because only DD could provide the necessary safety. This is why I believe Snape felt the need to convince the DEs he is truly loyal to LV and why he took the UV because killing DD himself, would be a sure way the win himself a first row seat. I truly want to see any indication that Snape is a DDM and I am open to suggestions (yes, really) as long as they do not involve DD made him do it. Self-sacrifice does not include having someone else murder you, it is not a moral thing to ask and it indeed would strip Snape from the limited choices he still had after taking the vow. It also would not have been moral of DD to let Snape take the UV and make him either him becoming potentially accessory to murder or a murderer himself. Although the first one would be harder to prove after the fact and might have been the one option Snape would have preferred so he could again slither out of action. > > zgirnius: > My point in asking this question is that your interpretation is > inconsistent with the knowledge/deduction that Snape has taken a > Vow, if Jen is right about the Vow. Snape *has no choice* about > killing Dumbledore of Jen is right. > Dana: Yes, he had a choice, he could have done everything within his power to clear the way for Harry, Draco and DD to be safe and then die. Maybe an option he did not like but it is still an option, especially considering he had brought it onto himself and why should anyone else have to pay with their lives for a choice he made? Dana From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Mar 19 12:54:24 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:54:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > This, to me, was *the* most ridiculous thing in the entire series. How can > someone who has not completed their own education become a teacher? I am > surprised that, Rowling being a former teacher herself, took this tack. Just because > you know of or about something doesn't mean you are qualified to teach it. Sherry now: It isn't necessarily true that just because someone has been certified as a teacher means that they can actually teach. I've had plenty of teachers in the past who couldn't. I remember one who was apparently brilliant in math and was a certified teacher with the education degree and all the rest, but he couldn't teach, couldn't get the knowledge from his head to his students in any way that made sense to those, like me, who struggled in math. On the other hand, I know people who can teach and they've never been to college. Getting a degree, license or certificate, doesn't necessarily make a person a better teacher, and not having one only means you don't get paid very well, but doesn't necessarily mean you cannot teach and actually have students learn. Teaching is a skill. Education can refine the skill and teach you the currently politically correct ways to teach, but if you don't have the skill in the first place, all of that education won't make you better at it. Someone mentioned in this thread yesterday that obviously Hagrid's students do learn, as Harry learned what he needed to know to handle not only Buckbeak but the Thestrils as well. As for grubbly-Plank, perhaps she works as something like a substitute teacher, not wanting to work full time and just filling in. Also, I don't know where Hagrid ordered the monster books, but Flourish and Blots was selling them--remember the cage with the books fighting each other inside? I don't think they'd be considered dark. I actually thought the monster book was hilarious and think it was meant to be funny. Sherry, who wouldn't have minded a Hagrid style teacher From unicornspride at centurytel.net Mon Mar 19 14:15:43 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:15:43 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) References: Message-ID: <000a01c76a31$1565bfc0$2f01a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 166259 > Sandy: > > This, to me, was *the* most ridiculous thing in the entire series. How can > someone who has not completed their own education become a teacher? I am > surprised that, Rowling being a former teacher herself, took this tack. > Just because > you know of or about something doesn't mean you are qualified to teach it. Lana writes: I am a pretty good mom and I never went to school for parenting. I actually taught several parenting classes. No schooling before hand. Does that mean I was not qualified to help others learn how to be a good mom? No. It just means that I didn't have to study something that just came naturally to me. Not everyone has to go to school to be a qualified leader. My best friend has been working on and designing engines for bio planes for 14 years. Was offered a job at top dollar with no schooling. Passed 3 degree candidates up for the job based on his life experiences. Does this make him unqualified? Nope. Just proves that a degree is a piece of paper stating you sat in school and read things from a book. There is something to be said for those who have life experience versus plain book knowledge. I am in no was slamming htose who have degrees or want them. I am just saying that life experience is sometimes better than book knowledge and a degree in something. > Sandy: > To bring this back on topic, the Hogwarts students suffered the same fate > with Hagrid as their COMC teacher. They didn't learn what they needed to > and > should have, their teacher was morose, and their textbook was more > dangerous than > some of the actual creatures. Wonder if Hagrid got them in Knockturn > Alley? I > can't think he got them at Flourish and Blotts. Those books belonged in > the > restricted section of the Library. Lana writes: I do not agree with this completely. While I don't think they learned everything the could have, you can't tell me that those kids will leave that school and not remember every single class with Hagrid. What a memorable experience. Something happened in most classes that the kids will not forget, so they will then remember the animals and what they did. Sounds like a most effective way to get someone to remember something. Shock value alone works magic. Especially with kids. > Sandy > I like Hagrid, but he should never have been made a teacher, and I am with > Carol in thinking that the job should be Grubbly-Planks'. Any speculation > as to > why DD gave the job to Hagrid when he had a fully qualified teacher > available? Lana writes: I thought Grubby-Planks wanted the time off or something with the remaining limbs? Maybe I have the wrong teacher. Anyway.. there are always more qualified people out there, but with having Hagrid right there and with all his knowledge of animals... I think it was a brilliant choice! He knows all about animals and it shows the true light and respect that DD has for him. DD shows faith in Hagrids ability and knowledge. It shows that just because you don't have a degree you can still be useful. Not to mention it supports Hagrids role. He is portrayed as the animal expert of exotics.. If you don't have anything to support that, it just doesn't come together. I say "well done" to JK for making Hagrid a teacher. I think it was well deserved and I think the students (minus the habitual complainers) will learn alot and I don't think anyone will fail the exams with him teaching.. JMO... Lana From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 19 14:44:39 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:44:39 -0000 Subject: Hagrid as Teacher/Crookshanks/Comparing Vow to Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: <000a01c76a31$1565bfc0$2f01a8c0@Lana> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166260 > Lana writes: > > I do not agree with this completely. While I don't think they learned > everything the could have, you can't tell me that those kids will leave that > school and not remember every single class with Hagrid. What a memorable > experience. Something happened in most classes that the kids will not > forget, so they will then remember the animals and what they did. Sounds > like a most effective way to get someone to remember something. Shock value > alone works magic. Especially with kids. Magpie: Well, yes and no. Sometimes what they would remember is their teacher having his own troubles, or that he was very interested in Skrewts and they got burned by them. But yes, the kids obviously aren't completely clueless when they come out of his classes. Hagrid's issues as a teacher are never presented as the kids just being confused or whatever. > Lana writes: > > I thought Grubby-Planks wanted the time off or something with the remaining > limbs? Maybe I have the wrong teacher. Anyway.. there are always more > qualified people out there, but with having Hagrid right there and with all > his knowledge of animals... I think it was a brilliant choice! He knows all > about animals and it shows the true light and respect that DD has for him. > DD shows faith in Hagrids ability and knowledge. It shows that just because > you don't have a degree you can still be useful. Not to mention it supports > Hagrids role. He is portrayed as the animal expert of exotics.. If you > don't have anything to support that, it just doesn't come together. I say > "well done" to JK for making Hagrid a teacher. I think it was well deserved > and I think the students (minus the habitual complainers) will learn alot > and I don't think anyone will fail the exams with him teaching.. Magpie: But JKR is making fun of Hagrid as a teacher as well--he's not presented as a brilliant choice any more than Trelawney or Snape or Binns is. He's another comic teacher the kids don't respect. It's not a case of Dumbledore giving a chance to somebody who has no degree but is a great teacher. If any teacher falls into that category--though not exactly since he is a Hogwarts graduate--it's Lupin. He's the one who has strikes against him that make other people not want to hire him because he's a werewolf but who has real skill as a teacher. Hagrid's often given jobs somewhat more out of loyalty, but that rarely translates into Hagrid doing a perfect job. If it was a choice between Lupin and Hagrid, I'd pick Lupin in a second no matter that Hagrid likes or knows more about animals. Just as Harry has to admit to himself he prefers Grubbly-Plank. Dana: Maybe Crookshanks did not react to Snape because Sirius was not afraid of Snape. Sure he was afraid of the dementors but he tells Harry, he should have left Snape to him. I think Sirius did fear Harry would try to kill him and not because he was afraid of dying but for Harry to becoming a killer for the wrong reasons and for him not knowing the truth and Peter still being a threat. Magpie: Crookshanks reacts to unsavory people, according to what we know about kneazles. That's why he reacted to Peter. Not because somebody is in danger. Dana: The thing I can't get my head around is that it seems, when you look at the scene in the hospital wing, that most of the Order members at one point have asked DD about Snape's loyalties but it never made Snape do anything to convince them why he is truly loyal to them but we see him bend over backwards (lying or not) to assure the DEs will believe him. What is the difference? Or why is it different at all. The DEs could not touch him as long as LV believes in him and the Order members did not question his information because they trusted DD. LV is not someone that can be made to think someone is not trustworthy if he believed the person is loyal to him, LV trusts is highly conditional anyway. Order members would not interfere with Snape out of respect for DD but DEs would not do anything out of fear because you do not tell LV, he is too stupid to see Snape is double crossing him and you do not take out LV's spy if he did not gave you a personal order to do so either. Snape's only concern would be LV no one else so why go to the trouble of explaining himself to Bella? Magpie: It's different because the Order *didn't* mistrust Snape. They're just saying afterwards that they trusted him because DD did. There were few signs of actual suspicion of Snape that we actually saw, and that which we did see came from people who hated him like Harry and Sirius, and other Order members or friends of Dumbledore told them they were wrong. Snape *was* giving proof of his loyalty from their pov. His actions were convincing to them in ways they weren't convincing to Bellatrix, so he would never need to explain things to them. DEs by nature mistrust one another in ways Order members don't. And also Snape never did things that sent up red flags to them as he did to Bellatrix. Dana: Well was Harry really in danger? LV wants Harry for himself, why go to all the trouble of getting the prophecy by luring Harry to the DoM if he had given the order to finish Harry off right then and there. Harry's friends where the only ones really in danger, because they could be used to convince Harry to hand over the prophecy. I do not think it is an indication that Snape was still loyal to DD in OotP, he might have thought he would lose his cover to DD if he did not do anything. There were too many witnesses for him to do nothing. But, and of course this is speculation, LV might have expected Snape to stay out of it completely, when he ordered him to stay behind. Magpie: Why would not sending the Order to the MoM be an indication Snape wasn't loyal to DD? The fact that Harry went to the MoM was a complete surprise. He shouldn't have had any way of getting there whatsoever. Last Snape knew Harry was nowhere near London. Snape would have no reason whatsoever to know that Harry had gone anywhere. It was the perfect opportunity to let the DEs do their thing, and it didn't happen because Snape acted, even with no reason to and no Dumbledore at the school. There was no need for delay because he didn't have to act at all. Dana: I personally believe Snape is a man who likes his options open and that he might have indeed chosen LV's side but was still reluctant to close the door behind him completely. Magpie: The trouble with this, for me, is that Snape is no longer a character whose actions lead to anything. He just turns the way anyone wants him to for the plot. He's LV's man, but there's no sign of it because he's mushy about it. The truth can't be revealed clearly, because you have to go through every action and explain whether Snape was leaning slightly to the right or left at that particular moment. In fact there is no one explanation, because he was changing his mind throughout the story. I think the reveal will be a lot more direct, in the style of, "I the Half-Blood Prince!" *cue dramatic music and cape swish* -m -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 14:49:21 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:49:21 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166261 > Dana: > How would LV have known that there was no one else present at > Hogwarts that could not have alerted the Order? Besides Snape being > the only Order member, someone else could have notified DD when Harry > went missing. And if Snape is DDM wouldn't you think he would have > kept the names of the Order members a secret as much as possible? zgirnius: No, I don't think he would. Especially not of old members, whose names Voldemort should already know from Peter. Also, to me the timing of Harry's vision, happening as it did the day after McGonagall required hospitalization at St. Mungo's, suggests her disappearance from Hogwarts was part of Voldemort's calculation. > Dana: > I do understand where you are coming from but I do not for one moment > believe that if Snape did not believe LV trusted him that he would > have risked it all, not even for a dramatic gesture. zgirnius: This I don't understand, regardless of Snape's loyalties. If he believes himself currently a favored servant of Voldemort, why would he take a chance that could mean his life? This makes a lot more sense to me if he fears Voldemort is displeased - because in that situation, Snape is already in danger. He should, rationally, save this sort of desperate measure for desperate times, it seems to me. Dana: > The thing I can't get my head around is that it seems, when you look > at the scene in the hospital wing, that most of the Order members at > one point have asked DD about Snape's loyalties but it never made > Snape do anything to convince them why he is truly loyal to them but > we see him bend over backwards (lying or not) to assure the DEs will > believe him. > What is the difference? zgirnius: I believe there are two reasons for the difference. One is personal and not necessarily related to Snape's loyalties: I believe Narcissa when she says that Snape is an old friend of her husband. Also, it seems likely (to me, anyway) that Snape knew Bella at school for a bit (a short bit, as she should be considerably older than he is at school), as Sirius seems to indicate in GoF. His manner towards them is explained in part by old friendship. And there are Order members (Sirius and Lupin for sure) who are old enemies, again predating Snape's involvement with either side, and again explaining in part the strained relations that exist between them. The other reason has to do with Snape's supposed job as a spy for the Order, and is yet another bit in the text that I stick on my scales as a point in favor of DDM! Snape. Voldemort and Dumbledore are not the only sources of information about the activities of the sides in the war whose leaders they are. Useful information could be gained about bits and pieces of LV/DD's plans from rank-and-file DEs and Order members. To induce such people to drop secret information, it helps to be trusted and liked by them. Hence, I always thought, Snape's hospitality towards the sisters, his attempts to reassure Bella, and his solicitousness towards Cissy's distress. That he does not extend similar courtesy and gestures of friendship to Order members suggests to me that he does not want anything from them. Dana: > Maybe there is a very good answer for it but at this moment I am > stuck in my conclusion that it meant more to Snape that people in > LV's camp believed him. zgirnius: Agreed. I think so too, I just draw a different conclusion from this. > Dana: > Well was Harry really in danger? LV wants Harry for himself, why go > to all the trouble of getting the prophecy by luring Harry to the DoM > if he had given the order to finish Harry off right then and there. > Harry's friends where the only ones really in danger, because they > could be used to convince Harry to hand over the prophecy. zgirnius: Voldemort was willing to kill Harry at the end of OotP, it seems to me. The reason Lucius gives for not attacking him directly is that this might cause Harry to damage the Prophecy orb. So I would guess Harry was in danger, yes. However, the point is not really important to my argument. If Snape risked exposure to save the secret of the Prophecy and Harry's friends, it was still a DDM! action. Dana: > I truly want to see any indication that Snape is a DDM and I am open > to suggestions (yes, really) as long as they do not involve DD made > him do it. zgirnius: I see the situation differently, since I have no problem with the idea that Dumbledore would have asked Snape to kill him. However, the alternative explanation has been offered that Dumbledore asked Snape not to treat him, and what Snape cast was not really a Killing Curse. ( There are some anomalous points in the description which could be either dramatic license or subtle clues.... ) Dumbledore then died at the foot of the Tower either of the green potion he drank in the Cave, or of the effects of the Ring Curse. > Dana: > Yes, he had a choice, he could have done everything within his power > to clear the way for Harry, Draco and DD to be safe and then die. > Maybe an option he did not like but it is still an option, especially > considering he had brought it onto himself and why should anyone else > have to pay with their lives for a choice he made? zgirnius: The situation on the Tower was the result of the choices several people made, Draco and Dumbledore along with Snape. Snape shares responsibility for creating it to the extent that the Vow limited his ability to effectively aid Dumbledore (I agree that an attempt by Snape to rescue DD would have been futile, achieving only Snape's death by UV), but this would not have been relevant if Draco had not chosen to introduce Death Eaters into the school, or if Dumbledore had not chosen to ignore Harry's warning of Draco's success ("...Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth....", "The Cave"). From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 19 15:35:00 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:35:00 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows. In-Reply-To: <016d01c76a1c$18111630$020aa8c0@Sharon> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166262 "H.M.S" wrote: > Isn't time we started seeing some > teasers of the book cover Well yea, but I'd rather they say how long the new book is going to be, at least approximately. Is it longer or shorter than OotP? I hope longer. And I've heard that the British audio book will come out the same day as the dead tree version, but I haven't heard anything about the American version, not one word. Eggplant From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 19 16:48:23 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:48:23 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Puzzlement of the day Message-ID: <16832750.1174322903326.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166263 Sirius Black is Harry Potter's godfather. What's a godfather (in the context of the WW, of course)? Bart From juli17 at aol.com Mon Mar 19 17:00:56 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:00:56 -0400 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask In-Reply-To: <1174315864.1399.5028.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1174315864.1399.5028.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9385F4BED2C0B-12B0-4DC@webmail-md18.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166264 zgirnius: The situation on the Tower was the result of the choices several people made, Draco and Dumbledore along with Snape. Snape shares responsibility for creating it to the extent that the Vow limited his ability to effectively aid Dumbledore (I agree that an attempt by Snape to rescue DD would have been futile, achieving only Snape's death by UV), but this would not have been relevant if Draco had not chosen to introduce Death Eaters into the school, or if Dumbledore had not chosen to ignore Harry's warning of Draco's success ("...Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth....", "The Cave"). Julie: Or if Dumbledore hadn't deliberately drank the poison from the cave, knowing it would be if not fatal certainly debilitating to his ability to defend himself. Yes, I know one can say he wasn't expecting the DEs to show up that very night, but the timing is still a bit suspicious to me, as is the fact that the horcrux turned out to be a fake. Might we also blame Fawkes, who didn't even bother to show up to protect/save Dumbledore? Not that I believe this, because if Fawkes could have saved Dumbledore he would have been there. Clearly he couldn't, whether he understood that or Dumbledore somehow communicated that to him. The absence of Fawkes is in fact one of the strongest reasons for my belief that Dumbledore's fate was sealed on the Tower. If Fawkes couldn't save him at that point, then nobody could (Snape included). 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 17:52:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:52:31 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Re: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166265 > > Alla: > > > > I think that animal reactions are valid canon analysis ever since > > JKR introduced Crookshanks into canon > > > > Hickengruendler: > > But Crookshanks is Crookshanks and Buckbeak is Buckbeak. Crookshanks > is part Kneazle and we know from "Fantastic Beasts" that they have > the ability to detect unsavoury characters. We know nothing like this > about Hippogriffs, neither from Hagrid nor from "Fantastic Beasts". > So I would argue that it is in Crookshanks' nature to detect > traitors, while it isn't in Buckbeak's. > Alla: I was saying that analysing humans by animals' reactions to them is **at least** valid argument, because we know at least of one animal, who can certainly judge humans. Sure, we do not know for sure that Buckbeack can do the same, but I believe that to judge humans he reacts to is at least a valid conjecture, because of Crookshanks, just as say it is valid to say that life debt can play out in more situations in canon we are explicitly aware of. Crookshanks is not the only animal in canon, who can to some extent judge human reactions and experiences. Fawkes can judge loyalty to DD, yes? Thestrals will only appear to those who saw death. So, I would say that many magical beings can do some evaluation of humans to more or less degree. We know that Hypoggriffs are intelligent animals, no? The books that Ron is reading are named "The study of Hypoggriffs psychology" and something like "The study of hypoggriffs brutality - friends or foe" ( paraphrasing, was looking at them yesterday, but I think it is closed enough). To me those books suggest that Hypoggriff is very intelligent, so yeah, I do think it is a valid argument. IMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 19 17:52:35 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:52:35 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: DH Release: What's On- and Off-Topic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166266 Greetings from Hexquarters! We would like to remind everyone of what constitutes an "on-topic" and an "off-topic" post on the subject of the release of Deathly Hallows, since posts on that topic also need to conform to HPfGU posting rules: * If your post discusses what will happen ? the characters, the plot or any other information about the story itself, including predictions about the likely outcome of the series and reader reaction to that outcome -- please post it on this list. * If your post discusses how many pages you believe the book will contain, how you will obtain your copy, how fast you will read it, whether you intend to peek at the last page or the table of contents, how the release date will affect upcoming HP conferences or box office receipts for the OOP film, great ideas for release parties, and the effect of the end of the series on your life or this list, please post it on the OT-Chatter list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter * Please try **not** to send any messages about the release date alone. One-line posts are strongly discouraged on the list and "Me, too!" posts are not permitted; please make each post count! If you have any questions about your post, please contact us at: hpforgrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (without the spaces). Thanks for your cooperation! Shorty Elf for the List Elves From muellem at bc.edu Mon Mar 19 18:01:13 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:01:13 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Re: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166267 > > > Alla wrote: > > > Crookshanks is not the only animal in canon, who can to some extent > judge human reactions and experiences. Fawkes can judge loyalty to > DD, yes? > > colebiancardi: ah, yes....Fawkes, who fought in the MoM battle alongside DD. Where was Fawkes on that fated night in the Tower? Why didn't he come to DD's aid when DD was in such need? Why didn't he help Harry as Harry was battling Snape? So, chalk up two loyal & intelligent animals that do not react in a negative manner towards Snape, whether thru actions read about or actions not mentioned. in my humble opinion, of course colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 18:08:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:08:36 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166268 > colebiancardi: > > ah, yes....Fawkes, who fought in the MoM battle alongside DD. Where > was Fawkes on that fated night in the Tower? Why didn't he come to > DD's aid when DD was in such need? Why didn't he help Harry as Harry > was battling Snape? > > So, chalk up two loyal & intelligent animals that do not react in a > negative manner towards Snape, whether thru actions read about or > actions not mentioned. in my humble opinion, of course Alla: Yes, I do wonder where was Fawkes, absolutely. Who knows, maybe Snape placed a spell on him or something? But I think that is a little bit of stretch to say that since Fawkes was not there, that means he did not react badly towards Snape . IMO of course. Since JKR hinted that Fawkes will play a role in book 7, I am thinking we will see his reaction to Snape one way or another. JMO, Alla, who thinks that if Fawkes will sing for Snape then it will be rather strong indication of Snape loyalties indeed. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 19 18:39:30 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:39:30 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166269 Dana: > I truly want to see any indication that Snape is a DDM and I am open > to suggestions (yes, really) as long as they do not involve DD made > him do it. Self-sacrifice does not include having someone else > murder you, it is not a moral thing to ask and it indeed would > strip Snape from the limited choices he still had after taking the > vow. It also would not have been moral of DD to let Snape take the > UV and make him either him becoming potentially accessory to murder > or a murderer himself. Although the first one would be harder to > prove after the fact and might have been the one option Snape would > have preferred so he could again slither out of action. SSSusan: I don't like the phrase "made him do it" either. In fact, while I *do* believe both in DDM!Snape *and* that DD asked Snape to kill him on the tower, I still believe Snape had a choice -- no one made him do it. As to why he would do it... as to why DD would ask it... all of that has been discussed here many times, but for me it distills down to these things that I believe: 1) DD was dying and knew it; 2) DD saw how Snape's killing him would accomplish several useful things: a) eliminate any possibility of Draco making the choice to murder; b) solidify Snape's position within the DEs and with Voldy as being totally trustworthy; c) give Snape time to get Harry (& Draco) out of harm's way This is pretty much the "commanding officer in a time of war" argument. I realize that it's not popular with some people. In my view, when a commanding officer instructs someone who's essentially a soldier (or requests of him) to kill him for "the cause," then while it is still a killing, it's not murder. Or -- for those who insist that it is murder, even if it's wartime and even if it's at the request of the "victim" (sort of an assisted suicide, if you will) -- I could point out that it would have the "benefit" of causing Snape great pain & distress & possibly tearing his soul, which many would like to see. Perhaps that's his "punishment" for the nasty things he did as a DE, for the past crimes he committed? (You'll note the quotation marks around several words there; that's meant to indicate that while I'm writing this, it's more about a particular position one might hold on this topic, rather than what I believe.) In short, I believe DD "told" Snape (probably after having previously discussed that the possibility would likely come up before the year's end sometime, somewhere), "I want you to do it NOW." And Snape, while loathing DD for making the request, elected (yes, *chose*) to accede to that request, because of his loyalty to DD. As to DD's self-sacrifice not including "having someone else murder you"... well, it just MIGHT if: 1) you do not have a wand at the moment with which you can kill yourself; 2) time is of the essence; and 3) you see an opportunity to build Snape's case as a loyal DE and keep him as a Voldy insider. Could Snape have said "No"? Sure, I believe he could have. He would have royally ticked off DD, imo, would have died himself for failure to uphold the UV, and would have left Harry & DD in a very vulnerable position with DEs storming the tower. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 19 18:42:38 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:42:38 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166270 > > > colebiancardi: > > Where was Fawkes on that fated night in the Tower? Why didn't he > > come to DD's aid when DD was in such need? Why didn't he help > > Harry as Harry was battling Snape? > > > Alla: > >> > Since JKR hinted that Fawkes will play a role in book 7, I am > thinking we will see his reaction to Snape one way or another. > Dana: What if Fawkes wasn't there? He only started singing when everybody was gathered in the hospital wing and Hagrid had taken DD's body away. You can hear him on the grounds not just there. It seems to me that if Fawkes was there then he would have started singing right away and maybe JKR is sneaking a clue right behind us. I am seriously thinking Fawkes was too busy with something else to come to DD's aid. Doing what? Well of course I have no idea but with Jen's possible plan in the back of my mind, it might be transporting Trelawney out of the castle and delivering a message maybe to DD's brother. Dana From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 19 18:52:13 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:52:13 -0000 Subject: Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) In-Reply-To: <000a01c76a31$1565bfc0$2f01a8c0@Lana> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166271 Sandy > > I like Hagrid, but he should never have been made a teacher, and > > I am with Carol in thinking that the job should be Grubbly- > > Planks'. Any speculation as to why DD gave the job to Hagrid when > > he had a fully qualified teacher available? Lana writes: > Anyway.. there are always more qualified people out there, but > with having Hagrid right there and with all his knowledge of > animals... I think it was a brilliant choice! He knows all about > animals and it shows the true light and respect that DD has for > him. DD shows faith in Hagrids ability and knowledge. It shows > that just because you don't have a degree you can still be useful. > Not to mention it supports Hagrids role. He is portrayed as the > animal expert of exotics.. If you don't have anything to support > that, it just doesn't come together. I say "well done" to JK for > making Hagrid a teacher. I think it was well deserved and I think > the students (minus the habitual complainers) will learn alot > and I don't think anyone will fail the exams with him teaching.. SSSusan: I think you're right [in the part I snipped] about how the kids will always remember lots of their CoMC classes with Hagrid. I think he's a delightful character, and I think the exposure the kids got to some of the more... ahem... interesting creatures probably was fascinating for the students (and proved dead useful to Harry in a couple of key places). Still, remember in OotP when Hagrid got sidetracked w/ Grawp, trying to get back to Hogwarts, and the kids had Grubbly-Plank? There were comments **not** just "from complainers" about how much they were learning from her. It may have been thought guiltily by folks like Harry, Ron & Hermione, but it was thought. Also, it can't be discounted that when it came to time for NEWT-level classes, none of the kids, including H/R/H, who *love* Hagrid, signed on to continue with CoMC. If they thought he was a great teacher, wouldn't they have continued? They really care about him, they appreciate his friendship, and still they elected not to take the class. I think that does say something about Hagrid's teaching limitations. NOT that all of his lessons were a fiasco or inappropriate -- not at all [I liked the hippogriffs and salamanders in the fire myself :)] -- but there had to be a reason, beyond *just* the focusing on their future careers, for not signing on to continue CoMC. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Mar 19 18:52:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:52:02 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166272 Dana: > My problem with the whole Snape ordeal isn't so much the possibility > that Snape was caught in his own web but the suggestion that DD would > WANT Snape to kill him. I believe Snape did what he did out of his > own free will even if it was limited by the vow. I still believe that > if he was ready to die himself, that different choices leading up to > the tower scene would have made it possible for him to die and still > save Draco, Harry and DD. It is my opinion but I still am not > convinced that Snape was prepared to die himself. Pippin: If Snape isn't prepared to die, he doesn't belong in the spy business, no matter whose agent he really is. "If you are ready...If you are prepared" No matter which side Snape is really on, he had some 'splainin' to do then and there was no guarantee that the Dark Lord would be in a mood to listen. He'd have to be an idiot not to know that there was a very good chance that Voldemort would off him before he got a word in edgewise. In peacetime there are few jobs which are more important than the lives of the people doing them. In war the situation is reversed. The mission is more important than the lives of individual soldiers, or it wouldn't be right to ask even the least and humblest of them to stand in harm's way. Snape and Dumbledore are at war and the mission is more important than either of them. If only one can be saved, then the question is not which one deserves most to live but which one is most vital to the success of the mission. It is Dumbledore's job as commander to make that choice, and his choice might be to sacrifice himself just as it was Ron's choice in the chess game. Ron made sure everyone knew what they had to do, and then he let himself be taken, because he knew that Harry, not he, was best equipped to save the Stone. Since we don't know exactly what Dumbledore's plan is, we're in no position to tell if Snape or Dumbledore was more vital to it. But Dumbledore was. If the long term success of the Order's mission is more dependent on Snape being alive than Dumbledore, then Dumbledore would be betraying Harry and everyone else who is depending on him if he asked Snape to save his life instead of Snape's own. It really doesn't matter whether the vow takes effect or not, because if Snape unequivocally demonstrates his loyalty to Dumbledore then he will die sooner or later, within a year if Karkaroff's fate is any guide. The vow only makes sure it's sooner. And then the mission will have failed. Dumbledore will have failed. I'm starting to like the idea that Snape could have taken on all four DE's on the tower, I really am. Because if we accept that, then it *can't* be beyond credibility that he could do something as simple as fake an AK, maneuver Dumbledore's body to a soft landing, and release Harry from the freezing charm. It ought to be a piece of cake compared to taking on four DE's at once. Dana: > The thing I can't get my head around is that it seems, when you look > at the scene in the hospital wing, that most of the Order members at > one point have asked DD about Snape's loyalties but it never made > Snape do anything to convince them why he is truly loyal to them but > we see him bend over backwards (lying or not) to assure the DEs will > believe him. > What is the difference? Or why is it different at all. Pippin: Because Dumbledore can afford to let his people doubt Snape openly. Sirius and Harry do it, and while Dumbledore stresses his own confidence in Snape, and grows impatient when Harry demands that he justify it, he never criticizes anyone for doubting Snape themselves. But Voldemort can't afford to do that. He can't let any of his followers even think that someone could be disloyal to him and live, or that he could be fooled.He knows his servants are only obeying him out of fear. If they think he's powerless to punish traitors, they'll desert him just as they did before. Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Mon Mar 19 19:16:57 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:16:57 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166273 "Dana" wrote: > What if Fawkes wasn't there? He only started singing when everybody > was gathered in the hospital wing and Hagrid had taken DD's body > away. You can hear him on the grounds not just there. It seems to me > that if Fawkes was there then he would have started singing right > away and maybe JKR is sneaking a clue right behind us. > > I am seriously thinking Fawkes was too busy with something else to > come to DD's aid. > Doing what? Well of course I have no idea but with Jen's possible > plan in the back of my mind, it might be transporting Trelawney out > of the castle and delivering a message maybe to DD's brother. > colebiancardi: Where did the moving Trelawney out of Hogwarts come from? Did I miss something? I must have :) Well, if Fawkes was *too* busy to help save Dumbledore's life at the moment when DD truly needed him, that seems out of character for Fawkes. Fawkes is magical and in CoS, he flew fast and could transport 3 children & an adult. He also takes the AK full blast in OotP to save DD's life. And is reborn again. Somehow, I think that for sending a message to Aberforth could be handled by someone else, as well as Trelawney. And it wasn't just DD whose life was in danger, Hogwarts was under attack by DeathEaters. I don't believe for one minute that Fawkes was too busy with trivial matters that could have been easily handled by someone else(or something else). Fawkes would have been there if DD wanted him to come . Whatever Fawkes may or may not have been doing, if DD summoned him, I would bet that Fawkes would have been there in a flash. I cannot explain the singing - I don't know Phoenix's mourning customs or if JKR was just using poetic license for that scene. colebiancardi From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Mar 19 19:21:50 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:21:50 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166274 > Dana: > > What if Fawkes wasn't there? Hickengruendler: Fawkes also wasn't at the DoM and neither was he in the Chamber of Secrets. Didn't stop him to arrive as quickly as possible once Dumbledore and Harry needed him. Note that Harry didn't even have to summon him. Fawkes arrived simply, because Harry showed loyalty to Dumbledore. This Phoenix seems to be incredibily fast. And then he shouldn't make it on the tower to save Dumbledore in time, because he just wasn't there? Dana: > I am seriously thinking Fawkes was too busy with something else to > come to DD's aid. > Doing what? Well of course I have no idea but with Jen's possible > plan in the back of my mind, it might be transporting Trelawney out > of the castle and delivering a message maybe to DD's brother. Hickengruendler: See, this doesn't make any sense. Dumbledore tried everything to *keep* trelawney in Hogwarts to have her save. So why should he want to transport her out of the castle, now. Hogwarts is still one of the safest places in the Wizarding World, if not the safest. Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore and the castle generally is well protected. Yes, it isn't infallible as we saw several times, but it is still safer than the Hog's Head or any other place. And if Dumbledore didn't expect to die that night (as you vehemently argued in your posts), than it makes even less sense, to have Trelawney transported away from his watchful eyes. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 19 19:41:14 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) Message-ID: <32109218.1174333274646.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166275 From: Dana >The big question is (or at least I think so) would Snape have died if >someone other then Draco killed DD? I do believe the vow would have >nullified the moment DD died on his own because Draco cannot kill >someone that is already dead and therefore technically he would not >have failed his task but what about someone else doing the deed? That >would make Draco fail his task. I also believe that as long as Draco >is still there and not walking away he is still in the moment of >performing his task. So, what if someone else killed DD would Snape >still have died for failing to live up to the third clause of the >vow? Bart: That is the reason I believe that the substance of the UV must be based on the understanding of the person taking the vow, and it is that person's own self-admition that he or she has failed that triggers the death. To Snape, I figure that having DD die first is not a failure of Draco, but a removal of the necessity of Draco to do so. Dana: >My problem with the whole Snape ordeal isn't so much the possibility >that Snape was caught in his own web but the suggestion that DD would >WANT Snape to kill him. Unless, at the time of the UV, Dumbledore was already "on life support", with a 100% negative prognosis. If Snape was the only person keeping Dumbledore alive, we have a legal paradox worthy of John Gilbert. If Snape does not keep the Vow, he will die, which will cause Dumbledore to die, which means that he WILL keep the vow. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 19 20:17:43 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:17:43 -0000 Subject: The Nundu Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166276 In "Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them" Newt Scamander says The Nundu is the most dangerous animal in the world, even more dangerous than Dragons. I wonder if this gigantic but silent leopard that needs a hundred skilled wizards to control will make an appearance in deathly Hallows. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 19 21:19:58 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:19:58 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166277 colebiancardi: > Well, if Fawkes was *too* busy to help save Dumbledore's life at the moment when DD > truly needed him, that seems out of character for Fawkes. Fawkes is magical and in > CoS, he flew fast and could transport 3 children & an adult. He also takes the AK full > blast in OotP to save DD's life. And is reborn again. Somehow, I think that for sending a > message to Aberforth could be handled by someone else, as well as Trelawney. And it > wasn't just DD whose life was in danger, Hogwarts was under attack by DeathEaters. Jen: I don't think Fawkes can appear unless Dumbledore has requested his help. Otherwise it's almost like being immortal, having a magical animal who can intervene at every dangerous moment....well no wonder Dumbledore has lived so long!! I'm guessing the MOM was a *very* unique situation. I'm thinking Fawkes intervened at the MOM because Dumbledore put him on alert that night, perhaps thinking *Harry* might need him, and instead Fawkes ended up saving Dumbledore. And Dumbledore asked Fawkes to help Harry in his absence in COS, or at least that's implied in DD's statement to Harry, 'help will always be available.' It doesn't sound like Fawkes helped when Dumbledore was cursed by the ring and he didn't show up in the cave when Dumbledore collapsed, either. I'm probably two years behind everyone on this question, but why couldn't Fawkes heal the ring curse injury? Because it's dark magic or was too big or...? Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 21:19:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:19:31 -0000 Subject: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan (Re: Why DD did not ask Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166278 Dana wrote: > > I truly want to see any indication that Snape is a DDM and I am open to suggestions (yes, really) as long as they do not involve DD made him do it. Carol responds: I take it you're disregarding Snape's actions in saving Katie Bell's and Dumbledore's lives in HBP. (I'm not including Draco's because that could be explained by the UV.) And I've already presented canon suggesting that Snape took the UV to protect Draco, so I won't go back there. The problem with looking for evidence in HBP is that the whole book leads up to the events on the tower and is written in such a way that snape remains ambiguous. Either he's presented from the outside, as in "Spinner's End," or he's presented from Harry's point of view. The evidence we need, the complete argument in the forest, for example, is withheld from us. We can reasonably conclude, however, that when Snape stunned Flitwick, he knew that the moment of decision had come at last and he didn't want any interference with what he knew he might have to do, DDM! or not. And, whether it's part of Snape's intention or not, stunning Flitwick also keeps the tiny Charms professor, who can be sent sailing across a room even by a Summoning or Banishing Charm, from being harmed by the Death Eaters. I could provide similar DDM! explanations for the other items in your list, but it's pointless to do so. You don't see them that way, and until the matter of Snape's loyalties is finally resolved in DH, we will never agree. (I, for example, can't imagine why an ESE! or OFH!Snape would rescue Harry from as Crucio, and I don't consider "he's for the Dark Lord" a sufficient explanation. It's simply a reason that the DEs would accept, as opposed to his real reason. Surely, Voldemort wouldn't mind at all that Harry was suffering from a Crucio, as long as the DEs didn't kill him.) However, some actions, for me, cannot be explained from anything except a DDM! perspective. I'll list only three, the ones that, for me, are most compelling. The first occurs in CoS, after McGonagall tells the staff the a student has been taken into the Chamber of Secrets. "Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hand to her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, 'How can you be sure?'" (Cos Am. ed. 293). Like the others, he is expressing concern. Unlike them, he is fully in control and taking a practical approach. Why he would react that way if he were evil, I cannot imagine. The second occurs in GoF, after he has helped Dumbledore deal with Barty Crouch Jr. and his image has shown up in the Foe Glass along with theirs. Dumbledore is trying to convince the recalcitrant Fudge that Voldemort is back, but Fudge isn't listening. Snape strides forward and reveals his Dark Mark to Fudge, saying, "There. The Dark Mark. It is not as clear as it was an hour or so ago, when it burned black, but you can still see it. . . . This Mark has been growing clearer all year. Karkaroff's too. why do you think Karkaroff fled tonight? We both felt the Mark burn. We both knew he had returned. . . ." (GoF Am. ed. 709-10). Considering that, as far as Snape knows, no one in the room except Dumbledore even knows that he was a Death Eater, this is an act of remarkable courage. Moreover, the Mark in itself, along with the flight of known ex-DE Karkaroff, is convincing, tangible evidence that Voldemort is back. Fudge *ought* to believe it, and if he weren't so determined to deny all evidence that he later resorts to discrediting Dumbledore and Harry, he would have believed it. Snape did not *have* to step forward. He did not *have* to expose himself as a former DE in front of Fudge, McGonagall, Mrs. Weasley, he son Bill, HRH, and Madam Pomfrey. (Perhaps he wouldn't have done so if he'd known who the dog was.) We *know* that Sirius Black didn't know he was a former DE. I don't think the others did, either, because his name was not among those listed in the Daily Prophet as innocent by reason of Imperius. The charges against him were simply dropped so he could continue spying on Voldemort. Rita Skeeter knew nothing about them. But Snape is revealing his past to Fudge and the others to convince Fudge that Voldemort is back. Why on earth would a loyal DE do that? And then, of course, he goes back to Voldemort on DD's orders, as they have clearly planned ("If you are ready . . . if you are prepared," 713). Karkaroff, the coward, fled. Snape remained at Hogwarts, as he had said he would (426). You may be able to find an ESE! or OFH! reading for Snape's behavior in these scens, especially the revelation of his Dark Mark, but for me they are compelling evidence of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and opposition to Voldemort. The last bit of evidence relates to the Occlumency lessons, which Snape has told Harry to keep secret from everyone, but especially Dolores Umbridge (OoP Am. ed. 519). After explaining what Occlumency and Legilimency are and why DD wants Harry to take the lessons (except, of course, for specific mention of the Prophecy), Snape authorizes Harry to use any spell he can think of to defend himself, as well as telling him that the best method is a mental defence like the one Harry has already used against the Imperius Curse (530-34). He even, on two occasions, actually praises Harry, Snape-style ("For a first attempt, that was not as poor as it might have been," 535, and "There is no doubt that it [the Protego] was effective" (592). He still does not *like* Harry, but he retains his self-control when Harry breaks into his memories ("Well, Potter, that was certainly an improvement," followed by the remark on the Shield Charm and "Let's try again shall we?" (592). When Snape does get angry, actually shouting as opposed to glaring at Harry or turning pale (as when Harry broke into his own memories), it's usually because Harry is seeing something that Dumbledore (and DDM!Snape) wouldn't want him to see, dreams or memories that belong to Voldemort and which wouldn't be in his head if he were practicing Occlumency and closing his mind at night. The first time he shouts (not CAPSLOCK, however) it's because Harry allowed him to see the memory of Cedric's death. "Get up!" Snape says sharply. "You are not trying, you are making no effort, you are allowing me access to memories you fear, you are handing me weapons!" (536). The reason for DDM!Snape's anger is obvious--if Harry allows Voldemort access to such memories, Harry will "find [himself] easy prey for the Dark Lord!" 536). Now, shouting may not be the best teaching method, but it's hard to explain Snape's anger and frustration at this point if he actually *wants* the Dark Lord to see such memories. Soon afterwards, Harry sees a glimpse of his corridor dream, and Snape, who also sees this memory, lifts the spell before Harry can even fight back (537). He remains calm at first, asking Harry "What happened then, Potter?" Harry thinks about his dream and asks, "what's in the Department of Mysteries?" Snape asks quietly, "what did you say?" and Harry sees that he's "unnerved" (537). Harry repeats his question and Snape says slowly, "And why would you ask such a thing?" Harry tells him about the corridor dream: "I've been dreaming about it for months--I've just recogniaed it--it leads to the Department of Mysteries. . . . and i think Voldemort wants something from--" Snape conceals his concern by saying that he doesn't want Harry to say the Dark Lord's name, but Harry sees that he looks "agitated" and that when he speaks again, he's trying to look "cool and unconcerned" (537). Snape then tell Harry that there are many things in the Department of Mysteries, none of which concerns him, followed by another warning to keep his mind blank and calm before he goes to bed (538). It could not be plainer that Snape is concerned by the dream and doesn't want Harry to continue having it. If he were Voldemort's man, this news would make him jubilant. We see something similar when Harry has the memory of Rookwood kneeling before Voldemort, only Snape doesn't shout; he only uses Legilimency, his eyes boring into Harry's, and asks, "What are that man and that room doing in your head, Potter?" He asks Harry to remind him why they're there and asks whether he's had any other dreams about the Dark Lord, tells him that the dreams don't make him special and that it's not Harry's job to find out what Voldemort is telling the DEs (it's Snape's [very dangerous] job, and Snape looks satisfied when Harry finally figures that out, 591). Later in the same session, after the Protego incident, Harry feels himself hurtling down the corridor and actually sees the door open. Snape, who has seen the same thing--or has he seen *Voldemort* hurtling donw the corridor?--shouts, "POTTER! Explain yourself!" Snape looks "furious," "even angrier than he had done two minutes before, when Harry had seen into his own memories" (593). Unfortunately, before Snape can do more than berate Harry for being "lazy and sloppy," the lesson is interrupted by Trelawney's scream. I can see no explanation for Snape's anger and concern over the dream-related memories except the concern he shares with Dumbledore, not wanting Harry to know about the Prophecy in the DoM. If he were Voldemort's man, he would want Harry to keep having those dreams. He might even, like Barty Crouch Jr. before him, be subtly helping Harry to figure out a way to go there. I didn't mean to write such a long post, but it seems to me that the Occlumency lessons (which, BTW, violate Umbridge's decree that teachers teach only the subjects they're paid to teach, and which Snape is keeping secret from her) demonstrate Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore. They certainly demonstrate his opposition to Umbridge, as does his later behavior with the fake Veritaserum and his refusal to cooperate with her when she requests more. And opposition to Umbridge equates, in OoP, to loyalty to Dumbledore. As for loyalty to Voldemort, which is antithetical to loyalty to Dumbledore, just giving the lessons and telling Harry about Voldemort's abilities as a Legilimens is evidence of Snape's loyalty to DD. And his concern about the Voldemort-related dreams, which he clearly does not want Harry to have, strongly suggests to me that he doesn't want Harry to know about the Prophecy and doesn't want him anywhere near the DoM. IOW, his desires are exactly in line with those of Dumbledore and the Order members, all of whom want Harry to learn Occlumency. That Harry invades the Pensieve, violating Snape's trust and privacy and causing him to end the lessons, is unfortunate, but Snape's subsequent actions, especially sending the Order to the DoM when he realizes that Harry believes the vision and has somehow found a way to get there despite his confiscated broom, indicate, to me, at least, that his loyalty to Dumbledore has not changed. Carol, for whom the evidence of Snape's loyalties in these examples is quite clear despite the intense mutual dislike between him and Harry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 21:39:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:39:08 -0000 Subject: Why not summon Fawkes? (Was: Comparing Secret Keeper plan and UV plan) In-Reply-To: <8C9385F4BED2C0B-12B0-4DC@webmail-md18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166279 Julie wrote: > Or if Dumbledore hadn't deliberately drank the poison from the > cave, knowing it would be if not fatal certainly debilitating > to his ability to defend himself. Yes, I know one can say he > wasn't expecting the DEs to show up that very night, but the > timing is still a bit suspicious to me > Might we also blame Fawkes, who didn't even bother to show up > to protect/save Dumbledore? Not that I believe this, because > if Fawkes could have saved Dumbledore he would have been there. > Clearly he couldn't, whether he understood that or Dumbledore > somehow communicated that to him. The absence of Fawkes is > in fact one of the strongest reasons for my belief that > Dumbledore's fate was sealed on the Tower. If Fawkes couldn't > save him at that point, then nobody could (Snape included). Carol responds: I think that Dumbledore could have summoned Fawkes (which doesn't require a wand, IIRC) had he chosen to do so. I can think of only a few reasons why he chose not to. One is that he knew he was dying from the poison, perhaps combined from the ring curse, and could not be saved. Another is that disappearing off the tower when Draco was supposed to be killing him would solve nothing; it would just increase Draco's danger. He would have failed in his mission, and if the DEs didn't kill him, Voldemort would. Draco's death might well trigger Snape's UV, killing him for failing to protect Draco. (Harry, of course, would be stuck on the tower in his Invisibility Cloak, frozen there until someone discovered and rescued him.) The third is that Dumbledore, knowing that he was dying, wanted Snape to kill him or appear to kill him. It's possible that all three were operating simultaneously, at least once Snape arrived on the tower. But I'm sure of one thing. If Dumbledore thought he could save his own life--without endangering the lives of others--by summoning Fawkes, he would have done so. I think he knew from the time he saw the Dark Mark, and perhaps from the time he sent Harry for the Invisibility Cloak that Harry was supposed to carry with him at all times, that he would die that night. His subsequent actions indicate that he had been anticipating his death all year. Carol, who agrees that Snape could not have saved Dumbledore, at least not once the DEs arrived, and probably not in any case From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Mar 19 21:57:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:57:34 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166280 > > Jen: I don't think Fawkes can appear unless Dumbledore has requested his help. > Otherwise it's almost like being immortal, having a magical animal who can intervene at > every dangerous moment....well no wonder Dumbledore has lived so long!! I'm guessing > the MOM was a *very* unique situation. I'm thinking Fawkes intervened at the MOM > because Dumbledore put him on alert that night, perhaps thinking *Harry* might need > him, and instead Fawkes ended up saving Dumbledore. And Dumbledore asked Fawkes to > help Harry in his absence in COS, or at least that's implied in DD's statement to Harry, > 'help will always be available.' > Hickengruendler: But if this true, why didn't Dumbledore put Fawkes on alert the night he died? After all, he went to a dangerous mission, and even if he didn't expect the Death eaters to appear in Hogwarts, he surely knew that the Horcrux hunt would hold some real dangers for his life *and Harry's*. Therefore telling Fawkes to be ready for the worst, just in case, seems not only logical, but really necessary, at the very least for Harry's sake. From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Mar 19 21:21:02 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:21:02 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166281 >> Hickengruendler: >> >> Fawkes also wasn't at the DoM and neither was he in the Chamber of Secrets. Didn't stop him to arrive as quickly as possible once Dumbledore and Harry needed him. Note that Harry didn't even have to summon him. Fawkes arrived simply, because Harry showed loyalty to Dumbledore. This Phoenix seems to be incredibily fast. And then he shouldn't make it on the tower to save Dumbledore in time, because he just wasn't there? << Dana: I am not saying I am right, it is just a thought because to me it takes an awful long time for Fawkes to start singing after DD died. I am just wondering if this is because Fawkes was not actually there and because he was doing something DD would consider more important and he would not have summoned him. >> Hickengruendler: >> >> See, this doesn't make any sense. Dumbledore tried everything to *keep* trelawney in Hogwarts to have her save. So why should he want to transport her out of the castle, now. Hogwarts is still one of the safest places in the Wizarding World, if not the safest. Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore and the castle generally is well protected. >> Yes, it isn't infallible as we saw several times, but it is still safer than the Hog's Head or any other place. And if Dumbledore didn't expect to die that night (as you vehemently argued in your posts), than it makes even less sense, to have Trelawney transported away from his watchful eyes. << Dana: I never argued that DD would not consider it a possibility he could die that night, just that he did not *plan* on it or to *have* Snape do it. I think there is a difference. Maybe I should have clarified this more specifically. I think LV never changed his mind about getting the prophecy but I initially thought he would make a second run for Hogwarts to get to her. But then Jen's possible plan made me think she might be right that Draco's murder attempt was a distraction to get to the real prize (or one of them): Trelawney. And I am wondering if DD realised this the moment Harry mentioned seeing her at the RoR. That it wasn't about him but about her. I am not saying Fawkes brought Trelawney to DD's brother, I do not think DD would hide her away on his own doorstep. But he could have notified his brother about it or about the situation at the same time, as we have been told by JKR that DD's family would be a profitable line of inquiry. JK: "Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry." Source: www.accio-quite.org It is pure speculation and there is no canon evidence for it. Hogwarts is no longer safe without DD and I am still convinced that DD would never risk LV getting his hands on the prophecy by letting himself get killed. Harry would lose his advantage over LV and it would never be worth the risk. Sorry to get off topic but just to clarify why I was thinking this in relation to Fawkes possible absence. Dana From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 19 22:52:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:52:38 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166282 > Hickengruendler: > > But if this true, why didn't Dumbledore put Fawkes on alert the night > he died? After all, he went to a dangerous mission, and even if he > didn't expect the Death eaters to appear in Hogwarts, he surely knew > that the Horcrux hunt would hold some real dangers for his life *and > Harry's*. Therefore telling Fawkes to be ready for the worst, just in > case, seems not only logical, but really necessary, at the very least > for Harry's sake. Jen: 'You are with me,' said Dumbledore simply. The fact that Fawkes didn't appear in the cave when Dumbledore collapsed and Harry was about to be pulled under by the Inferi tells me Fawkes was not meant to intervene. I don't think it's Fawkes' nature, no matter how loyal he is to Dumbledore, to intervene in every situation. Perhaps Fawkes sensed it was Dumbledore's time to pass on that night, that the next great adventure was waiting? Fawkes isn't going to arrive in the nick of time to save Dumbledore everytime he's in danger or Dumbledore wouldn't have a problem with the concept of immortality. Dumbledore would want to know that when it's his time to go, Fawkes will allow him to leave. Maybe that's what brought Fawkes to the MOM, he sensed it wasn't Dumbledore's time to go. Jen From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Mar 19 23:17:36 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:17:36 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166283 > > Jen: 'You are with me,' said Dumbledore simply. The fact that Fawkes didn't appear in the > cave when Dumbledore collapsed and Harry was about to be pulled under by the Inferi > tells me Fawkes was not meant to intervene. Hickengruendler: Hmm, I'm not sure. After all, Dumbledore recovered (for a short time, before he got weaker again) pretty fast, and I don't know what Fawkes could have done against the Infery. As far as I remember his two biggest helps were healing Harry's wounds in CoS (and then later in GoF, but here the wound wasn't deadly) and deflecting the Avada Kedavra spell in the DoM. And I'm not sure how much either of these abilities (healing wounds and getting reborn after being hit by an AK) would actually have helped during the scene with the Inferi. It would have helped, though, on the tower. And Dumbledore did have a lot of time to summon Fawkes during his conversation with Draco (and even during the one with Greyback), at least more so than while being involved in a battle with Voldie. Jen: Perhaps Fawkes sensed it was Dumbledore's time to pass on that night, > that the next great adventure was waiting? Fawkes isn't going to arrive in the nick of time > to save Dumbledore everytime he's in danger or Dumbledore wouldn't have a problem with > the concept of immortality. Dumbledore would want to know that when it's his time to go, > Fawkes will allow him to leave. Maybe that's what brought Fawkes to the MOM, he sensed > it wasn't Dumbledore's time to go. Hickengruendler: Yes, I agree with this. But of course I'm biased since this would be a strong hint towards DDM! Snape. If Fawkes knew it was Fumble's time to go, then chances are pretty high old Albus himself knew as well. I do wonder if there might be another explanations for Fawkes' absence (other than plothole and Fawkes being busy elsewhere, as Dana suggested). The first one wpuld be disappointing (though certainly possible), and I would have liked the second one much better, if we had seen Dumbledore giving the phoenix some instructions, instead of simply leaving the office and Fawkes remaining there. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Mar 19 23:19:08 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:19:08 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166284 Hickengruendler: > > But if this true, why didn't Dumbledore put Fawkes on alert the > > night he died? After all, he went to a dangerous mission, and > > even if he didn't expect the Death eaters to appear in Hogwarts, > > he surely knew that the Horcrux hunt would hold some real > > dangers for his life *and Harry's*. Therefore telling Fawkes to > > be ready for the worst, just in case, seems not only logical, > > but really necessary, at the very least for Harry's sake. Jen: > 'You are with me,' said Dumbledore simply. The fact that Fawkes > didn't appear in the cave when Dumbledore collapsed and Harry was > about to be pulled under by the Inferi tells me Fawkes was not > meant to intervene. > > I don't think it's Fawkes' nature, no matter how loyal he is to > Dumbledore, to intervene in every situation. Perhaps Fawkes > sensed it was Dumbledore's time to pass on that night, that the > next great adventure was waiting? Fawkes isn't going to arrive in > the nick of time to save Dumbledore everytime he's in danger or > Dumbledore wouldn't have a problem with the concept of > immortality. Dumbledore would want to know that when it's his > time to go, Fawkes will allow him to leave. Maybe that's what > brought Fawkes to the MOM, he sensed it wasn't Dumbledore's time > to go. SSSusan: Yes, either that or Dumbledore sensed it WAS his time to go as events began to play out that last night. Perhaps Fawkes *was* "on call" but DD never issued the final instruction for him to come because it became obvious to DD that it was his time? I have thought all along that DD knew he was dying due to the ring horcrux curse. It may have been a slow process, but I believe he knew it was inevitably going to do him in. Perhaps then imbibing the cave potion/inferi-infested lake water made DD even more aware of the likelihood that the end was VERY near... and he simply decided not to call upon Fawkes. I'm still intrigued by the question Jen asked in the post to which Hickengruendler was responding: > > > why couldn't Fawkes heal the ring curse injury? Because it's > > > dark magic or was too big or...? SSSusan: Obviously I don't know, either, but I'm banking on its having been because of the dark magic and/or evil in the ring curse. I don't think phoenix tears CAN'T cure anything which is dark magic or evil [would the basilisk venom be considered one of those??], but there may well have been something specific in the ring curse which was uncurable. Siriusly Snapey Susan, thinking DD knew the end was near when he left *for* the cave and knew it was quite imminent by the time he *left* the cave From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Mon Mar 19 23:33:26 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:33:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01c76a7f$087ba420$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166285 --Dana Wrote-- >>>I think LV never changed his mind about getting the prophecy but I initially thought he would make a second run for Hogwarts to get to her. But then Jen's possible plan made me think she might be right that Draco's murder attempt was a distraction to get to the real >prize (or one of them): Trelawney. And I am wondering if DD realised this the moment Harry mentioned seeing her at the RoR. That it wasn't about him but about her. >I am not saying Fawkes brought Trelawney to DD's brother, I do not >think DD would hide her away on his own doorstep. But he could have >notified his brother about it or about the situation at the same time, as we have been told by JKR that DD's family would be a profitable line of inquiry. >JK: "Dumbledore's family would be a profitable line of inquiry." >Source: www.accio-quite.org >It is pure speculation and there is no canon evidence for it. >Hogwarts is no longer safe without DD and I am still convinced that >DD would never risk LV getting his hands on the prophecy by letting >himself get killed. Harry would lose his advantage over LV and it >would never be worth the risk. Sorry to get off topic but just to >clarify why I was thinking this in relation to Fawkes possible >absence.<<< --Ronin's Comments-- It's an interesting idea that the attack on DD was just a ploy. Imagine if LV had entered Hogwarts while the Death Eaters were distracting the order and DD, to get Trelawney himself. I also believe that it is quite possible that Fawkes was busy doing something else when DD was killed. It's a plausible theory. Personally, I don't think a task like transporting Trelawney would have prevented Fawkes from coming to DD's aid if he had been summoned. Fawkes has the ability to apparate (or whatever the similar term in phoenix magic would be), as we see when DD escapes from his office in OotP. He also has the ability to do so within the grounds of Hogwarts. So far we know that Fawkes and the House Elves have this ability because they use a different type of magic. So because of this, I'm pretty sure that Fawkes would be able to appear at DD's side in an instant if he were summoned. I just think that Fawkes was never summoned and was going about whatever he normally did when DD was away from the castle. But, I do hope we see more of Fawkes in DH and I think we will. I do agree that Aberforth will play a role in DH, but I don't think that Trelawney was taken to him in Hogsmeade. I'm thinking that 12 Grimmauld Place is probably the safest location they have now (outside of Hogwarts). Whether Snape is good or not, DD believed he was good (As do I) until the moment of his death, so I don't think it would factor into the perceived safety of Grimmauld Place. Not to mention, I'm sure Harry would have removed Snape from the guest list. lol Lastly, I don't think Hogwarts is less safe without DD. I get the impression that Hogwarts is protected by old magic and that each headmaster/headmistress, lends their own protections to Hogwarts as well. Even after DD's death, when the spell binding Harry was lifted, the Death Eaters still had to clear the gate before they were able to apparate. I would also hazard to guess that the cabinet in the RoR was removed or destroyed immediately after it was discovered to be the Death Eater's point of entry. So, although they may not have DD's wand to help fight against intruders, I think he's already put devices in place to deal with them and the cabinet is not an issue anymore. He even said something to Harry about having protections in place while he was away from the castle and that he wouldn't leave his students in danger. At any rate, I still think that Hogwarts is about the safest place for them. And of course, there are always those who have no place else to go...(House elves, Hagrid, Firenze, Filch, etc.) Another reasoning for my thought is simply tradition. Each book so far has begun with Harry at the Dursley's, then progressed to Hogwarts where the main story unfolds, wrapping with the end of the school year and Harry's return to Privett Drive. I can't see JKR straying too far from this successful formula on the final installment. It would be almost like a whole different story. I think we'll see Harry and friends back at Hogwarts for a final year. They may certainly have adventures that take them away from the school, but I am betting that the meat of it will happen at Hogwarts. I envision the story opening with Harry and the Dursleys. Then Bill and Fleur's wedding and a journey back to Godric's Hollow. (Maybe while Molly purchases all of their school books and supplies) Then it's back to school where they can do some proper research and learn the final keys to the showdown. Of course this is all theory and opinion. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 01:57:22 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:57:22 -0000 Subject: MoM Special Awards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166286 Thank you Wierd Sisters for that wonderful tune, Swamp Fever Fiesta. Now, on the Wizarding Wireless we have a special presentation brought to you by your Ministry of Magic. Here, on behalf of the Ministry is Ms Keptinda Dark. Go ahead Ms Dark. Ms Dark: Thank you, Miss Teri. The Ministry would like to honor a couple of our own today, for their fine contributions to our Wizarding Society, and not too shabby detective work, I might add. First up, in recognition of her adapt puzzle solving skills, the award for People Uncovering Plot Points Yesterday; the PUPPY award goes to: Catlady, for her discovery of what happened to Sirius Black's Flying Motorcycle. You all know that this motorcycle was the object of an intense hunt when the criminal Black escaped from Azkaban. Umm, anyway, back to our award. Our presenter for this award, which I'm sure Catlady will appreciate, is Mrs Arabella Figg. Mrs Figg, if you please. Mrs Figg?! Mrs Figg: What? Who? Am I on? Thank you Ms Dark. Catlady is it? Oh I do love your name. Here dear, could you lean forward so I can put this ribbon around your neck,... thank you,... there we go. Congratulations! Now why do I think that you might have a few Kneazle friends of your own, hmmm? I must tell you, taking care of those little rascals can be quite a chore. If my good friend, Mr. Borage didn't supply me with a most excellent anti-hairball potion,... Ms Dark: AHEM, Thank you Mrs Figg :D We do have another presentation this evening, can't let you take up all our time now can we? Our next award is officially called the Tracing Harmonies, Analogous Theme Spotting; -- Identifying Tactics. We at the Ministry just call it the THAT'S IT award. In recognition of his outstanding contribution in figuring out the very plausible analogy the Ministry has been trying to solve these many years, the award goes to: Quick_Silver, for his Snape-Sirius parallel plot theory. To present this award, we have none other than our Minister of Magic himself, Rufus Scrimgeour. Ahh, there is a slight change of plans folks, it seems the Minister couldn't make it. He has instead sent his lackey, umm, I mean his assistant and former Minister, Cornelius Fudge. Mr Fudge, if you please. Fudge: Thank you Ms Dark. Well done, Lad, well done. You certainly have an eye for spotting trends, I must say. We,... ah,... could have used someone like you in my administration. At any rate, congratulations, fine job, very fine job. Umm, we had a plaque to present to you all lined up,.... but unfortunately Rubeus Hagrid was suppose to deliver it and he, umm, that is,... well he's off trying to recover that ridiculous flying motorcycle now that Catlady reminded him where he left it. But please leave your particulars with my assistant, Percy Wea..., ah, my former assistant Weatherby, ... no,... Weasley, and we'll owl it to you as soon as we get it from Hagrid. Ms Dark: Thank you former Minister Fudge. We thank the Wireless for granting us time for these presentations. I now return you to Miss Teri and your regularly scheduled program. Miss Teri: Thank you Ms Dark. And congratulations to the award winners from the Wizarding Wireless Network. ************************************************************ Mike: Special thanks to Catlady and Quick_Silver for their indulgence (not that I gave them an option ). That aside, here are their posts which won them awards, and I really do think they spotted some things that nobody else spotted. Catlady's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166247 Quick_Silver"s: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166095 Now this is the way to get in a "me too" post :)) Mike From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 20 01:32:07 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:32:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) References: Message-ID: <007501c76a8f$9666b710$3c7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166287 > Dana: > I never argued that DD would not consider it a possibility he could > die that night, just that he did not *plan* on it or to *have* Snape > do it. I think there is a difference. > > Maybe I should have clarified this more specifically. I think LV never > changed his mind about getting the prophecy but I initially thought he > would make a second run for Hogwarts to get to her. But then Jen's > possible plan made me think she might be right that Draco's murder attempt > was a distraction to get to the real prize (or one of them): Trelawney. > And I am wondering if DD realised this the moment Harry mentioned seeing > her at the RoR. That it wasn't about him but about her. Magpie: But I think there's a difference between something being possible and there being a strong reason to believe it. Dumbledore could just as easily have decided Draco's plot was really about getting Harry or Hermione--there's as much evidence that I can recall. The scene surrounding Dumbledore's murder, by contrast, has been set up since the beginning and involves everyone in the scene. The DEs are all there. None of them shows any sign of being there for any other reason than to "help" Draco (or watch him) kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore's last moments are almost all devoted to Draco and his understanding of murder. Snape tells them "it's over" once Dumbledore is dead. Dumbledore's death is the huge shock, coming right out of that second chapter. And iirc, Dumbledore never stopped treating Trelawney as someone he just had to be patient with but couldn't get rid of. (The irony being that Trelawney seemed to be predicted Dumbledore's own doom throughout the year, only he didn't want to see her.) You seem to be suggesting--unless I'm misunderstanding--that Dumbledore gets something from the fact that Trelawney is near the RoR, but we know she was only there hiding her empty bottles. She discovered Draco because he was also using the hiding version of the room and he threw her out--he had no reason for her there. There's nothing I recall from DD's reaction that suggests he's just put something together about Trelawney, and nothing I can see about the scenes that indicate anyone thinks she's significant that way. Even Harry's more interested in what she says about Snape. If Dumbledore had just realized something like this and started taking steps we'd have to, imo, see those beats in what's actually written even if for some reason we weren't told about it until DH. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Mar 20 02:56:05 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:56:05 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166288 Hickengruendler: > *(snip)* I do wonder if there might be another explanations for Fawkes' absence (other than plothole and Fawkes being busy elsewhere, as Dana suggested). The first one wpuld be disappointing (though certainly possible), and I would have liked the second one much better, if we had seen Dumbledore giving the phoenix some instructions, instead of simply leaving the office and Fawkes remaining there. Ceridwen: Okay, a very impossible suggestion, akin to my Dumbledore is Voldemort (hence the reason people mix them up ;) ): Snape is Fawkes. Yes, as an Animagus. Have you ever seen them together? Okay, in the Potterverse, with time-turners and Polyjuice, maybe you could see them together and they could still be the same individual. But, have you ever seen Snape and Fawkes together? Then, there are the eyes. Snape's eyes are like black tunnels - the first impression I got when I read this was a shark's eyes: flat black, reflective, cold, emotionless. Fawkes has black eyes like many birds. We see them reflecting the sunset in Dumbledore's office in HBP. Back when we were talking about horney toads, I of course thought of my dear old horney toad that I had when I was a kid. Its eyes were like a bird's eyes, ringed by something scaley-looking, opaque, reflective; like a shark's eyes, really, round and... well, like tunnels. I am using the term 'flat black' to mean something more like black paint on a car which does not have sparkleys in it, not like matte paint. One of the interesting images HBP gave us was of Snape chanting, singing, over Draco Malfoy. This was a healing spell, or a counter- spell to the Sectum Sempra spell. Either way, Draco was healed of his life-threatening injuries. In HBP, Snape also treated Katey Bell for magical injuries sustained from the cursed opal necklace, and he treated Dumbledore's injured hand received from the ring Horcrux or its protections. Snape as a healer: Fawkes as a healer. Phoenix song and phoenix tears are healing agents. Jen: > ...why couldn't Fawkes heal the ring curse injury? Because it's dark magic or was too big or...? Ceridwen: Good question, and part of the reason I'm playing with Fawkes!Snape (or Snape!Fawkes if you prefer). Why couldn't Fawkes heal DD? Or, did he, but in human form? Was it more beneficial to say that Snape had done the healing than that Fawkes had done it? Remember, this is just for fun, and not meant to be taken too seriously. And, if this was the reason DD trusts Snape but won't explain to anyone, it's understandable. This is the perfect cover, the one cover no one in the Order would question. If Fawkes came with a message or with assistance, to an Order member or to the trio, who would doubt him? Snape can be as wanted as he could be, but Fawkes will always be accepted by the Order and by Harry. After the tower, if they knew that one was the other, then neither would be accepted. I would really hate for anything about Fawkes to be a plot hole. He shows up so rarely, and what he does is so important to the story - delivering the Sorting Hat and Gryffindor's sword, healing Harry, shielding DD from an AK - that to have JKR suddenly just forget to put him in the story at a crucial point like this just doesn't make any sort of sense, and I think I would be really sad if that's all his absence meant on the tower - that JKR found it more convenient to forget him, she just pretended he didn't play such memorable roles in other books. So, I have my cute little Snape/Fawkes idea here. There are plenty of holes in it. The primary purpose it serves for me is to make Fawkes more than just a forgotten plot device when it was convenient not to have him around. Because if Snape was Fawkes, and Snape was on the tower, then Fawkes could not have been, lacking Polyjuice (who would be Polyjuiced to play the role?) or a time turner (as far as we know, they were all, or at least the ones at the MoM were, destroyed). The only other possibility given a Stealth!Fawkes would be Dumbledore as Fawkes, and JKR has already assured us that Dumbledore is indeed dead. Ceridwen, who passed her math test and is now having fun. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 20 03:13:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:13:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45FF5173.9060805@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166289 Ceridwen wrote: > Snape is Fawkes. Bart: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the canon makes it clear: Voldemort's wand has a feather from Fawkes in it (as does Harry's). Puts a crimp into the timing. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 20 03:32:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:32:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. References: <45FF5173.9060805@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <002201c76aa0$5e847880$3c7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166290 > Ceridwen wrote: >> Snape is Fawkes. > > Bart: > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the canon makes it clear: Voldemort's > wand has a feather from Fawkes in it (as does Harry's). Puts a crimp > into the timing. Magpie: And yet, if people have been periodically pulling feathers out of his ass, it might explain why Snape is so often in a bad mood. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 03:47:03 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:47:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Puzzlement of the day References: <16832750.1174322903326.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <00b701c76aa2$80d88c30$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166291 Sirius Black is Harry Potter's godfather. > > What's a godfather (in the context of the WW, of course)? > > Bart My theory is that a Wizard Godfather is the same as a normal Godfather- someone that is supposed to take care of you if your parents can't and there aren't other relatives. Thus, if the Dursleys didn't want Harry, Sirius would have been the next in line to raise Harry. We see Sirius, after he gets out of prison, taking some responsibility for Harry as if he were a legal gaurdian, which the wizarding world considered him to be more than the Dursleys. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 03:38:23 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:38:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Deathly Hallows References: <016d01c76a1c$18111630$020aa8c0@Sharon> Message-ID: <009001c76aa1$422a0f00$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166292 > Isn't time we started seeing some teasers of the book cover, etc? Last > time > we had some wonderful discussions about the 2 clasped hands (which > absolutely no-one guessed correctly!) as well as the back cover. > > I'm starting to feel just a teeny bit desperate. July is too far away!! > > Sharon Isn't the cover we see displayed the real cover? The pure black with white lettering and no picture? It would be a shame if we got no teaser hints to start debating on. Shelley From kernsac at earthlink.net Tue Mar 20 05:48:15 2007 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:48:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) References: Message-ID: <00fc01c76ab3$5ba94a60$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 166293 Dana: I am not saying I am right, it is just a thought because to me it takes an awful long time for Fawkes to start singing after DD died. I am just wondering if this is because Fawkes was not actually there and because he was doing something DD would consider more important and he would not have summoned him. >> Hickengruendler: Peggy: I woke up thinking about Fawkes one day a few months ago. I don't know why or how the thought got into my head, but I started wondering if there was some kind of tie-in with Fawkes and Snape, whether they were one and the same, in a transfigured form or something. As I say, I woke up with this idea in my head one morning, and don't know how it got there; but I've been watching it and rolling it around ever since. I've never seen Fawkes and Snape at the same place at the same time, and after waking up with that thought, I just can't help wondering if there's some kind of connection or something we don't know about or don't understand. There, I said it! It was such a bizarre idea that I didn't even want to mention it, especially since I just woke up with it in my head one morning, and am not sure what I think of it myself. But it might be fun to play with as we wait for book 7. Is there a relationship between Fawkes and Snape? Are they one and the same, or is there something else we don't know about? Peggy From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Mar 20 10:08:57 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:08:57 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: <00fc01c76ab3$5ba94a60$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166294 Peggy: > ...but I started wondering if there was some kind of tie-in with Fawkes and Snape, whether they were one and the same, in a transfigured form or something. *(snip)* Ceridwen: Don't feel too alone: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166288 IF Snape is DDM, then some people speculate that Fawkes will have something to do with proving this - defending him in a fight as he defended Dumbledore at the Ministry, for instance. I suggested, in the post linked above, that if Fawkes IS Snape, then this would be the way for him to get information to Harry and the Order - who would doubt Fawkes? I would be tempted to say that Rowling has already done the "Sirius is the Grim" thing in PoA, but having done something doesn't mean she can't again. Anyway, since it's close to publication, even if it seems like the last weeks of waiting will be the longest, it's time to drag out the more over-the-top ideas. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 20 10:41:42 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:41:42 -0000 Subject: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166295 > Ceridwen: > Okay, a very impossible suggestion, akin to my Dumbledore is Voldemort (hence the > reason people mix them up ;) ): Jen: Aha! You are the culprit! > Snape is Fawkes. > > Yes, as an Animagus. Have you ever seen them together? Okay, in the Potterverse, with > time-turners and Polyjuice, maybe you could see them together and they could still be > the same individual. But, have you ever seen Snape and Fawkes together? Jen: Odd that, how Snape is never in Dumbledore's office when Harry arrives. And trying so *hard* to keep Harry from entering the office that day in GOF? Think how LONG we've creased our brows over that one, searching for a motive, only to find out Snape is desperate to keep Harry from discovering...Fawkes is *missing*. Snape knows Potter and his gang of meddling friends will plan a rescue and he will be under suspicion for loitering outside Dumbledore's office, once again in the wrong place at the wrong time. "POTTER!" Yes, one mystery finally solved. Ceridwen: > One of the interesting images HBP gave us was of Snape chanting, singing, over Draco > Malfoy. This was a healing spell, or a counter-spell to the Sectum Sempra spell. Either > way, Draco was healed of his life-threatening injuries. In HBP, Snape also treated Katey > Bell for magical injuries sustained from the cursed opal necklace, and he treated > Dumbledore's injured hand received from the ring Horcrux or its protections. Snape as > a healer: Fawkes as a healer. Phoenix song and phoenix tears are healing agents. Jen: Hmm, I'm thinking the transformations can only happen on burning day, that's why Snape has all the dark imagery around him: the black clothes, black mood, black sneer. Living in a dungeon to symbolize the ashes. Yes, yes, it's all coming together Ceridwen, thank you. ;-) Jen, still laughing at Magpie's clever post and apologizing if her post has line breaks, sigh. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 10:47:16 2007 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:47:16 -0000 Subject: Perjury, Dumbledore, and Right v Easy once Again (Re: Percy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166296 Amiable Dorsai: > > So, let me see if I've got this correct: you're saying that > > allowing a malicious prosecutor to railroad an innocent person > > is "right", and that risking one's position, reputation, and > > freedom to prevent that from happening is "easy". > > Lupinlore: > And yet, that is probably exactly the definition of right vs easy > that many people might invoke. Amiable Dorsai: But if the question is whether or not *Dumbledore* is a hypocrite or not, surely it's Dumbledore's opinion of what is "right" and what is "easy" that matters. So long as he is self-consistent, how can he be a hypocrite? Lupinlore: > ...And, in the real world, perjury is a crime, even if > invoked for the "right" reasons, such as to defeat a malicious and > unfair prosecutor. Amiable Dorsai: That's rather my point, isn't it? It's a crime, and in committing it Dumbledore risks everything in order to A) protect an innocent from a monstrous plot to frame him, and B) to preserve the world's hope of prevailing against the even more monstrous threat of Voldemort. He chose to do that when he could have taken the easy path of going back to his pretty castle on the lake and leaving Harry and the world to their own devices. You may argue that Dumbledore's actions were, on some level, foolish--in fact, you do just that in the next sentence I quote, but where is the hypocrisy? Lupinlore: > I agree that Dumbledore helping Harry was the right thing to do -- > albeit that the methods he used were, as usual, incredibly stupid > to the point of near contemptible incompetence. Amiable Dorsai: So how would you have handled it? Amiable Dorsai From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 20 11:03:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:03:59 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <009001c76aa1$422a0f00$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > Isn't time we started seeing some teasers of the book cover, etc? Last > > time > > we had some wonderful discussions about the 2 clasped hands (which > > absolutely no-one guessed correctly!) as well as the back cover. > > > > I'm starting to feel just a teeny bit desperate. July is too far away!! > > > > Sharon Shelley > Isn't the cover we see displayed the real cover? The pure black with white > lettering and no picture? It would be a shame if we got no teaser hints to > start debating on. Geoff: I doubt it. In the UK, W.H.Smith, one of the biggest newsagent/bookseller chains have a standard "mock up" cover with just a drawing of Harry and the title in what might loosely be termed "Harry Potter" typeface. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Mar 20 05:49:07 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:49:07 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: <007501c76a8f$9666b710$3c7e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166298 >magpie: > If Dumbledore had just realized something like this and started taking steps we'd have > to, imo, see those beats in what's actually written even if for some reason we weren't > told about it until DH. Dana: Of course we only have the entire OotP book, that LV was after the prophecy and then we have him suddenly change his mind in HBP. The prophecy orb might be lost but the one that made the prophecy is very much alive and we know that LV has no trouble to pick someone's mind even when it is tampered with like Bertha Jorkins. Dana From kim4fsu at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 04:21:28 2007 From: kim4fsu at yahoo.com (Kim Jaudon) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Puzzlement of the day In-Reply-To: <00b701c76aa2$80d88c30$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <652112.60900.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166299 Shelley: > My theory is that a Wizard Godfather is the same as a normal Godfather--someone that > is supposed to take care of you if your parents can't and there aren't other relatives. > Thus, if the Dursleys didn't want Harry, Sirius would have been the next in line to raise >Harry. We see Sirius, after he gets out of prison, taking some responsibility for Harry as if >he were a legal gaurdian, which the wizarding world considered him to be more than the > Dursleys. Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. In the mainstream religions with which I am familiar, it is a person who is responsible for continuing a child's spiritual growth. In that way, it's more than "taking care of." It's a vow to continue what the parents have begun, and to continue the faith to which they hold. In that context, I think this is a fascinating question that none of us here will be able to answer. What is the faith of the wizarding world? Ah now...that is the question, isn't it? Kim From muellem at bc.edu Tue Mar 20 14:05:29 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:05:29 -0000 Subject: Puzzlement of the day In-Reply-To: <652112.60900.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166300 > Shelley: > > My theory is that a Wizard Godfather is the same as a normal Godfather--someone that > > is supposed to take care of you if your parents can't and there aren't other relatives. > > Thus, if the Dursleys didn't want Harry, Sirius would have been the next in line to raise > >Harry. We see Sirius, after he gets out of prison, taking some responsibility for Harry as if > >he were a legal gaurdian, which the wizarding world considered him to be more than the > > Dursleys. > Kim Jaudon wrote: > > Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. In the mainstream religions with which I am familiar, it is a person who is responsible for continuing a child's spiritual growth. In that way, it's more than "taking care of." It's a vow to continue what the parents have begun, and to continue the faith to which they hold. In that context, I think this is a fascinating question that none of us here will be able to answer. What is the faith of the wizarding world? Ah now...that is the question, isn't it? > colebiancardi: well, I am not an expert on other Christian religions, but I thought Godparents were a Catholic thing. I am not aware if other Christian faiths use the same rituals & ceremonies that the Catholic Church uses. Also, that is the traditional defination of a Godparent - "it is a person who is responsible for continuing a child's spiritual growth". I am an lasped Catholic & yet my brother asked me to be his son's Godmother. I just think it is for ceremony nowadays - but I could be wrong. However, in the context of the Wizarding World, perhaps Godparents are wizards who are responsible for continuing a child's wizarding growth. I know that in the UK, unlike the US, people don't really talk about religion or God(or at least like it is here in the US). A Brit told me once that if their politicans ever mentioned the whole God business in a stump speech like we do over here, they would be laughed at. colebiancardi From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 20 14:35:24 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:35:24 -0000 Subject: Puzzlement of the day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166301 Shelley: > > > My theory is that a Wizard Godfather is the same as a normal > > > Godfather--someone that is supposed to take care of you if your > > > parents can't and there aren't other relatives. Thus, if the > > > Dursleys didn't want Harry, Sirius would have been the next in > > > line to raise Harry. Kim Jaudon wrote: > > Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. In the mainstream > > religions with which I am familiar, it is a person who is > > responsible for continuing a child's spiritual growth. In that > > way, it's more than "taking care of." It's a vow to continue > > what the parents have begun, and to continue the faith to which > > they hold. In that context, I think this is a fascinating > > question that none of us here will be able to answer. What is > > the faith of the wizarding world? Ah now...that is the question, > > isn't it? colebiancardi: > well, I am not an expert on other Christian religions, but I thought > Godparents were a Catholic thing. I am not aware if other Christian > faiths use the same rituals & ceremonies that the Catholic Church > uses. Also, that is the traditional defination of a Godparent - "it > is a person who is responsible for continuing a child's spiritual > growth". I am an lasped Catholic & yet my brother asked me to be > his son's Godmother. I just think it is for ceremony nowadays - > but I could be wrong. SSSusan: Godparents are definitely a Protestant thing, too -- at least in some Protestant denominations. I can speak for us Episcopalians, anyway. Baptism is an entire-parish kind of thing for us; those present pledge to support the parents and godparents in raising up the child, particularly in his/her spiritual growth. Yet you're right, too, that for many folks in the U.S. it's a very secular thing -- someone(s) who is being asked if they'll watch out for, or even raise, the child should something happen to the parents. colebiancardi: > However, in the context of the Wizarding World, perhaps Godparents > are wizards who are responsible for continuing a child's wizarding > growth. SSSusan: I agree that this is quite possible. I think what we end up with is what Kim asked, above: >>> In that context, I think this is a fascinating question that none of us here will be able to answer. What is the faith of the wizarding world? <<< I think, as with all Christian terminology or "events" (for lack of a better word coming to me at the moment) which we encounter in the books (Christmas, Easter, christening), we are at a loss to know just what they mean in the WW. What *is* the faith of the wizarding world, indeed? We know JKR's background, we know she refers to Christian holidays & christening/godparents in the book -- and clearly the role of godparent is supposed to be a very important one from the way she presents it -- but as others have pointed out here in the past, regarding Christmas and Easter in particular, JKR never indicates that these are more than secular holidays. So unless JKR addresses it directly in Book 7 or in an interview or on her website, I don't imagine we're really going to know the precise way in which the WW views godparents. Responsible for spiritual development? Responsible for raising the child if parents die? A legal obligation? a moral one? both? I'd say we can't know, other than that she seems to have presented the fact of Sirius' being Harry's godfather as having meant something quite serious (pardon the pun) for Harry. Sirius could sign his permission slip for Hogsmeade trips in the Dursleys' stead. Harry could immediately contemplate the possibility of living with Sirius. So guardianship seems a part of it. But about the spiritual "raising up" of the child, that's not clear, imo. Siriusly Snapey Susan From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 14:59:35 2007 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:59:35 +0100 Subject: Differences in UK/US version of HBP - potential spoiler I guess? Message-ID: <17785fc30703200759k1673094et7b21a796f52c3bde@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166302 Hi all, Forgive me if this has already been asked. I didn't see it anywhere, but the sheer number of posts does get intimidating occasionally ;-) Apparently in the US and UK versions of HBP there are some quite major differences in the text. Not just changed words, but actual added sentences in the US version. One example comes from "Beyond Hogwarts" (the article addresses clues as to why Dumbledore isn't dead after all, which I don't believe is the case - he's dead as a doornail - but the example is still interesting): UK version: "He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got not choice." "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. (HBP UK Edition pg 552) US version: "He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice." "*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..." Malfoy stared at Dumbledore. (HBP US Edition pg 591) (emphasis mine to show added sentences). Now these additions are not just small changes - they're quite major ones, and one can't help but wonder why the 'translator' added them. Was this his/her own doing, or after consultation with JKR or something else altogether??? Do any of you know anything about this, or have any kind of insight to offer? My parents are very puzzled by this, and would be very grateful :-) Thanks :-) Maria -- I believe in God like I believe in the sun not because I see it, but by it I see everything else --- C.S. Lewis From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 15:47:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:47:42 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166303 Dana: > Of course we only have the entire OotP book, that LV was after the prophecy and then we have him suddenly change his mind in HBP. The prophecy orb might be lost but the one that made the prophecy is very much alive and we know that LV has no trouble to pick someone's mind even when it is tampered with like Bertha Jorkins. > > Dana > Carol responds: In OoP, Voldemort was singlemindedly focused on the Prophecy to the extent of forgetting to murder people. In HBP, he's committing murders, destroying bridges, staging "hurricanes" with giants, encouraging Fenrir Greyback to kill children, and so forth. The DEs are Imperioing people, even children. There's also, of course, the Draco plot, which, if it fails, will bring revenge against Lucius Malfoy for failing to retrieve the Prophecy, and if it succeeds, will kill Dumbledore, the biggest obstacle to capturing and killing Harry Potter. While Voldemort may not have forgotten about the Prophecy, and may well be planning to kidnap Trelawney in DH, it no longer seems to be a major concern. He seems to be doing the best (or should I say, worst) he can without it. Regarding Fawkes, I've already explained why I think he was absent from the tower: Dumbledore didn't summon him. And he's probably absent from the funeral because he's already sung his own lament; human rituals are meaningless to him. According to FB, phoenixes are not actually immortal. They just have extremely long lives because they can regenerate when they feel themselves getting old and weak. It's possible that Fawkes will choose to let himself die this time because he misses Dumbledore. That seems unlikely, though, since this incarnation of Fawkes is only a year old, having been born after the MoM fight in OoP. I do think he'll play a role in DH, but it will have nothing to do with a bit player like Trelawney. I think that, as he's always done, he'll empathize with and help Harry, who, after all, has a Fawkes tail feather in his wand. (That Voldemort also does is, I think, irrelevant to Fawkes, whose fire symbolism and red and gold coloring associate him with Gryffindor.) Carol, thinking that if Snape were a phoenix, his colors would be silver and green From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 16:13:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:13:25 -0000 Subject: Differences in UK/US version of HBP - potential spoiler I guess? In-Reply-To: <17785fc30703200759k1673094et7b21a796f52c3bde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166304 Maria Elmvang wrote: > Apparently in the US and UK versions of HBP there are some quite major differences in the text. Not just changed words, but actual added sentences in the US version. One example comes from "Beyond Hogwarts" (the article addresses clues as to why Dumbledore isn't dead after all, which I don't believe is the case - he's dead as a doornail - but the example is still interesting): > > US version: "*He cannot kill you if you are already dead.* *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.* > > Now these additions are not just small changes - they're quite major ones, and one can't help but wonder why the 'translator' added them. Was this his/her own doing, or after consultation with JKR or something else altogether??? Carol responds: This topic has already been discussed, as have other differences in the US/UK editions of various books. If by "translator" you mean the U.S. Copyeditor, he or she certainly would not be authorized to add them, nor would he or she have thought of doing such a thing, adding such complex thoughts seemingly out of nowhere in Dumbledore's voice. (I'm a copyeditor myself, and I know what would happen to me if I did such an outrageous thing!) They must have been written by JKR herself. Perhaps the copyeditor suggested taking them out because they gave too much away and JKR complied (an author can accept or reject a copyeditor's changes). More likely, JKR herself realized that they gave too much away and requested that they be deleted, or deleted them herself in the page proofs. Possibly, it was too late to do that with the U.S. hardback edition. The correction did, however, make it into the U.S. paperback edition, surely JKR's own doing. I'm pretty sure, however, that faked deaths and hidden people will play a role in DH, perhaps in connection with the Draught of Living Death (also much discussed on this list) and a certain ex-Potions master. Carol, whose favorite candidate for a faked death is Emmeline Vance From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 20 16:32:08 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:32:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) Message-ID: <24061620.1174408328700.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166305 From: Ceridwen >I would be tempted to say that Rowling has already done the "Sirius >is the Grim" thing in PoA, but having done something doesn't mean she >can't again. Bart: True. However, I recall an episode of some police show with comic aspects (Barney Miller? Hill Street Blues?) where an investigation is set up of some criminal group, and, when the arrests are finally made, it is discovered that the group is entirely made up of undercover law enforcement officers, from different law enforcement organizations (local police, DEA, FBI, etc.). I have this vision of the MOM offering amnesty to all unregistered animagi, and discovering that virtually everybody in the WW is an unregistered animagus. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 17:00:36 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:00:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puzzlement of the day References: <652112.60900.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e201c76b11$47d18d00$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166306 > Shelley: >> My theory is that a Wizard Godfather is the same as a normal >> Godfather--someone that >> is supposed to take care of you if your parents can't and there aren't >> other relatives. >> Thus, if the Dursleys didn't want Harry, Sirius would have been the next >> in line to raise >>Harry. We see Sirius, after he gets out of prison, taking some >>responsibility for Harry as if >>he were a legal gaurdian, which the wizarding world considered him to be >>more than the >> Dursleys. > > Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. In the mainstream > religions with which I am familiar, it is a person who is responsible for > continuing a child's spiritual growth. In that way, it's more than > "taking care of." It's a vow to continue what the parents have begun, and > to continue the faith to which they hold. In that context, I think this > is a fascinating question that none of us here will be able to answer. > What is the faith of the wizarding world? Ah now...that is the question, > isn't it? > > Kim But in that sense, Sirius would be a perfect Godfather- he'd raise Harry as a WIZARD. If it were up to the Dursleys alone, Harry would be raised as a Muggle. As for religion, isn't there hints of it? At Christmastime, Sirius was singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriff", and the fact that they celebrated Christmas at all (and not Yule, or Winter Solstice) tells me that they must have a "Christ" to celebrate his birth, or a Santa Clause to get the idea of sending presents. I don't think that religion is all that different between Muggles and Wizards, except that the Wizards probably don't attend the same churches, unless the Wizards are willing mix in and blend with the Muggles. One of the ghosts was the Fat Friar- meaning that it could even be a profession for the Wizard, eh? It seems a lot of the traditions are the same, just celebrated "wizard style" in the Wizarding world. Shelley From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 20 17:06:43 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:06:43 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166307 > >magpie: > > If Dumbledore had just realized something like this and started taking steps we'd have > > to, imo, see those beats in what's actually written even if for some reason we weren't > > told about it until DH. > > Dana: > Of course we only have the entire OotP book, that LV was after the prophecy and then we have him suddenly change his mind in HBP. The prophecy orb might be lost but the one that made the prophecy is very much alive and we know that LV has no trouble to pick someone's mind even when it is tampered with like Bertha Jorkins. Magpie: That's not quite what I was talking about, though. We know that last year LV was after the Prophecy, and that Trelawney is still around. We know why she's at Hogwarts. But if Dumbledore is supposed to have realized, when Harry told him Trelawney was near the RoR, that in fact the entire Draco plot of HBP (a major thread) is actually about Trelawney and then taken steps to spirit her away...I think we need some sign of Dumbledore realizing something and doing something. But we don't have that. Nor do we have any signs that the DEs are there in service of that sort of thing. That's supposed to be what's going on in HBP, but it's not revealed. It would be like a theory where Fake! Moody was really Regulus Black instead of Barty Crouch Jr whent he whole climax was about Barty Crouch. I mean, in GoF Voldemort was dead set on killing Harry, but he's not trying to kill him in HBP. The books have certain things that do carry over, but in general their plots are self-contained. -m From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Mar 20 16:42:50 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:42:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12748.132.229.182.92.1174408970.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> No: HPFGUIDX 166308 What if Dumbledore died months before of old age etc. His shoes are (literary) filled by somebody under Polyjuice, or even possibly Tonks (metamorphmagus) I'm thinking of that story (I don't know if it's true or not) of General 'Monty' Montgomery having a double who is purposely paraded around as to decieve the Nazis so the 'real' Monty can plan an attack where and when Hitler least suspects it. I still think DD is a great chess-player, who has planned a lot of things Harry isn't aware of. When confronted with his own death, I don't think DD would let his own impending death keep him from fighting Voldemort. I think he would *use* his own death to his advantage. So DD dies peacefully, surrounded by his nearest co-conspirators (Snape, perhaps McGonegal) and his body is placed under a stasis-spell (hence his body looks so peaceful and undisturbed when 'found under the tower' after supposedly falling hundreds of feet. Knowing that Voldemort is obsessed this year with letting Draco fail in his attempt to assasinate him, and when it turns out that he has died already Voldemort might very well kick into gear and do something more drastic, DD has planned the whole set-up in advance. When he dies, somebody else takes his place. Let's say, Aberforce under Polyjuice. Abe knows his brother well enough to mimick him. Besides, DD is 'ill' and often absent because of his 'withered hand'... The whole 'going to fetch the horcrux in the secret cave and feeding DD poison' is *such* a set up. That locket is planted there by DD himself, aided by his longtime right-hand man Snape (who provided the eerily green goo) (and isn't it a *coincidence* that Snape just *happened* to cover Inferi in his lessons? Set up! I smell a set up!!) So 'Dumbledore' and Harry go and retrieve the locket. The boy *must* be set on the trail of the horcruces after all, and he is loitering enough as it is. 'Dumbledore' and his co-conspiritors (the 'real' Order of the Phoenix, as it were) know that Draco will try his bit soon and that the DE's will be at the gates before the schoolyear is out. Time is of the essence. And then it happens. The whole plan takes it's course. All 'DD' needed to do is wear a metal breastplate under his robes (AK's don't penetrate stone or metal, apparantly) get hit, fall dramatically out of the window, cast a cushioning spell, bugger off to the coldstorage where they hid the REAL Dumble's body, place the body underneath the tower and hide until the 'juice wears off. Result? Your righthand man is in deep, deep undercover and working from the inside, your patsy, uh, your 'chosen one hero' is now kicked out of his quidditch-centered complacency and off in a righteous anger to slay the 'traitor' and kill himself a Dark Lord while he's at it (never give too much information to patsies, uh, heroes, it makes them try to think and that can only lead to disaster) So, why wasn't Fawkes at the tower scene? Because Fawkes was DD familiar and although still welcome in polyjuiced-DD office and probably still willing to help polyjuiced-DD, he's not polyjuiced DD's familiar and has no reason to hang around 'him'. Fawkes was probably hanging around the 'cold-storage' where Dumble's body was kept. No wonder his song was so soul-ripping: finally, after all this time he can let show his grief. Hey, it's not a bad theory. No worse than 'Snape is Fawkes' at any rate :-) (actually, I would *love* it if Fawkes turned out to be Snape) Marion From shamyn at pacbell.net Tue Mar 20 17:24:40 2007 From: shamyn at pacbell.net (Draeconin) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:24:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puzzlement of the day In-Reply-To: <00e201c76b11$47d18d00$c0affea9@MOBILE> References: <652112.60900.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <00e201c76b11$47d18d00$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <460018D8.4050901@pacbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166309 k12listmomma wrote: >> Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. >> >> Kim >> > Shelley wrote: > > As for religion, isn't there hints of it? At Christmastime, Sirius was > singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriff", and the fact that they celebrated > Christmas at all (and not Yule, or Winter Solstice) tells me that they must > have a "Christ" to celebrate his birth, or a Santa Clause to get the idea of > sending presents. I don't think that religion is all that different between > Muggles and Wizards, except that the Wizards probably don't attend the same > churches, unless the Wizards are willing mix in and blend with the Muggles. > One of the ghosts was the Fat Friar- meaning that it could even be a > profession for the Wizard, eh? It seems a lot of the traditions are the > same, just celebrated "wizard style" in the Wizarding world. Draeconin: Religion is a touchy subject, but while I'm sure that Christianity would have stuck its nose into the wizarding world early on, I don't think it would have maintained a firm foothold, especially considering Christianity's attitudes towards magic and those who practice it. Yes, I'm sure a few wizarding families here and there would still practice it (likely working class), and of course most Muggle-borns would likely be steeped in it, but not the wizarding world in general. As for celebrating Christmas instead of something else, I think I'd lay that at the door of an author who automatically used what she was most familiar with. Then again, it may have been deliberate, in order to placate her mostly Christian-oriented readership. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 20 18:27:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:27:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puzzlement of the day Message-ID: <19887714.1174415265661.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166310 From: cubfanbudwoman >Yet you're right, too, that for many folks in the U.S. it's a very >secular thing -- someone(s) who is being asked if they'll watch out >for, or even raise, the child should something happen to the parents. Bart: Just to confuse matters more, in Judaism, there is something that is colloquially called in English the "godparents", although their role is more customary than religious. Their only actual obligation is to help hold a male child while he's being circumcised. Customarily, they are also charged with ensuring that the child is properly brought up if something happens to the parents (note that they are not personally obligated to do the upbringing; they are in charge of finding homes for the children, and their own home is certainly an option). No place of worship has been mentioned in the HP novels. Yet, at the very least, one would assume that some of the Muggleborns would belong to some religion. Most of the customs of Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, as the Jehovah's Witnesses will be more than glad to tell you, have pagan origins. It is no coincidence that when St. Patrick and his armies came to Ireland, by no coincidence, churches, monasteries and convents arose where the old pagan temples were (and were dedicated to the Catholic figures that most closely resembled the gods and goddesses to whom they were originally dedicated). >From my readings, the more scholarly Christian objections to the Harry Potter novels come not because of the outer trappings of magic, wizards, and witches, but from the apparently atheistic society depicted. In other words, in her attempts to avoid showing religion, JKR appears to be glorifying its absence (this is their point of view, not mine, although I definitely can understand it, even if I don't empathize with it). The existence of an office of "godfather" is another example of the secular trappings of religion without the spirituality involved. In the book 1984, women are taught a technique of simultaneously welcoming and rejecting sex, so that they can bear children for the Party, but nobody will actually ENJOY the sex. There has been a growing emphasis in Western Society of keeping the external trappings of religion, but looking down on anybody with faith with an attitude of, "You actually BELIEVE that garbage????" (this is nothing new; for years, scholars translating the Old Testament have gone out of their way to mistranslate the sections dealing with magic, for fear that putting in the effort to translate it correctly might be intrepreted as actually believing in magic). Bart From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Mar 20 17:44:08 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:44:08 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166311 Carol: > There's also, of course, the Draco plot, which, if it fails, will > bring revenge against Lucius Malfoy for failing to retrieve the > Prophecy, and if it succeeds, will kill Dumbledore, the biggest > obstacle to capturing and killing Harry Potter. Dana: Was DD really the biggest obstacle to capture and kill Harry? In PS/SS he faces Voldemort alone, in CoS he faces Voldemort alone (even if Fawkes helps), in GoF he faces Voldemort alone. The only time DD actively prevents LV from killing Harry is in OotP. The things that help Harry during these events are not dependent on DD's presence and I do not think with DD out of the way he is stripped of this help either. Carol: > While Voldemort may not have forgotten about the Prophecy, and may > well be planning to kidnap Trelawney in DH, it no longer seems to > be a major concern. He seems to be doing the best (or should I say, > worst) he can without it. Dana: Well, I do not believe it is no longer a major concern because he still has not figured out how to kill the kid, as even possession did not work. Carol: > Regarding Fawkes, I've already explained why I think he was absent > from the tower: Dumbledore didn't summon him. And he's probably > absent from the funeral because he's already sung his own lament; > human rituals are meaningless to him. Dana: Personally, I still see a possibility for DD to ask Fawkes to be on alert, but not for himself or Harry (DD understands perfectly well that LV would not allow any DE to touch Harry), but to get Trelawney out if there is any indication someone tried to get to her. It is just a thought. I was not talking about his absence from the funeral. Carol: > I do think he'll play a role in DH, but it will have nothing to do > with a bit player like Trelawney. I think that, as he's always > done, he'll empathize with and help Harry, who, after all, has a > Fawkes tail feather in his wand. Dana: You might consider her a bit player but she is as important to LV as the orb was and the Order did everything to protect that and Trelawney was at that time still safe at Hogwarts. I don't think Fawkes, if he shows up in DH, will actively try to protect her, I agree but that doesn't mean he hasn't already done so. One does not exclude the other. Carol: > (That Voldemort also does is, I think, irrelevant to Fawkes, whose > fire symbolism and red and gold coloring associate him with > Gryffindor.) Dana: Personally I think it is relevant because was it really Harry the wand chose or did it, like the hat, choose Harry because of the link he shares with LV? > Carol, thinking that if Snape were a phoenix, his colors would be > silver and green Dana, thinking If Snape where a phoenix, he wouldn't be such a cry baby about being tricked at age 16 and still holding a grudge 20 years later because maybe he could have died. He would have just turned in to a phoenix and Lupin would not have been a threat. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 18:29:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:29:42 -0000 Subject: Christian or post-Christian elements of the WW (Was: Puzzlement of the day) In-Reply-To: <00e201c76b11$47d18d00$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166312 Shelley wrote: > As for religion, isn't there hints of it? At Christmastime, Sirius was singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriff", and the fact that they celebrated Christmas at all (and not Yule, or Winter Solstice) tells me that they must have a "Christ" to celebrate his birth, or a Santa Clause to get the idea of sending presents. I don't think that religion is all that different between Muggles and Wizards, except that the Wizards probably don't attend the same churches, unless the Wizards are willing mix in and blend with the Muggles. One of the ghosts was the Fat Friar- meaning that it could even be a profession for the Wizard, eh? It seems a lot of the traditions are the same, just celebrated "wizard style" in the Wizarding world. Carol responds: Without getting overly involved in the history of Christmas as celebrated in the British Isles and that sort of thing, I agree that the WW in the 1990s appears to be a secularized Christian society, complete with chocolate Easter eggs, Christmas trees (and presents and carols), and even Father Christmas (the British equivalent of Santa Claus) and his reindeer as a decoration at the Yule ball, and mild oaths like "good lord." In addition to the Fat Friar, a ghost who presumably dates from the medieval period, there's a portrait of four monks, IIRc (no nuns, though). All of these appear to me to be vestiges of a time when the WW and the Muggle world were more closely associated than they are now (and both England and Scotland were and are Christian countries, complete with a state church). Christmas trees were brought to England by Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, and were perhaps incorporated into Hogwarts tradition by a Muggleborn or Half-Blood headmaster or -mistress. Although certain traditions associated with Christian holidays (evergreens at Christmas, eggs at Easter) incorporate pagan elements, now so secularized that Easter and Christmas can be celebrated without any reference to Christianity at all (compare the commericialization in the U.S. and the influence of political correctness, which has made Christmas into a generic holiday with "holiday trees" and "holiday cards"), I see no evidence of any institutionalized religion other than Christianity at Hogwarts. (There's the name Anthony Goldstein, which sounds Jewish, but no indication that Anthony celebrates Hanukkah or objects to the Christmas decorations.) I have a feeling that if the HP books were set in the 1890s rather than the 1990s, the students would attend chapel on Sundays as a matter of course. The monks, the Fat Friar, the Christmas carols (rather cavalierly treated by "godfather" Sirius and Peeves), and all the rest reflect a British WW that was once as Christian as the Muggle world around it and is now just as secularized, with Christmas reduced to feasting, decorations, and piles of presents at the foot of the bed. Dumbledore's memorial service is equally secularized, devoted to his life rather than his future existence in "the next great adventure" and with no mention of the eternal life of the soul (which is nonetheless hinted at in the books). Exactly where baptism and godfathers fit in is hard to say, but in Christian tradition, godfathers are spiritual guides, not prospective guardians if the godchild's parents die. I think that JKR, herself a Christian but also a political liberal, has made the WW as Christian as she dares to make it without offending the sensibilities of postmodern readers, with the Veil, the Phoenix, the yew and holly wands, and other vestiges of pagan traditions to give the religious or supernatural elements universal significance. Carol, a lapsed Episcopalian who does find "holiday trees" annoying but is not passing judgment one way or another on the secularized Christianity that she sees in the WW From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 19:24:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:24:13 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166313 Carol earlier: > > > There's also, of course, the Draco plot, which, if it fails, will bring revenge against Lucius Malfoy for failing to retrieve the Prophecy, and if it succeeds, will kill Dumbledore, the biggest obstacle to capturing and killing Harry Potter. > > > Dana: > Was DD really the biggest obstacle to capture and kill Harry? In > PS/SS he faces Voldemort alone, in CoS he faces Voldemort alone > (even if Fawkes helps), in GoF he faces Voldemort alone. The only > time DD actively prevents LV from killing Harry is in OotP. The > things that help Harry during these events are not dependent on DD's > presence and I do not think with DD out of the way he is stripped of > this help either. Carol responds: In SS/PS, Quirrel!mort is defeated, not by Harry, who would have died if it weren't for DD's timely arrival, but by the spell DD has put on the Mirror of Erised preventing anyone who wants to *use* the stone from getting it out of the mirror. (Quirrell dies when LV leaves his body, not because Harry killed him, as in the film.) Harry's presence is actually completely unnecessary since Quirrell!mort would have been stymied by the mirror and caught by Dumbledore in any case. In CoS, Fawkes arrives with the Sorting Hat containing the Sword of Gryffindor because of the protections Dumbledore has set up: "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" (CoS Am. ed. 264). Harry can pull the sword out of the Sorting Hat because he's a true Gryffindor, but if it weren't for Dumbledore, there would be not sword to pull out--and, since Fawkes is DD's bird, most likely no Fawkes to blind the basilisk or heal the deadly wound caused by the Basilisk's venomous fang, either. As DD tells Harry, "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. *Nothing but that* could have called Fawkes to you" (332). In PoA, which you don't mention, it's Dumbledore's idea to send Harry and Hermione back with the Time-Turner to save Sirius Black and Buckbeak (which, of course, he couldn't have done had Snape not conjured those stretchers and brought them to the hospital wing in the first place, ;-) ). In GoF, admittedly, Harry fights Voldemort alone, but it's the Phoenix-feather wand core that causes the Priori Incantatem effect and saves his life, so in a sense Fawkes, an extension of Dumbledore, keeps Harry alive. In OoP, as you say, it's definitely Dumbledore who rescues him (Snape has requested Sirius Black to stay behind and fill him in; Kreacher does it instead). Voldemort's humiliating defeat at Dumbledore's hands gives him additional reason to want Dumbledore dead, if not to make DD's death his number-one priority. In all the years of VW1 and the two years since his resurrection, Voldemort has not directly attacked Hogwarts despite its being a place of great importance to him, both in terms of its secrets and his own history. It would provide a virtually impregnable fortress for him if he could seize it, and as Steve is fond of pointing out, holding its students hostage would provide a great strategic advantage. That he has not done so before now is surely because Albus Dumbledore, the greatest living wizard (until the end of HBP) and "the only one he ever feared," is headmaster of Hogwarts. > > Carol: > > While Voldemort may not have forgotten about the Prophecy, and may well be planning to kidnap Trelawney in DH, it no longer seems to be a major concern. He seems to be doing the best (or should I say, worst) he can without it. > > > Dana: > Well, I do not believe it is no longer a major concern because he still has not figured out how to kill the kid, as even possession did not work. Carol: Let's say, then, that it's no longer his sole or primary concern, as it was in OoP. We certainly don't see him making any effort to secure information on the prophecy in HBP, and we do see, all through the book, a plot to kill dumbledore. LV knows that the Prophecy orb is broken. If he wants to get to Harry, as he surely does, he has to figure out some other way to do it. He doesn't actually need the Prophecy (we know that it wouldn't help him if he did); he just needs to get to Harry and deprive him of his wand. And the first step in the process is to get rid of that meddling old fool (the Malfoys' view, not mine), Albus Dumbledore. (I doubt that Voldemort himself underestimates Dumbledore, the man who prevented him from teaching at Hogwarts and saw through him since he was eleven years old.) > > Carol earlier: > > Regarding Fawkes, I've already explained why I think he was absent from the tower: Dumbledore didn't summon him. And he's probably absent from the funeral because he's already sung his own lament; human rituals are meaningless to him. > > Dana: > Personally, I still see a possibility for DD to ask Fawkes to be on alert, but not for himself or Harry (DD understands perfectly well that LV would not allow any DE to touch Harry), but to get Trelawney out if there is any indication someone tried to get to her. It is just a thought. I was not talking about his absence from the funeral. Carol: Dumbledore's chief concern throughout the books has been Harry and/or the defeat of Voldemort, and, IMO, Fawkes's role reflects these concerns. Except for acting as a messenger when Mr. Weasley is injured and providing DD himself a means of escape from Fudge et al. in OoP, Fawkes has served primarily as a means of helping or saving Harry. I doubt very much that he was on Trelawney duty the night that DD died. DD knew that *if* Draco succeeded in getting DEs into the castle, their job would be to act as backup, insuring that he completed his assigned task of killing Dumbledore. Trelawney, who has been predicting disaster (but not believing her own predictions) all year, comes into the picture just at the point when Harry has heard Draco whooping in the RoR. Had she not distracted him by accidentally revealing that Severus Snape was the eavesdropper who, in Harry's view, "killed" his parents, Harry might have persuaded Dumbledore that Draco was indeed on the verge of bringing DEs into Hogwarts. She operates as a diversion, accidentally helping the events of the night unfold as they did, rather than the focus of Voldemort's plans of the moment. Dumbledore has repeatedly sent her away after hearing her complaints of "the usurping nag." If he's heard her predictions of impending calamity, he's chosen to ignore them. And Harry himself has just prevented her from telling her story of being evicted from the RoR. Carol, who thinks that Voldemort had every reason to fear Dumbledore and want him dead but also hopes that Dumbledore's death will inspire in Voldemort a false confidence that will prove fatal From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 20 19:30:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:30:29 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puzzlement of the day Message-ID: <7926304.1174419029486.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166314 From: Draeconin >Religion is a touchy subject, but while I'm sure that Christianity would >have stuck its nose into the wizarding world early on, I don't think it >would have maintained a firm foothold, especially considering >Christianity's attitudes towards magic and those who practice it. Yes, >I'm sure a few wizarding families here and there would still practice it >(likely working class), and of course most Muggle-borns would likely be >steeped in it, but not the wizarding world in general. Read up a bit more on the RCC's attitude towards magic through even part of the Renaissance. Bart From jajaredor at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 19:20:52 2007 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape and DD Message-ID: <80372.6547.qm@web61222.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166315 I know this has been discussed already. Why DD trust Snape so much? But is it likely that Snape took UV with DD? What is the possibility of this? (I'm not sure if this has been suggested, too many emails everyday and I couldn't keep up with it sometimes, my apologies) Thanks "Just because the ship has sailed doesn't mean it has sunk already" - Jade From chuckdunphy at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 18:36:36 2007 From: chuckdunphy at yahoo.com (CHarles Dunphy) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <240230.70289.qm@web36402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166316 Dana wrote: > For me the idea that Snape did everything on DD's > orders is stretching believability Carol: > I do think that Dumbledore and Snape had a long-range > plan but their plans were modified first by the > knowledge that Draco was assigned to kill Dumbledore (as Snape > must have told him; hence, the extra protections on Hogwarts > in Harry's sixth year) and then by the UV itself (DD tells > Harry that perhaps he knows more about these matters than > Harry does, meaning, IMO, that Snape has told him about the > interview with Draco and everything that preceded it). Charles: JKR at that thing where she was with Stephen King and another author reading a small part of one of their books, stated in ? from Salman Rushde and son that you should read the end of HBP straight, (no hidden meanings) that what it says happened happened, Snape's bad and he killed DD for what ever reason, but it wasn't part of the plan by DD... Snape, at that point or through the whole story, was or is on the side of El Voldemort. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Mar 20 20:47:31 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:47:31 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: <240230.70289.qm@web36402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166317 > Charles: > JKR at that thing where she was with Stephen King and another > author reading a small part of one of their books, stated in ? > from Salman Rushde and son that you should read the end of HBP > straight, (no hidden meanings) that what it says happened > happened, Snape's bad and he killed DD for what ever reason, but > it wasn't part of the plan by DD... Snape, at that point or > through the whole story, was or is on the side of El Voldemort. > colebiancardi: I don't believe that is what she said. This is from the transcript of said question & answer: Rushdie: Until the events of volume six, it was always made plain that Snape might be an unlikable fellow [JK: uh huh], but he was essentially one of the good guys [JK: uh-huh] [audience: 'yes!' and cheers]. [JK: I can see this is the question you all really want answered.] Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him [JK: yes]. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is in fact a villain and Dumbledore's killer [JK: uh-huh]. We cannot, or don't, want to believe this [JK laughs]. Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy [JK: right], from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead, and that the death is a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape, to put Voldemort off his guard, so that when Harry and Voldemort come face-to-face [audience and JK laughs], Harry might have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So: is Snape good or bad? [JK laughs and audience cheers] In our opinion, everything follows from it. 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. And I do know there's an entire website that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.comopens in new window, so I imagine they're not happy right now. But I think I need.... You need... All of you need to move through the five stages of grief [audience and JK 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. you can read the full interview at http://www.hpana.com/news.19542.51.html From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 22:21:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:21:10 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166318 Charles wrote: > > JKR at that thing where she was with Stephen King and another author reading a small part of one of their books, stated in ? from Salman Rushde and son that you should read the end of HBP straight, (no hidden meanings) that what it says happened happened, Snape's bad and he killed DD for what ever reason, but it wasn't part of the plan by DD... Snape, at that point or through the whole story, was or is on the side of El Voldemort. > > > > colebiancardi: > > I don't believe that is what she said. This is from the transcript of said question & answer: > > Rushdie: Until the events of volume six, it was always made plain that Snape might be an unlikable fellow [JK: uh huh], but he was essentially one of the good guys [JK: uh-huh] [audience: 'yes!' and cheers]. [JK: I can see this is the question you all really want answered.] Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him [JK: yes]. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is in fact a villain and Dumbledore's killer [JK: uh-huh]. We cannot, or don't, want to believe this [JK laughs]. Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy [JK: right], from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead, and that the death is a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape, to put Voldemort off his guard, so that when Harry and Voldemort come face-to-face [audience and JK laughs], Harry might have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So: is Snape good or bad? [JK laughs and audience cheers] In our opinion, everything follows from it. > > 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. And I do know there's an entire website that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com, so I imagine they're not happy right now. But I think I need.... You need... All of you need to move through the five stages of grief [audience and JK 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. > Carol notes: So, in fact, all that JKR really said is that Dumbledore is in fact dead and that Rushdie's opinion is correct. Rushie's opinion is, and I quote, "Everything follows from that," i.e., from the question, "Is Snape good or bad?" And JKR, at this point in the series, is not about to answer that question. Carol, who thinks that if we had all the answers now, particularly about Snape, there would be no point in reading the final book of the series From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Mar 20 22:50:17 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:50:17 -0000 Subject: Why DD did not ask Snape to kill him. (extremely long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166319 > Carol, who thinks that if we had all the answers now, particularly > about Snape, there would be no point in reading the final book of the > series SSSusan: Gah!!! Say it ain't so, Carol! Do you really care so little about Harry's fate?? Or are you including that in "all the answers now"? Ah... perhaps you are, and I freaked out for nothing. :) Still, that "particularly about Snape" makes me think you're not exactly too worried about the Trio, Neville, Ginny, Madam Sprout, McGonagall, etc.? Perhaps you simply mean that if we knew the answer to that vital question about Snape [is he good or bad?], then that would take all the fun out of reading it for you? While I am horribly, horribly averse to receiving spoilers, for me the one I desperately don't want to know in advance is whether Harry lives or dies. If *that* news spills in advance, I could feel a *little* of that "no point in reading" those final 784 pages she's giving us. Still, I know I'll be so curious about so many things that I definitely WOULD read it. What will become of Snape (of course!)? Will the two-way mirrors return? Was DD right about the # of and likely location of the horcruxes? Does Sirius have any role to play? Will Tonks & Lupin become a real pair? Will we get that glimpse of the Godric's Hollow attack, and will it come from a memory of Harry's extracted for a pensieve? Which Weasley(s) will die? (surely one, if not some) Will scores of HP fans gag on their oatmeal if One Big Happy Weasley Family proves out? Who *will* be the student who returns to Hogwarts as a professor? Will we find out about the missing 24 hours? And, most of all, for me, HOW in the world is Harry going to vanquish Lord Voldemort?? I'm very serious about loathing spoilers, but no matter what slips out (or not), there's no way I'd not want to read the ending, because I'm just so, so, so dying to know how JKR's going to pull that off. I've been banking on some "elegantly simple" solution, likely involving Harry's (hopefully unnecessary in the end) willingness to sacrifice himself out of love, and I just can't wait to see what she comes up with. SSSusan, who realizes Carol might have been engaging in a little bit of hyperbole in that sig line, but who herself cannot imagine not reading Book Seven... no matter what. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 20 22:55:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:55:42 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166320 > Carol: > Dumbledore's chief concern throughout the books has been Harry and/or > the defeat of Voldemort, and, IMO, Fawkes's role reflects these > concerns. Except for acting as a messenger when Mr. Weasley is injured > and providing DD himself a means of escape from Fudge et al. in OoP, > Fawkes has served primarily as a means of helping or saving Harry. Pippin: I think Fawkes may have been on messenger duty that night. Although we tend to treat Spinner's End as if it were the opening chapter and the plan to attack Hogwarts/punish Draco as if it were Voldemort's main objective, it's really a sideshow. As the real opening chapter announces, Voldemort is trying to take over the Ministry. I believe Fawkes' mission may have been to put the rest of the Order on high alert if there was an attack on Hogwarts, in case it turned out to be a decoy. But the reminder that Fawkes was able to enter the Chamber of Secrets and would have been useful in a place like the cave made me realize that he might have entered the cave earlier. If Dumbledore sent Fawkes ahead to reconnoitre and then examined his memories in the pensieve, he could have learned the things he seems to be discovering so effortlessly, like the presence of the boat, the location of the basin, and the possible nature of its contents. In fact, since discovering the location of hiding places has so far been relatively riskfree compared to retrieving and destroying the horcruxes themselves, wouldn't it have made sense for Dumbledore to survey *all* the potential hiding places first, before attempting to extract and destroy the horcruxes within? That would mean that his absences during the year were spent discovering *all* the horcruxes. Perhaps he went after the cave first because it seemed to be the one which would be most difficult for Harry to tackle without him. If Fawkes has the locations of other horcruxes in his memory, then Harry's task in the next book is going to be *much* more manageable than we think it is. Pippin From jhkepka at msn.com Tue Mar 20 20:06:32 2007 From: jhkepka at msn.com (Henrietta Kepka) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:06:32 -0500 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166321 I am new to posting, but the thoughts re: Snape and Fawkes put forth by Peggy truly do answer a number of questions. -what is Snape's Patronus -DD's unswerving trust in Snape -where Fawkes was and why he was not on the tower -why Snape is so good at healing I must say, I have enjoyed reading these posts more than I can say. I am somewhat homebound with mobility problems it has been awesome to review these beloved books with such learned posters. Many thanks. Henrietta From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 21 00:25:44 2007 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:25:44 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166322 > Carol: > Regarding Fawkes, I've already explained why I think he was absent > from the tower: Dumbledore didn't summon him. And he's probably absent > from the funeral because he's already sung his own lament; human > rituals are meaningless to him. a_svirn: Except that Dumbledore's funeral wasn't just a "human" ritual. There were the Merpeople with their otherworldly music, the centaurs with their salute. Not to mention, the ritual itself was somewhat unusual. The entire setting was emphatically -a-human ? it looked like the triumph of magical unity over the diversity of the species. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 00:44:53 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:44:53 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: <12748.132.229.182.92.1174408970.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166323 Marion: > What if Dumbledore died months before of old age etc. His shoes are (literary) filled by somebody under Polyjuice, or even possibly Tonks (metamorphmagus)... *(snip)* Ceridwen: I love the more extreme theories. Okay, I am imagining Dumbledore dead early on, perhaps even before he meets with Harry at Privet Drive. Or, perhaps this was the last we see of the real DD. Okay, sell me. *g* Marion: > So DD dies peacefully, surrounded by his nearest co-conspirators (Snape, perhaps McGonegal) and his body is placed under a stasis- spell (hence his body looks so peaceful and undisturbed when 'found under the tower' after supposedly falling hundreds of feet...)*(snip)* > When he dies, somebody else takes his place. Let's say, Aberforce under Polyjuice. Abe knows his brother well enough to mimick him. Besides, DD is 'ill' and often absent because of his 'withered hand'... The whole 'going to fetch the horcrux in the secret cave and feeding DD poison' is *such* a set up. That locket is planted there by DD himself, aided by his longtime right-hand man Snape (who provided the eerily green goo) (and isn't it a *coincidence* that Snape just *happened* to cover Inferi in his lessons? Set up! I smell a set up!!) *(snip)* Ceridwen: I would say that this someone who takes DD's place has been out on trial runs before Dumbledore actually died. If someone notices inconsistencies, the later appearance of the real Dumbledore would help to settle those uneasy feelings. About the Inferi, though, I think Snape is teaching about them because the Ministry has put out a pamphlet during the summer which discusses Inferi. The Inferi were used in VWI, and it is likely that they will be used again. I am expecting an army of Inferi, or at least a small company of them, in DH, including some of our missing Order members from VWI. There has been some discussion about "Ministry-approved" lessons in the discussion about Hagrid. If the Ministry does indeed have a say about what the students will learn, then Snape, or whoever the DADA teacher is, will teach about Inferi if the Ministry says Inferi will be taught. Just my own opinion there. Doesn't mean it isn't convenient for the story. I think the Inferi might have figured moreso in HBP, too, but this is my own little side trip, and would conflict with the idea under discussion. Marion: > And then it happens. The whole plan takes it's course. All 'DD' needed to do is wear a metal breastplate under his robes (AK's don't penetrate stone or metal, apparantly) get hit, fall dramatically out of the window, cast a cushioning spell, bugger off to the coldstorage where they hid the REAL Dumble's body, place the body underneath the tower and hide until the 'juice wears off. *(snip)* Ceridwen: I've read ideas about a breastplate being used by the real DD on the tower, to explain the odd effects of the AK. Several points here: First, we see DD (or 'DD') disarmed when Draco comes up to the tower. Would a fake 'DD' know to have an extra wand in his (or her) robes? Would this 'DD' have been carrying two wands during the entire course of the book since the real DD's death? I can see a wizard or witch wanting to use his or her own wand, but needing to be seen with DD's if someone is indeed playing the part. Second, the Polyjuice is a sticking point for me. If Polyjuice was used, then when would the false 'DD' have refueled? Unless the green goo included Polyjuice, it seems that DD and Harry spent too much time in the cave. Whoever was Dumbledore would have changed back before they got back to Hogsmeade, in my opinion. Reading the cave scene again, it's possible that the fake Dumbledore could have had a flask a la Fake!Moody, since the cave was so dark away from the goo - it was unnaturally dark, swallowing even the wandlight more than Harry expected. At one point, he even runs into Dumbledore when DD stops to find the boat's chain. And if the impostor is not really debilitated by the goo, he or she would have opportunity to take a swig on the way out of the cave, in that vast darkness. So, I suppose fake!DD might have had a flask, but I'm not convinced of that. Harry had to help 'DD' out of the cave, either for the set-up, or for real. In planning, any conspirators in this switch would have to presume that Harry might feel a flask in 'DD's robes. Of course, if Tonks is playing the part, given that a Metamorphmagus could physically imitate another person, then this has no bearing. Third, weakest, and last, who would have helped the decoy switch out with the in-stasis corpse? Snape is gone, McGonagall is fighting in the seventh floor hallway, and a known third party is posing as Dead! DD (I guess they'd have to lay on the ground for a few minutes at least, in case a DE looks over the side of the tower). A single person with a wand can of course Levicorpus a corpse. But, if DD was surrounded by his nearest and dearest at his death, then that is at least the number of conspirators we have to take into account. And the more conspirators there are on a given project, the less safe the secret is. Would you be open to a suggestion of a Reanimated!DD? Nothing Dark like the Inferi, of course. It would make some sense (speculating here) that there are dark and light versions of many ancient spells, why not one to reanimate someone for a specific purpose? Marion: > Hey, it's not a bad theory. No worse than 'Snape is Fawkes' at any rate :-) (actually, I would *love* it if Fawkes turned out to be Snape) Ceridwen: Hee! If you think about it, this is really the last weeks of speculation about the series. There will be no more books to look forward to after 21 July. All that will be answered, will have been answered after that. We might as well have some fun in these last weeks remaining! I keep going back to the Polyjuice and wondering if Crabbe and Goyle are the only ones who are using it in HBP. Then, there's Chair! Slughorn to consider. Nothing is as it seems, is everyone we see really who they are? Or was this one huge Dark comedy of mistaken identity? Ceridwen, enjoying these last frantic ideas very much. From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Wed Mar 21 00:42:41 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Irma Pince = Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <818429.89742.qm@web35011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166324 I am Lord Voldemort. I am Prince. I really do think that Snape is a metamorphagus, and that he uses this ability, combined with a time-turner, to lead a double/triple life. Snape mimics Lord Voldemort when he names his alter-ego, but figures his common name with the letters of his message. Snape claims the name Prince earlier, and again in this disguise. We don't know enough about Eileen Prince to have any idea if she may have been a Death Eater and would have used a similar pattern, but when I read this, it is Snape marking himself as Voldemort's equal, or superiour. A prince outrank a lord, right? I don't see Eileen claiming this role, particularly this role as Voldemort's superiour, if she is hiding out in the library. It is Snape's declaration and it is a quiet one, but there nonetheless. The similarities between Snape and Irma have been pointed out numerous times by those building a case for Irma being Eileen. As appearance can be changed, I find the commonalities between their spoken words more telling. Snape taking Harry's library book back to the safety of the castle also fits. The scene where Madame Pince finds Harry with his HBP potions book and she rails him for defiling the book, could be the cover-up for Snape being so angry Harry has his old potions book. Madame Pince couldn't very well say, how did you get Professor Snape's book? when the two are not chummy, right? The idea that Snape has a time-turner, (he was there and then he was not there at the tower)fits. To follow Jo's pattern, introducing us to something fairly innocently, and then weaving it into the plot more dramatically and usually so we don't notice (polyjuice potion, animagus) someone should have a time-turner at least once more, and someone should be a metamorphagus at least once more. Lupin suggesting what Neville's boggart wear to out Snape works here. Madame Pince attending Dumbledore's funeral, also fits. As does the relationship of Finch and Pince, and Finch and Snape. Finch is a mystery to me, but I think there's more to him. What does this add to the plot? A time-turning Snape could well use a second body so he could be two places at once without having the confusion of seeing his past and future selves in the same place. If he can be someone else in one place than another, it simplifies things. I see many reasons why Snape may need to be in two places at once (a greater need than the one the ministry approved for Hermione) and suspect he has had a time-turner in his possession all along. deborah_s_krupp From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Wed Mar 21 01:24:35 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape's Patronus WAS: Re: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <263034.85497.qm@web35014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166325 Henrietta Kepka wrote: I am new to posting, but the thoughts re: Snape and Fawkes put forth by Peggy truly do answer a number of questions. -what is Snape's Patronus -DD's unswerving trust in Snape -where Fawkes was and why he was not on the tower -why Snape is so good at healing Deborah writes: I think it is much more likely that Snape's patronus is an augurey. Remember as well, that Madame Pince has been described as an underfed vulture and has been known to wear green and black. >From Fantastic Beasts: Augurey: (also known as Irish Phoenix) Described as looking like a small and underfed vulture, the Augurey is greenish black in colour. It lives in a tear shaped nest that is usually found in a bramble and thorn patch. It usually only leaves its nest in heavy rain to feed. Augureys were once thought to foretell death with their low wailing cry (more than one wizard has suffered a heart attack when passing a bush and hearing an unseen Augurey wail). In recent times it has been revealed that Augureys cries usually foretell bad weather and have since been used as household pets, although their almost continuous wailing during the winter months can be hard to bear. An Augurey's feathers cannot be used for quills as they have the uncanny ability to repel ink. Augureys are found in Britain and Ireland and sometimes Northern Europe. --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Mar 21 02:40:05 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:40:05 -0000 Subject: Fawkes possible absence (was: Magical animals in canon/ Fawkes and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166326 Carol: > In GoF, admittedly, Harry fights Voldemort alone, > but it's the Phoenix-feather wand core that causes > the Priori Incantatem effect and saves his life, > so in a sense Fawkes, an extension of Dumbledore, > keeps Harry alive. houyhnhnm: Along with the only spell he could think of in that moment, the one he learned from Snape--Expelliarmus. I'm not saying that any spell wouldn't have done to produce the Priori Incantatum effect, just that, when Harry's life was on the line, this is the one that came immediately to his mind. Carol: > Trelawney, who has been predicting disaster > (but not believing her own predictions) all year, houyhnhnm: Speaking of Trelawney, the right old fraud. I just got through reading the part in PoA where Harry is taking his Divination exam immediately before Trelawney went into a trance and delivered her true prophecy about Wormtail. *************************** The heat was overpowering and his nostrils were stinging with the perfumed smoke wafting from the fire beside them. [Harry} thought of what Ron had just said and decided to pretend. "Er--," said Harry, "a dark shape ... um ..." "What does it resemble?" whispered Professor Trelawney. "Think now." Harry cast his mind around and it landed on Buckbeak. "A hippogriff," he said firmly. "Indeed!" whispered Professor Trelawney, scribbling keenly on the parchment perched upon her knees. "My boy, you may well be seeing the outcome of poor Hagrid's trouble with the Ministry of Magic! Look closer ... does the hippogriff appear to ... have its head?" "Yes," said Harry firmly. "Are you sure?" Professor Trelawney urged him. "Are you quite sure, dear? You don't see it writhing on the ground, perhaps, and a shadowy figure raising an axe behind it?" "No," said Harry, starting to feel slightly sick. "No blood, no weeping Hagrid?" "No!" said Harry again, wanting more than ever to leave the room and the heat. "It looks fine, it's--flying away ..." Professor Trelawney sighed. "Well, dear, I think we'll leave it there ... A little disappointing ... but I'm sure you did your best." *************************** On the first read one cannot appreciate the irony of the fact that Harry really is foretelling the future and Trelawney dismisses him, and on subsequent re-reads, I seem to have missed it. The other thing that interests me is that Trelawney seems to be remarkably up to date on Hogwarts scuttlebutt for someone who is so reclusive and other-wordly. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Mar 21 03:05:48 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:05:48 -0400 Subject: Christian or post-Christian elements of the WW (Was: Puzzlement of t Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166327 We don't see Anthony celebrating Chanukah, but we don't know that he definitely doesn't. It isn't relevant to the story. JKR isn't writing a travelogue or a sociological tract--she's telling a story. I'd imagine that Wizards are like Muggles--some religious, some not, and in varying degrees. (I have sometimes amused myself by imagining a conversation over in Lambeth Palace at the same time as the first chapter of OOTP involving a visit from "the OTHER Archbishop.") The objection to no mention of 'the next great adventure' in DD's funeral is not really relevant because we see it through Harry's eyes, and he wasn't really paying all that much attention to what the black-robed wizard was saying; for all we know it could have been a perfectly Christian funeral homily. (And even if he had paid attention, would he have recognized it? The Dursleys don't strike me as churchgoers. In addition to the Fat Friar and the picture of the monks, weren't there the ghosts of some nuns at Sir Nicholas' Deathday Party? 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 Mar 21 03:55:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:55:25 -0000 Subject: A Small Two Penn'orth (Was Re: Puzzlement of the day) In-Reply-To: <460018D8.4050901@pacbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166328 Goddlefrood: Although it has probably been discussed earlier in the manifestation of this list ;) I have one small matter to bring to your attention. It is that in 1692 the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy came into effect. The same year as the Glencoe Masscare, btw;). >From this I find it reasonable to conclude that wizarding society had developed, within its fictional parameters, in tandem with the Muggle world up to that point in time. If that is accepted, then it is also a not unreasonable conclusion to suggest, as I now do, that the WW has some form of Chritianity within it. That is, within countries that have developed under that religious doctirine. The UK being one such country, well you can guess the rest, right? Goddlefrood, still beavering away on other matters From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Wed Mar 21 10:44:30 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:44:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DD's pleading Message-ID: <863044.33605.qm@web8406.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166329 Avi: For last few days I was reading HBP again, and wondered about the DD character. I found him not gentle or very kind but a well administered person who acknowledges his position. ( Well I was disturbed for almost a month when I first read about his death. ) He was strict and hard core disciplined not like gentle and kind grandpa. Well he was gentle but more of formal. I wonder why he not take ministry post, I found two most strong reasons in support 1. it was not a creative job. 2.he may not be able to do anything secretively (like searching for Horcrux) Well, I agree it was not a creative job, but given the dark time, he can have the post which can be much much more favorable in the quest, rather than on every step looking towards MoM. After LV's downfall he can resign and return back to Hogwarts. Secondly, surely the privacy would be lost, but again, he would have been in full power to employ anyone or using his position he was much more unanswerable to anyone about what he was doing and all. Another thing, why he did not trust anyone. People who were ready to give their life just for his one word without asking the reason and cause, he doesn't seem to trust even them. If he is so much secretive, he should not have trusted Snape up to this extent. Lets HP, be a prophecised person, but not RON or Hermione, but he let HP to confide in them everything, were they more mature, trustworthy(when it comes to torture) than Lupin or Tonks or Mcgonagall (it seems he was most uncertain about her). Lastly, as I was pondering over his pleading kind of voice on the tower, I thought what reason can be possible for it(apart from so much already guessed ones). I then felt that, may be at that time Snape revealed to him that his true loyalty was with LV, and all these days he was just pretending that he is with DD. As it can be seen that DD had used nearly everyone (not for himself or his personal gain) in this war without caring their emotions. This makes Snape hate more to DD, because he was used almost as a puppet and loaths DD more and more whenever he thinks about his life or his situation. All this he let DD know on the Tower, which make DD, plead as he feel crestfallen, in his war against LV. As I told in the beginning I have never taken DDs death easy, it was as some of my personal loss, I was so much fond of him. But there are views in new light. Lets someone make me love him same or more again. avi From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Mar 21 15:18:01 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups]Trelawny Message-ID: <15556231.1174490281963.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166330 From: houyhnhnm102 >Speaking of Trelawney, the right old fraud. I just got >through reading the part in PoA where Harry is taking >his Divination exam immediately before Trelawney went >into a trance and delivered her true prophecy about Wormtail. Bart: I've been re-reading the books, carefully, looking for various clues about various characters (I'm about 10% through GOF right now), and there are two things I have observed about Trelawny: 1) Divination DOES work in the Potterverse. 2) It's unreliable. Virtually every sign she gets is correct; it's just that all too often, she misinterprets it, especially when she lets her other knowledge get in the way. One thing of note is that Trelawny is pretty good about minor events (look at the description of the first class in POA), while the centaurs seem to concentrate on major events. Bart From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Mar 21 16:30:09 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:09 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows, 784 pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "H.M.S" wrote: > > > Isn't time we started seeing some > > teasers of the book cover > > Well yea, but I'd rather they say how long the new book is going to > be, at least approximately. Is it longer or shorter than OotP? I hope > longer. Ken: Apparently Scholastic is saying the US version will be 784 pages long. A little shorter than OootP. Ken From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Mar 21 10:56:16 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:56:16 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166332 Dana before: > > The things that help Harry during these events are not dependent > > on DD's presence and I do not think with DD out of the way he is stripped > > of this help either. Carol: > In SS/PS, Quirrel!mort is defeated, not by Harry, who would have > died if it weren't for DD's timely arrival, but by the spell DD has > put on the Mirror of Erised preventing anyone who wants to *use* > the stone from getting it out of the mirror. Dana: Granted Dumbledore saved him in PS/SS but he did still face LV alone and to get to Harry, Dumbledore was not a real obstacle. Besides, Harry was not LV's main focus when Harry walked in on him. But give the kid some credit will you? ;) Quirell not being able to touch him was good to hold him off enough for help to arrive. The kid was 11 years old. Carol responds: > In CoS, Fawkes arrives with the Sorting Hat containing the Sword of > Gryffindor because of the protections Dumbledore has set up: "Help > will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" (CoS Am. > ed.264) Dana: In CoS he gets help from Fawkes, but it was Harry who called Fawkes to him by showing true loyalty to DD. He could get the sword because he is a true Gryffindor, not because DD sent it to him. And he still faced LV without DD's presence and Harry finished him off himself and DD could not prevent LV from getting to Harry. The help that Harry was given is still there and is not dependent on a living DD or even a present one as we see in CoS. I never implied DD is not a big or significant influence or that he is irrelevant (or I did not meant it that way), but LV has gotten to Harry without real obstacles and I do not agree that *only* because of DD is Harry still alive. > Carol: > In PoA, which you don't mention, it's Dumbledore's idea to send > Harry and Hermione back with the Time-Turner to save Sirius Black and > Buckbeak (which, of course, he couldn't have done had Snape not > conjured those stretchers and brought them to the hospital wing in > the first place, ;-) ). Dana: PoA is irrelevant to the point I was making. Carol: > In GoF, admittedly, Harry fights Voldemort alone, but it's the > Phoenix-feather wand core that causes the Priori Incantatem effect > and saves his life, so in a sense Fawkes, an extension of > Dumbledore,keeps Harry alive. Dana: And getting Harry there was not a real problem, either. Harry keeps Harry alive by holding on even if he is inspired by Fawkes. It is also he who gets himself back to Hogwarts. Having help does not cancel out Harry's own efforts in staying alive. He was brave enough to even try to face LV head on. Carol: > In OoP, as you say, it's definitely Dumbledore who rescues him >(Snape has requested Sirius Black to stay behind and fill him in; > Kreacher does it instead). Voldemort's humiliating defeat at > Dumbledore's hands gives him additional reason to want Dumbledore > dead, if not to make DD's death his number-one priority. Dana: It is Harry's heart and his feelings for Sirius that saves Harry in the end as well, but getting Harry to the DoM was no real problem, no DD obstacle there and if LV's main objective had been different (not getting the prophecy, but killing Harry right away) then he might have succeeded. Well Snape?s actions might have caused more harm then good because Snape could have prevented everything if he had not been such a jerk and caused Harry to not even consider him an ally. Snape could have prevented it by not only checking on Sirius (if he indeed did), but also giving warning that someone needed to go to the DoM just in case. He could have followed him into the forest instead of waiting for them to come out ect, ect. In PS if Snape had told DD about Quirell, he could have prevented the entire ordeal. In PoA if instead of running after Lupin he had run straight to DD, none of it would had been necessary. And no, saving Harry was not part of it because when he saw Lupin on the map, he did not know Harry was there because Harry was not visible by that time. I am not saying DD's death would not be a big bonus to LV, but the way he chose to do it might very well have caused the necessary diversion to execute a larger plan. By giving the task to Draco everyone was busy with preventing Draco to become a murderer. I think LV knows DD as much as DD knows him. So he would kill more birds with one stone. I do not think DD was LV's number-one priority; killing Harry is and DD is just one factor of it. Ending Snape's spying game might have been a second (him not being able to relay anymore information on LV's movements would be an advantage to LV), and getting to the prophecy is a third. Why not roll everything into one? Carol: > That he has not done so before now is surely because Albus > Dumbledore, the greatest living wizard (until the end of HBP) and > "the only one he ever feared," is headmaster of Hogwarts. Dana: But LV has plenty of time to rule the world if the 'one with the power to vanquish' him is out of his way. Harry now has even been presented to the WW to be the chosen one. If he can't get him out of the way soon, then people might find the strength to revolt. His seeding fear all over the place is as much part of his strategy, to become the greatest wizard of all times, as it is to eliminate all those obstacles that could help prevent him getting there. Killing DD might always have been part of his "to-do list" but he might just have moved it up a few steps and made sure he will not be a further nuisance to his plans to take out Harry. But it doesn't mean that LV's objective has changed over the course of HBP. His main focus is still Harry and he will use all means to take him out knowing the prophecy in full would still be part of this. JKR adding the Trelawney encounter to me indicates she wants us to remember that the ball got rolling because LV put all his faith into the prophecy and who brought it to him is actually quite irrelevant. And him swarming the earth as a mere shadow of himself will just make him believe in the prophecy more, not less. > Carol: > Let's say, then, that it's no longer his sole or primary concern, as > it was in OoP. We certainly don't see him making any effort to > secure information on the prophecy in HBP, and we do see, all through the > book, a plot to kill dumbledore. LV knows that the Prophecy orb is > broken. If he wants to get to Harry, as he surely does, he has to > figure out some other way to do it. He doesn't actually need the > Prophecy (we know that it wouldn't help him if he did); he just > needs to get to Harry and deprive him of his wand. Dana: If it was that simple then why is he even bothering the entire previous year to get his hands on the prophecy? He could just have lured Harry to the DoM, get his wand out of his hands and kill him on the spot. We do not see him do that because he knows it will not be that simple and he wants to know the full information on the prophecy. He really, truly believes it will help him understand how to take out Harry. DD is not merely trying to save Harry there either, he also is preventing another confrontation between Harry and LV because he knows LV cannot be defeated before his horcruxes are eliminated. We do not see LV plot anything, we only see that Draco has been given a task to take out DD and we are told that no one even believes he will be capable of doing so, so if killing DD is that important to him, then why sent an inexperienced kid if even he (LV) has never been able to do so? Just to take revenge on the boy's father and risk wasting another year of getting nowhere if the kid fails to succeed with or without this so called back-up? I do not think so. LV might be a lot of things but stupid he is not. > Carol: > Dumbledore's chief concern throughout the books has been Harry > and/or the defeat of Voldemort, and, IMO, Fawkes's role reflects these > concerns. Dana: Depriving LV from getting the information of the full prophecy is part of that chief concern to keep Harry safe and defeating LV, it has always been so. LV not knowing it in full is still an advantage, that is too high a risk to lose. DD's personal feelings about Trelawney have nothing to do with it. It was still *her* prediction that sent LV after Harry in the first place. It has nothing to do with her being a fraud because LV made the prophecy true by choosing to act on it and therefore DD found it worthy enough to try and keep her safe all those years, even if he thinks nothing much of the person herself. It is not about her but about *the information*, she has, on what was actually said on that night so many years ago. Although I do not think DD would consider her life meaningless, he indeed would not have given her a job and made her a primary concern if parts of what she said never reached LV's ears and he never had chosen to act on it. Besides, don't you think it is important to know that if Trelawney saw Snape then Snape saw her too, and I think that is what JKR wanted us to know. Carol: > Carol, who thinks that Voldemort had every reason to fear Dumbledore > and want him dead but also hopes that Dumbledore's death will > inspire in Voldemort a false confidence that will prove fatal. Dana: Harry's power to vanquish the Dark Lord was never dependent on DD even if DD has aided him in many ways. But I do not deny that LV might indeed consider DD's death one less obstacle to get to Harry, but it will not be this false confidence that will prove fatal. He was not defeated by DD the first time he tried to kill Harry. It had nothing to do with DD or his fears for him, but with the underestimation of the power of a mother's love and LV will do so again. Dana From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Mar 21 19:35:59 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) Message-ID: <30295768.1174505759392.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166333 >Dana: >In PS if Snape had told DD about Quirell, he could have prevented the >entire ordeal. Bart: And what makes you think he didn't? In my recent re-reading of PS, it seems clear to me that DD wanted Quirell caught in the act, and wanted Harry to be the one to do it. The only flaw in DD's plans was allowing himself to be suckered away for a bit. >In PoA if instead of running after Lupin he had run >straight to DD, none of it would had been necessary. And no, saving >Harry was not part of it because when he saw Lupin on the map, he did >not know Harry was there because Harry was not visible by that time. Bart: It was explicitly stated that the Marauder's Map could detect people wearing invisibility cloaks. What I can't figure out (having just finished re-reading PoA) is why Dumbledore didn't suspect that Black was hiding in the Shrieking Shack. Even without knowing about Black being YAUA ("Am I the ONLY one who actually bothered to register?" says Minny the Cat), DD should have been reasonably sure that Mr. Black knew about it, based on The Prank (ominous organ chords playing in the background). >I am not saying DD's death would not be a big bonus to LV, but the way >he chose to do it might very well have caused the necessary diversion >to execute a larger plan. By giving the task to Draco everyone was >busy with preventing Draco to become a murderer. I think LV knows DD >as much as DD knows him. Bart: Not that it's impossible, but it would violate one of the major standards of modern heroic Western literature: that the major advantage good has over evil is that good can understand evil, but evil can't understand good. JKR pretty explicitly makes this a theme of the book. The Riddler may think he has DD figured out, but I don't believe he does. >Dana: >Killing DD >might always have been part of his "to-do list" Bart: Voldemort's "to do" list: 1) Buy eggs. 2) Be mean to Wormtail. 3) Kill Dumbledore. 4) Pick up parcel at the post office. 5) Wish Naggy a happy birthday. 6) Take over the world. 7) Let the Dementors play with Lucius. 8) Kill Harry Potter. 9) Recruit Fred & George Weasley. They have potential. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 21 22:10:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:10:23 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166334 Carol earlier: > > In SS/PS, Quirrel!mort is defeated, not by Harry, who would have died if it weren't for DD's timely arrival, but by the spell DD has put on the Mirror of Erised preventing anyone who wants to *use* the stone from getting it out of the mirror. > > Dana responded: > Granted Dumbledore saved him in PS/SS but he did still face LV alone and to get to Harry, Dumbledore was not a real obstacle. Besides, Harry was not LV's main focus when Harry walked in on him. But give the kid some credit will you? ;) Quirell not being able to touch him was good to hold him off enough for help to arrive. The kid was 11 years old. Carol again: LOL. Of course, I give Harry credit (even though he thought he was going after Snape, not Quirrell!mort, and Quirrell!mort would have been stopped by the mirror if HRH hadn't interfered). I also give Ron and Hermione credit for their parts; Harry could not have gone through to the last chamber without them. But my point is that he need not have gone there at all and that without Dumbledore, he would not have survived. (the blood protection is not Harry's own doing; it's the result of his mother's sacrifice.) You were, I thought, implying that Harry doesn't need Dumbledore, and I'm disputing that.) > Carol earlier: > > In CoS, Fawkes arrives with the Sorting Hat containing the Sword of Gryffindor because of the protections Dumbledore has set up: "Help > will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" (CoS Am. ed.264) > > Dana: > In CoS he gets help from Fawkes, but it was Harry who called Fawkes to him by showing true loyalty to DD. Carol: And if it weren't for Dumbledore, Fawkes wouldn't have come. He wouldn't even be at Hogwarts. He's part of the protections that Dumbledore set up, probably anticipating that Harry would try to enter the CoS. Dana: He could get the sword because he is a true Gryffindor, not because DD sent it to him. Carol: I disagree. Yes, he could pull it out because he's s atrue Gryffindor, but how do you think that the sword got into the hat in the first place, or that Fawkes knew to bring it with him? It has to be part of the protections that DD set up: "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." The help didn't just happen. DD has to have arranged it, and that's what he was telling HRH before he left. Dana: > The help that Harry was given is still there and is not dependent on a living DD or even a present one as we see in CoS. Carol: But it *is* dependent on DD's having set it up in the first place. I can think of no other reason for DD's words to HRH when he saw them under the Invisibility Cloak, and no other way that the particular help he needed--Fawkes and the Sword of Gryffindor--happened to magically arrive. It was certainly not *Harry-s* doing. > Carol: > > In GoF, admittedly, Harry fights Voldemort alone, but it's the Phoenix-feather wand core that causes the Priori Incantatem effect > > and saves his life, so in a sense Fawkes, an extension of > > Dumbledore,keeps Harry alive. > > > Dana: > And getting Harry there was not a real problem, either. Harry keeps Harry alive by holding on even if he is inspired by Fawkes. It is also he who gets himself back to Hogwarts. Having help does not cancel out Harry's own efforts in staying alive. He was brave enough to even try to face LV head on. Carol responds: I never said that having help cancels out Harry's efforts. (I actually prefer his having help and being to some extent part of a team.) Nor am I questioning his bravery. I'm just saying that he *did* have help, and a large part of it came from Dumbledore (and Ron and Hermione in SS/PS and CoS). There's also the matter of Harry's blood protection, his ability to speak Parseltongue, and a large share of luck. (We should even credit Barty Jr., without whom Harry would never have made it through the TWT.) Yes, Harry always faces LV alone, but he always has help to get there, and he wouldn't even be alive to make the attempt if it hadn't been for his mother's sacrifice. Harry is not a Wonder Boy. He's Everykid with a few special powers in a situation not of his own making, and he would be dead if it weren't for Dumbledore (and snape, for that matter). As for getting himself back to Hogwarts in GoF, he had the help of the wand echoes, who held off LV and told Harry what to do. > > Carol: > > In OoP, as you say, it's definitely Dumbledore who rescues him (Snape has requested Sirius Black to stay behind and fill him in; Kreacher does it instead). Voldemort's humiliating defeat at Dumbledore's hands gives him additional reason to want Dumbledore dead, if not to make DD's death his number-one priority. > > > Dana: > It is Harry's heart and his feelings for Sirius that saves Harry in the end as well, but getting Harry to the DoM was no real problem, no DD obstacle there and if LV's main objective had been different (not getting the prophecy, but killing Harry right away) then he might have succeeded. Carol: Nevertheless, had Dumbledore not been there to save him, he wouldn't have been possessed in the first place. Bella and Voldemort together would have tortured and killed him. The possession was only an attempt to get Dumbledore to kill the boy in hope of killing LV at the same time. (It didn't work, of course; DD would not have killed Harry even if he didn't know about the Horcruxes.) What OoP shows, in my opinion, is that Harry, even with his DA friends, is not ready to face the DEs and Voldemort without the help of the Order and Dumbledore. And it was, of course, Dumbledore, who rounded up all the DEs and made sure they couldn't Disapparate out of the DoM. (Side note: The protections on the MoM seem so inadequate that it's a wonder LV didn't just get in there and take the Prophecy orb himself.) Dana: > I am not saying DD's death would not be a big bonus to LV, but the way he chose to do it might very well have caused the necessary diversion to execute a larger plan. Carol: Larger than killing the only wizard he ever feared, the one who's protecting Harry and training him to be a threat to LV? The only thing bigger than killing DD is killing Harry himself. Dana: By giving the task to Draco everyone was busy with preventing Draco to become a murderer. I think LV knows DD as much as DD knows him. Carol: I don't think that at all. LV doesn't understand the power of love, doesn't understand the compulsion to protect Draco. He might think, as Draco does, that Snape might want to compete with Draco for the "glory" of killing DD, but the idea that either of them would want to save Draco's life or prevent him from becoming a murderer wouldn't occur to him. He would think exactly what DD says in the American version of HBP, that Dumbledore would kill Draco--as he himself intends to do if Draco fails. Carol, snipping the rest because she doesn't want to go back over old ground From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 21 22:29:27 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:29:27 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > I disagree. Yes, he could pull it out because he's s atrue Gryffindor, > but how do you think that the sword got into the hat in the first > place, or that Fawkes knew to bring it with him? It has to be part of > the protections that DD set up: "Help will always be given at Hogwarts > to those who ask for it." The help didn't just happen. DD has to have > arranged it, and that's what he was telling HRH before he left. Quick_Silver: This is amazing...I was just thinking of this question and it comes up today. When I read CoS I always got the impression that the sword had always been in the hat...for the better part of 1000 years since Godric. Unless I'm mistaken, and on this I probably am, the sword is only mentioned in the Headmasters office after the events of CoS (after Harry pulls it out) and it's never mentioned as being there in any of the flashbacks to Dumbledore's or Dippet's days. This is why I've always been confused by talk of the sword being a horcrux...I just thought that it wasn't around when Voldemort was in horcrux making mode. Quick_Silver (finally able to post again) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Mar 21 23:43:05 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:43:05 -0000 Subject: DD's pleading In-Reply-To: <863044.33605.qm@web8406.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Akash aki wrote: > > Avi: > I wonder why he not take ministry post, I found two most strong reasons in support > 1. it was not a creative job. > 2.he may not be able to do anything secretively (like searching for Horcrux) > Hickengruendler: 3. He considers it more important, to try to teach his value to the children. That's also one reason why Voldemort wanted to be a teacher. The children are the one, who can still be formed. (Of course adults change and develop as well, but not so drastically as children do). Avi: > Lastly, as I was pondering over his pleading kind of voice on the tower, I thought what reason can be possible for it(apart from so much already guessed ones). I then felt that, may be at that time Snape revealed to him that his true loyalty was with LV, and all these days he was just pretending that he is with DD. Hickengruendler: I do not, and will never, accept this theory. As if Dumbledore would beg for his life! Besides, Snape didn't show his true colours, when Dumbledore started to plead. All Snape did was entering the stage. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Mar 21 21:46:37 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:46:37 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: <30295768.1174505759392.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166337 Bart: > And what makes you think he didn't? In my recent re-reading of PS, > it seems clear to me that DD wanted Quirell caught in the act, > and wanted Harry to be the one to do it. The only flaw in DD's > plans was allowing himself to be suckered away for a bit. Dana now: No, it is not clear that DD wanted Harry to face LV and I personally do not believe he actually wanted him to. I think it was meant to understand that only Snape was on to Quirrell and because of it, he made himself suspicious. I think it was also meant to read that DD had no clue about it being Quirrell aiding LV, even if DD knew LV was trying to get to the stone and was keeping himself alive with unicorn blood. Bart: > It was explicitly stated that the Marauder's Map could detect > people wearing invisibility cloaks. Dana now: Harry was already out of sight in the passageway towards the Shrieking Shack and not all of it can be seen on the map. The Shack itself is also not on the map. Snape specifically mentioned he saw Lupin running along the passageway and out of sight. Bart > What I can't figure out (having just finished re-reading PoA) is > why Dumbledore didn't suspect that Black was hiding in the > Shrieking Shack. Dana now: Probably because he was not expecting Sirius to linger in one place. There are many things one could question about the prank and the probability of DD not knowing certain things. For me James risking his own life to save Snape still holds some question marks too, because if Lupin really posed a threat then what would have stopped James from transforming into Prongs and hold him off? Oh well, better risk my life and potentially end up dead than to have Snape know I am an illegal animagus. Another is of course where were the others? They are supposed to be running with Lupin every month. Maybe we are just not supposed to ask certain questions because they are not relevant to the plot. Or maybe we will indeed understand how they fit after we have the last pieces of information. There is also the part in HBP where Harry is shocked a werewolf has killed a little boy and he is told that werewolves indeed are able to kill when they get carried away (implying they normally do not, so not just because he can't imagine Lupin killing someone). Lupin himself also states that werewolves *sometimes* kill to eat. This in relation to the prank makes no sense at all. Who would want to eat Snape? ;) On another list I saw someone make a great remark about a question asked to JKR about why the twins never saw Pettigrew on the map. (If you are the owner of these remarks then please forgive me for not crediting you by name, can remember the remark so vividly but can't remember where I've seen it) It went something like this; George: Look at the map Fred, There is a guy named Peter Pettigrew in Ron's bed. Fred: Never heard of a Peter Pettigrew, you? George: No Fred: Well never mind, let's go raid the kitchen. Bart: > Not that it's impossible, but it would violate one of the major > standards of modern heroic Western literature: that the major > advantage good has over evil is that good can understand evil, but > evil can't understand good. JKR pretty explicitly makes this a > theme of the book. The Riddle may think he has DD figured out, but > I don't believe he does. Dana now: LV is known to be able to play people to his own advantage and this needs understanding people a great deal. Just because he could not play DD doesn't mean he doesn't know certain weaknesses DD has when it concerns one of his students. DD avoids Harry, in OotP, partly because he doesn't want LV to know Harry means more to him then just having a mere Headmaster vs. pupil relationship. LV's weaknesses are his fear of death and understanding the *power* of love and how it can be used against him but he does know how to manipulate people with love as a weapon against them. That is how he got Harry to the DoM by making him think he was torturing Sirius. Also, LV does know about good he just considers it a weakness because it can be so easily used to manipulate those fools who love. He just doesn't understand the power behind it. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 22 00:41:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:41:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) References: Message-ID: <004f01c76c1a$c78db190$9160400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166338 > Dana now: > LV is known to be able to play people to his own advantage and this > needs understanding people a great deal. Just because he could not > play DD doesn't mean he doesn't know certain weaknesses DD has when > it concerns one of his students. > DD avoids Harry, in OotP, partly because he doesn't want LV to know > Harry means more to him then just having a mere Headmaster vs. pupil > relationship. > > LV's weaknesses are his fear of death and understanding the *power* > of love and how it can be used against him but he does know how to > manipulate people with love as a weapon against them. That is how he > got Harry to the DoM by making him think he was torturing Sirius. > Also, LV does know about good he just considers it a weakness because > it can be so easily used to manipulate those fools who love. He just > doesn't understand the power behind it. Magpie: Yes, he thinks love is a weakness that he can exploit. He's doing that by giving Draco this task, knowing that that will punish Lucius. But knowing that Dumbledore will protect Harry and that Harry will want to protect Sirius is a far cry from what Dumbledore's doing with Draco. I can't believe for a second that LV actually envisioned DD and Snape risking their lives and allowing Draco to find his own way. Dumbledore cares about his students, but Draco's a Death Eater openly declared for the other side. More importantly, he's endangering people--including other students. This is love of an even higher level than the person. It's caring about somebody you shouldn't care about at all. It's having compassion for someone who hasn't earned it (even Harry doesn't really get that). More importantly, it's seeing something in Draco that nobody (including many readers) can see. Why waste anything on this kid? Voldemort certainly wouldn't. Who cares if he discovers who he really is? What good does it do for him to fail at murder? I think, as Bart said, one of the things in HBP is that LV can't understand that. The most he can understand is that Dumbledore is a sucker because he "wants" to see the good in people. He doesn't understand actually seeing good in people or taking that kind of risk. LV counting on Dumbledore to pull this, imo, is as impossible as Dumbledore planning on Draco finding a way to get Death Eaters into the castle. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 01:00:55 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:00:55 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166339 > Dana now: > There are many things one could question about the prank and the > probability of DD not knowing certain things. For me James > risking his own life to save Snape still holds some question marks > too, because if Lupin really posed a threat then what would have > stopped James from transforming into Prongs and hold him off? Oh well, better risk my life and potentially end up dead than to have Snape know I am an illegal animagus. zgirnius: I have two suggestions about James's supposed risking of his life. The first is that the tunnel is described as low and narrow. (The Trio, as 13-year-olds, are unable to walk through it without bending double). James's likely Animagus form is the rather large Scottish Deer, an animal 4+ feet high at the shoulder (1,2 m for non-US readers) and possessing an impressively wide rack of antlers. It seems to me that if he transformed in the tunnel, he might get stuck. I know it is said the Marauders entered the tunnel in Animagus form, but I find it plausible that this detail might be wrong, and James may have needed to transform outside and wait, or come in behind Sirius in human form. Lupin was fondly reminiscing, not giving a detailed technical account, after all. (And he would have no direct memory anyway, as he would have been a werewolf at the time). The other is to propose simply that James's life was not at risk, precisely because he had the option to transform. Lupin could be exaggerating, or not thinking it through, and Dumbledore, at the time he discusses the matter with Harry, has no idea that James was an Animagus. The point of the story is more that Snape's life was at risk, and James saved him. It would still make the act meaningful. After all, who believes Harry was at risk when he saved Peter? But that was a heroic gesture anyway. Dana: > Another is of course where were the others? They are supposed to be > running with Lupin every month. zgirnius: There could be some reason they were not going that night (I dunno, Peter or Sirius had a cold or something...), or Snape could have showed up before the Marauders. It does not seem a detail that renders the story we have been told in any way problematic. Dana: > There is also the part in HBP where Harry is shocked a werewolf has > killed a little boy and he is told that werewolves indeed are able to > kill when they get carried away (implying they normally do not, so > not just because he can't imagine Lupin killing someone). Lupin > himself also states that werewolves *sometimes* kill to eat. This in > relation to the prank makes no sense at all. Who would want to eat > Snape? ;) zgirnius: I think a werewolf confined to a small space, who would otherwise turn on himself (Lupin mentions this as one of the things the presence of friends alleviated, he used to scratch himself up) would be likely to get 'carried away' with a victim on whom to turn his unnatural blood lust. The killing to eat business I think is more about the marginalized werewolves on whom Lupin spies, who have not the means to make a living due to the laws of the WW. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 01:10:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:10:10 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166340 > Dana: > > Another is of course where were the others? They are supposed to be > > running with Lupin every month. > > zgirnius: > There could be some reason they were not going that night (I dunno, > Peter or Sirius had a cold or something...), or Snape could have > showed up before the Marauders. It does not seem a detail that > renders the story we have been told in any way problematic. > Alla: Heee, problematic? Don't know. Adds another questions and suspicions? To me for sure. They are absent the night of the Prank and no other night? How could that be? What happened? Who told James what is happening? What was Peter doing? And do you realise the implications of your speculation that Snape showed up before Marauders? That can mean to me another potential support in favor of Snape figuring out **before** hand that Remus was a werewolf and going in for the kill, thus also somehow managing to keep James occupied somehow. Oy, what would I have give up to read what happened that night **now**. Please JKR, pretty please, you promised to tell us:) Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 22 01:26:41 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:26:41 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166341 > Quick_Silver: > This is amazing...I was just thinking of this question and it comes > up today. When I read CoS I always got the impression that the sword > had always been in the hat...for the better part of 1000 years since > Godric. Unless I'm mistaken, and on this I probably am, the sword is > only mentioned in the Headmasters office after the events of CoS > (after Harry pulls it out) and it's never mentioned as being there in > any of the flashbacks to Dumbledore's or Dippet's days. This is why > I've always been confused by talk of the sword being a horcrux...I > just thought that it wasn't around when Voldemort was in horcrux > making mode. Jen: I thought the sword was left in the hat by Godric too, waiting to be pulled out by a true Gryffindor in a time of need. This idea is symmetrical with Slytherin sealing the COS until his heir appeared. The two actions symbolize the Founders themselves: Slytherin is interested in blood heir opening the COS and Gryffindor wants only a truly brave student on a quest to find the sword. Dumbledore said the castle is a 'stronghold of ancient magic' when he told Harry why Voldemort wanted to stay and teach. Fawkes brought the hat, but only when Harry put the hat on his head and asked for help did the sword fall out. Dumbledore was saying two separate things to Harry in Hagrid's hat before he left. He mentioned he would never truly have left the school as long as those loyal remained and explained that comment later, telling Harry his loyalty had called Fawkes to the COS. The second sentence is not about Dumbledore, but about the castle itself, saying 'help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.' Dumbledore won't be at Hogwarts forever, this help is something before his time and will be there long after. Jen R. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 01:37:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:37:52 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166342 > Alla: > And do you realise the implications of your speculation that Snape > showed up before Marauders? > > That can mean to me another potential support in favor of Snape > figuring out **before** hand that Remus was a werewolf and going in > for the kill, thus also somehow managing to keep James occupied > somehow. zgirnius: By sixth year, it would seem to me that if Snape wanted to kill Lupin, he could have. Since Lupin is alive, I conclude this was not Snape's intention. To be close enough to be in danger, he was close enough to cast Sectumsempra, seems to me. (Regardless of whether he already knew/used the spell in SWM, by sixth year, I think he knew it - it is in the 6th year text.) Also, he has no use for Lupin as an adult, but seems rather more intense about both James and Sirius. He does not seem to care enough for Lupin for Lupin to ne the potential victim of an erstwhile murder attempt. Actually, the circumstance of the Marauders being absent could also support the idea that Sirius did set it up to get Snape. He might pick a night they were not going to be there, or might have delayed his friends, to such an end. And then either started having second thoughts, or decided to amuse his pals with the story of his plan. However, I tend to think what happened is what we have heard so far: Snape was an idiot to follow Sirius's suggestion, Sirius was a bigger idiot to make it, and James saved the day. Though the details of why Snape and Sirius were inspired to such heights of idiocy would certainly make fascinating reading. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 01:46:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:46:58 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166343 > > Alla: > > And do you realise the implications of your speculation that Snape > > showed up before Marauders? > > > > That can mean to me another potential support in favor of Snape > > figuring out **before** hand that Remus was a werewolf and going in > > for the kill, thus also somehow managing to keep James occupied > > somehow. > > zgirnius: > By sixth year, it would seem to me that if Snape wanted to kill > Lupin, he could have. Since Lupin is alive, I conclude this was not > Snape's intention. Alla: And I reserve my judgment. I do not think Snape would have necessarily gotten all he wanted :) See those essays do keep bugging me, they truly honestly do. Zgirnius: To be close enough to be in danger, he was close > enough to cast Sectumsempra, seems to me. (Regardless of whether he > already knew/used the spell in SWM, by sixth year, I think he knew > it - it is in the 6th year text.) Also, he has no use for Lupin as an > adult, but seems rather more intense about both James and Sirius. He > does not seem to care enough for Lupin for Lupin to ne the potential > victim of an erstwhile murder attempt. Alla: Oh, but the less intensity of his hatred for Lupin may have nothing to do with it. I doubt that he wanted to kill Lupin ( if he did) because he hated him per se that much. I believe that Snape may have wanted to kill a **Dark creature** ( don't ask me how werewolf mind works?) not human being called Remus Lupin and maybe to show himself a great expert of Dark Arts. Am speculating obviously, wildly, but those essays, they do bug me. Zgirnius: > Actually, the circumstance of the Marauders being absent could also > support the idea that Sirius did set it up to get Snape. He might > pick a night they were not going to be there, or might have delayed > his friends, to such an end. And then either started having second > thoughts, or decided to amuse his pals with the story of his plan. Alla: Sure, it could have been. Zgirnius: > However, I tend to think what happened is what we have heard so far: > Snape was an idiot to follow Sirius's suggestion, Sirius was a bigger > idiot to make it, and James saved the day. Alla: Yes, likely but too many questions for me, you know? And of course the one of them is that Snape should have been more than an idiot to just go where his sworn enemy tells him to. Zgirnius: > Though the details of why Snape and Sirius were inspired to such > heights of idiocy would certainly make fascinating reading. > Alla: Agreed :) Pretty please JKR. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 01:42:04 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:42:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) References: Message-ID: <001301c76c23$4cb3dea0$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 166344 > Dana now: > No, it is not clear that DD wanted Harry to face LV and I personally > do not believe he actually wanted him to. I think it was meant to > understand that only Snape was on to Quirrell and because of it, he > made himself suspicious. I think it was also meant to read that DD > had no clue about it being Quirrell aiding LV, even if DD knew LV was > trying to get to the stone and was keeping himself alive with unicorn > blood. Shelley: I agree with this assessment- that DD didn't know Quirrel was the one aiding LV. But, this presents me with huge problems with "Snape is DD's man" theory. Snape was obviously onto Quirrell- no doubt about that. BUT, why then didn't he tell DD if he was so loyal to him? DD knows there is a potential thief- everyone knows the vault was robbed (only, of nothing). Here, Snape has the theif, and he doesn't turn him in to Dumbledore or the authorities??? The only thing I can make of this is "Snape, the wannabe hero"- he goes after Quirrell hoping to catch him red handed. But then he failed, and got bit by Fluffy. Shouldn't he have told DD then, if he was so loyal to him? Again, no. This, to me is still evidence for the Double-Agent!Snape. Let's weigh his actions: if he caught Quirrell trying to steal the stone, he looks like a hero to Dumbledore. If he succeeds in taking the stone from Quirell, and still manipulates the situation to lay full blame on Quirrell for stealing it (probably with Quirrell dead and the stone missing, which then DD would assume that LV had it already), then Snape himself can present the stone to Lord Voldemort and be a hero that returns the Dark Lord to everlasting life. (I don't think there is any evidence that Snape knew LV was hiding in that turban, on the back of Quirrell's head.) He has every reason, as Double-Agent!Snape, to go after Quirrell. >> What I can't figure out (having just finished re-reading PoA) is >> why Dumbledore didn't suspect that Black was hiding in the >> Shrieking Shack. > > > Dana now: > Probably because he was not expecting Sirius to linger in one place. Shelley: Actually, I think DD suspected the truth that Sirius was innocent. If he knew something of his innocence, then he knew that he was not the real threat. DD then needed Sirius to help lead him to the real killer, which if Sirius came to Hogwarts, meant that the real killer was at Hogwarts. > On another list I saw someone make a great remark about a > question asked to JKR about why the twins never saw Pettigrew on the > map. (If you are the owner of these remarks then please forgive me > for not crediting you by name, can remember the remark so vividly but > can't remember where I've seen it) > > It went something like this; > > George: Look at the map Fred, There is a guy named Peter Pettigrew in > Ron's bed. > Fred: Never heard of a Peter Pettigrew, you? > George: No > Fred: Well never mind, let's go raid the kitchen. Shelley: There's a problem with that though- why would the twins be looking for Ron in Ron's bed? In other words, they KNOW what's already in the Gryffindor common room, and it's not Filch or Mrs. Norris, or one of the other teachers they are avoiding to avoid getting detention. They are focused on the area that they are exploring, and who's in that region. Unless the Rat!Pettigrew was following them, they probably never had cause to see him. There are a lot of people in that castle, if all the house elves show up, which is probably how the boys found the kitchen to begin with. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 22 02:32:03 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:32:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) References: <001301c76c23$4cb3dea0$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <003c01c76c2a$48c429b0$9160400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166345 > Shelley: > I agree with this assessment- that DD didn't know Quirrel was the one > aiding > LV. But, this presents me with huge problems with "Snape is DD's man" > theory. Snape was obviously onto Quirrell- no doubt about that. BUT, why > then didn't he tell DD if he was so loyal to him? DD knows there is a > potential thief- everyone knows the vault was robbed (only, of nothing). > Here, Snape has the theif, and he doesn't turn him in to Dumbledore or the > authorities??? The only thing I can make of this is "Snape, the wannabe > hero"- he goes after Quirrell hoping to catch him red handed. But then he > failed, and got bit by Fluffy. Shouldn't he have told DD then, if he was > so > loyal to him? Again, no. Magpie: Who says Snape has the thief? Suspecting Quirrel doesn't mean that he's actually caught him, and I actually don't see why Snape has to know for sure that it's Quirrel while DD--who is generally the guy who knows *more* than Snape--is completely clueless. I certainly don't think Snape has to be hiding getting bitten by Fluffy--he's not hiding from Filch, who also knows about Fluffy. Aren't all these ideas the ones Harry has that turn out to be misunderstandings? Shelley: > This, to me is still evidence for the Double-Agent!Snape. Let's weigh his > actions: if he caught Quirrell trying to steal the stone, he looks like a > hero to Dumbledore. If he succeeds in taking the stone from Quirell, and > still manipulates the situation to lay full blame on Quirrell for stealing > it (probably with Quirrell dead and the stone missing, which then DD would > assume that LV had it already), then Snape himself can present the stone > to > Lord Voldemort and be a hero that returns the Dark Lord to everlasting > life. > (I don't think there is any evidence that Snape knew LV was hiding in that > turban, on the back of Quirrell's head.) He has every reason, as > Double-Agent!Snape, to go after Quirrell. Magpie: Where is Snape trying to get the stone from Quirrel? Snape is one of the people guarding the Stone, and could probably have figured out on his own how to get through all the things guarding it (he's got plenty of access to Hagrid, who isn't Fort Knox of Secrets to begin with). Except for the mirror, but then, neither could Quirrel get the stone out of the mirror. The only reason the Stone was actually in danger of being stolen by anybody was because Harry decided to steal it to keep it safe from Snape. But Harry was wrong. So where is the evidence of Snape having any plan or taking any action to steal the Philosopher's Stone? Nor is Snape the one who catches Quirrel stealing the Stone. > Shelley: > Actually, I think DD suspected the truth that Sirius was innocent. If he > knew something of his innocence, then he knew that he was not the real > threat. DD then needed Sirius to help lead him to the real killer, which > if > Sirius came to Hogwarts, meant that the real killer was at Hogwarts. Magpie: Whoa! When did Dumbledore decided Sirius was innocent after helping to put him in Azkaban for 13 years? Did he make any moves to try to capture Sirius and talk to him to find out about this real threat? He didn't know about Peter, I assume. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 22 04:30:54 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:30:54 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166346 Carol: > Let's say, then, that it's no longer his sole or primary concern, as > it was in OoP. We certainly don't see him making any effort to > secure information on the prophecy in HBP, and we do see, all through the > book, a plot to kill Dumbledore. Jen: Harry typically doesn't know Voldemort's plans in the middle of a book, and we are essentially at that point after HBP. In GOF, not even Dumbledore knew what Voldemort's entire plan was until Harry returned from the graveyard. In OOTP Dumbledore knew LV's plan, but this was kept from Harry until the climactic moment. So in HBP, why would we hear LV's entire plan up front and then merely wait to see how it is fulfilled? More than that, what does the reader actually find out in 'Spinner's End'? Only what Bella, Narcissa and Snape claim to know and are willing to tell each other. I'm not saying the plot with Draco wasn't real, only there's no guarantee the three of them are in on everything in LV's mind. They aren't accurate historians either, since none of them have a reason to fully trust the other. (Not to mention it's never clear what Peter is doing there or if he is unknown quantity X in this equation, that during all the drama taking place he wasn't back to eavesdropping.) Carol: > LV knows that the Prophecy orb is broken. If he wants to get to Harry, > as he surely does, he has to figure out some other way to do it. He doesn't > actually need the Prophecy (we know that it wouldn't help him if he did); he just > needs to get to Harry and deprive him of his wand. > Dana: > We do not see him do that because he knows it will not be > that simple and he wants to know the full information on the prophecy. > He really, truly believes it will help him understand how to > take out Harry. Jen: After the defeat in the graveyard, Voldemort's next step was going after the prophecy. He believed there was something in the prophecy that he needed to know in order to understand how to defeat Harry. Still without the prophecy at the end of OOTP, more bad news for LV--he can't possess Harry, Harry has access to his thoughts and feelings. Voldemort is basically taking a defensive posture with Harry, employing Occlumency. Rather than forgetting the prophecy, he's likely *more* obsessed now with discovering if there is any information in the second half to explain why none of his powers are working against Harry. He doesn't have the benefit of Dumbledore's explanations and has no idea what he is missing. Jen R. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Mar 22 07:20:57 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:20:57 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid as Teacher (was Hagrid as animal abuser) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166347 In a message dated 3/19/07 7:55:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, sherriola at earthlink.net writes: > Also, I don't know where Hagrid ordered the monster books, but Flourish and > Blots was selling them--remember the cage with the books fighting each other > inside? I don't think they'd be considered dark. I actually thought the > monster book was hilarious and think it was meant to be funny. > > Sandy : I had completely forgotten about the caged books. I don't have the books memorized from cover to cover like so many of you do. When I said the books should be kept in the restricted section of the library I wasn't implying they are Dark, only that they need to be kept under lock and key. Sandy, who thought the books were especially hilarious in the medium that must not be mentioned. ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 22 10:59:37 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:37 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: Quick_Silver: > > When I read CoS I always got the impression that the sword > > had always been in the hat...for the better part of 1000 years since > > Godric. Jen: > I thought the sword was left in the hat by Godric too, > waiting to be pulled out by a true Gryffindor in a time of need. > This idea is symmetrical with Slytherin sealing the COS until his > heir appeared. The two actions symbolize the Founders > themselves: Slytherin is interested in blood heir opening the COS > and Gryffindor wants only a truly brave student on a quest to > find the sword. Dumbledore said the castle is a 'stronghold > of ancient magic' when he told Harry why Voldemort wanted to > stay and teach. Fawkes brought the hat, but only when Harry put the > hat on his head and asked for help did the sword fall out. Geoff: It's interesting that that thought has never occurred to me. I've always assumed that the Hat summoned the sword from somewhere else - a variant of Apparating or Portkeying perhaps? While on the subject of the Sorting Hat, it has always intrigued me that it appears to be sentient or semi-sentient. What /is/ the Hat really? Like the portraits, it interacts with people around it but how far are it's deliberations original? To quote Data: "Intriguing". From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 22 11:16:30 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:16:30 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166349 Hi everyone, I couldn't find anything in archives and do not remember from the PS/SS...please bear with me and help me out if you can. My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses willing to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were they? (ducks and expects to be flogged for joining the list without learning HP books by heart) :) Kvapost, the grateful list reader. From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Mar 22 08:44:00 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:44:00 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: <004f01c76c1a$c78db190$9160400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166350 > Magpie: > Yes, he thinks love is a weakness that he can exploit. He's doing that by > giving Draco this task, knowing that that will punish Lucius. But knowing > that Dumbledore will protect Harry and that Harry will want to protect > Sirius is a far cry from what Dumbledore's doing with Draco. I can't believe > for a second that LV actually envisioned DD and Snape risking their lives > and allowing Draco to find his own way. Dumbledore cares about his students, > but Draco's a Death Eater openly declared for the other side. More > importantly, he's endangering people--including other students. Dana now: I know another DE kid that was up to his neck in the Dark Arts that DD gave a chance to change his life and come over to the right side. He kept him out of Azkaban before and after LV's downfall and provided him with a job to keep him on the side of good. DD never killed anyone or had anyone killed by someone. LV would know fully well DD would not try to kill Draco. I was not implying DD risked his life for Draco but only that he was busy thinking about how to deal with Draco. If it was Draco alone then DD's life was never in real danger. And he had ordered Snape to make sure Draco did not cause any more harm to others. Everybody has his weaknesses and LV knows DD always believes there is still good in people and therefore are worth saving, even if he never saw it in Tom Riddle. Magpie: > This is love of an even higher level than the person. It's caring about > somebody you shouldn't care about at all. It's having compassion for someone > who hasn't earned it. Dana: DD has a tendency of taking care of the social outcast while others do not believe they deserve a chance. He made sure Hagrid could stay after him being expelled (caused by Tom himself). He made sure Lupin could attend school while considered a Dark Creature. He put his trust in Snape while having been a DE and gave him a job. So why would Draco be anything different to DD? Magpie: > Why waste anything on this kid? Voldemort certainly wouldn't. Who cares if > he discovers who he really is? What good does it do for him to fail at > murder? I think, as Bart said, one of the things in HBP is that LV can't > understand that. The most he can understand is that Dumbledore is a sucker > because he "wants" to see the good in people. Dana: Precisely, LV would not care what happens to Draco, to him, he is just one means to an end but he knows DD would think about this entirely differently. And therefore Draco is the perfect distraction to execute a bigger plan. LV would not waste time on punishing Lucius by using Draco. If he really wanted Lucius to pay he could just have killed his only son. LV wouldn't care less, he is not withheld by any feeling of fairness so giving Draco a chance to make it right for his family, has nothing to do with it. He uses Draco and get back at Lucius at the same time but not just to punish Lucius and risk that the boy will not be able to kill DD. I am very convinced that his use of Draco was a very calculated one. I believe LV never meant for Draco to kill DD, because he would know Draco would be incapable of doing so even if the kid shoots off his mouth, but I seriously suspect LV to have set up Snape for the job. You say why would Snape risk his life for Draco? You tell me why is he taking the vow? Could LV know Snape would take it? I think he would because he knows his minions well, knows their weaknesses and plays them to the max. Dana From muellem at bc.edu Thu Mar 22 12:07:51 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:07:51 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166351 "Dana" wrote: > I believe LV never meant for Draco to kill DD, because he would know > Draco would be incapable of doing so even if the kid shoots off his > mouth, but I seriously suspect LV to have set up Snape for the > job. You say why would Snape risk his life for Draco? > You tell me why is he taking the vow? Could LV know Snape would take > it? I think he would because he knows his minions well, knows their > weaknesses and plays them to the max. colebiancardi: I believe you are half correct - I think that LV knew, not that he never meant, that Draco would not kill DD; hence Snape's remarks about how the Dark Lord intends him to do it in the end. However, I think that LV is testing Snape, as Bella asserts that Snape has a way of "slithering" out of tasks: "The usual empty words, the usual slithering out of action..." (from Spinner's End, HBP) I think Snape risked his life to take the Vow because he is a spy for DD - he needs to know what LV is up to - I don't believe he knows what LV has asked Draco to do in the scene in Spinner's End. One of his duties as a spy is to find out information, regardless of the risks. He got trapped with the third provision of the UV, but I am sure that is something that all undercover agents go through. I don't believe LV knows about the Vow - that would put both Bella & Cissa in danger with LV, as no one but the Malfoy family knows of what LV asked Draco to do. Why would Snape do it other than intel, which I believe is extremely important as part of his spy duties? Well, to make a futher bond with the Malfoy's - now, Narcissa owes him. She cannot betray Snape to LV without betraying her own deceit and going against LV's orders. Snape is positioning himself to get the Malfoys out of danger - further proof is DD's speech to Draco on the Tower - how they can protect him(Draco), his mother and even his father. Snape & DD don't want the Malfoy's dead. LV doesn't care if the Malfoy's live or die. Those on the side of the good want to protect all folk, not just those who innocent. LV is self-serving and just wants power and those that agree with him in the end. Anyone too smart, with too many questions, is either dead or is a marked man. Snape is one of those marked men, IMHO, as I don't believe LV really trusts anyone, least of all Snape. colebiancardi From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 13:13:57 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:13:57 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166352 Kvapost: > My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses willing to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were they? > (ducks and expects to be flogged for joining the list without learning HP books by heart) :) Goddlefrood: No, no, not at all amd welcome to our feast kvapost. It is a very interesting question. It has been referred to here before, but not for some time, and perhaps is now the time to go back to it with DH fast approaching :). Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible for spreading the rumours of LV's demise. My reasons are set out in a little post called "The Legend of the Lost Day", which also covers other matters. (A search should locate it). To summarise, Hagrid sped around some wizarding parties during the course of the time he was travelling between Godric's Hollow and Little Whingeing, and well, the rest is surely not for me to specualte on here ;). Others may elucidate further, or offer alternatives. Goddlefrood, just popping in at the end of a weary day :) From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 22 14:51:50 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:51:50 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166353 > Dana now: > I know another DE kid that was up to his neck in the Dark Arts that > DD gave a chance to change his life and come over to the right side. > He kept him out of Azkaban before and after LV's downfall and > provided him with a job to keep him on the side of good. Magpie: Snape was a DE who came to Dumbledore with a "tale of remorse" and was given a second chance. Draco isn't doing that. He's just attempting assassinations in the school. LV's plan is laid out more than once: he expects Draco to die in the attempt to kill Dumbledore, in some fashion, and that will punish Lucius. Dumbledore's response is to make something else happen. Assuming that everything is actually part of LV's plan is, imo, making LV far too clever by half, and robbing the story of a lot of its meaning. Dana:> > DD never killed anyone or had anyone killed by someone. LV would > know fully well DD would not try to kill Draco. > I was not implying DD risked his life for Draco but only that he was > busy thinking about how to deal with Draco. If it was Draco alone > then DD's life was never in real danger. And he had ordered Snape to > make sure Draco did not cause any more harm to others. Magpie: Death Eaters have indeed been killed by the other side, and put in prison as well. Dumbledore himself says that LV would expect his side (DD's side) to kill Draco. That's the point of the plan as stated by a number of people--to get Draco killed (and if he succeeds, it's win/win). I don't think you can make Voldemort into Dumbledore and give him the same understanding of good. I don't think Voldemort expects or wants Dumbledore to offer to hide not only Draco but Lucius and Narcissa as well--what is LV getting out of this plan? Dana:> > Everybody has his weaknesses and LV knows DD always believes there > is still good in people and therefore are worth saving, even if he > never saw it in Tom Riddle. Magpie: Voldemort's expecting Draco to be killed--which by all accounts he *is* expecting--does not have to violate his idea that Dumbledore is a sucker who wants to see the good in people. He doesn't have to assume Dumbledore is going to kill anyone personally, or personally order a hit on Draco. He just has to let things take their logical course--just as Peter allowed things to take their logical course with Sirius and Dumble "I see the good in everyone" let him go to Azkaban. Dumbledore saw no good in Lucius in CoS or Barty in GoF. He's defeated Dark Wizards in his time. > Magpie: > > This is love of an even higher level than the person. It's caring > about > > somebody you shouldn't care about at all. It's having compassion > for someone > > who hasn't earned it. > > > Dana: > DD has a tendency of taking care of the social outcast while others > do not believe they deserve a chance. He made sure Hagrid could stay > after him being expelled (caused by Tom himself). He made sure Lupin > could attend school while considered a Dark Creature. He put his > trust in Snape while having been a DE and gave him a job. So why > would Draco be anything different to DD? Magpie: Taking care of a social outcast is a different thing--Voldemort is allied with far more social outcasts than Dumbledore. Dumbledore's outcasts are all on his side, loyal to a fault. Including Snape, in Voldemort's understanding, who comes to him with a tale of remorse (I suspect the level of real loyalty Snape has for Dumbledore would be totally incomprehensible to Voldemort). Dumbledore did not want Barty Crouch Jr. soul-sucked so quickly, but he was hardly welcoming him with open arms and trying to save him. > Dana: > Precisely, LV would not care what happens to Draco, to him, he is > just one means to an end but he knows DD would think about this > entirely differently. And therefore Draco is the perfect distraction> to execute a bigger plan. Magpie: If he knew how "differently" Dumbledore thought he would be able to manipulate Dumbledore the way Dumbledore manipulates LV. Voldemort *thinks* he understands who Dumbledore thinks with his second chances, but he doesn't. Voldemort could not, imo, have conceived or understood what Dumbledore was doing with Draco in that scene on the Tower. Dana: LV would not waste time on punishing Lucius > by using Draco. If he really wanted Lucius to pay he could just have > killed his only son. Magpie: I don't understand the widespread resistance to this plan of Voldemort's which is stated flat-out in the book and is perfectly in keeping with his sadistic nature. This is not the first time I've hard people claim that Voldemort is not allowed to torment the Malfoys this way and I don't get it. Voldemort would and does "waste time" punishing Lucius by using Draco (it's barely a waste of time for him). He does not choose to just kill Draco. This is far more fun, and costs Voldemort nothing at all. And it's stated by a number of people. I see no reason to just reject that because I know Voldemort would never do this--especially when I think he would. If I was going to start throwing out plans because I didn't think they were a good use of his time I'd start with the plan in GoF. Talk about a time waster. I thought that plan was foolish, but I didn't think that meant I could reject it as having happened. And this plan is far better and more logical. Dana: LV wouldn't care less, he is not withheld by any > feeling of fairness so giving Draco a chance to make it right for his > family, has nothing to do with it. He uses Draco and get back at Lucius > at the same time but not just to punish Lucius and risk that the boy > will not be able to kill DD. I am very convinced that his use of Draco > was a very calculated one. Magpie: He's not being fair, he's just doing what he wants to do--and if Draco succeeds all the better. If his use of Draco is calculated, what is it calculated for? Because you seem to be suggesting that he's playing Dumbledore--whose actions nobody else can understand-- like a fiddle so that Draco will be as potentially changed at the end of the book as he is and that, to me, is far more unlikely than his wasting time on getting Draco killed. (He's not wasting time, of course. Voldemort is very active causing trouble in the WW in HBP. I don't think he's paying much attention or wasting much time on Draco at all. DD's the one who's wasting time on him.) Dana: > > I believe LV never meant for Draco to kill DD, because he would know > Draco would be incapable of doing so even if the kid shoots off his > mouth, Magie: That's canon, yes. He never expected him to do it. Dana: but I seriously suspect LV to have set up Snape for the > job. You say why would Snape risk his life for Draco? > You tell me why is he taking the vow? Could LV know Snape would take > it? I think he would because he knows his minions well, knows their > weaknesses and plays them to the max. Magpie: This issue really isn't his knowing his minions well, but, as Dumbledore has suggested, that he doesn't understand love or friendship. He only understands his own versions of them. It's a bit of a stretch, imo, to think that Voldemort planned the Vow--there were just too many random factors there. But he could probably understand ESE!Snape's reason for killing Dumbledore--to get the glory for himself. But what of it? Is that supposed to be his greater plan, to get Snape to kill Dumbledore? Because that doesn't seem to hold up to the standard you set earlier for Draco himself-- why not just tell Snape to kill Dumbledore? If the bigger plan is all about Trelawney and getting her out of the castle, I need to have some canon for where this is happening. All the DEs act as people there for Draco who leave after that job is done. There's not even a line where somebody says, "Trelawney is missing!" As for why Snape took the Vow, a Vow I would assume LV didn't know about, I don't know. I don't think we will know until the next book. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 16:12:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:12:36 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166354 zgirnius wrote: > I have two suggestions about James's supposed risking of his life. The first is that the tunnel is described as low and narrow. (The Trio, as 13-year-olds, are unable to walk through it without bending double). James's likely Animagus form is the rather large Scottish Deer, an animal 4+ feet high at the shoulder (1,2 m for non-US readers) and possessing an impressively wide rack of antlers. It seems to me that if he transformed in the tunnel, he might get stuck. > > I know it is said the Marauders entered the tunnel in Animagus form, but I find it plausible that this detail might be wrong, and James may have needed to transform outside and wait, or come in behind Sirius in human form. Lupin was fondly reminiscing, not giving a detailed technical account, after all. (And he would have no direct memory anyway, as he would have been a werewolf at the time). > > The other is to propose simply that James's life was not at risk, precisely because he had the option to transform. Lupin could be exaggerating, or not thinking it through, and Dumbledore, at the time he discusses the matter with Harry, has no idea that James was an Animagus. The point of the story is more that Snape's life was at risk, and James saved him. It would still make the act meaningful. After all, who believes Harry was at risk when he saved Peter? But that was a heroic gesture anyway. Carol responds: I agree that James wasn't really at risk. What I don't understand is *how* he saved Severus's life. He couldn't have cast any hexes or jinxes on Remus that Severus couldn't also have cast (he's the kid who knew more curses at eleven that most seventh-years). And he certainly couldn't have transformed into a stag and, say, carried Severus off on his antlers, because, as you say, there wasn't room to transform and Severus would have informed Dumbledore. So exactly did he do that Severus couldn't have done himself? Did he just warn him that Remus was a werewolf and yell "Run?" Dana wrote: > > Another is of course where were the others? They are supposed to be running with Lupin every month. > zgirnius responded: > There could be some reason they were not going that night (I dunno, Peter or Sirius had a cold or something...), or Snape could have showed up before the Marauders. Carol notes: Or Snape could be right that James was in on the so-called Prank and got cold feet at the last minute. Makes sense to me, especially given what we've seen of James's treatment of Severus and his nasty sense of humor as a teenager. Carol, who agrees with the rest of zgirnius's post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 16:33:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:33:24 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166355 Jen wrote: > I thought the sword was left in the hat by Godric too, waiting to be pulled out by a true Gryffindor in a time of need. Dumbledore said the castle is a 'stronghold of ancient magic' when he told Harry why Voldemort wanted to stay and teach. Fawkes brought the hat, but only when Harry put the hat on his head and asked for help did the sword fall out. > > Dumbledore was saying two separate things to Harry in Hagrid's hat before he left. He mentioned he would never truly have left the school as long as those loyal remained and explained that comment later, telling Harry his loyalty had called Fawkes to the COS. > > The second sentence is not about Dumbledore, but about the castle itself, saying 'help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.' Dumbledore won't be at Hogwarts forever, this help is something before his time and will be there long after. Carol responds: Maybe DD didn't put the sword in the hat himself, he certainly knew it was there. Otherwise, how would Fawkes know to bring the Sorting Hat to Harry if Dumbledore when he was called by loyalty to DD and a request for help? Fawkes, who arrived because of Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore and for no other reason, could have blinded the Basilisk and healed the wound, but he surely would not have brought the Sorting Hat with him had he not been instructed to do so--by Dumbledore. Carol, who still thinks that DD put the sword in the hat himself--after all, it's a relic of Godric Gryffindor and seems to belong to DD, just as Fawkes does From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 17:30:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:30:34 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166356 Carol earlier: > > Let's say, then, that it's no longer his sole or primary concern, as it was in OoP. We certainly don't see him making any effort to secure information on the prophecy in HBP, and we do see, all through the book, a plot to kill Dumbledore. > Jen responded: > Harry typically doesn't know Voldemort's plans in the middle of a book, and we are essentially at that point after HBP. More than that, what does the reader actually find out in 'Spinner's End'? Only what Bella, Narcissa and Snape claim to know and are willing to tell each other. I'm not saying the plot with Draco wasn't real, only there's no guarantee the three of them are in on everything in LV's mind. They aren't accurate historians either, since none of them have a reason to fully trust the other. (Not to mention it's never clear what Peter is doing there or if he is unknown quantity X in this equation, that during all the drama taking place he wasn't back to eavesdropping.) Carol responds: Whatever else Voldemort may be planning, the plot to force Draco to try to kill dumbledore, about which the three adults apparently know, and the Vanishing Pla Cabinet Plan, about which snape, at least, does not know, are undeniably real, as is the advantage to Voldemort if Dumbledore dies. (I'm still hoping, however, that he'll develop a false sense of security as a result.) To throw in a Prophecy plan with no hints whatever would not be "playing fair." We still don't know what was up at Spinner's end and snape's motives for taking the UV, much less exactly what happened on the tower. To bring in the Prophecy is to needlessly complicate a perfectly understandable, win-win plan for Voldemort: either the plan succeeds, against all expectations, and "the only one he ever feared" is dead, or it fails and he murders Draco (and perhaps Narcissa) as revenge against Lucius Malfoy for failing to get the Prophecy. (If he thought there were some other way to get the Prophecy, why bother to punish Lucius? Just concentrate on that.) I do think that Trelawney is in danger and LV may try to get to her in DH, but I see no evidence that he was trying to do so in HBP, where the plot, despite some unanswered questions related to Snape, makes perfect sense with regard to Voldemort. As for Pettigrew, snape knows that he's been listening at doorways. He expels him from the room and hits the door with some sort of spell that sends Wormtail scurrying away? Do you really think that Snape, himself a spy and the inventor of Muffliato, is going to let Wormtail listen in on a potentially incriminating conversation? My guess is that he put the same kind of charm on the door that Molly Weasley placed on the kitchen door at 12 GP to keep them from listening in. The most Wormtail could do is to report that the Black sisters came to visit and Narcissa had some sort of request to make of Snape. But notice that Wormtail is hunchbacked now, as if he's been suffering multiple Crucios and torture, and that he really doesn't want to go back to Voldemort and request some other assignment. My feeling is that Wormtail would rather suffer Snape's derision and contempt than Voldemort's torture, and he's going to stay where he is. But even if I'm wrong, I doubt that he has anything to report. Jen: Rather than forgetting the prophecy, he's likely *more* > obsessed now with discovering if there is any information in the second half to explain why none of his powers are working against Harry. He doesn't have the benefit of Dumbledore's explanations and has no idea what he is missing. Carol: And yet he's clearly not concentrating *solely* on the Prophecy as he was in OoP. And even then he had other plans in action, including sending ambassadors to the giants. Now he's starting to murder again, using his Death Eaters and the giants to attack various people and create an atmosphere of fear and tension. But the focus of his attention seems to be the Draco plot, as we see from the increasing intensity of the threats against Draco as the end of the year nears. Granted, Harry doesn't know what's in LV's mind, but JKR has other ways of letting us know what's going on, and what she lets us see, misleading and incomplete and ambiguous as it is, relates to Snape and Draco. The glimpses we get of Trelawney in HBP suggest that she does have some real powers as a Seer of which she herself is unaware (she keeps rereading the cards because she doesn't believe they can be right), but there's no indication that the Draco plot in any way involves her. I'm not arguing that Voldemort isn't ultimately focused on killing Harry, but I'm sure he saw the death of Albus Dumbledore as a necessary first step. Maybe he'll go back to trying to find out about the Prophecy in DH. Maybe. But it clearly is not his sole concern, nor is it apparently his primary concern, in HBP as it was in OoP, where all his efforts were focused on it. Carol, who agrees that "Spinner's End" conceals as much as it reveals but thinks that its secrets relate to the Spinner and have nothing to do with Trelawney From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu Mar 22 17:47:03 2007 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:47:03 -0000 Subject: [SPAM] [HPforGrownups] Re: How did WW learn LV evaporated? Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39DFD@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 166357 Goddlefrood: [snip] To summarise, Hagrid sped around some wizarding parties during the course of the time he was travelling between Godric's Hollow and Little Whingeing, and well, the rest is surely not for me to specualte on here ;). James Adds: You probably shouldn't have said that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 18:35:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:35:40 -0000 Subject: Details of the "Prank" (WAS Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166358 > Carol responds: > I agree that James wasn't really at risk. What I don't understand is > *how* he saved Severus's life. He couldn't have cast any hexes or > jinxes on Remus that Severus couldn't also have cast (he's the kid who > knew more curses at eleven that most seventh-years). And he certainly > couldn't have transformed into a stag and, say, carried Severus off on > his antlers, because, as you say, there wasn't room to transform and > Severus would have informed Dumbledore. So exactly did he do that > Severus couldn't have done himself? Did he just warn him that Remus > was a werewolf and yell "Run?" zgirnius: Then we don't actually agree. I was presenting what I see as mutually exclusive solutions to the problem. It is my opinoin that if James could not transform, then he placed himself in the same danger as Snape. (With the slight advantage that he would have known what to expect, and could therefore forumlate a plan to deal with it in some way. Snape would presumably have been responding to the danger with no advance knowledge of its nature). James's rescue could not consist merely of standing at the entrance to the tunnel and yelling at Snape that Lupin is a werewolf. That is not consistent with the evidence that we do have. The tunnel is quite long, and Snape ventured deep into it, because he saw Lupin. If he was far enough to see Lupin, he was too far to hear James from the tunnel entrance (not to mention that the information James was providing would no longer be of any use, thus meaning James did not, in fact, save his life.) If he ignored James and proceeded, then again James did not save his life, he saved his own (somehow). We also have Lupin's claim that "but your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back," which seems to mean James went into the tunnel. The 'and pulled him back' is particularly interesting. If Snape got far enough to see the werewolf, it would seem that pulling him back would not have been necessary. He ought to have seen the advisability of leaving for himself. There is Alla's murder theory, which would explain the pulling back, but that also seems not to fit. If Snape was set and ready to kill Lupin, James's action would have been saving Lupin's life, not Snape's. I think James did save Snape's life, because two characters whose testimony about the incident I consider reliable confirm this fact. Dumbledore, who often speaks for Rowling (as he does in this case, I believe), and Snape himself. He does not dispute that James saved his life, note. His negative comments about James's rescue have to do with James's motives, not the lack of actual rescue. Total speculation, but perhaps Snape suffered some injury which prevented him from leaving rapidly under his own power? In that case James 'pulling him back' would allow Snape to get out more quickly (or, at all, depending on the nature of the injury). From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 16:09:15 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <878041.93429.qm@web35010.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166359 Carol responds: In CoS, Fawkes arrives with the Sorting Hat containing the Sword of Gryffindor because of the protections Dumbledore has set up: "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" (CoS Am. ed.264) Dana: In CoS he gets help from Fawkes, but it was Harry who called Fawkes to him by showing true loyalty to DD. He could get the sword because he is a true Gryffindor, not because DD sent it to him. Deborah: Don't you think it's just as likely that Godric Gryffindor set up the protection himself? As Phoenixes are immortal, might Fawkes not have been tamed by Godric and come to one showing true loyalty to Gryffindor? Or Hogwarts? I think it is Dumbledore's loyalty to the ideals of Gryffindor and Hogwarts as a united school that brought Fawkes to him, just as I expect Fawkes to go to Harry in year 7. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 22 19:50:01 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:50:01 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166360 Quick_Silver: > > > When I read CoS I always got the impression that the sword > > > had always been in the hat...for the better part of 1000 years > > > since Godric. Jen: > > I thought the sword was left in the hat by Godric too, > > waiting to be pulled out by a true Gryffindor in a time of need. > > This idea is symmetrical with Slytherin sealing the COS until his > > heir appeared. The two actions symbolize the Founders > > themselves: Slytherin is interested in blood heir opening the COS > > and Gryffindor wants only a truly brave student on a quest to > > find the sword. Geoff: > It's interesting that that thought has never occurred to me. I've > always assumed that the Hat summoned the sword from somewhere > else - a variant of Apparating or Portkeying perhaps? SSSusan: It never occurred to me either!! I wonder if that's because I'm such a literalist? You know, I figured if the sword had been in the Sorting Hat all along, it would have been bonking all those first years on the head every time it sorted one of them! :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 22 19:59:06 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:59:06 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166361 Kvapost: > > My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's > > evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses willing > > to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were they? > > > > (ducks and expects to be flogged for joining the list without > > learning HP books by heart) :) Goddlefrood: > No, no, not at all amd welcome to our feast kvapost. It is a very > interesting question. > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible for > spreading the rumours of LV's demise. > To summarise, Hagrid sped around some wizarding parties during > the course of the time he was travelling between Godric's > Hollow and Little Whingeing, and well, the rest is surely not > for me to specualte on here ;). > > Others may elucidate further, or offer alternatives. SSSusan: It *is* an interesting question. I'm not at all certain, but my first thought had to do with those DEs who *were* caught after Godric's Hollow... especially those who were willing to speak out in hopes of reduced sentences in Azkaban. Might they have spoken about the Dark Marks on their arms, which presumably began to fade?? That, plus the fact that he did not call upon them, probably was a sign to them that he was either totally gone or somehow "lessened." Or perhaps you're asking how people found out that Voldy had *specifically* "evaporated," as opposed to their just knowing that *something* had happened to him at GH? This is not to discount Goddlefrood's suggestion that "slip-of-the- lip" Hagrid might well have been responsible for a significant bit of the news spreading. Seems rather likely, too. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 19:59:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:59:30 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166362 --- "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Kvapost: > > > My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's > > evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses > > willing to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were > > they? > > > (ducks and expects to be flogged for joining the list without > learning HP books by heart) :) > > Goddlefrood: > > N... It is a very > interesting question. It has been referred to here before, > but not for some time, .... > > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible > for spreading the rumours of LV's demise. My reasons > are set out in a little post called "The Legend of the > Lost Day", ... > bboyminn: "Legend of the Lost Day" Nov 30, 2005 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143793 > Goddlefrood: > > To summarise, Hagrid sped around some wizarding parties > during the course of the time he was travelling between > Godric's Hollow and Little Whingeing, and well, the > rest is surely not for me to specualte on here ;). > > Others may elucidate further, or offer alternatives. > > Goddlefrood, ... > bboyminn: I think once the information became known to a few it would spread quickly along multiple paths. Certainly, Hagrid would be one of those paths, but remember wizards have the equivalent of the telephone (Floo Network) plus the ability to Apparate. Word would have spread very quickly, and perhaps the infamous Missing 24 Hours serve no purpose other than to let the rumors spread. The more important question is how did Dumbledore know? Dumbledore seems to be the first, and he quickly sent Hagrid to Godrics Hollow where he was met by a suspicious Sirius. Sirius didn't know what had happened but he needed to check on the Potters because Peter wasn't where he was supposed to be. Some suspect that there might have been 'twin' portraits; one at Hogwarts and one at the Potter's house. That would allow the quick and convinient transfer of information between them. I suspect the even while in hiding the Potters would want to know what was happening and would want to be kept up-to-date on Voldemort's actions. Other suspect that Snape might have been there. Though whether he was openl there with Voldemort or whether he was hidden and merely observing is up for debate. Perhaps the Potters had an owl standing by always ready to carry a message to Dumbledore if security was breached. Or perhaps James or Lily had time to send off a messenger Patronus. I suspect once a very few people knew, the story spread like wild fire amoung the normal gossip and communication channels. At some point I suspect Dumbledore notified the Ministry. We know from the book that at some point 'the muggles came running', so perhaps the Ministry needed to modify a few memories. And certainly they needed to arrive on the scene in hopes of capturing DE's (Death Eatres) or at least protecting the public from any DE presence. Soon after that, Ministry and possibly Dumbledore's people would arrive to do a forensic analysis to determine what really happened. So, I see word of events spreading along multiple paths and speading very quickly. I don't imagine the whole story was known at once, but even coming out in bits and pieces, I still see it spreading very quickly. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Mar 22 20:31:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How did WW learn LV evaporated? Message-ID: <15365964.1174595486535.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166363 From: Steve >I think once the information became known to a few it >would spread quickly along multiple paths. Certainly, >Hagrid would be one of those paths, but remember wizards >have the equivalent of the telephone (Floo Network) plus >the ability to Apparate. Word would have spread very >quickly, and perhaps the infamous Missing 24 Hours serve >no purpose other than to let the rumors spread. Bart: One explanation that makes sense (but has no canonical backing) is that the Potters weren't the only magical family in the area, and, once the blowup happened, it would have been kind of hard to keep secret. I'm certain that Dumbledore had people in the area with instructions to report to him anything out of the ordinary, without necessarily being told why. And, for some reason which I can't put my finger on, I have a hunch that Snape was around. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 22 20:54:25 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:54:25 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166364 > > SSSusan: > It never occurred to me either!! > > I wonder if that's because I'm such a literalist? You know, I > figured if the sword had been in the Sorting Hat all along, it would > have been bonking all those first years on the head every time it > sorted one of them! > Pippin: It could be the same sort of magic Dumbledore used to conceal the Stone in the mirror. It was there all along, but could only be retrieved under certain conditions, in this case, that a true Gryffindor had need of it. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 21:05:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:05:07 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: <15365964.1174595486535.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > From: Steve > >I think once the information became known to a few it > >would spread quickly along multiple paths. ...remember > >wizards have the equivalent of the telephone (Floo > >Network) plus the ability to Apparate. ... > > Bart: > One explanation that makes sense (but has no canonical > backing) is that the Potters weren't the only magical > family in the area, and, once the blowup happened, it > would have been kind of hard to keep secret. I'm > certain that Dumbledore had people in the area with > instructions to report to him anything out of the > ordinary, without necessarily being told why. > > And, for some reason which I can't put my finger on, > I have a hunch that Snape was around. > > Bart > bboyminn: Excellent point about Godrics Hollow having wizards living there. Certainly, wizards have lived there in the past. The inventor of the Golden Snitch lived there. Even if magical residents didn't know exactly what happened, it is likely that some of them might have recognized the 'explosion' as a magical event, and then sought to contact the Ministry's Accidental Magic Reversal Squad. This would simply be one more of many ways in which word of the events spread. If friends of Dumbledore live at Godrics Hollow, then perhaps they could have sent word to Dumbledore. They need not have known the Potters where there. Perhaps, Dumbledore simply asked them to report any strange happening in the area, but did so without explanation. In addition, if wizards lived there then there is a slim chance that a member of the Order lived there. Again, that member of the Order didn't have to know about the Potters. He would simply be under orders to report any strange events or suspicious activity. In Goddlefrood's original theory, she(?) suspected that perhaps Hagrid stopped off at several parties on the way to dropping Harry off at the Dursley's. Hagrid might not be the brightest penny in the pocket, but I don't think he is so irresponsible as to stop off at a few parties for a drink or two while performing the most important mission of his life. Stopping off for a few pints of ale while carrying Harry around seem too far beyond the pale for even Hagrid. No, I am far more concerned for how Dumbledore found out, that how the wizard world in general found out. One last minor side point, in the original post "Legend of the Lost Day", Goddlefrood assume most events are happening on Nov 1, and certainly some are. But I think Hagrid delivered Harry early on Nov 2, and that later in that day of Nov 2, Sirius confronts Peter. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn Steve/bboyminn From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 19:37:27 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:37:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's $$$ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166366 Ok, so I've been thinking about this recently, is it ever mentioned what Harry's parents did? Why does he have so much money? Do wizards have life insurance? I mean since they were killed I could see that money going into Gringots(sp) and growing interest for 11 years while he was not in the wizard world. But this doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. So anyone have any theories? tkjones From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 21:21:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:21:41 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? - Additional In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166367 --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > From: Steve > > >I think once the information became known to a few it > > >would spread quickly along multiple paths. ... bboyminn: My appologies for not including this in my previous post. One thing we need to keep in mind is that the story as we hear it in the books has had more than a decade of refinement. I suspect on the night in question, and over the next few weeks, there were hundreds of stories about what might have happened. Perhaps most had a grain of truth, but certainly they all had more than their share of unfounded speculation and even shear fantasy. But over time, the story of the events of that night gradually fall into place until most people are telling the story as we hear it, now, more than a decade later. This is important because, and especially amoung the general public, we don't know that they really knew what happened. Yes, they knew something happened and it appeared to them that it meant Voldemort had some how been defeated. Though in the moment, I'm sure that was more of a fond hope than true knowledge. I just think it is important for us to remember that the story we hear after a more that a decade of refinement is not necessarly that story as known by the general population in the moment. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 21:40:18 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:40:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's $$$ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166368 --- "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok, so I've been thinking about this recently, is it > ever mentioned what Harry's parents did? Why does he > have so much money? Do wizards have life insurance? I > mean since they were killed I could see that money > going into Gringots(sp) and growing interest for 11 > years while he was not in the wizard world. But this > doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. So anyone have > any theories? > > tkjones > bboyminn: Consider the old saying that 'it takes money to make money'. What James did for a living is 'he was rich'. He made a fair living off investments and working whatever job appealed to him at the moment. Consider if you win the Lottery, at a mere 5% interest, you can earn $50,000 a year for every million dollars you have. A person can live quite nicely on %50,000 a year, and 5% is probably the least you can earn in interest. With wise investing you could earn $100,000/yr per million in assets. So, now we must ask, where did James get all this money he was investing. Answer: Just has Harry inherited it from James, James inherited it from his father. It seems that James parents were an old well-off wizarding couple. They had many many decades to build their wealth, a potion of which they probably inherited. More accurately James and his father were probably 'businessmen' or investors. They earned money from the money they already had. Think of Mean Uncle Ralph in the novel 'Nicholas Nickleby'. People gave Mean Uncle Ralph money, he turned it into more money and kept a share of the profits for himself. JKR said that James was comfortably well-off from inheritance so that he didn't need a regular job. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Mar 22 22:32:29 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:32:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) References: Message-ID: <009101c76cd1$fa86ee60$a492400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166369 Pippin: > It could be the same sort of magic Dumbledore used to conceal > the Stone in the mirror. It was there all along, but could only be > retrieved under certain conditions, in this case, that a true > Gryffindor had need of it. Magpie: If Cedric Diggory had been down there would he have been left unarmed because he's a true Hufflepuff? Of would he have pulled our Hufflepuff's Battleaxe which would have worked just as well? Hope so, for his sake. -m From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 22 23:15:06 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:15:06 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166370 Kvapost: >> My question is - how did the WW find out about >> LV's evaporation? I didn't think there were >> witnesses willing to share this with the Daily >> Prophet? Or were they? Goddlefrood: > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible > for spreading the rumours of LV's demise. houyhnhnm: There may not have been witnesses to the actual attack, but there could have been other Wizarding families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow just as there are in Ottery St. Catchpole. They could have heard a noise from the explosion. They probably wouldn't have gotten too close. Once it got into the rumour mill, the news would have had all night to get around and it would have spread like wildfire. Even if Hagrid wasn't the only source, I'm sure he played his part. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 23:36:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:36:24 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: <009101c76cd1$fa86ee60$a492400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166371 Pippin wrote: > > It could be the same sort of magic Dumbledore used to conceal the Stone in the mirror. It was there all along, but could only be retrieved under certain conditions, in this case, that a true Gryffindor had need of it. > > Magpie: > If Cedric Diggory had been down there would he have been left unarmed because he's a true Hufflepuff? Of would he have pulled our Hufflepuff's Battleaxe which would have worked just as well? Hope so, for his sake. > Carol responds: The only person likely to be down in the Chamber fighting the Basilisk was Harry because Harry was the only Parselmouth at Hogwarts other than the Heir of Slytherin himself and therefore the only person who could find and enter the Chamber (possibly accompanied by Ron and/or Hermione)--which is why I'm quite sure that Dumbledore specifically set up protections appropriate to a person who was both a "true Gryffindor" and loyal to himself, which he hinted at in front of the Trio. If DD didn't place the Sword of Gryffindor in the hat himself (as we know he could have done because he hid the Philosopher's Stone in the Mirror of Erised--thanks, Pippin!), then he must have known that Godric Gryffidor placed it there. (Perhaps the hat told him?) And he must have told Fawkes that, if he was summoned to the aid of a student in the Chamber, to bring the Sorting Hat with him. Otherwise, I don't see how Dumbledore's Phoenix, who could only be summoned by loyalty to Dumbledore, would have known to bring the Sorting Hat containing the Sword of Gryffindor when a "true Gryffindor" needed exactly that. As I think I said in a previous post but may have been interrupted before I managed to type it, Fawkes alone could not have enabled Harry to kill the Basilisk. Yes, he blinds the Basilisk, and, yes, he heals Harry's near-fatal wound with his tears, but, in between, Harry needs the Sword to kill the Basilisk. Again, the protections are perfectly suited to Harry and to almost no one else (unless Ron or Hermione had managed to enter the Chamber with Harry--they are also Gryffindors loyal to DD). Carol, puzzled by the sudden and apparently universal reluctance to credit Dumbledore with protections whose existence he hinted at in Hagrid's Hut and which depend at least in part on loyalty to himself From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 23:23:44 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (Jay Winokur) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's $$$ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <21479.28745.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166372 tkjones: Ok, so I've been thinking about this recently, is it ever mentioned what Harry's parents did? Why does he have so much money? Do wizards have life insurance? I mean since they were killed I could see that money going into Gringots(sp) and growing interest for 11 years while he was not in the wizard world. But this doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. So anyone have any theories? JMW: JKR has promised answers so some of these issues in DH. All we know now is that James Potter is the only child of an old but wealthy couple. We do NOT know what J & L Potter did professionally. JMW From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 00:13:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:13:27 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166373 Kvapost wrote: > > >> My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses willing to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were they? > Goddlefrood responded: > > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible for spreading the rumours of LV's demise. > houyhnhnm added: > There may not have been witnesses to the actual attack, but there could have been other Wizarding families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow just as there are in Ottery St. Catchpole. They could have heard a noise from the explosion. > > Even if Hagrid wasn't the only source, I'm sure he played his part. Carol chimes in: Okay, I'm just going to ask a simple question. (I have my own theories regarding DD and Snape, which I'm not going to bring in here.) How did anyone from, say, the Ministry or the Daily Prophet, know that Voldemort had killed the Potters and then vanished rather than being killed himself? Hagrid was not an eyewitness to their deaths, even if he had time to talk to anybody, and could not report exactly what happened even if he was on the scene when the Aurors and reporters arrived. Harry, who had a vocabluary of perhaps a dozen words at the time, would be even less help. Sirius Black wasn't talking--he was in pursuit of Peter Pettigrew--and he (Black) wasn't present at the Potters' deaths, either. Pettigrew, the probable eyewitness, probably wasn't talking, considering that he would implicate himself if he wasn't extremely careful. So what did the Aurors find? Were there identifiable bits of Voldemort lying around? (They didn't get his wand; Wormtail seems to have hidden that and retrieved it later.) If so, wouldn't he have been pronounced dead (wrongly, as it turns out)? And if no bits of him were found, what proof was there that Voldemort did it and that he was vaporized? All we have is two presumably unmarked bodies, an exploded house, and a living toddler with a lightning-bolt-shaped cut on his forehead. And if Hagrid got Harry away before the Aurors and reporters (and Muggles) arrived, how did the Daily Prophet even know about the Boy Who Lived, whose scar was caused by a deflected AK that ought to have killed him? Not so simple after all, even setting aside how and by what means Dumbledore knew that the Potters were under attack, which is, IMO, a separate question. At any rate, I think maybe DD was more responsible than Hagrid for spreading the story, which would account in part for the missing twenty-four hours. Carol, hoping for satisfactory answers in DH to what now looks to her like a giant plothole From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 23 00:45:11 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:11 -0000 Subject: The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166374 SSSusan: > > I wonder if that's because I'm such a literalist? You know, I > > figured if the sword had been in the Sorting Hat all along, it would > > have been bonking all those first years on the head every time it > > sorted one of them! > Pippin: > It could be the same sort of magic Dumbledore used to conceal > the Stone in the mirror. It was there all along, but could only be > retrieved under certain conditions, in this case, that a true > Gryffindor had need of it. Jen: I had the same image of bonking. :) I didn't think of the Mirror, but that's essentially how I imagined the event taking place: when Godric left Hogwarts, he magically concealed the sword in the hat rather than passing it down to a blood relative. And it wouldn't have been there only for the person entering the COS; legend said the other founders didn't know about the chamber. Carol: > Fawkes, who arrived because of Harry's loyalty to > Dumbledore and for no other reason, could have blinded > the Basilisk and healed the wound, but he surely would > not have brought the Sorting Hat with him had he not been > instructed to do so--by Dumbledore. > Carol, who still thinks that DD put the sword in the hat > himself--after all, it's a relic of Godric Gryffindor and seems to > belong to DD, just as Fawkes does. Jen: The Sorting Hat might have been Dumbledore's idea, deciding the Founders could help Harry more than anyone else in the castle at the moment, or the idea could have come from the Sorting Hat itself. Dumbledore's explanation to Harry for why he pulled the sword out doesn't work very well if Dumbledore himself placed it there. Then Harry didn't pull it out of the hat because he was determined a 'true' Gryffindor by the Sorting Hat, but because Dumbledore told the hat what to do. That's not my impression of how the hat works, that Dumbledore or anyone can tell it to follow orders. It's supposed to be the brains of the founders. The Sorting Hat, and specifically the brain of Godric, would be the one to determine the true Gryffindor capable of calling forth the sword. I do agree the sword is Dumbledore's *now*, the last known relic of Godric Gryffindor finally making its way to one of the last two heirs of Gryffindor . Jen R. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 00:49:42 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:49:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's $$$ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166375 > > tkjones: > > Is it ever mentioned what Harry's parents did? Why does he have so much money? Do wizards have life insurance? I mean since they were killed I could see that money going into Gringotts and growing interest for 11 years while he was not in the wizard world. But this doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. So anyone have any theories? Goddlefrood, with a tiny interjection ;): Even though partially in concurrence with Steve/bboyminn on this one I present a little expansion on unanswered portions of thread starter ;) It is not mentioned exactly what Harry's parents did in the books, although as alluded to by Steve / bboyminn there has been mention in interviews relative to this issue. This, for instance: "Q: What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? JKR: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later." >From America Online chat transcript, AOL.com, 19 October 2000. Available in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm To me the language used by JKR in her response is suggestive of leading to the conclusion that James did work, but not in any well paid profession or job. Possibly a wage slave to someone. No further speculation by me, leave to others. Busy with other issues of import ;) I have seen suggestions that James may have worked in a joke shop as some kind of developer of jokes, but I couldn't commend it to you ;) On Life Insurance now. There are few insurers that pre-date the International Wizarding Statute of Secrecy (1692 - ). Lloyd's of London, even though it does not in the strictest sense provide life insurance, is perhaps the world's oldest insurer. You don't have to believe me, so here's a link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LONlloyds.htm My conclusion on this point then is that they could have life insurance, but we will neither find out nor will it prove important in DH. There is no material in canon or intervies that I have been privy to that suggest Gringotts gives any interest on its accounts. I repeat the paragraph preceding this in respect of interest accrual, to which it would equally well apply. Some may find this of use Goddlefrood, back to business, literally, as business to run From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 01:32:43 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:32:43 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166376 Goddlefrood: > > To summarise, Hagrid sped around some wizarding parties during the course of the time he was travelling between Godric's Hollow and Little Whingeing, and well, the rest is surely not for me to specualte on here ;). houyhnhnm: > There may not have been witnesses to the actual attack, but there could have been other Wizarding families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow just as there are in Ottery St. Catchpole. They could have heard a noise from the explosion. They probably wouldn't have gotten too close. Once it got into the rumour mill, the news would have had all night to get around and it would have spread like wildfire. Even if Hagrid wasn't the only source, I'm sure he played his part. Ceridwen: First, I don't see how there would have been wizarding parties on 1 November if Hagrid was one of the principle means of spreading the news of LV's demise. If no one knew that LV had been 'killed', there would have been no parties for Hagrid to visit in order to tell the news. The parties were because LV had 'died'. And by afternoon on the first, people knew that the Potters had something to do with it, along with their son Harry. We know this because Vernon overheard them mentioned, which is why he asked Petunia what her nephew's name was when he got home. I can't imagine witches and wizards showing themselves to Muggles in the giddy fashion described in PS/SS if they weren't sure something significant had happened at GH. If there were wizarding families in the area, perhaps someone saw LV entering the Potters' home. Muggles like Petunia aren't the only ones who peer out their windows at the neighbors. Someone witnessing this could contact the Ministry and continue to watch out the window. Or not even contact the Ministry for fear of their lives, watching out the window and waiting for LV to leave and cast the Dark Mark so they could then inform the Ministry without risking him finding out that they were the one to set the Ministry on him. I get the impression that the entire WW lived in fear back then. So, the neighbor might watch, until the explosion and no sign of Voldemort leaving. At this point, they might contact the Ministry, and then a friend by floo, cautiously tell that friend what had happened, and that friend might floo someone else, leaving off the caution or downplaying it, and by the fourth round of floo calls, the news was out - accurately as it turned out, but not necessarily accurate to the first mention of it. Like the children's game of "telephone". Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 23 01:58:13 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:58:13 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166377 Carol: > At any rate, I think maybe DD was more responsible > than Hagrid for spreading the story, which would > account in part for the missing twenty-four hours. houyhnhnm: So he wanted to make sure that the legend of the Boy-Who-Lived was well planted in the minds of witches and wizards before he whisked Harry off to the anonymity of the Dursleys. Interesting thought. I wonder how he managed to allay their curiosity about what had happened to Harry. But then, there was a lot to take their minds off of it: the capture of Sirius Black, the rounding up of Death Eaters, the trials, the rehabilitation of those who claimed to be under the Imperious, not to mention grieving for all who were lost which people had maybe not had time for when they were living in constant fear. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 23 02:24:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:24:42 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166378 > Kvapost wrote: > > > > >> My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's evaporation? > I didn't think there were witnesses willing to share this with the > Daily Prophet? Or were they? Pippin: According to McGonagall, nobody knew exactly what had happened, just that You Know Who had disappeared, and people were saying that Harry Potter had stopped him. The rumors could have started with Death Eaters themselves trying to get information. According to Sirius, there were DE's who knew that Voldemort had gone to GH on Wormtail's information, so there must have been some Death Eaters who knew in advance of the attack. Wherever the rumors began, they would begin to spread quickly as soon as the Ministry responded with "we can neither confirm nor deny" instead of "we cannot confirm". Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 23 02:51:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:51:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's $$$ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <460340AC.4060809@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166379 Tandra wrote: > Ok, so I've been thinking about this recently, is it ever mentioned > what Harry's parents did? Why does he have so much money? Do wizards > have life insurance? I mean since they were killed I could see that > money going into Gringots(sp) and growing interest for 11 years while > he was not in the wizard world. But this doesn't seem to be explained > anywhere. So anyone have any theories? Bart: I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the canon that he came from a wealthy family. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 23 02:55:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:55:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The sword and the hat (Re: LV's bigger plan ) In-Reply-To: <009101c76cd1$fa86ee60$a492400c@Spot> References: <009101c76cd1$fa86ee60$a492400c@Spot> Message-ID: <460341AB.9010805@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166380 Magpie wrote: > If Cedric Diggory had been down there would he have been left unarmed > because he's a true Hufflepuff? Of would he have pulled our Hufflepuff's > Battleaxe which would have worked just as well? Hope so, for his sake. Bart: He probably would have just badgered the Basilisk to death. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 23 04:33:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:33:09 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166381 > Carol responds: > Whatever else Voldemort may be planning, the plot to force Draco to > try to kill dumbledore, about which the three adults apparently know, > and the Vanishing Pla Cabinet Plan, about which snape, at least, does > not know, are undeniably real, as is the advantage to Voldemort if > Dumbledore dies. (I'm still hoping, however, that he'll develop a > false sense of security as a result.) To throw in a Prophecy plan with > no hints whatever would not be "playing fair." Jen: I wasn't referring to the prophecy at this point, I was answering whether we see a plot to kill Dumbledore throughout HBP. What I see at Spinner's End is three adults who say in a very circuitous way that LV's plan is for Draco to kill someone, later confirmed to be Dumbledore, and that both Snape and Narcissa appear to believe Draco can't complete the task. They go on to conclude LV's real plan is to punish Lucius when Draco fails. (Bella is apparently more interested in the honor bestowed on Draco than whether he is able to do the job.) Snape said Voldemort plans for him to do the deed in the end, yet never once do we get a clue Voldemort has approached him with a request or demanded he kill Dumbledore in Draco's place when Draco doesn't succeed. If Voldemort really plans for Dumbledore to die, he's not taking advantage of his inside man who is trusted by Dumbledore and has the advantage of surprise. Also, Voldemort didn't ask Snape to help Draco with the cabinents, or even tell him about the plan. Voldemort essentially placed a double-agent at Hogwarts and is cutting him out of the loop at the most crucial time. Therefore, the only legitimate plot I see to kill Dumbledore is the one hatched by Narcissa and sealed by Snape with the UV. And if Snape took the UV never intending to kill Dumbledore, but die himself, then unfortunately his plan went awry. And that means the only plan Voldemort *appears* to have in HBP is to punish Lucius and eventually, as Harry discovers as the story moves along, kill all three Malfoys. A plan that has nothing to do with his real enemies, Dumbledore and Harry. Jen From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 02:52:00 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:52:00 -0000 Subject: Neville's part? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166382 So does anyone else think Neville is going to play a major part in this when all is said and done? The prophecy, as it was worded, could have been about him, too. I think he will come into play in a major way in whatever goes down in the end. It would be kind of funny if it was Neville that finishes it all, after all is said and done. That would be absolute genius on JKR's part. LOL :-) Tandra From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Mar 23 05:00:59 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:00:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's part? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166383 In a message dated 3/22/07 11:37:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, tkjones9 at yahoo.com writes: > So does anyone else think Neville is going to play a major part in this > when all is said and done? The prophecy, as it was worded, could > have been about him, too. I think he will come into play in a major way in > whatever goes down in the end. It would be kind of funny if it was > Neville that finishes it all, after all is said and done. That would be > absolute genius on JKR's part. LOL :-) > > Tandra > > > > > Sandy: Neville won't finish it all because the books are called Harry Potter. However, a fellow Potterite that I know is hoping, and thinks it would be appropriate, for Neville to take on Bellatrix, and I agree. I would love to see Bella get payback, and especially from Neville. And Neville isn't hogtied by the Love thing. But, I don't want to see Harry or Neville become murderers so I hope Neville finds a way to bring Bella down without killing her. Only a Dementor's kiss will do for her. Sandy, who also thinks it possible that Bella would do herself in when Voldy is defeated. ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 06:06:31 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:06:31 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > > As for Pettigrew, Snape knows that he's been listening at doorways. > He expels him from the room and hits the door with some sort of > spell that sends Wormtail scurrying away? Do you really think that > Snape, himself a spy and the inventor of Muffliato, is going to let > Wormtail listen in on a potentially incriminating conversation? My > guess is that he put the same kind of charm on the door that Molly > Weasley placed on the kitchen door at 12 GP to keep them from > listening in. Mike: You were reaching for the Imperturbable here I'm thinking. It stopped Fred and George's Extendable Ears, I'm not sure that it actually blocked all sound from getting out, but no matter. In Spinner's End, we mustn't forget that Pettigrew has his own ally - "Wormtail". Snape may have sent Pettigrew stomping up the stairs as a human, but I'll bet a rat would have many avenues available to him to make his way back downstairs and get close enough to hear what's being said. As many have already speculated, Wormtail is at Snape's house at the behest of Voldemort to spy on both Snape and any callers he may have. A little stinging hex isn't going to deter Wormtail for long, not if he has Voldemort to answer to. Especially not if, as you have suggested, Wormtail seems to have been ill-used by Voldemort at this stage. > Carol: > The most Wormtail could do is to report that the Black sisters came > to visit and Narcissa had some sort of request to make of Snape. > > But even if I'm wrong, I doubt that he has anything to report. Mike: I beg to differ. I believe the "vermin" would have something to report. I also believe Snape is well aware of the threat that Wormtail's Animagus form poses in terms of spying ability. Unlike the other Marauders, I don't think Snape, in all his sneering glory, ever makes the mistake of underestimating Wormtail. And Wormtail has served Voldemort as a spy before, to devastating effect for the Order. A little side note here: Voldemort knew Pettigrew was a rat Animagus. Do you suppose he took that into account when he made Peter that shiny new hand? Does Wormtail have a shiny right front paw as a rat? Or, possibly, Wormtail can't transform that hand into a paw and has to go around on three limbs. ;) > Carol: > > But the focus of his [LV's] attention seems to be the Draco plot, > as we see from the increasing intensity of the threats against > Draco as the end of the year nears. Mike: Based on the quality of DEs that Voldemort sent to Hogwarts, combined with all the news of mayhem that keeps cropping up in the Daily Prophet throughout the school year, I don't consider Voldemort very attentive to Draco's progress. It wouldn't take much for LV to send a threatening message to Draco and then ignore him for a while. We know (or think we do) that LV doesn't expect Draco to succeed, so why would we think he is spending much effort worrying about Draco's task? I'm fully prepared to believe that Voldemort had some mission in mind for his invading DEs, other than Draco's *backup*. What are the DEs going to back up? From their actions on the tower, they don't seem to be there to kill Dumbledore, or at least they stopped Greyback when he looked to move in for the kill. Yes, I think they would have killed DD eventually, (and maybe Draco too) if it seems Draco couldn't. And they expected to get into the castle unopposed, if they got in at all. With this in mind, wouldn't LV give these clowns a real mission? Does Voldemort usually send his DEs, even his B or C team DEs, into harms way as merely a cheering squad? "Go, Draco, Go Fight, Draco, Fight AK the guy who's beard is all white" :)) Not hardly. Mike, thinking that LV intended the DEs to do more than back up Draco Was the kidnapping of Trelawney Plan 1-A? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 07:36:29 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:36:29 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166385 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Kvapost wrote: > > > >> My question is - how did the WW find out about > >> LV's evaporation? ... > > > Goddlefrood responded: > > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was > > responsible forspreading the rumours of LV's demise. > > > houyhnhnm added: > > There may not have been witnesses to the actual > > attack, but there could have been other Wizarding > > families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow > > ... > > > > Carol chimes in: > > ... > > How did anyone from, say, the Ministry or the Daily > Prophet, know that Voldemort had killed the Potters and > then vanished rather than being killed himself? > > ... > > So what did the Aurors find? Were there identifiable > bits of Voldemort lying around? ... If so, wouldn't he > have been pronounced dead (wrongly, as it turns out)? > And if no bits of him were found, what proof was there > that Voldemort did it and that he was vaporized? > bboyminn: Actually, I think something of Voldemort's body was found, though I doubt that many people actually new what 'Snake Boy' Voldemort looked like. Either bits of his body, or just the damaged body itself. That part is not actually clear in the books. Voldemort became Vapormort, but was his body disintegrated, mangled, or just 'killed'. I do agree this is a good question. If some evidence was found, then why were there people like Dumbledore and Hagrid who didn't think Voldemort was dead? I suspect, that Dumbledore, and therefore Hagrid, knew that Voldemort had been experimenting at extending his life and/or preventing death. Though, at the time, they wouldn't have know the details. Remember Hagrid making a comment to the effect that he didn't know if Voldemort had enough human left in him to actually die. > Carol Continues: > > All we have is two presumably unmarked bodies, an > exploded house, and a living toddler with a > lightning-bolt-shaped cut on his forehead. ..., how > did the Daily Prophet even know about the Boy Who > Lived, > ... > bboyminn: If you will note the Additional note I added to my previous post in this thread, you will see a point that I think you might be ignoring in the moment. We assume that the story we hear now, is the story everyone believed back then. But I suggest that the story and the truth of it unfolded over time. On that particular night, and on the next day, I suspect that the best of the rumors was no more than Voldemort attacked the Potters and was likely killed. The Potters were dead and Harry survived. At some point, probably Nov 2 or 3, the Ministry would have made an official statement of what happened. More details would have come out when Sirius was caught. >From then on, it was a matter of putting the pieces together, capturing and interogating Death Eaters, Dumbledore gathering his own evidence, and gradually building some verion of the events as we finally hear them over a decade later. So, my point is, the giddy hubbub we see the next day might have been a combination of rumor and wishful thinking. The full story most likely unfolded over a period of days and perhaps weeks. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Fri Mar 23 04:02:20 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 04:02:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <707544.60628.qm@web8402.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166386 Kvapost wrote: > >> My question is - how did the WW find out about LV's evaporation? I didn't think there were witnesses willing to share this with the Daily Prophet? Or were they? Goddlefrood responded: > > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was responsible for spreading the rumours of LV's demise. houyhnhnm added: > There may not have been witnesses to the actual attack, but there could have been other Wizarding families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow just as there are in Ottery St. Catchpole. They could have heard a noise from the explosion. > Even if Hagrid wasn't the only source, I'm sure he played his part. >Carol chimes in: >Okay, I'm just going to ask a simple question. (I have my own theories regarding DD and Snape, which I'm not going to bring in here.) >How did anyone from, say, the Ministry or the Daily Prophet, know that Voldemort had killed the Potters and then vanished rather than being killed himself? Avi responds: My guess: It was from the memory of the boy who lived. DD or someone had extracted out the memory of those few instances from him. Just to know what had happened and to remove those horrible memories from him. Then it happens that 'the boy who lived' hadn't seen his fathers death, again may be it was stuck there, along with LV's part in him. Not only powers but also the most recent job LV had done had got stuck into his mind along with scar. Welcoming a more factual analysis ;) Regards Avi From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Fri Mar 23 08:59:52 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:59:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes possible absence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070323085952.53474.qmail@web94501.mail.in2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166387 > > Peggy: > > ...but I started wondering if there was some kind of tie-in with Fawkes and Snape, whether they were one and the same, in a transfigured form or something. *(snip)* > Ceridwen: > Don't feel too alone: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166288 > IF Snape is DDM, then some people speculate that Fawkes will have something to do with proving this - defending him in a fight as he defended Dumbledore at the Ministry, for instance. I suggested, in the post linked above, that if Fawkes IS Snape, then this would be the way for him to get information to Harry and the Order - who would doubt Fawkes? Avi responds: But then, I have a few confusions: 1. Can the hair of an Animagous be used in wands? If it was then after all it would still be human. 2. Snape had joined Hogwarts long after LV, and if he was Fawkes, then it was not possible for him to be there when LV had his wand. 3. Well, you may say, that with his first rise, LV had got a new wand. Then that means LV was not using his original wand. If so, he is using someone else's wand (as I remember it there was no reference to someone being able to have a wand on behalf of another). In GoF, as far as I remember, LV was using Pettigrew's wand to summon Death Eaters. Was it the same wand with which he duels with HP? Or Peter got LV's wand somehow and he handed it to him when he rose again (this was not clear to me in GoF). All in all, because of these reasons I don't think Snape is Fawkes. Regards Avi From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 23 10:20:27 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:20:27 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Snape said Voldemort plans for him to do the deed in the end, > yet never once do we get a clue Voldemort has approached him > with a request or demanded he kill Dumbledore in Draco's place > when Draco doesn't succeed. If Voldemort really plans for > Dumbledore to die, he's not taking advantage of his inside man who > is trusted by Dumbledore and has the advantage of surprise. Also, > Voldemort didn't ask Snape to help Draco with the cabinents, or even > tell him about the plan. Voldemort essentially placed a double-agent > at Hogwarts and is cutting him out of the loop at the most crucial time. Pippin: One thing we haven't considered is whether Voldemort did have a definite assignment for Snape to kill Dumbledore. Just because Snape sounds vague about it doesn't mean he is. If Snape actually had the assignment, he probably would be forbidden to tell Narcissa so, because giving the assassination mission to Snape when the Draco plan is supposedly still in process would be proof positive that Voldemort didn't expect Draco to succeed. That would spoil the fun -- Voldemort wants Draco to realize only ever so slowly that he's been set up. And if Snape actually had the assignment already, refusing to take the vow *would* put Snape in an impossible position with Voldemort. Jen: > And that means the only plan Voldemort *appears* to have in HBP is to > punish Lucius and eventually, as Harry discovers as the story moves along, > kill all three Malfoys. A plan that has nothing to do with his real enemies, > Dumbledore and Harry. Pippin: Presumably Voldemort can count to seventeen and knows when the Privet Drive protection will run out. Why should he plan to attack Harry at Hogwarts when Privet Drive presents a much more vulnerable target? Pippin From tctrppr at netscape.net Fri Mar 23 10:03:19 2007 From: tctrppr at netscape.net (grouchymedic_26149) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:03:19 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Kvapost wrote: > > > > > >> My question is - how did the WW find out about > > >> LV's evaporation? ... > > > > > > Goddlefrood responded: > > > Briefly to open, my view is that Hagrid was > > > responsible forspreading the rumours of LV's demise. > > > > > > houyhnhnm added: > > > There may not have been witnesses to the actual > > > attack, but there could have been other Wizarding > > > families in the general vicinity of Godric's Hollow > > > ... > > > > > > > > Carol chimes in: > > > > ... > > > > How did anyone from, say, the Ministry or the Daily > > Prophet, know that Voldemort had killed the Potters and > > then vanished rather than being killed himself? > > > > ... > > > > So what did the Aurors find? Were there identifiable > > bits of Voldemort lying around? ... If so, wouldn't he > > have been pronounced dead (wrongly, as it turns out)? > > And if no bits of him were found, what proof was there > > that Voldemort did it and that he was vaporized? > > > > Paul chiming in: Just a thought.... Perhaps baby Harry had a memory extracted by some one...DD perhaps, that was viewed in a pensieve,(does DD have the only pensieve, or are there more of them around, in the MoM, perhaps) to ascertain exactly what happened at the Potter's residence in Godric's Hollow. Maybe that's why Harry has no clear memory of the incedent, only broken fragments of the memory. Because it's(the memory) not all there. Witness the removed and/or modified memories of Slughorn, Morphin, and Hepzibah's house elf. Maybe there is a memory ( of Harry's ) in DD's office in a bottle that we don't know about. Just a thought. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Mar 23 12:52:56 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:52:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's $$$ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166390 tkjones: > Is it ever mentioned what Harry's parents did? Why does > he have so much money? Goddlefrood provided the following quote & comments: > "Q: What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? > > JKR: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're > going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty > of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll > find out more about both Harry's parents later." > > To me the language used by JKR in her response is suggestive > of leading to the conclusion that James did work, but not in > any well paid profession or job. > I have seen suggestions that James may have worked in a joke > shop as some kind of developer of jokes, but I couldn't commend > it to you ;) SSSusan: My favorite guess is that Bowman Wright, inventor of the Golden Snitch, who was also a resident of Godric's Hollow in his day, was an ancestor of James Potter. Perhaps Bowman was an awesome Quidditch player himself, thus passing along to James & Harry not only his fortune but his Quidditch ability. :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Mar 23 12:36:09 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:36:09 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166391 Jen: > If Voldemort really plans for Dumbledore to die, he's not taking > advantage of his inside man who is trusted by Dumbledore and has > the advantage of surprise. > Also, Voldemort didn't ask Snape to help Draco with the > cabinents, or even tell him about the plan. Voldemort essentially > placed a double-agent at Hogwarts and is cutting him out of the > loop at the most crucial time. > Therefore, the only legitimate plot I see to kill Dumbledore is > the one hatched by Narcissa and sealed by Snape with the UV. And > if Snapetook the UV never intending to kill Dumbledore, but die > himself, then unfortunately his plan went awry. > And that means the only plan Voldemort *appears* to have in HBP is > to punish Lucius and eventually, as Harry discovers as the story > moves along, kill all three Malfoys. A plan that has nothing to > do with his real enemies, Dumbledore and Harry. Dana: I agree with Jen, LV's plan for Draco leaves too much room for Draco to fail because he doesn't even give Draco orders how to perform his task. Draco has to figure it out on his own. I do not believe LV would let it all depend on the chance that Draco might or might not be successful to bring DEs into the castle or even the chance that Draco might pull thru and kill DD himself. We also seem to forget that it was Narcissa who made the plan in OotP possible, and that it technically wasn't Lucius' fault the plan did not succeed. Sure Lucius is at fault to not swoop in and swoop out by letting himself be thwarted by 6 teenagers, but it was Snape who caused the plan to fail indefinitely. More importantly, he thwarted LV's plan to stay out of sight until he was holding all the cards. Everything was working fine, DD stood with his back against the wall, losing more and more ground not only with the MoM but also with the general public and with it, Harry was losing valuable support. DD only had a handful of people to assist him in his fight against LV. The only thing LV would have to do is pull DD's (or Harry's) life support, one by one to seal the deal and get his hands on the prophecy to figure out how to deal with Harry himself. So who do you think he was angrier with Lucius or Snape? It indeed doesn't seem Snape was filled in on the plan not even at the last moment(I do not mean he didn't know Draco's task, I believe he did and if indeed it was LV's plan to get Snape committed then Snape would have to know this part, and I am sure Snape wasn't lying that he knew about it). I do think it would not be to farfetched to think LV ordered Narcissa to get Snape committed and it seems that he prepared Snape himself to believe he would be asked to do it anyway. The UV might have been Narcissa's addition to secure Snape's commitment entirely, but I would not be surprised if it was LV's plan all along and Narcissa was to get Snape to commit to it. It would indeed secure a limitation on Snape's actions and would make it absolutely sure that when Draco moves, Snape will move. Bella's tagalong might have been a big bonus for Narcissa because apparently it helped a great deal to move things along. It made Snape feel confident he was in control even if the Black Widow (Narcissa) was closing in on him. Her scent was apparently irresistible and he got caught. Now the only thing needed was keeping Draco away from him as much as possible to ensure he would be the one that will have to perform the task in the end just as he (Snape) himself thought would be expected of him. Now the only thing needed was to help Draco move along and who says Draco did not get help at the last minute. Maybe LV sent Wormtail in to help Draco get a move on and to make sure Draco would move the moment LV wanted him to move. LV would not need all his DEs to know he wanted to get to Trelawney at the same time, they just helped Draco cause the necessary distraction and keep anyone on DD's side too busy with that. Wormtail with someone else could execute the Trelawney issue but I am still feel pretty sure DD outsmarted LV there (or I at least hope he did) With Snape secure, LV's plans (plural) would indeed unfold like he planned without the possibility for Snape to thwart him again and without Snape in the know, DD has to base every next move LV will be going to make, on guesswork. Sure this says nothing about Snape's true loyalties or his intent when he took the UV and, as I said before, I have no problem with the idea that Snape did have some noble intention when he took it or that he really believed he could control the UV and its effects on him. I am even willing to believe Snape never wanted to be the one to finish the job and that the DADA curse made sure he did not get what he wanted. I do believe he never told DD about the UV because he thought he could handle it, it seems to be a nasty habit Snape has (Quirrell book1, Shrieking Shack book3, missing polyjuice herbs book4), I also still believe DD had a suspicion about LV's plans for Snape and I still think the argument in the forest was an attempt of DD to pull Snape out. If we look at who benefits from the way things worked out then one can easily conclude that LV is the only one that truly benefits and so why would it be a stretch to think he planned it. I think it would even be underestimating LV's capabilities to think he would just leave his main objective to rule the world and take out any obstacle that could prevent him to get there, just because he wants a holiday and have some fun with tormenting some of his minions. He has been unable to secure his quest for ultimate power for 16 years after he attempted to take out Harry the first time. It took him 14 years to regain himself a body and we now have to believe that he would waste a year because he had nothing better to do? Or that his obsessions would take a back seat because he is a little angry and just is taking revenge for the fun of it. DD himself admits in the end of OotP he will not be able to hold off LV for- ever after he returned to power. We are also told that book 6 is not a stand alone and that it is the first part of a bigger story and therefore it would make sense that we do not get all the clues needed to see the full story even if we have all the clues to figure out what will happen next. The prophecy wasn't the only thing LV was after in OotP either if you look at the whole picture from the moment he came back in GoF. He didn't want DD to know he was back when he tried to kill Harry in GoF because with DD not in the know, he could overrun the WW after he had all his puppets in place and Harry out of his way. Because Harry did not die that night, LV needed to chance his plans and knowing the full prophecy became an obsession. Yes, LV's plan to take out DD had always been part of his plans but he changed his priorities after the prophecy was made and he heard a part of it because now someone else was introduced that could thwart LVs main goal --> ultimate immortal power over the entire WW world. DD was already at the losing end at the time LV ran himself into a wall in GH; if it wasn't for Lily, he would have probably have ruled the WW a long time ago. JKR has been laying the groundwork of LV's bigger plan since beginning of the story, but by looking at each book individually we are bound to miss it and forget it is still the working on the same plan. I think the Snape loyalty debate might be put in there on purpose to direct us away from the real culprit and his bigger plans -> LV. We think only DD would be able to get Snape in a position he does not want to be in, but what more ultimate punishment would there be for Snape than to be at LV's mercy, with nowhere else to go and with no one else to believe him? Dana From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 14:59:53 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:59:53 -0000 Subject: Puzzlement of the day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166392 Finwitch: Well, Sirius, while moving Snape's body told Harry about Harry's parents making him Harry's guardian (by will?) - but offering Harry a choice. His being Harry's 'godfather' may or may not have anything to do with it. Still... it gives him *some* claim. I suppose it *could* be a magical bond of sorts - a magically binding contract at least. An obligation to protect, I think. Anyway, as obsessed as Sirius was about catching the rat - it did not come trough until he realized Harry being in danger of the rat being in Hogwarts... and THAT, I believe, really got him out? And as reckless as Sirius might have been -- he *did* stay at 12 GP until Harry needed him. And I think that Sirius needed Harry to keep his sanity in decent level after Azckaban. Finwitch From ida3 at planet.nl Fri Mar 23 13:45:27 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:45:27 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166393 Dana before: > > Now the only thing needed was to help Draco move along and who says > > Draco did not get help at the last minute. Maybe LV sent Wormtail > > > in to help Draco get a move on and to make sure Draco would move > > the moment LV wanted him to move. LV would not need all his DEs to > > know he wanted to get to Trelawney at the same time, they just > > helped Draco cause the necessary distraction and keep anyone on > > DD's side too busy with that. Wormtail with someone else could > > execute the Trelawney issue but I am still feel pretty sure DD > > outsmarted LV there (or I at least hope he did) Dana now: Just a quick note I do not want to imply Draco knew he was getting help. *If* Wormtail was already at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Draco (and everyone else's movement), then it would also have been easy to figure out what Draco was planning to do or what he was working on. Dana From jmwcfo at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 13:58:14 2007 From: jmwcfo at yahoo.com (jmwcfo) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:58:14 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166394 > Pippin: > Presumably Voldemort can count to seventeen and knows when the > Privet Drive protection will run out. Why should he plan to attack > Harry at Hogwarts when Privet Drive presents a much more vulnerable > target? JMW: This is one of my expectations for DH. It is abundantly clear that LV understands the expiration of LP's protection of Harry. Privet Drive won't be the same by August 1. Additionally, we might speculate that Mrs. Figg will get involved in HP's defense, and be the one that JKR says will perform magic late in life. An even wilder and sillier speculaton: we know Petunia will NEVER perform magic - but what about Dudley? JMW From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 23 15:35:15 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:35:15 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166395 > Mike: > Based on the quality of DEs that Voldemort sent to Hogwarts, combined > with all the news of mayhem that keeps cropping up in the Daily > Prophet throughout the school year, I don't consider Voldemort very > attentive to Draco's progress. It wouldn't take much for LV to send a > threatening message to Draco and then ignore him for a while. We know > (or think we do) that LV doesn't expect Draco to succeed, so why > would we think he is spending much effort worrying about Draco's task? Jen: Yes! I thought of something after posting last night--why send the second-stringers in for such an important mission when he could easily break his DE's out of Azkaban as he's done before (leaving Lucius if so inclined), send Bella, have the whole inner circle from the graveyard on this incredibly important mission, plus second-stringers to add some volume. I'm not a military strategist, but what was up with Draco not realizing or being told the Order patrols the corridors when Dumbledore is gone? You send the wet-behind-the-ears kid to run reconnaissance for, oh, two seconds, and then the DE's poured out of the ROR? Seems like they had this huge element of surprise and could have waited until someone ascertained Dumbledore was indeed back and the Order gone. Everything else Mike said about the DE's not seeming to have a mission strenghtens my impression their mission was a cover. They certainly attracted attention at any rate! When you think about the backstory of LV, one point that came up over and over was how attached he is to Hogwarts, more attached to the castle than a person according to Dumbledore. When Draco came to LV offering a way into Hogwarts that even Dumbledore didn't know about, *that* was the cornerstone of Voldemort's plan in my opinion. Besides kidnapping Trelawney, there's always the possibility Wormtail is back at Hogwarts now, hiding in the Room of Requirement. JKR made the point that the ROR would not show up on the Map. Pippin: > One thing we haven't considered is whether Voldemort did have > a definite assignment for Snape to kill Dumbledore. Just because > Snape sounds vague about it doesn't mean he is. And if > Snape actually had the assignment already, refusing to take the > vow *would* put Snape in an impossible position with Voldemort. Jen: This could explain Snape's motivation for the UV and the twitch. I woudn't rule it out myself. Pippin: > Presumably Voldemort can count to seventeen and knows when the > Privet Drive protection will run out. Why should he plan to attack > Harry at Hogwarts when Privet Drive presents a much more vulnerable > target? Jen: I didn't say anything about LV targeting Harry at Hogwarts, that would make no sense as a plan. I was saying that targeting the Malfoys isn't much of a plan either, not for someone like Voldemort who's obsessed with removing obstacles to killing Harry. Jen From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 23 16:27:14 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:27:14 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166396 > Dana: > Sure Lucius is at fault to not swoop in and swoop out by letting > himself be thwarted by 6 teenagers, but it was Snape who caused > the plan to fail indefinitely. More importantly, he thwarted LV's plan > to stay out of sight until he was holding all the cards. Magpie: We don't know that Voldemort knows any of this. Even Bellatrix never suggests that Snape sent the Order to the MoM. I think if Voldemort knew, Snape's game would be up. Dana: > Everything was working fine, DD stood with his back against the > wall, losing more and more ground not only with the MoM but also > with the general public and with it, Harry was losing valuable > support. DD only had a handful of people to assist him in his fight > against LV. The only thing LV would have to do is pull DD's (or > Harry's) life support, one by one to seal the deal and get his hands > on the prophecy to figure out how to deal with Harry himself. > > So who do you think he was angrier with Lucius or Snape? Magpie: Voldemort's original plan to stay out of sight until he was at full power was thwarted when Harry returned to Hogwarts in GoF. After that we have no reason to believe that Voldemort knew Snape sent anyone to the MoM. All signs point to the opposite, with him being angry at Lucius who was in charge of the raid (and got the diary Horcrux destroyed) and Snape not just being killed because Voldemort knows he sent the Order and is thus on Dumbledore's side. Dana: > I do think it would not be to farfetched to think LV ordered > Narcissa to get Snape committed and it seems that he prepared Snape > himself to believe he would be asked to do it anyway. The UV might > have been Narcissa's addition to secure Snape's commitment entirely, > but I would not be surprised if it was LV's plan all along and > Narcissa was to get Snape to commit to it. Magpie: Voldemort doesn't have to use Narcissa to do any of this. If he wants Snape to kill Dumbledore he can just order him to do it. Snape's supposed to be on his side. Why think he can manipulate him in this convuluted way by coming up with this whole plan with Draco just hoping Narcissa will go to Snape, and Bellatrix will follow her, and there will be a Vow that goes against his own orders? Snape does seem to think that ultimately killing Dumbledore will be his job, and Voldemort can tell him to do it at any time. Once he's told to do it, that's all the commitment Snape's supposed to need. Why does he need for Snape to do it for Draco when he can do it for Voldemort? Dana: > Now the only thing needed was to help Draco move along and who says > Draco did not get help at the last minute. Maybe LV sent Wormtail in > to help Draco get a move on and to make sure Draco would move the > moment LV wanted him to move. LV would not need all his DEs to know > he wanted to get to Trelawney at the same time, they just helped > Draco cause the necessary distraction and keep anyone on DD's side > too busy with that. Wormtail with someone else could execute the > Trelawney issue but I am still feel pretty sure DD outsmarted LV > there (or I at least hope he did) Magpie: Why does Draco need help at the last minute? The whole storyline is being dismantled so that nobody's doing anything but being manipulated and nudged by Voldemort every which way. And you still haven't given any actual proof for the plan you need to prove, with Trelawney. None of the DEs indicate they're there for any other reason than to back up Draco, and nobody says anything's happened to Trelawney one way or another. Basically, it seems like the whole story of what Dumbledore and Snape are doing with Draco all year has been tossed out and made into manipulation by Voldemort. Dumbledore's no longer outsmarting LV by having any sort of greater compassion or understanding. He's only outsmarted him by having Trelawney sent to his brother, which is completely uninteresting with no resonance to the story at all. Draco no longer has anything to draw "comfort and courage" from because Wormtail secretly fixed the Cabinet or whatever he did to tell him. The only person who benefits from this switcheroo is Voldemort, who is made much smarter and coldly efficient. Though even that benefit is a bit iffy, because it makes Voldemort less interesting by taking away his flaws. A guy who offers a mother a chance to step aside and save herself while you killed her infant son as if it's nice of him now thinks like loving schoolmasters and mothers. Dana: > With Snape secure, LV's plans (plural) would indeed unfold like he > planned without the possibility for Snape to thwart him again and > without Snape in the know, DD has to base every next move LV will be > going to make, on guesswork. Magpie: If Voldemort knows that Snape is there to thwart his plans, why is he keeping Snape in his camp? Why doesn't he just kill him? Snape's storyline, too, where he's a double-agent walking the knife's edge, has been destroyed in favor of Voldemort knowing all and just handling it in very complicated ways that follow the plot. Dana: Sure this says nothing about Snape's > true loyalties or his intent when he took the UV and, as I said before, I > have no problem with the idea that Snape did have some noble > intention when he took it or that he really believed he could > control the UV and its effects on him. Magpie: Haven't Snape's loyalties been revealed as DDM in this scenario? Voldemort is working against him because he knows Snape is working against Voldemort. If Snape is Voldemort's man, none of this is necessary. Voldemort tells him to kill Dumbledore and he does, right? Dana: I do believe he never told DD about the UV because he > thought he could handle it, it seems to be a nasty habit Snape has > (Quirrell book1, Shrieking Shack book3, missing polyjuice herbs > book4), Magpie: Dumbledore does know about the UV, at least in some form, because Harry tells him about it. He might not believe Harry, or he might not know about the third clause, but if Snape just didn't tell him, he should know that someone told Draco about it. Dana: > If we look at who benefits from the way things worked out then one > can easily conclude that LV is the only one that truly benefits and > so why would it be a stretch to think he planned it. I think it > would even be underestimating LV's capabilities to think he would > just leave his main objective to rule the world and take out any > obstacle that could prevent him to get there, just because he wants > a holiday and have some fun with tormenting some of his minions. Magpie: It would be a stretch because it's backwards logic conspiracy logic-- just because someone benefits from something does not mean they planned it. If that were true, Dumbledore planned for Voldemort to kill the Potters because his side benefited from Voldeort getting turned into vapor. I don't think deciding we know best for Voldemort is anything like canon proof, though. Voldemort isn't taking a holiday. He's more active in HBP than in any other book. He's not giving up on trying to kill Harry and Dumbledore *because* he's focused on Draco. Draco is an easy side-issue that takes nothing away from Voldmemort at all. That's the irony of the way Dumbledore makes it a priority, something that makes things more difficult for him. Dumbledore could have dealt with the "threat" of Draco far more easily by just confronting him and, if not killing him, locking him up or sending him from the school. Dumbledore makes his own life more difficult by letting Draco muddle along, even though it ultimately means that Draco gets the shot at him nobody had expected. One thing that comes up in the books more than once is that people are impossible to manipulate this closely. Dumbledore himself, who's supposed to be good at it, always underestimates people. He underestimates Draco in this book, and so does LV. Characters always surprise people by not acting the way they're supposed to act. Crouch couldn't manipulate Harry into something as simple as finding out about gillyweed. So no, I don't believe for a second that Voldemort, the character who doesn't even understand love and can only imitate it, is controlling every single thing smart characters who love people do in their private moments. Besides being imo unbelievable, it deflates the story because it removes all the chaos of a lot of people with free will and their own personalities who screw LV (and everyone else) up. Dana:> > He has been unable to secure his quest for ultimate power for 16 > years after he attempted to take out Harry the first time. It took > him 14 years to regain himself a body and we now have to believe > that he would waste a year because he had nothing better to do? Or > that his obsessions would take a back seat because he is a little > angry and just is taking revenge for the fun of it. DD himself > admits in the end of OotP he will not be able to hold off LV for- > ever after he returned to power. Magie: Who says he's wasting a year? He doesn't have to choose between Draco and Harry. Draco, like Regulus, is just a minor figure to him. He wasn't forgetting his obsessions with Harry when he crucio'd Wormtail or Avery, that's just something he also does. Voldemort could very easily have been meticulously planning his *real* plan to murder Dumbledore and Harry for next year. It's not like the guy isn't patient. He was willing to drag out his plan in GoF for the whole year. Dana:> > We are also told that book 6 is not a stand alone and that it is the > first part of a bigger story and therefore it would make sense that > we do not get all the clues needed to see the full story even if we > have all the clues to figure out what will happen next. Magpie: A great deal of Book VI is indeed a standalone, it's just that the two standalones of HBP and DH form one larger story even more than the entire series forms a larger story. HBP is like the Empire Strikes Back of the series. That movie is most obviously part of a larger story, and ends with the heroes in a low moment that we know must be resolved, but that doesn't make it not a standalone movie. Return of the Jedi wastes no time un-writing stuff that already happened in ESB. Sure they start out going to rescue Han, but they're not spending their time learning that Darth Vader really didn't come to the Cloud City to use Han to lure Luke there and offer to rule the galaxy with him. That plan's over. I can't imagine why we'd want to hear all about he "real" plot of HBP in DH. Not only does it go over old ground that should be finished, it makes a lot of HBP pointless on re-read because where now it seems like the good guys are doing things that will lead to their victory (even as they're making mistakes), making HBP the book that more than any other is about the personal choices people make that can't be manipulated, it turns out HBP was all a set up of Voldemort's. The stuff that seems like manipulation of Voldemort (like pressuring Draco and giving him the task) is just the first layer of manipulation. He's also manipulating the reactions to it. Dana: > He didn't want DD to know he was back when he tried to kill Harry in > GoF because with DD not in the know, he could overrun the WW after he > had all his puppets in place and Harry out of his way. Because > Harry did not die that night, LV needed to chance his plans and > knowing the full prophecy became an obsession. Magpie: It became the plan for OotP. We don't know that it was an obsession to the point of carrying over to HBP. Actually, it seems like it pretty much isn't, because there's nothing in canon where Voldemort is expressly going after it in that book. Since killing Harry was his plan in GoF and not in OotP, I see no reason LV can't change his mind. Dana: > JKR has been laying the groundwork of LV's bigger plan since > beginning of the story, but by looking at each book individually we > are bound to miss it and forget it is still the working on the same > plan. Magpie: She definitely has been doing that, but she's never not straightforwardly written any of those single books. We may later find out that the diary of CoS was actually a Horcrux, but the mystery as solved in that book regarding the events of that book stands just as it did back in the 1990s. What everyone went through wasn't taken away from them and made into just a complicated plot for Voldemort. It was important for their own character development. Far more than his, since they are more important than his plans. Dana: > I think the Snape loyalty debate might be put in there on purpose to > direct us away from the real culprit and his bigger plans -> LV. We > think only DD would be able to get Snape in a position he does not > want to be in, but what more ultimate punishment would there be > for Snape than to be at LV's mercy, with nowhere else to go and > with no one else to believe him? Magpie: I think LV is obviously the big bad, and that Snape being at LV's mercy would certainly be a bad place to be. But I think Snape can get there in ways that aren't all about Voldemort and far less about Snape himself and every other non-Voldemort character in canon. Dana: Just a quick note I do not want to imply Draco knew he was getting help. *If* Wormtail was already at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Draco (and everyone else's movement), then it would also have been easy to figure out what Draco was planning to do or what he was working on. Magpie: Easy for Wormtail where it wasn't easy for Dumbledore or Snape, apparently. And unfortunately having the side-effect of again destroying Draco's own story. He's no longer succeeded at something himself, something that effects him personally, or surprising the older generation as a member of the younger. He's just another pawn micro-managed by Voldemort. And with no signs of it happening--no hints whatsoever that Peter is at Hogwarts. Jen: I'm not a military strategist, but what was up with Draco not realizing or being told the Order patrols the corridors when Dumbledore is gone? You send the wet-behind-the-ears kid to run reconnaissance for, oh, two seconds, and then the DE's poured out of the ROR? Seems like they had this huge element of surprise and could have waited until someone ascertained Dumbledore was indeed back and the Order gone. Magpie: Who says Draco didn't know the Order was patrolling? Isn't that what the DE backup is for, to get him to Dumbledore? Isn't that exactly why they do? Jen: Everything else Mike said about the DE's not seeming to have a mission strenghtens my impression their mission was a cover. They certainly attracted attention at any rate! Magpie: Huh??? What do you mean they didn't seem to have a mission? They stated their mission several times and did it. Their mission was to get Draco to Dumbledore so that Draco could kill him. Their being second-stringers goes along well with that as well. The death of Draco Malfoy is not an important mission! Jen: When you think about the backstory of LV, one point that came up over and over was how attached he is to Hogwarts, more attached to the castle than a person according to Dumbledore. When Draco came to LV offering a way into Hogwarts that even Dumbledore didn't know about, *that* was the cornerstone of Voldemort's plan in my opinion. Besides kidnapping Trelawney, there's always the possibility Wormtail is back at Hogwarts now, hiding in the Room of Requirement. JKR made the point that the ROR would not show up on the Map. Magpie: No one in canon suggests any such thing. *They* say that the cornerstone was Voldemort seeing a fitting way to punish Lucius by telling Draco to kill Dumbledore, and Draco seeing a way to get the DEs into Hogwarts for backup (a secret way, we don't know from how many people for how long), and that happening. Every other single thing mentioned--that Trelawney was going to be kidnapped and that Wormtail is at Hogwarts in the RoR or not--was born outside of canon seemingly, from what I've read, from fan dissatisfaction with Voldemort's interest in the Malfoys and the actions that come out of it. If we learn in future that Trelawney has been kidnapped or that Pettigrew is in Hogwarts, I think it will be the subject of a different book with HBP being a convenient explanation without the plot taking over HBP retroactively. Much the way that Montague's adventure in the Vanishing Cabinet happened in OotP, and was used as a springboard for important actions in HBP, without OotP being written to be all about Voldemort engineering the Inquisitorial Squad, and getting Twins to push him in there, and keeping Montague for getting out, and making sure Draco heard, and manipulating the Trio into not taking an interest etc. Jen: I didn't say anything about LV targeting Harry at Hogwarts, that would make no sense as a plan. I was saying that targeting the Malfoys isn't much of a plan either, not for someone like Voldemort who's obsessed with removing obstacles to killing Harry. Magpie: Targetting the Malfoys is a wonderful plan, especially for someone like Voldemort. Not everything he does has to be based on removing obstacles and killing Harry. People don't not get punished on the Bad Side because Voldemort doesn't care about anything that doesn't kill Harry. On the contrary, he tortures for drama, for amusement, and to establish his dominance. The example he makes of Draco is well-chosen for the point he's making to his followers and probably quite personally satisfying to him as well. I don't understand why it must be wrong just because it's not a plan like the ones in GoF and OotP. It's no more important than killing Emmeline Vance or Madam Bones or the little boy who got eaten by the werewolf. It only *seems* important to us because we know Draco, and he means something to Harry, and because Dumbledore and Snape see more in Draco than that. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 18:06:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:06:08 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166397 Carol earlier: > > Whatever else Voldemort may be planning, the plot to force Draco to try to kill Dumbledore, about which the three adults apparently know, and the Vanishing Cabinet plan, about which Snape, at least, does not know, are undeniably real, as is the advantage to Voldemort if Dumbledore dies. (I'm still hoping, however, that he'll develop a false sense of security as a result.) To throw in a Prophecy plan with no hints whatever would not be "playing fair." > Jen responded: > I wasn't referring to the prophecy at this point, I was answering whether we see a plot to kill Dumbledore throughout HBP. What I see at Spinner's End is three adults who say in a very circuitous way that LV's plan is for Draco to kill someone, later confirmed to be Dumbledore, and that both Snape and Narcissa appear to believe Draco can't complete the task. They go on to conclude LV's real plan is to punish Lucius when Draco fails. (Bella is apparently more interested in the honor bestowed on Draco than whether he is able to do the job.) > > Snape said Voldemort plans for him to do the deed in the end, yet never once do we get a clue Voldemort has approached him with a request or demanded he kill Dumbledore in Draco's place when Draco doesn't succeed. If Voldemort really plans for Dumbledore to die, he's not taking advantage of his inside man who is trusted by Dumbledore and has the advantage of surprise. Also, Voldemort didn't ask Snape to help Draco with the cabinents, or even tell him about the plan. Voldemort essentially placed a double-agent at Hogwarts and is cutting him out of the loop at the most crucial time. > > Therefore, the only legitimate plot I see to kill Dumbledore is the one hatched by Narcissa and sealed by Snape with the UV. And if Snape took the UV never intending to kill Dumbledore, but die himself, then unfortunately his plan went awry. > > And that means the only plan Voldemort *appears* to have in HBP is to punish Lucius and eventually, as Harry discovers as the story moves along, kill all three Malfoys. A plan that has nothing to do with his real enemies, Dumbledore and Harry. Carol responds: Well, at least you don't think that the Cabinet Plan was really about Trelawney, which is what I was arguing against here! However, we don't know why Snape thinks "he plans for me to do it in the end"--clearly, he hasn't been told so but is only deducing what Voldemort (or Dumbledore?) wants. And, as you say, he doesn't know about the Cabinet plan--but Voldemort does. Clearly, Voldemort hasn't asked Snape to kill Dumbledore himself or informed him about the Vanishing cabinet plan because he doesn't trust him completely. (wormtail's presence in snape's house is further indication of that lack of trust.) Snape has given LV plausible reasons for thwarting Quirrell and not showing up at the graveyard (the same ones he gives to Bella), but he's been in Hogwarts all this time and both Dumbledore and Harry Potter are still alive. Probably Snape suspects that LV wants him to prove his loyalty by killing DD if Draco fails, but all he knows for sure is that LV wants Draco to try first. There can be no question that Voldemort really wants Dumbledore-- "the only one he ever feared" and the chief obstacle between himself and the prophecy boy--dead. And now, with the Prophecy orb destroyed and the memory of his humiliating defeat at Dumbledore's hands in the MoM, he wants both of them dead more than ever. In fact, we've seen him trying to kill both of them in that battle. If it weren't for Dumbledore blocking an AK with the statue of the wizard from the fountain, Harry would be dead, and if it weren't for Fawkes swallowing the jet of green light (assuming it was an actual AK), Dumbledore would be dead. And if you don't think LV wants Dumbledore dead, remember his words in OoP when DD informs him that the Aurors are on their way: "By which time I shall be gone, and you dead!" (813). But Voldemort doesn't trust Snape to do the job. Just as he did with the Goblet of Fire plan, he needs someone other than Snape inside Hogwarts, someone whose loyalty to him is unquestionable and whose intentions no one will suspect. And voile! Just at the time he most wants Dumbledore dead, along comes young Draco, bent on revenge for his father's arrest, with news that he knows a way to get DEs into Hogwarts--the broken Vanishing Cabinets which, if repaired, would form a link between Hogwarts and Borgin and Burkes. (Or Voldie, bent on revenge against Lucius, summoned him, giving him the task of killing DD, and Draco said, "Oh, I know just the way!" and explained about the Vanishing Cabinets. How convenient, if that's the case.) At any rate, however much Voldie may want revenge on Lucius, his hatred of Dumbledore has been festering for a much longer time, along with his desire to kill Harry, which is thwarted by DD's existence, and the quote in the previous paragraph shows what we should know from the battle itself and DD's position as Harry's protector--he wants Dumbledore dead. (I forgot to mention that DD has been trying to convince the WW for a year that Voldemort has returned, another reason to want revenge on him.) The idea that LV wants Draco to fail is *Narcissa's.* She's the one who says, "Then I am right! He has chosen Draco in revenge! He does not mean him to succeed! He wants him to be killed trying!" (HBP Am. ed. 34). Snape says neither yes or no in response to this remark ("Snape said nothing," 34), so it's impossible to know to what extent he agrees with Narcissa. IOW, the idea that the Dark Lord wants Draco to fail is not confirmed, either by Snape or by LV himself, who never appears in the book.) "Killed trying" can only mean "killed by Dumbledore," and Snape knows that possibility is extremely remote. Granted, Snape also knows that Voldemort is angry with Lucius and that Draco's real danger is not being killed by DD but failing to "do the deed" and being killed by LV himself. But he also knows full well that Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead. So while he seems to share Narcissa's fears that Draco will fail, to the extent that he puts his own life in jeopardy to protect him, there's no indication that he shares Narcissa's hysterical conclusion that Voldie *wants* Draco to fail. (Bellatrix, of course, holds no such view, nor does Draco at this stage, as we see in "Draco's Detour" and "The Slug Club." For them, it's all about "duty" and "honour" and "glory" and being "rewarded above all others" by the Dark Lord. Even Snape uses that last phrase, 33.) Given that Dumbledore is a big fish and Draco is a little one (as is vengeanace against Lucius, really), it's quite possible that Narcissa is wrong in believing that Voldemort *wants* Draco to fail, as both Snape and Narcissa are wrong in underestimating Draco's ability to carry out aspects of the plan that Snape, at least, knows nothing about. It's perfectly logical for Voldemort to choose Draco, whose father had just been arrested by the MoM, to "do the deed." Regardless of whether LV summoned Draco or Draco (perhaps through Bellatrix) contacted him about a security breach at Hogwarts, LV would soon learn that Draco, in contrast to Snape, is an avid and vocal Voldemort supporter, bent on revenge (I've already cited canon to show his state of mind, but see the end of OoP, "Draco's Detour," and the Hogwarts Express scene in HBP) and eager to do the Dark Lord's will. And the plan itself is a good one: Draco is to fix the broken Vanishing Cabinet, call in the DEs while DD is out of the castle, have them set off the Dark Mark to summon DD to the Astronomy Tower, then Draco is to disarm DD, wait for the DEs to arrive as backup, and then kill him. If the plan succeeds and Draco gets DEs into Hogwarts (with Snape, as you say, out of the loop), then Dumbledore--supposedly weakened by his battle at the MoM and having since suffered a serious injury (we can be sure that Snape told LV just what he told Bellatrix)--would have, in LV's view, a good chance of dying. And if the plan fails, Draco dies, and Voldie has his revenge on Lucius. Win/win for Voldemort (though surely revenge on Lucius is less important and less satisfactory than disposing, once and for all of "the only one he ever feared"). So I really don't see how you can say that there was no plan to kill Dumbledore. There certainly was, and had Voldemort not wanted it to succeed, he surely would not have lent Draco DEs to help him intimidate Borgin, Imperio Rosmerta, and invade Hogwarts, nor would he have put increasing pressure on Draco when he seemed unable to fix the Vanishing Cabinet. He would have killed him (or Narcissa) months before for failing to do his duty. And this plan existed independent of the UV, about which Voldemort may have had no knowledge. (Wormtail was shut out of the conversation, with the door surely Imperturbed, and none of the others would have told him that they were going behind his back.) Carol, who thinks that Voldemort, who underestimates others but never himself, expected and wanted the plan to succeed, regardless of whether Draco or Snape killed Dumbledore "in the end" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 18:13:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:13:36 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166398 > Dana:> > > We are also told that book 6 is not a stand alone and that it is > the > > first part of a bigger story and therefore it would make sense that > > we do not get all the clues needed to see the full story even if we > > have all the clues to figure out what will happen next. > > Magpie: > A great deal of Book VI is indeed a standalone, it's just that the > two standalones of HBP and DH form one larger story even more than > the entire series forms a larger story. HBP is like the Empire > Strikes Back of the series. That movie is most obviously part of a > larger story, and ends with the heroes in a low moment that we know > must be resolved, but that doesn't make it not a standalone movie. > Return of the Jedi wastes no time un-writing stuff that already > happened in ESB. Sure they start out going to rescue Han, but > they're not spending their time learning that Darth Vader really > didn't come to the Cloud City to use Han to lure Luke there and > offer to rule the galaxy with him. That plan's over. I can't imagine > why we'd want to hear all about he "real" plot of HBP in DH. Not > only does it go over old ground that should be finished, it makes a > lot of HBP pointless on re-read because where now it seems like the > good guys are doing things that will lead to their victory (even as > they're making mistakes), making HBP the book that more than any > other is about the personal choices people make that can't be > manipulated, it turns out HBP was all a set up of Voldemort's. The > stuff that seems like manipulation of Voldemort (like pressuring > Draco and giving him the task) is just the first layer of > manipulation. He's also manipulating the reactions to it. > Alla: Hi,Magpie here is my problem with **great deal of book VI** is being stand alone ( by the way, I am not sure I would buy the close analogy with Empire strikes back, with JKR denying close parallels with Star Wars. I mean, sure despite her denials - Harry journey is hero journey too, but I am not sure if she would built her books structurally as close to Star Wars. IMO of course). How do you know **what part** of book VI is stand alone and which one is not? I mean, sure if you would tell me that you are thinking that **nothing** in book 6 is going to be rewritten in book 7, then I am with you - everything that you said has more support in canon right now. But we do know that JKR said that HBP is **not** stand alone, as Dana mentions, so I think it is a pretty fair assumption to make that **anything** in book 6 can be changed in light of book 7 revelations. Based on the past discussions ( forgive me if I summarise incorrectly), I think you are betting that Snape's part will be reversed , yes? Well, what if it is not ( or what if it is not the only part will be reversed)? What if as Jen speculates we will learn that Voldemort was behind the UV after all? Is there anything in HBP that prevents JKR from doing it? And again, but for JKR insistence that HBP is only first part of the series, I would not have expected any reversals in book 7, but since she said the contrary, I think **anything** can be reversed, not just Snape's loyalties ( if they are). JMO, Alla From cassyvablatsky at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 18:24:56 2007 From: cassyvablatsky at hotmail.com (Unspeakable) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:24:56 -0000 Subject: Readng the Runes: Literary Patterns in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166399 Ok, there comes a moment when the waiting gets too much ... and the urge to start *writing* takes hold... In one sense, it's clearly a futile (though enjoyable!) excercise, but having obsessively re-read Books 1-6 and paid attention to such useful resources as: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-the- list.html and http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:whatsleft/index, I began to wonder how far it is possible to anticipate any of the 'plot structure' for DH based on some sort of JKR-inspired 'template' for a Potter novel? Which, if it ever existed (honesty compels me to add), will no doubt be completely revised for Book 7. Ah, well... :- ) Not an exact science, obviously - still, I thought I'd share mine with you and see what you think(!): Cassy V. IMHO, based on the series so far, we might hope to see 1. An overlap between the ending of one book and the beginning of another; this has grown more pronounced as the series has developed, IMHO (no more cozy introductions to Harry's world!): Wormtail's escape to rejoin his master (prophesied in POA16) is recounted in `The Riddle House' (GOF1); the results of Dumbledore alerting `the old crowd' (GOF36) are seen in `The Order of the Phoenix' (OOtP5); the Ministry of Magic is dealing with the political fallout from the Battle of the Department of Mysteries in OOtP38 and HBP1; Lucius Malfoy's failure to secure the Prophecy (OOtP35) has had repercussions for his family in `Spinner's End' (HBP2). I anticipate that the opening chapters of DH will reveal Voldemort's reaction to Dumbledore's death & possibly the Ministry's as well. At the end of Book 6, Harry speculates on the current whereabouts of Snape & Draco Malfoy (HBP30) so I'm hoping that this will be resolved at the beginning of DH. In fact, I predict that DH might actually begin *prior* to Dumbledore's funeral, on the night of the murder itself http://book7.co.uk/one/ 2. Some connection to the wider wizarding world providing the context for Harry's story (usually given in the first few chapters): for example, we learn of Voldemort's downfall in `The Boy Who Lived' (PS/SS1); a plot at Hogwarts in `Dobby's Warning' (COS2); an escaped prisoner in `Aunt Marge's Big Mistake' (POA2) and `The Knight Bus' (POA3); Voldemort's device to regain power in `The Riddle House' (GOF1); a phony war unknown to Muggles in `Dudley Demented' (OOtP1); MOM reaction to Voldemort's atrocities in `The Other Minister' (HBP1) and a conspiracy of Death Eaters `Spinner's End' (HBP2). Extracts from the Daily Prophet are often used to provide background information: PS/SS8 (`GRINGOTTS BREAK-IN LATEST'); POA3 (`BLACK STILL AT LARGE'); OOtP15 (`MINISTRY SEEKS EDUCATIONAL REFORM'); HBP3 (`HARRY POTTER: THE CHOSEN ONE?' & `SCRIMGEOUR SUCCEEDS FUDGE') I very much hope that we gain some idea of the scope of Voldemort's ambitions & the direction of his future plans in the opening chapters of DH http://book7.co.uk/one/ and http://book7.co.uk/two/ 3. The intrusion of magic into the Muggle world, while Harry is staying with the Dursleys: Harry speaks Parseltongue in `The Vanishing Glass' (PS/SS2); a House Elf visits Privet Drive in `Dobby's Warning' (COS2); Harry lose control and performs magic in `Aunt Marge's Big Mistake' (POA2); Harry's connection to Voldemort is manifest in `The Scar' (GOF2); Harry & Dudley are attacked in `Dudley Demented' (OOtP1); Dumbledore brings Kreacher to the house in `Will and Won't' (HBP3). Certainly, the Dursleys cannot expect a quiet life with Harry around, as Vernon complains: `Owls treating this place like a rest home, puddings exploding, half the lounge destroyed, Dudley's tail, Marge bobbing around on the ceiling and that flying Ford Anglia You're not staying here if some loony's after you, you're not endangering my wife and son, you're not bringing trouble down on us.' (OOtP2) In DH, they'll be two adult wizards at Privet Drive (Ron & Hermione) who are allowed to perform magic outside school (`We'll be there, Harry' says Ron in HBP30); plus, I'm expecting some revelations about Petunia's past dealings with wizards (foreshadowed in OOtP2 and HBP3). Furthermore, the final breach in `the great, invisible wall that divided the relentlessly non-magical world of Privet Drive and the world beyond' (OOtP2) might well prove permanent, with the destruction of number four, Privet Drive. `And come back and find the house in ruins?' she snarled.' (PS2) http://book7.co.uk/three/ 4. An unexpected reason to leave Privet Drive: Vernon's panic in `The Letters from No One' (PS/SS3); the Weasley brothers escapade in `The Burrow' (COS3); Harry's desperate decision to run away in `Aunt Marge's Big Mistake' (POA2); the arrival of the Order members in `The Advance Guard' (OotP3); Dumbledore's night time surprise in `Will and Won't' (HBP3) ? the Dursleys are more surprised than Harry. (In GOF, Harry's departure ? though not without transport difficulties (GOF4) ? is positively civilized in that the Weasleys and the Dursleys have agreed to the holiday in advance.) We are told explicitly in GOF33, OOtP37 and HBP3 that the only reason the Death Eaters haven't yet attacked Harry at Privet Drive is the `ancient magic' that Dumbledore invoked `to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care'; sadly, this magic has an expiry date. So I'm predicting a midnight attack on Privet Drive in DH when Harry turns seventeen http://book7.co.uk/four/ 5. An extended visit to a familiar location: `The Burrow' (COS3), (GOF5) & (HBP5); `The Leaky Cauldron' (POA4); `Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place' (OOtP4). I'm anticipating a flight to Grimmauld Place in DH in which Harry brings (at least) two of the Dursleys with him for their own protection. My reason for thinking that Petunia & Dudley might well end up at Grimmauld Place (without Vernon, who abandons them), is that the now dead Secret Keeper of the Order, Albus Dumbledore, was careful to speak the name of the place in their hearing in HBP3 (`He's been left a house?' said Uncle Vernon greedily). Surely Dumbledore did this for a reason? 6. Harry acquires/inherits a new skill/artifact, which will help him during the climax: his father's Invisibility Cloak (PS12); Riddle's diary (COS13) and the Disarming Charm (COS10); the Marauders Map (POA10) and the Patronus Charm (POA12); the Summoning Charm (GOF20), which enables him to grab the Cup Portkey in GOF34; Apparition (HBP18). (Incidentally, I wonder if `Sectumsempra', the spell described as being `for enemies' (HBP24) might one day help Harry against Voldemort?) In DH, Harry has to learn how to destroy a Horcrux; I also wonder if Neville's Mimbulus mimbletonia might turn out to have special properties. And might Harry's Patronus change to symbolize his coming of age? In any case, I suspect that Harry will have the opportunity to read his parents' will (POA20) and will inherit a Time Turner from his mother at the beginning of DH; Ron already has the watch (HBP18) http://book7.co.uk/five/ 7. Information is given about significant events that have happened `off-stage' during Harry's temporary absence from the wizarding world: for example, the Triwizard Tournament is arranged during the holidays (GOF5); Percy breaks with his family (OOtP4) and Dumbledore makes a speech to the International Confederation of Wizards announcing Voldemort's return (OOtP5); Dumbledore finds and destroys the ring Horcrux, damaging his hand (HBP2); Sirius's will is discovered and proved and the Order of the Phoenix temporarily vacates Grimmauld Place (HBP3). In DH, we can expect to hear the result of the governors' meeting to decide whether or not Hogwarts should remain open (HBP29); also, the Order of the Phoenix will require a new leader and possibly a new spy as well http://book7.co.uk/six/ 8. An early encounter with a character or location of (potential) significance for the future, briefly referenced in an earlier book or books: examples of minor characters who reoccur include Cedric Diggory (POA9 & GOF6), Arabella Figg (PS2 & OOtP2), Dedalus Diggle (PS2, PS5 & OOtP3) & Mundungus Fletcher (GOF10 & OOtP5). JKR's books contain plenty of filler but it (almost) always a mistake to assume that a particular place or person is *not* significant to the story (*cough* Mark Evans *cough*). Locations mentioned repeatedly before they appear include: the Ministry of Magic (mentioned PS5, COS3 & GOF10 etc., visited OOtP7), the Room of Requirement (mentioned GOF23, visited OOtP18) & St. Mungo's Hospital (mentioned GOF8, visited OOtP22). I think it is quite likely that Harry will meet up with a hidden Emmeline Vance early in DH (as well as Aberforth Dumbledore). I also wonder which locations Harry has still to visit: apart from Godric's Hollow (HBP30), I would nominate the Riddle House (which he has only seen in dreams so far, GOF1 and GOF29) and which might well be the Headquarters of the Death Eaters (with half- blood Voldemort as the `wealthy owner' who has kept it for `tax reasons', or so the Muggles believe). The reader (though not necessarily Harry) may yet see inside Azkaban Prison (first mentioned COS14) and Malfoy Manor (mentioned COS4, COS12, OOtP16, HBP16 etc.) 9. A `lesson' for Dudley: the tail, `The Keeper of the Keys' (PS/SS4); the toffee, `Back to the Burrow' (GOF4); the Dementor, `Dudley Demented' (OOtP1). JKR has hinted that Dudley can expect `magical retribution' for his years of bullying Harry. In DH, Dudley might be forced to live in Harry's world, even (possibly) ending up in St. Mungo's. (For DH, to resemble Books 1-6 *something* must happen to dispose of the Dursleys, who do not belong in the main storyline.) http://book7.co.uk/seven/ 10. Harry learns something new about Snape; information on this enigmatic Professor has been tantalizingly drip-fed through the series: James Potter saved Snape's life (PS/SS17); James Potter saved Snape's life after James's friend played a life- threatening `Prank' on Snape (POA14); James Potter & friends made Snape's life a misery at school, Lily defended him & he spurned her (OOtP28); in his seventh year, Snape was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all became Death Eaters (GOF27); Snape was a Death Eater who defected and turned spy (GOF30); Snape is a double (or possibly) triple agent (OOtP26 & HBP2). I've noticed that Snape often turns out to be that mysterious `someone' in the Potterverse. Someone alerted Lily & James so they could go into hiding (`Dumbledore had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once.' POA10), there is strong evidence that this could be the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape (`You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned ?' (HBP25); `someone' originally betrayed the Prophecy to Voldemort (`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.' OOtP37), we learned that this *was* Snape in HBP25; unfortunately, 'someone' also murdered Regulus Black (`No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person.' OotP6). On this basis, I think there is a good chance that Snape might have performed the murder, under duress; after all, JKR has hinted that as a Death Eater, he would have seen & done some terrible things http://book7.co.uk/seven/ 11. An encounter with the DADA teacher before the start of term: Quirrell, `Diagon Alley' (PS/SS5); Lockhart, `At Flourish and Blotts' (COS4); Lupin, `The Dementor' (POA5); Moody (sort of!), `Mayhem at the Ministry' (GOF10); Umbridge, `The Hearing' (OOtP8) and Slughorn, `Horace Slughorn' (HBP4). I'm betting it will happen in DH when Harry attends Bill's wedding http://book7.co.uk/eight/ 12. A pleasant interlude for Harry, in the company of friends: `Diagon Alley' (PS/SS5); `The Burrow' (COS3); `The Leaky Cauldron' (POA4); `The Quidditch World Cup' (GOF8); `Draco's Detour' (HBP6). Harry is hoping for `one last golden day of peace with Ron and Hermione' at the Weasley wedding in DH (HBP30); this might indeed be the last time that the Weasley family is intact 13. A new form of transport, which is important later in the book: Harry encounters the flying Ford Anglia in COS3, which will save him from Aragog's relations in COS15; the Portkey in GOF6, a technology that will be used against him GOF31; the Thestrals in OOtP10 & OOtP21, without which he could not travel to the Ministry in OOtP34; Side-Along Apparition in HBP4, which he will need to perform himself in HBP27. If time-travel is involved in the climax of DH, then Harry will have at least one other experience of this technology before the end, IMHO. I also suspect that Harry & Hagrid will use Sirius's old motorbike (mentioned PS1 and OOtP7) to visit Godric's Hollow in the holidays (since none of the existing methods of travel ? broomsticks, Floo powder, the Knight Bus, Thestrals, Apparition etc. ? seem appropriate in this context) http://book7.co.uk/eight/ 14. A new location, which is important in the book: Harry visits Gringotts (PS5), on the eve of an attempted robbery (PS8); Little Hangleton (in a dream) (GOF1), later chosen by Voldemort for his `rebirthing party' (GOF32); the Ministry of Magic (OOtP7), location of the Department of Mysteries (OOtP34). He learns of the existence of the Chamber of Secrets (COS9) long before he goes there (COS16) and hears of `the cave in which Tom Riddle once terrorized two children' (HBP13), without dreaming that he will have occasion to visit (HBP26). If Harry does travel to Godric's Hollow early in DH (as planned in HBP30), then he might find he has reason to go there again (in different circumstances) before the end of the novel http://book7.co.uk/nine/ 15. The return to Hogwarts is marred by complications: Harry travels on the Hogwarts Express in every book except for COS; however, he misses the Sorting Ceremony in COS5 (with Ron), POA5 (with Hermione) & HBP8 (without Ron or Hermione). Whether or not he returns to Hogwarts at all in Book 7 is in doubt. Personally, I think that he might return on a part-time basis, staying at the Hog's Head with Aberforth Dumbledore. Interestingly, we follow Harry's return journey on the Hogwarts Express in PS/SS17, COS18, POA22, GOF37 and OOtP38 but not in HBP, which finishes on the day of Dumbledore's funeral. This suggests that we might share Harry's *return* journey at the beginning of DH, thus allowing the Hogwarts Express to feature in Book 7, even if Harry does not make the traditional journey to school http://book7.co.uk/three/ 16. A meeting with a new character (good or bad), who is interesting in his/her own right, but a `red herring' in terms of the main plot: think Snape in PS/SS, Lockhart in COS, Lupin in POA, Umbridge in OOtP and Slughorn in HBP. I'm thinking that this role might belong to Aberforth Dumbledore in DH; certainly, some interesting things have happened in his pub (PS17, OOtP16 and HBP25) and he could provide some valuable information on Dumbledore's backstory, but I think his main function will be (much needed) comic relief (GOF24) http://book7.co.uk/ten/ 17. Something significant (& unpleasant) happens in late autumn/winter. In the past, there have been incidents on Halloween: Quirrell lets a Mountain Troll into Hogwarts which almost kills Hermione (PS10); the Basilisk from the Chamber of Secrets attacks its first victim (COS8); Sirius Black breaks into Hogwarts and slashes the Fat Lady (POA8); Harry is selected to compete in the Triwizard Tournament against his will (GOF16). Mr. Weasley is bitten by Nagini in December (OOtP21); Katie Bell is injured by a cursed necklace in October (HBP12). None of these incidents proved fatal; sadly, however, I'm predicting that there will be an attack on Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes in the autumn of DH and this time, someone will not survive http://book7.co.uk/eleven/ 18. Events gather pace, other characters become involved & we realize that Harry's quest is part of a much wider struggle: the Chamber of Secrets is re-opened, Muggle-born students are being Petrified by Slytherin's monster, Hagrid is wrongfully imprisoned and Dumbledore is removed from the school (COS14); Professor Trelawney predicts the return of the Dark Lord with his servant's aid (POA16); Sirius Black reveals his fear that strange happenings at Hogwarts and the Ministry could be linked and Harry learns that potential enemies abound (GOF27); there is a mass breakout of Death Eaters from Azkaban, as Umbridge tightens her hold on Hogwarts (OOtP25); Harry prepares to accompany Dumbledore on a dangerous expedition, warning his friends that Malfoy & Snape are planning an attack on the school (HBP25). I'm guessing that in DH, we'll finally see the much-anticipated 'siege of Hogwarts', as the castle's `magical fortifications' are tested, as well as a complete Death Eater takeover of the MOM. (JKR has said that Voldemort `finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in exile' in DH). `Reckon Dumbledore's the only one You-Know-Who was afraid of. Didn't dare try takin' the school, not jus' then, anyway.' (PS/SS4) Ominous words, IMHO http://book7.co.uk/twelve/ 19. Harry loses a beloved ally: the deaths have increased in magnitude from Cedric Diggory (who became a friend to Harry over the course of one book), to Sirius Black (whom Harry loved as a parent but had only known since POA19), to Albus Dumbledore (Harry's great mentor in Books 1-6, but somewhat detached from his emotional life until OOtP37). Logically, I would suggest that Hagrid (Harry's earliest friend and protector in the magical world from PS4 onwards) is next http://book7.co.uk/twelve/ 20. Towards the second half of the book, there is a major expositional scene (perhaps involving a new device): the Mirror of Erised (PS12); Riddle's diary (COS13); the overheard conversation in the chapter entitled `The Marauders Map' (POA10); the Pensieve (GOF30); Snape's Worst Memory (OOtP28); Slughorn's memory & Dumbledore's explanation of Horcruxes (HBP23). As many people have said many times, I foresee an (unplanned) trip to the Underworld (the Deathly Hallows?) providing valuable information at this point http://book7.co.uk/hallows/ 21. A major character comes close to death, but survives: Harry Potter (`Not the Stone, boy, you ? the effort involved nearly killed you.' PS17) Ginny Weasley (`She's still alive,' said Riddle. `But only just.' COS17); Arthur Weasley ('It sounded to Harry, too, as though Mr. Weasley was hovering somewhere between life and death.' OOtP22), Hermione Granger (`Don't let her be dead, don't let her be dead, it's my fault if she's dead ' OOtP35); Ron Weasley (Ron gave a great shudder, a rattling gasp and his body became limp and still. HBP19) This further suggests the idea of a `near-death experience' for Harry in DH, IMHO 22. A major character is guilty ? until proved innocent: Snape in PS/SS, Hagrid in COS, Black in POA, Krum in GOF. This will be Snape in DH, IMHO. The question is: what will cause Harry to change his mind about Snape? I suggest that Dumbledore will have found some way to communicate the essential fact of Snape's innocence to Harry *before* Harry & Snape meet again (& I'm not talking about DD's picture, since JKR has already implied that meaningful conversation with a portrait is impossible: they only `repeat catchphrases'). Failure to do so, IMHO, would make Dumbledore's decision *not* to say more to Harry in HBP25 seem rather irresponsible (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.') I now think that the reason DD refrained from saying anything is because he knows he has already had this conversation with Harry in the future. Yes, I believe that Dumbledore is a time-traveller, which will enable him to a play an important role in Book 7 without returning from the dead http://book7.co.uk/nine/ 23. A major character is innocent ? until proved guilty: Quirrell in PS/SS; Riddle in COS; Pettigrew in POA; Moody-Crouch in GOF; Kreacher(?) in OOtP (OK, he was never *that* innocent!), Imperiused Rosmerta in HBP. I'm betting that Draco Malfoy will be the revelation in DH; we're prepared to feel sympathetic towards him at the moment (knowing that he couldn't kill Dumbledore), but he has shown little in the way of moral courage and could still be used by the Death Eaters despite his squeamishness, IMHO. My suggestion is that Bellatrix uses Draco to trap Snape & that Severus's fondness for Draco proves his undoing (another emotional mistake!) With catastrophic consequences for all concerned http://book7.co.uk/fourteen/ 24. Harry receives significant information/help from an unexpected source ? often in return for a previous act of kindness: so far, Harry's unusual helpers have included, Neville, Fawkes, Dobby and Luna. I expect Ginny, Neville & Luna (often referred to as `the other trio') to all play a big role in DH (accounting for at least one Horcrux between them): http://book7.co.uk/thirteen. Furthermore, Pettigrew owes Harry & I would suggest that he might discharge his life-debt by supplying information rather than the more clich?d sacrificial death ? hurling himself between Harry & Voldemort (which would take a great deal more courage than we've seen from Pettigrew in Books 3, 4 & 6). Also, Dumbledore implies that Pettigrew might aid Harry in a way that he is not expecting (think Gollum!): `This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life.' (POA22) http://book7.co.uk/fifteen/ 25. Harry experiences self-doubt/suffering as a result of his connection to Voldemort, which has made him a `marked man': when he believes that he is the Heir of Slytherin (COS11); when he is ashamed of his `weakness' with Dementors (POA10); when he is is disturbed by the pain in his scar (GOF2 etc.); when he believes he has attacked Mr. Weasley and is being possessed (OOtP23); when he tells Ginny they must stop seeing each other (HBP30). This theme will only be reinforced if Harry's scar does prove to be a Horcrux 26. The Trio/Order/DA are victorious in battle: PS16; PS35&36; HBP29; I see the main battles (at Hogwarts and the MOM) as happening in parallel to Harry's individual quest in DH (very much in the style of LOTR: TTT & RTOK) 27. Harry rushes to *prevent* Voldemort doing something: stealing the Philosopher's Stone (PS16); murdering Ginny in the Chamber (COS16); torturing Sirius for the Prophecy (OOtP34). In POA, Harry goes to Ron's aid (PS17); in HBP he and Dumbledore are attempting to steal a Horcrux. Only in GOF is he dragged into the area against his will. I wonder, therefore, if Harry will have a pressing reason to `go after Voldemort' at a specific point in DH 28. Harry is victorious against Voldemort: so far Voldemort has only been absent from Books 3 & 6 and will assuredly be present in Book 7, meaning that there will be a final, personal confrontation between him & Harry at the end. Now by this stage, based on previous books, we would expect the pair of them to be more or less alone, or at the very least with only their `seconds' for support (PS9) 29. Outstanding injustices in the wizarding world are (partially) remedied: Neville is honoured and Malfoy is punished (PS17); Dobby is freed and Lucius is sacked (COS18); Fred & George are reimbursed (GOF37); Fudge is made to confront the reality of Voldemort's return (OOtP38). There are a number if issues JKR has yet to resolve in DH namely: the dominance of the pureblood ideology, the ill-treatment of some magical creatures, the dystopian practices of the Ministry and the divisions within Hogwarts itself. For starters, I expect that Kingsley Shacklebolt would make a good Minister of Magic (to be succeeded eventually by Hermione!) http://book7.co.uk/seventeen/ 30. One further thought on the shape of Book 7: JKR has described GOF as being (metaphorically as well as literally) the `heart of the series'. She has confirmed that there are significant similarities between Books 2 & 5: both contain Tom Riddle backstory & Horcruxes. And Books 3 & 5 can also be seen as alike in providing valuable backstory between Snape & the Marauders (especially Sirius Black). So might Books 1 & 7 form a similar pair? It's my belief that JKR might choose to end at the beginning, with Harry's once-and-future defeats of Voldemort occurring on the same magical night http://book7.co.uk/sixteen and http://book7.co.uk/sight/ From lfreeman at mbc.edu Fri Mar 23 18:50:24 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:50:24 -0400 Subject: Neville's part? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166400 I think Neville's role will reflect his role in the first book, a fairly small contribution that makes all the difference in the end. Just as his courage then won 10 points that meant Gryffindor beat Slytherin, I think whatever he does in DH will mean the Order beating Voldemort. Sadly, I think, just as he got "petrificus totalused" in SS/PS, he will either be killed or lose his magic powers in the final battle with Voldemort. I hope it's the latter, so he could still teach Herbology at Hogwarts, with Trevor the Toad at his side. __ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 18:51:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:51:49 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166401 Dana earlier: > > > > Now the only thing needed was to help Draco move along and who says Draco did not get help at the last minute. Maybe LV sent Wormtail in to help Draco get a move on and to make sure Draco would move the moment LV wanted him to move. LV would not need all his DEs to know he wanted to get to Trelawney at the same time, they just helped Draco cause the necessary distraction and keep anyone on DD's side too busy with that. > Dana again: > > Just a quick note I do not want to imply Draco knew he was getting help. *If* Wormtail was already at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Draco (and everyone else's movement), then it would also have been easy to figure out what Draco was planning to do or what he was working on. Carol responds: Wormtail could not have been at Hogwarts keeping an eye on Draco (or pressuring him to get a move on), or Harry would have seen him on the Marauder's Map when he was looking for Draco. Also, Wormtail would surely know that Harry has the map, having seen it or heard it referred to when he was posing as Scabbers (both Lupin and Snape refer to it in Scabbers's hearing in the Shrieking Shack), and he would surely tell LV about it if LV wanted to send him in as a spy. And, of course, there's no canon to suggest any such thing. (I do wonder, however, how LV was communicating with Draco. Was he summoning him via the Dark Mark, and was Draco actually absent from Hogwarts rather than in the RoR on some of the occasions when Harry couldn't find him on the map? Weren't the owls were being searched as part of the increased protections on the castle, or am I confusing HBP with OoP?) However, you've answered my question regarding how LV might arrange to kill Draco if he failed in the task (setting aside a summons via Dark Mark). Send in the man who killed Cedric Diggory to kill another teenager. Sure, Pettigrew would risk being seen on Harry's map, but if he sneaked in through the blocked tunnel after all the lights were out, he might just get away with murder. But the very fact that LV *could* have had Draco killed so easily and chose not to do so suggests to me that he wanted very much for Draco, or the DEs he sent as backup, to succeed in killing Dumbledore. Carol, sure that the plan was always about killing Dumbledore, with revenge against Lucius as a secondary motive and Trelawney nowhere in the picture From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 19:51:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:51:36 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166402 Magpie wrote: > Huh??? What do you mean they didn't seem to have a mission? They > stated their mission several times and did it. Their mission was to > get Draco to Dumbledore so that Draco could kill him. Their being > second-stringers goes along well with that as well. The death of > Draco Malfoy is not an important mission! > Carol responds: While I agree with most of Magpie's points, I differ on this one. the mission was the death of Dumbledore, as Snape's "It's over!" indicates. (*His* mission, which is at least in part to get Draco out alive, isn't over, nor is the danger to Draco which he still has to protect him from.) The DEs have done their job, serving as backup and making sure that DD is killed (if not by Draco) and Snape makes sure they know it's time to go. No one runs off to get Trelawney; he stops them from Crucioing Harry and orders them off the grounds after one of them sets Hagrid's house on fire. The mission has been accomplished. As for second-string DEs, Draco has brought along the Peruvian Darkness Powder and Hand of Glory to sneak them in, and only a few Order members are stationed at Hogwarts (Snape, who's out of the loop and is supposedly a loyal DE, and the recently injured McGonagall, along with Tonks, whom Draco has probably seen prowling around--though she may be using an Invisibility Cloak considering how she pops out of nowhere). Still, LV probably thinks that Fenrir, at least, presents a real threat, and I'm not sure that Brutal-Face (Yaxley?) is a second-string DE; we never see him fighting because Harry hits him in the back with a Petrificus Totalus. And Gibbon is killed by "friendly fire" after setting off the Dark Mark, so his capabilities as a fighter are also unknown. (Amycus and Alecto and the big blond are, admittedly, second- or third-string, but they're not in charge of the operation.) However, I'm wondering--just who does Voldemort have left, with Lucius, Dolohov, Mulciber, Rookwood, et al. in Azkaban and Bellatrix being excluded from his plans as punishment for her failure to retrieve the Prophecy? *Are* there any first-string DEs? I'm sure he had good reason for not sending Wormtail, who probably fits into his later plans for invading Hogwarts. But who else is left? Goyle, who was evidently too stupid to send on the MoM mission? If there were only a dozen Death Eaters at the graveyard (and JKR is inconsistent here--in one place she says thirty, but elsewhere it's a dozen) and that dozen includes Malfoy, Avery, Nott, Macnair, and Crabbe, all now in Azkaban along with the Lestrange brothers, Dolohov, Mulciber, Rookwood, and Jugson (*Jugson*?), who else could he have sent? Ten DEs escaped from Azkaban. Six or seven of these ten--Rodolphus Lestrange, Rabastan Lestrange, Bellatrix Lestrange, Antonin Dolohov, Augustus Rookwood, ? Mulciber, and possibly Jugson--were at the MoM. Of these seven, all but Bellatrix were arrested. Three others are unaccounted for. Twelve DEs (approximately) were in the graveyard. Aside from Wormtail, who may not be included in the dozen, they include Malfoy, Avery, Nott, Macnair, Crabbe, and Goyle. Five of the six have been arrested. The others probably include those mentioned by Snape in Spinner's End: Fenrir Greyback, the Carrows (Amycus and Alecto?) and Yaxley (Brutal-Face?), along with Gibbon and the big blond. That's twelve. By my count, Voldemort sent the only DEs he had available, other than Bellatrix, Wormtail, Goyle (unless Goyle was the big blond), and the wildcard Snape, who was already at Hogwarts. And with Gibbon dead, Yaxley/Brutal-Face and possibly Greyback arrested (both were Petrified at Hogwarts), he's down to Amycus, Alecto, Goyle, Bellatrix, three unknown escapees from Azkaban, and Snape (whose loyalties, I'm pretty sure, lie elsewhere). And, of course, the newly recruited and badly disillusioned Draco Malfoy. (Will theo Nott come into the picture in DH? His father, too, was arrested after the MoM plot failed. And what will become of CrabbenGoyle Jr. without Draco at Hogwarts?) Carol, who thinks that the Draco plot was *very* important to Voldemort, but not because of Draco himself and certainly not because of Trelawney, who has nothing to do with it From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 23 20:26:36 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:26:36 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166403 > > Magpie: > > A great deal of Book VI is indeed a standalone, it's just that the > > two standalones of HBP and DH form one larger story even more than > > the entire series forms a larger story. HBP is like the Empire > > Strikes Back of the series. That movie is most obviously part of a > > larger story, and ends with the heroes in a low moment that we know > > must be resolved, but that doesn't make it not a standalone movie. > > Return of the Jedi wastes no time un-writing stuff that already > > happened in ESB. Sure they start out going to rescue Han, but > > they're not spending their time learning that Darth Vader really > > didn't come to the Cloud City to use Han to lure Luke there and > > offer to rule the galaxy with him. That plan's over. I can't > imagine > > why we'd want to hear all about he "real" plot of HBP in DH. > Alla: > > Hi,Magpie here is my problem with **great deal of book VI** is being > stand alone ( by the way, I am not sure I would buy the close analogy > with Empire strikes back, with JKR denying close parallels with Star > Wars. I mean, sure despite her denials - Harry journey is hero > journey too, but I am not sure if she would built her books > structurally as close to Star Wars. IMO of course). > > How do you know **what part** of book VI is stand alone and which one > is not? Magpie: I don't think what she's said about it not being SW really applies in this case, since I'm not talking about the plot, I'm just using ESB as an example of a "second act" sort of story. Clearly ESB ends with lots of things needing to be resolved in ways that ANH and ROTJ do not. The good guys *lose* and that's what happens in HBP. It's the second act of defeat before the big victory. Voldemort has 'struck back' in that the good guys have just been dealt a really bad blow. As to what parts are a standalone and what are not, I look at the things that were resolved and the things that were not. HBP is full of things that are not resolved, which is what makes it the first part of a two-part story. The things that were solved were solved. Alla: > Based on the past discussions ( forgive me if I summarise > incorrectly), I think you are betting that Snape's part will be > reversed , yes? > > Well, what if it is not ( or what if it is not the only part will be > reversed)? Magpie: Snape's role is not a mystery that is solved in Half-Blood Prince. Whatever Snape is, we have not yet gotten that scene where he confesses so we understand him--Draco got that in HBP. Snape's at the center of his own plot that's not yet been resolved, one that involved Draco's plot but went beyond it. So Snape's part is not reversed, no matter what happens. Snape's part is one of the things unresolved in HBP, even with him killing Dumbledore. So whatever we find out about Snape is something we still have to find out--and it will encompass everything, not just HBP, though of course the murder of Dumbledore is part of it. But clearly that aspect is being set up as a question, because all the characters are asking it at the end of the book. The same is not true for the Draco Plot. The end of that story sets up things to be different in the next volume. It's set up in Spinner's End with the questions: What's Draco being asked to do? What's Snape going to do for him? Will Draco die? Clues to the answer to this are then given in the book. Harry sets out to find out what Draco is up to. It's got something to do with what he buys in Borgin & Burkes. Somebody's trying to murder someone--is it Malfoy? Is that what he's being asked to do? There's signs that Malfoy's under stress, like it's not working. He says he's being pressured and will be killed if he doesn't do this thing. And ultimately what happens? A long confessional scene where it's revealed: He's supposed to kill Dumbledore. He sent the necklace and the mead. He confirms everyone thought he would die. Dumbledore confirms Voldemort would kill him in his place. The DEs show up to force him to kill Dumbledore and not back out. Snape arrives and kills DD in his place, just as he promised. Draco learns he's not a killer, and sees the glimmer of new possibilities. Explaining what Snape's real motivations were is not re-writing HBP, because that aspect of HBP was not written. Giving a whole new plot that was really going on in that book, imo, wouldn't make HBP the first part of a two-volume story so much as making a lot of HBP a distraction in itself. I think JKR clearly knows a lot of HBP is set up and exposition--the Horcruxes especially, so she's got to have some plots that are whole to solve for you--I think Draco's mission and the identity of the HBP are two of them. Also I think that since Dumbledore died in the service of that story, instinctively it's got to tie into the victory of the good side, not just be something that was all a big mistake that has to be fixed. Ironically, too, most of the rewrites have far less going on than the real story. They're complicated in terms of strategy, but have no emotion. The revealed story ought to be more emotional than the fake version. The Half-Blood Prince, too, was resolved in HBP. You can't solve a mystery twice. Certain mysteries are solved with emotional confessions, including Snape as the HBP. Why solve it again? There are plenty of things in HBP that are obviously unresolved without unresolving stuff that was already resolved. Draco's plan has been detonated and confessed--what's to drag out into another book? What more is there to be said about it? What good is gained from finding out Draco was wrong about it? That Voldemort was really trying to get Trelawney and Dumbledore sent her away? Would we really care? Alla:> > What if as Jen speculates we will learn that Voldemort was > behind the UV after all?Is there anything in HBP that prevents JKR from doing it? Magpie: The UV is one of the questions left open in HBP, so no answer is off- limits--as long as, imo, it doesn't rewrite the stuff in HBP that was resolved. This book is the first part of a two part story, and so, imo, along with certain things being unresolved, other things are I suspect a set up to what happens later. Anything that seems to put any character back a couple of steps (in either direction) I don't think will happen. That's a problem with things like Voldemort secretly sending Peter in to fix things for Draco. Emotionally it's important that Draco was responsible for that night, imo. As I said we could certainly learn that other things happened that night too, things that will be part of DH. As long as they fit around the stuff that was resolved in HBP they're fine. Just as learning about Montague in HBP didn't change things resolved in OotP. Finding out Umbridge was really a plant by Dumbledore to teach the kids something, otoh, would be anti-climactic. Re-reading the book would be less interesting once you knew the truth, not more. Anything else we learn about Voldemort's plans in HBP, if anything, is fine unless it sucks the life out of the emotional story we got. Alla: > And again, but for JKR insistence that HBP is only first part of the > series, I would not have expected any reversals in book 7, but since > she said the contrary, I think **anything** can be reversed, not just > Snape's loyalties ( if they are). Magpie: I think there are different kinds of things to be reversed, and some of them cross the line from "surprise" to "destroying what came before." Like trying to shoot off a firecracker twice. Scabbers was revealed to be Peter. If it were later revealed that Peter was really Regulus it wouldn't make it more of a shock, but less of one, because now he's just anybody we want him to be. We don't know about Snape yet. He wasn't officially revealed as a traitor because as a double agent he was presented with two equally plausible interpretations held by respectable characters. Even his killing Dumbledore in that context wasn't a confession. It just made us more in need of a full disclosure confession. Returning to a plot fully contained in HBP like Draco's seems like just picking at a corpse. The signs at the end of the book point forward, not back, with Harry not thinking about what Voldemort's *real* plan was, but noticing a change in the way he thinks about Malfoy now that he knows what happened. The question now is what will Malfoy do next? And Snape too? Voldemort's plans are more effective when they're just ways to get the characters reacting in juicy ways. Also it still seems like many of the "problems" with this plan of Voldemort's are solved if you stop looking for solutions other than the ones presented in canon. Carol: However, I'm wondering--just who does Voldemort have left, with Lucius, Dolohov, Mulciber, Rookwood, et al. in Azkaban and Bellatrix being excluded from his plans as punishment for her failure to retrieve the Prophecy? *Are* there any first-string DEs? I'm sure he had good reason for not sending Wormtail, who probably fits into his later plans for invading Hogwarts. But who else is left? Goyle, who was evidently too stupid to send on the MoM mission? Magpie: I actually do agree with this--I wasn't so sure these DEs were supposed to be second string or just the DEs that happened to show up so we're not always seeing the same ones. Goyle was sent to the MoM, wasn't he? He doesn't seem too great either! But if people do think they're second string, that doesn't seem like a problem either. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 20:53:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:53:17 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166404 > Magpie: >> As to what parts are a standalone and what are not, I look at the > things that were resolved and the things that were not. HBP is full > of things that are not resolved, which is what makes it the first > part of a two-part story. The things that were solved were solved. Alla: Well,sure, except reasonable minds can differ on what was solved and what was not. Things that seemed to be resolved to you may not be to somebody else IMO. > Magpie: > So whatever we find out about Snape is something we still have to > find out--and it will encompass everything, not just HBP, though of > course the murder of Dumbledore is part of it. But clearly that > aspect is being set up as a question, because all the characters are > asking it at the end of the book. Alla: Sure, but here is a good example. Snape role may be set up as a question, but I absolutely for example do not see Snape murdering Dumbledore being set up as a question. It is **very** clear to me that Snape killed him, although I can see the reasons are ambiguous. But for some people ( or many) the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore is also a questions mark, so reasonable minds do differ on that one as well IMO. Magpie: > The same is not true for the Draco Plot. And ultimately what happens? A long confessional scene where it's > revealed: He's supposed to kill Dumbledore. He sent the necklace and > the mead. He confirms everyone thought he would die. Dumbledore > confirms Voldemort would kill him in his place. The DEs show up to > force him to kill Dumbledore and not back out. Snape arrives and > kills DD in his place, just as he promised. Draco learns he's not a > killer, and sees the glimmer of new possibilities. Alla: Well, yes, but not quite IMO. That **is** what happened, I just do not necessarily agree that we know for sure why it is happened that way. Magpie: > There are plenty of things in HBP that are obviously unresolved > without unresolving stuff that was already resolved. Draco's plan > has been detonated and confessed--what's to drag out into another > book? What more is there to be said about it? What good is gained > from finding out Draco was wrong about it? That Voldemort was really > trying to get Trelawney and Dumbledore sent her away? Would we > really care? Alla: Yes, it is just the unresolved part is not the same for everybody and if we say learn that Voldemort was the mastermind behind UV it can be very interesting IMO. Not that I really invested in it by the way. To me it will not change the desire to see Snape suffer one bit :) > Alla:> > > What if as Jen speculates we will learn that Voldemort was > > behind the UV after all?Is there anything in HBP that prevents JKR > from doing it? > > Magpie: > The UV is one of the questions left open in HBP, so no answer is off- > limits--as long as, imo, it doesn't rewrite the stuff in HBP that > was resolved. Alla: So, if Voldemort really sent Narcissa to plead with Snape, do you think it rewrites stuff in HBP? Because I think that even if it does, it is a fair game. Magpie: This book is the first part of a two part story, and > so, imo, along with certain things being unresolved, other things > are I suspect a set up to what happens later. Anything that seems to > put any character back a couple of steps (in either direction) I > don't think will happen. That's a problem with things like Voldemort > secretly sending Peter in to fix things for Draco. Emotionally it's > important that Draco was responsible for that night, imo. Alla: Agreed that it is important for Draco to be responsible, yes. Magpie: > As I said we could certainly learn that other things happened that > night too, things that will be part of DH. As long as they fit > around the stuff that was resolved in HBP they're fine. Just as > learning about Montague in HBP didn't change things resolved in > OotP. Finding out Umbridge was really a plant by Dumbledore to teach > the kids something, otoh, would be anti-climactic. Re-reading the > book would be less interesting once you knew the truth, not more. > Anything else we learn about Voldemort's plans in HBP, if anything, > is fine unless it sucks the life out of the emotional story we got. Alla: But do you know for sure which story JKR is really writing? To you the emotional story is Draco discovering that he is not a killer, which is quite likely to be true, me thinks. To me it is no less emotional and very entertaining would be Voldemort playing Snape for complete and absolute fool and setting him up on that journey of protecting Draco, taking UV, killing DD, etc. It may well suck out a life of Draco's story, but I cannot exclude a possibility that Draco story was a diversion, nothing else, to deal with Snape for example. Like what Cassie wrote in her predictions about Draco. > Magpie: > I think there are different kinds of things to be reversed, and some > of them cross the line from "surprise" to "destroying what came > before." Alla: Yes, except but for HBP being part 1 of one volume pretty much. During PoA Scabbers was reversed, during last part of GoF the role of fake Moody in the first part was put in new light, so if in the last part of the book some events of the first one would be reversed, I think it is possible. magpie: Returning to a plot fully > contained in HBP like Draco's seems like just picking at a corpse. > The signs at the end of the book point forward, not back, with Harry > not thinking about what Voldemort's *real* plan was, but noticing a > change in the way he thinks about Malfoy now that he knows what > happened. The question now is what will Malfoy do next? And Snape > too? Voldemort's plans are more effective when they're just ways to > get the characters reacting in juicy ways. Alla: Sure, if return is to Draco alone, but if the plan is illuminated in new light in context of the other events, I do not see why not. Magpie: > Also it still seems like many of the "problems" with this plan of > Voldemort's are solved if you stop looking for solutions other than > the ones presented in canon. Alla: I am not,actually, as I mentioned in my previous post if we were to take a position that HBP is a single volume as previous parts, I would agree with pretty much everything you said. But since we know that it is not, I am disagreeing strongly with the idea that we **know** which parts can be reversed in DH, and which ones are not. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 21:19:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:19:32 -0000 Subject: Voldie's remaining DEs (Was: LV's bigger plan) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166405 Carol earlier: > However, I'm wondering--just who does Voldemort have left, with Lucius, Dolohov, Mulciber, Rookwood, et al. in Azkaban and Bellatrix being excluded from his plans as punishment for her failure to retrieve the Prophecy? *Are* there any first-string DEs? I'm sure he had good reason for not sending Wormtail, who probably fits into his later plans for invading Hogwarts. But who else is left? Goyle, who was evidently too stupid to send on the MoM mission? > Magpie responded: > I actually do agree with this--I wasn't so sure these DEs were supposed to be second string or just the DEs that happened to show up so we're not always seeing the same ones. Goyle was sent to the MoM, wasn't he? He doesn't seem too great either! But if people do think they're second string, that doesn't seem like a problem either. Carol: Nope. Goyle isn't among the DEs that Lucius pairs off in "The Department of Mysteries" (OoP chapter 34) after Nott is injured and abandoned--Bellatrix and Rodolphus, Rabastan and Crabbe, Jugson and Dolohov, Macnair and Avery, Rookwood by himself, Mulciber with Lucius (Am. ed. 788). No Goyle anywhere. It's not clear what happened to the injured Nott--I assume he was found, sent to St. Mungo's and then transferred to Azkaban--or to the baby-headed Death Eater, who as I figure it is probably Crabbe. (He can't be Rodolphus, Jugson, Dolohov, Rookwood, Mulciber, Avery, Macnair, or Lucius, all of whom are otherwise accounted for and/or recognizable to Harry. He could be Rabastan, but I think that Rabastan joins Bellatrix and Rodolphus as the third DE in that group after Crabbe's accident.) Anyway, just thought I'd indicate my source of information regarding the absence of Goyle at the MoM--Lucius himself. (It could be a Flint, but I don't think JKR would just forget Goyle Sr., and if he'd been present, surely he'd have been paired off with Crabbe Sr. as usual.) Carol, who's probably the only person one of the few people who cares which DE is the baby-head or what happened to poor old Nott or what's going on with his son Theo now . . . . From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 22:21:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:21:28 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166406 Magpie wrote: > As to what parts are a standalone and what are not, I look at the things that were resolved and the things that were not. HBP is full of things that are not resolved, which is what makes it the first part of a two-part story. The things that were solved were solved. > Alla responded: > Well,sure, except reasonable minds can differ on what was solved and what was not. Things that seemed to be resolved to you may not be to somebody else IMO. Carol responds: I think we all agree that the Snape subplot is still unresolved, as is the Horcrux subplot and the whole central conflict of Harry vs. Voldemort. I agree with Magpie that the identity of the HBP and Draco's mission have been resolved. (We don't quite agree regarding Voldemort's intentions, but Draco has already told his side of the story, and we'll probably never know how those coins worked or some of the other annoying little details.) It seems to me that we can tell which plots are finished (though they may have ramifications for the later books)--they're the ones that are explained to Harry or in Harry's presence by a character other than Dumbledore. (Dumbledore's idea of telling Harry "everything" is rather different from most readers' idea of "everything," especially with regard to Snape.) In SS/PS, we hear Quirrell's story. Granted, we later get a few more details from Voldemort (and Snape's version as presented to the DEs, probably not altogether trustworthy), but to all intents and purposes, that subplot is finished. Quirrell is dead (sorry, CV) and will play no important future role. In CoS, we hear Diary!Tom's story. True, we later find out that the diary was a Horcrux (and some details about the when and how and which murder was involved are still unresolved), but Tom's intentions in creating it and his use of Ginny are explained and that plot is ended. Even Lucius Malfoy's motives for dropping it in Ginny's cauldron are later revealed. (The plot thread about his not knowing that it was a Horcrux is tied up later, but it doesn't "unresolve" anything that was already resolved in CoS. In PoA, we hear Lupin's and Black's stories, which clear up the identity of the traitor and establish Black's innocence. Scabbers is revealed as Wormtail, who scampers off to join his master. Now, granted, the stories of those characters are still unfinished, and we have yet to know the full story of MWPP in relation to Snape, but the identity of the "Grim" is permanently resolved, as is the question of Crookshanks's supposed guilt in eating Scabbers. Harry is no longer under the delusion that Black is trying to murder him and he now has a godfather. Though Black later dies, those revelations are not "unresolved." In GoF, we learn through Barty Jr.'s confession exactly how and why he put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire, not to mention why "Bartemius Crouch" is sneaking around Snape's office and how Winky got the wand that conjured the Dark Mark. What happens in the graveyard has further ramifications, but the Barty Jr. subplot is fully wrapped up. (I do wonder what was done with his still-living body after he was soul-sucked, but I probably don't really want to know.) In OoP, we learn from Umbridge herself who sent the Dementors to Little Whinging and from Lucius Malfoy and the Death Eaters that Voldemort tricked Harry into coming to the MoM through an implanted vision that he thought was a dream. And, of course, the mystery of the dreams he's been having all year is also resolved. And while LV may still have some interest in the Prophecy, making a Trelawney kidnap plot likely in DH, the MoM Prophecy subplot ends with the destruction of the orb and the arrest of the Death Eaters. Dumbledore himself wraps up the loose ends, revealing the Prophecy (but leaving the identity of the eavesdropper out of the story because he's Snape), explaining Snape's role in sending the Order to the MoM and his own reasons for concealing information from Harry all year. Tere will be no more dreams of the corridor leading to the Department of Mysteries. That subplot is resolved even if we see the Veil and the Love room in DH. In HBP, the identity of the Half-Blood Prince is given to us by the HBP himself, Snape. Draco answers Dumbledore's questions, revealing his motives and strategies in the plot to murder Dumbledore and his own plan involving the Vanishing Cabinets and the DEs. While we still have questions relating to Snape, especially regarding the UV and exactly what happened on the tower (mutual Legilimency, for example), the Draco subplot is resolved with regard to what he was doing in the RoR and why. It's unclear what will happen to him from here (a return to Hogwarts seems out of the question), but we know as much as we're going to know about the Vanishing Cabinets. Even the Hand of Glory and the Peruvian Darkness Powder have served their purpose. (I do hope we'll hear a bit more from Madam Rosmerta, but she's only a loose end, not a main element of the subplot.) All that is to say that JKR uses exposition-through-dialogue at the end of the books, especially from characters other than Dumbledore, to wrap up the mysteries relating to the individual books. What is hidden in the third-floor corridor and why is Snape (erm, Quirrell) after it? What is the monster that's Petrifying the Muggleborns and who is releasing it? Who is helping Sirius Black get into Hogwarts and what's going on with Crookshanks, Scabbers, and the "Grim"? Who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire and how does it tie in with the Death Eaters at the QWC? Why is Harry dreaming of a door and a corridor and why won't Dumbledore look at him? Who is the HBP and what is Draco up to in the RoR? Those questions (and others) have already been definitively answered. The Snape and Horcrux questions (along with what will happen to all the characters and what really happened at Godric's Hollow) remain unanswered. We may dispute the motives of characters whose minds we're not privileged to enter, from Voldemort to Snape to Dumbledore, but Draco's motives and intentions in HBP are clear, and the mystery of the HBP's identity has been resolved. Carol, who thinks that story structure and narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final book From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 23 22:23:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:23:31 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166407 > Carol responds: > However, we don't know why Snape thinks "he plans for me to do it in > the end"--clearly, he hasn't been told so but is only deducing what > Voldemort (or Dumbledore?) wants. Pippin: I'm not sure why you're convinced of this. Why assume that Snape is telling the truth about this one issue when everything else he says is open to question? As he says himself, to speak of anything which the Dark Lord has ordered kept secret would be a great treason. Assuming that the Dark Lord has, unbeknownst to the sisters, secretly ordered Snape to kill Dumbledore once Draco has definitely failed makes the whole thing much simpler. It explains Snape's inability to decline the UV, it gives Dumbledore a definite reason to plot his apparent demise, and it explains his apparently reckless decision to let Draco's plot play out as long as possible, even at some risk to students' lives. Dumbledore knows that once Draco gives up the status quo will no longer be tenable. Snape's double agent role will be through, finished, kaput. If he has any further role to play for the Order, it can only be as a sleeper agent in Voldemort's camp, and that only if Dumbledore himself is dead or appears to have died. In this scenario Dumbledore might be able to continue as headmaster once Draco has failed if he were willing to sacrifice Snape or take him out of action. But either way, once Draco has failed, either Dumbledore, DDM!Snape, or both will have to leave the school, and that will put the students in more danger than anything Draco could possibly devise, especially given that Dumbledore doesn't think Draco can actually get Death Eaters into the castle. So it behooves Dumbledore to keep the Draco plot going as long as possible, not only for Snape's sake or Draco's, but for the students themselves. I don't think Dumbledore ever intended to die in order to preserve Snape's life and his potential role as a sleeper agent in Voldemort's camp. But IMO, when events required it, he was willing to. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 24 00:02:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:02:39 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166408 I think some of mine and Dana's arguments are getting confused. I don't think LV is behind the UV, although I did argue that right after HBP. My first post discussing the possibilty of Voldemort having another plan in mind for HBP/DH is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/165257 > Jen: > I'm not a military strategist, but what was up with Draco not > realizing or being told the Order patrols the corridors when > Dumbledore is gone? You send the wet-behind-the-ears kid to run > reconnaissance for, oh, two seconds, and then the DE's poured out of > the ROR? Seems like they had this huge element of surprise and could > have waited until someone ascertained Dumbledore was indeed back and > the Order gone. > > Magpie: > Who says Draco didn't know the Order was patrolling? Isn't that what > the DE backup is for, to get him to Dumbledore? Isn't that exactly > why they do? Jen: The fact that Draco made it past the Order to Dumbledore is not proof he knew the Order was there in the first place. I don't read anything in canon making it absolutely clear, and in fact, one quote by Dumbledore indicates Draco might *not* have been aware until after the fact: "What if your back-up has been thwarted by my guard? As you have perhaps realized, there are members of the Order of the Phoenix here tonight, too." (HBP, chap. 27, p. 547, UK) Obviously Draco brought his Hand of Glory and Peruvian darkness powder expecting to run into people because he uses it immediately when he sees Ginny and the others patrolling the hallway. That proves they expected to run into others, but not that others had to be the Order. The mistake in my argument you didn't point out is that they did intend to arrive when Dumbledore wasn't there because Malfoy communicated with Rosmerta to find out Dumbledore was going for a drink. So Draco et. al., did know Dumbledore was gone and weren't planning on the element of surprise by slipping out at night once Dumbledore was back. They didn't expect he'd be gone for so long though, from what Draco says on the tower, which meant a more extended time for their arrival to be noticed by others. > Magpie: > Huh??? What do you mean they didn't seem to have a mission? They > stated their mission several times and did it. Their mission was to > get Draco to Dumbledore so that Draco could kill him. Their being > second-stringers goes along well with that as well. The death of > Draco Malfoy is not an important mission! Jen: I thought the mission was 'kill Dumbledore'? Isn't that what you, Carol and others are arguing? 'The death of Draco Malfoy is not an important mission' sounds like you are saying that Voldemort *doesn't* expect Draco to suceed and that he will die. That the mission *is* for Draco to die and Lucius to be punished. I'm not arguing with that! Also, I completely agree that Draco and the DE's believe their mission is to deliver Draco to Dumbledore and that's what they do. What's VERY different in HBP from Voldemort plots in the other books is we never actually hear some version of the plan and the events that follow *in Voldemort's own words*. What we do hear is supposition by other characters. And it isn't clear what each of these characters may or may not know, or may or may not want to reveal to each other. The part of HBP that is fact when it comes to Voldemort is the Horcruxes, imo. > Jen previous: > When you think about the backstory of LV, one point that came up over > and over was how attached he is to Hogwarts, more attached to the > castle than a person according to Dumbledore. When Draco came to LV > offering a way into Hogwarts that even Dumbledore didn't know about, > *that* was the cornerstone of Voldemort's plan in my opinion. > Magpie: > No one in canon suggests any such thing. *They* say that the > cornerstone was Voldemort seeing a fitting way to punish Lucius by > telling Draco to kill Dumbledore, and Draco seeing a way to get the > DEs into Hogwarts for backup (a secret way, we don't know from how > many people for how long), and that happening. Jen: Yes, *they* say. I've already stated my reasoning here and won't repeat myself. JKR spent chapters on Voldemort's life, dropping bits of information about him. I spent quite a bit of time reading these and analyzing what she was trying to say about Voldemort. The importance of the treasures was that they eventually morphed into the Horcrux containers. The importance of the murders was for Voldemort to split his soul and start making Horcruxes. A seemingly minor conclusion by Riddle as an 11 year old about his mom's death was the basis of his thoughts on immortality. Well, there was one other thing mentioned that hasn't come into play, the fact that Voldemort tried twice to get back into Hogwarts as a teacher. That Dumbledore believed he was more attached to the castle than people. That he had likely uncovered more of the magic in the castle than any other student. Voldemort is portrayed as obsessive about things, his treasures, being immortal, and yes, Hogwarts. Therefore, I think it's perfectly valid to speculate that Voldemort has reasons for wanting to be back inside Hogwarts since he's tried several times unsuccessfully, and that Draco offerering him a way inside no one knew about *could* have been something that interested him very much. Magpie: > Every other single thing mentioned--that Trelawney was going to be > kidnapped and that Wormtail is at Hogwarts in the RoR or not--was > born outside of canon seemingly, from what I've read, from fan > dissatisfaction with Voldemort's interest in the Malfoys and the actions > that come out of it. Jen: There are many different ideas floating around right now. Of course I believe my thoughts on Trelawney are born in canon . Here it is, from a post in Feb.: Trelawney not attending the funeral could either way. Her staying in her room would be consistent with the Trelawney Harry has known for much of the series, if not exactly in OOTP and HBP when she started to venture out more. But the real evidence I see for Trelawney not actually being in the castle at the time of the funeral is another characterization point: Despite whatever grief she may have sincerely felt for the loss of Dumbledore, she would be all over her card reading coming true and want everyone to know about it. She's acutely aware people think her a fraud and now has a star witness in Harry about her very accurate and literal prediction this time. This would wipe the stain off her record and get 'Dobbin' (hehe) out of the castle in her mind, which seem to be her primary concern in HBP. She would *not* pass up this chance imo. Magpie: > If we learn in future that Trelawney has been kidnapped or that > Pettigrew is in Hogwarts, I think it will be the subject of a > different book with HBP being a convenient explanation without the > plot taking over HBP retroactively. Jen: My thoughts on Wormtail are not fully formed, but since he was not one of the DE's present at the battle, and *if* there was something specific Voldemort wanted out of the castle, then I see the possibility that he entered through the Vanishing Cabinent as a rat, before the door was sealed, and is now in Hogwarts. So that would play out in DH. > Magpie: > Targetting the Malfoys is a wonderful plan, especially for someone > like Voldemort. Not everything he does has to be based on removing > obstacles and killing Harry. People don't not get punished on the > Bad Side because Voldemort doesn't care about anything that doesn't > kill Harry. On the contrary, he tortures for drama, for amusement, > and to establish his dominance. The example he makes of Draco is > well-chosen for the point he's making to his followers and probably > quite personally satisfying to him as well. I don't understand why > it must be wrong just because it's not a plan like the ones in GoF > and OotP. Jen: I don't think we read Voldemort the same way. He is ruled by his obsessions, one of the subjects of several character stories in HBP. LV makes mistakes when he underestimates love or the young, and it will likely prove true he made mistakes with Draco that will help the other side in DH. What he doesn't do is waste much time on his followers. They are there to carry out his plans, his goals, his quest, whether that's chasing immortality, being reborn, obtaining the prophecy, etc. In the graveyard, LV said this to Lucius: 'Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master?' (GOF, chap 33, p. 650, US). Spending a year torturing the Malfoys is a year wasted on what he believes are more important pursuits (in my view)--figuring out why his powers don't work on Harry, how to get around Dumbledore's protections, etc. Without Voldemort actually stating his objectives in HBP himself, I'm proposing ones that seems logical from past plans and the events at the end of OOTP. Jen R. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 24 01:27:00 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:27:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) References: Message-ID: <00c401c76db3$86675140$da92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166409 >> Magpie: >> Huh??? What do you mean they didn't seem to have a mission? They >> >> stated their mission several times and did it. Their mission was to >> >> get Draco to Dumbledore so that Draco could kill him. Their being >> >> second-stringers goes along well with that as well. The death of >> Draco >> Malfoy is not an important mission! > > Jen: I thought the mission was 'kill Dumbledore'? Isn't that what you,> > Carol and others are arguing? 'The death of Draco Malfoy is not an> > important mission' sounds like you are saying that Voldemort *doesn't*> > expect Draco to suceed and that he will die. That the mission *is* for > Draco to die and Lucius to be punished. I'm not arguing with that! > > Also, I completely agree that Draco and the DE's believe their mission> is > to deliver Draco to Dumbledore and that's what they do. Magpie: This is where Carol's and my arguments are getting mixed up. Threads can get confusing.:-) It looks like it's actually you and I that are agreeing. Carol is arguing that the mission is to kill Dumbledore, I'm arguing that it's about Draco getting killed trying to do it. Which is why I now understand my misunderstanding in the part that I snipped about Draco knowing the Order wasn't there. I was answering just thinking that Draco assumed there would be security so he would need DEs to get to Dumbledore. Now I see you were asking why he wouldn't have been given a more specific, better idea of what he was facing if LV's trying to kill Dumbledore. And my reason for that is just what you are I think saying, that Voldemort's not running this operation any more than he ran the necklace caper. It's just Draco on his own, and he doesn't know these things. (I did remember Draco being in touch with Rosemerta about when Dumbledore would be back--I was just focused on my mistaken impression that you were asking why Draco didn't know he'd need anyone else to fight with him.) Jen:> > What's VERY different in HBP from Voldemort plots in the other books> is > we never actually hear some version of the plan and the events> that > follow *in Voldemort's own words*. What we do hear is supposition by> > other characters. And it isn't clear what each of these characters may> > or may not know, or may or may not want to reveal to each other. The> > part of HBP that is fact when it comes to Voldemort is the Horcruxes, imo. Magpie: True. HBP is difficult in many ways because Harry isn't even the focus of the plot we're seeing. JKR has to give us information all second hand and in limited ways, or through eavesdropping. I assumed I was supposed to accept it anyway, since nothing else was put forward and it fit with what happened. If I'm going to accept anything else, somebody in canon would have to suggest it to me and it might change the story, imo. Jen: Therefore, I think it's perfectly valid > to speculate that Voldemort has reasons for wanting to be back inside> > Hogwarts since he's tried several times unsuccessfully, and that Draco> > offerering him a way inside no one knew about *could* have been> something > that interested him very much. Magpie: He definitely could. I just don't see that he was getting himself back in there in HBP. It seems like other suggestions for what he was doing don't fit what the DEs or anyone did when they got there. But it could be something like his planning to kill Harry--it's something he wants to do, but sometimes a specific plan isn't about it. I guess I thought that was one of the major themes of HBP, that this throwaway thing Voldemort was doing while really being interested in other things was something Dumbledore and Snape had siezed on for themselves. And underestimating Draco (and thus kids in general) was also a theme, which is why the invasion of Hogwarts was wonderfully anti-climactic. Not the well-planned assault fans might have imagined, but Draco figuring out a backdoor to save his family. Jen: > Trelawney not attending the funeral could either way. Her staying in> her > room would be consistent with the Trelawney Harry has known for> much of > the series, if not exactly in OOTP and HBP when she started> to venture > out more. But the real evidence I see for Trelawney not> actually being in > the castle at the time of the funeral is another> characterization point: > Despite whatever grief she may have > sincerely felt for the loss of Dumbledore, she would be all over her> card > reading coming true and want everyone to know about it. She's> acutely > aware people think her a fraud and now has a star witness in> Harry about > her very accurate and literal prediction this time. This> would wipe the > stain off her record and get 'Dobbin' (hehe) out of> the castle in her > mind, which seem to be her primary concern in HBP. > She would *not* pass up this chance imo. Magpie: That's a canon argument, you're right.:-) Though I still will wait to see if it's connected to Voldemort's plan in the castle that night. None of the DEs seemed to get anywhere near her. I am definitely open to considering where Trelawney's going to be used now. > Jen: My thoughts on Wormtail are not fully formed, but since he was not> > one of the DE's present at the battle, and *if* there was something > specific> Voldemort wanted out of the castle, then I see the possibility > that he> entered through the Vanishing Cabinent as a rat, before the door > was> sealed, and is now in Hogwarts. So that would play out in DH. Magpie: That would be okay with me, since it would just be Peter coming in there with him for his own plot in DH. Though if Harry's not there Peter might not have any reason to be there. I can't predict what will happen but right now it seems like few important people are going to be there. >> Magpie: >> Targetting the Malfoys is a wonderful plan, especially for someone >> >> like Voldemort. Not everything he does has to be based on removing >> >> obstacles and killing Harry. People don't not get punished on the >> Bad >> Side because Voldemort doesn't care about anything that doesn't >> kill Harry. On the contrary, he tortures for drama, for amusement, >> and >> to establish his dominance. The example he makes of Draco is >> >> well-chosen for the point he's making to his followers and probably >> >> quite personally satisfying to him as well. I don't understand why >> it must be wrong just because it's not a plan like the ones in GoF >> and >> OotP. > > Jen: I don't think we read Voldemort the same way. He is ruled> by his > obsessions, one of the subjects of several character stories> in HBP. LV > makes mistakes when he underestimates love or the> young, and it will > likely prove true he made mistakes with Draco> that will help the other > side in DH. > > What he doesn't do is waste much time on his followers. They are> there > to carry out his plans, his goals, his quest, whether that's> chasing > immortality, being reborn, obtaining the prophecy, etc. > In the > graveyard, LV said this to Lucius: 'Your exploits at the> Quidditch World > Cup were fun, I daresay...but might not your> energies have been better > directed toward finding and aiding> your master?' (GOF, chap 33, p. 650, > US). Spending a year > torturing the Malfoys is a year wasted on what he believes > are more important pursuits (in my view)--figuring out why his> powers > don't work on Harry, how to get around Dumbledore's> protections, etc. Magpie: But he's *not* wasting time on the Malfoys. Telling Draco to kill Dumbledore and seeing what happens takes no more time than any of the other ways he's dealt with his followers. It's more like his trick on Peter with the hand than an obsession. I'm up for finding out what else he was doing during the year if it comes into DH, but I don't see temperment as any reason to think he couldn't be punishing the Malfoys. He had good reason to be angry at Lucius, and we've heard him go emo over followers who betray him. In the graveyard, while he's telling Lucius to spend his time on better things, isn't he making his followers listen to his big story and kiss his robes? I think this guy wastes plenty of time on his followers in general, setting them against each other, terrorizing them demanding things of him. That opening GoF scene with Peter he sounds like a maudlin housewife whining that her husband doesn't love her anymore and she feels fat. > > Magpie: > > >> As to what parts are a standalone and what are not, I look at the > > > >> things that were resolved and the things that were not. HBP is full > > > >> of things that are not resolved, which is what makes it the first > > > >> part of a two-part story. The things that were solved were solved. > > Alla:\ > Well,sure, except reasonable minds can differ on what was solved and > > what was not. Things that seemed to be resolved to you may not be to > > somebody else IMO. Magpie: To an extent, yes. But I think if a character has an idea or a question about something, and then at the end of the book that question is answered or the idea is corrected with explanation etc., most people know that it's solved. Otherwise there's no fun because you don't know if it's going to be overturned yet again. Carol provided good examples of these, imo. Quirrel was trying to steal the stone and tried to knock Harry off his broom. Moody was really Barty Crouch with the real Moody locked in a trunk. Peter betrayed James and Lily. If you're returning to the sotry and again and saying that moment of resolution and answer was false, then what happens when you read it again, you know? The first answer risks becoming trash--only that's still the plot of the book on re-reads. When Harry's just mistaken in mid-book his misconception is part of his character journey. It's usually saying something about his understanding of people or the past or what he wants to think. Being wrong about who put his name in the Goblet or who sent the Dementors is just Harry and the reader being given false information. > > Magpie:> > > So whatever we find out about Snape is something we still have to > > find out--and it will encompass everything, not just HBP, though of > > course the murder of Dumbledore is part of it. But clearly that > > aspect is being set up as a question, because all the characters > are > > asking it at the end of the book. > Alla:> > Sure, but here is a good example. Snape role may be set up as a > > question, but I absolutely for example do not see Snape murdering > > Dumbledore being set up as a question. It is **very** clear to me > that > Snape killed him, although I can see the reasons are ambiguous.> > But for some people ( or many) the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore > is > also a questions mark, so reasonable minds do differ on that one > as well > IMO. Magpie: Yes, and I was thinking of that as a difference, actually. I do realize that some people think the fact of Snape killing Dumbledore at all is unresolved, while I'm not one of them. So I do admit there are grey areas. But I think it's part of the greater unresolved stuff, like exactly what Snape is all about. That, I think will be a resolution that doesn't leave anyone confused about it. At this point I tend to think the questions about the AK etc. are just different versions of the real question, which is about Snape. Whatever that answer is will answer it all. It's really about whether Snape is DDM! or ESE!, I think. > Magpie: > > The same is not true for the Draco Plot. And ultimately what > > > happens? A long confessional scene where it's > > revealed: He's > > supposed to kill Dumbledore. He sent the necklace > and > > the mead. He > > confirms everyone thought he would die. Dumbledore > > confirms > > Voldemort would kill him in his place. The DEs show up to > > force him > > to kill Dumbledore and not back out. Snape arrives and > > kills DD in > > his place, just as he promised. Draco learns he's not a > > killer, and > > sees the glimmer of new possibilities. > > Alla: > Well, yes, but not quite IMO. That **is** what happened, I just do > not > necessarily agree that we know for sure why it is happened that > way. Magpie: I know that this plot is more difficult to look at this way, because it's not Harry's so we have to get our information second hand, through shady characters and through limited conversations. I don't feel comfortable saying that JKR could *never* tell us that things actually happen a different way, if the real answer supported all the important parts of the story. For instance, let's say if there was a story where Voldemort was punishing Lucius strictly because the diary was destroyed and people thought that seemed a bit excessive for a diary, and then later it was revealed that aha! The diary was more important than we thought because it wasn't just a diary it was a Horcrux! That kind of thing would be fine, imo, because it doesn't destroy anything in the previous story, it just adds a layer to it. Something that added to this story or spun off from it without changing everything completely (like the Cabinet Plot easily spins off of the Montague scenes in OotP) would be fine. But when people ask things like "Why was Voldemort making Draco Malfoy kill Dumbledore?" it seems odd to not just point to the book and say the reasons we're given in canon, of which there's only one. Having a theory that we're going to find out more, imo, is different than claiming that the explanation in HBP doesn't hold up on its own and so can't be true and is presented as a mystery, because canon seems to suggest that it's fine. We could find out an answer that added to it or was related to it--I just don't agree with the premise that the version we're given doesn't hold up. Like, CoS works fine without knowing that the diary was a Horcrux.> > Magpie: > > > There are plenty of things in HBP that are obviously unresolved > > > > without unresolving stuff that was already resolved. Draco's plan > > > > has been detonated and confessed--what's to drag out into another > > > > book? at more is there to be said about it? What good is gained > > from > > finding out Draco was wrong about it? That Voldemort was > really > > > > trying to get Trelawney and Dumbledore sent her away? Would we > > > > really care? > > Alla: > Yes, it is just the unresolved part is not the same for everybody and > if > we say learn that Voldemort was the mastermind behind UV it can be > very > interesting IMO. Not that I really invested in it by the way. To > me it > will not change the desire to see Snape suffer one bit :) Magpie: True, but we're already waiting for the answer of who the "mastermind" behind the UV is, aren't we? We don't know why on earth Snape took the thing, so if we learned LV made him do it that wouldn't change any answer we were given in HBP. It's not like if Dumbledore had dramatically announced, "It was I, Draco, who told Snape to make the Vow to kill me if you were not able to do it--yes, you did not know that!" > > Magpie:> > The UV is one of the questions left open in HBP, so no answer > > is > off-> > limits--as long as, imo, it doesn't rewrite the stuff in > > HBP that > > was resolved. > > Alla: > So, if Voldemort really sent Narcissa to plead with Snape, do you > think > it rewrites stuff in HBP? Because I think that even if it does, > it is a > fair game. Magpie: I don't know whether I'd say that it was re-writing, but pretty close to it depending on where the story goes from there. Is Narcissa not worried about Draco? Is Draco not really in danger, etc.? It has already, I think, made the scene less meaningful by turning a scene that is about emotion into an act--which I don't think JKR would do without showing us a sign that it's an act. But there's probably some way that Narcissa could be sent by Voldemort and still be being genuine in the scene. Ultimately it might come down to--which is better, the bad side falling apart as its members start to crack when things they love are threatened, or Voldemort sticking it to Snape in a roundabout way? > Alla:> > But do you know for sure which story JKR is really writing? To you > the > emotional story is Draco discovering that he is not a killer, > which is > quite likely to be true, me thinks. > > To me it is no less emotional and very entertaining would be > Voldemort > > playing Snape for complete and absolute fool and setting > him up on > > that journey of protecting Draco, taking UV, killing DD, > etc. > > It may well suck out a life of Draco's story, but I cannot exclude a > > > possibility that Draco story was a diversion, nothing else, to deal > > > with Snape for example. Magpie: Well, I don't mind Snape being set up for a fool by LV at all.:-) But I don't see any good ever in throwing away a good emotional story. Draco's not the central character of the series, obviously, but I think within his own limits his story is important, as are Neville's moments with his parents or anything like that. HBP was the book JKR said she was most pleased with since PoA upon writing it, and it's hard for me to imagine her wanting to undo that story. Also it seems like it's clearly a set up for something in the next part of the story. As I said before I *do* think that the plot with Draco is a diversion for Voldemort. That's what it's described as being in the story. But I don't think it's just a diversion for JKR. If Snape can be getting set up without yanking the important part so the HBP plot away (that plot including Draco's arc through the year etc.) then it would be fine. > > Magpie: > > I think there are different kinds of things to be reversed, and > some > > > > of them cross the line from "surprise" to "destroying what came > > > > before." > > Alla: > > Yes, except but for HBP being part 1 of one volume pretty much. > During > > PoA Scabbers was reversed, during last part of GoF the role of > fake > > Moody in the first part was put in new light, so if in the last > part > > of the book some events of the first one would be reversed, I > think it > > is possible. Magpie: Scabbers wasn't reversed. He was a surprise that detonated. Just as Fake Moody was. This is more like if Fake Moody was revealed as being Barty Crouch Jr. and then revealed to really be Rabastan LeStrange. Or if Scabbers was revealed as really being Peter and then revealed to be Stubby Boardman. "Everything is not as it seems" ends when we're told how things really are, and after that we can usually accept that corrected information. > magpie: > > Returning to a plot fully > > contained in HBP like Draco's seems like > just picking at a corpse. > > The signs at the end of the book point > forward, not back, with > Harry > > not thinking about what Voldemort's > *real* plan was, but noticing a > > change in the way he thinks about > Malfoy now that he knows what > > happened. The question now is what will > Malfoy do next? And Snape > > too? Voldemort's plans are more effective > when they're just ways to > > get the characters reacting in juicy ways. > > Alla: > > Sure, if return is to Draco alone, but if the plan is illuminated in > > new light in context of the other events, I do not see why not. Magpie: If it doesn't maek the story in HBP a waste of time, new information is always possible, imo. I don't ever want to say that I know for sure what could and could not happen--I'd probably be wrong! But there are things that do seem like plot threads that are tied up vs. unresolved issues to me, and even if they turn out to be overturned, I don't see a strong case being made yet for why they are really unresolved, if that makes sense. The series wasn't finished in GoF either, but the mysteries revealed there seemed to mostly be taken as fact. I think Carol said it well when she said "story structure and narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final book" -m -m From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Mar 23 23:51:20 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:51:20 -0400 Subject: Neville's part? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166410 Sandy wrote: "But, I don't want to see Harry or Neville become murderers so I hope Neville finds a way to bring Bella down without killing her. Only a Dementor's kiss will do for her. Sandy, who also thinks it possible that Bella would do herself in when Voldy is defeated." Bruce: As I have pointed out before, killing an enemy combatant in time of war and killing in self-defense or the defense of another do not constitute murder in any legal system of which I am aware. All but the most extreme pacifistic ethical systems admit the use of deadly force in the latter two circumstances. 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 hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Mar 24 09:55:26 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:55:26 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166411 > > Jen: There are many different ideas floating around right now. > Of course I believe my thoughts on Trelawney are born in canon . > Here it is, from a post in Feb.: > > Trelawney not attending the funeral could either way. Her staying in > her room would be consistent with the Trelawney Harry has known for > much of the series, if not exactly in OOTP and HBP when she started > to venture out more. Hickengruendler: The problem, that I have with all "Trelawney got kidnapped" theories is, that canon IMO suggests, that she *was* at the funeral. Granted, she wasn't mentioned by name, but neither was Madam Pomfrey, for example. Here is, what canon has to say. "The staff were seated last" (p.598, UK edition). Not the staff except Trelawney, but the staff. This, to me, suggests, that she was there. Not kidnapped, not taking out of the castle by Dumbledore for reasons I still don't understand (if he didn't expect to die this night, than why did he want Trelawney to leave the castle anyway?), but at the funeral. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 24 10:54:49 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:54:49 -0000 Subject: Neville's part? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: Sandy: > "But, I don't want to see Harry or Neville become > murderers so I hope Neville finds a way to bring > Bella down without killing her. Only a Dementor's > kiss will do for her. > Sandy, who also thinks it possible that Bella would > do herself in when Voldy > is defeated." Bruce: > As I have pointed out before, killing an enemy > combatant in time of war and killing in self-defense > or the defense of another do not constitute murder in > any legal system of which I am aware. All but the > most extreme pacifistic ethical systems admit the > use of deadly force in the latter two circumstances. Geoff: I quite agree with you on your premise regarding killing in self-defence or defending another. However, I think the problem lies in how it is interpreted by the individual doing the killing. Many ex-soldiers have returned from wars mentally and emotionally scarred because they have had to kill in any circumstances. I think this can be a contributory factor in many cases of PTSD. In the case of Neville, he is of a gentle and retiring nature. It was quite surprising when he was the one remaining in action with Harry at the end of the Ministry battle. And even Harry, who I think has had to develop a thick skin over the years to deal with events round him, has serious misgivings. '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... The sun had set before he realised that he was cold. He got up and returned to the castle, wiping his face on his sleeve as he went.' (OOTP "The Second War begins" p.754 UK edition) You can tell Harry (and Neville) that killing Voldemort and his followers is justifiable and not murder, but they have got to surmount their moral barriers before they will feel at ease with this - if that point is actually ever reached. From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 11:37:18 2007 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:37:18 -0000 Subject: Neville's part? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166413 Sandy: "Neville won't finish it all because the books are called Harry Potter. However, a fellow Potterite that I know is hoping, and thinks it would be appropriate, for Neville to take on Bellatrix, and I agree. I would love to see Bella get payback, and especially from Neville. And Neville isn't hogtied by the Love thing. But, I don't want to see Harry or Neville become murderers so I hope Neville finds a way to bring Bella down without killing her. Only a Dementor's kiss will do for her." If Neville killed Bellatrix he'd be far from a murderer, but I think he's likely to die saving Harry and preserving him to finish his mission. He's likely to do that by removing Bellatrix has a threat. We know Neville has the heart of a lion and was willing to die or even endure Cruciatus to keep Voldemort from getting the Prophecy. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 11:46:39 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:46:39 -0000 Subject: The Six-Gilled Shark and the Longbottoms or The Aubergine That Ate Rangoon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166414 Goddlefrood, having fully digested material relevant to this matter, hem hem, now starts by explaining the title: A six-gilled shark or cow shark (Hexanchus griseus), [n. Large primitive shark widely distributed in warm seas] is my new name for Dolores Jane Umbridge. It seemed appropriate ;) as I hope you may agree. The Aubergine That Ate Rangoon title references Dr. West's Medicine Show and Junk Band, a link to a little expansion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aubergine_That_Ate_Rangoon It was a title suggested to me earlier today from an engagement :), and again the reason for it I hope will become clear once I have laid this little theory before you. An aubergine is the way the English say egg plant. An edible fruit (seeds inside, not a vegetable) eating a city seemed appropriate. It would be a resolution to the story of the six-gilled shark that I could certainly very much appreciate, opposed though I am to any form of capital punishment, (advise against debate on this issue, btw ;)) I could have called it simply the toad and the Longbottoms, because it ties together the idea I had some time back, that is, that as far as our least favourite character (and I have quotes for you to prove some concurrence, one from JKR herself) is concerned the resolution of her story arc will also involve none other than Neville Longbottom. My clue was Trevor if you like. Not the only clue, of course :) I am not going to analyse the six-gilled shark's tenure as Hogwart's High Inquisitor here. I may get to that one day, but probably not before DH is released. Analysis of existing material being at the back of my mind for now. There is one small issue that I want to mention here, which is that the six-gilled shark is not, I repeat not, Trevor the toad. There has been quite a little Animagus discussion going on lately ;), and it is not my place to comment further on those. This is my reasoning: If for a moment it were to be accepted that the six-gilled shark is Trevor the toad in her Animagus form then I would ask, kindly explain this: Q: "What happened to Neville's Toad?" JKR: "He's still lurking.." >From Red Nose Day Chat, BBC Online, March 12, 2001, full interview here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm This was in an unguarded moment during the course of the said interview, so due to the use of the masculine preposition by JKR I conclude that Trevor is not female. Trevor as a name also suggests this btw ;). This was well before OotP's publication of course. End of interpolation. I can now tell you that JKR really is not fond of the six-gilled shark, hates her in fact, and likes to torture her. You don't have to believe me though, so here's my references: "Stephen Fry: Now to go back to one of the most infuriating characters you've ever written, Umbridge. JK Rowling: She's horrible isn't she? I'm glad you hate her because I really loathe Umbridge. Stephen Fry: She is the worst. (To Caretaker) Have we got a real one from the Muggle world?" >From Fry, Stephen, interviewer: J.K. Rowling at the Royal Albert Hall, 26 June 2003. Full text available here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm She has also expressed similar sentiments in other interviews, but here is not the place to expand on that. Some links though, for completeness sake: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh- ITVcubreporters.htm ("I would rather die than be stuck on an island with Umbridge or Lockhart.") (This link I will refer to again later for another point) Steven King is not fond of the six-gilled shark either: "The scathing attack came after Stephen King, the American horror writer, raved about Rowling's "slam dunk" book. He called the gently smiling Dolores Umbridge, with her girlish voice, toadlike face, and clutching, stubby fingers, the greatest make-believe villain since Hannibal Lecter. He concluded that Rowling was a natural storyteller "bursting with crazily vivid ideas and having the time of her life". From: Davies, Hugh. "Harry Potter attack starts war of words Literary feathers fly as Booker prize-winner suggests latest best-seller lacks magic." The Daily Telegraph (London), 10 July 2003. Full article available here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0710-dailytelegraph- davies.htm Hannibal Lecter being an undesirable dinner guest of course, and natural extrapolations on his views following from that ;) For those not about to look during the course of my narrative I can tell you that the Booker prize-winner referred is A. S. Byatt, whom I could not commend to you. JMO. :-Y Even Uncle Horace will assist me in this view, this time from HBP, Bloomsbury Hardback Edition, Chapter Four - Horace Slughorn pps. 69-70: "... I might have been in hiding, but some funny rumours have reached me since Dolores Umbridge left! If that's how you treat teachers these days -" "Professor Umbridge ran afoul of our centaur herd," said Dumbledore. "I think you, Horace, would have known better than to stride into the Forest and call a horder of angry centaurs 'filthy half- breeds'." "That's what she did, did she?" said Slughorn. "Idiotic woman. Never liked her." Not a pleasant woman (the six-gilled shark) at all, and I could go further (all in books, not about to expand), as I'm sure you can agree. Happily, for me :> she will be back, JKR promises it explicitly from the following: "Give her hell from us, Peeves." Everybody loved that line. JKR: [Laughter] Awww. Well, Umbridge, she's a pretty evil character. MA: She's still out and about in the world? JKR: She's still at the Ministry. MA: Are we going to see more of her? [Jo nods.] You say that with an evil nod. JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish." This from: Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Two," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005, to which here is a link: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 2.htm My little inference from this material will also become clear when I get there. Not far away from it now actually, and happily for me :) Before I get to that though it should be borne in your mind, kind reader, that Frank and Alice Longbottom were tortured into insanity by use of the Cruciatus Curse on them by the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Junior. I do not take from this that Neville will somehow get his revenge on the Lestranges as others infer, but it helped me enormously to join the dots of the theory (it is coming) that follows in a little while. Ere I get to that, as Sir Walter may have once said ;), I have to tell you that my clue is the word "torture". The six-gilled shark will appear in DH and she will be tortured. "Hoorah!" you cry. I could not agree more, but with the above injunction on capital punishment. My further extraction from this matter of those mentioned having tortured Frank and Alice is this: The six-gilled shark set the Dementors onto Harry and Dudley in Dudley Demented in HBP. Not a large leap to make to contend, as I do, that she also put them onto Frank and Alice. Like I said, a nasty woman. >=^P My final piece of linkage to the theory is that Neville owns a toad called Trevor, and yes students are allowed toads as pets at Hogwart's, there may be some question as to whether they are allowed rats left open. There are as far as I could ascertain from methods known to others ;) no less than 17 references to "toad" and variations thereon, toadlike etc., in OotP and in HBP there is a further 1. The six-gilled shark does not appear in HBP much though, but certainly the descriptors of her are consistent throughout her appearances to date. JKR also gave a little further teaser on the six-gilled shark IMHO in An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp: Readings and questions #1, August 1, 2006, here it is: "You mentioned the toad!" That's NOT significant, by the way, just to save myself 500 letters! "You mentioned the toad!" Found here, for those interested in such things ;): http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0801-radiocityreading1.html Neville Longbottom as a little poetic justice will torture or at least in some way discompose the six-gilled shark as an aside from the main action. That is my view, I leave it to others to debate on, and may be back with interjections here and there. There is a final point to make. It is on my current champion Neville, JKR on him, from her website: "So where does this leave Neville, the boy who was so nearly King? Well, it does not give him either hidden powers or a mysterious destiny. He remains a 'normal' wizarding boy, albeit one with a past, in its way, as tragic as Harry's. As you saw in 'Order of the Phoenix,' however, Neville is not without his own latent strengths. It remains to be seen how he will feel if he ever finds out how close he came to being the Chosen One. Some of you, who have been convinced that the prophecy marked Neville, in some mystical fashion, for a fate intertwined with Harry's, may find this answer rather dull." This from FAQ answer, found in full here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84 Didn't find it dull at all myself :). Anyway it's definitely time for the six-gilled shark to discontinue from the apparently cosy existence she is leading now, and I say this beggingly. Her current position, as at the point reached in canon, well I'll let our favourite author enlighten you there: "Owen Jones for ITV - What has happened to Umbridge? JK Rowling: Well obviously we would all like to hear that she met a horrible accident but she is in fact alive and well and working at the Ministry. Why doesn't she get arrested for trying to use an Unforgivable Curse? JK Rowling: She has good contacts at the Ministry. She is one of those people, and they do exist in real life, who will always side with the established order. As far as she is concerned authority cannot be wrong so she doesn't question it, and I would go as far as to say that whatever happened and hoever took over at the Ministry, Umbridge would be there, she likes power. So she is going to side with the people who give her the authority." >From Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005, in full here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh- ITVcubreporters.htm Therefore, I humbly submit to and plead with JKR, that the six-gilled shark can no longer be allowed to live such a pleasnt life :> Over to others Goddlefrood ; P. Now then, onto the next one :) From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 10:50:57 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:50:57 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166415 > Hickengruendler: > > The problem, that I have with all "Trelawney got kidnapped" theories is, that canon IMO suggests, that she *was* at the funeral. Granted, she wasn't mentioned by name, but neither was Madam Pomfrey, for example. Here is, what canon has to say. "The staff were seated last" (p.598, UK edition). Not the staff except Trelawney, but the staff. > This, to me, suggests, that she was there. Not kidnapped, not taking out of the castle by Dumbledore for reasons I still don't understand (if he didn't expect to die this night, than why did he want Trelawney to leave the castle anyway?), but at the funeral. Dana: You might be right but it is strange though that at the sight of her, Harry did not think about anything she said just before the tower events. No thoughts about her being right. No thoughts about DD's trust in Snape, while he was the one that brought the prophecy to LV. Nothing, no thoughts at all. Jen never stated DD made her leave but I was just thinking he might have put Fawkes on alert that if there was any sign of distress he has to take Trelawney out of the castle. And to me it could be a reason why it took Fawkes so long before he started singing over DD's death. To DD, the content of the prophecy can still be used as a weapon against Harry, as he suggests to Harry at the end of OotP. Pg 740 UKed Paperback: "Particularly since your extraordinary escape from him last year, he has been determined to hear that prophecy in its entirety. This is the weapon he has been seeking so assiduously since his return: the knowledge of how to destroy you" End quote from canon. And for LV it would not be that difficult to plan taking her on the same night Draco makes an attempt to kill DD. Even if LV expected members of the Order to be there. Then his DEs will cause the necessary diversion and DD will be busy with Draco, so no one to watch out for her. Why would he wait till DD was dead and have come back later? Why not plan it at the same time? For this to work Draco never has to succeed in killing DD. The only thing Draco has to succeed in is to get the DEs into the castle and lure DD to the right place and keep him busy long enough. It isn't even necessary to include Snape in killing DD but it will help to keep him busy at the same time. Dana From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:14:43 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:14:43 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166416 Hickengruendler: > > The problem, that I have with all "Trelawney got kidnapped" theories is, that canon IMO suggests, that she *was* at the funeral. Granted, she wasn't mentioned by name, but neither was Madam Pomfrey, for example. Here is, what canon has to say. "The staff were seated last" (p.598, UK edition). Not the staff except Trelawney, but the staff. Dana: > You might be right but it is strange though that at the sight of her, Harry did not think about anything she said just before the tower events. No thoughts about her being right. No thoughts about DD's trust in Snape, while he was the one that brought the prophecy to LV. Nothing, no thoughts at all. Ceridwen: The thing for me is, Harry does notice the staff being seated. Since his recent run-in with Trelawney, which, as you mention, was an important moment in Harry's life, I think he would have noticed her missing. This was an important funeral. The funeral of Hogwarts' headmaster, Trelawney's boss; the funeral of the former head of the Wizengamot and the (former?) head of the International Wizarding (Council?); the funeral of a headmaster murdered by one of the teachers. Which of the staff would dare to stay away? This was also the funeral of the man who saved Trelawney from being turned out of Hogwarts not much more than a year before. It was her information that was at the front of Harry's mind when he and Dumbledore set out for the sea cave. I think he would have noticed her missing. And if he didn't, someone else within his hearing would have mentioned something. I can't imagine McGonagall not saying something about Trelawney's ingratitude for everything Dumbledore has done for her, if she didn't attend. In my opinion, the funeral would have been the perfect place to set up the Missing!Trelawney mystery for Deathly Hallows, but it wasn't set up. I do love the idea. I go back and forth between Voldemort making one last link with Harry at the end of OotP and hearing the entire prophecy that way, and his kidnapping of Trelawney in order to get that information. But I lean more toward one last mind link between LV and Harry, simply because the attractive Missing!Trelawney subplot was not foreshadowed at the perfect opportunity for it to have been introduced. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 16:00:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:00:57 -0000 Subject: Neville's part? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166417 Bruce wrote: > > As I have pointed out before, killing an enemy combatant in time of war and killing in self-defense or the defense of another do not constitute murder in any legal system of which I am aware. All but the most extreme pacifistic ethical systems admit the use of deadly force in the latter two circumstances. > > Geoff: > I quite agree with you on your premise regarding killing in self-defence or defending another. > > However, I think the problem lies in how it is interpreted by the individual doing the killing. Many ex-soldiers have returned from wars mentally and emotionally scarred because they have had to kill in any circumstances. I think this can be a contributory factor in many cases of PTSD. > > In the case of Neville, he is of a gentle and retiring nature. It was quite surprising when he was the one remaining in action with Harry at the end of the Ministry battle. > > And even Harry, who I think has had to develop a thick skin over the years to deal with events round him, has serious misgivings. > You can tell Harry (and Neville) that killing Voldemort and his followers is justifiable and not murder, but they have got to surmount their moral barriers before they will feel at ease with this - if that point is actually ever reached. Carol responds: I agree with Geoff. Setting aside the legal system of the WW, in which only Aurors have ever been authorized to use a Killing Curse (it's not clear whether they're still authorized to do so), Avada Kedavra is itself Dark magic and, if what we see with the Crouches is indicative of their effects in general, Dark curses corrode the mind and the soul (whether or not they're used to commit murder in a way that would split the soul, in itself a rather confusing proposition). There are, of course, other ways to commit murder, but Sectumsempra, for example, is also Dark. And we see that Harry is (temporarily) horrified by what he's done when he sees Draco, whom he regards with good reason as an enemy, lying in a pool of his own blood. We can imagine how he would have felt if Draco had died. I don't think he could have gotten over it. And if Neville were to kill anyone, I'm sure the effects would be even worse. Then there's JKR and her values. We've seen the (Christian) themes of Love, mercy, and forgiveness repeatedly in these books. We know that Love in various forms has saved Harry from Voldemort and (ostensibly--I'm a bit worried here) from temptation by the Dark Arts. Somehow, Love (agape love for the whole WW??) will enable Harry to defeat Voldemort. That's hard to reconcile with murder. It fits better with, say, sending him through the Veil. And even if the Prophecy really means that Harry must kill or be killed (I'm not sure that he's interpreting it correctly or even that it *must* be fulfilled--where is freedom of choice if that's the case?), Neville is under no such compulsion. He isn't the Prophecy Boy, and his nemesis has been set up since GoF as Bellatrix Lestrange, the leader of the group of Death Eaters who Crucio'd his parents into insanity. I can see him having her at his mercy--and *showing* mercy, i.e., holding a dsiarmed Bellatrix at wandpoint and choosing neither to kill nor torture her. He will not, I'm sure, stoop to the level of his cruel and evil enemy. Nor would he be so foolish as to let her go. A few words followed by an Incarcerous and/or Petrificus Totalus (whose effects Neville is thoroughly familiar with) would be sufficient. Turn her over to the Aurors and send her back to Azkaban, which, I hope, wlll have some sort of anti-escape device on it and highly trained Aurors as guards to replace the Dementors. At any rate, I don't think JKR will want her heroes to suffer the moral anguish involved in killing even a wholly evil character, not even in self-defense. I think we'll see Love and mercy and forgiveness triumph, with any dead Death Eaters killed off-page by characters other than the Trio and their young friends. Mad-Eye has killed when he had to, Evan Rosier and possibly Wilkes. He, or Rufus Scrimgeour, or Severus Snape, or maybe even Remus Lupin, who was ready to murder Peter Pettigrew, may end up killing a bad guy. But I think JKR believes that Harry and Neville in particular have suffered enough. It's time for them to have the only reward they've ever wanted, a normal, happy wizarding life. And, yes, they'll be famous for awhile, but Harry is used to that, and fame is fickle, even, or perhaps especially, in the WW. There's time yet for Harry to be an Auror and even to have twelve children (poor Ginny!) and become Minister for Magic, and for Neville to have a long and peaceful career as Herbology teacher at Hogwarts. Carol, who thinks that the legal aspects of self-defense in any RW system are irrelevant and that it's the psychological and moral aspects that concern JKR From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 24 16:07:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:07:38 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166418 > Carol responds: > Well, at least you don't think that the Cabinet Plan was really about > Trelawney, which is what I was arguing against here! Jen: I support the idea that Trelawney was kidnapped, and have provided a canon argument in this thread. I was talking about the plan for Draco to kill Dumbledore in this instance though. Carol: > However, we don't know why Snape thinks "he plans for me to do it in > the end"--clearly, he hasn't been told so but is only deducing what > Voldemort (or Dumbledore?) wants. Jen: That's not clear to me, no. HBP never explains this point. Snape indicated he'd talked to Voldemort about the plan and we never find out what he knows, either from Snape or Voldemort. Carol: > But Voldemort doesn't trust Snape to do the job. Just as he did with > the Goblet of Fire plan, he needs someone other than Snape inside > Hogwarts, someone whose loyalty to him is unquestionable and whose > intentions no one will suspect. And voile! Just at the time he most > wants Dumbledore dead, along comes young Draco, bent on revenge for > his father's arrest, with news that he knows a way to get DEs into > Hogwarts--the broken Vanishing Cabinets which, if repaired, would form > a link between Hogwarts and Borgin and Burkes. (Or Voldie, bent on > revenge against Lucius, summoned him, giving him the task of killing > DD, and Draco said, "Oh, I know just the way!" and explained about the > Vanishing Cabinets. How convenient, if that's the case.) Jen: I snipped out the paragraps I agree with--Voldemort wants Dumbledore dead and Voldemort doesn't trust Snape--to come to this point. This is where the argument starts to break down for me. What does Voldemort see in Draco to indicate his fitness for the job of killing Dumbledore? You sugggest that Voldemort is atrracted to the idea of Draco because no one would suspect his intentions. Yet Voldemort tells Narcissa and Bella his plan. Snape indicated he was told the plan and we both agree Voldemort doesn't trust him, so LV likely at least considered the idea the plan might get to Dumbledore. Rather than wanting a person no one suspects, such as Barty Crouch, Jr., it appears Voldemort has done everything short of taking out an ad in the Daily Prophet! Draco proves his clever mind to Voldemort: '...I was the only one who realised what it meant - even Borgin didn't know - I was the one who realised there could be a way into Hogwarts through the Cabinents if I fixed the broken one.' (HBP, chap. 27, page 548, UK ed.) But the only reason suggested in canon for Voldemort choosing Draco to kill Dumbledore is 'to punish Lucius' as concluded by Narcissa. Carol: > The idea that LV wants Draco to fail is *Narcissa's.* She's the one > who says, "Then I am right! He has chosen Draco in revenge! He does > not mean him to succeed! He wants him to be killed trying!" (HBP Am. > ed. 34). Snape says neither yes or no in response to this remark > ("Snape said nothing," 34), so it's impossible to know to what extent > he agrees with Narcissa. IOW, the idea that the Dark Lord wants Draco > to fail is not confirmed, either by Snape or by LV himself, who never > appears in the book.) Jen: The fact that we never have confirmation from Voldemort about the mission from his mouth is a very unique aspect of HBP in the series so far, and one major reason why the story hasn't reached a conclusion, or rather its only conclusion, in my opinion. So, given what knowledge we do have, if you don't believe Narcissa's reasoning is the same as Voldemort's, what are the other options? Once Draco repairs the Cabinents, Voldemort can choose anyone he wants to be the one to kill Dumbledore, and he has chosen Draco. What does he see in Draco? Carol: > But he also knows full well that Voldemort wants Dumbledore > dead. So while he seems to share Narcissa's fears that Draco will > fail, to the extent that he puts his own life in jeopardy to protect > him, there's no indication that he shares Narcissa's hysterical > conclusion that Voldie *wants* Draco to fail. Jen: Snape never says he agrees or disagrees, he only offers, 'I cannot pretend the Dark Lord is not angry with Lucius [ ]...Yes the Dark Lord is angry Narcissa, very angry' and then says nothing when Narcissa says, 'Then I am right...he does not mean him to succeed, he wants him to be killed trying!' (ch. 2, p. 38) I view that entire interaction - Snape's nonverbals of looking away, not responding, offering a statement that fuels her suspicions instead of tamping them down -as tacit agreement with Narcissa's conclusions. Carol: > Given that Dumbledore is a big fish and Draco is a little one (as is vengeanace > against Lucius, really), it's quite possible that Narcissa is wrong in > believing that Voldemort *wants* Draco to fail, as both Snape and > Narcissa are wrong in underestimating Draco's ability to carry out > aspects of the plan that Snape, at least, knows nothing about. Jen: This is the same man who created a boat that 'weighs' magical power and that boat determined 'an underage and unqualified' 16-year old doesn't register on the magical power scale. Carol: > So I really don't see how you can say that there was no plan to kill > Dumbledore. Jen: Okay, I see a very improbable plan presented, one in which Voldemort expects an underage and unqualified wizard to kill the second greatest wizard (in his opinion) in the WW, when he himself has been unable to do so. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 16:12:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:12:15 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace In-Reply-To: <00c401c76db3$86675140$da92400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166419 > Jen:> > > What's VERY different in HBP from Voldemort plots in the other books> is > > we never actually hear some version of the plan and the events> that > > follow *in Voldemort's own words*. What we do hear is supposition by> > > other characters. And it isn't clear what each of these characters may> > > or may not know, or may or may not want to reveal to each other. The> > > part of HBP that is fact when it comes to Voldemort is the Horcruxes, imo. > > Magpie: > True. HBP is difficult in many ways because Harry isn't even the focus of > the plot we're seeing. JKR has to give us information all second hand and in > limited ways, or through eavesdropping. I assumed I was supposed to accept > it anyway, since nothing else was put forward and it fit with what happened. > If I'm going to accept anything else, somebody in canon would have to > suggest it to me and it might change the story, imo. Alla: Right, I totally see where Jen is coming from here. I mean, here we come again to the what is truth and what is lie in Spinner End, I guess. Truthfully, I would be delighted if everything that was said in Spinner End was true, but since Snape's tale gets questioned so exstensively, since when Bella and Narcissa are the most reliable witnesses? Not IMO. I mean, Magpie is right that everything that was said fits what happened in HBP, BUT IMO if something will be twisted ( and I am not saying it would be), JKR can easily do it by showing Black sisters lies. > > Alla:\ > > > Well,sure, except reasonable minds can differ on what was solved and > > > what was not. Things that seemed to be resolved to you may not be to > > > somebody else IMO. > > Magpie: > >> If you're returning to the sotry and again and saying that moment of > resolution and answer was false, then what happens when you read it again, > you know? The first answer risks becoming trash--only that's still the plot > of the book on re-reads. When Harry's just mistaken in mid-book his > misconception is part of his character journey. It's usually saying > something about his understanding of people or the past or what he wants to > think. Being wrong about who put his name in the Goblet or who sent the > Dementors is just Harry and the reader being given false information. Alla: Precisely and since JKR herself compared HBP to first part, I think the analogy to be mistaken in the middle of the book works. Look, I feel strange arguing here, since I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, as I said I am basically just arguing against the idea ( if you are even raising it) that we can know for sure what will be changed and what not in book 7. > > Alla:> > > > Sure, but here is a good example. Snape role may be set up as a > > > question, but I absolutely for example do not see Snape murdering > > > Dumbledore being set up as a question. It is **very** clear to me > that > > Snape killed him, although I can see the reasons are ambiguous.> > > > But for some people ( or many) the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore > is > > also a questions mark, so reasonable minds do differ on that one > as well > > IMO. > > Magpie: > > Yes, and I was thinking of that as a difference, actually. I do realize that > some people think the fact of Snape killing Dumbledore at all is unresolved, > while I'm not one of them. So I do admit there are grey areas. But I think > it's part of the greater unresolved stuff, like exactly what Snape is all > about. That, I think will be a resolution that doesn't leave anyone confused > about it. At this point I tend to think the questions about the AK etc. are > just different versions of the real question, which is about Snape. Whatever > that answer is will answer it all. It's really about whether Snape is DDM! > or ESE!, I think. Alla: Right, and I think about it in a bit of different way. I thought it was a good example of what you were bringing up in as stuff resolved on page v stuff with the question mark on the page. I was just saying that what to you ( and to me by the way) may seem as completely resolved staff to many people is not and can turn out to be something completely different - fake AK, Dumbledore dying from poison, etc. Personally I would not buy fake AK in a million years, to me it turns Tower into one big joke. I can even see Snape killing DD on his orders as dramatic ( hate it as I am), but fake AK - no way. Not IMO. But many people bring reasonable arguments as to why it can be true and I see no reason to say that for some reason their arguments is less supported by canon than mine, you know? And it is all again mainly because story is not finished. >> Magpie: >> But when people ask things like "Why was Voldemort making Draco Malfoy kill > Dumbledore?" it seems odd to not just point to the book and say the reasons > we're given in canon, of which there's only one. Having a theory that we're > going to find out more, imo, is different than claiming that the explanation > in HBP doesn't hold up on its own and so can't be true and is presented as a > mystery, because canon seems to suggest that it's fine. We could find out an > answer that added to it or was related to it--I just don't agree with the > premise that the version we're given doesn't hold up. Like, CoS works fine > without knowing that the diary was a Horcrux.> Alla: Agreed as in **so far** there is an only one answer. Do I think that it will be overturned as one of the answers? Definitely not. Do I think that we may learn **other** answers? Yes, I do and maybe the one given in HBP will turn out to be not the most important on the list. But again, had the HBP stand on its own, I would think differently. > Magpie: > > True, but we're already waiting for the answer of who the "mastermind" > behind the UV is, aren't we? We don't know why on earth Snape took the > thing, so if we learned LV made him do it that wouldn't change any answer we > were given in HBP. It's not like if Dumbledore had dramatically announced, > "It was I, Draco, who told Snape to make the Vow to kill me if you were not > able to do it--yes, you did not know that!" Alla: LOLOLOLOL. Yes, of course. >> Magpie: > > Scabbers wasn't reversed. He was a surprise that detonated. Just as Fake > Moody was. This is more like if Fake Moody was revealed as being Barty > Crouch Jr. and then revealed to really be Rabastan LeStrange. Or if Scabbers > was revealed as really being Peter and then revealed to be Stubby Boardman. > "Everything is not as it seems" ends when we're told how things really are, > and after that we can usually accept that corrected information. Alla: I disagree. For three books we thought Scabbers was a rat and for one book we thought Fake Moody was a real one. I think it was a reversal of who we thought those characters are. Magpie: > I don't ever want to say that I know for sure what could and could not > happen--I'd probably be wrong! But there are things that do seem like plot > threads that are tied up vs. unresolved issues to me, and even if they turn > out to be overturned, I don't see a strong case being made yet for why they > are really unresolved, if that makes sense. The series wasn't finished in > GoF either, but the mysteries revealed there seemed to mostly be taken as > fact. I think Carol said it well when she said "story structure and > narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final book" Alla: Hmmmm, story structure and narrative technique. It does help often enough, but how often in JKR books did we predict what was going to happen next? Besides DD death of course - Hero journey and all that. It is funny, really, because again believe it or not, I am pretty well versed in that stuff and oh so very often what you describe as your instincts telling you, my instincts are telling me same things. But I do know how many times my instincts had been wrong as to JKR plot developments in the past, therefore while I love to bet and predict, I am very VERY hesitant to be sure of what is going to happen. Sometimes authors can surprise you IMO. Like for example you know we are reading ( well rereading for me) War and Peace in my bookclub, hehe. I love that book, I really love that book. When I first read it at the young age of fifteen, of course I could not predict that Prince Andrew dies (sob), even though I was an avid reader at that age already. Now when I reread the book, I am thinking of the tradition of the young talented people who could not apply their talents in Russian literature of 19 century, I am thinking of Tolstoy's philosophy to go back to his roots, I am thinking of Russian tradition describing good hearted but rather dump people as characters. In short I can **totally** see that Andrew is a goner(sob), but even now, had I not remembered it, I could not in a million years predict who will become Princess Mari's husband. It was a *Huh?* for me and it still is, even after all these years. To go back to JKR, what I am trying to say that she totally tells the story in the ways we both expect and do not expect IMO. Dumbledore's death for example - sure, easy to predict, DD dying from Snape's hand IMO not at all. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 17:24:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:24:01 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166420 Carol earlier: > > So I really don't see how you can say that there was no plan to kill Dumbledore. > Jen responded: Okay, I see a very improbable plan presented, one in which Voldemort expects an underage and unqualified wizard to kill the second greatest wizard (in his opinion) in the WW, when he himself has been unable to do so. Carol again: And I see the Vanishing Cabinet Plan, which must have been carefully worked out between Draco and Voldemort or the DEs would not have orders from LV to make Draco try, as a very clever and highly successful way of invading Hogwarts, assuming that it succeeds. And the fact that Voldemort doesn't follow through on his threats to kill Draco and Narcissa shows that he wants it to succeed. If he only wanted Draco dead, he could have had Wormtail do it at any time. But, IMO, he has pressured Draco throughout the year, more intensely as the end of the year approaches, because he wants the plan to kill Dumbledore to succeed, whether Draco does the deed himself or not. The DE backup is supposed to help Draco find the nerve to kill DD and, failing that, to kill Dumbledore themselves. Otherwise, you have Voldemort expecting *Dumbledore* to kill Draco to satisfy LV's desire for vengeance, followed by LV sacrificing six of his remaining Death Eaters (all killed or defeated by Dumbledore), leaving him with only Wormtail, Goyle, Bellatrix, and about three others. Or you have the DEs killing Draco for failing to kill DD right in front of a living Dumbledore, which even LV would not expect to happen, and the Death Eaters somehow getting away. Neither scenario makes any sense whatever to me. Or you have some of the Death Eaters running off to kidnap Trelawney instead of following Draco to the Astronomy Tower, which does not happen. IMO, the DE backup were there to ensure that Draco killed DD or, failing that, they would kill DD themselves and either kill Draco, too, or take him to Voldemort to be punished. Voldemort cannot have expected them to fail. He has too few Death Eaters left to lose six of them (Amycus, Alecto, Brutal-Face, Greyback, the big blond, and Gibbon) on an expedition whose sole purpose was to get Draco killed (or to kidnap Trelawney, which just does not enter the picture). "It's over" means that the job the DEs and Draco were sent to do is done. If Voldemort *wanted* Draco (and the DEs) to fail, what were the DEs supposed to do when they faced a fully armed and still-powerful Dumbledore on the tower? They can't Disapparate from Hogwarts, as LV knows perfectly well. Were they supposed to die there or be knocked out by some spell and then arrested, leaving LV with about six Death Eaters total? I think that DD was supposed to be caught off-guard by Draco and disarmed, which, given DD's ostensibly slowed reactions (Snape's and DD's mutual cover story) would be possible, and then killed by the six DEs if Draco couldn't do it. (Probably, all six DEs were supposed to have reached the tower without delay; I don't think that LV anticipated any resistance from Order members--or none that his DEs couldn't handle. At least some back-up was supposed to be there the whole time.) Really, the plan is pretty good, Dark Mark and Astronomy Tower and all, especially given that neither Snape nor Dumbledore thought there was any way to get DEs into the castle. (Certainly, no one, not even Draco himself with his desperation measures, the mead and the necklace, expected Draco to kill DD alone. The DE back-up was an essential element of the plan.) But Trelawney as side motive? We see a bit of unplanned mayhem-- Greyback attacking people for his perverse idea of pleasure, the Gryffindor hourglass shattered, Hagrid's hut set on fire--but no one running off into the darkness caused by the Peruvian Darkness Powder to find Trelawney, no one left behind after the darkness passed to kidnap her or Ron and Ginny would have seen them. All of the DEs followed Draco, the only person who could see in the darkness because he held the Hand of Glory. (Wonder what happened to it? Left behind as incriminating evidence?) At any rate, Draco certainly expected to commit murder when he went up to the tower, whether he wanted to or not, and the DEs expected him to do it. That was the "job" he was assigned. (The DEs certainly don't seem to realize that he's there to get himself killed if that was really LV's plan.) Why Draco? Because he was the one with the Vanishing Cabinet idea and because he was highly motivated (at first) by youthful enthusiasm, self-confidence, loyalty, and, most important, desire for revenge--and if those motives and emotions weakened, he could be coerced by threats to himself and his mother. And if he failed, Voldemort would have his sweet revenge on Lucius. But given Voldemort's multiple motives for killing Dumbledore and his intense hatred for him, I don't think Voldemort wanted the plan to fail. And given the advantage of surprise, the trick of trapping Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower away from all help, DD's supposedly slowed reaction time and "serious injury" (Snape may even have told LV that it was a blackened hand), and six DEs as backup, I don't think he expected it to fail. I really think that Voldemort expected Dumbledore to die. Especially if he thought, as Draco and Bellatrix did, that Snape would try to "steal Draco's glory" and make sure the job got done. At least we agree that LV wants Dumbledore dead and that he doesn't trust Snape! Carol, quite sure that Voldemort's plan was indeed for Dumbledore, and perhaps Draco, to die that night, with Trelawney nowhere in the picture From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 17:03:02 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:03:02 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166421 Ceridwen: > The thing for me is, Harry does notice the staff being seated. > Since his recent run-in with Trelawney, which, as you mention, was > an important moment in Harry's life, I think he would have noticed > her missing. Dana: I can understand this reasoning too and it could very well be true but I do believe that the numb mind would be triggered more, to think about certain things, in the presence of stimulation than in the absence of it. And Harry is more used to her not being somewhere than to her presence. Her absence would be something that would register unconsciously and what would be thought about later. More like "now that you mention it, I indeed haven't seen her at the funeral" then something actively thought about at the moment itself. Ceridwen: > This was an important funeral. The funeral of Hogwarts' > headmaster, Trelawney's boss; the funeral of the former head of the > Wizengamot and the (former?) head of the International Wizarding > (Council?); the funeral of a headmaster murdered by one of the > teachers. Which of the staff would dare to stay away? Dana: Yes, this would then be talked about in the aftermath of something but never at the moment of absence itself. Trelawney never mingled with the other members of the staff, so to them in that moment it would not be strange that she would not be part of that specific group. Only in the aftermath when it becomes known that she indeed never showed up at all, would something actively register. For her it would not be OOC to slip in well into the service and sit in a back row seat. Ceridwen: > This was also the funeral of the man who saved Trelawney from being > turned out of Hogwarts not much more than a year before. It was > her information that was at the front of Harry's mind when he and > Dumbledore set out for the sea cave. I think he would have noticed > her missing. Dana: He would register her missing but not actively think about it in that moment,but I do think seeing her would have triggered some thoughts about what she said in relation to the events that happened later and the reason he is now at DD's funeral. Ceridwen: > And if he didn't, someone else within his hearing would have > mentioned something. I can't imagine McGonagall not saying > something > about Trelawney's ingratitude for everything Dumbledore has done > for her, if she didn't attend. In my opinion, the funeral would > have been the perfect place to set up the Missing!Trelawney mystery > for Deathly Hallows, but it wasn't set up. Dana: Yes, someone else might have noticed but I can't see McGonagall discussing her contempt about Trelawney's absence with Harry, she doesn't know about Trelawney's encounter with Harry or that it would be of any importance to Harry at all or even if it would be any of his concern. Harry himself does not get time to discuss it with anyone after the service as the MoM zeroes in on him and he has just broken up with Ginny. Ron and Hermione also are distracted by other things like making sure Harry does not cut them out of the loop. So, the moment for actively registering Trelawney was missing passed very quickly. Ceridwen: > I do love the idea. I go back and forth between Voldemort making > one last link with Harry at the end of OotP and hearing the entire > prophecy that way, and his kidnapping of Trelawney in order to get > that information. But I lean more toward one last mind link > between LV and Harry, simply because the attractive Missing! > Trelawney subplot was not foreshadowed at the perfect opportunity > for it to have been introduced. Dana: Well I do believe it was foreshadowed when Umbridge tried to remove Trelawney from Hogwarts the previous year and DD stepped in to prevent it, JKR makes a big scene out of it. Also Harry even meeting her that night foreshadows the prophecy still has an active role to play. We see that LV could not possess Harry for long in the MoM and that the reason for it was that the power the Dark Lord knows not made it unable for him to reside in Harry. The encounter told us three things: 1) Snape was the one who relayed part of the prophecy to LV 2) It was his reason for remorse (or at least part of it) 3) Snape saw who made the prophecy and therefore we know there is still an opportunity for LV to get his hands on it. The prophecy itself has always been a part of the main plot throughout the series. It is the reason Harry being a marked man, his parents' death, Snape's defection, Sirius imprisonment and death, Wormtail's betrayal, DD's choices regarding Harry and of course the driving force behind LV's reason for wanting to destroy Harry, his downfall and his comeback (the PoA plotline) My self I am swinging between LV indeed being successful to get his hands on her and DD thwarting him one last time. Of course if LV was able to retrieve it and learn the full content it would make him able to understand the part of him transferring his own powers onto Harry and he might indeed find a way to bypass it but eventually he will run into the same brick wall he found in GH when Harry at the last moment is able to activate the Lily inside him. The part of him that makes him truly his mother's son. The link would then come from LV using Harry's blood and not the curse and the transfer of power as it has been throughout the books and because he knows nothing of this power, him knowing the prophecy in full will eventually still not be enough to destroy Harry. Just a thought of course but I still hope DD thwarted LV because thinking about what LV would do to Trelawney to retrieve the memory is such a horrible thought but I would not put it pass JKR to put it in. Dana From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 18:08:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:08:22 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166422 Dana: > Yes, someone else might have noticed but I can't see McGonagall discussing her contempt about Trelawney's absence with Harry, she doesn't know about Trelawney's encounter with Harry or that it would be of any importance to Harry at all or even if it would be any of his concern. Harry himself does not get time to discuss it with anyone after the service as the MoM zeroes in on him and he has just broken up with Ginny. Ron and Hermione also are distracted by other things like making sure Harry does not cut them out of the loop. So, the moment for actively registering Trelawney was missing passed very quickly. Ceridwen: I wasn't too clear in what I meant. Sorry! Of course McGonagall wouldn't discuss one of the teachers with Harry, even though she invites him for the big meeting in her office later. I was imagining that Harry would be near her while she was talking to another teacher, or perhaps an Order member - say Flitwick or Molly Weasley - and overhear her talking about the "ungrateful Trelawney". Dumbledore came to Trelawney's rescue the year before, allowing her to stay in the castle when Umbridge was going to throw her out. I can see McGonagall being outraged at Trelawney's absence after that, and complaining to someone. If the scene was necessary for setting up the Missing!Trelawney scenario for the next book, JKR would have made it happen. After Harry breaks up with Ginny, he might wander past McGonagall as she's talking about it; or after he leaves Scrimgeour, he might happen to overhear her discussing it with Hagrid. Harry wouldn't even have to register it as anything more than talk, only realizing later, in DH, what it means. But the idea would be planted in the reader's mind, ready to be recognized in Deathly Hallows. Dana: > *(snip)* Just a thought of course but I still hope DD thwarted LV because thinking about what LV would do to Trelawney to retrieve the memory is such a horrible thought but I would not put it pass JKR to put it in. Ceridwen: I snipped way down because I agree with you that, whether or not LV now knows the entire prophecy, the steps he's already taken have negated anything he might have done to mitigate it. He's already made too many mistakes. I also agree that if LV got his hands on Trelawney, she would be in for a very bad time. Look at what he did to Bertha Jorkins. IF there was a plot, I also hope that DD foiled it in the end. Maybe DD did foil the plot, so she was at the funeral after all. ;) Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 18:44:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:44:34 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166423 Dana wrote: > [Trelawney's] absence would be something that would register > unconsciously and what would be thought about later. More like "now > that you mention it, I indeed haven't seen her at the funeral" then > something actively thought about at the moment itself. Carol responds: And yet, if that were the case, surely Harry (or more likely, Hermione) would have mentioned it in HBP itself. As a comparison, when the narrator mentions that the teachers are all undermining Umbridge by sending her to their classrooms to deal with escaped fireworks, the only teachers specifically mentioned are McGonagall and Flitwick. We don't have to conclude from that specific reference that some teachers, say, Snape (whose resistance to Umbridge we see elsewhere) are not doing the same thing. The narrator simply mentions two (whose loyalties happen to be unambiguous) to illustrate the point. Other staff members besides Trelawney are not named but are presumably included in "the staff." Does ghost Binns attend? Perhaps not. But what about Sprout and Flitwick? Surely, they were present, but they're not mentioned. The only staff members specifically mentioned, IIRC, are McGonagall, Hagrid, Madam Pince, and Filch. > > Ceridwen: > > This was an important funeral. The funeral of Hogwarts' headmaster, Trelawney's boss; the funeral of the former head of the Wizengamot and the (former?) head of the International Wizarding (Council?); the funeral of a headmaster murdered by one of the teachers. Which of the staff would dare to stay away? > Carol: Especially given that DD had been reinstated as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot and a member of the International Confederation of Wizards (OoP Am. ed. 846). > Ceridwen: > > This was also the funeral of the man who saved Trelawney from being turned out of Hogwarts not much more than a year before. It was her information that was at the front of Harry's mind when he and Dumbledore set out for the sea cave. I think he would have noticed her missing. Carol responds: I agree. Even Harry, who is not the most psychologically astute person in the WW and was to some degree preoccupied by his own grief, would have understood that Trelawndy had a motive to come down from her room (her own prediction of calamity had come true) and realized that Trelawney owed more to DD than she knew. He certainly would have noticed her missing, and he would have noticed an empty chair in the staff section, as he does whenever a teacher is absent from the staff table at a feast. > > Ceridwen: In my opinion, the funeral would have been the perfect place to set up the Missing!Trelawney mystery for Deathly Hallows, but it wasn't set up. Carol: Exactly. After all, we've been informed of the disappearance of the seemingly inconsequential Florian Fortescue and of Ollivander. I expect a follow-up on those mysteries (and perhaps on the Vance and Bones murders). And Harry is (I hope) going to figure out eventually that the barkeeper at the Hog's Head, whom he sees at the funeral, is the mysterious Order member, Aberforth Dumbledore. But there's no reference to Trelawney, not a hint that she's missing. "The staff" (minus Snape) are all present, or even Harry would have noticed. > Dana: > Well I do believe [the missing Trelawney subplot] was foreshadowed when Umbridge tried to remove Trelawney from Hogwarts the previous year and DD stepped in to prevent it, JKR makes a big scene out of it. Also Harry even meeting her that night foreshadows the prophecy still has an active role to play. Carol responds: Certainly, the Prophecy and Trelawney have a role left to play. Personally, I think that Prophecies are likely to come in threes, and we'll hear one last Prophecy. All Ceridwen and others are saying is that we have no hint that Trelawney has been kidnapped as of the end of HBP. As Ceridwen says, the funeral would have been the perfect opportunity to note her absence. I would not be at all surprised if an attack on Hogwarts is in the works now that Dumbledore is dead, and kidnapping Trelawney would be one motive of many for such a plot. But to suggest that Trelawney, who was denied her opportunity to speak with Dumbledore by Harry himself in OoP, was spirited away by Fawkes while the DEs (whom DD thought could not get into Hogwarts) were invading the castle is simply unsupported by evidence, as is kidnapping Trelawney as the primary objective of Voldemort's plot. Surely, Dumbledore or Draco or the DEs would have mentioned Trelawney if she were involved in the matter, but all we see is Draco explaining his Vanishing Cabinet Plan, saying that he has no choice but to kill Dumbledore, and the DEs urging him to do it (and offering to do it themselves). > Dana: > The encounter told us three things: > 1) Snape was the one who relayed part of the prophecy to LV > 2) It was his reason for remorse (or at least part of it) > 3) Snape saw who made the prophecy and therefore we know there is > still an opportunity for LV to get his hands on it. Carol responds: 1 and 2 I agree with. But 3 is your inference from the available information. Yes, young Snape saw Trelawney, but there's no indication that he knew who she was at that time or that he gave her name to Voldemort. To be sure, Dumbledore seems to assume that Voldemort knows who provided the information and is protecting Trelawney for that reason, but we can't infer that Voldemort has arrived at the same conclusion, much less that he is focusing his efforts solely on that objective. And if LV had thought about Trelawney earlier, I doubt that he'd be so upset about the broken Prophecy orb. It makes much more sense, IMO, to clear away the primary obstacle between himself and Harry, Albus Dumbledore, before he does anything else. And if it occurs to him to kidnap Trelawney as an alternative way to learn about the Prophecy, then surely Dumbledore's death is a necessary prerequisite to that, too. As Snape tells Harry in OoP, the staff and students are protected by a variety of ancient spells, and it's unlikely that a Death Eater could just climb up that rope ladder and kidnap Trelawney even if they knew where her office was (she wasn't teaching when they were students). And there's no indication that Dumbledore anticipates any such scheme. If he did, he's stay there to deal with the DEs himself, not commission Fawkes to do the job. Dana: > The prophecy itself has always been a part of the main plot throughout the series. It is the reason Harry being a marked man, his parents' death, Snape's defection, Sirius imprisonment and death, Wormtail's betrayal, DD's choices regarding Harry and of course the driving force behind LV's reason for wanting to destroy Harry, his downfall and his comeback (the PoA plotline) Carol responds: No one is questioning this point. I'm quite sure that both the Prophecy and Trelawney herself will play a role in DH. We're simply saying that there's no indication that Trelawney is already missing at the end of HBP. That she is in danger from Voldemort is not in dispute. Dana: him knowing the prophecy in full will eventually still not be enough to destroy Harry. Carol: Exactly. That's part of the irony of OoP. If Voldemort had succeeded in stealing the Prophecy, it would not have helped him--except to realize that he himself had "marked" Harry as the one with the power to defeat him. But Dumbledore didn't want Voldemort to know that. Better to stall him for as long as possible, making him concentrate his efforts on obtaining the Prophecy instead of starting the second war. And, of course, kidnapping Trelawney and obtaining the memory from her won't help him, either, but that wouldn't keep him from treating Trelawney as he treated Bertha Jorkins. Dana: Just a thought of course but I still hope DD thwarted LV because thinking about what LV would do to Trelawney to retrieve the memory is such a horrible thought but I would not put it pass JKR to put it in. Carol: Nor do I, if she can find a way to do so from Harry's pov. (The mind link seems to be blocked, fortunately for Harry but unfortunately in terms of the information the link provided to the reader.) I agree that Voldemort will go after Trelawney at some point. But I don't think that he's already made an attempt or that Fawkes has snatched Trelawney out of harm's way. She's still very much in danger, and with Dumbledore out of the way and Hogwarts virtually empty, now seems to be the time. Carol, noting that absence of evidence of Trelawney's presence at the funeral is not the same as evidence of her absence From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Mar 24 19:14:54 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:54 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166424 Carol: > And, of course, kidnapping Trelawney and obtaining > the memory from her won't help him, either, but > that wouldn't keep him from treating Trelawney as > he treated Bertha Jorkins. Dana: >> Just a thought of course but I still hope DD thwarted >> LV because thinking about what LV would do to Trelawney >> to retrieve the memory is such a horrible thought but >> I would not put it pass JKR to put it in. houyhnhnm: If she *has* a memory. I'm not sure she does. Trelawney doesn't have any conscious memory of either of the true prophecies she has made. Perhaps she is only a conduit. Her case is different, therefore, from that of Bertha Jorkins. That doesn't mean that Voldemort would not torture and kill her before finding out that she has no memory of the prophecy. Dumbledore would certainly want to protect Trelawney for her own sake, because he is humane. That is a different thing, though, from keeping her out of Voldemort's hands for tactical reasons and making it a top priority. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 24 19:58:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:58:08 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: <00c401c76db3$86675140$da92400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166425 > Magpie: > This is where Carol's and my arguments are getting mixed up. Threads can get > confusing.:-) It looks like it's actually you and I that are agreeing. Carol > is arguing that the mission is to kill Dumbledore, I'm arguing that it's > about Draco getting killed trying to do it. Which is why I now understand my > misunderstanding in the part that I snipped about Draco knowing the Order > wasn't there. Jen: I'm guilty of not reading the entire thread before posting, which didn't help matters. Now that I'm caught up, it's clear who is arguing what position. Sort of. > Magpie: > True. HBP is difficult in many ways because Harry isn't even the focus of > the plot we're seeing. JKR has to give us information all second hand and in > limited ways, or through eavesdropping. I assumed I was supposed to accept > it anyway, since nothing else was put forward and it fit with what happened. > If I'm going to accept anything else, somebody in canon would have to > suggest it to me and it might change the story, imo. Jen: Yes, it would help my arguments to have something more direct than possible story structure compared to other books and the omission of Voldemort's words as my foundation! Even though I agree with you about every other book in the series, it's harder for me to agree that we have to have a direct suggestion in HBP to make something possible for DH (not saying probable here, just possible). I don't know exactly what was in JKR's mind when she made the statement, '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' (website), but I don't think she's closing the door for one to look at what was happening in the middle of other books, think about what had been suggested directly and indirectly and then consider HBP in a similar light. Magpie: > I guess I thought that was one of the major themes of HBP, that this > throwaway thing Voldemort was doing while really being interested in other > things was something Dumbledore and Snape had siezed on for themselves. And > underestimating Draco (and thus kids in general) was also a theme, which is > why the invasion of Hogwarts was wonderfully anti-climactic. Not the > well-planned assault fans might have imagined, but Draco figuring out a > backdoor to save his family. Jen: I see everything you're saying is in the book, too! I don't mean to detract at *all* from what was to me a very beautifully written story, culminating in that moment on the tower between Dumbledore and Draco. This scene will always represent the theme of HBP for me personally, showing what makes Dumbledore so different from Voldemort, and Draco considering the opportunity to follow the path in his own heart instead of the path laid out for him by others. > Magpie: > That's a canon argument, you're right.:-) Though I still will wait to see if > it's connected to Voldemort's plan in the castle that night. None of the DEs > seemed to get anywhere near her. I am definitely open to considering where > Trelawney's going to be used now. Jen: I have nothing else to offer in the way of persuasion, either. > Magpie: > But he's *not* wasting time on the Malfoys. Telling Draco to kill Dumbledore > and seeing what happens takes no more time than any of the other ways he's > dealt with his followers. It's more like his trick on Peter with the hand > than an obsession. I'm up for finding out what else he was doing during the > year if it comes into DH, but I don't see temperment as any reason to think > he couldn't be punishing the Malfoys. He had good reason to be angry at > Lucius, and we've heard him go emo over followers who betray him. In the > graveyard, while he's telling Lucius to spend his time on better things, > isn't he making his followers listen to his big story and kiss his robes? Jen: That's true, he's not doing anything to make events happen that we are aware of except the occasional death threats. Bella is the one who seems to be expending the energy on Draco. This interests me, though. You mention Voldemort 'watching what happens' and above said 'Dumbledore and Snape had seized on' the events. Would it discount what happened in HBP for you, the way the characters acted and the choices they made, to find out they all did exactly what Voldemort expected them to do? That he put together the pieces about 'fools who love' and expected Narcissa would go to Snape as the natural choice after Lucius, that Snape could not refuse her, that Bella would want to drive a wedge between Snape and Draco (or anyone really), and that Dumbledore would do everything he possibly could to safeguard the students under his care at Hogwarts if DE's entered, including dying himself if that was the only way to make them leave? I don't mean to say Voldemort is omniscient and he planned every detail playing out exactly as it did. Rather, I see a reason behind JKR's choice to tell the story of Draco/Dumbledore while spooling out the transformation of Riddle into Voldemort at the same time. Voldemort underestimating the power love holds is a double-edged sword, it is his downfall, but also the core of his cruelest skill--'I can make bad things happen to those who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to.' His methods are more sophisticated now, he doesn't require only magical power to hurt people anymore. I would not be disappointed in the story we have to find out that Voldemort was 'behind' the events of HBP and whatever DH holds, not by literally moving the pieces on the chessboard but by pitting people against each other, spreading discord and enmity. So when I consider things like whether Trelawney was kidnapped or if Wormtail might be in the castle in rat form or whether LV wanted to retrieve the tiara Horcrux from the ROR (just threw that one in there for fun ), they are all plot-based ideas that could spring out of the Vanishing Cabinent. These last couple of paragraphs are what I would consider the crux of Voldemort having a 'bigger plan', a plan set in motion in HBP and continuing on into DH, with a revelation by Voldemort himself explaining how events came to pass. Jen From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 20:31:40 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:31:40 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166426 houyhnhnm: > If she *has* a memory. I'm not sure she does. > Trelawney doesn't have any conscious memory of either > of the true prophecies she has made. Perhaps she is > only a conduit. Her case is different, therefore, > from that of Bertha Jorkins. Dana: I do not agree that even though she herself cannot remember it consciously that this would mean the memory would not be there. We have seen in the several pensieve scenes that a memory can be looked at from a perspective that the owner of that memory would not have been aware of at the time the memory registered in the mind. Her mere presence in the room would make it possible to look at the scene from a third person's view and hear her tell DD the prophecy. Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 20:47:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:47:46 -0000 Subject: Did Snape see Regulus Wa: Readng the Runes: Literary Patterns in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166427 "Unspeakable" wrote: > 10. Harry learns something new about Snape; information on this enigmatic Professor has been tantalizingly drip-fed through the series: `someone' originally betrayed the Prophecy to Voldemort (`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.' OOtP37), we learned that this *was* Snape in HBP25; unfortunately, 'someone' also murdered Regulus Black (`No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person.' OotP6). On this basis, I think there is a good chance that Snape might have performed the murder, under duress; after all, JKR has hinted that as a Death Eater, he would have seen & done some terrible things Carol responds: My apologies for snipping almost the whole of this interesting and thought-provoking post. May I suggest that you present some of your ideas individually, which would make it less of a burden on your fellow posters to think about and respond to them? I wish I had time to go back and examine the structure of the individual books and follow up on these parallels. As it is, I'm confining my comments to portions of the paragraph on Snape. You're absolutely right that "information on this enigmatic Professor has been tantalizingly drip-fed through the series," and "tantalizingly" is exactly the right adverb--anyone familiar with the myth of Tantalus knows that to tantalize is to torment by offering glimpses of the things we crave only to have them snatched from our grasp. And many of us crave Snape snippets as Tantalus craved fruit and water. However, I disagree with your deduction that young Snape, himself only twenty or so at the time, would have been assigned to murder Regulus. Surely, that job would go to a cold-hearted killer like Dolohov, who murdered the Prewetts, or Travers (there's an Azkaban escapee we haven't seen yet!), who murdered the McKinnons. The idea that Snape has actually committed murder before he AKs Dumbledore is inconsistent with Bellatrix's sneering remark that he consistently "slithers out of action" and with his own mental anguish (if we DDM!Snapers are correct in our interpretation) as he looks into Dumbledore's eyes before he raises his wand and again when Harry shouts, "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!" Nor does JKR say in the interview you mention that Snape has "seen *and done* some terrible things" as a Death Eater. The question she's answering is whether he can see Thestrals, meaning whether he's seen someone die, and the answer is yes. She notes first that as an "older person" (adult), it would be very unlikely that he had not seen death because most of us "lose people and understand what death is." And then she adds tantalizingly (love that word), "But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that . . . ." (Note that she breaks off here for fear of revealing too much about Snape. And "lose people" implies that Snape has not just witnessed a death but lost someone he cares about.) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm The important point, however, is that JKR does not say "will have done" but "will have seen." And it seems to me very likely that one of the things young Snape saw as a Death Eater (in connection with his ability to see Thestrals) was the murder of Regulus Black "some fifteen years" before the date that Harry saw Regulus's name on the Black family tree (OoP Am. ed. 112)--IOW, around the time of Harry's birth, just at the point when young Snape might have received his first inkling of how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy. It's very likely that Severus knew Regulus at Hogwarts. They were only two years apart (Regulus was born in 1961, according to the Black Family Tree at the Lexicon, and Severus was probably born in January 1959--yes, I'm aware of the available evidence and the reasons for disputing that year of birth) and in the same house. Quite possibly, Regulus, who presumably did not get along with his brother, Sirius, would have been friends of some sort with Sirius's enemy, especially given Severus's talents with invented spells and so forth. It seems likely to me that their relationship (Sevvy's and Reggie's) was similar to that of Cedric and Harry, the two Hogwarts TWT champions, who were several years apart but on friendly terms most of the time, only somewhat closer (like Harry and the Weasley Twins) because they were in the same house and less competitive. In this connection, I think that Snape's reaction to Harry's memory of Cedric's death in the Occlumency lessons is relevant: " . . . Cedric Diggory was lying on the ground with blank eyes staring at him . . . . "'NOOOOOOOO!' "'Get up!' said Snape sharply. "'Get up! You are not trying, you are making no effort, you are handing me weapons! I told you to empty yourself of emotion!' "'Yeah? Well, I'm finding that hard at the moment,' Harry snarled. "'Then you will find yourself easy for the Dark Lord!' said snape savagely. '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--they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind with absurd ease, Potter!'" OoP Am. ed. 536, ellipses in original). Is Snape speaking here from personal experience? Was his reaction to Regulus's death something like Harry's reaction to Cedric's, and did the Dark Lord "penetrate his mind with absurd ease," prompting him to learn and master Occlumency in self-defense? Did the emotions he felt because of Regulus's death, the sadness and the horror of that murder, help to prompt young Snape's change of heart and his (re)turn to Dumbledore? I think it very likely, much more likely than his committing the murder himself. Maybe the understanding of death gained by witnessing Regulus' murder caused him to understand what Voldemort intended to do to the Potters or Longbottoms. (I don't think LV's plans were fully developed yet, however, or it wouldn't have taken him fifteen months to go after them.) But to return to the interview quotation--Not what Snape *did* as a Death Eater but what he *saw*--and felt. That, IMO, is what's important--what young Snape felt when he witnessed the DEs killing people he knew. Regulus's death must have made the threat to the Potters (and Longbottoms) more real in young Snape's mind. It made death real to him as Cedric's makes it real to Harry. And it's part, perhaps, of what Dumbledore was concealing from Harry--and JKR from us. At least, I think it's worth considering the connections between the death of someone young Snape must have known and his remorse for revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. Carol, wondering if the murder of Regulus was another of the memories that Snape placed in the Pensieve, along with his so-called worst memory From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 20:48:18 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:48:18 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166428 Dana: > I do not agree that even though she herself cannot remember it consciously that this would mean the memory would not be there. We have seen in the several pensieve scenes that a memory can be looked at from a perspective that the owner of that memory would not have been aware of at the time the memory registered in the mind. Her mere presence in the room would make it possible to look at the scene from a third person's view and hear her tell DD the prophecy. Ceridwen: We have no canon on how memories might work in this sort of circumstance, but I think so, too. Since Trelawney's brain and body, if not her mind, were still in the room, it's possible that she could have a memory that LV could watch in a Pensieve. Imagine the implications! He would see *everything*, from the interview with Dumbledore, to the prophecy, to Snape's arrival *after the prophecy*. Not quite the way it was explained to LV. Snape only supposedly overheard the first part and was thrown out before it ended. Ceridwen. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Mar 24 21:26:26 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:26:26 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Other staff members besides Trelawney are not named but are presumably > included in "the staff." Does ghost Binns attend? Perhaps not. But > what about Sprout and Flitwick? Surely, they were present, but they're > not mentioned. The only staff members specifically mentioned, IIRC, > are McGonagall, Hagrid, Madam Pince, and Filch. Hickengruendler: Just some minor points, because I agree with your overall point. Sprout was mentioned. I am sure Harry described her as looking as clean as he never saw her before, or something like this. Also, it was mentioned that all the ghosts were there, therefore probably including Binns. > > > > Ceridwen: > In my opinion, the funeral would have been the perfect place to > set up the Missing!Trelawney mystery for Deathly Hallows, but it > wasn't set up. > > Carol: > Exactly. After all, we've been informed of the disappearance of the > seemingly inconsequential Florian Fortescue and of Ollivander. I > expect a follow-up on those mysteries (and perhaps on the Vance and > Bones murders). And Harry is (I hope) going to figure out eventually > that the barkeeper at the Hog's Head, whom he sees at the funeral, is > the mysterious Order member, Aberforth Dumbledore. But there's no > reference to Trelawney, not a hint that she's missing. "The staff" > (minus Snape) are all present, or even Harry would have noticed. > > > Dana: > > Well I do believe [the missing Trelawney subplot] was foreshadowed > when Umbridge tried to remove Trelawney from Hogwarts the previous > year and DD stepped in to prevent it, JKR makes a big scene out of it. > Also Harry even meeting her that night foreshadows the prophecy still > has an active role to play. Hickengruendler: Sure, there is no doubt, that Voldemort might try to get his hands on Trelawney to get the Prophecy. And Harry knows this. So I really suppose Harry would have noticed it at some point, if the person Dumbledore tried to protect was suddenly misisng. Besides, McGonagall *knew* that Dumbledore tried to protect Trelawney. She was the first one to comfort Sybill, telling her that she would not have to leave Hogwarts. She is an Order member and the Order tried to protect the prophecy. They knew a prophecy existed and they probably knew it was done by Trelawney. Therefore someone would have noticed her missing! Therefore the scene in OotP makes it even less likely, that the Trelawney could just have been missing like that, since McGonagall knew Albus wanted to keep her in Hogwarts and would therefore try everything to search her, if she were missing. Or at least we would have seen her looking worried. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 24 21:55:03 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:55:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace References: Message-ID: <00cc01c76e5f$14e021d0$f178400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166430 >>> Magpie: >> >> Scabbers wasn't reversed. He was a surprise that detonated. Just > as Fake >> Moody was. This is more like if Fake Moody was revealed as being > Barty >> Crouch Jr. and then revealed to really be Rabastan LeStrange. Or > if Scabbers >> was revealed as really being Peter and then revealed to be Stubby > Boardman. >> "Everything is not as it seems" ends when we're told how things > really are, >> and after that we can usually accept that corrected information. > > Alla: > > I disagree. For three books we thought Scabbers was a rat and for > one book we thought Fake Moody was a real one. I think it was a > reversal of who we thought those characters are. Magpie: But there is a difference, imo. We thought Scabbers was a rat because he was a rat. There was no mystery around him. Then there was this surprise given to us--he's really a man! To do it again undermines the first surprise. PoA also included the surpise the Lupin was a werewolf and Sirius Black was the good guy. To change them again--to say that Lupin was really a vampire (or even also a vampire) the whole time or Sirius really was the murderer...it's throwing away an actual climax and making it sort of silly. There was only one surprise about Scabbers because his being a rat was not a surprise, it was his original state and not interesting to begin with. He was "not as he seemed" without us knowing it, but then we learned what he really was. It is a change in what we thought the characters were, but I don't really think you can pull more than once change like that on one character. If you do then the character ceases to be anything, because we know he can just change into something else. The real answer for who these people were is that they always were, and explains all of their actions, some of which don't make sense with the first reading. Rat!Scabbers doesn't explain his disappearance in PoA. Peter!Scabbers did. There can be more added, of course. Like with Snape whenever we learn more about him it can be a fresh surprise because it's always leading in the exact same direction--right towards Voldemort and Harry! > Magpie: >> I don't ever want to say that I know for sure what could and could > not >> happen--I'd probably be wrong! But there are things that do seem > like plot >> threads that are tied up vs. unresolved issues to me, and even if > they turn >> out to be overturned, I don't see a strong case being made yet for > why they >> are really unresolved, if that makes sense. The series wasn't > finished in >> GoF either, but the mysteries revealed there seemed to mostly be > taken as >> fact. I think Carol said it well when she said "story structure > and >> narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final > book" > > > Alla: > > Hmmmm, story structure and narrative technique. > It does help often enough, but how often in JKR books did we predict > what was going to happen next? Magpie: I think we often predicted what *wouldn't* happen next, which is what JKR said. I would say that, also, while I don't think fans have predicted specific twists that they often have predicted general things based on story structure and narrative technique. Though given how big and varied fandom is, any correct prediction came alongside a million wrong ones. (Of course, I might have been more aware of stuff like that anyway, since Draco-fans have often been heavy on the narrative structure stuff and all that.) The reason I think these particular examples work is that you can ask yourself whether the twist would make the story better or worse. Which version is more dramatic? It's never just about not being unpredicted. I knew without spoilers that Dumbledore was going to die in HBP, but I certainly didn't know how it would happen. I never guessed those particulars. I did a whole post on this once regarding GoF and the way that what makes it (and the other books) so satisfying even upon rereading is that we've always really been given hints of the truth, so that when we get it it clicks into place and explains everything, so you feel like you suspected even when you didn't. Alla: > Like for example you know we are reading ( well rereading for me) > War and Peace in my bookclub, hehe. > > I love that book, I really love that book. When I first read it at > the young age of fifteen, of course I could not predict that Prince > Andrew dies (sob), even though I was an avid reader at that age > already. > > Now when I reread the book, I am thinking of the tradition of the > young talented people who could not apply their talents in Russian > literature of 19 century, I am thinking of Tolstoy's philosophy to > go back to his roots, I am thinking of Russian tradition describing > good hearted but rather dump people as characters. > > In short I can **totally** see that Andrew is a goner(sob), but even > now, had I not remembered it, I could not in a million years predict > who will become Princess Mari's husband. It was a *Huh?* for me and > it still is, even after all these years. Magpie: I seem to remember having the same reaction.:-) But yeah, I would never want to underestimate JKR's ability to surprise, but I do think that while she surprises us on the particulars a lot of the books are very traditional and follow very classic methods of good storytelling. They're even more rigid than some, given the schoolyear pattern. So it's not even just a case of narrative technique but that we've been reading this woman's work for thousands of pages and certain ideas are just not what seems to interest her. I guess...going off on a tangent...I tend to see the stories within the books in really broad strokes in general and when something seems just not in keeping with what she "does" that's another reason it doesn't sound right to me. Like any theory that's about Voldemort's strategy and what Voldemort needs--I don't think Voldemort's that kind of villain. I've yammered on in the past about how I don't agree with the Cabinet First!plan in HBP, and part of the reason (besides not seeing even Voldemort acting in accordance with it, thus making it mushy) is that thematically it seems to screw up the story that seems to be so Rowling--right down to it being best not to look at the details and instead look at the operatic family drama. Jen: This interests me, though. You mention Voldemort 'watching what happens' and above said 'Dumbledore and Snape had seized on' the events. Would it discount what happened in HBP for you, the way the characters acted and the choices they made, to find out they all did exactly what Voldemort expected them to do? That he put together the pieces about 'fools who love' and expected Narcissa would go to Snape as the natural choice after Lucius, that Snape could not refuse her, that Bella would want to drive a wedge between Snape and Draco (or anyone really), and that Dumbledore would do everything he possibly could to safeguard the students under his care at Hogwarts if DE's entered, including dying himself if that was the only way to make them leave? I don't mean to say Voldemort is omniscient and he planned every detail playing out exactly as it did. Rather, I see a reason behind JKR's choice to tell the story of Draco/Dumbledore while spooling out the transformation of Riddle into Voldemort at the same time. Voldemort underestimating the power love holds is a double-edged sword, it is his downfall, but also the core of his cruelest skill--'I can make bad things happen to those who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to.' His methods are more sophisticated now, he doesn't require only magical power to hurt people anymore. I would not be disappointed in the story we have to find out that Voldemort was 'behind' the events of HBP and whatever DH holds, not by literally moving the pieces on the chessboard but by pitting people against each other, spreading discord and enmity. Magpie: That is interesting. I guess I would answer by saying that Voldemort does spread discord and enmity, and I think that's something he encourages in his followers. The stuff between Bella and Snape is, I think, typical for DEs and something Voldemort approves of, the way they jostle for position and try to bring each other down. Ditto on the way Bellatrix seems to then sew distrust in Draco for Snape. Draco is thus on the edge of the person he was (someone who trusted Snape) to someone who doesn't trust anyone. I don't think Bellatrix succeeds, btw. Draco, to me, comes across very much in HBP as someone who is challenging and angry at Snape, but still basically needs and-dare I say-loves him. I also think that merely giving Draco the task is an example of the way LV uses love against people, and shows what he thinks of it. Draco is a vulnerability for Lucius because Lucius cares about him. And he can make Draco jump through hoops for him simply by threatening his family. Voldemort has no such vulnerabilities, because he doesn't care about anyone. But I don't think he can go a step further than that. As someone recently said, and I agreed, a lot of Western Literature is based on the idea that good can understand evil, but evil can't understand good. I think Voldemort could probably plan to use Dumbledore's care for his students against him, but not conceive of the way Dumbledore handled Draco throughout the year. I suspect LV thinks Snape is even more like himself, and perhaps he admires him for that. I have no idea what the meaning behind the Vow is, but it pings me as a true secret from Voldemort, a symbol of the bad side starting to crack, more than something he'd arranged. To me it read like a sort of "beginning of the end" scene because Spinner's End so seemed like the kind of night to start things in motion that would have big consequences. So I guess I felt like the time of Voldemort just controlling his side was over. Obviously that's just a feeling. Have to wait for DH to really understand it. And I do think that a lot of HBP will only become clear with DH. It sort of ends with a feeling of a held breath. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 22:27:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:27:42 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace In-Reply-To: <00cc01c76e5f$14e021d0$f178400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166431 > > Alla: > > > > I disagree. For three books we thought Scabbers was a rat and for > > one book we thought Fake Moody was a real one. I think it was a > > reversal of who we thought those characters are. > > Magpie: > But there is a difference, imo. We thought Scabbers was a rat because he was > a rat. There was no mystery around him. Then there was this surprise given > to us--he's really a man! To do it again undermines the first surprise. PoA > also included the surpise the Lupin was a werewolf and Sirius Black was the > good guy. To change them again--to say that Lupin was really a vampire (or > even also a vampire) the whole time or Sirius really was the murderer...it's > throwing away an actual climax and making it sort of silly. Alla: But I agree with you. Yes, to change them again would be silly, not dramatic, pointless, absolutely. The only thing I am questioning is that ( sorry for being a parrot) whether based on HBP being a first part of two books, whether true change occurred yet, you know? It is like, I don't know, I guess the best analogy for me would be that PoA would be published in two parts and Scabbers is still a rat, you know? Does it make sense to you? > Magpie: > I think we often predicted what *wouldn't* happen next, which is what JKR > said. I would say that, also, while I don't think fans have predicted > specific twists that they often have predicted general things based on story > structure and narrative technique. Though given how big and varied fandom > is, any correct prediction came alongside a million wrong ones. (Of course, > I might have been more aware of stuff like that anyway, since Draco-fans > have often been heavy on the narrative structure stuff and all that.) > Alla: Yeah, Draco. As I mentioned before, hate him as I am, after book 6 my instincts are telling me that little bastard ( sorry, as I said I do hate him :)) would be redeemed, but do you think anything what happened so far stops JKR from doing what Cassie predicted? Like DE using him for something ( trap Snape or whatever) and Draco dying pointless death? I mean, what in narrative structure you see that may stop JKR from doing it? You may say it will throw out all the changes that Draco went through in HBP, discovering that he is not a killer, etc. And I will raise that the idea of Draco's story was indeed to show the pointlessness of civil war, the attempt of DD to save Draco's soul may have worked or not, but death does not pick and choose in war, etc. That Draco may have started to see that he is not a killer, but the fact that he involved himself in being Voldemort's minion came down to bite him in the ass, sort of like Regulus. ( I mean we know Regulus did something very heroic and his death likely was not pointless, but analogy IMO still stands). That's all I am saying really that we cannot be sure 100% what JKR planned, even though ( again, I find it amusing) I think you are right as to Draco. > Magpie: > I seem to remember having the same reaction.:-) > > But yeah, I would never want to underestimate JKR's ability to surprise, but > I do think that while she surprises us on the particulars a lot of the books > are very traditional and follow very classic methods of good storytelling. > They're even more rigid than some, given the schoolyear pattern. Alla: Yeah, they sort of are in that sense. But I raise you another question - what would prevail at the end , which pattern - coming of age story or hero journey path, what would influence the ending more? Can we predict that? I don't think we can for sure, personally. Magpie: So it's not > even just a case of narrative technique but that we've been reading this > woman's work for thousands of pages and certain ideas are just not what > seems to interest her. Alla: And again, I am not sure of that. Did you expect after OOP to see much more political stuff in the books? I know I did. I absolutely thought that JKR is interested in it and that we will see much broader picture of WW in HBP. Bureacracy in MoM, magical cooperation theme from GoF, they all appeared to me to be sort of dropped. ( Not quite, I grant you that, and it is possible it will resurfice in book 7, but still) I suppose she gave a nod on Stan Turnpike, but besides that? I agree with you that there are **some** themes she is interested in, but that is all I am willing to stipulate :) Magpie: > I guess...going off on a tangent...I tend to see the stories within the > books in really broad strokes in general and when something seems just not > in keeping with what she "does" that's another reason it doesn't sound right > to me. Alla: I hear you, yes, I just always make allowances that she can do something new . Magpie: Like any theory that's about Voldemort's strategy and what Voldemort > needs--I don't think Voldemort's that kind of villain. Alla: In general, I am not sure about that. Magpie: I've yammered on in > the past about how I don't agree with the Cabinet First!plan in HBP, and > part of the reason (besides not seeing even Voldemort acting in accordance > with it, thus making it mushy) is that thematically it seems to screw up the > story that seems to be so Rowling--right down to it being best not to look > at the details and instead look at the operatic family drama. > Alla: LOLOL. It is easy to not agree with Cabinet first, because it is not in the books so far. JMO, Alla From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 21:43:15 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:43:15 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166432 Ceridwen: > I wasn't too clear in what I meant. Sorry! Of course McGonagall > wouldn't discuss one of the teachers with Harry, even though she > invites him for the big meeting in her office later. I was imagining > that Harry would be near her while she was talking to another > teacher, or perhaps an Order member - say Flitwick or Molly Weasley - > and overhear her talking about the "ungrateful Trelawney". > Dumbledore came to Trelawney's rescue the year before, allowing her > to stay in the castle when Umbridge was going to throw her out. I > can see McGonagall being outraged at Trelawney's absence after that, > and complaining to someone. Dana: No, I think I understood you ;). The thing is that JKR doesn't have to put the missing Trelawney bit in HBP actively because the plotline of this book is about the events (Draco/ Snape) leading to DD's death. You do not put another climax into your climax and also this would be too big a distraction from the emotional load of the funeral scene. The big meeting with McGonagall in DD's office was before the funeral not after. Harry never talks to McGonagall after the funeral. His only interactions after the funeral are with Ginny, Scrimgeour, Ron and Hermione. There is no time for him to listen in on other people's conversations. Almost all other people we met as active characters are mentioned at the funeral but not Trelawney, she is more then just "the staff" in the story. Instead of making Trelawney's absence a distraction to the impact of the funeral scene her not mentioning Trelawney specifically can mean as much into itself. It doesn't have to be because there is no way to know until we see it ourselves in DH but it is strange that Trelawney is mentioned from PoA on to actively seek out Harry to give him her predictions but we do not see her actively seeking him out before or after the funeral either. Yet JKR found it important enough to include Trelawney just before the climax of the book. Why? It adds nothing to the plot line, it doesn't push the story forward because even her mentioning that someone in RoR was celebrating adds nothing specifically, even if it prepares the reader that something is going to happen, but we are already set up for that by Harry's own actions. The Snape part also adds nothing specifically to the plot of HBP or even the main plot because eventually the messenger of the prophecy has no importance to how the receiver of the message acts on it. And it says nothing specifically about Snape's loyalties because if he just defected because he had a lifedebt to the James (the only part this scene reflects on), then one could as easily conclude had it not been so, he wouldn't have come to DD for instance if LV had chosen Neville instead of Harry. The question that remains (one of many questions of course) after reading this book is why would LV chose Draco for a plan that had every likelihood of failing. We do not know if the DEs had orders to kill DD or to leave him be if Draco would not be able to. This is totally overshadowed by Snape's actions. They seem eager enough but that is proof of nothing as we see with the DE trying to crucio Harry while under orders to leave him for the Dark Lord, so if you take out the Snape line of the story then it doesn't seem like LV intentions were to kill DD because from the conversation in the beginning of the book, we are made to believe Draco will not be able to anyway and with his idiotic attempts, the reader is not given more confidence that Draco will pull it off. But Draco's task might have been a different one from LV's perspective and him succeeding in killing DD or not, might not have had any relation to the real task LV wanted him to perform: - getting access to Hogwarts and distracting DD long enough for others to perform a different task. The DEs we saw were clearly only part of Draco's task but this doesn't mean that those three people (Bella, Wormtail and maybe Narcissa) we see in the beginning of the book were not part of something executed at the same time and that this part of LV's plan will only unfold in the second part of the larger book -> DH. So it seems that even though the Draco plotline is ended in this book, LV's intentions for the whole set up is not clear. Just like Snape's reasons for taking the UV and killing DD are not clear. Or even how much DD knew is never made clear. Dana Ps: This is not a question specifically in relation to this post but I hear many people use the Diary destruction as a reason for LV to take revenge on Lucius but I can't find it being mentioned anywhere in the book 5 or 6 (and it was definitely not in 4) so could someone direct me to it. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this but it doesn't seem to be in the books but something that arouse outside of the books to emphasize why LV would be angry with Lucius. So if someone can help me out this will be greatly appreciated. (sorry for not using a separate post) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Mar 24 22:49:34 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:49:34 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166433 > Alla: > > Right, I totally see where Jen is coming from here. I mean, here we > come again to the what is truth and what is lie in Spinner End, I > guess. > > Truthfully, I would be delighted if everything that was said in > Spinner End was true, but since Snape's tale gets questioned so > exstensively, since when Bella and Narcissa are the most reliable > witnesses? Not IMO. > > I mean, Magpie is right that everything that was said fits what > happened in HBP, BUT IMO if something will be twisted ( and I am not > saying it would be), JKR can easily do it by showing Black sisters > lies. > Hickengruendler: Except that the chapter doesn't start with Snape. It begins with Narcissa and Bellatrix arguing, if Narcissa should go to Snape. And during this chapter Bellatrix says "This is a betrayal of the dark Lord's...". She is interrupted by Narcissa then, but I assume she wanted to say plans. That means if there is some secret pla with Voldemort involved, Bella does not know about it, which makes it highly unlikely. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Mar 24 22:55:14 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:55:14 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166434 > > Dana: > > Yet JKR found it important enough to include Trelawney just before > the climax of the book. Why? It adds nothing to the plot line, it > doesn't push the story forward because even her mentioning that > someone in RoR was celebrating adds nothing specifically, even if it > prepares the reader that something is going to happen, but we are > already set up for that by Harry's own actions. > The Snape part also adds nothing specifically to the plot of HBP or > even the main plot because eventually the messenger of the prophecy > has no importance to how the receiver of the message acts on it. Hickengruendler: Trelawney serves as a source for information, here. She is the one to tell Harry, that Snape was the eavesdropper. Since Dumbledore probably never would have told this Harry at this point (because he wanted to work the two of them together), JKR needed another character to give Harry and the readers this information. And Trelawney really was the most likely candidate, seeing that she was there as well. The other possible candidate would have been Aberforth, but it within the walls of Hogwarts it is much more likely for Harry to meet Trelawney than Aberforth. Not to mention that Aberforth as a member of the Order is more likely to stay quiet about this than Trelawney. (I only assume this, of course, sine we haven't properly met Aberforth so far). From muellem at bc.edu Sat Mar 24 23:30:12 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:30:12 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166436 > Dana > > Ps: This is not a question specifically in relation to this post but > I hear many people use the Diary destruction as a reason for LV to > take revenge on Lucius but I can't find it being mentioned anywhere > in the book 5 or 6 (and it was definitely not in 4) so could someone > direct me to it. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this but it doesn't > seem to be in the books but something that arouse outside of the > books to emphasize why LV would be angry with Lucius. So if someone > can help me out this will be greatly appreciated. (sorry for not > using a separate post) > colebiancardi now: I believe the biggest reason why LV is angry with Lucius is the failure of retrieving the prophecy from MoM - from Am Ed Hardcover HBP pg 34 "The Dark Lord will not be persuaded, and I am not stupid enough to attempt it", said Snape flatly. "I cannot pretend that the Dark Lord is not angry with Lucius. Lucius was supposed to be in charge. He got himself captured, along with how many others, and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the bargain. Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa, very angry indeed." However, earlier in the chapter, there is a clue that might point to the Diary and how careless Lucius was with it - pg 29. "He shares everything with me!" said Bellatrix, firing up at once. "He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful --" "Does he?" said Snape, his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief. "Does he still, after the fiasco at the Ministry?" "That was not my fault!" said Bellatrix, flushing. "The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious -- if Lucius hadn't --" I firmly believe LV is angry with Lucius about the event at the MoM, but I can see why some theories refer to the Diary and Lucius' careless handling of the property, just to get some petty revenge. The line about Bellatrix having been entrusted with the Dark Lord's most precious - precious what? secrets? plans? items? have prompted some theories that the next statement of "if Lucius hadn't --" could have been in reference to the Diary. colebiancardi From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 24 23:32:16 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:32:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace References: Message-ID: <00ed01c76e6c$a90e2bb0$f178400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166437 >> Magpie: >> But there is a difference, imo. We thought Scabbers was a rat > because he was >> a rat. There was no mystery around him. Then there was this > surprise given >> to us--he's really a man! To do it again undermines the first > surprise. PoA >> also included the surpise the Lupin was a werewolf and Sirius > Black was the >> good guy. To change them again--to say that Lupin was really a > vampire (or >> even also a vampire) the whole time or Sirius really was the > murderer...it's >> throwing away an actual climax and making it sort of silly. > > Alla: > > But I agree with you. Yes, to change them again would be silly, not > dramatic, pointless, absolutely. > > The only thing I am questioning is that ( sorry for being a parrot) > whether based on HBP being a first part of two books, whether true > change occurred yet, you know? > > It is like, I don't know, I guess the best analogy for me would be > that PoA would be published in two parts and Scabbers is still a > rat, you know? > > Does it make sense to you? Magpie: Oh yes, it does. And I think that there are a lot of things in HBP that have been set up exactly that way, so that we're now halfway through and on the wrong track about them. Definitely. > Alla: > > Yeah, Draco. As I mentioned before, hate him as I am, after book 6 > my instincts are telling me that little bastard ( sorry, as I said I > do hate him :)) would be redeemed, but do you think anything what > happened so far stops JKR from doing what Cassie predicted? Like DE > using him for something ( trap Snape or whatever) and Draco dying > pointless death? I mean, what in narrative structure you see that > may stop JKR from doing it? Magpie: I don't think there is anything preventing it. Before HBP the main story structure idea for Draco was about him being there for a reason, whatever that reason was. Dying could certainly be in the cards for him. I feel myself sort of leaning towards some kind of redemption because it seems like it's part of the victory, and like we need somebody to have made the choice to reject Voldemort and live on. But I can't say that that *must* happen. JKR might have something else in mind that will be just as "right" when it happens. I always felt that the "He's there for Harry to grow beyond him" didn't work structurally, especially since there seemed so little to grow beyond, but I'm not convinced that structurally Draco *must* have one ending or another. If I did I wouldn't be in suspense over what will happen to him and I have no idea how she'll handle it. I think, to go back to the topic of theings being unresolved, that we can assume that everything that happened in HBP will have gotten Draco to a place that he can't turn back from, whatever it is. So, for instance, when people suggest that Voldemort could just make him kill someone else that seems wrong because that spring has sprung, if that makes sense. Draco couldn't approach another murder as the same person--he's actually developed as a character, so would have to react differently to that situation the second time. > Alla: > > Yeah, they sort of are in that sense. But I raise you another > question - > what would prevail at the end , which pattern - coming of > age story or > hero journey path, what would influence the ending more? > > Can we predict that? I don't think we can for sure, personally. Magpie: Good point. There are certain things I'm expecting, like Harry reuniting with Ginny and living happily ever after. But I don't really have any sense of how the book will go at all. > Alla: > > And again, I am not sure of that. Did you expect after OOP to see > much more political stuff in the books? I know I did. I absolutely > thought that JKR is interested in it and that we will see much > broader picture of WW in HBP. Bureacracy in MoM, magical cooperation > theme from GoF, they all appeared to me to be sort of dropped. ( Not > quite, I grant you that, and it is possible it will resurfice in > book 7, but still) I suppose she gave a nod on Stan Turnpike, but > besides that? Magpie: Nope, I didn't expect more political stuff at all.:-) That is, I expected what we had before--the government being a beaurocracy and corrupt and getting in Harry's way. Not that I predicted HBP at all. I've said before that I think what happens in fandom is fans predict by writing more of the last book, not realizing that JKR has gone off to write the next book, which is always all different. Most post-OotP fics I read assumed it was going to be all DA all the time, and while I didn't predict what happened in HBP, I wasn't surprised that the DA was dropped. Things like government corruption have always seemed like one of the things JKR uses to arrange the more melodramatic situations about people in the books. Likewise stuff being done to fight the "war", like gathering alliances and visiting other people, always seemed totally outside of things JKR was interested in. That's why they're usually so vague. > Magpie: > Like any theory that's about Voldemort's strategy and what > Voldemort >> needs--I don't think Voldemort's that kind of villain. > > Alla: > > In general, I am not sure about that. Magie: I may have not been clear what I even meant by that vague statement.:-) It's hard to put into words, but Sydney wrote it out wonderfully in her post about villains. Voldemort does certainly have strategies that are there for Harry to deal with, but his plans seem to me to be pretty straightforward and symbolic, fitting him as a "monster" villain. Dana: Yet JKR found it important enough to include Trelawney just before the climax of the book. Why? It adds nothing to the plot line, it doesn't push the story forward because even her mentioning that someone in RoR was celebrating adds nothing specifically, even if it prepares the reader that something is going to happen, but we are already set up for that by Harry's own actions. The Snape part also adds nothing specifically to the plot of HBP or even the main plot because eventually the messenger of the prophecy has no importance to how the receiver of the message acts on it. And it says nothing specifically about Snape's loyalties because if he just defected because he had a lifedebt to the James (the only part this scene reflects on), then one could as easily conclude had it not been so, he wouldn't have come to DD for instance if LV had chosen Neville instead of Harry. Magpie: It added hugely to the plot of the book! For the HBP storyline it is what made Harry arrange for his friends to be on watch that night, and it was also an important moment in the storyline Draco was going through--we needed that beat. It was even more important that Harry learn that Snape was the eavesdropper, given he would never see Snape again after this night, and that he was about to see Snape murder Dumbledore. That part I think is probably important for DH, but it still, imo, winds up with Trelawney's little mishap at the RoR being a very important plot moment for different storylines in the series so not needing to be about Trelawney at all. Rowling's probably been saving that little nugget of info for Harry for a long time! And if Trelawney was missing I think that would need to be mentioned in some way also to set up DH. There is every reason to mention it, and for Harry to think about it. The end of HBP very, imo, self-consciously goes over things that are going to be important in HBP. Rather odd to to think that somebody was actually kidnapped that night and nobody noticed. Dana: The question that remains (one of many questions of course) after reading this book is why would LV chose Draco for a plan that had every likelihood of failing. We do not know if the DEs had orders to kill DD or to leave him be if Draco would not be able to. This is totally overshadowed by Snape's actions. They seem eager enough but that is proof of nothing as we see with the DE trying to crucio Harry while under orders to leave him for the Dark Lord, so if you take out the Snape line of the story then it doesn't seem like LV intentions were to kill DD because from the conversation in the beginning of the book, we are made to believe Draco will not be able to anyway and with his idiotic attempts, the reader is not given more confidence that Draco will pull it off. Magpie: Right, which is why "why would LV choose Draco for this plan?" is not a question that remains, because it's answered in the book: LV chose him to punish Lucius. One can think that that answer is a lie and will later be changed, but it's not unanswered within the book itself. Dana: But Draco's task might have been a different one from LV's perspective and him succeeding in killing DD or not, might not have had any relation to the real task LV wanted him to perform: - getting access to Hogwarts and distracting DD long enough for others to perform a different task. The DEs we saw were clearly only part of Draco's task but this doesn't mean that those three people (Bella, Wormtail and maybe Narcissa) we see in the beginning of the book were not part of something executed at the same time and that this part of LV's plan will only unfold in the second part of the larger book -> DH. Magpie: But there's no canon evidence there are any other DEs in the castle or anything else going on. It's expecting the book to disprove a negative by stating that there aren't other DEs besides the only ones we see, who make no reference to any other DEs, and there's no other DEs mentioned by anyone else either. Nor are there any hints that anything else has been done, including Trelawney being kidnapped. Dana: Ps: This is not a question specifically in relation to this post but I hear many people use the Diary destruction as a reason for LV to take revenge on Lucius but I can't find it being mentioned anywhere in the book 5 or 6 (and it was definitely not in 4) so could someone direct me to it. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this but it doesn't seem to be in the books but something that arouse outside of the books to emphasize why LV would be angry with Lucius. So if someone can help me out this will be greatly appreciated. (sorry for not using a separate post) Magpie: I don't have the page or chapter, but when Dumbledore reveals to Harry that the diary was a Horcrux that Harry destroyed Dumbledore says he "understood" that Lord Voldemort's anger was "terrible to behold" when he heard it was destroyed. I believe this may be what makes him say that "poor Lucius" is probably happy to be safe in Azkaban. So Lucius is really in the doghouse with Voldemort. He's failed him twice, and was already slippery. -m From juli17 at aol.com Sat Mar 24 23:35:01 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:35:01 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166438 > > > > Jen: There are many different ideas floating around right now. > > Of course I believe my thoughts on Trelawney are born in canon . > > Here it is, from a post in Feb.: > > > > Trelawney not attending the funeral could either way. Her staying in > > her room would be consistent with the Trelawney Harry has known for > > much of the series, if not exactly in OOTP and HBP when she started > > to venture out more. > > Hickengruendler: > > The problem, that I have with all "Trelawney got kidnapped" theories > is, that canon IMO suggests, that she *was* at the funeral. Granted, > she wasn't mentioned by name, but neither was Madam Pomfrey, for > example. Here is, what canon has to say. "The staff were seated last" > (p.598, UK edition). Not the staff except Trelawney, but the staff. > This, to me, suggests, that she was there. Not kidnapped, not taking > out of the castle by Dumbledore for reasons I still don't understand > (if he didn't expect to die this night, than why did he want Trelawney > to leave the castle anyway?), but at the funeral. Julie: We cannot know with certainty that Trelawney was not kidnapped. Perhaps she was kidnapped and no one happened to notice her absence. But I agree the lack of *any* mention of her at all makes me doubt she's missing. JKR has always played more than fair with us when it comes to dropping clues. For instance, if Harry had noticed Trelawney's absence, concluding that she was probably up in her office drinking sherry or something, *then* I might have become suspicious of her whereabouts. But the complete lack of mention seems more likely to indicate JKR just "forgot" (or saw no need) to mention Trelawney's presence at the funeral, just as she also didn't mention Madame Hooch by name. Listing every single staff member at the funeral might have gotten a bit tedious, methinks. Again, I'm certainly prepared to be wrong. I even think it would be quite interesting if Trelawney was kidnapped, not to mention it might heighten my limited respect for Voldemort's villanous abilities! But right now I just don't see it as very likely. Julie From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 23:33:51 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:33:51 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166439 Carol responds: > I agree. Even Harry, who is not the most psychologically astute > person in the WW and was to some degree preoccupied by his own > grief, would have understood that Trelawndy had a motive to come > down from her room(her own prediction of calamity had come true) > and realized that Trelawney owed more to DD than she knew. He > certainly would have noticed her missing, and he would have noticed > an empty chair in the staff section, as he does whenever a teacher > is absent from the staff table at a feast. Dana: But at the same time these arguments would validate him noticing her presence but he doesn't. There was no feast after the funeral. Carol responds: > Certainly, the Prophecy and Trelawney have a role left to play. > Personally, I think that Prophecies are likely to come in threes,and > we'll hear one last Prophecy. All Ceridwen and others are saying is > that we have no hint that Trelawney has been kidnapped as of the end > of HBP. As Ceridwen says, the funeral would have been the perfect > opportunity to note her absence. Dana: I agree that the funeral is a perfect opportunity for the reader to notice she is missing by actively cutting her out of the scene. (I know that is not what was meant to be said) >From Harry PoV there isn't enough time and interaction with other people to actively discuss her absence but it doesn't mean he didn't notice it. The hint is her not being mentioned at all while she had such a large impact on Harry's life throughout the series. Also Trelawney absence from the funeral might not alarmed anyone specifically in thinking that she is missing from Hogwarts completely. Just that it would be extremely rude of her to not attend the funeral. Carol responds: > I would not be at all surprised if an attack on Hogwarts is in the > works now that Dumbledore is dead, and kidnapping Trelawney would be > one motive of many for such a plot. But to suggest that Trelawney, > whowas denied her opportunity to speak with Dumbledore by Harry > himself in OoP, was spirited away by Fawkes while the DEs (whom DD > thought could not get into Hogwarts) were invading the castle is > simply unsupported by evidence, as is kidnapping Trelawney as the > primary objective of Voldemort's plot. Dana: Why would LV wait until DD is dead and then come back later? Draco is providing the access to Hogwarts and the distraction his task has on DD and, in this case the Order members provides the perfect opportunity while he doesn't know what the protection at Hogwarts will be after DD's death. I am not saying that LV could not overrun Hogwarts at any time after DD's death or that he will not have the intention to do that, but why risk it? It could be even more protected than when DD was there and losing the possibility to get his hands on the prophecy while he has been given access at that specific time? There is no evidence that LV's plan was for Draco to kill DD either - on the contrary it speaks highly against it. And Draco did not surprise anyone by showing he was indeed a murderer after all. Saying Draco was expected to die trying is also not true because we never have seen evidence that any Order Member has ever killed anyone and if LV never lost one of his minions at the "personal hand" of an Order member then he was not expecting they were going to kill Draco on the spot either. The ones LV lost through death were at the hand of aurors under Barty Crouch Sr's supervision. DD was prepared for the unimaginable, regardless of his own belief that it would not be possible to bring DEs in by having members of the Order patrol the castle in his absence, so it doesn't take much imagination that DD also planned some protection to the one thing LV was after the entire previous year - and if so, Fawkes' delay in showing his grievance about DD death could be a hint of his absence during the attack itself. (Yes, speculation that is all it is but what else have we to do while we wait and although not canon proof it neither contradicting canon either ;)) Why would it take Fawkes half an hour or more to realize DD was dead? You would think he would sense it right away. But it could very well be that he only started singing after Hagrid brought DD's body to him and that it is nothing more than that. DD knows Tom better then anyone and DD would also know that just sending Draco to murder him would be OOC for Tom to do this just so he could take revenge on Lucius. He would know Tom would have an alternative motive for choosing Draco for the task. But without any further information, like the absence of new data through Snape, this might have complicated him guessing what LV would be after if not his death or maybe DD really underestimated Snape and really believed with Snape's help he could hold LV off from whatever he was planning. Carol responds: > Surely, Dumbledore or Draco or the DEs would have mentioned > Trelawney if she were involved in the matter, but all we see is > Draco explaining his Vanishing Cabinet Plan, saying that he has no > choice but to kill Dumbledore, and the DEs urging him to doit (and > offering to do it themselves). No, they wouldn't because LV would not have shared this part of the plan with them and risk DD using legillimens on Draco, just as DD does not approach Draco for the same reason. DD would not discuss such a thing with Draco or anyone else because it is not Draco's concern. Draco only know his task as he has been ordered to do. I believe that the DE's that were present do not know more more than he does. Draco doesn't know who LV would send in to help him carry out his task, as is made clear when DD accuses him of endangering his friends by inviting Greyback but Draco said he didn't invite him. So even Draco isn't in the know about everything. Carol: > As Snape tells Harry in OoP, the staff and students are protected > by a variety of ancient spells, and it's unlikely that a Death > Eater could just climb up that rope ladder and kidnap Trelawney > even if they knew where her office was (she wasn't teaching when > they were students). Dana: You forgetting one thing and that is: Peter has been in Hogwarts in the first three years of Harry's residency. (Although the last year he might have been busy with other things). He could have provided information even if Snape did not. He also knows the castle better than anyone. Dana From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Mar 24 23:58:35 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:58:35 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166440 Dana: >> Ps: This is not a question specifically in relation >> to this post but I hear many people use the Diary >> destruction as a reason for LV to take revenge on >> Lucius but I can't find it being mentioned anywhere >> in the book 5 or 6 Colebiancardi: > I firmly believe LV is angry with Lucius about the > event at the MoM, but I can see why some theories > refer to the Diary and Lucius' careless handling of > the property, just to get some petty revenge. houyhnhnm: Dumbledore in "Horctuxes": "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold." . . . "Ah, poor Lucius . . . what with Voldemort's fury about the fact that he threw away the horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment." (HBP, Am. Ed., p.508) Told by whom, I ask. From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Mar 24 23:46:38 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:46:38 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166441 > colebiancardi now: > I firmly believe LV is angry with Lucius about the event at the MoM, > but I can see why some theories refer to the Diary and Lucius' > careless handling of the property, just to get some petty revenge. > The line about Bellatrix having been entrusted with the Dark Lord's > most precious - precious what? secrets? plans? items? have > prompted some theories that the next statement of "if Lucius hadn't > --" could have been in reference to the Diary. Dana: Thanks, I agree with you. Some posts made it imply that it was canon that LV found out the diary horcrux was destroyed but I had not seen it anywhere and couldn't find it and it made me think it was just part of a theory. Personally I think that if LV had found out that he would not have bothered taking revenge on Lucius through Draco; he would have taken him from Azkaban and killed him on the spot. Lucius caused a part of LV to die and never be able to aid in LV's immortality I do not think taking it out on his son would be enough punishment but that is just MHO. Dana From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 25 00:36:24 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:36:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? References: Message-ID: <014d01c76e75$9eebf000$f178400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166442 > Dana: > But at the same time these arguments would validate him noticing her > presence but he doesn't. Magpie: He says the staff is there, and she is part of the staff. > Dana: > I agree that the funeral is a perfect opportunity for the reader to > notice she is missing by actively cutting her out of the scene. (I > know that is not what was meant to be said) > From Harry PoV there isn't enough time and interaction with other > people to actively discuss her absence but it doesn't mean he didn't > notice it. > The hint is her not being mentioned at all while she had such a large > impact on Harry's life throughout the series. Magpie: That's not much of a hint. You seem to be saying that she's not there because Harry seeing the staff there with no exceptions (of course we know Snape isn't there) means Trelawney must not be there because he didn't specifically say she was there. Dana: > Also Trelawney absence from the funeral might not alarmed anyone > specifically in thinking that she is missing from Hogwarts > completely. Just that it would be extremely rude of her to not attend > the funeral. Magpie: I think Trelawney's absence from the castle after DEs invaded it would have alarmed a lot of people. Good reason for a head check, given all the mayhem. If we learn later that nobody noticed I'll think that's not playing very fair--and also wonder why on earth JKR missed the opportunity to give us that cliffhanger. > Dana: > Why would LV wait until DD is dead and then come back later? > Draco is providing the access to Hogwarts and the distraction his task > has on DD and, in this case the Order members provides the perfect > opportunity while he doesn't know what the protection at Hogwarts > will be after DD's death. I am not saying that LV could not overrun > Hogwarts at any time after DD's death or that he will not have the > intention to do that, but why risk it? Magpie: That you think Voldemort should have kidnapped Trelawney while Draco had DEs there is not proof that Voldemort thought he should do that, since there's nothing in the book that suggests that such a thing happened. Why didn't LV kidnap Trelawney when he had Crouch Jr. at the school making Portkeys? Dana: > There is no evidence that LV's plan was for Draco to kill DD either - > on the contrary it speaks highly against it. And Draco did not > surprise anyone by showing he was indeed a murderer after all. Magpie: I'm confused. Draco was *not* a murderer after all. Did you mean to say that? He surprised people by being able to get through the castle's defenses. Dana: > Saying Draco was expected to die trying is also not true because we > never have seen evidence that any Order Member has ever killed anyone > and if LV never lost one of his minions at the "personal hand" of an > Order member then he was not expecting they were going to kill Draco > on the spot either. The ones LV lost through death were at the hand > of aurors under Barty Crouch Sr's supervision. Magpie: That in no way means we can not say Draco was expected to die. Narcissa, a DE, believes he is expected to die. Snape does not disabuse her of this idea. Later Dumbledore says he would be expected to die. Draco says they all thought he would die in the attempt. That's far stronger evidence that he's expected to die than deciding for ourselves that since we've never seen a DE die by hand of an Order member's hand, everybody in the story is wrong--except Voldemort, who thinks like we do. Dana: > DD was prepared for the unimaginable, regardless of his own belief that it > would not be possible to bring DEs in by having members of the Order > patrol the castle in his absence, so it doesn't take much imagination that > DD also planned some protection to the one thing LV was after the entire > previous year - and if so, Fawkes' delay in showing his grievance about > DD death could be a hint of his absence during the attack itself. Magpie: But there's nothing showing Dumbledore doing this, or LV being after it. DD was not prepared for the unimaginable. He was caught unawares by DEs in the castle. He didn't prepare for it. It all went pear-shaped. Dana: > DD knows Tom better then anyone and DD would also know that just > > sending Draco to murder him would be OOC for Tom to do this just so he > could take revenge on Lucius. He would know Tom would have an alternative > motive for choosing Draco for the task. Magpie: I'm sorry, but isn't this a bit arrogant? You're essentially saying that DD naturally has to consider it OOC for Tom to do this even though no one in canon--including DD--says anything about it being OOC--because, as best as I can tell--*you* think it's OOC. No one in canon says anything about another motive or says there must be one because Voldemort would never do it this way. And again, Dumbledore has no idea DEs are coming to the castle and neither does Snape. So he can't be assuming anything to do with Death Eaters at all. If he's got some idea of a plot to kidnap Trelawney, that's going to be done by Draco too, in his mind. Dana: > No, they wouldn't because LV would not have shared this part of the > plan with them and risk DD using legillimens on Draco, just as DD > does not approach Draco for the same reason. DD would not discuss > such a thing with Draco or anyone else because it is not Draco's > concern. Draco only know his task as he has been ordered to do. I believe > that the DE's that were present do not know more more than he does. Draco > doesn't know who LV would send in to help him carry out his task, as is > made clear when DD accuses him of endangering his friends by inviting > Greyback but Draco said he didn't invite him. So even Draco isn't in the > know about everything. Magpie: So basically, everyone in the story has good reason for this whole plotline to be invisible to the naked eye? If it's not in the book, it's not in the book. One could just as easily argue that Voldemort had a plan to loosen the caps on every single salt shaker in Hogwarts. Only nobody noticed because everyone was too distraught to use salt the next morning. And Dumbledore secretly spirited all the salt shakers out of Hogwarts the night before. And none of the DEs we saw or Draco were aware of that plan. I know that at least Voldemort has some tactical reason to want Trelawney and she's established as being in more danger than the salt shakers, but otherwise it's the same problem: you can't disprove a negative. Dana: Thanks, I agree with you. Some posts made it imply that it was canon that LV found out the diary horcrux was destroyed but I had not seen it anywhere and couldn't find it and it made me think it was just part of a theory. Magpie: I assume you've now seen the answers that show that it *is* canon LV found out about it, with houyhnhnm finding the passage: "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold." . . . "Ah, poor Lucius . . . what with Voldemort's fury about the fact that he threw away the horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment." (HBP, Am. Ed., p.508) Dana: Personally I think that if LV had found out that he would not have bothered taking revenge on Lucius through Draco; he would have taken him from Azkaban and killed him on the spot. Lucius caused a part of LV to die and never be able to aid in LV's immortality I do not think taking it out on his son would be enough punishment but that is just MHO. Magpie: Killing his child sends a far worse message, and also brings Lucius into line. Voldemort isn't acting of rage, he's sadistically and coldly punishing Lucius, getting the entire Malfoy family under his thumb. The Ministry is what kicked off this plan, but there was also backstory that Lucius had also already destroyed the diary. -m From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Mar 25 00:34:25 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:34:25 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166443 > houyhnhnm: > > Dumbledore in "Horctuxes": > > "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been > mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told > that his anger was terrible to behold." > . . . > > "Ah, poor Lucius . . . what with Voldemort's fury > about the fact that he threw away the horcrux for > his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last > year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly > glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment." (HBP, Am. Ed., p.508) > > Told by whom, I ask. Dana: Thanks found it in my UKed (finally). Reading the text it seems he found out about it in OotP before the MoM fiasco. Pg 474 UKed Paperback: "but he was not aware, for instance, that the diary had been destroyed until he forced the truth out of Lucius Malfoy." End quote from canon. So I was definitely wrong thinking he would kill Lucius on the spot and it sure adds to the revenge issue although not to the rate of success such a plan would bring. I think DD was told by Snape, if LV found out the previous year before the MoM incident then Snape would indeed know this. Dana. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 00:58:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:58:56 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166444 > > colebiancardi now: > > > I firmly believe LV is angry with Lucius about the event at the MoM, > > but I can see why some theories refer to the Diary and Lucius' > > careless handling of the property, just to get some petty revenge. > Dana: > > Thanks, I agree with you. Some posts made it imply that it was > canon that LV found out the diary horcrux was destroyed but I had not > seen it anywhere and couldn't find it and it made me think it was > just part of a theory. Personally I think that if LV had found out > that he would not have bothered taking revenge on Lucius through > Draco; he would have taken him from Azkaban and killed him on the > spot. Lucius caused a part of LV to die and never be able to aid in > LV's immortality I do not think taking it out on his son would be > enough punishment but that is just MHO. zgirnius: People sometimes don't bother to type out canon, it is extra trouble. Though often worth it. Voldemort's wrath at Lucius when he learned of the Diary's destruction is not part of some fan theory or other, it IS canon. Permit me to remind you of Dumbledore and Harry's conversation about Horcruxes in HBP. > HBP, "Horcruxes": > "...but he was not aware, for instance, that the diary had been > destroyed until he forced the truth out of Lucius Malfoy. When > Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed > of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold." zgirnius: Not to belabor the obvious, but since Lucius was arrested at the MoM, this discovery by Voldemort predates the mission the failure of which you speculate is the true reason for Voldemort's wrath. Clearly, Voldemort decided not to just kill Lucius. Though, Lucius was probably wise to get himself arrested. Oh, and apropos of nothing, Severus Snape seems the most likely source of this bit of intelligence. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 25 01:34:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:34:32 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166445 Ceridwen: I'm combining quotes from a couple of posts because I think I'm near my five post limit tonight. Dana: > The Snape part also adds nothing specifically to the plot of HBP or even the main plot because eventually the messenger of the prophecy has no importance to how the receiver of the message acts on it. And it says nothing specifically about Snape's loyalties because if he just defected because he had a lifedebt to the James (the only part this scene reflects on), then one could as easily conclude had it not been so, he wouldn't have come to DD for instance if LV had chosen Neville instead of Harry. Ceridwen: The Snape part adds a lot to the plot. Dumbledore has apparently fudged the truth with Harry. He said the eavesdropper was ousted midway through the prophecy, but the seer says he was presented at the end of the prophecy. And since Harry has been growing angrier at Snape through the series, this adds something else for him to be angry about. It is setting up a crisis of spirit for Harry. Since his power is Love, this hate has to be brought to a white-hot heat, tempered, cooled, and done away with so Harry will be purged. He will become a better person for overcoming this hatred. It is essential for his character growth, I believe. It adds to Harry's very basic story. This discrepancy also says something about Dumbledore and possibly his loyalties. He is willing to mislead and fudge, even to Harry, to protect Snape. He may also be protecting Harry from the hatred he knows he will feel if he learns this. It also underscores again that Dumbledore plays his cards close to his vest. It is a character affirmation moment for Dumbledore. So it's more than just the raw information, at least that's the idea I got from the scene. Dana: > Why would LV wait until DD is dead and then come back later? Draco is providing the access to Hogwarts and the distraction his task has on DD and, in this case the Order members provides the perfect opportunity while he doesn't know what the protection at Hogwarts will be after DD's death. Ceridwen: But for LV to have had a concrete plan like this, he would have to have known that Dumbledore was going to be incapacitated in some way that night. In my opinion, he could not have forseen that Dumbledore would have drunk a potion that had him sliding down the wall pasty- faced, able (or willing) to be disarmed by a mere student. He would have to imagine a worst-case scenario of a healthy Dumbledore holding Draco at wandpoint, possibly torturing him and killing him. He would also have to imagine a Dumbledore who was, as we know, strong enough to take on several Aurors from the Ministry and use his phoenix to escape. He would have to imagine a Dumbledore in full faculties and ability and not trust everything his double agent has told him, because first, I think you're right and he doesn't trust Snape as much as Snape let on in Spinner's End; and second, he would have to imagine a Dumbledore who may deliberately mislead a known spy from LV's camp as to the nature and extent of his injury. Voldemort has been played as someone with the characteristic failings of a true potential Evil Overlord, but he is not deficient. He would have to have expected something much different and debilitating than what his people actually found. Dana: > (Yes, speculation that is all it is but what else have we to do while we wait and although not canon proof it neither contradicting canon either ;)) Ceridwen: I am in complete agreement with this statement. :) Dana: > DD knows Tom better then anyone and DD would also know that just sending Draco to murder him would be OOC for Tom to do this just so he could take revenge on Lucius. Ceridwen: But it wouldn't just take revenge on Lucius. It would crush Lucius as nothing else would. It would also send a very chilling message to the other DEs who have children: Nott, Crabbe and Goyle that we know of. If the suave Lucius can lose his child to Voldemort, so can they. Every DE is put on notice by this punishment. It isn't just them, it's their beloved children, too. LV has no personal understanding of love, but he does understand it as a weakness he can play to his advantage. That's what he tried to do to Dumbledore in the Ministry - use his love for Harry to devastate the old man. Only it didn't work with Dumbledore. The DEs are not Dumbledore. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Mar 25 01:35:25 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:35:25 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166446 Dana: >> I do not agree that even though she herself cannot >> remember it consciously that this would mean the >> memory would not be there. We have seen in the >> several pensieve scenes that a memory can be looked >> at from a perspective that the owner of that memory >> would not have been aware of at the time the memory >> registered in the mind. Her mere presence in the room >> would make it possible to look at the scene from a >> third person's view and hear her tell DD the prophecy. Ceridwen: > We have no canon on how memories might work in > this sort of circumstance, but I think so, too. > Since Trelawney's brain and body, if not her mind, > were still in the room, it's possible that she > could have a memory that LV could watch in a Pensieve. > Imagine the implications! He would see *everything*, > from the interview with Dumbledore, to the prophecy, > to Snape's arrival *after the prophecy*. Not quite > the way it was explained to LV. Snape only supposedly > overheard the first part and was thrown out before it ended. houyhnhnm: Surely there must be limits, though. No one would suggest that Snape has a memory of the entire confrontation with Peter Pettigrew that took place while he was knocked out in the Shrieking Shack that he could view in a Pensieve. Or that Harry has memories he could access of events that took place the many times he's been unconscious? Or that people remember scenes that take place while they are asleep? Would Dean or Neville have an extractable memory of a conversations that took place between Ron and Harry while either one was asleep? Since there is no explanation of the way that a prophetic trance works, it is difficult to place it on a continuum from memories formed during full waking consciousness on one end to unconsciousness on the other. Therefore, I am not at all certain that Trelawney would have an extractable memory of herself making the prophecy. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Mar 25 01:38:59 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:38:59 -0000 Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166447 > > > colebiancardi now: > > > > > I firmly believe LV is angry with Lucius about the event at the > MoM, > > > but I can see why some theories refer to the Diary and Lucius' > > > careless handling of the property, just to get some petty revenge. > > zgirnius: > People sometimes don't bother to type out canon, it is extra trouble. > Though often worth it. Voldemort's wrath at Lucius when he > learned of the Diary's destruction is not part of some fan theory or > other, it IS canon. Permit me to remind you of Dumbledore and Harry's > conversation about Horcruxes in HBP. > > > HBP, "Horcruxes": > > "...but he was not aware, for instance, that the diary had been > > destroyed until he forced the truth out of Lucius Malfoy. When > > Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed > > of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold." > > zgirnius: > Not to belabor the obvious, but since Lucius was arrested at the MoM, > this discovery by Voldemort predates the mission the failure of which > you speculate is the true reason for Voldemort's wrath. Clearly, > Voldemort decided not to just kill Lucius. Though, Lucius was > probably wise to get himself arrested. > > Oh, and apropos of nothing, Severus Snape seems the most likely > source of this bit of intelligence. colebiancardi now: ahhh, see I knew other posters would find this - missed me completely :) I think that LV gave the task of breaking into the MoM & retrieving the prophecy to Lucius based on the mishandling of the Diary. I agree that LV was very angry about the Diary, as canon points out, but not enough that he would have discarded Lucius. Did LV just give Lucius another chance to prove himself? And then, of course, Lucius failed in that and got himself arrested. That is when, IMHO, LV decided to seek revenge on Lucius, by giving Draco a task that was extremely difficult and probably impossible for Draco to do, as supported by Snape in "Spinner's End". Was the task really designed to get the Malfoy's back into LV's good graces or to seek revenge on Lucius' and Narcissa's only child by setting Draco up to fail? I can see why Narcissa turned to Snape and asked for the UV. colebiancardi (who, if she was Lucius, would have jumped ship to a country far, far away with his family after LV got very angry at the Diary incident...) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 01:51:12 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:51:12 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166448 > Dana: > > I do not agree that even though she herself cannot remember it > consciously that this would mean the memory would not be there. We > have seen in the several pensieve scenes that a memory can be > looked at from a perspective that the owner of that memory would > not have been aware of at the time the memory registered in the > mind. Her mere presence in the room would make it possible to look > at the scene from a third person's view and hear her tell DD the > prophecy. > > > Ceridwen: > We have no canon on how memories might work in this sort of > circumstance, but I think so, too. Since Trelawney's brain and > body, if not her mind, were still in the room, it's possible that > she could have a memory that LV could watch in a Pensieve. Mike: We do have the example of Dumbledore using "a great deal of skilled Legilimency to coax it [the memory] out" of Morfin Gaunt. So we know that a skilled wizard can "coax" a memory out of a reluctant wizard. But recall, the memory ends when "Morfin could not remember anything from that point onward". Since the same is true for Trelawney, that is she can't remember anything during the prophecy, why would anyone viewing the prophecy in a pensieve not get a stretch of *blank tape* during the prophecy delivery from Trelawney's memory? Secondly, does anyone think Voldemort, skilled as he may be at Legilimency, would try to "coax" a memory out of anyone? I don't. I think Voldemort would use the same method on Trelawney that he used on poor Bertha Jorkins, with probably the same devasting effect on Sibyll, if Voldemort ever got his hands on her. But that method would most likely not reveal anything to Voldemort that Sibyll couldn't have consciously known herself. The fact that she goes into a trance and seems to act as a conduit for the Prophecy Demons, means to me that she cannot provide that information that Voldemort would attempt to extract with brute force Legilimency. But none of this is true for Snape!! If Voldemort had access to a pensieve, why doesn't he just get Snape to provide him with his memory of that evening. Then Voldemort could wander around inside that memory as many times as he wants gathering all the info he wants. But Dumbledore doesn't believe that Voldemort has thought of this, and it is borne out by Voldemort's efforts in OotP vis-a-vis the prophecy orb. So maybe these Pensieves are quite rare items in the WW. Dumbledore seems to have quite a few things that other wizards don't. Is the Pensieve another of these things? > Ceridwen: > Imagine the implications! He would see *everything*, from the > interview with Dumbledore, to the prophecy, to Snape's arrival > *after the prophecy*. Not quite the way it was explained to LV. > Snape only supposedly overheard the first part and was thrown out > before it ended. Mike: Like I said above, he could have got this info from a Snape extracted memory, but I don't believe the same would be there from Sibyll's memory. So why doesn't he get it from Snape? What reason could Snape have used to beg off from giving Voldemort his memory of the event? Or did he even have to? Does Voldemort have a Pensieve to "replay" memories in? Or did Voldemort Legilimence Snape and discover that Snape's memory ended after the second line of the prophecy, just as he told LV? I think the last one is the most likely scenario, at least as far as Voldemort's probable actions go. Can't speak to what Snape, at age 22 or 23 could have done to block Voldemort's Legilimency from penetrating farther than he wanted. BTW, Snape's arrival after the prophecy is over was my basis for the Dumbledore Does Lie scenario that I've postulated. Just a side thought. Mike, who thinks Dumbledore protects Trelawney not to protect any more of the prophecy from reaching LV, but because he knows she would end up like Bertha Jorkins if LV got a hold of her. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 25 02:34:13 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:34:13 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166449 Dana: > The question that remains (one of many questions of course) after > reading this book is why would LV chose Draco for a plan that had > every likelihood of failing. > But Draco's task might have been a different one from LV's > perspective Pippin: It's hard to see why Voldemort would pursue punishing Draco when it brings him no closer to his larger goals -- *except* that from Voldemort's perspective, there may not *be* a larger goal. Punishing people by harming what they love is one of his oldest obsessions. -- "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. All I know is he and Billy had argued the day before." -- HB ch13 >From Voldemort's supremely selfish and egotistical point of view, taking over the wizarding world may only matter because organized wizardry would deny him the pleasure of punishing people as he pleases. Such an inversion of goals would be laughable if Voldemort were not so deadly, but that is the case with many RL dictators. Borgin says he will need to see the vanishing cabinet to know whether it can be fixed. Assuming that Voldemort knows as much, he can't have cared much whether that part of the plan was workable, or he would have been seeking some alternate means of getting DE's into the castle in case the cabinet couldn't be repaired. I think Voldemort expected that Draco would give up and suicidally (from LV's point of view) attack Dumbledore alone. But Draco had to be kept thinking that Voldemort did believe his plan could succeed, so there had to be some provision for Draco to summon DE's should the cabinet actually get fixed. I don't think Voldemort expected them to survive, in the remote possibility that they were used. He is recruiting new allies now, from the werewolves, the Giants and the goblins. His older followers deserted him when he needed them most, and he won't forget that. I think he's conducting a purge, or rather, he conceived the brilliant idea of letting Dumbledore conduct it for him. The purebloods would look askance at Voldemort's new army, so why not dispose of them? Along with Fenrir, who does not seem to show much reverence for Voldemort's commands. There's a historical precedent in Hitler's purge of the SA. Pippin still wondering very much if Fenrir was captured, and if not, how he managed to get away. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 05:08:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:08:16 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166450 Magpie wrote: I think Carol said it well when she said "story structure and narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final book" > Alla responded: > > Hmmmm, story structure and narrative technique. > It does help often enough, but how often in JKR books did we predict what was going to happen next? Carol now: I think you may have misunderstood me. I said that "story structure and narrative technique can tell use what *not* to expect. They can't really tell us what to expect, with a few exceptions--for example, we will certainly see a climactic encounter between Harry and Voldemort, and I think we can confidently expect Harry to triumph whether or not he survives. But my point was that JKR's story structure involves a wrap-up of the chief mystery or mysteries related to that particular book, and the narrative technique she generally uses to provide this wrap-up (exposition) is a dialogue between Harry and a central character or characters in that book: Quirrell and Dumbledore in SS/PS, Lockhart and Diary!Tom (and a bit from Lucius Malfoy and DD) in CoS; Lupin/Black/Pettigrew in PoA (with a bit from Hermione re the Time Turner); Barty Crouch Jr. in GoF; Umbridge and Dumbledore (with bits from Lucius and Bellatrix) in OoP; and Draco and Dumbledore (with a bit from Snape on the identity of the HBP) in HBP. The structure here borrows something from the detective story or mystery novel, not necessary a crime but some puzzle that the main characters are trying to solve using clues (or red herrings) is solved once and for all. Just as in a detective story, the obvious suspect is not the right one. SS/PS is an obvious example: we think that Snape is trying to steal the Stone and it's really Quirrell. In PoA, we think that Sirius Black is the murderin' traitor and that he's trying to kill Harry. Wrong on two counts: the traitor is Wormtail, and he's also black's intended victim. In GoF, we have a classic line-up of suspects: Professor Plum, erm, Snape; Igor Karkaroff; Madame Maxime; Mr. Crouch; Ludo Bagman; the supposed Mad-Eye Moody. The least likely suspect (setting aside Dumbldeore, McGonagall, and Harry himself) turns out to be the one who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. In books five and six, the detective novel structure isn't quite so clear, but the central mystery (the dreams of the corridor and what's in the DoM) along with the minor mystery of who sent the Dementors are resolved. By the same token, the central mystery of what Draco is up to and the minor (but intriguing!) mystery of the identity of the HBP are resolved in exactly the same way as the mysteries in the earlier books--exposition in the form of dialogue by key characters. To the extent that each mystery is resolved, the books are self-contained. We may get new developments or new ramifications from these resolved mysteries (Wormtail resurrecting Voldemort, for example), but as Magpie says, the resolutions aren't going to be unresolved. HBP is not, of course, quite like the other books, and its climax, the tower scene, is really the midpoint (close enough) of the two-part book that is HBP/DH. So while Draco has provided his exposition--we know exactly what he was up to and we thought was going on--and DD has contributed much but not all of what he knew, Snape has merely identified himself as the HBP. That minor mystery is resolved, just as the identity of the person who cast the Dark Mark and put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire is resolved. But the central mystery of snape's motives and loyalties, which has been in progress from the moment Harry first saw him and thought he caused his scar to hurt, has not been resolved. (I sincerely hope that we'll hear Snape's story from his own mouth--and not as an unlikely pre-death soliloquy--in DH, but we certainly have not heard it yet, or heard his story told from some other source, if any such person other than the now-dead Dumbledore could tell it.) Alla: > Besides DD death of course - Hero journey and all that. Carol: Just to clear up some confusion. I noticed that you referred to the hero's journey and the coming-of-age story as parallel concepts in a different post in this thread. The hero's journey, unlike the coming-of-age story (Bildungsroman) is not a genre. (Possibly you're thinking of the heroic quest, which is the primary genre of LOTR.) Forgive me if you know this already, but I know of several people who have been confused by these discussions in the past, so please understand that I'm trying to be helpful. I'm just using your remark as a take-off point for my own comments. The hero's journey is a paradigm, the stages in the sometimes metaphorical journey of every hero or protagonist as outlined by Joseph Campbell in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." He believes that all stories are just variations on the same story, whether that story is HBP or "A Tale of Two Cities" or "Charlotte's Web." Possibly there's some truth in this view, and certainly it has been influential, especially in Hollywood, but it should not be confused with the conventions of a particular genre. (It's possible, given JKR's comments on mentors, that she has made this same mistake, but I hope not.) JKR is, in fact, blending--and bending--the conventions of a number of genres, from the detective story/mystery novel to the school story/Bildungsroman to the heroic quest. Like Shakespeare, who, of course was working with drama rather than prose fiction, she blends comedy with tragedy. At any rate, unless there's another mystery to be resolved (where Snape's loyalties lie?), the structure of this book will probably revolve around the four remaining Horcruxes, much as GoF revolved around the three tasks, each a sort of mini-adventure and preparation for the final conflict with LV. And, almost certainly, there will be a confrontation with Snape. But that's about all we can glean from story structure, and it's not much help. Knowing story structure could not have led me, at least, to anticipate the events of HBP. Not even knowing the things JKR always does--a new DADA teacher in a cursed position, for example--could have led me to believe that Snape would kill Dumbledore (though I did anticipate that Dumbledore would die. And now, going back, I see hints all the way through: "As long as Dumbledore is headmaster. . . ." and variations on that sentence, in most if not all the books). Magpie wrote: I think, to go back to the topic of theings being unresolved, that we can assume that everything that happened in HBP will have gotten Draco to a place that he can't turn back from, whatever it is. So, for instance, when people suggest that Voldemort could just make him kill someone else that seems wrong because that spring has sprung, if that makes sense. Draco couldn't approach another murder as the same person--he's actually developed as a character, so would have to react differently to that situation the second time. Carol responds: In theory, I agree with you, although I think that Draco was at an impasse on the tower, standing "irresolute," and has not made up his mind which way he should go. He is, however, definitely at a crossroads, and if he's faced with another murder (not likely but possible), he will at least know now what murder is. Theoretically, looking at story structure again (or maybe character development, in this case), you don't normally have a character learning the same lesson twice. And yet JKR made what I consider to be that mistake with Ron. In OoP, he overcomes his debilitating self-doubts once the Twins leave and becomes a Quidditch champion ("Weasley Is Our King" takes on a whole new meaning unintended by its author, the pre-HBP, pre-arrest-of-his-father Draco Malfoy.) And yet in HBP, there he is again, lacking confidence until Harry tricks him into thinking that he's drunk Felix Felicis. But we've been there already. He shouldn't have to learn the same lesson twice. And I hope the same is true for Draco. Carol, hoping for surprises that don't involve unresolving resolved mysteries and that can't be predicted based on story structure or genre conventions From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 25 05:12:17 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:12:17 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Dana: > > The question that remains (one of many questions of course) after > > reading this book is why would LV chose Draco for a plan that had > > every likelihood of failing. > > > But Draco's task might have been a different one from LV's > > perspective > > Pippin: > It's hard to see why Voldemort would pursue punishing > Draco when it brings him no closer to his larger goals -- *except* > that from Voldemort's perspective, there may not *be* a larger goal. > Punishing people by harming what they love is one of his oldest > obsessions. > I don't think Voldemort expected them to survive, in the > remote possibility that they were used. He is recruiting > new allies now, from the werewolves, the Giants and the goblins. > His older followers deserted him when he needed them most, and > he won't forget that. I think he's conducting a purge, or rather, > he conceived the brilliant idea of letting Dumbledore conduct > it for him. The purebloods would look askance at Voldemort's > new army, so why not dispose of them? Along with Fenrir, > who does not seem to show much reverence for Voldemort's > commands. There's a historical precedent in Hitler's purge of the > SA. Quick_Silver: This actually strikes me as being a plausible idea...the concept of using Dumbledore to purge the Death Eaters for him. Especially when it's considered that Voldemort does have a new group of allies that he didn't have last time...the Dementors...and that they're increasing in numbers. As for Voldemort's larger goals I'm starting to wonder if that is actually the major mystery of HBP. From a logical standout (which the books often don't follow) if Voldemort didn't expect Draco to succeed at his task and die as punishment for the crimes of Lucius it raises a troubling question...how does he plan to kill Harry? I mean Harry turning 17 removes the protection from the Dursleys so that seems like the perfect moment to attack Harry, yet if he assumed that Draco would fail, then Voldemort was willing to strike regardless of Dumbledore's health at the time. Or was he planning something so large/deadly that he thought that he could kill both Harry and Dumbledore in one fell swoop. Another reason perhaps that there's no mention of Voldemort's master plan/goals is that they don't matter to Harry anymore except as something that has to be ignored. Harry can't hunt for the Horcruxs and battle Voldemort's scheme with the Order and the Ministry and attend Hogwarts at the same time. He needs to prioritize what he needs to do and stopping Voldemort has to take precedence over stopping one of Voldemort's plans. Quick_Silver From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 05:26:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:26:26 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166452 Carol brilliantly wrote: > So while Draco has provided his exposition--we know exactly what he was up to and we thought was going on--and DD has contributed much but not all of what he knew, Snape has merely identified himself as the HBP. That should be "what he thought was going on," not "we thought was going on." Apologies for the short post (and a sixth one at that), but the List Elves have asked me not to delete my posts and repost them with minor edits, and that sentence, I thought, could lead to confusion if left uncorrected. Carol, humbly accepting an imaginary Stinging Hex from the List Elf in charge and hoping not to receive a Howler From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 06:10:13 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 06:10:13 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Motives Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166453 We always presume that Voldemorts motive in HBP would be to "take over the world"--wizarding and or muggle...and begin by taking out DD. I do loathe Snape...any adult who antagonizes youngsters to such a great degree really has serious issues to say the least, and I simply have not been able to bring myself to to commit to Snape being anyone's man, including his own he has not developed enough... So, fed up with wondering about Snape, I began to wonder the one thing we never had first hand from Voldemort in HBP--his motive(we do not have Harry's visions or Scar reactions in HBP)...so we really don't see any of Voldemort's desires other than via the decades old memories of DD's from the pensieve. So given the curse on the DA job, Voldemort's desire for said job, Snapes attainment of it and DD's death...I'm beginning to believe that Voldemort didn't want the DA job, nor did he want DD dead(he could have done this at the job interview)..I believe Voldemort wanted unfettered access to Hogwarts. (sorry I just have the feeling that not just anyone can get upon the grounds with Hagrid being the "keeper of keys"--I think Hagrid knows more than Hagrid thinks he knows. or 2. to find some artifact, or 3. tap unknown stores of magic. 4. return to what he rightly felt should be his home. 5. to get knowledge from DD(either directly or indirectly). 6. to gain unfettered access to Harry. Snape killing DD may have really thwarted Voldie's plans if Voldie wanted info from DD. I'm beginning to wonder if Voldemort wanted information on the "Deathly Hallows" themselves... Given this, DD would not have given Harry info on the Hallows directly but shown Harry through Voldemort's story. (just in case the mind link was still there--if voldie, or even snape peeked in, then it would be about horcruxes). Perhaps the reason why Harry has never visited his parents graves is because they are kept safe via secret keeper at Godrics hollow. I think DD would have created a new "secret keeper for this spot" (perhaps Aberforth, I hope--would be just awful for Harry to find his parents graves desecrated)...if this spot was not protected then I'm sure DE's or Voldy would have vanalized said gravesites years ago and this would have been one of the things either DD or Hagrid would have told Harry. Also while examining this aspect of HBP I'm beginning to wonder if Voldemort will kill Snape himself--if not both Draco and Snape.. (although I think that if Draco will die it will be at the hands of Bella)... This would explain the lack of explanation during the Spinners End chapter between Snape and Narcissa, as well as Bella trying to dissuade her sister from confiding in Snape(she would have found out voldemort's orders during the lesson. No one knows the specific orders Voldemort gave Draco except Draco, Voldie...and perhaps Bella.. Doddie, (who is convinced Snape is a chess piece on both DD and Voldie's boards, yet unsure of which piece, and who is also sure that, Snape doesn't appear to have the emotional maturity to truly play the "double spy" he wants to be.) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 11:05:09 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:05:09 -0000 Subject: Fenrir Greyback a Muggle-born? (Was Re: Many other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166454 > Pippin > still wondering very much if Fenrir was captured, and if not,how he managed to get away. Goddlefrood: Changing the subject from people's favourite duplicitous character for a small observation. Giving credit where it's due (to Carol), the link provided to the Edinburgh Book Festival, 15th August 2004 wherein this was said: "Apart from Harry, Snape is my favourite character because he is so complex and I just love him. Can he see the Thestrals, and if so, why? Also, is he a pure blood wizard? 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." The bit that interested me was the last line suggesting that there may be a Muggle-born Death Eater among the ranks of those degenerates :< The link again for you: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm My view is that due to the description of werewolves in Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them (Obscurus Books, p.41), the relevant part of which is: "Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten" It is a fair possiblility that Fenrir Greyback was originally either a human himself, or if not a Muggle-born wizard. As to whether he was captured during the skirmish at Hogwart's my view is that he was, but there is no positive proof of this, more of a negative assertion, which is that as he was not shown to leave the Castle with the others who did escape he most probably was captured and sent to an appropriate containment facility. I certainly hope he was. If he was not then it was an extremely poor night's work for the members of the Order of the Phioenix who are not so far late and lamented. I also contend that the brutal faced Death Eater was captured for similar negative reasons, this time supported by two small facts: the first that Harry stupefied him and the second that Scrimgeour during the conversation after DD's funeral, burial or call it what you will ;), mentions to Harry that the Ministry was aware of a stupefied DE having been found atop the Tower. Goddlefrood, who was glad to get to this small point in Pippin's sign out after a further discussion on duplicity that he is not about to concern himself with :) From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Mar 25 12:16:15 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:16:15 -0000 Subject: How did WW learn LV evaporated? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166455 SSSusan wrote: > Or perhaps you're asking how people found out that Voldy had specifically* "evaporated," as opposed to their just knowing that *something* had happened to him at GH? Kvapost now: Yes, yes, sorry for not being clear. Actually, I was interested in both issues: 1) How did the WW find out about the massacre? This was explained by others but still leaves me surprised about just how quickly everyone started celebrating LV's "death" out in the open, the very next day after long years of total terror and being so afraid of LV. How come they shed all their fears and went berserk dancing in the streets and shooting fireworks. Poor king of the world Voldy has been working for years and years on keeping everyone properly oppressed, and as soon as he winked, everyone has instantly buried him virtually, even his DE's. Compare this with how slowly WW came back to believing LV was back. 2) Who confirmed actual evaporation of LV. In PS/SS Hagrid (upon his 1st meeting with the teenage Harry) only mentions that LV disappeared and some people reckon he's dead but he, Hagrid, suspects Voldie's not human enough to die, and that he must be in hiding, biding his time. So, Hagrid shows in this conversation that he's not aware of all the circumstances but at the same time he _does_ state that yes, it was a faulty AK curse and oh, what a miracle. How on earth does anyone know that? Carol wrote: > How did anyone from, say, the Ministry or the Daily Prophet, know that Voldemort had killed the Potters and then vanished rather than being killed himself? > what proof was there that Voldemort did it and that he was vaporized? >how did the Daily Prophet even know about the Boy Who Lived, whose scar was caused by a deflected AK that ought to have killed him? Kvapost now: Exactly my questions. DD must have indeed had some kind of wizarding "webcam" at Potters' house. But why would he? What exactly was the Potters all important mission? Carol wrote: > Dumbledore knew that the Potters were under attack, which is, IMO, a separate question. > Carol, hoping for satisfactory answers in DH to what now looks to her like a giant plothole Kvapost now: IMO, no way JKR would neglect such important issues in her very 1st book of the series. After all, she did plan the whole storyline of 7 books and subplots from the very start. From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sun Mar 25 13:24:02 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:24:02 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Seventh month and Power LV knows not Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166456 Hi everyone, Couldn't find any discussion on the issue and I have thought of it for a while, so there goes. Prophecy states that "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies". Maybe it is not about Harry's actual date of birth but rather about his 17th birthday when blood protection ceases. Who knows what surprise new powers will appear in him or replace the blood protection. The word "born" might be used figuratively and "the one [...] will be born" means "the entity/person that suddenly gets all the necessary power to vanquish LV as the 7th month dies". As for the power LV knows not, I think it is that he has never been loved by anyone and therefore has no such advantage/ancient magical protection (as opposed to Lily's for Harry, and as opposed to the usual interpretation of this prophecy line as "power to be able to love"). Any thoughts? Kvapost From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Mar 25 01:04:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:04:53 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: <014d01c76e75$9eebf000$f178400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166457 Magpie: > I think Trelawney's absence from the castle after DEs invaded it > would have alarmed a lot of people. Good reason for a head check, > given all the mayhem. If we learn later that nobody noticed I'll > think that's not playing very fair--and also wonder why on earth > JKR missed the opportunity to give us that cliffhanger. Dana: You're absolutely right. That kills the theory. Didn't think of that obviously. Dana before: > There is no evidence that LV's plan was for Draco to kill DD > either -on the contrary it speaks highly against it. And Draco did not >surprise anyone by showing he was indeed a murderer after all. > > Magpie: > I'm confused. Draco was *not* a murderer after all. Did you mean to > say that? He surprised people by being able to get through the castle's > defenses. Dana: >From the conversations we witnessed it was not meant for us to think he would be able to succeed and there was no surprise he wasn't indeed capable of murdering people. Yes, he did (bringing DEs into the castle) but now you have killed my theory so LV's bigger plan theory to gain access to the castle besides Draco's task has become invalid at least from this perspective. So although fun while it lasted it is back to the drawing board and stuffing old theories into the cupboard. Just one side note I do not think bring DEs into the castle is an achievement Draco should be proud of as this action makes him responsible for DD's death regardless of him pulling the trigger himself or not. The character growth Draco will experience from this and something he should learn from is finding out he isn't capable of murdering another human being, not from being able to outsmart people to plot an assassination attempt. JMHO Dana From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 25 16:19:58 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:19:58 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166458 Dana: > From the conversations we witnessed it was not meant for us to think he would be able to succeed and there was no surprise he wasn't indeed capable of murdering people. Yes, he did (bringing DEs into the castle) but now you have killed my theory so LV's bigger plan theory to gain access to the castle besides Draco's task has become invalid at least from this perspective. So although fun while it lasted it is back to the drawing board and stuffing old theories into the cupboard. Ceridwen: Make that "into the Vanishing Cabinet", Dana! You never know what those ideas will turn into, once someone gets them out. ;) For instance: If Draco did tell LV about the Vanishing Cabinet, why didn't LV use it for something besides a plot to get rid of DD via Draco's hand, which he didn't expect to succeed? He could have used this cabinet idea to sneak his own people into Hogwarts, even to come himself if he wanted, and wreak mayhem in the middle of the night, some night when such a thing was least expected. Reading along in this thread, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if LV had known about this very secret way into Hogwarts, he would have given Draco a much different sort of assistance, at least as far as the cabinet was concerned. Think of the access he would have had, with no one the wiser! Kidnap Trelawney, kidnap and/or kill Harry, sneak Wormtail in, sneak in a variety of Dark items without having to get by Filch's Secrecy Sensor. He could have snuck into the castle himself and killed Dumbledore, with no one, least of all Dumbledore, being the wiser. He could have made quite a spectacle, taking out Dumbledore at dinner, in full view of all the students, bringing in his DEs to surround the students and staff, killing anyone who dared to oppose him, then holding the remaining students and staff as hostages. If Draco died in the assault, he would have been a casualty of war. Lucius would still be punished, because LV would certainly have gotten the message to him that Draco's death was no accident. He could have saved face by killing Dumbledore himself, and he could have had the entire WW on its knees and ready to agree to his demands. Everything we've speculated about concerning LV getting into Hogwarts, could have been accomplished if only LV knew about the cabinets. Therefore, I propose that Voldemort didn't know the specifics of Draco's plan, or he would have used the Vanishing Cabinets to more advantage. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 25 16:33:20 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:33:20 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166459 > Magpie: > > I think Trelawney's absence from the castle after DEs invaded it > > would have alarmed a lot of people. Good reason for a head check, > > given all the mayhem. If we learn later that nobody noticed I'll > > think that's not playing very fair--and also wonder why on earth > > JKR missed the opportunity to give us that cliffhanger. > > Dana: > You're absolutely right. That kills the theory. Didn't think of that > obviously. Jen: Hold on a minute, Dana! I mean, you can bow out of course , but I think we're arguing omissions with omissions now. Just because there should have been a head count, there wasn't one on page. Trelawney's name isn't mentioned, so she must be 'staff'. People seem to be saying omission isn't a good enough reason for lack of presence and they will essentially feel JKR is not playing fair if Trelawney is absent without notice. Here's what I feel is not playing fair and why the storyline is *not* resolved to me in HBP: We see Trelawney twice wandering around the corridors in HBP with her cards. She has beseeched Dumbledore to listen to her, 'If Dumbledore chooses to ignore the warnings the cards show -' and a moment later, '- the lightning-struck tower,' she whispered. 'Calamity. Disaster. Coming nearer all the time...' (chap 25, p. 507, UK ed.) Trelawney has also been visiting Dumbledore frequently, 'the headmaster has intimated he would prefer fewer vists from me,' and not only is she discussing looming disaster, her visit in 'Lord Voldemort's request' is about a continuing struggle with Dumbledore to 'banish the usurping nag' from the castle. This is a continuation of what started in OOTP with Umbridge, Trelawney believing her legitimacy as a Seer is being questioned and 'Dobbin' is a visible reminder of this. She sums up her views on the situation to Harry saying, 'perhaps the horse has heard people say I have not inherited my great-great-grandmother's gift. These rumours have been bandied about by the jealous for years.' (chap. 25, p. 508, UK ed.) Trelawney correctly reading the cards in HBP, with a witness, would be a perfect opportunity for JKR to end the story arc, which essentially spans back to Trelawney's arrival on the scene in POA when the whispers of 'fraud' began and then are examined further in OOTP and continue into HBP. Not everyone in the WW would bow before her, but in Trelawney's mind she would be legitimized. Now perhaps JKR didn't want to have the comic relief of Trelawney inter- fering in Dumbledore's funeral, sobbing, telling everyone how she tried to warn Dumbledore. I can understand that, it was supposed to be solemn. She could have fit it somewhere in the hospital scene, it would be reasonable for Trelawney to have been awakened by all the noise in the 7th floor corridor not once, but twice, that night. Looking at the map on the Lexicon, the base of her tower starts on the 7th floor corridor. Re: Harry. I'd also like to point out he didn't remember the 2nd prophecy in POA until his memory was jogged by Dumbledore. I would have thought the conversation in the hospital room would have jogged his memory, or if not there, when he was thinking about his hatred of Snape later on. Another opportunity passed up by JKR to mention Trelawney What we get at the end of HBP is a big nothing. No mention of Trelawney when McGonagall, Flitwick, Slughorn, Sprout, Hagrid, Pomfrey Pince, and Filch are all mentioned by name and Trelawney is left in the illustrious company of Vector and Sinastra, who don't even play a role, and Binns, with his limited presence. We don't know how she felt about DD dying, we don't know what she thought of her prediction being true. Nothing. The kidnapping, whether someone buys it or not, was an attempt to fill in the gaps JKR didn't quite at the end of HBP. I would love to hear someone else's conclusion as to why JKR completely omitted Trelawney, not only after the events of her predictions, but the new information she revealed to Harry about Snape. Jen From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Mar 25 16:59:09 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 25 Mar 2007 16:59:09 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/25/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1174841949.39.77692.m48@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166460 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday March 25, 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 puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 25 18:37:17 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:37:17 EDT Subject: A Postscript (Was: Re: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166461 >G However, from the chapter currently under consideration, we can only determine that there were "about 50" (p. 126) wizards present. We cannot, unfortunately, determine whether all of them were *voting* members or indeed how old they were (although I can concede that it is a fair assumption [another tricky word to me - hate assumptions, prefer facts, but I digress]. I suggest that the cote was quite close, due to this passage: "Their were hands in the air, many of them ... more than half! Breathing very fast, he tried to count, but before he could finish, Madam Bones (not in any role as Chairman) had said, 'And those in favour of conviction?' Fudge raised his hand; so did half a dozen others, including the heavily-moustached wizard and the frizzy-haired witch in the second row." (p. 138) It takes a moment, as implied by the three dots, for Harry to determine that more than half had voted in favour of his being cleared of all charges, and from that I conclude that it was relatively close. We know for a fact from the passage quoted immediately above 7 members voted for conviction. I propose, based on this, that not all the "about 50" (q. v.) wizards and witches present were actually *voting* members of the Wizengamot for the purposes of Harry's trial ( Nikkalmati I find the time it takes Harry to count the votes very thin evidence for the proposition that all of the Wizenganot members present did not vote. He was under a lot of stress at the time and we don't know how well he could see from his position sitting below the benches. We do know that seven members voted for conviction and that the result was immediately evident. No recount was required. I propose that everyone present voted and that it was not close. Nikkalmati ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 18:55:52 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:55:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fenrir Greyback a Muggle-born? Message-ID: <700201d40703251155x2edfb0b5t33b50e8f31faa485@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166462 > Goddlefrood: > Giving credit where it's due (to Carol), the link provided > to the Edinburgh Book Festival, 15th August 2004 wherein > this was said: > > [JKR answers a question:] > "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." > > Goddlefrood continues: > The bit that interested me was the last line suggesting that > there may be a Muggle-born Death Eater among the ranks of > those degenerates. > > My view is that due to the description of werewolves in > Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them (Obscurus Books, > p.41), the relevant part of which is: > > "Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten" > > It is a fair possiblility that Fenrir Greyback was > originally either a human himself, or if not a Muggle-born > wizard. Kemper now: I get the impression that Fennir was/is a Squib. He hates Wizards so much. To experience that kind of hate, one is usually familiar with the object of hate either directly (victim of racism) or indirectly (reared/taught by racists). Harry and others use Peter's Maurader name in a manner that suggests betrayal. Voldemort and Snape use the name in a manner synonymous with vermin. They, and others, seem to abhor Peter. I think it is Wormtail who is the Mudblood Death Eater. He alone had the 'rare circumstance' of being close to the Order and the Potters. Kemper From juli17 at aol.com Sun Mar 25 18:59:48 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:59:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166463 doddiemoemoe wrote: > So given the curse on the DA job, Voldemort's desire for said job, > Snapes attainment of it and DD's death...I'm beginning to believe > that Voldemort didn't want the DA job, nor did he want DD dead(he > could have done this at the job interview)..I believe Voldemort > wanted unfettered access to Hogwarts. (sorry I just have the feeling > that not just anyone can get upon the grounds with Hagrid being > the "keeper of keys"--I think Hagrid knows more than Hagrid thinks > he knows. or 2. to find some artifact, or 3. tap unknown stores of > magic. 4. return to what he rightly felt should be his home. 5. to > get knowledge from DD(either directly or indirectly). 6. to gain > unfettered access to Harry. Julie: The main problem with all the theories that Voldemort wanted to gain unfettered access to Hogwarts is that he DID gain it in HBP. So why didn't he use it? Why didn't Voldemort invade Hogwarts with his whole army of DEs and Dementors instead of merely sending a handful of DEs with Draco? It doesn't track at all. I do believe Voldemort hoped to get rid of Dumbledore either via Draco (highly unlikely) or Snape (more likely). And *if* unfettered access to Hogwarts is part of Voldemort's ultimate goal, then removing Dumbledore can only be part of achieving that goal, or Voldemort would already be in place. There must be other restrictions we don't know about that kept Voldemort from taking over Hogwarts when he had a golden opportunity. If Voldemort does intend to take Hogwarts at a later date when he's achieved whatever is needed to do it on his own terms, then I CAN see him having prepared the way in HBP by secretly inserting someone to help him achieve that goal. Someone like Wormtail, for instance, who might be able to remove whatever barriers remain to Voldemort's complete control of Hogwarts. We'll just have to wait until DH to see though. > > Doddie, > (who is convinced Snape is a chess piece on both DD and Voldie's > boards, yet unsure of which piece, and who is also sure that, Snape > doesn't appear to have the emotional maturity to truly play > the "double spy" he wants to be.) Julie, who is also convinced Snape is a chess piece on DD and Voldie's boards, but also believes Snape is quite adept at being a double spy and will ultimately outwit Voldemort. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Mar 25 19:31:29 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:31:29 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166464 > > > Magpie: > > > I think Trelawney's absence from the castle after DEs invaded it > > > would have alarmed a lot of people. Good reason for a head check, > > > given all the mayhem. If we learn later that nobody noticed I'll > > > think that's not playing very fair--and also wonder why on earth > > > JKR missed the opportunity to give us that cliffhanger. > > > > Dana: > > You're absolutely right. That kills the theory. Didn't think of that > > obviously. > > Jen: Hold on a minute, Dana! I mean, you can bow out of course , > but I think we're arguing omissions with omissions now. Just because > there should have been a head count, there wasn't one on page. > Trelawney's name isn't mentioned, so she must be 'staff'. > > People seem to be saying omission isn't a good enough reason for > lack of presence and they will essentially feel JKR is not playing > fair if Trelawney is absent without notice. > > Here's what I feel is not playing fair and why the storyline is *not* > resolved to me in HBP: We see Trelawney twice wandering around the > corridors in HBP with her cards. She has beseeched Dumbledore > to listen to her, 'If Dumbledore chooses to ignore the warnings > the cards show -' and a moment later, '- the lightning-struck tower,' she > whispered. 'Calamity. Disaster. Coming nearer all the time...' (chap 25, p. > 507, UK ed.) > > Trelawney has also been visiting Dumbledore frequently, 'the headmaster > has intimated he would prefer fewer vists from me,' and not only is she > discussing looming disaster, her visit in 'Lord Voldemort's request' is > about a continuing struggle with Dumbledore to 'banish the usurping > nag' from the castle. This is a continuation of what started in OOTP with > Umbridge, Trelawney believing her legitimacy as a Seer is being questioned > and 'Dobbin' is a visible reminder of this. She sums up her views on the > situation to Harry saying, 'perhaps the horse has heard people say I have not > inherited my great-great-grandmother's gift. These rumours have been > bandied about by the jealous for years.' (chap. 25, p. 508, UK ed.) > > Trelawney correctly reading the cards in HBP, with a witness, would be > a perfect opportunity for JKR to end the story arc, which essentially spans > back to Trelawney's arrival on the scene in POA when the whispers of 'fraud' > began and then are examined further in OOTP and continue into HBP. > Not everyone in the WW would bow before her, but in Trelawney's mind she > would be legitimized. > > Now perhaps JKR didn't want to have the comic relief of Trelawney inter- > fering in Dumbledore's funeral, sobbing, telling everyone how she tried to > warn Dumbledore. I can understand that, it was supposed to be solemn. > She could have fit it somewhere in the hospital scene, it would be > reasonable for Trelawney to have been awakened by all the noise in the 7th > floor corridor not once, but twice, that night. Looking at the map on the Lexicon, > the base of her tower starts on the 7th floor corridor. > > Re: Harry. I'd also like to point out he didn't remember the 2nd prophecy > in POA until his memory was jogged by Dumbledore. I would have thought > the conversation in the hospital room would have jogged his memory, > or if not there, when he was thinking about his hatred of Snape later on. > Another opportunity passed up by JKR to mention Trelawney > > What we get at the end of HBP is a big nothing. No mention of > Trelawney when McGonagall, Flitwick, Slughorn, Sprout, Hagrid, Pomfrey > Pince, and Filch are all mentioned by name and Trelawney is left in the > illustrious company of Vector and Sinastra, who don't even play a role, > and Binns, with his limited presence. We don't know how she felt about DD > dying, we don't know what she thought of her prediction being true. Nothing. > > The kidnapping, whether someone buys it or not, was an attempt to fill > in the gaps JKR didn't quite at the end of HBP. I would love to hear > someone else's conclusion as to why JKR completely omitted Trelawney, > not only after the events of her predictions, but the new information she > revealed to Harry about Snape. > > Jen Julie: I guess it boils down to what would seem the bigger omission by JKR, not mentioning Trelawney's presence at the funeral (or why she isn't there), or not mentioning a huge furor over her total absence from Hogwarts in the aftermath of a DE invasion. To me it is the second one that would be the greater omission. That Trelawney could disappear and no one notices seems quite ludicrous to me. That Trelawney could still be safe at Hogwarts but not mentioned as attending the funeral or up in her room refusing or unable to attend is perhaps a bit of a lapse by JKR but it still doesn't come off as the kind of major error or deliberate cheat as Trelawney being gone from Hogwarts with no one even noticing does. I also think minor lapses do occur in JKR's writing while she has yet to deliberately fool us without dropping some kind of clue beforehand. And in this case, what's the advantage to hiding the fact that Trelawney was kidnapped during the DE fracas? We already know LV wants her, so it wouldn't be any huge surprise, or something that would tie together an unknown part of the final plot. Not that I can see anyway. Julie From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Mar 25 19:40:57 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:40:57 EDT Subject: A Postscript (Was: Re: A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166465 > Carol: > Fudge announces the "disciplinary hearing" (not trial, BTW) inquiring into offenses against two statutes by Harry James Potter of number four Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey, and adds: "Interrogators: Cornelius Oswald Fudge, Minister of Magic; Ameila Susan Bones, Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement; Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Undersecretary to the Minister. Court Scribe, Percy Ignatius Weasley" (OoP Am. ed. 138-39). > So I stand by my analogy that Fudge is acting as prosecuting attorney, with Umbridge as his assistant, and Madam Bones is acting as judge, with a bit of cross-examination mixed in. >G I take it from this that Fudge was the first amongst equals on the presiding body and the Chairman, so somewhat more like a Tribunal than a Court (although as mentioned the distinction is a quite fine one), and does not lead to any concession on terms (my preference being presiding body). This is confirmed to me by the fact that Fudge reads the charge at the beginning (p. 128), and, at the end of the hearing announces the not guilty decision. "Cleared of all Charges" (p. 138). Ms. Bones's function appears to be that of legal expert (reference - p. 131), not factual judge, she is, after all, the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. The entire Wizengamot, when the vote is taken is the arbiter (now there's a word for you) of fact. She certainly *is not * there as an arbiter of fact herself, except insofar as she is a member of the Wizengamot and has a single vote. >Goddlefrood In respect of the issue raised by Carol on my statement of fact, my point in my previous was simply that we have insufficient data to determine what the function of the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement is in respect of that office's position vis a vis the Wizengamot. I suspect (awful word, but often used) that like a majority of Courts or Tribunals the Chairmanship (or President, or howsoever your preference is to express it) changes. I also apprehend that I point to the fact that at the time of the hearings seen in GoF it is a reasonable extrapolition that the hearings had only recently been reinstituted (remembering what happened to poor Sirius only a year or so earlier). There are, as I am sure you know, three branches of Government in the RW, the judiciary is but one. The said Rukes relate to legislative matters and procedures for their conduct (a Parliament, in the US the Congress and Senate, being the legislative branch). So I chose not to engage further as I was writing from a judicial perspective, hope that satisfies. I am aware that the Congress and Senate in US conduct quasi-judicial proceedings, before I am engaged on that. As I also mentioned in 166206 (or perhaps in one of the earlier), the trials seen in GoF appear dissimilar from Harry's hearing. I leave that point there, while again stating that there is not enough evidence in canon to go on to form an adequate conclusion (for me) and refer to other comments above. There was no jury, it was a Wizengamot. I say this because there was no one present with the Judge's function of arbiter of law, IOW no one explained to the Wizengamot's members anything in respect of the relevant law under which the hearing was conducted. Madam Bones was, however, cast in the role of legal adviser to the proceedings, as I mention elsewhere. The word "Decree" in canon also suggests to me that there is no distinct legislature in the WW, unlike in the RW. I say this from deep knowledge of decrees. Also, due to certain matters in canon alluded to by Carol, there is a clear indication that the Wizengamot makes the WW's laws, as well as hearing complaints and charges under those laws and, therefore, is less than independent, as a judicial body should be. Hope that point is clear. It appears that the WW has no independent branches of Government, and at the end of the day, this appears to be why it's legal system, insofar as we have been shown, is in a mess (not a typical legal word ;)). (Thinking of Sirius again and some of the Draconian powers of Barty Crouch as exemplars). > >Carol responds: Yes, it's a fact. And I infer from that fact that Fudge, whose role ought to be purely executive, is interfering in judicial matters. (It seems that the WW already has no separation of powers with regard to the legislative and judicial branches. Fudge, possibly under Umbridge's influence, is making matters worse in OoP.) I keep forgetting to mention that Voldemort must have wanted Madam Bones dead not so much because she was a powerful witch as because she was fair and objective, possibly incorruptible, and held a powerful position. Fudge, in contrast, was easily manipulated, both by Umbridge (whose motives remain unknown but who does not seem to be a Death Eater) and by Lucius Malfoy, who definitely was/is a Death Eater. I remain convinced that, under Umbridge's influence, he took advantage of his position as Madam Bones's superior to share or take over some of her duties. She *ought to have been* in charge of Harry's hearing, with no interference from Fudge or his Assistant Undersecretary, and she did, like Crouch before her, ask the jury (the Wizengamot?) for its vote. In the GoF Pensieve scenes, the jury (and, yes, the term is used twice) is the witches and wizards on the right-hand side of the room. In Harry's hearing, it's less clear who is voting and who isn't. But Fudge, the Minister of Magic, ought not to be voting--or even present at a judicial function like a hearing. Madam Bones, acting as judge/chairman, asks for a show of hands, as Barty Crouch Sr. does in the GoF Pensieve scenes, but neither votes, as far as I can see. (It's exactly like any organization that operates under Robert's Rules of Order. The chairman does not vote.) Pathetic as the legal system is in the WW, they do at least seem to have an established procedure, as shown in the Pensieve scenes--three separate trials or hearings--which Fudge is doing his best to disrupt or interfere with. Carol responds: Yes, there is. I certainly did not invent the term. It's mentioned twice in the Pensieve scenes that I quoted upthread. To refresh your memory, here are the relevant quotes again (Barty Crouch Sr. is speaking in both instances): "Ludo Bagman, you have been brought here before the *Council of Magical Law* to answer charges. . . ." (GoF Am. ed. 592). And again, with the unnamed four accused of Crucioing the Longbottoms into insanity, "You have been brought before the *Council of Magical Law* so that we may pass judgment on you. . . ." (594). Now, exactly what this council is and how it relates to the Wizengamot is not clear, but apparently it's the same group as the jury that Crouch also mentions (and again, you've snipped the relevant quotes). Goddlefrood: > There was no jury, it was a Wizengamot. Carol: There certainly *is* a jury, identified as such, in the GoF Pensieve scenes. To quote again, Crouch says with regard to Bagman, "It will be put to a vote. *The jury* will please raise their hands. Those in favor of imprisonment--" (593). In the case of the Lestranges and Barty Jr., Crouch says, "I now ask *the jury* to raise their hands if they believe as I do that these crimes deserve a life sentence in Azkaban" (595). The jury is specifically identified as "the witches and wizards along the right-hand side of the dungeon" (595). In Harry's case, the jury is harder to identify, but it's clearly the group of people whom Madam Bones asks to vote "in favor of clearing the witness of all charges" or "in favor of conviction" (OoP Am. ed. 130). As in the scenes with Crouch, the vote is by a show of hands (130). Nikkalmati I think we have to look to what model JKR may have been using in her court proceedings to enlighten us as to what is going on here. We are safe, I think, to assume that the United States legal system(s) (there are actually 51 different systems, one for each state and the federal system) is not her model. It is instructive, however, to recall that the U.S. House and Senate can act as judicial bodies in cases of impeachment. It does appear that the Wizengamot at times acts as a legislative body and the Ministry of Magic as the executive. We have not seen an independent judiciary. The proceedings we see in GOF are by and large sentencing hearings. These trials were public spectacles and there do seem to have been many visitors there, as well as voting members. There is no evidence taken and no verdict. Karkaroff may have already been sentenced and was appearing again to request resentencing or he may have been convicted and was pleading for leniency in sentencing. It appears his cooperating testimony may have helped him as he had been released (on probation?) long before GOF. At any rate he had time to become headmaster at Durmstrang. The Lestranges etc. were there to hear the sentence proclaimed. The vote in favor of the recommended life sentence was unanimous. Bagman had either pled "no contest" or been found guilty, as no evidence again was taken. He did plead mitigating circumstances and the recommended sentence (which we never hear) was voted down. Harry clearly was being "railroaded" He was in serious danger of being found guilty "in absentia" because he was not made aware of the time and place of the hearing. It seems that he would not have been given a second chance (not much due process is due in the WW). Note that Mr. Weasley was not allowed to attend even as an observer at a trial of a minor. Harry has no representation; notice DD refers to himself as a witness, not an advocate. The pattern I perceive here is of the old Conciliar Courts, particularly the Council in the Star Chamber which handled the criminal jurisdiction of the Council in the 15th and 17th centuries (the Council in the Star Chamber was abolished in 1641). The Council exercised the King's extraordinary or residuary jurisdiction and did not apply common law, but relied on the civil law (derived from Roman law). "Apart from political offences, such as sedition, the Star Chamber took a particular interest in libel, forgery, perjury, riot , conspiracies and attempts. Prosecutions were brought by the Attorney-General, and prisoners were tried summarily by affidavit and interrogation." Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, (Buttterworths 1971). Sound familiar? Harry is interrogated by the presiding officers and, presumably, the Wizengamot is relying on previously filed affidavits and the charges brought by the prosecutor. If Madam Bones is acting as the prosecutor, she would ask questions but she would presumably not vote, but the rest of the Wizengamot could and would vote in its capacity as council to the executive. Fudge acted as Chairman. Although there were three interrogators, I suspect Fudge could allow others to ask questions, if they wanted. Nikkalmati ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 19:44:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:44:40 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166466 Ceridwen wrote: > If Draco did tell LV about the Vanishing Cabinet, why didn't LV use it for something besides a plot to get rid of DD via Draco's hand, which he didn't expect to succeed? He could have used this cabinet idea to sneak his own people into Hogwarts, even to come himself if he wanted, and wreak mayhem in the middle of the night, some night when such a thing was least expected. Reading along in this thread, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if LV had known about this very secret way into Hogwarts, he would have given Draco a much different sort of assistance, at least as far as the cabinet was concerned. Carol responds: I can't agree, Ceridwen. While *Snape* obviously doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan, only about Draco's assignment to kill Dumbledore (which he may think is what Narcissa means by "the plan"), that doesn't mean that *Voldemort* doesn't know about it. Both Narcissa and Bellatrix speak about "the plan," which appears to be Voldemort's, not Draco's. When she's trying to discourage Narcissa from going to Snape, Bellatrix says, "In any case, we were told not to speak of *the plan* to anyone. This is a betrayal of the Dark Lord's [trust?]--" (HBP Am. ed. 21). Later, Narcissa says, "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it. He wishes no one to know of the plan. It is . . . . very secret" (32). And so on. No one attributes this very secret plan to Draco. It's the Dark Lord's plan. And it has to be something more than a simple order to a sixteen-year-old boy to kill Dumbledore by any means possible, which would hardly qualify as a plan. And although even Dumbledore states that Voldemort probably expected him to kill Draco (592), which is evidently what Narcissa, who thinks like a DE, also expects, that's no reason to believe that Vodemort would not want "the plan" to succeed, with Dumbledore *and* Draco dead. Certainly, "the plan" is in operation by the time of "Draco's Detour," in which Draco threatens Borgin with Fenrir Greyback ("He'll be dropping in from time to time to make sure you're giving the problem your full attention," 125), hardly something Greyback is likely to do without authorization, or orders, from Voldemort. Clearly Voldie and at least one DE are in on the plan from the beginning. Later, the DEs speak about their orders from Voldemort, orders they wouldn't have if he weren't privy to, or in charge of, the cabinet plan. The brutal-faced Death Eater says, "We've got orders. Draco's got to do it. Now, Draco, and quickly" (594). (Greyback and Amycus, at least, would be perfectly happy to do it themselves, but my point is that their orders are from Voldemort, not from Draco, and Brutal-Face is ordering Draco, not the other way around.) I've already shown that Voldemort does indeed want Dumbledore dead http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166397 which ought to be obvious in any case after the humiliating defeat in the MoM. We all know that he's angry with Lucius, so if the plan fails, he'll take revenge on Draco for his failure. But if *all* he wants is revenge, why not kill Draco sooner? Draco tells Snape in December that his plan is taking longer than he expected (323), and evidently he's already receiving threats of some kind or he would not have resorted to desperation measures (the necklace and the mead), but not until April is he crying in the bathroom, and it's May when we hear him tell Moaning Myrtle about the death threats, which appear to result not from his failure to kill Dumbledore but from his failure to fix the cabinet: "I can't do it. . . . I can't . . . It won't work . . . . and unless I do it soon . . . . he says he'll kill me" (522). What won't work? Killing Dumbledore? That makes no sense. Can't do what? Clearly, fix the Vanishing Cabinet, which he's been trying to do since the first of the year, complete with polyjuiced guards on the RoR. Draco's whoop of triumph (542) indicates that he's finally succeeded in fixing the cabinet and "the plan" (getting the DEs into Hogwarts, etc.) can finally get underway. He's not thinking about "the job" at this point, only about "the plan." And the DEs are there, ready and waiting for him to summon them. Why? Because they're under orders from Voldemort to do so. Draco isn't killed despite the increasing intensity of the threats. Why not? Because, IMO, Voldemort wants his plan (or their plan) to succeed. He wants the DEs to get into the castle as backup for Draco and make sure that Dumbledore dies. And if Draco dies, too, all the better. The alternative to killing DD is to lose six of his remaining dozen or so DEs, killed or defeated by Dumbledore. So unless Pippin is right and Voldemort is deliberately thinning the ranks of his Death Eaters (including the loyal and reasonably competent Brutal-Face, who is only put out of action because Harry Petrifies* him from behind), I think he *must* have believed Snape's story that DD was getting old and his reactions were slowed. (Note Snape's telling Bellatrix that DD *has been* a great wizard, as if he is no longer a threat. I think that's what Snape and DD want Voldemort to believe. Neither, of course, can anticipate the potion that will fatally weaken Dumbledore and actually make his death possible.) The Death Eaters are not following Draco's orders. The Hand of Glory and Peruvian Darkness powder are part of "the plan," as is the Dark Mark to lure DD to the Astronomy Tower. But their orders are to see that Draco murders Dumbledore. It's clear from their reactions that, had Snape nor arrived, most of them would have been eager and willing to do the job themselves. It's possible that Voldemort wanted Draco to fail, but I doubt that he wanted the DEs to fail as well. Bellatrix does *not* expect Draco to fail, and she's giving him what help she can (mostly to thwart Snape). Clearly, some DE has Imperio'd Rosmerta, and there's no indication that it's Draco himself (though the coins are his invention, copied from Hermione, whom he must have overheard in the library in OoP). Narcissa expects Draco to fail, not because she doesn't think he can fix the cabinet and bring in the DEs but because she thinks that Dumbledore will kill him. Snape, who doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan, does knows that DD won't kill Draco, but he also knows that Voldemort is angry with Lucius and apparently starts to think that Narcissa is right; Draco's life is in danger, but from Voldemort, not from Dumbledore. Voldemort, however, *does* know about the Cabinets, as Draco tells DD himself: "I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years" (586). Not "I had to kill you so I figured out that the best way was to smuggle in Death Eaters by fixing the Vanishing Cabinet." He *had to* fix it, having figured out that the two cabinets formed a passage between Hogwarts and B&B and informed Voldemort about it. That was "the plan." That was what Voldemort wanted him to do, and the only reason for doing so was to bring Death Eaters into Hogwarts as backup to force Draco to kill DD or die trying. Obviously, Voldemort knew about the cabinet and had assigned Death Eaters (including Greyback) to be on the alert, ready to invade Hogwarts. And we know their orders. For them, at least, the job was to get Draco to kill DD. Failing that, they were perfectly willing to kill DD themselves, orders or no orders, as Voldemort would know. Even Snape says, "He wants Draco to try *first.*" That doesn't mean he (LV) doesn't want someone else to try if Draco fails. We really don't know what Voldemort expects. JKR has carefully kept his thoughts concealed from us throughout HBP. All we have is the deductions of other characters: Dumbledore, who is trying to persuade Draco that he's not a killer; Snape, who doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan and evades a direct answer regarding whether LV wants Draco to fail; Draco himself, whose views and emotions change as "the plan" fails or succeeds and seems not to think about "the deed" at all until he's actually faced with killing Dumbledore. LV may or may not expect Draco to fail in killing Dumbledore, but he certainly wants him to succeed in bringing DEs into the castle. That's what the death threats are all about. And once the DEs are inside and DD is trapped on the Astronomy Tower, it's inconceivable that he would want not only Draco but the DEs to fail. Surely, once they're there and DD is disarmed, Dumbledore is *supposed* to die. Possibly Snape is right that "he intends me to do it in the end" (34). Perhaps LV is counting on Snape's trying to "steal [Draco's] glory" yet does not trust him enough to confide the details of "the plan." And obviously, it is Voldemort's plan as well as Draco's or the DEs would not have their orders from LV himslef. In any case, there can be no question that LV hates Dumbledore, no question that Dumbledore is "the only one [Voldemort] ever feared," no question that Dumbledore is an obstacle to killing Harry (as Snape points out to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End"), no question that, with Dumbledore gone, Hogwarts will be more vulnerable to attack. And we know how Voldemort feels about Hogwarts and its secrets. Why on earth would Voldemort want "the plan," which he clearly does know about and probably engineered along with Draco, to fail? I can see him wanting Draco to die, killed by Dumbledore, but surely he wants Dumbledore dead, too, and his few DEs returned to him. (I disagree that his new allies, the Dementors, will take their place. He needs the DEs to do what only wizards can do.) Carol, who confidently expects an attack on Hogwarts in DH now that its chief defender is gone * Scrimgeour says that the DE was Stupefied, but either he's mistaken or JKR is, in which case, Scrimgeour's words are a Flint. Brutal-Face (Yaxley?) is clearly Petrified (597), as is Greyback (598). From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 25 20:21:20 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:21:20 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Seventh month and Power LV knows not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166467 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kvapost" wrote: > > Hi everyone, > Couldn't find any discussion on the issue and I have thought of it > for a while, so there goes. > > Prophecy states that "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark > Lord will be born as the seventh month dies". Maybe it is not about > Harry's actual date of birth but rather about his 17th birthday when > blood protection ceases. Who knows what surprise new powers will > appear in him or replace the blood protection. The word "born" might > be used figuratively and "the one [...] will be born" means "the > entity/person that suddenly gets all the necessary power to vanquish > LV as the 7th month dies". Geoff: I hate to be a bit of a wet blanket, but I don't see that you have a hook in canon to hang this theory on. I know that there are parts of the prophecy which have been the subject of intense scrutiny ever since we read about the darned thing coming from Trelawney's lips. However, I think that the beginning is pretty specific: "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.." (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.741 UK edition) I do not see how 'born' can be used figuratively in this context because it says 'born to those' which would normally refer to actual birth, hence towards the end of July 1980. If your theory was viable, I would expect the prophecy to be something like - 'The one born to those who have thrice defied him will receive the power to vanquish the Dark Lord...' - and canon, in my opinion for what it is worth, just doesn't introduce that element of an event in the distant future. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Mar 25 20:30:37 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:30:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace References: Message-ID: <014201c76f1c$7368e490$ef92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166468 Magpie wrote: > I think, to go back to the topic of theings being unresolved, that we > can assume that everything that happened in HBP will have gotten Draco > to a place that he can't turn back from, whatever it is. So, for > instance, when people suggest that Voldemort could just make him kill > someone else that seems wrong because that spring has sprung, if that > makes sense. Draco couldn't approach another murder as the same > person--he's actually developed as a character, so would have to react > differently to that situation the second time. > > Carol responds: > In theory, I agree with you, although I think that Draco was at an > impasse on the tower, standing "irresolute," and has not made up his > mind which way he should go. He is, however, definitely at a > crossroads, and if he's faced with another murder (not likely but > possible), he will at least know now what murder is. Magpie: Yes, that's basically what I mean. Draco is at the crossroads, so he must take a road. He can't go back down the road he came, if that makes sense. It's not as big of a change as it would be if, for instance, he had rejected Voldemort and declared for DD or vice versa, he can't regress into the same ignorance and naivite that this story was somewhat about. So I think the Draco of DH, whatever he is, would be working with the knowledge he gained in HBP. Carol: > Theoretically, looking at story structure again (or maybe character > development, in this case), you don't normally have a character > learning the same lesson twice. And yet JKR made what I consider to be > that mistake with Ron. In OoP, he overcomes his debilitating > self-doubts once the Twins leave and becomes a Quidditch champion > ("Weasley Is Our King" takes on a whole new meaning unintended by its > author, the pre-HBP, pre-arrest-of-his-father Draco Malfoy.) And yet > in HBP, there he is again, lacking confidence until Harry tricks him > into thinking that he's drunk Felix Felicis. Magpie: I had the exact same reaction to Ron's story in HBP. I was surprised he seemed to get the same story twice. Though I think there's a difference there for Ron in that Ron's story isn't part of the Voldemort story, but the school story. I assume it's just supposed to be funny that Ron has this problem, and in HBP it was used more towards the R/Hr romance. There are times that I think Rowling makes weak choices regarding structure. People have discussed, for instance, how they wish Harry didn't get full points in the second task because it seems to undercut what he does. I felt so strongly that Gryffindor should lose the Quidditch cup in OotP I actually thought they had until I re-read the book. (I also thought Harry should have missed the Snitch in the last game he played.) These aren't things that ruin the book, of course, but they are things that stood out to me as the weaker choice and I think it did, in my mind, relate to structure and the best way to put across the message. Ceridwen: Everything we've speculated about concerning LV getting into Hogwarts, could have been accomplished if only LV knew about the cabinets. Therefore, I propose that Voldemort didn't know the specifics of Draco's plan, or he would have used the Vanishing Cabinets to more advantage. Magpie: I have always assumed this was a possibility. Narcissa, Bellatrix and Snape in Spinners End are, I assumed, discussing Draco's assassinating Dumbledore. Draco is, imo, hiding the Cabinet from Narcissa as well as Snape. I can easily imagine Voldemort has no idea how Draco plans to do the murder. The DEs know that Draco is supposed to perform the murder, so presumably Voldemort has given them leave to go to Hogwarts if Draco can get them in there, but he may not know how. Or he may not know at the moment Draco is given his task, which is before Draco visits Borgin. It's unclear how much Draco can do without Voldemort's knowledge, but he could have access to certain DEs for help without having to run by everything he's doing with them. By the time Draco is crying in the bathroom the Cabinet has become his last hope, so I don't think "It won't work..." has to mean that Voldemort is after him about the Cabinet. Why should he be, since the Cabinet isn't necessary for killing anyone, not being deadly in itself (Draco knows this too, as evidenced by the necklace and mead)? Draco just knows that if it (the Cabinet) won't work he doesn't think he'll have any alternate method. I think Voldemort's happy to let him twist all year, since he knows that at the end of the year he'll be able to kill him for failing. The plan of fixing the Cabinets itself has always seemed Draco's baby from beginning to end. He thought he could kill DD with backup and to get DEs into the castle he had to fix the Cabinets. It was very unlikely he'd be able to do it, given that it takes him so long to do it even working all the time, and even Borgin isn't sure it can be done without seeing it. The school wasn't willing to try to fix it. If Draco hadn't fixed the Cabinet I don't think Voldemort would have cared one way or the other, if he knew the details. Obviously he doesn't have any great plans for DEs in the castle if Draco succeeds. He could know Draco hopes to get back up in to help him without knowing how, and assuming whatever Draco is up to won't work. The cool thing about the Cabinet Plan is that only Draco could do it because he was a kid and a Slytherin who would listen to Montague. It reflects the whole underestimating of the kids. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 20:45:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:45:36 -0000 Subject: Unresolved things in the books WAS: Re: LV's bigger plan LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166469 > Alla: > > Besides DD death of course - Hero journey and all that. > > Carol: > Just to clear up some confusion. I noticed that you referred to the > hero's journey and the coming-of-age story as parallel concepts in a > different post in this thread. The hero's journey, unlike the > coming-of-age story (Bildungsroman) is not a genre. (Possibly you're > thinking of the heroic quest, which is the primary genre of LOTR.) > > Forgive me if you know this already, but I know of several people who > have been confused by these discussions in the past, so please > understand that I'm trying to be helpful. I'm just using your remark > as a take-off point for my own comments. Alla: Yes, Carol, I meant heroic quest of course. Magpie seemed to understand what I meant in any event. While I know quite well what different genres mean, I may certainly get the English names wrong or confused sometimes. I also used to think that being helpful only applies when person is asking for one's help. > > Alla: > > > > Yeah, they sort of are in that sense. But I raise you another > question - > > what would prevail at the end , which pattern - coming of > age story or > > hero journey path, what would influence the ending more? > > > > Can we predict that? I don't think we can for sure, personally. > > Magpie: > Good point. There are certain things I'm expecting, like Harry reuniting > with Ginny and living happily ever after. But I don't really have any sense > of how the book will go at all. > Alla: Well, yeah, for sure I both want and expect this one, hehe, but personally more because I want it, you know? I mean, heroic quest certainly does not prevent happy ending. Odyssey would be the first of famous examples to come to mind, but very often it is not a happy ending, no? That is why I am keeping my fingers crossing that JKR's mixing genres will mean among other things happy ending for Harry. You know, to go back to Star Wars for a second, somebody some time ago send me an essay showing that Anakin's journey reflects the formula of Hero journey **much** more closely than Luc's and I found it to be very true. And as we know Anakin did not exactly got a happy ending. I mean, he did spiritually, got back to Light, etc,etc, but I am trying to say that he did not get to live. It was also very interesting for me to learn that Lucas purposefully built the scenario to reflect all major points of Campbell book in relation to his character. I am sure people who are familiar with the history of that movie will tell me "Doh", but for me it was an eye opening. I mean, it was clear for me that the movie reflects Hero journey, I just thought it just happened and speaks to the universal truths of Campbell book, was funny to learn that he kind of cheated :) > > Alla: > > >> > It is like, I don't know, I guess the best analogy for me would be > > that PoA would be published in two parts and Scabbers is still a > > rat, you know? > > > > Does it make sense to you? > > Magpie: > Oh yes, it does. And I think that there are a lot of things in HBP that have > been set up exactly that way, so that we're now halfway through and on the > wrong track about them. Definitely. Alla: Good :) > Magpie: > Nope, I didn't expect more political stuff at all.:-) That is, I expected > what we had before--the government being a beaurocracy and corrupt and > getting in Harry's way. Not that I predicted HBP at all. I've said before > that I think what happens in fandom is fans predict by writing more of the > last book, not realizing that JKR has gone off to write the next book, which > is always all different. Most post-OotP fics I read assumed it was going to > be all DA all the time, and while I didn't predict what happened in HBP, I > wasn't surprised that the DA was dropped. Things like government corruption > have always seemed like one of the things JKR uses to arrange the more > melodramatic situations about people in the books. Likewise stuff being done > to fight the "war", like gathering alliances and visiting other people, > always seemed totally outside of things JKR was interested in. That's why > they're usually so vague. Alla: I was not shocked that DA was dropped per se, it did seem sort of to be resolved, but on the other hand I thought it would be logical path to the unity of the houses, sort of. So, from that POV I was surprised that DA was dropped, yes. I thought it would be a plot device to move to the unity of the houses, which is a theme that she seems to be interested in IMO. Do you know what I mean? I certainly did not expect the battles in HBP, Harry getting extensive military training with DA or something like that. Despite me liking that stuff in fanfic, I do not see JKR being interested in that IMO of course. I think that all Harry's magic that matters is heavily emotions oriented, people oriented, etc. But yes, I did wonder why DA did not show up to promote the understanding between Houses. I guess she plans something different for that. On the other hand, I suppose she left in enough of MoM idiocy to pick it if needed in book 7. I just thought there would be more of that, them being out of touch with reality, etc. > Magpie: > I may have not been clear what I even meant by that vague statement.:-) It's > hard to put into words, but Sydney wrote it out wonderfully in her post > about villains. Voldemort does certainly have strategies that are there for > Harry to deal with, but his plans seem to me to be pretty straightforward > and symbolic, fitting him as a "monster" villain. Alla: I vaguely remember Sydney's post, but do you basically mean that Voldemort's strategies are not very rational and mainly show his Evil overlordness? Or do you mean something different? Do you mean that Voldemort is incapable of rational strategizing at all? Could you please clarify more? Thanks. Jen: > The kidnapping, whether someone buys it or not, was an attempt to fill > in the gaps JKR didn't quite at the end of HBP. I would love to hear > someone else's conclusion as to why JKR completely omitted Trelawney, > not only after the events of her predictions, but the new information she > revealed to Harry about Snape. Alla: LOVED your post Jen. I am indifferent personally to whether Trelawney was kidnapped or not, but I certainly think that you filled in the gaps with enough canonical support and raised enough questions to think about it. I think it is a very fair argument to consider. > Hickengruendler: > > Except that the chapter doesn't start with Snape. It begins with > Narcissa and Bellatrix arguing, if Narcissa should go to Snape. And > during this chapter Bellatrix says "This is a betrayal of the dark > Lord's...". She is interrupted by Narcissa then, but I assume she > wanted to say plans. That means if there is some secret pla with > Voldemort involved, Bella does not know about it, which makes it > highly unlikely. > Alla: Yeah, chapter doesn't start with Snape :). I just think that Bella not knowing about the plan, does not mean that such plan does not exist. It just mean that Voldemort only operates on need to know basis. IMO of course. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 25 21:31:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:31:10 -0000 Subject: Fenrir Greyback a Muggle-born? In-Reply-To: <700201d40703251155x2edfb0b5t33b50e8f31faa485@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166470 Goddlefrood wrote: > > [JKR answers a question:] > > "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." > > Goddlefrood continued: > > The bit that interested me was the last line suggesting that there may be a Muggle-born Death Eater among the ranks of those degenerates. > > > > My view is that due to the description of werewolves in Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them : "Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten" > > > > It is a fair possiblility that Fenrir Greyback was originally either a human himself, or if not a Muggle-born wizard. Carol responds: Quick question at this point. By "human," do you mean Muggle? Wizards, Muggle-born or otherwise, are human. Just asking for clarification. > Kemper wrote: > I get the impression that Fennir was/is a Squib. He hates Wizards so much. To experience that kind of hate, one is usually familiar with the object of hate either directly (victim of racism) or indirectly (reared/taught by racists). > I think it is Wormtail who is the Mudblood Death Eater. He alone had the 'rare circumstance' of being close to the Order and the Potters. Carol responds: I think Kemper is probably right that Wormtail is the "Mudblood" Death Eater, not only because of the "rare circumstances" but because his being Muggleborn would balance out MWPP (two pure-bloods, Prongs and Padfoot; a half-blood, Lupin, so identified in an interview; and a Muggleborn, which would closely match the Trio, which consists of one of each, erm, blood type). It would also give us an evil Muggleborn to go with the evil Half-Blood, Voldemort, and the evil Pure-blood, Bellatrix Lestrange, speaking only of major villains. The Malfoy family are also Pure-bloods, but they're being set up for something resembling a change of heart, and Snape, IMHO, is not a villain. (Antagonist, yes; villain, no.) Anyway, I think that having PP be a Muggleborn would fit the patterns JKR has established elsewhere, and would also show that he's willing to sell out his own "blood" to save his scabby skin. Regarding Fenrir, I'm wondering if possibly "Newt Scamander" (JKR's pseudonym but also in a sense a character himself) could be mistaken with regard to humans (both Muggles and Wizards) becoming werewolves only when bitten. JKR wrote FB, too, so it can contain Flints in the sense of inconsistencies with the primary canon established in the HP books (which are not themselves entirely consistent, in any case). We know that Lupin, a wizard, became a werewolf when he was bitten as a child (without ceasing to be either human or a werewolf except at the full moon). SS/PS, however, suggests that werewolves may live in the Forbidden Forest and Diary!Tom insinuates that young Hagrid kept werewolf cubs under his bed. (Granted, JKR says in an interview that this remark is a "slanderous rumor," but interviews are not canon.) Film!Snape (not canon, either, but not edited out at JKR's request) informs the students in his DADA-for-a-day class that "there are several ways to become a werewolf," with being born a werewolf as one of them. (Don't jump on me; I'm only speculating.) I wonder, for example, if the children of two werewolves would be werewolves themselves, even actual "werewolf cubs" if they were born at the full moon. (I can't see young Hagrid keeping werewolf cubs that transform into human babies under his bed.) Those could be the werewolves in the Forbidden Forest--again, only if Diary!Tom was telling the truth (or JKR isn't covering up a Flint by accusing him of spreading false rumors). "Werewolf cubs" or not, the notion that werewolves are "part human" (as opposed to fully human for all but a few weeks each year) suggests that two werewolves could have a werewolf child if the child is born at the full moon when his mother is in werewolf form. *If* that's the case, then perhaps that's what makes Fenrir different from "normal" werewolves like the infelicitously named Remus Lupin. (Was Remus destined to be bitten? Were his parents courting disaster? Was JKR more concerned with hints to her readers than with logic? Don't answer.) The mythical Remus was *raised* by wolves (and eventually killed by his own twin brother, but I'll let that pass). The mythical Fenrir, in contrast, was the monstous son of the Norse god Loki, a gigantic wolf prophesied to kill Odin. Given his name and his werewolfish tendencies even in human form (pointed teeth; long, yellowish nails; raspy, barklike voice), I wonder whether Fenrir (unlike Lupin) was born into a family of werewolves, the suggestively named Greybacks. If so, perhaps his own father or mother bit him as a child. But why name him Fenrir if he wasn't already wolflike? (By the same token, why name your daughter Alecto ["unceasing in anger," after one of the three Furies] if you're not a Dark witch yourself? What are these people thinking? Just name your daughter "Ginny" and your son "George"!) I realize there's no canon for this sort of thing and it contradicts FB, but it's the only explanation I can come up with for Fenrir Greyback, who is clearly not a "normal" werewolf. At any rate, Fenrir Greyback--Wizard, Squib, or Muggle, or Werewolf born--is still technically human except on full-moon nights despite his pointed teeth and his cannibalism and everything else that's loathsome about him. It's unclear how or why he became a Death Eater, however. I don't think that werewolves in general would do so, primarily because the DEs would look down on them and they, like Fenrir, would hate and resent normal wizards, Dark or otherwise. Certainly, I can't see a Muggle or Muggle-born werewolf joining the DEs, who would have further reason to despise him and nothing in common with him. And I can't see LV letting a Squib or a Muggle-born join without the "rare circumstances" we see with Peter Pettigrew, especially if that Squib or Muggle-born is a werewolf. A Muggle, of course, couldn't and wouldn't join at all. So, whether Greyback's parents were werewolves themselves or not, I think at least one of hem was a wizard. I can see where Kemper's Squib suggestion came from, though. Greyback does seem to have something in common with Squibs: he's an outsider living in a world of normal wizards. (He's wreaking havoc on the WW, not on the Muggle world, and the only victims of his that we've seen are wizards.) We don't know whether he has a wand or not since he prefers to use his teeth. I don't think he does, not because he's a Squib (or a Muggle somehow living in the WW and somehow allowed to become a DE) but because, like Lupin, he's been a werewolf since early childhood. But as a werewolf who was an adult when Lupin was a child, Fenrir would have been denied a Hogwarts education, presumably by Armando Dippet, another reason to hate fully qualified (or normal) wizards. At any rate, Greyback's name and his unusual tendencies, including an appetite for human flesh and the capacity to create not infected but *cursed* wounds when he's in human form, make me wonder whether he wasn't born a werewolf to werewolf parents who passed on to him their own hatred of normal wizards. (I can't call it racism; it's a fierce hatred or enmity against those who shun them as evil and dirty and unnatural. And, if the parents are anything like the child, the WW's attitude can't be called racism, either. It's a very understandable fear and loathing.) Carol, wishing Draco weren't so willing to threaten others with something or someone he fears and loathes himself From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sun Mar 25 21:43:30 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:43:30 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166471 Wondering just how cursed this job really is, or if JK made a mistake with the teacher-last-only-one-year vs Quirrell. It seems to me, Quirrell would have taught DADA for more than just 1 year - but maybe I've read the actual curse wrong. If in fact the curse starts over each year, then obviously Quirrell must have been teaching just one year - but several things point to the opposite. Sorry, I don't have the books handy right now - but Percy tells Harry in PS that "Snape's been after Quirrells job for years", which indicates that Quirrell has been actually teaching the job for years - but of course could also refer to the point that Snape's been after "the job Quirrell holds at the moment" for years. Another dialogue pointing to Quirrell teaching DADA for more than a single year, is in OOTP when Harry speaks to Fred and George about previous DADA-teachers - and they (or one of them, dont remember which) refer to the 4 previous DADA-teachers who didn't last long - referring to Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin and Moody. But Fred and George had been at Hogwarts 2 years before Harry came along, so why refer to only these 4 and not mention who was DADA- teacher right before Quirrell, since if there was a different one right before him, Fred & George would have had him/her as DADA-teacher. So maybe I got the one-year-thing all wrong and not even sure it says so in HBP, that no teacher ever lasted more than one year - but by weak memory I seem to remember Dumbledore actually telling Harry that's how the curse works. Someone with the books closer by will definitely clear that up for me :) Inge From muellem at bc.edu Sun Mar 25 22:13:03 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:13:03 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166473 "Inge" wrote: > > Wondering just how cursed this job really is, or if JK made a mistake > with the teacher-last-only-one-year vs Quirrell. > > It seems to me, Quirrell would have taught DADA for more than just 1 > year - but maybe I've read the actual curse wrong. > > If in fact the curse starts over each year, then obviously Quirrell > must have been teaching just one year - but several things point to > the opposite. > > Sorry, I don't have the books handy right now - but Percy tells Harry > in PS that "Snape's been after Quirrells job for years", which > indicates that Quirrell has been actually teaching the job for years - > but of course could also refer to the point that Snape's been > after "the job Quirrell holds at the moment" for years. > > Another dialogue pointing to Quirrell teaching DADA for more than a > single year, is in OOTP when Harry speaks to Fred and George about > previous DADA-teachers - and they (or one of them, dont remember > which) refer to the 4 previous DADA-teachers who didn't last long - > referring to Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin and Moody. > But Fred and George had been at Hogwarts 2 years before Harry came > along, so why refer to only these 4 and not mention who was DADA- > teacher right before Quirrell, since if there was a different one > right before him, Fred & George would have had him/her as DADA-teacher. > colebiancardi: according to Hagrid, Quirrell was gone for a year to get real life experience. From SS, Am Ed hardcover pg70-71 "Is he always that nervous?" "Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while he was studyn' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first hand experience...They say he met vampires in the Black Forest, and there was a nasty bit o' trouble with a hag -- never been the same since. Scared of the students, scared of his own subject --" So, I believe Forge had Quirrell when they were first years, Percy had him in his third year, and then Quirrell took off for a year and then came back for Harry's first year. It could be that the DADA curse for Quirell was to leave Hogwarts after one year of teaching DADA and find LV. Quirrell came back to Hogwarts a changed man(so to speak) and the curse continued. In my opinion, Quirrell, prior to his involvement with LV, was a nice, ordinary wizard (brilliant, according to Hagrid) whose personality and interests changed when he "found" LV. from same book, page 291 "I met him when I traveled around the world. A foolish young man I was, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it..." Wow. I feel sorry for Quirrell now. colebiancardi From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Mar 25 21:03:17 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:03:17 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166474 Jen: > Hold on a minute, Dana! I mean, you can bow out of course , > but I think we're arguing omissions with omissions now. Just because there should have been a head count, there wasn't one on page. Trelawney's name isn't mentioned, so she must be 'staff'. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166475 Julie wrote: > The main problem with all the theories that Voldemort wanted to gain unfettered access to Hogwarts is that he DID gain it in HBP. So why didn't he use it? Why didn't Voldemort invade Hogwarts with his whole army of DEs and Dementors instead of merely sending a handful of DEs with Draco? It doesn't track at all. > > I do believe Voldemort hoped to get rid of Dumbledore either via Draco (highly unlikely) or Snape (more likely). And *if* unfettered access to Hogwarts is part of Voldemort's ultimate goal, then removing Dumbledore can only be part of achieving that goal, or Voldemort would already be in place. There must be other restrictions we don't know about that kept Voldemort from taking over Hogwarts when he had a golden opportunity. > > If Voldemort does intend to take Hogwarts at a later date when he's achieved whatever is needed to do it on his own terms, then I CAN see him having prepared the way in HBP by secretly inserting someone to help him achieve that goal. Someone like Wormtail, for instance, who might be able to remove whatever barriers remain to Voldemort's complete control of Hogwarts. We'll just have to wait until DH to see though. > > > Doddie, (who is convinced Snape is a chess piece on both DD and Voldie's boards, yet unsure of which piece, and who is also sure that, Snape doesn't appear to have the emotional maturity to truly play the "double spy" he wants to be.) > > Julie, who is also convinced Snape is a chess piece on DD and Voldie's boards, but also believes Snape is quite adept at being a double spy and will ultimately outwit Voldemort. Carol responds: I completely agree with Julie's post except for one minor point: Voldemort doesn't have a "whole army of Death Eaters." By my count, he's now down to Wormtail, Bellatrix, Goyle, Amycus, Alecto, the big blond (if he isn't Goyle), and perhaps three Azkaban escapees who weren't at the MoM. (Travers, maybe?) I'm not counting Snape, of course! Regarding Snape's emotional maturity, I think his control of his emotions in "Spinner's End" is masterful. The raised eyebrows, the voice inflections, the inscrutable expressions--what a pro! No wonder nobody on either side (except Dumbledore, ;-)) knows whose side he's on. And considering how provoking Draco was being in the "Unbreakable Vow," I think that Snape did a pretty good job there, too--especially considering that he'd put his own life in jeopardy to protect the ungrateful brat. It's a shame he couldn't force the truth out of Draco by breaking through his clumsy Occlumency or giving him Veritaserum, but he had to keep his DE cover. Regarding protections on Hogwarts, the chief protection, IMO, was always Dumbledore himself. Even when he was away, he arranged for things like Sorting Hats with swords in them and Phoenixes to protect those who were loyal to him. And if his office sealed itself to keep out Dolores Umbridge, it would certainly do so to keep out Voldemort and his Death Eaters. I think that another reason Voldemort didn't attack--yet--is that he has so few Death Eaters. He certainly knew, probably via Snape, about the increased protections on the school (no brooms can fly in, for example--unless they're being ridden by Dumbledore), and he would have read in the Daily Prophet that Scrimgeour was posting a small task force of Aurors at the school. And, of course, his DEs would be greatly outnumbered by the teachers and students, at least some of whom can cast a Stunning Spell or a Shield Charm. (Twelve of his DEs, most of them now in Azkaban, had just been given a run for their money by six teenagers before the Order came to join the fight, so he would know that some of the students can fight, too.) There's also the whole matter of Harry Potter, whom he wants to deal with himself, which would require a whole different plan or set of plans. It's one thing to believe that he can sneak in six DEs by a route that DD can't possibly anticipate, trick DD (whom Snape has led LV to believe was weakened by the MoM battle--I think Snape wants him to underestimate both DD and Harry) into trapping himself on the Astronomy Tower, disarming and killing him, and quite another to think that six DEs, or even twelve, can fight a full-fledged battle against all the teachers and students in Hogwarts. Best to take Hogwarts over when it's empty except for the recently injured McGonagall, the supposed oaf Hagrid, the Squib Filch, and the inept Seer Trelawney, whose memory he may decide to probe at some future point if Harry Potter continues to prove elusive. (I do think she'd have a memory of the Prophecy; she wasn't out cold like Morfin. But we all know that learning the Prophecy isn't going to help him much.) As for the protections on the school, once Dumbledore is gone, most of the magical protections (except for the ancient ones, such as no Apparation/Disapparation), will probably be gone, too, and once the students are gone, the Aurors will be gone. (I do wonder, and have asked several times with no response, whether the anti-flying protection is still in place, only temporarily swept aside by Dumbledore with his broom, erm, wand. If it is, how did Madame Maxime's flying carriage get onto the grounds?) Voldemort didn't strike during the funeral for much the same reason, IMO--too many people present for his few remaining Death Eaters to fight, including Aurors and Order members. Now is not the time to take the school. One step at a time. As long as LV has his Horcruxes, he has all the time in the world. He's rid himself of a major obstacle, Albus Dumbledore, but he has not yet built up his strength. The giants can be used to wreak havoc and the Dementors to induce despair, but only human followers can be used to form an army subject to control through coercion and fear of his power. If Lupin is to be believed, the Order members were outnumbered ten to one in VW1. At this point, however, even with Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black dead, Mundungus arrested, and Snape seemingly on the other side, the Order actually has more members than Voldie has DEs at the moment: at least four Weasleys, Lupin, Moody, McGonagall, Hagrid, Shacklebolt, Tonks, Aberforth, Sturgis (out of Azkaban by now), Hestia Jones, Dedalus Diggle, Elphias Doge--maybe others that we don't know about or I forgot to include but whose names Voldemort probably knows (unless Snape is keeping information from him). If I were Voldemort, my next step would be getting the DEs out of Azkaban, making sure that they knew they had better not mess up again, so that I had at least enough DEs to fight the Order. And, with Potter and his Marauder's Map (surely Wortail told LV about this little obstacle to spying) out of the picture, I'd send in Wormtail by whatever secret passage he chooses to scout out the nearly empty Hogwarts. (Or maybe he came in with the other DEs and is biding his time, under separate orders from theirs. If Voldie thinks that far ahead, which I doubt.) And, of course, I'd stage an attack on 4 Privet Drive for just past midnight on the morning of August 1. Carol, on pins and needles to find out where Snape fits in but sure that he's no mere chess piece and is not Voldemort's man From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Mar 25 22:53:39 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:53:39 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Wondering just how cursed this job really is, or if JK made a mistake > with the teacher-last-only-one-year vs Quirrell. > > It seems to me, Quirrell would have taught DADA for more than just 1 > year - but maybe I've read the actual curse wrong. > > If in fact the curse starts over each year, then obviously Quirrell > must have been teaching just one year - but several things point to > the opposite. > > Sorry, I don't have the books handy right now - but Percy tells Harry > in PS that "Snape's been after Quirrells job for years", which > indicates that Quirrell has been actually teaching the job for years - > but of course could also refer to the point that Snape's been > after "the job Quirrell holds at the moment" for years. > > Another dialogue pointing to Quirrell teaching DADA for more than a > single year, is in OOTP when Harry speaks to Fred and George about > previous DADA-teachers - and they (or one of them, dont remember > which) refer to the 4 previous DADA-teachers who didn't last long - > referring to Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin and Moody. > But Fred and George had been at Hogwarts 2 years before Harry came > along, so why refer to only these 4 and not mention who was DADA- > teacher right before Quirrell, since if there was a different one > right before him, Fred & George would have had him/her as DADA- teacher. > > So maybe I got the one-year-thing all wrong and not even sure it says > so in HBP, that no teacher ever lasted more than one year - but by > weak memory I seem to remember Dumbledore actually telling Harry > that's how the curse works. > Someone with the books closer by will definitely clear that up for > me :) > > Inge PS/SS (p555 UK pb edition). After Harry has been introduced to the trembling Quirrel in the Leaky Cauldron. Hagrid says of him: "Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine when he was studying outta books but then he took a year off to get some first hand experience....They say he met vampires in the Black Forest and there was a nasty bit o'trouble with a hag-never been the same since" So while it's not made explicit that Quirrel was teaching DADA when he took his year off, that is the interpretation that would fit in with the jinxed position. Quirrel teaches the subject successfully for a year and then the curse takes effect- working on Quirrel's intellectual pride perhaps (is he a Ravenclaw?). Quirrel takes a premature sabbatical and goes off to get practical experience in central Europe with the result we all know about. I give Percy's remark your second interpretation, that Snape has for years been after the actual position which Quirrel currently holds. I can't lay my hands on the Fred and George dialogue, but they may only be referring to the last four DADA teachers, or to the DADA teachers Harry has known; in either case there would be no need to mention whatever unfortunate held the position before Quirrel. Perhaps that was a substitute like Grubbly-Plank, only hired for the year, and there would be no need for the working of the curse on them to have an outwardly dramatic effect- Lupin and Umbridge are after all still going about their business. Leah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Mar 25 23:36:22 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:36:22 -0000 Subject: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166477 Carol: > I can't agree, Ceridwen. While *Snape* obviously doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan, only about Draco's assignment to kill Dumbledore (which he may think is what Narcissa means by "the plan"), that doesn't mean that *Voldemort* doesn't know about it. Both Narcissa and Bellatrix speak about "the plan," which appears to be Voldemort's, not Draco's. Ceridwen: Sure. There is a plan to kill Dumbledore. It's set up from chapter two. That doesn't show that Voldemort thought of the Vanishing Cabinets. I know we've made fun of the Evil Overlord checklist, and we've even suggested that LV ought to read it. But this, *to me*, would be just too big of a thing for him to pass up. He could get into Hogwarts. He could get all of his DEs into Hogwarts. He could kidnap Trelawney for the prophecy, he could hunt down and capture Harry. He could grab children and relations of prominent Ministry officials. But all he wants to do is send in the third-string brutes to back Draco's attempt at Dumbledore? This would be a new one for the list, I think, and Voldemort, to my mind, would become just a bumblingly stupid airhead whose only claim to fame is intimidating a bunch of playground bullies. Carol: *(snipping)* > And so on. No one attributes this very secret plan to Draco. It's the Dark Lord's plan. And it has to be something more than a simple order to a sixteen-year-old boy to kill Dumbledore by any means possible, which would hardly qualify as a plan. Ceridwen: It qualifies as a plan to me. Imagine ordering a student to kill the headmaster. This isn't something you want to broadcast, even if you tell the people who will be working with him. You don't want the kid captured and taken to prison. You want him to get his shot, because you believe the headmaster will have to defend himself, which means killing the kid. And you know this will devastate the headmaster. He wouldn't kill another student the summer before, not even for the noble cause of getting rid of the biggest threat to the world that he knows. Now, the kid and his back-up are there, threatening other students, one has to be sacrificed, the headmaster will *have* to do it, to save the rest. It's just those darned variables that screw things up. If Draco killing Dumbledore doesn't qualify as much of a plan, then Dana's and Jen's conviction that other DEs were kidnapping Trelawney while everyone else was otherwise occupied would fill in nicely. Carol: *(snipping)* > Certainly, "the plan" is in operation by the time of "Draco's Detour," in which Draco threatens Borgin with Fenrir Greyback ("He'll be dropping in from time to time to make sure you're giving the problem your full attention," 125), hardly something Greyback is likely to do without authorization, or orders, from Voldemort. Clearly Voldie and at least one DE are in on the plan from the beginning. Later, the DEs speak about their orders from Voldemort, orders they wouldn't have if he weren't privy to, or in charge of, the cabinet plan. The brutal- faced Death Eater says, "We've got orders. Draco's got to do it. Now, Draco, and quickly" (594). (Greyback and Amycus, at least, would be perfectly happy to do it themselves, but my point is that their orders are from Voldemort, not from Draco, and Brutal-Face is ordering Draco, not the other way around.) Ceridwen: This is Voldemort's way of leading Draco down the garden path. He has assigned him a team and made him the leader. He has given Draco his assignment: Kill Dumbledore. He gives him some particulars: Get your team into Hogwarts to assist you (and cover your retreat?). Now go out there and *do it!* Win one for the Dark Lord! It's Draco who remembers what Montague said. He goes to Borgin and Burkes and arranges for the cabinet. He mentions Greyback, the obvious team member to use to threaten Borgin. This is Draco's contribution. He is proving himself valuable. And since he mentions Greyback in this scene, I do think he has already been assigned his team. Up to this point, no one knows if the Vanishing Cabinet at B&B's is still available, but the team has already been assigned. (No wonder the kid's so grandiosely serious on the train! He's bypassed the starting phase and been promoted directly to team leader. He has the important job of showing the protections of Hogwarts to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, *and* he's been given the important task of killing Dumbledore. And, he has come up with a fail-safe plan to get his team into Hogwarts and prove himself to LV. He's moving right up the ranks like Percy Weasley did at the Ministry.) I think, though I have no canon to back this up, just a feeling from reading, that the team is let in on LV's larger plan, to kill Draco if Dumbledore doesn't. They are also on notice that until that event, they are under Draco's command. I think they are the ones who are hiding out in Hogsmeade and Imperio-ing Rosmerta, bringing the cursed necklace, and so on. They are on alert to come when Draco calls them with his coins. They are the help Draco mentions when he talks with Snape. I don't think Snape has been assigned to Draco's team, so he isn't in on the details of the plan, such as DEs in Hogsmeade. I don't think Bellatrix is part of the team, either. She does her part for her nephew, with the added allure of spiting Snape. But she doesn't show up at Hogwarts in the end, either. She, too, as well as Narcissa, I think, are not in on LV's plan of Draco dying. In fact, Narcissa suspects it in Spinner's End, but has to rely on Snape's say-so. So, aside from knowing generalities, I believe that only the Ugly Twins, Brutal-face, Big Blond, Greyback, and Gibbon knew. Carol: *(snip)* > But if *all* he wants is revenge, why not kill Draco sooner? Draco tells Snape in December that his plan is taking longer than he expected (323), and evidently he's already receiving threats of some kind or he would not have resorted to desperation measures (the necklace and the mead), but not until April is he crying in the bathroom, and it's May when we hear him tell Moaning Myrtle about the death threats, which appear to result not from his failure to kill Dumbledore but from his failure to fix the cabinet: "I can't do it. . . . I can't . . . It won't work . . . . and unless I do it soon . . . . he says he'll kill me" (522). Ceridwen: Right. If Draco can't get the DEs into Hogwarts, and if he can't kill Dumbledore, then he will die. LV is telling him to hurry it up. And since Draco's way of getting the DE backup into the castle is to fix the cabinet, then not succeeding with that is leaving him crying to a Muggle-born ghost in the bathroom. I don't see any evidence of LV setting up this plan about the Vanishing Cabinets from Draco's crying to Myrtle. I do see that Draco is not meeting LV's time table, but that's all. This still reads to me that the cabinets are Draco's contribution, not LV's. Carol: What won't work? Killing Dumbledore? That makes no sense. Can't do what? Clearly, fix the Vanishing Cabinet, which he's been trying to do since the first of the year, complete with polyjuiced guards on the RoR. Draco's whoop of triumph (542) indicates that he's finally succeeded in fixing the cabinet and "the plan" (getting the DEs into Hogwarts, etc.) can finally get underway. He's not thinking about "the job" at this point, only about "the plan." And the DEs are there, ready and waiting for him to summon them. Why? Because they're under orders from Voldemort to do so. Ceridwen: No, it isn't clear that the order is to fix the Vanishing Cabinet. It is clear that the order is to get on with Draco's plan, get the DEs in, and kill Dumbledore. Yes, this is Draco's plan to get the DEs into Hogwarts. I see nothing saying that this is LV's contribution. LV's contribution is to give the orders, and to assign a team to back Draco up (or kill him if Dumbledore doesn't). So, yes, the DEs will *obey Draco*. LV told them to. I do see evidence that the cabinet is not LV's contribution, though. If LV had ordered the cabinets to be fixed, then Draco has deliberately gone against him by trying to get around his inability to fix the cabinet early on and sending the necklace and the mead. Then, there's the whole 'Evil Overlord Goofs Again', such a glaring goof that I just can't buy it. The plan is as simple as killing Dumbledore. The necklace and the mead, to me, are overwhelming evidence. If fixing the cabinet was LV's order, then Draco has gone against him very early on by trying to kill Dumbledore with the necklace and the mead. If the plan is to kill Dumbledore, then Draco hasn't gone against LV's orders, he just went about it in a bad way. If either had killed Dumbledore, there would have been no need to fix the cabinet. If the cabinet was LV's idea, where would that leave Draco? And, why would Draco's outside contacts provide either the necklace or the mead, or Imperio Rosmerta to give the necklace to Katie Bell, if the cabinet plan was LV's plan? They would be going against LV's orders, too. I can see Snape, Narcissa and Bellatrix sneaking around behind LV's back for Draco's sake, but I can't see the nasty crew we meet in The Lightning-Struck Tower doing anything of the sort: certainly not for Draco! Carol: *(snipping)* > Voldemort, however, *does* know about the Cabinets, as Draco tells DD himself: "I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years" (586). Not "I had to kill you so I figured out that the best way was to smuggle in Death Eaters by fixing the Vanishing Cabinet." He *had to* fix it, having figured out that the two cabinets formed a passage between Hogwarts and B&B and informed Voldemort about it. That was "the plan." Ceridwen: Draco doesn't say this is "the plan." He is responding to Dumbledore: "But, why? I don't think you will kill me, Draco. Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe. . . . So tell me, while we wait for your friends . . . how did you smuggle them in here? It seems to have taken you a long time to work out how to do it." (586, ellipses in original) How did Draco smuggle his 'friends', the DEs into Hogwarts? Why did it take him such a long time? Because he had to mend the broken cabinet. Otherwise, no DEs in the castle. Period. I see no evidence that Voldemort ordered the use of the Vanishing Cabinet. If he did, then why didn't he do so many other things that would have benefitted him? Ceridwen. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 25 23:40:02 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:40:02 -0000 Subject: Wizard Religion / Phoenix / Trelawney / The Prank / Salt Shakers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166478 Kim Jaudon wrote in : << Except "Godfather" is a Christian designation. (snip) What is the faith of the wizarding world? >> Lily was Muggle born. If she believed in a religion by the time she was eleven, it would be a Muggle religion. If she kept on believing in it, she could insist on raising her child to believe in it, too. A lot of people in the wizarding world have at least one Muggle parent, so I expect that a great number of Muggle religions would be found in the wizarding world, mostly in trace amounts. Some of them might catch on and attract a lot of wizarding converts. In addition, wizards are human and therefore probably have their own indigenous nut cults. The one Muggle religion that I am sure could not be believed by wizards is Wicca (which happens to be my religion, so I am not pleased that there is no place for it in my fanfic), because Wicca's assertions about magic (a natural ability which all humans can do by magnifying their spiritual perceptiveness and focussing the concentration of their will) is just totally different from wizards' knowledge of magic. One axiom is that the wizarding world has been entwined with the Muggle world for a very long time. Another axiom is that the wizards are conservative -- for example, they still wear medieval robes. A third axiom is that Muggle England has an established church, the Anglican Church. Before the Anglican Church, it was the Roman Church. Stirring up these axioms with a great deal of guesswork, I think the British wizards have *two* established churches, one of which is kind of Anglican (but uses a lot of Latin -- not a FOREIGN language to the wizard-born). My opinion is that few wizards were ever really *Roman* Catholics in the first place, as they would not feel inclined to obey any Muggle, not even a Pope. They probably had a Bishop of Wizards. They probably still do. The other wizarding religion, of which there is no evidence in canon, is a stronger example of wizarding conservatism, mostly consisting of mixed up pieces of Druidic and Roman and miscellaneous old religions, detached from their Muggle context by a strong element of wizarding supremacy -- for example, it probably teaches that the gods mean for wizards to rule Muggles, which is why the gods gave wizards magic powers that they didn't give (or took away from) Muggles. This would be the religion of the old pureblood families, at least the ones most into Dark Arts. Sirius would have rebelled against this religion as part of his general rebellion, and I suppose he might have become a Christian instead of an atheist in his rebellion... I've already mentioned that I'm an adherent of a syncretic Pagan religion, so really I am Not Thrilled that the Bad Guys are the ones with a syncretic Pagan religion. But if Lucius Malfoy (and other Death Eaters) were Christians, surely they'd at least honor the hypocrisy of claiming that they only tortured Muggles for the Muggles' own good. Shelley wrote in : << One of the ghosts was the Fat Friar- meaning that it could even be a profession for the Wizard >> We have little evidence of wizarding painters, so it might be that all the talking portraits magically appear at the moment of their subject's death, rather than being painted in advance. It might be that all the talking paintings are portraits, none of them simply fictional scenes. If so, the drunken monks (mentioned by Carol) whose Christmas party was attended by the Fat Lady were wizards. I am curious whether they all died together or they gradually joined the painting. I quite see why a monastery would want to get rid of those unsuitable (and no longer punishable) examples, by giving the painting to Hogwarts. However, that the monastery even knew of Hogwarts hints that it was a wizarding monastery. Carol wrote in : << if Snape were a phoenix, his colors would be silver and green >> Talisman calls him her Dark Phoenix, but I think that's metaphorical. I think she's one of the faction that believes his Animagus form is a Hebridean Black dragon. I don't think a phoenix CAN be silver and green. Its species name *means* purple-red (like the Phoenicians were named, by the Greeks, after their 'Tyrian purple' dye). The phoenix started in Egypt, where it was called 'bennu', which means 'shining'. It had to perch on a special rock (which some claim was the first solid thing to rise from the primordial ooze) in a temple in Memphis (Men-nefer) in order to burst into flame and renew itself, and that stone, named 'benben', is reported to have have been a purplish red color. The bennu's cycle was 1461 365-days years = 1460 solar years (365.2456whatsit-days), when the stars and seasons come around to the right dates again. houyhnhnm wrote in : << The other thing that interests me is that Trelawney seems to be remarkably up to date on Hogwarts scuttlebutt for someone who is so reclusive and other-wordly. >> She has Lavender and Parvati (and perhaps acolytes from other Houses) lunching with her several times a week. No one would say "but Lavender and Parvati would never gossip!" Carol wrote in : << I agree that James wasn't really at risk. What I don't understand is *how* he saved Severus's life. He couldn't have cast any hexes or jinxes on Remus that Severus couldn't also have cast (he's the kid who knew more curses at eleven that most seventh-years). And he certainly couldn't have transformed into a stag and, say, carried Severus off on his antlers, because, as you say, there wasn't room to transform and Severus would have informed Dumbledore. So exactly did he do that Severus couldn't have done himself? Did he just warn him that Remus was a werewolf and yell "Run?" >> If James could get into the Shack before Severus did, he would have room to transform and use his size, strength, and sanity to block the trapdoor so the wolf couldn't go out through it to attack Severus. If he got in front of Severus but was still in the tunnel when the wolf succeeded in clawing open the trapdoor, he could have transformed into a *stuck* stag. (Zara, to me, getting in front of Severus is why James 'pulled' Severus back.) The Stuck Stag could save Severus by blocking the wolf, but I think that *would* have been James risking his own life -- I think a wolf can take a Stuck Stag, and Remus would have gone through his transformation without Animagi companions who kept his mind more human, topped off with smelling humans in the tunnel for rather a while, so he might not be thinking that this herbivorous obstacle was his friend. Part of James getting into the Shack would be he had to open the trapdoor, go through it, and close it again before the wolf got out, which would have been a perfect opportunity for Severus to see the werewolf's silhouette in light from the Shack framed in the open trapdoor before James pulled it back from the trapdoor. << Or Snape could be right that James was in on the so-called Prank and got cold feet at the last minute. Makes sense to me, especially given what we've seen of James's treatment of Severus and his nasty sense of humor as a teenager. >> That depends whether James was stupid/hasty enough to put Remus at risk of being outed as a werewolf, with expulsion from Hogwarts the smallest consequence, and being executed for having attacked a human while in wolf form the biggest consequence. Magpie wrote in : << One could just as easily argue that Voldemort had a plan to loosen the caps on every single salt shaker in Hogwarts. Only nobody noticed because everyone was too distraught to use salt the next morning. >> This is a forbidden 'LOL' post. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Mar 26 00:33:54 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:33:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unresolved things in the books WAS: Re: LV's bigger plan LONG References: Message-ID: <019501c76f3e$73806bc0$ef92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166479 Alla: > > I was not shocked that DA was dropped per se, it did seem sort of to > be resolved, but on the other hand I thought it would be logical > path to the unity of the houses, sort of. So, from that POV I was > surprised that DA was dropped, yes. I thought it would be a plot > device to move to the unity of the houses, which is a theme that she > seems to be interested in IMO. > > Do you know what I mean? I certainly did not expect the battles in > HBP, Harry getting extensive military training with DA or something > like that. Despite me liking that stuff in fanfic, I do not see JKR > being interested in that IMO of course. I think that all Harry's > magic that matters is heavily emotions oriented, people oriented, > etc. > > But yes, I did wonder why DA did not show up to promote the > understanding between Houses. I guess she plans something different > for that. Magpie: I do see what you mean--and we were, I think, both having the same ideas about the theme. Obviously joining the houses is important, and the DA seemed like the way to that. So we both saw that but weren't totally surprised when it turned out the DA wasn't going to continue. We haven't lost the theme, it's just that now it's going to happen a different way. >> Magpie: >> I may have not been clear what I even meant by that vague > statement.:-) It's >> hard to put into words, but Sydney wrote it out wonderfully in her > post >> about villains. Voldemort does certainly have strategies that are > there for >> Harry to deal with, but his plans seem to me to be pretty > straightforward >> and symbolic, fitting him as a "monster" villain. > > Alla: > > I vaguely remember Sydney's post, but do you basically mean that > Voldemort's strategies are not very rational and mainly show his > Evil overlordness? Or do you mean something different? Do you mean > that Voldemort is incapable of rational strategizing at all? > > Could you please clarify more? Thanks. Magpie: I guess what I was saying was that LV's plans seem to be mostly about what will effect the characters we know. JKR knows that as an Evil Overlord he has to be doing other stuff and we hear that in the books, but it's just vague and undefined. He's doing stuff with the werewolves and the giants and the goblins, causing hurricanes, having people murdered and captured. But the plans that matter in terms of the plot are very straightforward, involving very few people that we care about. PS/SS=steal the Philosopher's Stone to be immortal. GoF=Get Harry to the Graveyard to kill him and use his blood to bring himself back to life. OotP=Trick Harry to the MoM to get the Prophecy saying how to kill Harry. CoS and HBP are both Malfoy books, which involve Voldemort but aren't about Voldemort pursuing his greater agenda, but: CoS=Lucius gives Ginny the Diary to open the CoS and discredit Arthur. HBP=Voldemort gives Draco the task of killing Dumbledore as punishment for Lucius. We also know Voldemort has split his soul and hidden the pieces in Hogwarts relics, each of which is hidden in a place that means something to him. The kinds of plans we don't have with complicated strategy that's really like a war story. There's vague allusions to that sort of stuff (Snape's telling us which way the DEs are being ordered to move, they're making alliances with giants, Lupin's spying on the werewolves) but the central stories in the books so far have always been very clear cut. The missions don't seem to have multiple uses and mutiple inspirations (though the methods are often overcomplicated and take a long time), and they don't seem to rely on Voldemort having all the many things we see Harry using in canon at his disposal (for instance, assuming that he'll know about various tunnels or tricks--certainly it stands to reason he could know about lots of stuff, but his plans just aren't usually that complicated). In the seventh book we may need more traditional warcraft for all these other things we've heard of to come to something, or else it might still be background with the main story being Harry tracking down Horcruxes and destroying them while Voldemort is either assumed to be wreaking havoc or else trying to do some other single-minded thing like kill Harry. (Can you tell I can't even imagine how the last book will go?) -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 01:46:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:46:34 -0000 Subject: Umbridgitis in the MoM (Was:A Postscript ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166480 Nikkalmati: > > I think we have to look to what model JKR may have been using in her court proceedings to enlighten us as to what is going on here. > > It does appear that the Wizengamot at times acts as a legislative body and the Ministry of Magic as the executive. We have not seen an independent judiciary. > > The proceedings we see in GOF are by and large sentencing hearings. These trials were public spectacles and there do seem to have been many visitors there, as well as voting members. There is no evidence taken and no verdict. > Harry clearly was being "railroaded" He was in serious danger of being found guilty "in absentia" because he was not made aware of the time and place of the hearing. It seems that he would not have been given a second chance > (not much due process is due in the WW). If Madam Bones is acting as the prosecutor, she would ask questions but she would presumably not vote, but the rest of the Wizengamot could and would vote in its capacity as council to the executive. Fudge acted as Chairman. Although there were three interrogators, I suspect Fudge > could allow others to ask questions, if they wanted. Carol responds: My point was simply that, based on both the GoF Pensieve scenes, in which Crouch is in charge and there are no other "interrogators," and on the fact that the original hearing was to be held, minus the Wizengamot, in Madam Bones's office, that Fudge (perhaps under Umbridge's influence) is altering standard procedure. It seems to be a consensus among the Order members (except maybe Sirius Black) that Madam Bones will give Harry a fair hearing. Fudge clearly has no such intention. The system is already flawed by the absence of a separate judiciary, but at least until now the Minister of Magic and his Senior Undersecretary have not stepped in to do the job of the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement--or to "help" her do it. If standard procedure had been followed, even allowing for the presence of the fifty or so members of the Wizengamot who appear to be acting as the jury, Madam Bones would have been the sole interrogator, as well as the person who asks for the show of hands (whcih she does) and the one who stated the verdict (as Fudge does, in this case). (I agree that she didn't vote; nor did Crouch, her GoF counterpart, in the Pensieve scenes. Fudge should not have done so, either, but he's not looking for justice here, nor is he abiding by the established rules.) However flawed the system was to begin with, Fudge is making it more so, changing the time and place on short notice, turning a disciplinary hearing into a trial before the Wizengamot, giving himself and Umbridge unprecedented authority as "interrogators," and even changing laws, as Dumbledore points out. And, of course, we see much the same form of tyranny when Umbridge invades Hogwarts, with her increasingly repressive Educational Decrees. I agree that the Star Chamber (instituted by my least favorite English monarch, Henry VII) is a reasonable analogy of the procedure at Harry's disciplinary hearing *as it is arranged by Fudge*. Under Madam Bones, without his interference, it would have been a much simpler matter, as shown by my posts upthread. I am trying to show that Fudge perceives himself as under threat, thanks to the influence of a certain poisonous toad, and is taking oppressive measures to protect himself against the perceived threat of a Dumbledorean takeover. Discrediting Harry discredits Dumbledore and hampers the spread of "lies" about Voldemort. If we look at the kindly, pompous Fudge of PoA; the anxious, in-denial Fudge of GoF; the angry, blustering, threatening Fudge of OoP, I think we can see a progression, with the insidious influence of his Senior Undersecretary rearing its ugly head in GoF as Umbridge builds on his insecurity and envy of Dumbledore to make him believe that Dumbledore is trying to undermine him with a campaign to make the public believe that Voldemort is back. She takes matters into her own hands in OoP by sending the Dementors, unknown to Fudge ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him," as she says in a slightly different context), with the intention of discrediting Harry. It is surely her suggestion, or at least her influence, that results in the change of time and place, not to mention her presence as an interrogator. (Fortunately, she says very little.) It seems to me that Madam Bones does her best under the circumstances to ensure a fair examination of the evidence and the witnesses. (See upthread.) Certainly, Dumbledore uses his influence as well, and fortunately, only a few members of the Wizengamot seem to be intimidated by Umbridge, laughing sycophantically when she says, "So silly of me. But it sounded for a teensy minute as though you were suggesting that the Ministry of Magic had ordered an attack on this boy!" (147). Her supporters appear to include the frizzy-haired witch and the heavily mustached wizard who vote against Harry (151). Percy (fortunately only the Court Scribe and not a member of the Wizengamot) also appears to be under the baleful influence of that "delightful woman," as he later calls her in his letter to Ron. In HBP, after the battle of the MoM has shown Dumbledore to be right (and to be not at all interested in taking over as Minister for Magic), chastened, humble Fudge, with his kindliness but not his pomposity restored (and his job, of course, given to Scrimgeour). He has obeyed Dumbledore's order (and it is an order) to remove Dolores Umbridge from Hogwarts (OoP 818). Unfortunately, Umbridge is not removed from the Ministry, but given the miserable Fudge we see at Dumbledore's funeral, I think it's safe to say that he, at least, is no longer under her influence. Whether the same can be said of Percy, it's too soon to say. Carol, wondering whether anyone else sees the insidious influence of Dolores Umbridge as the reason for the alteration in Fudge From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 01:48:18 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:48:18 -0000 Subject: Fenrir Greyback a Muggle-born? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166481 > > Goddlefrood from the past, with further snipping: > > The bit that interested me was the last line suggesting that there may be a Muggle-born Death Eater among the ranks of those degenerates. > > My view is that due to the description of werewolves in Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them : "Humans turn into werewolves only when bitten" > > It is a fair possiblility that Fenrir Greyback was originally either a human himself, or if not a Muggle-born wizard. > Carol responds: > Quick question at this point. By "human," do you mean Muggle? Wizards, Muggle-born or otherwise, are human. Just asking for clarification. Goddlefrood: Human is self-explanatory as you allude, I meant both Muggles and Wizards, which the FB&WTFT entry goes on to state, as also referred in Carol's response ostensibly to Kemper's interesting point on Peter. That was (in parts): (Carol's) > > I think it is Wormtail who is the Mudblood Death Eater. He alone had the 'rare circumstance' of being close to the Order and the Potters. > Carol again: > I think Kemper is probably right that Wormtail is the "Mudblood" Death Eater. Goddlefrood: I concur if for no other reason than JKR has said we will not be meeting any new characters of any substance. Our suspect then is almost certainly amongst the ranks of those we have already met. Peter Pettigrew is a prime suspect, but as I say Fenrir can not be overlooked. Perhaps they are both Muggle-born. > Carol: > JKR wrote FB, too, so it can contain Flints in the sense of inconsistencies with the primary canon established in the HP books (which are not themselves entirely consistent, in any case). Goddlefrood: Keen on Flints, glad we cleared up at least one the other day ;). The parameters for werewolves and their formation are not clear in JKR's definition, as can be gleaned from canon. This point will almost certainly be revisited when we get the long awaited explanation for the life debt Severus owed to James (still not about tpo comment on SS's duplicity :)). It may then become clear how werewolves are made in the Harry Potter universe. In mythology werewolves are typically, although not always, represented as being created from a bite by another werewolf. There is a point of interest in here also. Wolfsbane Potion seems to control a werewolf, but if there is such a thing as a Homorphus Charm as claimed by Gilderoy Lockhart in CoS (he said he cured a werewolf) then why is it not used on those, such as Remus, who clearly do not enjoy their lupine state. This may be a Flint for you also, or perhaps the Homorphus Charm was only known to the wizard whose memory Gilderoy must have obliviated. It would please this writer greatly if Remus were to somehow meet this wonder man with his memory restored and be himslef cured of his lycanthropy. > Carol > We know that Lupin, a wizard, became a werewolf when he was bitten as a child Goddlefrood: Indeed we do know this, or should if we read as closely as many here. We also know from HBP that Lupin (at work but I apprehend during "A Very Frosty Christmas" chapter) that Greyback himself created Remus as a werewolf due to Lupin's parents upsetting either Fenrir himself or LV. FWIW there is no mythology of which I have been made aware that is indicative of a werewolf being able to be born of werewolf parents. I find it unlikely that JKR would be so far inconsistent in her rules for werewolves being created as to make this departure from them. > Carol: > At any rate, Greyback's name and his unusual tendencies, including an appetite for human flesh and the capacity to create not infected but *cursed* wounds when he's in human form, make me wonder whether he wasn't born a werewolf to werewolf parents who passed on to him their own hatred of normal wizards. (I can't call it racism; it's a fierce hatred or enmity against those who shun them as evil and dirty and unnatural. And, if the parents are anything like the child, the WW's attitude can't be called racism, either. It's a very understandable fear and loathing.) Goddlefrood: He is certainly a very worrying and troublesome gentleman (which is completely inappropriate, but as Jeeves might say ;)). As I stated in my earlier I certainly hope he was arrested by and is under containment by the Ministry. Goddlefrood who now steps back into real life for a murder case of some import that is currently occupying him (or would have been but for this momentary distraction ;) From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 04:07:34 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:07:34 -0000 Subject: The 2nd prophecy in PoA? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166482 Ok I saw this referenced by someone and I'm not recalling what it is. Can someone please refresh my memory? Um, and this is going to sound pretty sad but should Deathly Hallows mean something to me? Because it doesn't...please help me see what I am missing. Thanks T From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 04:21:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:21:25 -0000 Subject: Umbridgitis in the MoM (Was:A Postscript ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166483 > > Nikkalmati earlier: > > If Madam Bones is acting as the prosecutor, she would ask questions but she would presumably not vote, but the rest of the Wizengamot could and would vote in its capacity as council to the executive. Fudge acted as Chairman. Although there were three interrogators, I suspect Fudge could allow others to ask questions, if they wanted. Goddlefrood: As I suggested in the dim and distant past ;) Madam Bones's role during the course of the proceedings against Harry was as legal adviser. My reasons are contained in the thread further up, and I'm not about to repeat them here :). I also apprehended that she did vote, again for reasons set out earlier. Went through the mechanisms of Harry;s trial in some detail actually, which you may have overlooked ;) in this response (not talking to Carol here) But now am here. The points on the matters in GoF are that they do, as suggested elsewhere upthread seem different from Harry's trial. I had not addressed them very fully, but commend the view expressed upthread by another, that they were, barring Karkaroff's, in their nature sentencing hearings. Fudge has now received his comeuppance IMHO and little further part will be played by him. The six-gilled shark is a very different matter. I did not address her functions in OotP in my divination piece of a few days ago, but seee a need for a little clarification here. > Carol > It seems to me that Madam Bones does her best under the circumstances to ensure a fair examination of the evidence and he witnesses. Goddlefrood: She did, and I'm glad my points were appreciated earlier. > Carol > Only a few members of the Wizengamot seem to be intimidated by Umbridge, laughing sycophantically when she says, "So silly of me. But it sounded for a teensy minute as though you were suggesting that the Ministry of Magic had ordered an attack on this boy!" (147). Goddlefrood: This shows to me that all the machinations made by the six-gilled shark, with or without Fudge's intervention, failed. She was unable to swing matters against Harry (throughout the book really) and her experience with the centaurs is hopefully but a taste of things to come for this despicable witch (that happily has a double meaning in this instance). > Carol: > Fudge, with his kindliness but not his pomposity restored (and his job, of course, given to Scrimgeour). He has obeyed Dumbledore's order (and it is an order) to remove Dolores Umbridge from Hogwarts (OoP 818). Unfortunately, Umbridge is not removed from the Ministry. Goddlefrood: This cosy existence she is leading must be and will be stopped. JKR has promised torture and I look forward to it ;) > Carol wondering whether anyone else sees the insidious influence of Dolores Umbridge as the reason for the alteration in Fudge. Goddlefrood: It would certainly make an interesting analysis. I would conclude that she did, but without wishing to go too much further into it just now. I, for one, have had too much time in the company of the six-gilled shark for my tastes for one week, although perhaps further material will appear here later to take our minds from the duplicitous one again. One other point, although not raised by Carol, is that the hearing in OotP has no relation to the American Justice system, except insofar as that system is the child of the original, as indeed is the Star Chamber referred by Nikalmati previously (she referred to the original's child that is). By the way I have a little proposal for a new Snape acronym, an addition to one not taken earlier. It is: S.L.A.N.O.B.A.N.T.S.I.T.S. That is Snape looking after number one but also number two in there somewhere ;) No further expansion as this is neither the time nor the place for me to do so. A little weary of Severus just now. Goddlefrood, without malice :) and saying you are all aware of what taking umbrage means? If not, try this: http://www.yourdictionary.com/wotd/wotd.pl?word=umbrage From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 26 04:57:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:57:12 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166484 > Julie: > I guess it boils down to what would seem the bigger > omission by JKR, not mentioning Trelawney's presence > at the funeral (or why she isn't there), or not mentioning > a huge furor over her total absence from Hogwarts in the > aftermath of a DE invasion. > > To me it is the second one that would be the greater > omission. That Trelawney could disappear and no one > notices seems quite ludicrous to me. That Trelawney > could still be safe at Hogwarts but not mentioned as > attending the funeral or up in her room refusing or > unable to attend is perhaps a bit of a lapse by JKR > but it still doesn't come off as the kind of major error > or deliberate cheat as Trelawney being gone from > Hogwarts with no one even noticing does. Jen: I do understand this reasoning in the logical part of my brain, that Trelawney should be missed by everyone if she's not actually there. It's just that part of her characterization is she tends to be underestimated and forgotten, the proverbial mad woman locked in the tower. Even being more physically visible in HBP didn't appear to make anyone more *aware* of her, if that makes sense. Harry, Dumbledore, the guests at the Christmas party (besides dear Luna!) don't really hear her in my opinion, unless like with Harry, her information is something personally important. I suppose where logic ends for me and just plain wondering begins is why we got to see the reactions of significant staff to Dumbledore's death and not Trelawney's. She told Harry in the corridor that night before the cave, 'Would Dumbledore have let me teach at this great school, put so much trust in me all these years, had I not proved myself to him?" (chap. 25, p. 508, UK) In her own strange way, Dumbledore meant as much to her and the course of her life as he did to Snape. Based on the way she talks and thinks, self-referentially, I suspect her first thoughts would be about her correct prediction, but after that I wonder if she would feel devastated? Well, I hope to hear her belated reaction in DH and will assume for the moment that JKR forgot about her. (Thanks Dana, for your response and reasoning - I couldn't really add anything or make a specific comment, but was interested to read your thoughts on the the subject.) Jen From juli17 at aol.com Mon Mar 26 05:54:27 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 05:54:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166485 For a little diversion from the current long threads, has anyone given much thought to JKR's comment that Dumbledore's family would be a good avenue to explore? I figure she meant one of two things: 1. She was referring to Aberforth, of whose existence we are already aware from the first OotP photo, and who is very likely the current Hogs Head bartender. 2. She was referring to someone else. It could be that she is merely referring to Aberforth, which does seem a bit odd to me, since we are already aware of his existence. But he hasn't had much part in the story, so maybe she is hinting that he will have a much more critical role in DH. He is certainly the most likely candidate for the "Order member we haven't yet properly met." Or could it be someone else, someone in the story (as JKR said she wouldn't be introducing any major new characters in DH) whose relationship to Dumbledore hasn't yet been revealed? Potential relatives might include the Weasleys (who have red hair like Dumbledore), the Princes (the wizard side of Snape's heritage--and such a relationship might help explain Dumbledore's determination to protect Snape's secrets as well as providing a foundation for a deep knowledge of Snape, deep enough to trust him and his motives completely), or Godric Gryffindor (which might also tie Dumbledore to Godric's Hollow). The ones who seem ruled out are the Potters and the Evanses (Harry has no close living relatives besides Petunia and Dudley), the Blacks (no Dumbledores on their tapestry) and by extension the Malfoys. Other families like the McGonagalls, Abbotts, Lovegoods, Smiths, etc, aren't ruled out, but I don't see how a family relationship between Dumbledore and minor characters would be significant to the plot, or of any real interest. Other thoughts? Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 07:22:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:22:12 -0000 Subject: The 2nd prophecy in PoA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166486 --- "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok I saw this referenced by someone and I'm not > recalling what it is. Can someone please refresh my > memory? Um, and this is going to sound pretty sad but > should Deathly Hallows mean something to me? Because it > doesn't...please help me see what I am missing. Thanks > > T > bboyminn: Indeed this has been discussed many times at depth, but those threads have probably fallen back in the onslaught of posts. Simply put 'Hallows' are sacred objects or places, though not necessarily sacred in the religious sense. For example, the great battlefields of historic wars are sometimes referred to a 'hallowed ground', as are the cemeteries that those battles produced. In addition, there are the 'Four Hallows of Ireland' which very closely mirror objects in the books; Sword, Wand, Locket, and Cup. Note these object are also related to the Tarot Card Deck. That is a quick summary, if you need more information, try the group's Seach facility. Oh, and last of all, of course 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' is the title of the last book in the series. Steve/bboyminn From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 08:24:39 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:24:39 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166487 Leah: > I can't lay my hands on the Fred and George dialogue, but they may > only be referring to the last four DADA teachers, or to the DADA > teachers Harry has known; in either case there would be no need to > mention whatever unfortunate held the position before Quirrel. > Perhaps that was a substitute like Grubbly-Plank, only hired for the > year, and there would be no need for the working of the curse on > them to have an outwardly dramatic effect- Lupin and Umbridge are > after all still going about their business. Finwitch: Never mind about the twins - we have *Dumbledore* telling Harry that not one DADA teacher hold the position over a year since he refused the post to Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Hagrid points out that Quirrell had been teaching out of books earlier, but maybe that was BEFORE the jinx took place or something? Although -- it is a bit curious, Quirrell having Voldemort at the back of his head the entire year... I think the curse ended with Dumbledore, though. (How else could the spell be cast, if not on the one doing the recruiting? A job is an abstract concept, after all...) Still, McGonagall will hire someone - if she is officially appointed and Hogwarts will stay open - both for DADA and transfiguration. Or maybe just DADA considering she's been Transfiguration teacher, Head of Gryffindor AND Deputy Headmistress (with Dumbledore being busy with so many other things that she was doing most of the running of the school anyway...) Finwitch From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 11:27:50 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:27:50 -0000 Subject: How Many Death Eaters Left? (Was Re: Voldemort's Motives) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166488 > Carol responds: > I completely agree with Julie's post except for one minor point: Voldemort doesn't have a "whole army of Death Eaters." By my count, he's now down to Wormtail, Bellatrix, Goyle, Amycus, Alecto, the big blond (if he isn't Goyle), and perhaps three Azkaban escapees who weren't at the MoM. (Travers, maybe?) I'm not counting Snape, of course! Goddlefrood: It is a very interesting point upon which to disagree nevertheless. Carol's list above should, I apprehend also include Ludovic Bagman (whether or not he or Goyle Snr. is the BBDE). Travers is, as sugggested by the interrogatory, still at large. The BBDE could be another as yet unmet DE, although this is not that likely. There is also Otto Bagman to be considered as a potential DE still at large. The list also assumes that the Carrows are Alectus and Amyco, which may well be the case, but also could not be. Yaxley may be brutal face as noted elsewhere, by self and also Carol, but again this is unconfirmed and he could be out there. The elder Avery (mentioned in the course of Lord Voldemort's request could also still be alive. Younger Avery arrested at DoM. The elder Rosier, if he is not the same as the one killed by Mad Eye, and mentioned in the same chapter. Fenrir Greyback if not captured after skirmish at Hogwart's (I've said I believe and hope he was elsewhere, but the contrary position can not be entirely excluded). Brutal face was captured, as also mentioned earlier, at least in my interpretation. Draco Malfoy, who may or may not actually be one, but who I expect to see an intitiation ceremony of some kind for in DH. There is another one I apprehend who was involved in the skirmish at Hogwart's, but that is an entirely different post. It is, if of interest, one of three points I am aware of, upon which the Lexicon and I disagree, as its list of DEs contains no mention of this one, or of any other potential ones. Others as yet unmet, but of a minor nature. Not that many though, so agreed also on that point of Carol's. My inkling was that LV would want at any one time a total of 49 DEs if possible (7 x 7). Just a comment, no proof to back it up btw. As to what may happen, well I have mentioned it before somewhere in the archives and insert the relevant portion with link to previous: > Goddlefrood in a previous life, found here in a more substantive post that was unrelated to how many DEs remain: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155175 > The Death Eaters in general need to be neutralised and it somewhat surprises me that most lists overlook this aspect of the continuing saga. LV's demise would not necessarily eliminate the others hungry to jump in. Goddlefrood of the present: The conclusion then, just tallying that little lot up (including Carol's, with the three unaccounted escapees, that I agree with), is that there are potentially 19 that can be inferred (including Mr. Duplicity), with perhaps a handful more that could be implied in the text (graveyard scene in particular. Perhaps 25 for the sake of argument, but still not a huge number should the Ministry and the Order stand together towards the same purpose. Goddlefrood, hoping that helps to clarify, at least a little ;) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Mar 26 13:05:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:05:29 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Motives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166489 > Carol responds: > I completely agree with Julie's post except for one minor point: > Voldemort doesn't have a "whole army of Death Eaters." By my count, > he's now down to Wormtail, Bellatrix, Goyle, Amycus, Alecto, the big > blond (if he isn't Goyle), and perhaps three Azkaban escapees who > weren't at the MoM. (Travers, maybe?) I'm not counting Snape, of course! > > He's rid himself of a major obstacle, Albus Dumbledore, but he has not > yet built up his strength. The giants can be used to wreak havoc and > the Dementors to induce despair, but only human followers can be used > to form an army subject to control through coercion and fear of his > power. Pippin: One major problem with this. Voldemort is not lying low, building up his strength or saving it for a massive assault on Hogwarts. DE attacks occur with increasing frequency all through HBP. Where is Voldemort getting the manpower? As you say, Giants and Dementors are fearsome but can't very well be infiltrators. But there is one group of allies who have wizard powers, can move about undetected in wizard society, and yet have little reason to be loyal to it. I suspect that Fenrir's uncouth appearance is clever misdirection, and the werewolf members of Voldemort's new army are not only well-fed, but carefully groomed, well-dressed, trained in magic by ESE!Lupin and quite capable of carrying out magical attacks while in human form. As for not making use of the vanishing cabinets, Filch told us it was valuable, worth fixing I should think. If the likes of Flitwick and McGonagall hadn't been able to repair it, why should Voldemort think it was even remotely possible for Draco to do so? The plan, as everyone tells us, was doomed to fail. But having it fail immediately would be no fun for Voldemort, and hardly a torture for Lucius. Grieving a dead son is bad, but waking up every morning not knowing whether this will be the day you lose him -- a thousand times worse. Believe me. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 26 15:27:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:27:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The 2nd prophecy in PoA? Message-ID: <28194011.1174922840727.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166490 From: Steve >Oh, and last of all, of course 'Harry Potter and the >Deathly Hallows' is the title of the last book in the >series. Let's not forget the longshot: "Hallow!" is something you yell to find out if anybody is within listening range. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 26 15:49:28 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:49:28 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job Message-ID: <18300951.1174924168529.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166491 From: finwitch >Never mind about the twins - we have *Dumbledore* telling Harry that >not one DADA teacher hold the position over a year since he refused >the post to Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Hagrid points out that Quirrell had >been teaching out of books earlier, but maybe that was BEFORE the jinx >took place or something? Although -- it is a bit curious, Quirrell >having Voldemort at the back of his head the entire year... Bart: I have this feeling that the curse on the position is something that JKR came up with after GOF (when Harry is told that Snape has been after the job for only 4 years). It was probably a mistake on JKR's part, because the math makes this quite problematic. A) Tommy could not have gone to Dumbeldore BEFORE the attack on the Potters. Therefore, even with a lot of stretches, we know that the absolute mininum number of DADA teachers that Hogwarts has gone through has been (before Quirrel) 10. B) Lord Voldemort has been openly active AT LEAST since Lupin was a child (from Lupin's explanation of how he became a werewolf). If Tommy applied for the job BEFORE he started becoming active, that means that the position has been cursed for 25 years, or more. So, based on the account, Hogwarts has gone through at least 10, and probably at least 20 DADA teachers, and NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS TO BE ODD, where when it is mentioned, only the last few teachers are brought up? I am trying to figure out, if Hagrid didn't mean that Quirrel had taught DADA before he went on sabbatical (in PS/SS), then what COULD he have meant (given that he phrased it as he did)? Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 26 16:15:39 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:15:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Motives Message-ID: <32813880.1174925739464.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166492 Pippin: >One major problem with this. Voldemort is not lying low, building up >his strength or saving it for a massive assault on Hogwarts. DE attacks >occur with increasing frequency all through HBP. Where is Voldemort >getting the manpower? As you say, Giants and Dementors are fearsome >but can't very well be infiltrators. But there is one group of allies >who have wizard powers, can move about undetected in wizard society, >and yet have little reason to be loyal to it. Bart: I believe that the Death Eaters are the top officers in Voldy's army; that there are plenty of foot soldiers, as well (remember how many wizards joined the muggle baiting in GOF). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 16:56:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:56:58 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: <18300951.1174924168529.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166493 > Bart: > I have this feeling that the curse on the position is something that JKR came up with after GOF (when Harry is told that Snape has been after the job for only 4 years). It was probably a mistake on JKR's part, because the math makes this quite problematic. zgirnius: Sorry to nitpick, but when was this, and who said it? A chapter name, at least, would be appreciated, if not the actual quote. This contradicts a statement made in PS/SS by Percy Weasley that everyone knows Snape is after Quirrell's job: > PS/SS: > "Oh, you know Quirrell already, do you? No wonder he's looking so > nervous, that's Professor Snape. He teaches Potions, but he doesn't > want to -- everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful > lot about the Dark Arts, Snape." zgirnius: I don't see how 'everyone' could 'know' Snape is after Quirrell's job if he had only been after it for a year at that point. (It also contradicts the conversation of Snape and Umbridge in Potions class in OotP, but as you are suggesting Rowling changed her mind post-GoF this is less of a problem for your theory). > Bart: > So, based on the account, Hogwarts has gone through at least 10, and probably at least 20 DADA teachers, and NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS TO BE ODD, where when it is mentioned, only the last few teachers are brought up? I am trying to figure out, if Hagrid didn't mean that Quirrel had taught DADA before he went on sabbatical (in PS/SS), then what COULD he have meant (given that he phrased it as he did)? zgirnius: We have better canon on the timing from HBP, "Lord Voldemort's Request". Tom Riddle finidhed school, worked for a time at Borgin and Burkes, disappeared for about ten years, and then applied for a job. Tom Riddle was nearing the end of his HOgwarts years in 1945. This places the job interview in the late 50's/early 60's. The curse has been in effect, apparently, since Snape's schooldays. (Likely start, circa 1970). It is not true that "NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS TO BE ODD", that the position is jinxed is mentioned to Harry by Hagrid as a rumor in CoS. > CoS: > "He was the on' man for the job," said Hagrid, offering them a > plate of treacle fudge, while Ron coughed squelchily into his > basin. "An' I mean the on' one. Gettin' very difficult ter find > anyone fer the Dark Arts job. People aren't too keen ter take it > on, see. They're startin' ter think it's jinxed. No one's lasted > long fer a while now." zgirnius: To me this suggests that Rowling has planned the cursed position since at least CoS, and far more likely in my view, since before the publication of PS/SS. I think she had definitely planned to have a different DADA teacher every year, you see, and the curse was probably the 'story-internal' justification for this device. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 18:33:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:33:59 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166494 zgirnius wrote: > We have better canon on the timing from HBP, "Lord Voldemort's Request". Tom Riddle finidhed school, worked for a time at Borgin and Burkes, disappeared for about ten years, and then applied for a job. > > Tom Riddle was nearing the end of his HOgwarts years in 1945. This places the job interview in the late 50's/early 60's. The curse has been in effect, apparently, since Snape's schooldays. (Likely start, circa 1970). > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here. Assuming that the curse is caused by the slight wand movement at the end of the DADA interview (which I would place ca. 1957-59, ten years after Riddle left Borgin and Burkes), why would the curse not begin until ca. 1970? Dumbledore himself says, "You see, we have never been able to keep a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort" (HBP Am. ed. 446)--IOW, the curse or jinx or whatever it is has lasted almost forty years (ca. 1957-1996) at the time of DD's conversation with Harry. I don't see how you've arrived at ca. 1970. zgirnius: > It is not true that "NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS TO BE ODD", that the position is jinxed is mentioned to Harry by Hagrid as a rumor in CoS. > > To me this suggests that Rowling has planned the cursed position > since at least CoS, and far more likely in my view, since before the > publication of PS/SS. I think she had definitely planned to have a > different DADA teacher every year, you see, and the curse was > probably the 'story-internal' justification for this device. > Carol responds: Here, I agree with you. As for Fred and George, HRH, et al., not noticing the effects of the curse/jinx before Quirrell in SS/PS, HRH, of course, were not in school until that time. Fred and George would have had Quirrell in what, if we can take DD's words in HBP at face value, and I think we can, would have been his first year. He would have seemed normal at that time, and his going off for a year to get first-hand experience with Dark Creatures would not have been recognized by them or anyone (except Dumbledore) as a manifestation of the curse. (It did, however, lead Quirrell straight to Vapor!mort in Albania, and a gullible young man was persuaded that "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it.") Meanwhile, the DADA class would have been taught by a substitute while Quirrell was on his one-year leave of absence. Whatever happened to that unknown teacher was apparently sufficiently unpleasant to deter him from applying again when the position reopened after Quirrell's death (Lockhart is the "on'y" applicant, unless Snape is submitting token applications that he knows will be rejected). It's unclear how much any of the students other than Harry know about what happened to Quirrell, et al. Terry Boot (IIRC) doesn't even know that Harry fought a Basilisk until the Sorting Hat tells him, and Dumbledore's speeches at the end-of-year banquets are remarkably vague and general. All the students know, in general, is that suddenly, the DADA teacher's chair at the staff table is vacant. No wonder there's a rumor that the position is jinxed, a rumor that has reached the outside world of the WW, resulting in an extremely small number of applicants, those who have already had the job being, aside from Quirrell, extremely reluctant to return. We *know* that Dumbledore actively recruited the real Mad-Eye Moody for the year of the TWT, apparently informing him that it was a one-year position (as Fake!Moody tells the students). I suspect that he recruited Lupin as well, either because of the supposed danger posed by Lupin's old friend, Sirius Black, or because of Umbridge's newly passed anti-werewolf legislation, which Sirius Black tells Harry in OoP was passed two years previously--just at the time that Lupin began to teach at Hogwarts (another instance of DD's protected-person policy, I think, only he surely would have informed Lupin that the job was likely to last only one year). Of course, by the time we get to Umbridge, Quirrell is dead, Lockhart has lost his memory, Lupin is exposed as a werewolf and can't return, the real Moody has spent nine months in a trunk and is unlikely to want to try again, and no one else in the WW is applying. No doubt the fates of the last four applicants have reinforced an already persistent rumor (especially if people know about Fake!Moody, as well). As for Snape, it's extremely difficult to tell whether he really wants a position he surely knows is jinxed or whether this is a carefully engineered rumor/cover story (like the Shrieking Shack being haunted or DD's injury being the result of slowed reactions) that DD and Snape are perpetuating. One thing is clear, at least to me: Dumbledore has carefully avoided giving the position to Snape four fifteen years because he knows the jinx or curse is real. I have my own ideas as to his motives for both withholding it from and finally giving it to Snape--and they have nothing to do with yet another carefully engineered cover story of the position tempting Snape back into his old ways. (It's extremely unfortunate, IMO, that the first really knowledgeable and effective DADA teacher Harry has not only can't get through to him because of their mutual dislike but is struck by the curse in such a devastating way. Did Voldemort suspect, once Snape was appointed to the DADA post, that he'd be forced to "do the deed" for Draco? If so, he must have expected a lot more from Draco's assignment after that time than revenge against Lucius Malfoy, whether or not he knew about the Unbreakable Vow.) Carol, who agrees with zgirnius that the so-called jinx on the position has been carefully planned from the beginning of the series, and who thinks that Quirrell as an apparent exception to the rule can be explained by one year of teaching DADA, a one-year hiatus leading him to Voldemort, and a second, nonconsecutive, definitely cursed year From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Mar 26 19:17:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job Message-ID: <7467247.1174936640901.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166495 Bart: >> I have this feeling that the curse on the position is something >that JKR came up with after GOF (when Harry is told that Snape has >been after the job for only 4 years). It was probably a mistake on >JKR's part, because the math makes this quite problematic. > >zgirnius: >Sorry to nitpick, but when was this, and who said it? A chapter name, >at least, would be appreciated, if not the actual quote. This >contradicts a statement made in PS/SS by Percy Weasley that everyone >knows Snape is after Quirrell's job: I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the comment is by Fred or George, and it's when Snape gives a nasty look at Moody, about 1/4 - 1/3 through the book. zgirnius: >I don't see how 'everyone' could 'know' Snape is after Quirrell's job >if he had only been after it for a year at that point. Depends on how open he's been about it. Although I'm pretty sure that the rumors were started by Dumbledore. Bart: >> So, based on the account, Hogwarts has gone through at least 10, >and probably at least 20 DADA teachers, and NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS >TO BE ODD, where when it is mentioned, only the last few teachers are >brought up? I am trying to figure out, if Hagrid didn't mean that >Quirrel had taught DADA before he went on sabbatical (in PS/SS), then >what COULD he have meant (given that he phrased it as he did)? > >zgirnius: >We have better canon on the timing from HBP, "Lord Voldemort's >Request". Tom Riddle finidhed school, worked for a time at Borgin and >Burkes, disappeared for about ten years, and then applied for a job. > >Tom Riddle was nearing the end of his HOgwarts years in 1945. This >places the job interview in the late 50's/early 60's. The curse has >been in effect, apparently, since Snape's schooldays. (Likely start, >circa 1970). Bart: I'm not crazy about the idea of attaching Muggle dates to the HP books, especially since I don't recall any actually being used in the canon (the source, I assume, is from JKR interviews). Because of the time stretching because of the less than 1 book/year schedule, I prefer just using internal references. "Zero points" could be, for example, Harry Potter's birth, the attack on GH, the beginning of book one, and, of course, the current book. Also, note that from CoS, we know that Riddle was using "Lord Voldemort" at age 15. So we don't really know how long TR was openly operating as LV before he became considered to be a theat, and when ANYBODY outside of Tommy's circle (including DD) found out that he was Voldemort. however... zgirnius: >It is not true that "NOBODY HAS NOTICED THIS TO BE ODD", that the >position is jinxed is mentioned to Harry by Hagrid as a rumor in CoS. CoS: >> "He was the on' man for the job," said Hagrid, offering them a >> plate of treacle fudge, while Ron coughed squelchily into his >> basin. "An' I mean the on' one. Gettin' very difficult ter find >> anyone fer the Dark Arts job. People aren't too keen ter take it >> on, see. They're startin' ter think it's jinxed. No one's lasted >> long fer a while now." I'm sorry, but "no one's lasted long fer a while now" and, "nobody's lasted for more than one term in 20+ years" are VERY different things. Yes, Hagrid's statement would be technically true, as would, "The Atlantic Ocean's been known to be wet." zgirnius: >To me this suggests that Rowling has planned the cursed position >since at least CoS, and far more likely in my view, since before the >publication of PS/SS. I think she had definitely planned to have a >different DADA teacher every year, you see, and the curse was >probably the 'story-internal' justification for this device. As I said, I don't think she had "nobody's lasted more than a year in over 2 decades" in mind until OOP at the earliest. Or, alternatively, she never did the math. Bart From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 18:18:45 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:18:45 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Finwitch: > > Never mind about the twins - we have *Dumbledore* telling Harry that > not one DADA teacher hold the position over a year since he refused > the post to Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Hagrid points out that Quirrell had > been teaching out of books earlier, but maybe that was BEFORE the jinx > took place or something? Although -- it is a bit curious, Quirrell > having Voldemort at the back of his head the entire year... > Maybe DD is thinking of Quirrell and QuirellMort as two different people. That is, he may simply be considering that Quirrell in effect "died" when Voldemort took up residence, and therefore Quirell taught one year and QuirrellMort taught one year. Weak, I know, but one possible way around what was probably a mistake on JKR's part. Also, we have to keep in mind that there is actually no direct evidence that there really IS a curse on the DADA position. It is simply speculation on DD's part, based it is true on a whole lot of circumstantial evidence -- and perhaps a desire for various reasons to find an excuse for not giving Snape the job. It would be very amusing if, at some point in DH, Voldy is confronted with the DADA jinx and blinks in confusion saying "Jinx? What jinx? I was responsible for a lot of things, but Dumbledore's hiring problems weren't one of them!" But, like I say, I think we really are just dealing with a place where JKR's outlines failed her. Lupinlore From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 20:16:25 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:16:25 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: <7467247.1174936640901.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166497 > Bart: > I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe the comment is by Fred or George, and it's when Snape gives a nasty look at Moody, about 1/4 - 1/3 through the book. zgirnius: I think I know the scene you mean now. Let me know if this is it. (The speakers, however, are Ron and Harry). > GoF, opening of Chapter 14. "The Unforgivable Curses": > The next two days passed without great incident, unless you counted Neville melting his sixth cauldron in Potions. Professor Snape, who seemed to have attained new levels of vindictiveness over the summer, gave Neville detention, and Neville returned from it in a state of nervous collapse, having been made to disembowel a barrel full of horned toads. > "You know why Snape's in such a foul mood, don't you?" said Ron to Harry as they watched Hermione teaching Neville a Scouring Charm to remove the frog guts from under his fingernails. > "Yeah," said Harry. "Moody." > It was common knowledge that Snape really wanted the Dark Arts job, and he had now failed to get it for the fourth year running. Snape had disliked all of their previous Dark Arts teachers, and shown it - but he seemed strangely wary of displaying overt animosity to Mad-Eye Moody. zgirnius: It seems apparent to me that the common knowledge referred to here is Harry's, the final paragraph explains to the reader the basis for Ron and Harry's otherwise cryptic exchange. I do not consider that this rules out Snape previously wanting the job (or being believed to want it). > Bart: > I'm not crazy about the idea of attaching Muggle dates to the HP books, especially since I don't recall any actually being used in the canon (the source, I assume, is from JKR interviews). zgirnius: No, it is based on the books, actually. In CoS, Nick has a 500th deathday party. He states he died in 1492. That puts the start of CoS in 1992. The dates I am using are all based on that calculation and internal time references. Bart: Because of the time stretching because of the less than 1 book/year schedule, I prefer just using internal references. "Zero points" could be, for example, Harry Potter's birth, the attack on GH, the beginning of book one, and, of course, the current book. Also, note that from CoS, we know that Riddle was using "Lord Voldemort" at age 15. So we don't really know how long TR was openly operating as LV before he became considered to be a theat, and when ANYBODY outside of Tommy's circle (including DD) found out that he was Voldemort. zgirnius: I am happy to restate my argument in terms you find suitable. I will use the year CoS started as my zero point. As I will be dealing in round numbers, we need not fix a specific date in that year. At roughly zero minus 50 years, Tom was a schoolboy, an upperclassman, who opened the Chamber of Secrets. Shortly thereafter (likely zero minus 48 years) Tom finished school. According to DD in "Lord Voldemort's Request" he immediately accepted a job at B&B. After working there for an unspecified period, he then disappeared for 'ten years', as per DD. So, how long do you think Tom would have worked as a store clerk? I can't see much more than five years, personally, and expect rather than it was a year or two. However, in case you see things differently...surely we can agree that by about zero minus 40, Tom had left his job, and by zero minus 30, he has the job interview? That would mean that by the time Hagrid makes his comment in CoS, it has been 30 years that the curse has been in effect. > Bart: > I'm sorry, but "no one's lasted long fer a while now" and, "nobody's lasted for more than one term in 20+ years" are VERY different things. Yes, Hagrid's statement would be technically true, as would, "The Atlantic Ocean's been known to be wet." zgirnius: And you would expect that degree of precision in a statement by Hagrid, of all characters? Rubeus "Follow the Spiders" Hagrid? If he considers his pal Aragog's little kiddies nothing worth warning someone about, I can see why the travails of assorted DADA teachers past fail to arouse his concern. Keep in mind that not all disappearances had to seem odd or traumatic, as well. Quirrell going on a sabbatical, for example. Teachers leaving to start families, take other jobs, leaving for undisclosed reasons with cover stories that sound innocuous, etc. Hagrid might not even pay close attention enough to *know* it has been less than a year in every single case. If the person in question is not a friend, how relevant is it to him who teaches DADA, and for how long? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 20:37:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:37:42 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: <7467247.1174936640901.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166498 Bart wrote: > I'm not crazy about the idea of attaching Muggle dates to the HP books, especially since I don't recall any actually being used in the canon (the source, I assume, is from JKR interviews). Because of the time stretching because of the less than 1 book/year schedule, I prefer just using internal references. "Zero points" could be, for example, Harry Potter's birth, the attack on GH, the beginning of book one, and, of course, the current book. Also, note that from CoS, we know that Riddle was using "Lord Voldemort" at age 15. So we don't really know how long TR was openly operating as LV before he became considered to be a theat, and when ANYBODY outside of Tommy's circle (including DD) found out that he was Voldemort. Carol responds: We have at least one definitive date in canon: Nearly Headless Nick died in 1492, and his 500th death date is October 31 of Harry's second year, which would make his second year 1992-93. And since Harry was born on July 31 and is twelve years old at that time, he must have been born July 31, 1980, which places Godric's Hollow on October 31, 1981, exactly fifteen months later. We also have the Riddle murders occurring fifty years before the opening of GoF (admittedly, fifty could be approximate) and the dates on Riddle's diary being fifty years before CoS (probably more exact since Tom is sixteen in the diary and the framing of Hagrid seems to occur only a short time before the Riddle murders. And the Riddle murders occur some time after Frank Bryce returned from World War II, placing them pretty clearly in the 1940s. If fifty years is correct for CoS, then the framing of Hagrid takes place in June of 1943. And the defeat of Grindelwald occurring in 1945 is unlikely to be coincidental with regard to either WWII or, more important, Tom Riddle. We also have canonical ages for certain characters other than HRH (for example, Lucius Malfoy is 41 at some point in GoF, IIRC), so it's possible to calculate an approximate birth year for him based solely on canon evidence. I can find the Nearly Headless Nick reference on which everything else is based if necessary. Bart: > As I said, I don't think she had "nobody's lasted more than a year in over 2 decades" in mind until OOP at the earliest. Or, alternatively, she never did the math. Carol responds: In any case, she certainly has not two but four decades in mind as of HBP. I wouldn't be surprised if she never did the math ("We haven't won the Cup since Charlie left" would mean "We haven't won the Cup since last year" if Charlie is really three years older than Percy, entirely inconsistent with not having won the Cup for seven years, as is stated in both SS/PS and, IIRC, PoA. Evidently, in her mind, if Charlie is seven years older than Harry, as she originally envisioned him as being until someone informed her that he'd still be in school if that were the case, then he must have last won the cup seven years before--when he was about eleven (or twelve) himself. It's the kind of logic you have to be somewhat math-deficient yourself to understand. Or you have to believe that the legendary Charlie Weasley, who could have played for England, somehow never managed to win the Cup, even though Gryffindor hasn't won since Charlie left, which involves the sort of Doublethink George Orwell described in "1984.") Let's just say that neither math nor consistency is JKR's strong point. Nevertheless, as I said in another post, it is possible to work out a kind of logic for a DADA curse/jinx that has lasted forty years and which is, unfortunately for Severus Snape, still very much in effect. Carol, who was talking to her mother as she typed and hopes there are no stupid blunders in this post as a result of her divided attention From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 21:28:59 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:28:59 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job - Quirrel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166499 --- "Inge" wrote: > > Wondering just how cursed this job really is, or if JK > made a mistake with the teacher-last-only-one-year vs > Quirrell. > > It seems to me, Quirrell would have taught DADA for > more than just 1 year - but maybe I've read the actual > curse wrong. > > ... bboyminn: Just addressing this one aspect. First and foremost, who says Quirrel was teaching DADA when he was teaching earlier. He could have been teaching any subject, then decided to get experience so he could take on the prestigious DADA job. Also, having the DADA job and being subjected to it's curse doesn't mean instant death. So far, only Quirrel has died. So, Quirrel could have had the DADA job and mucked it up royally, then decided the reason why was because he lacked experience. So, he took a year off, got experience, and came back full of the belief he now had things under control. Quirrel teaching DADA, taking a year off, then coming back to teach it again is not in anyway inconsistent. Note, there is nothing to stop Lupin or Moody from coming back and teaching the class. I'm very sure they don't want to, but there is really nothing stopping them. So, saying that no teacher has lasted more than a year, could mean that no teacher has lasted more than one consecutive year. Teacher may have come to the position, failed, then come back a few years later to give it another go. That could very well be what Quirrel did. Though equally he could have previously taught a different subject. Either one works for me. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 22:04:59 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:04:59 -0000 Subject: The 2nd prophecy in PoA? In-Reply-To: <28194011.1174922840727.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166500 > Bart > Let's not forget the longshot: "Hallow!" is something you yell to find out if anybody is within listening range. Goddlefrood: Too, too droll, dear boy, obviously missed your vocation. As any fule know "Hallow" is related to holes in the ground :| Yelling out of one of those could be handy, though ;) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 26 23:25:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:25:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family/Aberforth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166501 Julie wrote: > > For a little diversion from the current long threads, has anyone given much thought to JKR's comment that Dumbledore's family would be a good avenue to explore? I figure she meant one of two things: > > 1. She was referring to Aberforth, of whose existence we are already aware from the first OotP photo, and who is very likely the current Hogs Head bartender. > > 2. She was referring to someone else. Carol responds, tongue in cheek: Aberforth or someone else. I'd say that's a safe bet. (Sorry! Don't hex me!) Seriously, I think it refers at least in part to Aberforth, and possibly to their shared family history, although from what we've seen of Aberforth (and, yes, I'm sure he's the Hog's Head bartender), he doesn't seem to be very loquacious. There's also that odd reference to inappropriate Charms on goats, which I trust will remain unexplained, and the equally mysterious (and I'm quite sure, facetious) comment by Albus that he's not sure Aberforth can read. Put that together with his oddity, commented on by that representative of normalcy and sanity, Mad-Eye Moody, and the unkempt appearance of the Hog's Head barkeeper who smells of goats and, like Dumbledore, is tall and thin, and that's about as much as we know. I'm guessing that he's younger than Dumbledore, as his hair and beard are grey rather than silver (and he'd have to be more than 150). There's also the, erm, confrontation with Mundungus in HBP and his having supposedly tossed Mundungus out and banned him from the Hog's Head some twenty years earlier (I smell a cover story), the eavesdropping incident (on which Aberforth is about the only person who can shed some light), and DD's remark about "being friendly with the local bartenders" in the Riddle DADA interview, which suggests that Aberforth is his source of information for the names of Voldemort's traveling companions and their name for themselves (Death Eaters). Almost certainly, in my view, Aberforth is a member of Albus's extensive spy network--and no doubt he hears many things of interest in the Hog's Head, where all sorts of people on the fringes of Wizarding society hang out. I'm quite sure that, appearances to the contrary, he has frequent dealings with Mundungus, and his dirty/somewhat mentally deficient barkeeper persona no doubt enables him to overhear many things. He might as well be a house-elf, or a fly on the wall, for all the attention that people pay to him. Julie: > It could be that she is merely referring to Aberforth, which does seem a bit odd to me, since we are already aware of his existence. But he hasn't had much part in the story, so maybe she is hinting that he will have a much more critical role in DH. He is certainly the most likely candidate for the "Order member we haven't yet properly met." Carol: I'd say he's the odds-on favorite for that role. Notice that the barkeeper was present for the funeral, but Harry didn't see anyone that the narrator identified specifically as Aberforth. Aberforth not at his own brother's funeral? Not likely. Aberforth not recognized by Harry? Very likely. And Harry will put two and two together eventually. Soon, I hope. (Maybe that photo will show up again and Hermione will recognize the barkeeper?) Julie: > Or could it be someone else, someone in the story (as JKR said she wouldn't be introducing any major new characters in DH) whose relationship to Dumbledore hasn't yet been revealed? or Godric Gryffindor (which might also tie Dumbledore to Godric's Hollow). Carol: I think that there's a strong tie between Albus Dumbledore and the House of Godric Gryffindor, so strong that he owns the Sword of Gryffindor and a Phoenix in the Gryffindor colors. (Yes, I know; those are the natural colors of a Phoenix, but still, the mere fact that DD owned him and that Phoenixes are very long-lived suggests that Fawkes, before he was so-named, may have belonged to Godric Gryffindor. The name Fawkes, however, can only have been given after 1606, death date of the notorious Guy, and was probably given to him by DD himself, given his eccentric sense of humor). DD even has a griffin door knocker, a joke that I may be the only person who appreciates. I would say that the probability of a family connection between the Dumbledores and Godric Gryffindor is much more likely than a Potter/Dumbledore or Weasley/Dumbledore or (sadly) Prince/Dumbledore connection, for which there is no suggestion in canon (and JKR has said on her site, IIRC, that DD is not related to Harry). I believe, with no evidence except this Gryffindor connection, that the house in Godric's Hollow belonged to Dumbledore and that the Potters were hiding there before the Fidelius Charm was placed on it, possibly as much as a year before. (I think that the charm would cause him to forget that he knew their whereabouts, or to remember that he had hidden them but not remember where. And, of course, even if he had gone there, he couldn't have seen them, not having been told by the DK himself.) Anyway, to get back on topic, I vote for Aberforth and Godric Gryffindor as Albus Dumbledore's "family." On a side note, it's possible that the Dumbledore's are on the Black family tapestry somewhere, along with the Princes, considering that it goes back about five hundred years (I don't recall the exact number) and Harry was focusing on the names at the bottom, the people who were still alive, in his own and Sirius's generations. Also, the maternal line, unless a Black marries a Black, as in the case of Orion and Walburga, is not followed up, except in the case of Narcissa Black Malfoy, whose son is the only Black descendant of his generation. It's quite possible that somewhere on that tapestry you would find a variety of Pure-blood families, including the Dumbledores, the Princes, the Ollivanders, the Lovegoods, the Smiths. (Just speculating and naming people who strike me as probably or possibly pure-bloods.) Carol, who dearly loves digressions and hopes hers don't detract from her main point or confuse anyone From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 23:34:38 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:34:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703261634g2b89b37exb0fe66a389c6993e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166502 Julie: That Trelawney could disappear and no one > notices seems quite ludicrous to me. That Trelawney > could still be safe at Hogwarts but not mentioned as > attending the funeral or up in her room refusing or > unable to attend is perhaps a bit of a lapse by JKR > but it still doesn't come off as the kind of major error > or deliberate cheat as Trelawney being gone from > Hogwarts with no one even noticing does. Lynda: For my part, especially since the funeral is from Harry's point of view, and Trelawny is a person he generally avoids, his not noticing her specifically at DD's funeral does not seem odd to me. Throughout the books, we are told there are many times (in fact the times she does appear are rare) that she does not eat with the staff or student population, so it is possible she chose not to come to the funeral, or that Harry just did not seek her out as he did some of the other attendees. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 01:03:10 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:03:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: References: <7467247.1174936640901.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0703261803q419c1c8dhbfe47b6fb3ee92f8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166503 Zigurnius: > "You know why Snape's in such a foul mood, don't you?" said Ron to Harry as they watched Hermione teaching Neville a Scouring Charm to remove the frog guts from under his fingernails. > "Yeah," said Harry. "Moody." > It was common knowledge that Snape really wanted the Dark Arts job, and he had now failed to get it for the fourth year running. Snape had disliked all of their previous Dark Arts teachers, and shown it - but he seemed strangely wary of displaying overt animosity to Mad-Eye Moody. :Lynda: I have never taken that to mean that Snape did not want that job before that time. In fact, it seems to me that canon supports the notion--if it does not state it outright--that it was the DADA position that he originally sought at Hogwarts, and the one he continued to apply for whenever the position became vacant. I've always thought that to be true, from the beginning of the series. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 27 01:38:31 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:38:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job References: <7467247.1174936640901.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004601c77010$a182ccc0$4fba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166504 > Bart: > I'm not crazy about the idea of attaching Muggle dates to the HP books, > especially since I don't recall any actually being used in the canon (the > source, I assume, is from JKR interviews). Because of the time stretching > because of the less than 1 book/year schedule, I prefer just using > internal references. "Zero points" could be, for example, Harry Potter's > birth, the attack on GH, the beginning of book one, and, of course, the > current book. Also, note that from CoS, we know that Riddle was using > "Lord Voldemort" at age 15. So we don't really know how long TR was openly > operating as LV before he became considered to be a theat, and when > ANYBODY outside of Tommy's circle (including DD) found out that he was > Voldemort. Magpie: Other people have pointed out the CoS=1992 year, but for me it's more general as well. Dates don't really conform to the calendar, but there's a general sense of how much time has past. It's clear around what time period Tom Riddle is living in, and he's fairly young when he comes to apply for the job, so I don't see why we shouldn't just assume that yes, the DADA position has been cursed since probably the 1960s. Since the curse doesn't always end in any kind of violence or anything like that, I think it's still possible for people to be "starting to think" it's cursed in CoS in Hagrid's opinion. -m From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Mar 27 02:29:05 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:29:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46088171.2030704@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166505 Zara wrote: > Keep in mind that not all disappearances had to seem odd or > traumatic, as well. Quirrell going on a sabbatical, for example. > Teachers leaving to start families, take other jobs, leaving for > undisclosed reasons with cover stories that sound innocuous, etc. > Hagrid might not even pay close attention enough to *know* it has > been less than a year in every single case. If the person in question > is not a friend, how relevant is it to him who teaches DADA, and for > how long? Bart: How many times did Susan Lucci lose the Daytime Emmy Awards before she became bigger news than the awards? Bart From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Tue Mar 27 02:16:55 2007 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (LynnKQuinn at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:16:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Back to the cursed DADA-job Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166506 :Lynda: I have never taken that to mean that Snape did not want that job before that time. In fact, it seems to me that canon supports the notion--if it does not state it outright--that it was the DADA position that he originally sought at Hogwarts, and the one he continued to apply for whenever the position became vacant. I've always thought that to be true, from the beginning of the series. Lynn: Actually Umbridge asks Snape about the position in OOTP: "Now...how long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" she asked, her quill poised over her clipboard. "Fourteen years" Snape replied. His expression was unfathomable. Harry added a few drops to his potion; it hissed menacingly and turned from turquoise to orange. "You applied first for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape. "Yes," said Snape quietly. "But you were unsucessful?" Snape's lip curled. "Obviously." Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. "And you have applied regularly for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. (Chap. 17, pps. 363-364 Am. ed.) So I would think that the only way this was not the case would be if Snape and DD deliberately misled people into believing Snape kept applying. I believe Snape did want the job abd DD kept him from it because Snape was too valuable to be a victim of the curse. Lynn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 03:33:02 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:33:02 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166507 > Lynn quoting from canon and commenting: > "Now...how long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" she asked, her quill poised over her clipboard. "Fourteen years" Snape replied. His expression was unfathomable. Harry added a few drops to his potion; it hissed menacingly and turned from turquoise to orange. "You applied first for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape. "Yes," said Snape quietly. "But you were unsucessful?" Snape's lip curled. "Obviously." Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. "And you have applied regularly for the Defense Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. (Chap. 17, pps. 363-364 Am. ed.) > So I would think that the only way this was not the case would be if Snape and DD deliberately misled people into believing Snape kept applying. I believe Snape did want the job abd DD kept him from it because Snape was too valuable to be a victim of the curse. Goddlefrood: There is a great deal of misdirection throughout the series. This point in respect of Snape's utterances to Umbridge has been addressed here before, for Blue Peter fans, here's one I made earlier: > Goddlefrood from the dim mists of time: Unless of course Snape is being less than honest and covering the real reason he has not become DADA teacher. As we know Snape follows orders and he would have to apply for the DADA post if LV wanted him to. Or did LV want him to? After all LV would know of his own curse on the position and only if he anticipated Snape staying only a year or he lifted the curse could Snape last beyond a year in the post. I contend that Snape is not being entirely truthful. The passage does not say, however, that Snape applied every year since he joined the staff, only that he has applied regularly. To have applied every year would be inconsistent with the matters noted in this article. Even to say he applied regularly is a bit of a stretch as clearly, from Harry's year 2 until his year 5 (four full years), Snape probably did not apply for the job. From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141829 Goddlefrood firmly fixed now in the present: I maintain this view, while appreciating that otheres hold a different position. What it may mean is another story and would not necessarily support a reading of Severus that puts him in DD's camp. "Think for yourselves and allow others the privilege to do so too." - Voltaire, Essay on Understanding Ta ra for now Goddlefrood From renee at thephoenixrises.org Tue Mar 27 05:08:21 2007 From: renee at thephoenixrises.org (merihastyent) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:08:21 -0000 Subject: Quidditch Teams Join Borders Riverside Classic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166508 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007 Contact: Renee Antoine, Media Manager press at thephoenixrises.org QUIDDITCH TEAMS JOIN THE BORDERS RIVERSIDE QUIDDITCH CLASSIC NEW ORLEANS, La., March 26, 2007 -- Phoenix Rising has announced the final line-up for the Borders Riverside Quidditch Classic, to be held on May 19, 2007, as part of the Phoenix Rising conference activities. The tournament will include the Alivan???s Winged Lions, the Knight 62442 Werewolves; the Whimsic Alley Sea Serpents; the Borders Potion Masters; the Shrieking Shack Marauders; the Owl Appreciation Society Fighting Owls; the World Confederation of Pirates and Ninjas Pontchartrain Pirates; and the Betas Anonymous Punctuation Pixies. All teams will play at least three matches of outdoor Quidditch, complete with spectators, and at the end of the tournament, the winners will take home the famed Delta Cup. "It's incredible to see such a diverse group of fan groups and businesses join together to play Quidditch on the banks of the Mississippi River," said Madeleine Defourneaux, the Bayou Quidditch League???s tournament manager. Interested attendees can join the tournament until the close of registration on April 10, 2007. Additionally, non-attendees may take part in the tournament by visiting and using the "purchase tickets only" option. Until April 10, anyone may purchase Quidditch tournament registration, tickets for the Storyville wizard rock event on Bourbon Street, and for the keynote events, presented by Susan Aikens of Borders, Inc., Danny Bilson of Electronic Arts, Jon Burlingame of the University of Southern California, and Dr. Anne Heibert Alton, as well as for a unique walking dinner at the Aquarium of the Americas. Links: About Phoenix Rising Phoenix Rising (www.thephoenixrises.org), a Harry Potter conference for adult scholars, students, professionals and fans, is presented by Narrate Conferences, Inc. (www.narrateconferences.org), a 501(c)(3) charitable organization that produces dynamic, innovative events. Phoenix Rising is an unofficial event, and is not endorsed, sanctioned or any other way supported, directly or indirectly, by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the Harry Potter book publishers, or J. K. Rowling and her representatives. ### From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 27 06:52:47 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:52:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family/Aberforth. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166509 "justcarol67" wrote: > equally mysterious (and I'm quite sure, > facetious) comment by Albus that he's > not sure Aberforth can read. I'm not sure it's facetious, perhaps Aberforth is Autistic, a wizard Rainman: he can't perform simple spells that any first year student at Hogwarts can, but he can do extraordinary spells that no other wizard on Earth can, not even his brother. > his oddity, commented on by that > representative of normalcy and sanity, > Mad-Eye Moody Yes, if Mad Eye says he's strange he must be strange indeed. Eggplant From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 09:11:17 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:11:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703270211l33e77956vffb1992a90c676ef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166510 > Julie wrote: > ...has anyone given much thought to JKR's comment that > Dumbledore's family would be a good avenue to explore? > I figure she meant one of two things: > > 1. She was referring to Aberforth, of whose existence > we are already aware from the first OotP photo, and > who is very likely the current Hogs Head bartender. > > 2. She was referring to someone else. > > It could be that she is merely referring to Aberforth, > which does seem a bit odd to me, since we are already > aware of his existence. But he hasn't had much part in > the story, so maybe she is hinting that he will have > a much more critical role in DH. ... > > Or could it be someone else, someone in the story (as > JKR said she wouldn't be introducing any major new > characters in DH) whose relationship to Dumbledore > hasn't yet been revealed? ... > > Other thoughts? Kemper now: I have one. Albus and his brother, Aberforth, have a sister, Arabella. What is Mrs. Figg's maiden name? Dumbledore, I say! It is obvious Arabella Figg grew up in a loving/accepting Wizarding family. If she were not, she would most likely be more involved in the Muggle world, perhaps an untalked about cousin(uncle?) who's an accountant. Dumbledore is the most liberal/progressive wizard we've seen in the Wizarding world. He accepts werewolves, half-giants (and sought the support of whole-giants), half-bloods, Muggle-borns, Centaurs, Merpeople, probably more not the least of whom are Squibs. He allows them to be themselves (see Lupin's school years at Hogwarts and the Shrieking Shack). It is amazing the power those who rear us have. In the US, one is most likely to vote as his/her parents voted, even when one is at odds with them. Albus seems to accept everyone. Aberforth seems to accept any clientelle (a downside to accepting freely, one might think). Arabella seems to accept herself as a Squib in the Wizarding community (and a successful one to boot!). She is defiant of those who don't accept her. While the other Squib we see is envious of the Witches and Wizards around him. He hates himself so much that he lies by commission to that toad, Umbridge, when she instructs Filch to avoid casting certain spells against firework like display of the Weasley twins, too ashamed to admit to being a Squib. That kind of shame is rooted in a family that is ashamed of their magicless son. Arabella isn't like that. She sees herself as an equal as evidence by hitting and berating Mungdungus. Her fierce belief in herself and Albus' fierce belief in a being's character seem to be qualities of a similar upbringing. But I could be wrong. They didn't seem like bro and sis at the Hearing, of course Albus and I believe Arabella would hold that card close to their chest. Kemper, too tired to look up any page numbers in canon From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 10:34:15 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:34:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: <700201d40703270211l33e77956vffb1992a90c676ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166511 > Kemper now: > I have one. Albus and his brother, Aberforth, have a sister, Arabella. Goddlefrood: Sorry to put a small crimp in an otherwise d**n fine idea, but I must say, having analysed the chapter "The Hearing" in OotP in some depth recently, I find it unlikely that Mrs. Figg is related to Arabella Fig for the simple reason that it seems, to me at least, probable that one of the members of the Wizengamot would have said something when Dumbledore called on the same Mrs. Figg to testify. Many apologies for that, but I apprehend that any further DD relatives would need to be investigated for elsewhere :) Goddlefrood with compliments for an otherwise fine post. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Mar 27 10:49:57 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:49:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family/Aberforth. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166512 Eggplant: > I'm not sure it's facetious, perhaps Aberforth is Autistic, a wizard > Rainman: he can't perform simple spells that any first year student at > Hogwarts can, but he can do extraordinary spells that no other wizard > on Earth can, not even his brother. Ceridwen: I would disagree with this. Even a high-functioning Autistic like "Rainman", or like Christopher Boone of "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime" by Mark Haddon, would not be able to be in full charge of a business. An emergency (reference Raymond Babbit burning the toast) would render them useless. Nor would either be able to be a spy. One characteristic of Autism, even of Asperger's Syndrom, the name for the high end of the Autism spectrum, is an inability to read facial expressions and vocal inflection (various incidents in Curious Incident). This would be detremental to the role of spy, spy-master, or any other job involving intrigue. This reminds me of a long-ago discussion about whether or not Snape could be Autistic. To be honest, I do wonder, and now that you've raised the question about Aberforth, I wonder about him, too. However, if either of them are, they would have to be higher-functioning than Asperger's Syndrome, in my opinion. Since Autism is a spectrum disorder, it might be possible for someone to have some Autistic tendencies without actually being classified as Autistic. Too little is known about the disorder. The one thing that keeps coming to mind, though, is that, on many occasions, the Autistic person I know will follow directions automatically when those directions are clearly understood. I don't know how this might fit into any theories about Aberforth (or Snape), or how prevalent this might be on the higher end of the spectrum. I'm not a therapist, I'm not a psychologits or psychiatrist. Any opinion I give is based on personal interaction with an Autistic and with literature and other information about the disorder. Ceridwen. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Mar 27 11:02:21 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:02:21 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's family/Aberforth. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4609865D.365.2871674@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 166513 On 27 Mar 2007 at 10:49, Ceridwen wrote: > Ceridwen: > I would disagree with this. Even a high-functioning Autistic > like "Rainman", or like Christopher Boone of "The Curious Incident > of > the Dog in the Nighttime" by Mark Haddon, would not be able to be in > full charge of a business. An emergency (reference Raymond Babbit > burning the toast) would render them useless. Ceridwen, speaking as an identified Aspie, I have to say you are seriously underestimating what some of us can and cannot do. There is a wide range of function, and while many cannot deal with emergencies, many of us can. It makes me *very* uncomfortable when things go wrong - very uncomfortable. But I learned to deal with that. > Nor would either be able to be a spy. One characteristic of Autism, > even of Asperger's Syndrom, the name for the high end of the Autism > spectrum, is an inability to read facial expressions and vocal > inflection (various incidents in Curious Incident). This would be > detremental to the role of spy, spy-master, or any other job > involving > intrigue. Again, some of us can learn to do this - but some of us do have to learn because it isn't instinctive, by any means. But because we have to learn this, some of us actually wind up very good at it - not me. I'm adequate. But some really do master it, by treating it as an intellectual exercise for want of a better term. > This reminds me of a long-ago discussion about whether or not Snape > could be Autistic. To be honest, I do wonder, and now that you've > raised the question about Aberforth, I wonder about him, too. > However, > if either of them are, they would have to be higher-functioning than > Asperger's Syndrome, in my opinion. Since Autism is a spectrum > disorder, it might be possible for someone to have some Autistic > tendencies without actually being classified as Autistic. Too > little > is known about the disorder. I'm very high functioning, but I am an Aspie. I'm not higher-functioning than Asperger's, I have Aspergers. I have to say that Snape certainly doesn't strike me as being on the spectrum, and as for Aberforth, I don't have enough information to judge. The only characters who seem to me to demonstrate any spectrum characteristics at all are Luna, Hermione, and Percy, and Percy is the only one who would seem to me to at all close - he could be. I'd say Luna and Hermione definitely aren't, but they are closer than most. 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 ida3 at planet.nl Tue Mar 27 07:14:05 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:14:05 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0703261634g2b89b37exb0fe66a389c6993e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166514 > Lynda: > For my part, especially since the funeral is from Harry's point of view, and Trelawny is a person he generally avoids, his not noticing her specifically at DD's funeral does not seem odd to me. > Throughout the books, we are told there are many times (in fact the times she does appear are rare) that she does not eat with the staff or student population, so it is possible she chose not to come to the funeral, or that Harry just did not seek her out as he did some of the other attendees. Dana Now: I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid someone it therefore means he wouldn't think anything about them. We see that he wants to avoid Scrimgeour but he is nevertheless mentioned. He probably would want to avoid Umbridge with a vengeance but he nevertheless registers her presence. The events before the tower and her information about Snape being the one who relayed part of the prophecy to LV or even that it was her prediction that made him a marked man (besides her predicting the events on the tower themselves) would surely provoke some thoughts about her when he comes across her. Just because he wouldn't want to give her a hug or have a little chat doesn't mean his mind would stay empty at the sight of her. Especially because she would probably display herself in a very dramatic way if she were present. Throughout the books we hear her annoying him about her predictions even outside of the classes with her, not just when he is in her presence. So personally I still strongly believe that she was not present at the funeral because not noticing her, and just labelling her under the "staff" with the history between them, seems more odd than if Harry would just have thought about her for a second. Think about it. Her prediction and Snape hearing part of it are the cause of everything that happened in Harry's life. Don't you think that would leave an impression? JMHO Dana From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 15:36:24 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:36:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40703270211l33e77956vffb1992a90c676ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40703270836gc5eac74p6f7b419b48b2528c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166515 > > Kemper earlier: > > > I have one. Albus and his brother, Aberforth, have a sister, > Arabella. > > > > Goddlefrood: > > Sorry to put a small crimp in an otherwise d**n fine idea, but > I must say, having analysed the chapter "The Hearing" in OotP > in some depth recently, I find it unlikely that Mrs. Figg is > related to Arabella Fig for the simple reason that it seems, > to me at least, probable that one of the members of the > Wizengamot would have said something when Dumbledore called > on the same Mrs. Figg to testify. Kemper now: Are you saying that Mrs. Figg is not Arabella Figg? Doesn't she say her name is Arabella Doreen Figg in the chapter you analysed (I could be wrong, no books at hand). Why would any of the Wizengamot say anything? The Wizard community as a whole doesn't think/care enough of Squibs to know where/how they live or what they can/cannot do. Even the Wizards on the Lighter side seem to have reservations about their nephew being 'all-Muggle', nearly drowning the boy to test for magic, while his grandmother tacitly agrees by not keeping the uncle away from said boy. Now I'm sure someone in the Wizengamot will check her Squib status /after/ the trial. But those investigations are off-page, we may yet see the results (maybe from Percy? ::fingers crossed::) As I awoke an hour ago, I realized another characteristic that Arabella and Albus share: courage. Albus' is obvious. Arabella is the first line of human defense for Harry in his early childhood at 4 Privet Drive (as one must rule out the Dursleys). It's true that she doesn't rush in to assist Harry with the Dementors, but she knows she can't and she is also probably aware that her 'help' may result in Harry's death as he would fell compelled to keep her as well. Arabella, knowing/sensing that dementors are attacking and unable to /see/ them, does not run in fear. She stays to be of assistance when she can. Kemper, who's favorite minor character is Mrs. Figg (she's so intriguing: what's her story, who was Mr. Figg, what happened to him, how did she end up in the Order) but who's probably the lone member of Figgy's: the Mrs. Figg Fan Club. club ::sigh:: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 15:48:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:48:23 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166516 Dana wrote: > > I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid someone it > therefore means he wouldn't think anything about them. We see > that he wants to avoid Scrimgeour but he is nevertheless > mentioned. He probably would want to avoid Umbridge with a > vengeance but he nevertheless registers her presence. The > events before the tower and her information about Snape being > the one who relayed part of the prophecy to LV or even that it > was her prediction that made him a marked man (besides her > predicting the events on the tower themselves) would surely > provoke some thoughts about her when he comes across her. Just > because he wouldn't want to give her a hug or have a little > chat doesn't mean his mind would stay empty at the sight of > her. Especially because she would probably display herself > in a very dramatic way if she were present. > So personally I still strongly believe that she was not > present at the funeral because not noticing her, and just > labelling her under the "staff" with the history between them, > seems more odd than if Harry would just have thought about her > for a second. Think about it. Her prediction and Snape hearing > part of it are the cause of everything that happened in > Harry's life. Don't you think that would leave an impression? Carol responds: I think that, for the reasons you mention, Harry would have noticed her *absence* from the funeral, especially when she has every reason to be there. As to displaying herself in a very dramatic way, perhaps not. She might be very subdued given what she had read in the cards. Surely, not even Trelawney would be going around shouting "I told him so but he wouldn't listen" at Dumbledore's funeral. And if she appears wearing buables, bangles, and beads, well, that's Trelawney. Nothing to notice there. There may be a reason, besides Harry's state of mind and a lot of other things going on, for JKR to have the narrator neglect to mention Trelawney. Or it may just be like the omission of Snape with regard to the escaped fireworks. If the staff members (not counting Trelawney, who has been fired) are requesting Umbridge's help to do what they could easily do themselves, there's no reason to assume that Snape is not among them. Similarly, if the staff (except the disgraced and departed Snape) attend the funeral, there's no reason to assume that Trelawney is not among them. Harry routinely notices empty chairs at the staff table during meals and banquets. Surely, he would have noticed an empty seat among the staff members at the funeral. (I didn't mean, when I mentioned this before, that there was a feast at the funeral. I'm simply making a comparison. In almost every book, there's a mention of an empty seat, and he or Hermione figures out who ought to be there.) If Harry didn't notice that Trelawney was missing, the more observant Hermione wouldn't have done so. She isn't crying and absorbed by her emotions until well into the service. Just because Harry's classes are barely mentioned in HBP doesn't mean that he's no longer having them. Some things have to be taken for granted. Trelawney's presence is, IMO, one of them. Her absence would have been noticed. Carol, who agrees with your earlier assessment that there would have been a head count after Dumbledore's death and that Trelawney must therefore still be at Hogwarts From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Mar 27 16:21:40 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:21:40 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166517 > Dana wrote: > > > > I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid someone it > > therefore means he wouldn't think anything about them. We see > > that he wants to avoid Scrimgeour but he is nevertheless > > mentioned. He probably would want to avoid Umbridge with a > > vengeance but he nevertheless registers her presence. > Carol responds: > There may be a reason, besides Harry's state of mind and a lot of > other things going on, for JKR to have the narrator neglect to mention > Trelawney. Or it may just be like the omission of Snape with regard to > the escaped fireworks. If the staff members (not counting Trelawney, > who has been fired) are requesting Umbridge's help to do what they > could easily do themselves, there's no reason to assume that Snape is > not among them. Similarly, if the staff (except the disgraced and > departed Snape) attend the funeral, there's no reason to assume that > Trelawney is not among them. Magpie: I would offer another reason for Harry not to mention her, which is just that throughout the book JKR juggles what she wants Harry to focus on and if she doesn't want to focus on something, he doesn't. It doesn't always follow internal logic at all. Sometimes it's external to Harry, like the way Ron's romance with Lavender conveniently becomes noticable whenever Harry's on a break from his other concerns, even if it seems to be dragging out long after it would have ended. Or just kind of surprising, like the way Harry will obsess about liking Ginny but then barely mention her at all when he's living with her over Christmas (would most teenagers be so uninterested in their crush in those circumstances?). But for a more obvious example, there's one spot in HBP where Harry has been obsessing about what Malfoy is up to for at least a day and falls asleep thinking about iirc, then spends the entire morning outside the RoR with him inside. Then he runs to DADA just in time. We know Draco is in DADA with him, but Harry neglects to mention that Malfoy isn't there, or note the troubled reaction Snape would probably have to Malfoy not being there, or mention that Malfoy ran in soon after Harry did, and note his appearance etc. It's odd that Harry's been so focused on him and suddenly drops it, but basically JKR is shuffling us onto other plot threads she needs to pick up--I think Ron/Lavender is one of them. So no, I don't think there's anything odd about Harry not noting Trelawney no matter what predictions she made, if JKR doesn't want to remind us of the predictions. She may just think they speak for themselves and are too long ago to bring up by then. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 16:35:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:35:26 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg (Was: Dumbledore's family) In-Reply-To: <700201d40703270836gc5eac74p6f7b419b48b2528c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166518 Kemper wrote: > As I awoke an hour ago, I realized another characteristic that Arabella and Albus share: courage. Albus' is obvious. Arabella is the first line of human defense for Harry in his early childhood at 4 Privet Drive (as one must rule out the Dursleys). It's true that she doesn't rush in to assist Harry with the Dementors, but she knows she can't and she is also probably aware that her 'help' may result in Harry's death as he would fell compelled to keep her as well. Arabella, knowing/sensing that dementors are attacking and unable to /see/ them, does not run in fear. She stays to be of assistance when she can. > Kemper, who's favorite minor character is Mrs. Figg (she's so intriguing: what's her story, who was Mr. Figg, what happened to him, how did she end up in the Order) but who's probably the lone member of Figgy's: the Mrs. Figg Fan Club. club ::sigh:: Carol responds: No, you're not. I love the scene where she batters Mundungus with catfood cans (wish it hadn't been taken out of the movie--sorry, List Elves!) and I'm very fond of Figgy. Her courage and her loyalty to Dumbledore are admirable, and she's able to live comfortably in two worlds, in marked contrast to Filch. (I don't suppose she says things like "The cat's among the pixies now" or "We might as well be hanged for a dragon as an egg" when the Dursleys are around, though!) I don't think she's Dumbledore's sister (she's nowhere near his age, as far as I can determine), but she could be his niece or something like that. I once tossed out the suggestion, based on her tartan slippers, that she might be related to McGonagall, but that's pretty slim evidence, I realize. Still, if she's not related to Dumbledore or to someone he knows, how would he come to know about her, or Filch, either? Does he go looking for Squibs to take into his protection? It seems unlikely. Anyway, it's interesting (to me) that Argus Filch also wears tartan at one point (in the GoF scene where Snape is in his grey nightshirt??) and that Argus and Arabella have the same initials. And there's that shared affinity for cats, which may or may not be a trait of Squibs in general. (Could Mrs. Norris be one of the part-Kneazle cats that Mrs. Figg bred, like the similarly named Mr. Tibbles?) Maybe Argus and Arabella are brother and sister. Their ages also seem to be similar (close to McGonagall's, I would guess) though their personalities are very different. Had Figgy been a witch, she would certainly have been in Gryffindor, whereas Filch would probably have been in Slytherin if he were a wizard. (Side note: I think Umbridge was also in Slytherin, much as I hate to say it because I don't want to view Slytherin as the "evil" house.) I'm with you in vastly preferring Arabella to Argus. I've stated fairly frequently that I think Mrs. Figg is the character who will perform magic at an advanced age in DH, probably on Privet Drive as Harry turns seventeen. Better her than Filch (at Hogwarts), and the Muggle Dursleys have been ruled out. (I never thought it was them in the first place.) How did Mrs. Figg get into the Order? Dumbledore must have put her there because he trusted her and he needed someone who could pass as a Muggle. And that, of course, came in very handy after Godric's Hollow. Which leads me to wonder at what point Arabella moved into the Dursley's neighborhood. It can't be coincidence that she lives there, can it? Maybe she was on stand-by, just in case something happened to the Potters. (I would hope that she and her cats were watching over the fifteen-month-old Harry as he slept on the Dursleys' doorstep. Dumbledore must have taken some sort of precautions to keep him from waking up and wandering off.) Carol, wondering what Crookshanks thinks of Mrs. Norris, whom he must have encountered on his sojourns around Hogwarts From juli17 at aol.com Tue Mar 27 17:10:36 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:10:36 -0000 Subject: Ootp movie changes--effect on DH--ALLOWED? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166519 If we want to discuss the differences (additions/deletions) between the Ootp movie and novel, and what the changes might possibly tell us about the upcoming DH novel, would that be allowed here? I know the movies aren't to be discussed here in general, but if the discussion pertains directly to what may happen in DH, that seems a gray area to me, and I didn't want to post anything without knowing for sure. If it is allowed, presumably SPOILER would be required in the subject header in regards to the movie. Thanks, Julie From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 19:01:02 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:01:02 -0700 Subject: Umbridge: Slytherin? Message-ID: <700201d40703271201g15617f4cv5df330033f076770@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166520 > Carol wrote: > > ... I'm very fond of Figgy. Her courage and her loyalty to > Dumbledore are admirable, and she's able to live comfortably in two > worlds, in marked contrast to Filch. ... > > ...Had Figgy been a witch, she would certainly have been > in Gryffindor, whereas Filch would probably have been in Slytherin if > he were a wizard. (Side note: I think Umbridge was also in Slytherin, > much as I hate to say it because I don't want to view Slytherin as the > "evil" house.) Kemper taking the side note and the side road with Carol: I agree. Without a doubt, Figgy would have been a Gryffindor if she were any good with a wand. But I disagree with Umbridge in Slytherin. Umbridge is fiercely loyal to Fudge and his administration. She works diligently at sabotaging Hogwarts system. She considers using the Crutiatus not because of a desire to harm but to gain the truth from Harry. A truth that she expects Fudge would want to know about. (I see the Bella as one to use the curse even after she receives what she believes to be the truth) This isn't to say that Umbridge isn't an evil, vile woman, obviously. It's to say that evil can be seen with the traits of the other houses. (I still haven't worked out Wormtail's Gryffindor traits with his treachery... if it's even there) Gryffindor: too many to list v Wormtail Ravenclaw: Luna v Mwhatshernamea Hufflepuff: Cedric v Umbridge(?) Slytherin: Snape(?) v too many to list Only ramblings of a man who needs to get paperwork done... Kemper From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 19:33:25 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:33:25 -0000 Subject: Back to the cursed DADA-job In-Reply-To: <46088171.2030704@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166521 > zgirnius wrote: > > If the person in question > > is not a friend, how relevant is it to him who teaches DADA, and > > for how long? > > Bart: > How many times did Susan Lucci lose the Daytime Emmy Awards before she > became bigger news than the awards? zgirnius: Susan who? I was just perusing my copy of CoS today for other reasons, and another character gives us a little hint about the curse in that book, in this instance Dumbledore. > CoS: > "What you need, Harry, is some food and sleep. I suggest you go > down to the feast, while I write to Azkaban -- we need our > gamekeeper back. And I must draft an advertisement for the Daily > Prophet, too," he added thoughtfully. "We'll be needing a new > Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher... Dear me, we do seem to > run through them, don't we?" zgirnius: Surely, losing two in a row is not 'running through them'? But Dumbledore would not want to bore Harry with the details of his staffing problems. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 18:25:16 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:25:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: <700201d40703270836gc5eac74p6f7b419b48b2528c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > As I awoke an hour ago, I realized another characteristic that > Arabella and Albus share: courage. Albus' is obvious. Arabella is > the first line of human defense for Harry in his early childhood at 4 > Privet Drive (as one must rule out the Dursleys). It's true that she > doesn't rush in to assist Harry with the Dementors, but she knows she > can't and she is also probably aware that her 'help' may result in > Harry's death as he would fell compelled to keep her as well. > Arabella, knowing/sensing that dementors are attacking and unable to > /see/ them, does not run in fear. She stays to be of assistance when > she can. > Hmmm, she certainly has the same contemptible attitude as Dumbledore toward Harry being abused, even participating in it herself to a minor extent (and no, the whole "the Dursleys would never have let you come" line, was, I think, reprehensible). So yes, I could easily see her being the contemptible uncaring nitwit's sister. Lupinlore, who thinks this might explain a lot of things From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 19:33:20 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:33:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: <700201d40703270836gc5eac74p6f7b419b48b2528c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Are you saying that Mrs. Figg is not Arabella Figg? Doesn't she say > her name is Arabella Doreen Figg Dondee: Mrs.Figg is Arabella Doreen Figg, Harry's "batty old cat-obsessed neighbor" of Privet Drive. I think you have a very interesting argument for her being a sister to Albus and Aberforth except that she only ever refers to Dumbledore as Dumbledore; you would think if he was her brother she would refer to him with the more intimate Albus. > Kemper, who's favorite minor character is Mrs. Figg (she's so > intriguing: what's her story, who was Mr. Figg, what happened to him, > how did she end up in the Order) but who's probably the lone member of > Figgy's: the Mrs. Figg Fan Club. club ::sigh:: I have enjoyed Mrs. Figg since PS/SS with the whole leg breaking incident and have always hoped she would get more 'screen time.' IMO she gives the best comic relief after a scary moment in any of the books when she chews out Mundungus and wacks him with a shopping bag full of catfood tins. What a great ol' gal. Cheers, Dondee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 20:21:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:21:08 -0000 Subject: Umbridge: Slytherin? In-Reply-To: <700201d40703271201g15617f4cv5df330033f076770@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166524 Carol earlier: . (Side note: I think Umbridge was also in Slytherin, much as I hate to say it because I don't want to view Slytherin as the "evil" house.) > Kemper responded: > I disagree with Umbridge in Slytherin. Umbridge is fiercely loyal to Fudge and his administration. She works diligently at sabotaging Hogwarts system. She considers using the Crutiatus not because of a desire to harm but to gain the truth from Harry. A truth that she expects Fudge would want to know about. (I see the Bella as one to use the curse even after she receives what she believes to be the truth) This isn't to say that Umbridge isn't an evil, vile woman, obviously. It's to say that evil can be seen with the traits of the other houses. (I still haven't worked out Wormtail's Gryffindor traits with his treachery... if it's even there) > Carol again: I suppose that Umbridge could be an evil Hufflepuff, but I don't see her as loyal to the Ministry so much as manipulating it (and Fudge) to her own advantage. (See my recent "Umbridgitis" at the MoM post). In any case, Umbridge knows Lucius Malfoy, and she expects Snape to side with her (wrong!), possibly because he's not openly rebelling like McGonagall and Flitwick. She recruits Slytherins and only Slytherins for her Inquisitorial Squad. And, IIRC, she wears green and roots for Slytherin at a Quidditch match. (Sorry, I don't have the reference handy. Does anyone remember it?) There's also her anti-Half-Breed fixation, which makes me wonder if she's a Half-Blood ashamed of her Muggle heritage and determined to look down on part-humans as compensation. (I'd think she was a Muggle-born with her stupid Alice band and cardigan, but Muggle-borns probably wouldn't be Sorted into Slytherin.) Possibly, she was a Slytherin wannabe, but temperamentally and in terms of her version of the Pure-blood supremacy ethic (actually wizard/human supremacy), I think she's Slytherin. Why isn't she a Voldemort supporter? Because, IMO, she can't manipulate him as she can the weak and pompous Fudge. She wants to be the power behind the throne, rather like Slughorn, who also likes to manipulate people without being in charge himself. At any rate, I don't see any signs of a similar affinity for or alignment with Hufflepuff. Thoughts, anyone? Carol, who does not see Slytherin as the evil House since Snape and Slughorn (next book) are in it but is still fairly sure that Umbridge was a Slytherin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 27 20:52:46 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:52:46 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166525 Kemper Wrote: > Who's favorite minor character is Mrs. > Figg (she's so intriguing: what's her > story, who was Mr. Figg, what happened > to him, how did she end up in the Order) > but who's probably the lone member of > Figgy's: the Mrs. Figg Fan Club. club ::sigh:: No, you're not the only one who likes Mrs. Figg.I once wrote an entire fan fiction where Mrs. Figg was a major character; I thought the story was rather good, but I'm prejudice, it might have been crap. Anyway, my story started at the exact instant that book 4 ended. In my story Dumbledore and Figg had been married for about 70 years and they had 6 kids and dozens of grandchildren. But I wrote my story right after book 4 came out, so when book 5 and 6 appeared I learned that my Figg and Rowling's Figg were rather different. However they both had heart and they both had guts. My story is now obsolete, a fossil, but I like to think a fossil with a little class. But I may be deluding myself. > Lupinlore Wrote: > she [Figg] certainly has the same > contemptible attitude as Dumbledore > toward Harry being abused I would imagine Figg thought as Dumbledore thought that Harry being abused by the Dursleys was preferable to the only alternative, Harry being dead. But I've challenged you on this and other points before and you never responded; I doubt if you will defend yourself this time either. Eggplant From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Mar 27 21:26:15 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:26:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > Hmmm, she certainly has the same contemptible attitude as Dumbledore > toward Harry being abused, even participating in it herself to a minor > extent (and no, the whole "the Dursleys would never have let you come" > line, was, I think, reprehensible). So yes, I could easily see her > being the contemptible uncaring nitwit's sister. > > Lupinlore, who thinks this might explain a lot of things Leah: I'm not sure how Mrs Figg would have the lowdown on Harry's treatment by the Dursleys. I can't see either Harry or Petunia discussing the cupboard under the stairs with her. And 'participating in it (abuse) herself to a minor extent...' er, I think she shows him pictures of cats. Unless he's totally allergic or phobic, which he clearly isn't, how on earth does this constitute child abuse? Leah (who would have been perfectly happy as a child to have spent the afternoon with a number of cats both real and pictorial and would certainly have preferred it to a day trip with the Dursleys) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Mar 27 21:53:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:53:08 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166527 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Dana wrote: > > > > > > I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid > > > someone it therefore means he wouldn't think > > > anything about them. > > > Carol responds: > > There may be a reason, besides Harry's state of mind > > and a lot of other things going on, for JKR to have > > the narrator neglect to mention Trelawney. ... > > Magpie: > I would offer another reason for Harry not to mention > her, which is just that throughout the book JKR juggles > what she wants Harry to focus on and if she doesn't > want to focus on something, he doesn't. > bboyminn: I have to agree with what Magpie is implying. Note first that a lot of people are mentioned, but they tend to be people who stand out. As far as teachers, McGonagall, Slughorn, and Sprout are mentioned, all are Heads of House, but no mention of Flitwick that I can find. Librarian Mdm Pince and Flich are mentioned but probably because they were standing together, but no other teachers are mentioned, no Vector, no Sinistra, and no Trelawney. Now Hagrid was mentioned but not in his capacity as a teacher or observer of this event. He took part in in, and being Harry's friend and a great supporter of Dumbledore, I can't imagine Harry not noticing him. Scrimgeour, Umbridge, and Fudge are noticed and mentioned because in the small way they are Dumbledore and Harry's enemies. Maybe 'enemy' is too strong, but they are certainly antagonists. The people that Harry does mention are people who are historically significant to Harry in some way, though not necessarily in an important way; Malkin, Maxime, /some/ Order members, Tom the barman, the Hogs Head barman, Neville, Luna, Rita, etc.... Though there are hundreds of people there, and we can't realistically expect Harry to list them all. So, he lists the ones that are significant to him. Trelawney may be very significant to Dumbledore, but I don't think Harry sees her as significant yet. Yes, she made a couple of predictions, but unless she is ready to make another one, I don't see her as very high on Harry's radar screen. JKR had to limit the people she named, and I don't think specific missing names are of any significants. Trelawney wasn't mentioned because beyond 'Heads', no teachers were mentioned. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bbloyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Mar 27 23:03:13 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:03:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: <700201d40703270836gc5eac74p6f7b419b48b2528c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Sorry to put a small crimp in an otherwise d**n fine idea, but > > I must say, having analysed the chapter "The Hearing" in OotP > > in some depth recently, I find it unlikely that Mrs. Figg is > > related to Arabella Fig for the simple reason that it seems, > > to me at least, probable that one of the members of the > > Wizengamot would have said something when Dumbledore called > > on the same Mrs. Figg to testify. > > > Kemper now: > Are you saying that Mrs. Figg is not Arabella Figg? Doesn't she say > her name is Arabella Doreen Figg in the chapter you analysed (I could > be wrong, no books at hand). Hickengruendler: I'm not Goddlefrood and therefore I don't want to speak for him (her?). But I think this might have been a typo and should have read "I find it unlikely that Mrs. Figg is related to Dumbledore", because his following argument is the exact reason, why I don't believe this. I just think Fudge would have said something like "She's Dumbledore's sister and therefore not a reliable witness". And if he didn't know at this time, Fudge would probably have learnt later, since he said during her hearing, that he wanted to investigate, if Figg was really a Squib and from which family she was. Or Percy would have mentioned it in his letter to Ron. Hickengruendler, apologizing to Goddlefrood, if I misread their post From dossett at lds.net Wed Mar 28 00:13:50 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:13:50 -0000 Subject: Ootp movie changes--effect on DH--ALLOWED? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: > > If we want to discuss the differences (additions/deletions) > between the Ootp movie and novel, and what the changes might > possibly tell us about the upcoming DH novel, would that be > allowed here? I know the movies aren't to be discussed here > in general, but if the discussion pertains directly to what > may happen in DH, that seems a gray area to me, and I didn't > want to post anything without knowing for sure. If it is > allowed, presumably SPOILER would be required in the subject > header in regards to the movie. > > Thanks, > Julie > Pat now - I agree. I am currently rereading OotP and I've been wondering which parts they'll have to leave out - the movie can't be four hours long! And that directly affects DH: for instance, the scenes with Grawp, I wouldn't mind if they were cut, but will Grawp be important in DH, and if so, in what way? I wonder if he could be important if Steve's battle at Hogwarts comes to pass? I have other comments, but I'll wait to see what the list elves have to say about this. Thanks - Pat From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 02:02:59 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:02:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's family/Aberforth. In-Reply-To: <4609865D.365.2871674@drednort.alphalink.com.au> References: <4609865D.365.2871674@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: <2795713f0703271902p4409db16sd60679bc37c916ca@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166530 Ceridwen: > I would disagree with this. Even a high-functioning Autistic > like "Rainman", or like Christopher Boone of "The Curious Incident > of > the Dog in the Nighttime" by Mark Haddon, would not be able to be in > full charge of a business. An emergency (reference Raymond Babbit > burning the toast) would render them useless. Dreadnought: Ceridwen, speaking as an identified Aspie, I have to say you are seriously underestimating what some of us can and cannot do. There is a wide range of function, and while many cannot deal with emergencies, many of us can. It makes me *very* uncomfortable when things go wrong - very uncomfortable. But I learned to deal with that. Lynda: I have to agree with Dreadnought, here. My college roomie's second son is a high functioning aspie, in his first year at a univiersity. He did very well on his SAT and his adjusting to college life fairly well. He was homeschooled through high school and was only diagnosed this year. He does need extra time to work on his assignments and projects because he has difficulty expressing his thoughts and emotions verbally and in writing, but he is learning to deal with things when he becomes uncomfortable. Also, I work with special needs kids. Severely handicapped kids who need help in normal academic and social situations and a lot of them have some form of autism. Either classic autism similar to what we are aware of from the Rainman or Aspergers which has sent them into one of the satelite classrooms I work in. At least two of these kids that I work with work at their grade level until they are upset by something or something happens that disrupts their world in some way. Back to Aberforth, though. I have a feeling that Albus Dumbledore was not speaking tongue in cheek when he made the comment that he did not know if Aberforth can read, but that he genuinely did not know. My basis for this? Nothing much. Just a feeling in my gut. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 11:30:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:30:00 -0000 Subject: Ootp movie changes--effect on DH--ALLOWED?/ NO. SORRY :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166531 Hi Julie and Pat as well, We would like to thank you guys for asking about movie discussions. Unfortunately the short answer is no, any discussions about movie are not allowed here on Main list. We have the sister Movie list and discussions about movie in relation to canon can take place there as well. http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ The longer answer is that we sort of did a trial run of canon-based movie discussions on main and it did not really work. Take a look at a little piece of history on this issue below, please from Kelley Elf. Kelley: Well, we tried it and ended up reinstating 'no movie discussion on main.' A little history -- when we first created the Movie list, the rule was *no* movie or movie-related discussion on main (casting, fantasy casting, trailers, changes from the book, etc., etc.). And of course, there's always been a good deal of questioning whether they were canon or not due to JKR's scope of involvement. This is something on which there's no absolutely correct answer, so we've used other criteria -- a significant number of members (around time of the Movie list's creation) felt very strongly that they were members of main because it was about the books and they had no interest in movie discussion; that it could be too easy to develop 'movie contamination'; that we'd get an influx of members whose interest in HP was due only to the movies (i.e., they'd not read the books); main was busy enough with canon discussion. Back shortly before PoA there was that interview with her in which she made those remarks about something in the movie giving her chills because it foreshadowed something we'd see in canon, etc. We revisited the issue then, as that did impinge on canon, so we discussed and decided to allow limited movie discussion on main. As long as a post discussing the movies managed to relate it to canon, it was okay. Some list members 'got it' but too many did not, and posts that were okay under the new rule would get lots of responses that were not okay. When those folks whose posts were not okay got reminders, some might understand but too many did not. In the end we just couldn't find a way to make it work and so found going back to 'no movie on main' was the best solution. Alika Elf: >From Sec. 2.2: > >> Posts that discuss the movies should go to HPFGU-Movie, including posts that use the movies to make a point about the books or that use the movies as a jumping-off point for canon discussion. << We'd also like to take this opportunity to make sure all members know that the elves always welcome questions, but the best way to reach us is the HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com address, or of course, contacting your own personal list elf always works, too. Please remember, everyone, that if you'd like to reply to what we've said in this message or discuss it, please do so at our Feedback group: http//groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback or by contacting us at the owner address. Thanks, everyone! Alla (AKA Alika Elf) and Kelley (AKA Kelley Elf) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Mar 28 12:09:15 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:09:15 -0000 Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166534 Hickengruendler: The Book covers for the British (adult and children) and U.S. (children edition) are out. The links are on the Leaky cauldron. The most uninteresting one is IMO the British adult cover. It only has the Slytherin amulet on it, which we already know plays a part in the book, therefore it tells us precisely nothing knew. The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it definitely shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. They are in what seems to be an arena or something, and there are several shadows, who seem to watch the encounter. Maybe the cover does not reflect a scene from the book at all, but is really only meant to be symbolical for the final battle? I can't help being reminded of the Colosseum and the circus in the ancient Rome ;-) My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword. Also on the british children edition is a picture of Hogwarts with the Whoomping Willow, the Prongs' Patronus and Nagini what seems to be in a prophecy orb. Hickengruendler From sunflowerlaw at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 12:20:36 2007 From: sunflowerlaw at gmail.com (Lindsay) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:20:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Covers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166535 > Hickengruendler wrote: > >The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it >definitely shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. They are in what seems to be an arena or something, and there are >several shadows, who seem to watch the encounter. Maybe the cover does not reflect a scene from the book at all, but is really only >meant to be symbolical for the final battle? I can't help being reminded of the Colosseum and the circus in the ancient Rome ;-) Lindsay: To me, it looks like the aqueducts. Romping around Europe, are they? The most telling thing about the US cover, I think, is the fact that there is a locket hanging from Harry's neck. :) --Lindsay > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 28 12:45:55 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:45:55 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166536 > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > > >The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final > confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it >definitely > shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. Notice that neither Harry or Voldemort has a wand. Harry, looking confident, seems to be reaching for something. They are in what seems > to be an arena or something, and there are >several shadows, who seem to > watch the encounter. I'm wondering if we might be back to the Department of Mysteries for the climactic confrontation - this seems something like the "ampitheater" where we saw the Veil. I'm guessing the "shadows" are Death Eaters - Voldemort seems to be grandstanding again, as in the Book 4 duel. - CMC From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 13:37:52 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:37:52 -0000 Subject: Hats Off to JKR the Word Wizard Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166537 Goddlefrood: When you reach the end of this piece I hope wyou will appreciate that there was no other possible title. You may agree in my comnclusion that JKR's depth of research is phenominal. This should not in any way detract from some fan sites and HP info. boards, she did spend by her won account 15 years of her life researching into this series, and I, for one, can well believe it. Hardly a moment to spare. An incredible woman. This all comes from research I undertook, as a matter of interest, on the plant "Dittany". It was consequential to Dittany has been mentioned twice in the books and once in the 1st wombat test (where is the 3rd?). I hope to achieve a further outstanding ;) Oh, and Steve van der Ark, if you're reading this you may care to use some of the information on the Lexicon, you have my full permission ;). Those mentions first I think: "Harry, who was looking up 'Dittany' in One Hundred Magical Herbs and Fungi, didn't look up until he heard Ron say, 'Hagrid! What are you doing in the library?'" p. 168 - Bloomsbury paperback edition (This has been amended in later editions to One Thousand Herbs and Fungi, before you ask ;)). In "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback" - Chapter Fourteen. "'You need the hospital wing, There may be a certain amount of scarring, but if you take dittany immediately we might avoid even that ... come ...' p. 489 - Bloomsbury hardback edition. In "Sectumsempra" - Chapter Twenty Four. "20. A Doxy bite can be healed most quickly and safely using a. Bubotuber pus b. Bundimun secretion c. Dittany d. Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction e. Murtlap essence f. Reparo g. Skele-Gro h. Spellotape" Extracted from the 1st Wombat test. The correct answer, or the nearest correct answer, is IMHO, Dittany. Three little mentions, but what is it, you say, and why is it of any importnace? You will see, believe me. I have spent a little time stirring up the Pensieve this evening (pocket sized for ease of use ;)) Here is what the Lexicon has to say: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/rg-ps14.html (Scroll down to it or use "edit" "find on this page") You'll see this refers to it being found exclusively in Crete. Many apologies for what follows ;) I'll take a standard definition as my starting point, source known to self, not prepared to say further: "Eurasian perennial herb with white flowers that emit flammable vapour in hot weather." It has also a variety of other names, fraxinella, burning bush, gas plant, Dictamnus alba and not to forget Origanum dictamnus and stone mint. Oh, and the dittany of Crete is often used, as well as Cunila origanoides (when it's stone mint). A little odd :| Anyway, here are some definitions of some of those, and I appreciate many like these: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0777800.html (Stone Mint) http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0299400.html (Dittany itself) http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/g/g0053600.html (Gas Plant) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictamnus (Whoops, I nearly forgot that one ;)) Not really, in fact, because it was this that led me to the real dittany, in a rather roundabout manner. Note in this it is also named as False Dittany and White Dittany, for good measure presumably. A popular plant indeed, to have so many names. I will get to the meat shortly. It is also named as Hop Marjoram and Dittany of Crete in this above link. This one is the Cretan variety referred to in the Lexicon entry. It is rather pretty. It is often prescient to dig, I find, and I did dig for this. Our Dittany is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origanum_dictamnus This one is defined: Noun: Dictamnus A dicotyledonous genus of the family Rutaceae - genus Dictamnus My namings are now complete, except for something of interest to botanists. :) This one is not so pretty, but I can see where there might be confusion. That in turn led me to a source, which again is difficult to track, but known to me, and probably some others (I do research as a large part of my profession, btw and have access to such things as a consequence :) >From Marjoram as a Spice in the Classical Era Alfred C. Andrews Classical Philology, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Apr., 1961), pp. 73-82, and paraphrasing therein in turn, my final definition: "Cretan dittany or hop marjoram, Amaracus Dictamnus, is also an indigene of Crete, but it has been reported on the mountains of the promontory of Poros." Another name there, of course. Poros is interesting, at least I found it to be, you may too, the relevant page from a larger site: http://www.poros.com.gr/history/?lang=en Note in there that there is this (next to the photograph of Poseidon's Temple): "Such was the place's importance that it functioned as the center for the Amphictyonic League (amphictionnes: dwellers around") a voluntary "cooperative" of city-states in both civic and religious matters, which included Hermione, Epidauros, Aigina, Prassies, Athens and Orhomenos. At the Poseidon's Temple came Demosthenes the ancient great orator availing himself of its right of sanctuary as Philip the King of Macedonia chased him." OK, so what relevance does this have with DH release on the horizon and the continuing story. Maybe a little maybe a lot. "A Visit to the Graveyard" anyone ;). Not actually, but it seems my divination skills may be not too bad ;). Have a closer look. We have these little morsels: Dictamnus alba (Not dissimilar to the late lamented), Hermione mentioned in Poros history. Oh, and Philip the King of Macedonia had a descendant called Philip II, who in his turn was born in 382 B. C. Father of Alexander the Great, if interested. Shares a birth year with Antigonoua, one of his and the latter's greatest generals. The dittany may have the effect, due to all this, and this really is the rub now, of curing Harry's scar in some way, probably by application. All the best That link for boanists: http://www.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au/Sorting/Origanum.html (See Origanum dictamnifolium St.-Lag. -> Origanum dictamnus L. for my reason to include this) Goddlefrood, who commends Severus Snape on his knowledge of the names for Wolfsbane, Monkshood and aconit, which is in part also known as helmeflower, aconitum lycoctonum and aconitum napellus, probably amongst others, but more than enough information :) PS This came about as consequential to seeing if there may indeed be two Figg women ;) From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Mar 28 08:38:32 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:38:32 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166538 Dana before: > > I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid > > someone it therefore means he wouldn't think > > anything about them. > > > > Carol responds: > >There may be a reason, besides Harry's state of mind > > and a lot of other things going on, for JKR to have > > the narrator neglect to mention Trelawney. ... > > > > Magpie: > > I would offer another reason for Harry not to mention > > her, which is just that throughout the book JKR juggles > > what she wants Harry to focus on and if she doesn't > > want to focus on something, he doesn't. > > > bboyminn: > I have to agree with what Magpie is implying. Note first > that a lot of people are mentioned, but they tend to be > people who stand out. Dana now: I agree with Magpie too that JKR might not have included Trelawney because there is no need for us to focus on her at that particular point and thus why Harry does not mention, her but I do not agree that in reflection to everything that happened to Harry, she would not register on his radar. Trelawney has a different impact on the story in its entirety compared to Vector or Sinistra, she does not hold the same irrelevance and can't be lumped under that same label. Firenze (which is another teacher specifically mentioned beside the Heads) only has an impact on Harry in CoS and OotP but still he notices him separately from the staff. I am not saying that Trelawney not being mentioned is therefore something that is important to the story but her not being mentioned at all does seem peculiar when you look at the story as a whole. bboyminn: > As far as teachers, McGonagall, Slughorn, and Sprout are > mentioned, all are Heads of House, but no mention of > Flitwick that I can find. Dana now: Flitwick is also a Head of House so if he was not present Harry would have registered it, the students are to follow their Head of House to their seats at the funeral and if he was not there then Harry would have mentioned him being replaced by someone else. Sprout is only mentioned separately because see looks so different then Harry has been used too (which is an example of the numb brain still being perceptive to things OOC). He does not have to reflect what happened to Flitwick that night because it already has been reflected on in the hospital wing and he already had an interaction with Flitwick in McGonagall's office. Carol mentions in a previous post that empty chairs at the funeral would have the same impact as an empty staff chair during a feast. I do not agree because the seats at the feasts are dedicated to a specific teacher while at the funeral they are not, therefore he doesn't fail to notice Hagrid's seat is empty and that Snape's is taken by Scrimgeour. (Hagrid during the funeral also does not take up a seat with the staff as he joins his brother in the back). Trelawney, as far as I can remember correctly, never attended a feast so her absence at the staff table in the Great Hall would not specifically stand out. Her absence during the funeral would therefore also not specifically stand out, but I do think her presence would stand out as Harry never failed to notice her presence before as it is so OOC for her to mingle. bboyminn: > The people that Harry does mention are people who are > historically significant to Harry in some way, though > not necessarily in an important way; Malkin, Maxime, > /some/ Order members, Tom the barman, the Hogs Head > barman, Neville, Luna, Rita, etc.... Dana now: What historical significance does the bass player of the Weird Sisters hold on Harry? Just that they played at the Yule Ball? He never had a personal interaction with the man. I think Trelawney's historical significance is far greater, in more ways then one. bboyminn: > Trelawney may be very significant to Dumbledore, but I don't > think Harry sees her as significant yet. Yes, she made > a couple of predictions, but unless she is ready to > make another one, I don't see her as very high on > Harry's radar screen. Dana now: Trelawney only holds any significance to DD because of the prediction she made and the impact LV's choice eventually made on Harry because the one prediction she made send LV after him. I think saying she just made a couple predictions is slightly oversimplifying the importance these predictions had on the entire story arc. If the prophecy was never made it would never had reached LV's ear. To be more precise there wouldn't have been a story that specifically involved Harry at all. Harry's parents would still be alive; Sirius would have never ended up in jail and dead; DD would never had to place Harry with the Dursley's to insure the blood protection and Harry would not have been a marked man. To say these things are not important enough for Trelawney to be high on Harry's radar screen sounds slightly silly to me because it is the only reason she is on DD's. bboyminn: > JKR had to limit the people she named, and I don't > think specific missing names are of any significants. Dana: Again, I am not arguing that Magpie could not be right and that Trelawney not being mentioned at the funeral is therefore any indication there is more to it then that, but to say that Harry would not register her individually because she holds no importance to him, even if he doesn't like her or consider her one of his intimate circle, to me is not a valid argument to therefore conclude Trelawney was lumped under the label "staff". To be honest, to me JKR not mentioning her and not wanting us to remember her at this specific point, while we are reminded from PoA on how important her predictions have been to whatever happens to the different characters throughout the series, seems more relevant then when she would just have let Harry notice Trelawney for a second. The prediction Trelawney made in PoA was relevant not only to the end of PoA when Wormtail escaped but also to what happened at the end of GoF. By following her prediction made to Harry, the reader would have been able to predict that Wormtail was going to aid LV and make his comeback possible and you might think that Harry never did anything that made the prophecy true, but he did when he prevented Sirius and Lupin to kill Wormtail. It was the right moral choice for him to make but it was nevertheless a choice that made it possible for this prophecy to be fulfilled and what made LV's rise back to power and thus is important to Cedric's death, Sirius' death and eventually DD's death. Her first prediction (or prophecy) was not only important to the start of Harry's journey but also GoF and why LV wanted Harry's blood (because taking away the blood protection would make it able for LV to fulfill the prophecy, or so he thought). It was the entire story line of OotP and the reason Sirius is dead because no prophecy, no luring Harry to the DoM and without it no need for Sirius to go after him. Even DD's choice not to tell Harry, by which everything could have been prevented, concerns the prophecy and the impact Harry's involvement eventually made on DD. In HBP we are reminded that it is important not only to Harry and the people he loved but also to Snape and probably his loyalties. So I do not think or believe JKR suddenly forgot about Trelawney but she did a great job to make her readers forget about her and this might very well be entirely intentional. It seems JKR did an excellent job for all her readers to consider Trelawney a fraud but she might very well have been telling the truth all along even if her way of expressing her predictions might be totally annoying everyone. Let's hope she indeed has been wrong about Harry's coming death because till now the couple of predictions she made had an enormous impact on in the lives and deaths of all the main characters including what happened on the tower (as DD choice to disregard her warning signs). It is either the choice of not to listen or to listen to the predictions she made that influenced everything that happened during the course of the story. JMHO Dana From aerocashtkd at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 13:23:09 2007 From: aerocashtkd at gmail.com (technicalelf) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:23:09 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166539 > Hickengruendler: > > My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in > the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to > be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely > about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword. Also > on the british children edition is a picture of Hogwarts with the > Whoomping Willow, the Prongs' Patronus and Nagini what seems to be in > a prophecy orb. > > Hickengruendler > Thats not Ron holding that sword... there seems to be a House Elf (?) on Harry's back holding it. TE From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 12:55:37 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:55:37 -0000 Subject: Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in > the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to > be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely > about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword.> Actually if you blow it up it turns out that Ron isn't the one holding the sword. The hand holding the sword belongs to a partially-obscured, pointy-eared something clinging to Harry's back. My guess would be Dobby, but I suppose it might be Kreacher or some other elf. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 13:53:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:53:40 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166542 > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > > >The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final > confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it >definitely > shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. They are in what seems > to be an arena or something, and there are >several shadows, who seem to > watch the encounter. Maybe the cover does not reflect a scene from the book > at all, but is really only >meant to be symbolical for the final battle? I > can't help being reminded of the Colosseum and the circus in the ancient > Rome ;-) Alla: I do not know how about anybody else, but to me it looks like sort of the repeat of GoF confrontation. I am betting on something similar with the twist, but in essense the same. Meaning that Harry would be in grave danger, but will manage with the help of those who died and who loved him. > Lindsay: > > To me, it looks like the aqueducts. Romping around Europe, are they? > > The most telling thing about the US cover, I think, is the fact that there > is a locket hanging from Harry's neck. :) Alla: The fact that locket is on British adult cover gives me hope that it would be quite important,yes ;) Oh, maybe Regulus will show up after all, hehe. I can dream, can I? But my most excitement is of course that there is no Snape anywhere on the covers. Yes, yes, I know greasy git is important and will be on more pages than I would like to. But I can dream, can I that he will show up on few last pages and either reveal himself as loyal or evil plot device and that would be it? Alla, who loves loves British children cover. From fridwulfa at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:05:47 2007 From: fridwulfa at gmail.com (yutu75es) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:05:47 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > > > > >The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final > > confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it > >definitely > > shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. > > Notice that neither Harry or Voldemort has a wand. Harry, looking > confident, seems to be reaching for something. > > They are in what seems > > to be an arena or something, and there are >several shadows, who seem > to > > watch the encounter. > > I'm wondering if we might be back to the Department of Mysteries for > the climactic confrontation - this seems something like > the "ampitheater" where we saw the Veil. I'm guessing the "shadows" are > Death Eaters - Voldemort seems to be grandstanding again, as in the > Book 4 duel. > > - CMC > I noticed none of them are holding wands, yeah, neither Voldemort nor Harry. And I think the "shadows" could be Death Eaters, but maybe they are the famous "Deathly Hallows", who knows, spirits of the deceased... I think they might be on the "other side" of the Veil. From bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu Wed Mar 28 13:47:28 2007 From: bkalb at learnlink.emory.edu (bkalb1977) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:47:28 -0000 Subject: Power Dark Lord knows not- DH cover Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166544 As Caius noted: "Notice that neither Harry or Voldemort has a wand. Harry, looking confident, seems to be reaching for something." I think this is the most important aspect of the cover. Neither Harry of Voldemort has wands, but it really looks like Harry is performing an "Accio" spell. Plus Voldemort looks worried. I really think that wandless magic will play an important part of the next book. bk From Aixoise at snet.net Wed Mar 28 14:14:53 2007 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:14:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <014e01c77143$74f8d300$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166545 Hickengruendler wrote: The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it definitely shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. They are in what seems to be an arena or something, and there are several shadows, who seem to watch the encounter. Stacey writes: I couldn't help noticing the pulled back curtains. Although arena-like, I'm betting on the veil in the MoM. Could they actually be *BEHIND* it? Are the shadows the passed souls? Would the cover art actually give away such an amazing development? Hickengruendler wrote: My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword. Also on the british children edition is a picture of Hogwarts with the Whoomping Willow, the Prongs' Patronus and Nagini what seems to be in a prophecy orb. Stacey now: I agree it's my favorite if only because it has more things in it so that I can ask more questions about what it could possibly mean. Also, can't believe how adult Harry looks in it. so much like his father! Others have already commented on the fact that it is not Ron holding the sword but did anyone notice the different robes? Yes it's certainly a treasure but isn't there a disassembled suit of armor in there (helmet to the right of Harry, torso part to the left)? What could this mean? Happy that we've got more to speculate on now! Stacey (who apologizes profusely for posing more questions than providing answers .just in a Socratic mood perhaps) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From grich277080 at aol.com Wed Mar 28 12:34:42 2007 From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:34:42 EDT Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166546 Lindsay: To me, it looks like the aqueducts. Romping around Europe, are they? The most telling thing about the US cover, I think, is the fact that there is a locket hanging from Harry's neck. :) AnnR: I belive that in the UK children's version that either Dobby or Kreacher is behind Harry and holding Gryffindor's sword. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:27:38 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:27:38 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166547 Hickengruendler: *(snip)* > The US edition has a scene, which very well could be from the final > confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. At the very least, it > definitely shows *a* confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. > They are in what seems to be an arena or something, and there are > several shadows, who seem to watch the encounter. Maybe the cover > does not reflect a scene from the book at all, but is really only > meant to be symbolical for the final battle? I can't help being > reminded of the Colosseum and the circus in the ancient Rome ;-) Ceridwen: I'm leaving a couple of lines of spoiler space, in case someone hasn't been able to access the pics of the various covers yet. The downloads at Bloomsbury take quite a while, in case anyone goes there to see the UK covers. On the US Cover: Neither Harry nor Voldemort have wands. And, the full cover is framed by fraying draperies. I'm putting this confrontation in front of The Veil in the DoM, which is parted for some reason. Both Voldemort and Harry are reaching toward the draperies. Interesting that the view of the scene seems to take place from beyond these draperies, or The Veil. (Does that mean that both Harry and Voldemort live, and the readers Go Beyond? ;) Okay, too gruesom, even for a joke. Sorry, still can't resist!) Hickengruendler: > My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in > the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to > be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely > about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword. Also > on the british children edition is a picture of Hogwarts with the > Whoomping Willow, the Prongs' Patronus and Nagini what seems to be in > a prophecy orb. Ceridwen: Ron isn't holding the sword. If you blow the pic up, or look closely, the hand holding the sword matches a hand on Harry's shoulder - somewhat grayish, which matches the top of a pointy-eared head behind Harry's as Harry tumbles into a hoard of treasure. I'm guessing Dobby, since who else would wield a sword like that among the house elves that we know? Behind the trio and the golden hoard is what looks like either a large portion of a dinner plate with a segmented border, something like a golden Stargate, or perhaps, the arch with the Veil again. And again, no curtain, drape or veil in sight. Oh, I'm getting ideas! On the UK Adult cover: What I can see of Slytherin's locket is very nice. It is oval and made of pale gold. An engraved, ornate S in outline covers its face. Part of the S is filled with round cut emeralds. The chain is multi-linked and twisted or braided. It is laying on a surface of either coarse coal or black, charred wood. Oy, I am so excited! *SQUEEEEEEEE!* I think we can safely last out the wait until DH is actually in our hands by discussing every little jewel and shadow on these covers! Ceridwen, still squeeing! From coatiman2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 14:15:49 2007 From: coatiman2020 at yahoo.com (Jay) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:15:49 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166548 Wow, I'm actually early enough to a post to have new ideas! YAY! Personally I love the covers. I saw the reveal on the Today show and was almost late to my Spanish class. :) There isn't much in the US edition for me to decipher, but notice the curtains on the sides. Are they behind the veil? Does the final battle take place behind it? So that means that those shadows are those that died. Judging by the amount, most likely by Voldemort's wand/orders. It's also noteworthy that both Harry and Voldemort are in very similar, if not exactly the same, position. Hmm. Mind control? Some other power? The other power could be "off-screen" and what the two of them seem to be indicating. As for the UK Kid's version, We do see a house elf behind Harry holding the sword. But is he pulling or pushing him through the Veil? Also that seems to be where the Hufflepuff cup is, like a previous poster said, but what about the other trinkets? Are they incidental filler? Personally I like the helmet and whatever that little dragon thing is. Sorry if I rambled. This is only technically my second post here. Jay who could not concentrate of the Spanish word for weather when he had Potter theories. From fridwulfa at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 15:41:43 2007 From: fridwulfa at gmail.com (yutu75es) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:41:43 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166549 No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on the spine of the British cover, over the title. It seems like an arrow, a circle and a triangle. Any theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? From inspirit at ptd.net Wed Mar 28 16:30:13 2007 From: inspirit at ptd.net (Kim) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:30:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38D0A57530B341EF8A021FC810968C47@KimsNewBaby> No: HPFGUIDX 166550 The children's cover could be a Gringott's vault that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dobby? are entering or being blasted into. That could explain what looks to me like galleons and perhaps jewels scattering as they land. The large gold flat object could still be a galleon because in the first book, when Harry first met Hagrid, he saw galleons in Hagrid's coat and thought that they looked to be as big as hubcaps. The silvery, bubbly things are what has me intrigued... Kim [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Mar 28 16:22:47 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:22:47 -0400 Subject: Book Covers References: <014e01c77143$74f8d300$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: <009701c77155$541b1b90$2f01a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> No: HPFGUIDX 166551 To me, when I look at the UK children's edition and all that gold and treasure, it reminds me of Harry's vault at Gringotts. Maybe one of the Horcruxes is there or maybe not even in his vault but maybe in someone else's? Kimberly From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 16:45:02 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:45:02 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166552 Jay snipped: > As for the UK Kid's version, We do see a house elf behind Harry > holding the sword. But is he pulling or pushing him through the Veil? > Also that seems to be where the Hufflepuff cup is, like a previous > poster said, but what about the other trinkets? Are they incidental > filler? Personally I like the helmet and whatever that little dragon > thing is. > > Sorry if I rambled. This is only technically my second post here. > > Jay who could not concentrate of the Spanish word for weather when he > had Potter theories. Snow: The Bloomsbury Children's version, front cover, looks like the trio is falling through the end of a pipe similar to the one in the Chamber of Secrets. Could be the trio slid into Salazar's old stash of coins and jewels. The house elf certainly does seem to be Dobby. Snow From muellem at bc.edu Wed Mar 28 16:45:54 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:45:54 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166553 Caius Marcius: > I'm wondering if we might be back to the Department of Mysteries for > the climactic confrontation - this seems something like > the "ampitheater" where we saw the Veil. I'm guessing the "shadows" are > Death Eaters - Voldemort seems to be grandstanding again, as in the > Book 4 duel. colebiancardi: looking at the Am Edition, I am thinking those shadows(the ones by the ground) are actually tombstones - if they are people, they are only from the shoulders up! Also, the UK Edition, all that treasure - could that be in Gringotts - maybe LV is hiding some of his horocruxes there? colebiancardi From dossett at lds.net Wed Mar 28 16:55:34 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:55:34 -0000 Subject: Book lengths (was:Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166556 Book lengths as per news stories - UK edition is 608 pages (Leaky) US edition is 784 pages (msn.com) I can't wait to dive in. Pat From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Wed Mar 28 16:56:01 2007 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:56:01 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "yutu75es" wrote: > > No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on the spine of the > British cover, over the title. It seems like an arrow, a circle and a > triangle. Any theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? > Yippeee!!!!! But JKR always does this when I get to sleep in, and my daughter comes with the excitement of it to bounce me out. I would venture a guess: the insignia reminds me of the pyramid and eye on the US dollar which I believe is something like the Eye of Horus. Don't know all that that means, but I know I have read something about the EoH concerning Potterdom, probably on Mugglenet. I am assuming that others have concluded that it is the Hufflepuff/Hepzibah Smith vault because of the armor which could be the goblin-made suit that Tom R. offers an improved bid on (US HC p. 435)? There is also what could be a brass plant pot right below Harry's left hand which was mentioned in H.S.'s rooms. They would have to gain illegal entrance to that vault, seeing as they don't own it and can't talk the Smith's into it. I'm betting that we are seeing HRHDobby after a battle with the goblins and/or set of tasks like Sorceror's Stone. Surely one has many obstacles to face if entering the vaults in an unorthodox way. They are quite cut up. I noticed Harry is not wearing robes, but street clothes. Note that it is full moon, so we get some werewolf action, I hope. Is that Grawp's face in the clouds? On the US cover I cast my vote for us looking from the DoM into the veil. In our realm, the rest of the structure has fallen except one of the arches, but on the "other side" it is intact. Maybe the debris at the bottom results from a Halloween effect, and the usual barricade is pulled down? Anyway, we are happy with this here at our house! Even Dad is re- reading all the books! Laura From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 28 17:32:25 2007 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:32:25 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > Caius Marcius: > > I'm wondering if we might be back to the Department of Mysteries for > > the climactic confrontation - this seems something like > > the "ampitheater" where we saw the Veil. I'm guessing the "shadows" are > > Death Eaters - Voldemort seems to be grandstanding again, as in the > > Book 4 duel. > > colebiancardi: > > looking at the Am Edition, I am thinking those shadows(the ones by the > ground) are actually tombstones - if they are people, they are only > from the shoulders up! > snipped... Toni Now: I initially thought that the shadows in the background were tombstones, but if you look at a blown up version of the cover (there's one linked from hpana.com -- it's in their gallery), or use the magnifying glass on the Scholastic site, you can make out hazy faces on the shadows immediately to Harry's right. Either that, or I'm seeing things again :-)! --Toni (back to lurkerdom) From muellem at bc.edu Wed Mar 28 18:07:10 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:07:10 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166561 > > colebiancardi: > > > > looking at the Am Edition, I am thinking those shadows(the ones by > the > > ground) are actually tombstones - if they are people, they are only > > from the shoulders up! > > > snipped... > > Toni Now: > > I initially thought that the shadows in the background were > tombstones, but if you look at a blown up version of the cover > (there's one linked from hpana.com -- it's in their gallery), or use > the magnifying glass on the Scholastic site, you can make out hazy > faces on the shadows immediately to Harry's right. Either that, or > I'm seeing things again :-)! colebiancardi: I can't see any faces - just shapes, even with the magnifying glass. I did notice that Harry's right hand is resting on a tombstone - so, that is why I figured those other "shapes" to be tombstones as well. but Scholastic agrees with you on the shadowy figures: According to Scholastic's Vice President and Creative Director, David Saylor (who has designed all the covers): The front cover of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows features a dramatic sky of oranges and golds. It depicts 17-year-old Harry with arm outstretched, reaching upward. The structures around Harry show evident destruction and in the shadows behind him, we see outlines of other people. For the first time the cover is a wrap-around. On the back cover spidery hands are outstretched towards Harry. Only when the book is opened does one see a powerful image of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, his glowing red eyes peering out from his hood. http://www.hpana.com/news.19819.html oh jeez, that book cannot come out quick enough!! colebiancardi From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Mar 28 18:23:58 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:23:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers References: Message-ID: <009701c77166$4280f920$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166562 > colebiancardi: > Also, the UK Edition, all that treasure - could that be in Gringotts - > maybe LV is hiding some of his horocruxes there? Be sure to look at the full cover of the UK kids version. On the back, there is another scene. It appears to be Hogwarts at night, with Crookshanks on the grounds. Since we know this cat is more than a cat, I wonder if Crookshanks learns to tell Harry some of the secrets he or she sees. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Mar 28 18:45:18 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:45:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Covers References: Message-ID: <012d01c77169$3ba19b20$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166563 > Hickengruendler: > > The Book covers for the British (adult and children) and U.S. > (children edition) are out. > > The links are on the Leaky cauldron. > > The most uninteresting one is IMO the British adult cover. It only > has the Slytherin amulet on it, which we already know plays a part in > the book, therefore it tells us precisely nothing knew. But is it a Slytherin amulet? It's not a snake-S; the ends are flowery. Are the flowers significant? Are they indicative of the locket that was not the Slytherin, but rather the one that Harry got with Dumbledore in the cave? Or some other locket that is another ruse? Just wondering. Surely the end puzzle can't be all that straightforward. Shelley From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Mar 28 18:28:33 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:28:33 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: <009701c77166$4280f920$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166564 > Shelley > > Be sure to look at the full cover of the UK kids version. On the back, there > is another scene. It appears to be Hogwarts at night, with Crookshanks on > the grounds. Since we know this cat is more than a cat, I wonder if > Crookshanks learns to tell Harry some of the secrets he or she sees. Magpie: Where's Crookshanks? The only animal I see is the Bloomsbury mascot. What am I missing? -m From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 16:40:56 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:40:56 -0700 Subject: By impressions on the covers Message-ID: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166566 US version - Looks like reader is at treshold of the Veil looking in. Also get the sense that Beyond the Veil is mirror image (sort of) This Side of the Veil, except with 'living' shadows. - Can't see a scar on Harry - Voldemort, fearful and wandless (though I'm sure he can perform nonverbals expertly) - Harry determined and wandless - What are they both looking at or anticipating off-cover? UK version - Harry has scar - Harry 's left arm and Hermione's right arm seem injured (recent scrapes/burns) - Helmet and Brestplate (Mithrill? just kidding) - Kreacher or, most likely, Doby riding on Harry not pushing him. The sword raised up away from Harry's back - all wandless - What is reflected in Harry's glasses? fwiw Kemper From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 20:07:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:07:33 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166567 laurawkids wrote: > I would venture a guess: the insignia reminds me of the pyramid and > eye on the US dollar which I believe is something like the Eye of > Horus. Don't know all that that means, but I know I have read > something about the EoH concerning Potterdom, probably on Mugglenet. > > I am assuming that others have concluded that it is the > Hufflepuff/Hepzibah Smith vault because of the armor which could be > the goblin-made suit that Tom R. offers an improved bid on (US HC p. > 435)? There is also what could be a brass plant pot right below > Harry's left hand which was mentioned in H.S.'s rooms. Carol responds: Re the Eye of Horus or whatever it is: I thought at first that it might simply be a Bloomsbury trademark like the little archer, but it isn't. It appears in the same place on the spine as the ring Horcrux did on the HBP UK children's editon. It isn't a rune, whatever it is. Maybe it relates to the Pensieve or to curse-breaking in Egypt??? I'll leave discussion of those things to people who know about them. I think the vault may be Godric Gryffindor's rather than Hepzibah Smith's considering that the house-elf is holding the Sword of Gryffindor--and the notable absence of Hepzibah's presumed descendant, Zacharias Smith. And note the ruby-studded helmet with a griffin on it, which very probably belonged to Godric Griffindor. He would have needed a helmet and armor to go with his sword, and the era would be right (if we discount unhistorical details like wizards who died in 1492 wearing Elizabethan ruffs). Maybe wizarding armor, like Hogwarts itself (a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century castle built before the year 1000), is somewhat ahead of its time. Also, the only precious stones in the picture appear to be rubies, associated with Godric Gryffindor (his sword is studded with them). Lots of gold, too, and red and gold are the Gryffindor colors. Or maybe the vault belonged to a certain descendant of Gryffindor named Albus Dumbledore, who used to have a griffin door knocker, and has been willed to Harry? In that case the cup could be Helga Hufflepuff's, already retrieved by Dumbledore on one of those mysterious excursions he took during HBP, rather than being in her vault--where it wouldn't be, anyway, since her descendants noted that it was missing along with the locket. Also, HRH would have every right to be there, as they would not if the vault were Hepzibah's. Laura: > Note that it is full moon, so we get some werewolf action, I hope. Carol: I noticed that, too. Maybe Fenrir Greyback has escaped? I keep thinking that PP will pay his life debt to Harry by killing Fenrir with his silver hand. No repentance speech, please. I can't imagine Peter feeling genuine remorse. I hope it won't be Lupin transforming. One transformation on Hogwarts grounds is enough for him, IMO. Laura: > Is that Grawp's face in the clouds? Carol: Where? I hope not! However, we do see Harry's Prongs Patronus, which will obviously play a role. (So it's not his Patronus that changes. Bet it's Snape's!) Someone mentioned Nagini in a Prophecy orb, but I think it's more likely a crystal ball. Prophecy orbs only contain the shadowy form of the Seer speaking the prophecy. (Of course, crystal ball shapes are supposed to be shadowy, too, but Trelawney saw what she thought was the Grim and believed Harry when he said he could see a hippogriff.) Laura: > On the US cover I cast my vote for us looking from the DoM into the > veil. In our realm, the rest of the structure has fallen except one > of the arches, but on the "other side" it is intact. Maybe the > debris at the bottom results from a Halloween effect, and the usual > barricade is pulled down? Carol: Interesting idea about looking into the veil (too bad Grandpre has drawn it as slightly tattered curtains resembling the one on the back cover of the Scholastic paperback edition of SS instead of a more sinister and ancient-looking single Veil). Not sure what you mean by "a Halloween effect." BTW, I also dislike the way Grandpre has made Voldemort's hands look like a Dementor's instead of being deathly white and long-fingered. Harry is wearing the Slytherin locket (presumably the same one shown in the UK cover art but badly rendered), which probably means that it's been de-Horcuxed even though it doesn't look cracked like the ring. Maybe all that's required to remove the soul bit is a counterspell to open the locket, which was magically sealed when we saw it in 12 GP. It may not have a protective curse given all the protections in the cave, but that's probably too much to hope. Did anyone else notice the Arthur Levine interview, in which he said that he "sobbed and sobbed" and that it's a "very emotional book"? (Unlike the person who was trying to get him to tell us who dies, I'm not at all convinced that Harry is doomed. If he were, how could he still be alive after entering the Veil alive? For that matter, how can Voldie still be what passes for alive if all the Horcruxes are destroyed?) Carol, wondering if the Slytherin locket was a powerful magical object in its own right, meaning that it has other powers besides being a Horcrux Carol, feeling tantalized but hoping there's more to the book than a Horcrux hunt, however exciting From edharrel at texas.net Wed Mar 28 20:05:15 2007 From: edharrel at texas.net (siper_slue) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:05:15 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: <012d01c77169$3ba19b20$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > But is it a Slytherin amulet? It's not a snake-S; the ends are flowery. Are > the flowers significant? Are they indicative of the locket that was not the > Slytherin, but rather the one that Harry got with Dumbledore in the cave? Or > some other locket that is another ruse? Just wondering. Surely the end > puzzle can't be all that straightforward. > If I recall correctly, the Slytherin locket was marked with an ornate "S", I don't think it had a snake on it, but I was unable to locate the exact description in HBP, so I could be mistaken. And on the subject of lockets: Someone might have mentioned this earlier, but on the US version, it looks like Harry is wearing something around his neck. Something with a bit of a locket shape, IMO. -- Siper From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 20:18:20 2007 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:18:20 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > Hickengruendler: > > > My favourite is the British children edition: The Trio is on it, in > the scene where they seem to find the Hufflepuff-Horcrux. It seems to > be hidden within a tresure, or something, and the Trio are definitely > about to get attacked. Ron is holding a (Gryffindor's?) sword. Also > on the british children edition is a picture of Hogwarts with the > Whoomping Willow, the Prongs' Patronus and Nagini what seems to be in > a prophecy orb. I haven't seen anyone note it yet so I'll do it... Ron isn't holding anything, that's Dobby holding the Sword. Dobby has his right hand on Harry's shoulder and his left is raised with the sword. His forhead is just above Harry's shoulder. What I find interesting is the prevalence of Gryffindor colours in both editions... and is that the armor of Godric Gryffindor laying in the treasure pile? Hrm... Ever curious : Distaiyi the Supplanter From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 20:21:36 2007 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:21:36 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166571 Before I get lambasted by the horde... Okay NOW I see all the posts about it being a house elf or Dobby. Guess I need to check the second page before I post next time. Distaiyi the humbled. From sunflowerlaw at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 17:05:36 2007 From: sunflowerlaw at gmail.com (Lindsay) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:05:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166573 >Ceridwen wrote: > >On the UK Adult cover: What I can see of Slytherin's locket is very >nice. It is oval and made of pale gold. An engraved, ornate S in >outline covers its face. Part of the S is filled with round cut >emeralds. The chain is multi-linked and twisted or braided. It is >laying on a surface of either coarse coal or black, charred wood. Lindsay: Another interesting detail...Slytherin's locket has 66 emeralds in it. :) --Lindsay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ekrdg at verizon.net Wed Mar 28 20:31:53 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:31:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] By impressions on the covers References: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <039501c77178$203e5a80$2f01a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> No: HPFGUIDX 166574 UK version - Harry has scar - Harry 's left arm and Hermione's right arm seem injured (recent scrapes/burns) - Helmet and Brestplate (Mithrill? just kidding) - Kreacher or, most likely, Doby riding on Harry not pushing him. The sword raised up away from Harry's back - all wandless - What is reflected in Harry's glasses? fwiw Kemper My response: Looking at the sword in the elf's hand. It looks like it has a red gemstone of sorts on the handle. In CoS, Amer. Ed. page 320, JKR writes.... "A gleaming silver sword had appeared in side the hat, its handle glittering with rubies the size of eggs." The sword on the cover appears to be the same sword, the sword Harry used to kill the basilisk, the sword that hung in DD's office...the sword of Godric Gryffindor. Kimberly From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 21:34:33 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:34:33 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Harry is wearing the Slytherin locket (presumably the same one shown > in the UK cover art but badly rendered), which probably means that > it's been de-Horcuxed even though it doesn't look cracked like the > ring. Dondee: IMO Harry is wearing the fake horcrux locket that he and DD got out of the cave. "He felt in his pocket for the cold chain of the fake Horcrux, which he now carried with him everywhere, not as a talisman, but as a reminder of what it had cost and what remained still to do." HBP pg. 639 It is an easy reach to have him wearing it around his neck now instead of having to be always moving it when he changes clothes. Cheers, Dondee From sam2sar at charter.net Wed Mar 28 22:08:26 2007 From: sam2sar at charter.net (Stephanie) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:08:26 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: <014e01c77143$74f8d300$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166584 > Stacey wrote: > > I couldn't help noticing the pulled back curtains. Although arena- like, I'm > betting on the veil in the MoM. Could they actually be *BEHIND* it? Are > the shadows the passed souls? Would the cover art actually give away such an > amazing development? > Sams thought: I was thinking that the pulled back curtains are not the veil but representing the closing curtain at the end of a play. It seems pretty fitting to me. The curtains close with Book 7. The End. Boo Hoo. Of course, I know that I am definately wrong. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 22:11:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:11:41 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > Hickengruendler: > > The Book covers for the British (adult and children) > and U.S. (children edition) are out. > > ...edited... bboyminn: Just a few thoughts - VAULT/TREASURE- I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the plot going there. However, - Clearly, the Trio is in battle, they are all tattered and injured. So, I speculate the following - - Hogwart's vault. This could be part of the Battle of Hogwart that I have so often predicted. The Trio could be running in battle and have stumbled into Hogwart's Treasury. Certainly Hogwarts has its own treasury, which contains the Founder's endowment, plus alumni endowments. This Treasury Vault could be some independant room or it could be a room hidden within the Room of Requirements. This could also account for the presences of a house- elf and the Gryffindor Sword. - Slytherin's Hoard. Slytherin left the school so he may not have left his endowment to the school. So, there could be a private Vault somewhere where Slytherin kept his treasure. Perhaps in or near the Chamber of Secrets; I've been looking for a way to bring that place back into the story. - Smith Treasury. I do agree that this could be the trio breaking into Zachary Smith's private vault on the assumption that he is related to Hepzibah Smith, the last known possessor of the Hufflepuff Cup. Though, if Tom stole the Cup, and it was missing when Hepzibah's estate was resolved, what is it doing there now? - NOT Harry's Vault. The vault in question has too much non-currency treasure to be Harry's vault. Harry is moderately rich, but he is not known to have suits of armor, fabulous gems, and other assorted treasure. And again, I find it unlikely that the Trio would engage in battle within the confines of Gringott's Bank. Mysterious Creature - The mysterious creature that others have commented about is really just a Bloomsbury logo; either a full dog with an arrow in its mouth or just a dog's head with an arrow in his mouth. If you zoom in, it is clear that this dog has been added to the artwork and is not part of the original. Mysterious Creature with a Sword- Thanks to others for pointing out that it is NOT Ron that is holding the Sword. Close inspection shows what is clearly a house-elf behind Harry and the Elf is holding the Sword. I have to conclude that this is Dobby. Dobby is extremely loyal to Harry, and would not be afraid to fight as other Elves might be. Personally, I just can't see Kreacher fighting /with/ Harry; against him maybe, but not with him. I wouldn't mind a bit if Kreacher was dead at the start of the next book. UK Back Cover - Can we all agree that this is an exterior shot of Hogwarts? UK Back Cover Text - Harry is waiting at Privet Drive for the Order to come and get him again. That's odd, where are Ron and Hermione, I thought they were going to be at Privet Drive with him? Perhaps this is later at Privet Drive, perhaps Harry second visit there. US Full Cover - - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be concerned with something off page, something in roughly the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. Could it be Harry and Voldemort in the Dept of Mysteries Death Chamber looking into the Veil? Though, I don't mind the idea that we are seeing Harry and Voldemort already behind the Veil at some kind of ghostly/spiritual tribunal, and the perspective of the reader is that of the people in the Death Chamber looking into the Veil to the /other/ side. I'm not sure how much weight we can give to the specific architecture. That could just be artistic style. Another problem is the broken wood and rocks in front of the curtain, again is that just artistic style or is it conveying significant information. It certainly doesn't match previous descriptions of the Veil. Though if they are already behind the Veil, then we can't predict what we would or wouldn't be likely to see. In addition, we see Sky above in the cover, is that artistic style, enchanted ceiling, or real sky? Enquiring minds want to know. EYES- Note Voldemort's eyes appear to be on Harry, but Harry's eyes do NOT appear to be on Voldemort. Again, some third party is drawing their interest and they are reacting to it; whatever it may be. That's about all I can think of for now. Steve/bboyminn From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 22:02:43 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:02:43 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "siper_slue" wrote: > If I recall correctly, the Slytherin locket was marked with an > ornate "S", I don't think it had a snake on it, but I was unable to > locate the exact description in HBP, so I could be mistaken. > > And on the subject of lockets: > > Someone might have mentioned this earlier, but on the US version, it > looks like Harry is wearing something around his neck. Something with > a bit of a locket shape, IMO. > > -- Siper Dondee: Description of Slytherin's locket from Lord Voldemort's Request: 'There upon the smooth crimson velvet lay a heavy golden locket.' '"Slytherin's mark," he said quietly, as the light played upon an ornate, serpentine S.' HBP pg. 437 Description of fake!Horcrux locket from Flight of the Prince: 'This was neither as large as the locket he remembered seeing in the Pensive, nor were there any markings upon it, no sign of the ornate S that was supposed to be Slytherin's mark.' HBP pg. 609 I think that there is a depiction of Slytherin's locket on the UK adult cover and that on the US cover Harry is wearing the fake! Horcrux locket that he has been keeping with him ever since DD died. Dondee, who thinks that the real horcrux locket is amongst Kreature's hoard in 12 Grimauld Place;) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 22:34:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:34:26 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166595 Carol earlier: > > > Harry is wearing the Slytherin locket (presumably the same one shown in the UK cover art but badly rendered), which probably means that it's been de-Horcuxed even though it doesn't look cracked like the ring. > Dondee: > IMO Harry is wearing the fake horcrux locket that he and DD got out > of the cave. > > "He felt in his pocket for the cold chain of the fake Horcrux, which > he now carried with him everywhere, not as a talisman, but as a > reminder of what it had cost and what remained still to do." HBP pg. > 639 > > It is an easy reach to have him wearing it around his neck now > instead of having to be always moving it when he changes clothes. > Carol responds: Anything's possible, but I doubt that he'd wear the fake locket to confront Voldemort. He'd more likely want to wear the real one to taunt him with a destroyed Horcrux. The fake locket has no design on it and could not be mistaken for the Slytherin locket (presumably the one depicted on the UK adult edition). Also, the real locket is larger and heavier than the fake one, and I can't imagine a larger and heavier locket than the one Harry is wearing. It's bigger than a pocket watch from the look of it (a lot larger than I imagined it as being when I read HBP). Bear in mind that by the time of this final confrontation, Harry will need to have found and destroyed all the Horcruxes, of Voldemort can't be killed. There would be no point at that late date to carry around the smaller locket, which fits inconspicuously into his pocket, as a reminder of his quest. Carol, quite sure that this locket is the real Horcrux and almost as sure that it's been opened and de-Horcruxed at that point in the story From andie1 at earthlink.net Wed Mar 28 22:41:39 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:41:39 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166597 A few brief things... 1) If you look at the Orb on the UK children's cover, it appears to be Nagini (as someone already pointed out), but if you look carefully, you can sort of see a mouse (maybe a RAT - PP?) peeking from Nagini's folds. Also, behind the snake, it appears to be a large black dog - Sirius? Plus, Harry's stag patronus is on the other side... The only one of the Maurauders that is missing is Lupin. What does Nagini have to do with it? Could that be a sign that Nagini is really an animagus? 2) UK adult cover - Doesn't it appear that the locket is back on the rock in the cave??? 3) I agree that it seems like Harry/Voldemort on the US edition are by the veil... 4) When I first saw the cover, I was... relieved. For some reason, Harry's expression makes me feel like he's going to make it. andie From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Mar 28 23:18:06 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:18:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers References: Message-ID: <005101c7718f$57b39f40$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166598 > > Shelley > > Be sure to look at the full cover of the UK kids version. On the > back, there > > is another scene. It appears to be Hogwarts at night, with > Crookshanks on > > the grounds. Since we know this cat is more than a cat, I wonder if > > Crookshanks learns to tell Harry some of the secrets he or she sees. > > Magpie: > Where's Crookshanks? The only animal I see is the Bloomsbury mascot. > What am I missing? Sorry! I was looking across the room as my girls brought it up on the screen and announced the cat. That got my mind spinning Crookshank theories, and only when I got to look at picture more closely for myself did I see it was just a logo and not part of the cover art itself. Also, when I was able to look at the Kid's cover more closely, I noticed burn marks on Harry's arm, and then on Hermione, and a cut or bruise on Ron's face. Whatever happens, we know there will be battles! Shelley From Ronin_47 at comcast.net Wed Mar 28 21:25:20 2007 From: Ronin_47 at comcast.net (Ronin_47) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:25:20 -0400 Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901c7717f$978b42e0$829efd45@TheRonin> No: HPFGUIDX 166608 Somebody mentioned how Harry has discovered his father's power inside him and that his mother's power still lies within him, undiscovered. This got me to thinking...JKR has said that something about Harry's eyes being like his mother's was going to play a big part in DH. Lily's eyes were green, as are Harry's. As is the light of the Avada Kedavra curse. Maybe the power she transferred to him, the protection is in his eyes. The ability to reflect the AK curse back onto it's caster. I wonder if Harry's eyes were green before that night in Godric's Hollow. Anyway, my theory is this; Harry finds and destroys the remaining horcruxes with help from the trio, DH, OotP (including members we haven't been formally introduced to yet). The final showdown between Harry and Voldemort takes place. The final piece of Voldemort's soul is trapped inside of him and Harry can't use any unforgivable curses on Voldemort. Voldemort tries to cast AK on Harry and it is reflected, killing Voldemort once and for all. This is just a casual theory which just came to mind, so I haven't worked out the details too far. I just wanted to put it on the table for discussion and consideration. The covers are great. Cheers, Ronin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leslie41 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 22:57:15 2007 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:57:15 -0000 Subject: Book Covers--Theater? In-Reply-To: <38D0A57530B341EF8A021FC810968C47@KimsNewBaby> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166617 The more I look at the American cover, the more it looks like a theater, like Voldemort and Harry are actually on some sort of a stage. Look at the curtain on the right--it's being held back with some sort of rope, or perhaps a metal hook with a leaf pattern? It's certainly not the curtain (veil?) itself. And the rocks and broken wood in the foreground--the curtain almost touches them. In addition, though Voldemort and Harry seem extremely vivid, the background seems intentionally flat, washed out and artificial, as if it were supposed to be the representation of a background painting. Check the brush strokes on the arena at the right side. It's like we're being told this is a painting of a painting. The rocks and wood and curtains in the foreground, Harry and Voldemort "on stage" and the painted backdrop... But what kind of plot twist could cause that scenario? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 21:42:08 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:42:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40703281442v1d629dacx57ee0eb1ea67e55f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166642 > Lupinlore: > Actually if you blow it up it turns out that Ron isn't the one holding > the sword. The hand holding the sword belongs to a partially-obscured, > pointy-eared something clinging to Harry's back. My guess would be > Dobby, but I suppose it might be Kreacher or some other elf. Kemper now: I thought Dobby as well, but the picture doesn't show the elf wearing any hats or socks. My impression of Dobby is that he would wear some piece of awful clothing to go into a fight as well as just kickin' it around Hogwarts. If it's Kreacher, it would offer some fun dialogue and scenes. Dobby can be a bit too JarJarBinksy for my tastes (though I like him with Kreacher and with Lucius). But maybe Gryffindore's house at Godric's Hollow has an elf... Kemper From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 01:22:21 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:22:21 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" > wrote: > > The Book covers are out. > > > bboyminn: > VAULT/TREASURE- > > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the > plot going there. However, - Talisman: The idea of Gringott's has been developed and maintained sufficiently throughout the course of the series, that I woulndn't be a bit surprised to find us revisiting it in DH. Maybe finally seeing a dragon there, to boot. That said, I can't say I'm all that fussed about where the depicted *vault* is. bboy: > Clearly, the Trio is in battle, they are all tattered > and injured. So, I speculate the following - >snip speculation about the Slytherin Hoard, Smith Treasury< Talisman: With the plethora of Rubies and no other gemstones at all, I can't imagine that it is anything *but* Godric Gryffindor's stash. I don't agree that the trio are necessarily in battle (unless you count escapades with dragons, etc.). Though we all expect to see battle scenes in DH, the kids regularly manage to get scraped-up in the course of their adventures, short of actual battle. I don't think the sword necessarily betokens battle, either. Indeed, in context with the Gryffindor treasure, I think it much more likely that we are seeing some of those Founder's Object *special powers,* that Hepzibah mentioned, in action. The sword has been used to locate *something of Gryffindor's.* Okay, a *lot* of things of Gryffindor's. bboy: > UK Back Cover - > > Can we all agree that this is an exterior shot of Hogwarts? > Talisman: I would hope so. Looks lovely in the moonlight, doesn't it? All the lights on and the door wide open... The Whomping Willow looks rather dead, though. And, of course the full moon just out of the cloud bank recalls the imagery of the transformation scene in Book 3. This, along with the appearance of Prongs, affirms certain aspects of the plot that are expected to reflect PoA. bboy: > UK Back Cover Text - > > Harry is waiting at Privet Drive for the Order to come > and get him again. That's odd, where are Ron and Hermione, > I thought they were going to be at Privet Drive with him? > Perhaps this is later at Privet Drive, perhaps Harry > second visit there. Talisman: Bearing in mind that you, et al., have already *decided* the schedule of events regarding Harry's trips to PD, GH, Burrow, etc. (#150786), with which, alas, I do not agree, I will reiterate my position: there will not be multiple visits to PD. That said, there are endless reasons why Hr and Ron might not be around at the moment in question. However, I must also point out that a failure to mention others, in the jacket blurb about Privet Drive, is no more indicative of their absence in the coming scene than is the other blurb, with it's solitary reference to Harry having to leave the Burrow, an indicator that no one else is home, or that everyone else can stay at chez Weasley, forever. It does sound as if, by whatever time Harry is waiting for the Order, there has already been trouble at Privet Drive. Will the Order save the day? Somehow I expect things to turn out far differently than it did in OoP. If they arrive at all, Moody's contingency plans--as to what to do if some or all of the Order guard are killed--seem more likely to come into play. bboy: > US Full Cover - > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. Talisman: My call is that Harry is summoning something that LV is trying just as hard to keep away. We see the point in time where LV realizes that Harry is prevailing bboy: > > Could it be Harry and Voldemort in the Dept of Mysteries > Death Chamber looking into the Veil? > > Though, I don't mind the idea that we are seeing Harry > and Voldemort already behind the Veil at some kind of > ghostly/spiritual tribunal, and the perspective of the > reader is that of the people in the Death Chamber looking > into the Veil to the /other/ side. > Talisman: The entire series is a metaphor for one author's idea of how to live a good life, in the real world. I just don't see how battles in the afterworld could be applicable, and I consider Rowling much too savvy to go that far. bboy: > Another problem is the broken wood and rocks in front of > the curtain, again is that just artistic style or is it > conveying significant information. It certainly doesn't > match previous descriptions of the Veil. Though if they > are already behind the Veil, then we can't predict what > we would or wouldn't be likely to see. Talisman: The imagery here is clearly referencing the rubble of GH. Though, whether GH, per se, or it's symmetrical counterpart, remains to be seen. There *are* a few pieces that resemble grave stones--to the far right (viewer's right, Harry's left) and possibly behind Harry's lowered hand. bboy: > EYES- > Note Voldemort's eyes appear to be on Harry, but Harry's > eyes do NOT appear to be on Voldemort. Again, some third > party is drawing their interest and they are reacting to > it; whatever it may be. Talisman: I can't say that I see Voldemort's eyes on Harry. Really think LV just looks dismayed that Harry is managing--against LV's efforts--to Accio something. Wouldn't be surprised if there were some phoenix song around to chill that snakey old heart, too. From andie1 at earthlink.net Thu Mar 29 01:32:42 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:32:42 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166667 Yes, I am replying to my own post... well, adding to it anyway... It does appear that in the UK children's edition, there IS a werewolf, aka Lupin, in the clouds just to the left of the full moon. andie --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grindieloe" wrote: > > A few brief things... > > 1) If you look at the Orb on the UK children's cover, it appears to > be Nagini (as someone already pointed out), but if you look > carefully, you can sort of see a mouse (maybe a RAT - PP?) peeking > from Nagini's folds. Also, behind the snake, it appears to be a > large black dog - Sirius? Plus, Harry's stag patronus is on the > other side... The only one of the Maurauders that is missing is > Lupin. What does Nagini have to do with it? Could that be a sign > that Nagini is really an animagus? > > > 2) UK adult cover - Doesn't it appear that the locket is back on the > rock in the cave??? > > 3) I agree that it seems like Harry/Voldemort on the US edition are > by the veil... > > 4) When I first saw the cover, I was... relieved. For some reason, > Harry's expression makes me feel like he's going to make it. > > andie > From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Mar 29 01:18:46 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:18:46 -0700 Subject: My ideas about the covers In-Reply-To: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <114655680.20070328181846@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166673 UK version: -- I'm not crazy about the appearance of Harry -- I think he looks like Ted Danson! -- I think the fourth being in the scene might be (in order of likelihood): 1. An new house-elf (None we've met are likely sword-wielders) 2. Kreacher (That wrinkled forehead suggests age to me) 2. Dobby (But if so, where's his tea-cozy hat??) :) 4. A Gringotts Goblin (only if this *is* Gringotts) -- I guess the fact that we see just the Trio (and a House Elf?) in the scene precludes my hoped-for scenario of Ginny "crashing the party", so to speak... US version: -- Those things that look like tree stumps and fragments of splinted wood (a fence?) make me think this scene is outdoors. I also think that the object behind Harry's right hand (it doesn't look to me like he's actually touching it) is another tree stump, not a tombstone. Not sure about the rock-like thing to Harry's left... -- I frankly don't know why so many assume those curtains are "The Veil", which is described as *black*: "... the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil..." -- OoP, US ed, p. 773. -- Does anyone else find it intriguing that Harry's pose is almost a mirror image of his pose on the cover of SS? Could this be significant in any way other than highlighting how much Harry has matured (and how much Granpre's artwork has improved over time)? Is it at all possible that the final confrontation will be airborne?? Dave From andie1 at earthlink.net Thu Mar 29 01:36:59 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:36:59 -0000 Subject: Wands...What Will Harry and Voldie Do for Wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166675 Anyone else notice the lack of wands in the US edition? Neither Harry nor Voldemort are holding wands. Even though Voldemort was aware of the brother wand connection, he still chose to have his wand at the ministry - as did Harry... or DID Voldemort know about the Priori Incantatum at that time? Apparently, he knows it now... I don't know about anyone else, but I do hope that Harry can cast spells without a wand - something like we saw at the beginning of OOP with the lumos spell... Regardless of what Snape says, Harry does have brain power. I'd love to see him use it in DH. Ever think he will master occulmency? andie From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Mar 29 01:36:47 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:36:47 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166677 yutu75es" wrote: > No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on > the spine of the British cover, over the title. It > seems like an arrow, a circle and a triangle. Any > theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? houyhnhnm: If you rotate the alchemical symbol for salt 90 degrees and superimpose it on the symbol for aqua vitae, then flip the entire image vertically, you get . . . cooking sherry!!! (I couldn't resist). You get the symbol seen at the top of the spine on the UK dust jacket design. I think it's supposed to look alchemical. The symbols for the four elements are all triangles. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 01:47:31 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:47:31 -0000 Subject: Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: <700201d40703281442v1d629dacx57ee0eb1ea67e55f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Kemper now: > I thought Dobby as well, but the picture doesn't show the elf wearing > any hats or socks. My impression of Dobby is that he would wear some > piece of awful clothing to go into a fight as well as just kickin' it > around Hogwarts. Talisman: It *would* be dissappointing if Dobby didn't have a perfectly hideous tea-cozy to wear for every occasion. `Course, you never know how far to trust those artists. (I still don't see how that hand with the candle is sufficiently relevant to SS to warrant the whole back (paperback) cover.) Kemper: > If it's Kreacher, it would offer some fun dialogue and scenes. >Dobby can be a bit too JarJarBinksy for my tastes >snip< Talisman: Amen to the JarJarBinksishness. And, having Kreature hold the sword-- so close to Harry's neck--would be nice and creepy, but Hermione would probably sulk about *forced labor* and ruin all the fun. Still, if I'm right about the trio using the special powers of the Founder's Object as a locator, the task would be minimal--without diminishing the creepy factor: ...boney old Kreature in his filthy loincloth clinging to your back (bad enough), fowl breath on your neck, muttered epithets, and a sharp blade hovering.... Phooey--we're more likely to get Dobby. Kemper: > But maybe Gryffindore's house at Godric's Hollow has an elf... > Talisman: Pluuuuuu-ease. Dobby, Winky, Kreature, Hokey....and who? Stinky? No Mas! From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 01:57:09 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:57:09 -0000 Subject: Book Covers -- Gringott's Safe Deposit Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >> > VAULT/TREASURE- > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the > plot going there. However, - > First thing that I thought of was the Evil Overlord's List. JKR has managed to hit many of the points on it. {FYI: The EOL is a list compiled of all the things that the list-owner would do if he was ever an Evil Overlord, like seal up the air conditioning ducts so no one can sneak into his Evil Lair, kill the Destined Hero while he's a baby rather than waiting for him to grow up (Voldie tried,) never trust the Hero's girlfriend, shooting (or AK) is NOT too good for his enemies, no goatees, etc. Voldie has screwed up a couple: - make Stormtroopers' uniforms with clear plastic visors so The Hero can't hide in a uniform (DEs have skull masks) -I will not turn into a snake. (or whatever Nagini is.) -Once my power is secure, I will destroy all those pesky time-travel devices. (Hmmm.) -If the captured beautiful princess says, "I'll never marry you! NEVER!" I'll say, "Oh, well," and kill her. (Lily?) -I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say "And here is the price for failure," then suddenly turn and kill some random underling. (Curcio'd the person responsible instead.) However: here's the one that's made me say HMMM from the beginning: - The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness. I always thought that at least one Horcrux would be in Gringott's, esp when I reread HP PS/SS. That scene in Gringott's went on and on, about how impregnable it is, about how theives die in there, about trolls and dragons in there, etc. HMMM, I say. HMMM. http://www.eviloverlord.com TK Kenyon, author of RABID: A Novel Coming to a bookstore near you next week www.tkkenyon.com Want something to read before 7/21? *RABID* "Impressive medical thriller" (PW) "Part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice" (Booklist Starred Review) "Like Robin Cook on steroids." -- Art Tirrell "A novel of such mystery that it keeps you up at night" -- Thom Jones From alainekier at yahoo.com Wed Mar 28 23:32:41 2007 From: alainekier at yahoo.com (Alaine M. Kier) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:32:41 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166699 > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > The Book covers for the British (adult and children) > > and U.S. (children edition) are out. > > > > ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > Just a few thoughts - > ...edited some more... > - US Full Cover - > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. > > Could it be Harry and Voldemort in the Dept of Mysteries > Death Chamber looking into the Veil? > > ...and edited yet again... > In addition, we see Sky above in the cover, is that > artistic style, enchanted ceiling, or real sky? > Enquiring minds want to know. > > EYES- > > Note Voldemort's eyes appear to be on Harry, but Harry's > eyes do NOT appear to be on Voldemort. Again, some third > party is drawing their interest and they are reacting to > it; whatever it may be. > > > That's about all I can think of for now. amk: I believe Voldemort is looking at something Harry has released from his upraised arm; there appears to be a vapor floating up from his hand. A piece of Voldemort's soul, perhaps? Perhaps the last piece? amk From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 00:06:02 2007 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:06:02 -0000 Subject: Book Covers--Theater? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166707 Leslie: The more I look at the American cover, the more it looks like a theater, like Voldemort and Harry are actually on some sort of a stage. Look at the curtain on the right--it's being held back with some sort of rope, or perhaps a metal hook with a leaf pattern? It's certainly not the curtain (veil?) itself. And the rocks and broken wood in the foreground--the curtain almost touches them. In addition, though Voldemort and Harry seem extremely vivid, the background seems intentionally flat, washed out and artificial, as if it were supposed to be the representation of a background painting. Check the brush strokes on the arena at the right side. It's like we're being told this is a painting of a painting. The rocks and wood and curtains in the foreground, Harry and Voldemort "on stage" and the painted backdrop... Snow: Are we back at the old graveyard again or maybe a new one? ...with many onlookers watching the sun set on the final duel from a distant yet entertaining point through mystical sources that makes it appear to be a staged performance? It looks as though both Voldemort and Harry are calling something to them, like accio wand, non-verbally. Although I would like to see the DoM come into the picture somewhere throughout the journey, I don't think it could be the veil in this instance since it was described as being black and the curtains here are orange. Interesting Snow From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 02:58:53 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:58:53 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > yutu75es" wrote: > > > No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on > > the spine of the British cover, over the title. It > > seems like an arrow, a circle and a triangle. Any > > theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? > > houyhnhnm: > I think it's supposed to look alchemical. The symbols for the four > elements are all triangles. > Talisman: I have always considered it most likely that Rowling is a delightful *heretic,* ergo her ability to claim to be Xian, but still indicate that she would have to explain more for anyone to use this information to predict her ending. Among the *heretical,* aka unorthodox, Xian sects I have considered, Gnosticism--which argues an inner divinity--is high on my list of possibilities. (This would be what is called *Optimistic* Gnosticism, not all that demi-urge stuff.) I recently watched a program that links the circle in a chevron/ circle in a pyramid/ all-seeing eye to Gnosticism , relevant to the *Jesus Family Tomb.* The symbol itself is explored in more depth at this site: http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/Naked_Archeologist-15-228-0-0/ In the links to the left, click on Chevron. Watch the video and explore the other links, if you like. The only other discussion I've found, so far, relates to magic, see the illustration and explanation at: http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Goetia I will note that the reverse of this image, the triangle in the circle, seems to have been used by Alcoholics Anonymous at one time. Apparently they stopped using it when they realized they couldn't trademark it, due to its roots in antiquity. Hagrid would never stand for having his series push sobriety, but it may be that the underlying reason AA used the symbol (at least according to the sites I found) relates to it's more ancient usage (which I have not found in the *AA* reversed order) and to Rowling's purposes, albeit she uses it in the older, circle in triangle, form: The triangle represents the union of body, mind, and spirit, the circle stands for the Divine. In ceremonial magick the spirit summoned by the magician is contained within this symbol. Thus this symbol is one of protection and power, as well as AA's purpose: the integration of personality. http://www.markdefrates.com/pages/symbola.html Union of body, mind and spirit (Ron, Hermione, and Harry), an interior divinity, and integration of personality (Cf. Hogwarts as a *body* in need of integration--which includes, psychologically, an acceptance of one's dark side) sounds very much like the point of Rowling's series. Really, it could well be *all of the above.* T From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 03:30:20 2007 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:30:20 -0000 Subject: Reflection in UK Kid's Version Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166744 Is it just me or does the reflection in Harry's glasses in the UK Kids' version looke like a reflection of a hooded Voldemort throwing fire or something at him? Angie From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 02:02:30 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:02:30 -0000 Subject: Can't see Harry's Scar?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166763 Is it just me or is the scar not visible on the cover of the new book. I blew it up and everything. I don't see it. Think that means something? T From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 29 03:15:01 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:15:01 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166767 grindieloe wrote: > 1) If you look at the Orb on the UK children's cover, it appears to be Nagini (as someone already pointed out), but if you look carefully, you can sort of see a mouse (maybe a RAT - PP?) peeking from Nagini's folds. Kvapost: To me it looks like there are actually two large snakes because folds don't seem to lay smoothly, she's folded in a strange way (our left side). From ShylahM at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 06:37:56 2007 From: ShylahM at gmail.com (Shylah) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:37:56 +1200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My ideas about the covers In-Reply-To: <114655680.20070328181846@mindspring.com> References: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> <114655680.20070328181846@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <403e946f0703282337t6509ea10wdb79d50f91a414d4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166780 On 3/29/07, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > UK version: > > -- I'm not crazy about the appearance of Harry -- I think he > looks like Ted Danson! > > -- I think the fourth being in the scene might be (in order of > likelihood): > > 1. An new house-elf (None we've met are likely sword-wielders) > 2. Kreacher (That wrinkled forehead suggests age to me) > 2. Dobby (But if so, where's his tea-cozy hat??) :) > 4. A Gringotts Goblin (only if this *is* Gringotts) > > -- I guess the fact that we see just the Trio (and a House Elf?) > in the scene precludes my hoped-for scenario of Ginny > "crashing the party", so to speak... > > US version: > > -- Those things that look like tree stumps and fragments > of splinted wood (a fence?) make me think this scene is > outdoors. I also think that the object behind Harry's > right hand (it doesn't look to me like he's actually > touching it) is another tree stump, not a tombstone. > Not sure about the rock-like thing to Harry's left... > > -- I frankly don't know why so many assume those curtains are > "The Veil", which is described as *black*: "... the archway > was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil..." > -- OoP, US ed, p. 773. > > -- Does anyone else find it intriguing that Harry's pose is > almost a mirror image of his pose on the cover of SS? > Could this be significant in any way other than > highlighting how much Harry has matured (and how much > Granpre's artwork has improved over time)? Is it at all > possible that the final confrontation will be airborne?? > > Dave > Tanya First of all sorry for the poor trimming, I can't seem to do it with the new improved email service. After looking at the book covers myself, I would like to know what that oversized object, medallion, or whatever, is around Harry's neck in the US version. I also wonder why he doesn't look particually scared. I would need to be able to see more foreground to be absolutely certain but the more I look at it, the more I wonder if it's a turning point in Harry's favour of a brief window in a longer fight. He seems to be advancing, the way his upper body is. However it's possible that it could be two different scenes meshed together. There seem to be people in the background on a higher level. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 07:11:22 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:11:22 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alaine M. Kier" wrote: > > > > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > > > The Book covers for the British (adult and children) > > > and U.S. (children edition) are out. > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Just a few thoughts - > > > ...edited some more... > > > - US Full Cover - > > > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. > > > > Could it be Harry and Voldemort in the Dept of > > Mysteries Death Chamber looking into the Veil? > > > > ...and edited yet again... > > > In addition, we see Sky above in the cover, is that > > artistic style, enchanted ceiling, or real sky? > > Enquiring minds want to know. > > > > EYES- > > > > Note Voldemort's eyes appear to be on Harry, but > > Harry's eyes do NOT appear to be on Voldemort. ... > > > > > > That's about all I can think of for now. > > > amk: > I believe Voldemort is looking at something Harry has > released from his upraised arm; there appears to be a > vapor floating up from his hand. A piece of Voldemort's > soul, perhaps? Perhaps the last piece? > > amk > bboyminn: Actually, that is a good idea. I don't agree about the clouds or smoke rising from Harry hand. The cloud we see extends both to the left and right of Harry's hand. But now that you mention it, it does look more like Harry is releasing something rather than summoning something as others have speculated. But what could Harry be releasing that would have him looking happy and Voldemort looking worried? Well, as you suggest, the last soul piece would be perfect. I just don't buy the summoning idea, the gestures and expression don't seem to fit form me, but releasing something, they seem to fit that. Great idea. Just a few months until we know for sure. Steve/bboyminn From bgrugin at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 03:19:21 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:19:21 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166801 > > bboyminn: > > > > Just a few thoughts - > > > - US Full Cover - > > > > Could it be Harry and Voldemort in the Dept of Mysteries > > Death Chamber looking into the Veil? > > > > ...and edited yet again... > > > In addition, we see Sky above in the cover, is that > > artistic style, enchanted ceiling, or real sky? > > Enquiring minds want to know. Musical Betsy: I'm not convinced it's the veil we're seeing. However, what I thought was a coliseum actually now reminds me of all the doors in the DoM - remember how the room was one big circle with all the doors moving? That's what it looks like to me. > > Steve: > > EYES- > > > > Note Voldemort's eyes appear to be on Harry, but Harry's > > eyes do NOT appear to be on Voldemort. Again, some third > > party is drawing their interest and they are reacting to > > it; whatever it may be. > > > > > > That's about all I can think of for now. > > > amk: > I believe Voldemort is looking at something Harry has released from > his upraised arm; there appears to be a vapor floating up from his > hand. A piece of Voldemort's soul, perhaps? Perhaps the last piece? > > amk > MusicalBetsy again: I love this idea - not of Harry accio'ing for something, but RELEASING something - the last soul piece would definitely give LV some pause, eh? Uugh, I hate all this speculation because it makes me want to read the book NOW! MusicalBetsy back to lurkdom again, really From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 02:26:02 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:26:02 -0700 Subject: The Breast Plate in the UK cover Message-ID: <700201d40703281926la38b43ele22d9f084b2c02e1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166802 On the breast plate there looks to be a mirror image of an 'S'. And it looks like the 's' is a snake... though it could be the ridiculously long neck of a dragon. Could the printers (or whoever) have mirror imaged the artist's original intent? If I painted, and I don't, I would have placed Ron on Harry's left (emotional) and Hermione on his right (logical). Ron his voice of id. Hermione his voice superego. I know. Freud. But what can you do... JKR has one of his books on the shelf behind her on the Adult back cover. Kemper, rambling on From kermit9a9 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 02:43:17 2007 From: kermit9a9 at yahoo.com (Hedwig) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:43:17 -0000 Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: <000901c7717f$978b42e0$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: > > ... my theory is this; > Harry finds and destroys the remaining horcruxes with help from the trio, > DH, OotP (including members we haven't been formally introduced to yet). The > final showdown between Harry and Voldemort takes place. The final piece of > Voldemort's soul is trapped inside of him and Harry can't use any > unforgivable curses on Voldemort. Voldemort tries to cast AK on Harry and it > is reflected, killing Voldemort once and for all. Hedwig: It's possible. It might just be my eyesight, but the UK Children's cover vividly shows Harry's scar, but I can't make it out on the US cover. Any reason for it to have disappeared before the final battle with Voldemort? :) Hedwig From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 29 03:03:30 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:03:30 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166813 > colebiancardi: > looking at the Am Edition, I am thinking those shadows(the ones by the ground) are actually tombstones - if they are people, they are only from the shoulders up! Kvapost: To me the architectural structure behind (or around) LV and Harry is some kind of gigantic passage way, I can see another row of columns and arches behind the front row. And the shadows to me look like sphynxes....Egypt, maybe? Wasn't there a sphynx in GoF in one of the tasks, giving contestants a riddle or something? Though architectural style of passage way is not quite Egyptian. Regarding the UK back cover: someone or something large is standing in the brightly lit doorway, judging by the shadow on the grass. Kvapost From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 09:37:06 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:06 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166814 > Carol responds: > > Re the Eye of Horus or whatever it is: I thought at first that it > might simply be a Bloomsbury trademark like the little archer, but it > isn't. It appears in the same place on the spine as the ring Horcrux > did on the HBP UK children's editon. It isn't a rune, whatever it is. snip mz_annethrope here: The same triangle is the alchemical symbol for fire, Gryffindor's element. It's possible the circle with the line drawn through it represents niter. Fire and niter: a bit of a bang. But the actual alchemical niter symbol doesn't have the line extended beyond the circle. Another post suggested the the triangle represented the Trinity and by extension each side represented body, soul, and mind. (I'm really sorry I can't remember who it was.)For myself I keep on thinking about DD's weird instruments. Carol: >snip > I think the vault may be Godric Gryffindor's rather than Hepzibah > Smith's considering that the house-elf is holding the Sword of > Gryffindor--and the notable absence of Hepzibah's presumed descendant, > Zacharias Smith. And note the ruby-studded helmet with a griffin on > it, which very probably belonged to Godric Griffindor. He would have > needed a helmet and armor to go with his sword, and the era would be > right (if we discount unhistorical details like wizards who died in > 1492 wearing Elizabethan ruffs). Maybe wizarding armor, like Hogwarts > itself (a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century castle built before the > year 1000), is somewhat ahead of its time. Also, the only precious > stones in the picture appear to be rubies, associated with Godric > Gryffindor (his sword is studded with them). Lots of gold, too, and > red and gold are the Gryffindor colors. > > Or maybe the vault belonged to a certain descendant of Gryffindor > named Albus Dumbledore, who used to have a griffin door knocker, and > has been willed to Harry? > mz_annethrope: Maybe, but then the armor was made about 500 or 600 years before its time. I'll go for artistic license. Or it belonged to Gryffindor's descendent. Did anyone notice the little man peeping out of the left armhole? > Laura: > > Is that Grawp's face in the clouds? > > Carol: > Where? I hope not! However, we do see Harry's Prongs Patronus, which > will obviously play a role. (So it's not his Patronus that changes. > Bet it's Snape's!) > > Someone mentioned Nagini in a Prophecy orb, but I think it's more > likely a crystal ball. Prophecy orbs only contain the shadowy form of > the Seer speaking the prophecy. (Of course, crystal ball shapes are > supposed to be shadowy, too, but Trelawney saw what she thought was > the Grim and believed Harry when he said he could see a hippogriff.) > mz_annethrope: I suspect the "essence divided" snakes from the Book 5 chapter about St. Mungo's. And I think that the globe is a crystal ball since I don't think snakes can prophesy. I've been staring at the clouds for a while, maybe too long. I've noticed that just below the moon there is a large shape that's just like a skull. Below it there is another skull. And below that there may be yet another. Farther down is a tau shaped object (a fence?) and what might be another tree. If you look back at the skull formation just below the moon you can see just above it a head and ears and eyes looking left. Attach that to the top of the skull and you get a cat. Or, if you stare at this figure for too long it will turn into an owl that's looking right at you. Symbols in the cloud? Or smoke? It seems to be eminating from behind the castle near the possible fence and tree. Could this be where the graveyard is? mz_annethrope From PenapartElf at aol.com Thu Mar 29 10:09:23 2007 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (penapart_elf) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:09:23 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: technical difficulties Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166817 Greetings from your friendly neighborhood list elves. As you may have noticed, Yahoo! Groups is having some technical difficulties. Digests are being numbered incorrectly, and many messages are being sent multiple times. Yahoo is aware of these problems and so are we. Because the List Elves are deleting the duplicates, please do not delete your own posts at this time in order to avoid the inadvertent deletion of *all* copies. Hopefully Yahoo will soon resolve these issues. Should you wish to discuss this, please do not do so onlist at Main but go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback Thank you! Penapart Elf, for the List Elves From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 11:23:46 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:23:46 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166821 > > bboyminn: > > VAULT/TREASURE- > > > > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the > > plot going there. However, - > > Talisman: > The idea of Gringott's has been developed and maintained sufficiently > throughout the course of the series, that I woulndn't be a bit > surprised to find us revisiting it in DH. > > Maybe finally seeing a dragon there, to boot. > > That said, I can't say I'm all that fussed about where the depicted > *vault* is. Dungrollin: It looks to me as though we're looking up, and the trio have just fallen through a hole in the ceiling. I don't think it's Gringott's, but I'm rather taken with that little dragon on the helmet in the foreground. I'm not optimistic that it can tell us anything about the owner of the loot though. Talisman: > I don't think the sword necessarily betokens battle, either. > > Indeed, in context with the Gryffindor treasure, I think it much more > likely that we are seeing some of those Founder's Object *special > powers,* that Hepzibah mentioned, in action. > > The sword has been used to locate *something of Gryffindor's.* > > Okay, a *lot* of things of Gryffindor's. > Dungrollin: Yes, I like that. But I won't count on it. > bboy: > > UK Back Cover - > > > > Can we all agree that this is an exterior shot of Hogwarts? > > > > Talisman: > I would hope so. > > Looks lovely in the moonlight, doesn't it? All the lights on and the > door wide open... > > The Whomping Willow looks rather dead, though. > > And, of course the full moon just out of the cloud bank recalls the > imagery of the transformation scene in Book 3. This, along with the > appearance of Prongs, affirms certain aspects of the plot that are > expected to reflect PoA. Dungrollin: And those injuries on Harry's arm look distinctly like toothmarks... (Aside about ESE!Lupin - I had a thought the other day about Lupin's patronus. What if it's the same as his boggart? That could be nicely significant, his greatest fear is also his greatest protection.) > bboy: > > US Full Cover - > > > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. > > > Talisman: > My call is that Harry is summoning something that LV is trying just > as hard to keep away. We see the point in time where LV realizes > that Harry is prevailing > Dungrollin: Could be, could be. My immediate thought, given the fact that Harry doesn't look desperate but rather warily confident, was that his seeker snitch-catching skills might come in handy. Rather than a wandless accio, I wonder whether something is being thrown to him from behind the curtains - we can't see how high they go. It could be the veil. Old tattered black cloth can look orange in an orange light, which is what we've got here. Though given the sky, it looks to me like it's set outside, but that could just be for atmosphere. Could Voldy have hidden one of his horcruxes beyond the veil? If the object hadn't been opened/"killed", it might remain intact and still work as a horcrux. On the other hand, Harry could be in the process of throwing Voldy's horcruxes through, and the fear you can just about discern (through the evil glare) in Voldy's eyes is him realising too late what Harry is doing... Oh, the excitement... Dungrollin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 11:59:22 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:59:22 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166824 > > Talisman: > > That said, I can't say I'm all that fussed about where the depicted > > *vault* is. > > Dungrollin: > > It looks to me as though we're looking up, and the trio have just > fallen through a hole in the ceiling. I don't think it's Gringott's, > but I'm rather taken with that little dragon on the helmet in the > foreground. I'm not optimistic that it can tell us anything about the > owner of the loot though. > Dungrollin again: More thoughts... Could it be Bella's loot...? ("The Dark Lord has, in the past, entrusted me with his most precious -") Could it be the whatd'yermacallit under the Malfoy's drawing room? Could it be another secret room in Hogwarts? Hmm... From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 12:39:41 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:39:41 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Dungrollin: > > It looks to me as though we're looking up, and the trio have just > fallen through a hole in the ceiling Talisman: Hey Dung. Based on Ron and Hermione especially, and the way stuff in the foreground seems to be flying up, it seems to me that they are being sucked backward...er...through the rear orifice. Now, if Ron and Hermione are merely leaning in, then I suppose it makes sense that their hair is hanging forward. But if they are falling, I'd expect it to fly back. Harry's the only one with some of his hair going up--and, well, he's supposed to have problems in that regard, isn't he? The picture looks a bit too dynamic to interpret them as just leaning in; they are all in motion and no one seems in control of their posture. Coins do seem to be flying up, where no one has yet impacted--though that could be avalanche effect, I suppose. I'm not saying that *falling through* isn't more sensible than being *sucked out* (though some vacuum action could be an ancient protection against tomb-raiders) I'm just saying I've got issues with that hair... ==:) Talisman From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 13:39:09 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:39:09 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166833 > > Dungrollin: > > > > It looks to me as though we're looking up, and the trio have just > > fallen through a hole in the ceiling > > Talisman: > > Hey Dung. > > Based on Ron and Hermione especially, and the way stuff in the > foreground seems to be flying up, it seems to me that they are being > sucked backward...er...through the rear orifice. > Dung: Salut? Talisman. Good point. However, if it's only a fall of a few feet from the orifice (I don't think you can really tell) you wouldn't expect too much wind . And if they were being sucked backwards, their hair would also be flying backwards from their faces. Talisman: > The picture looks a bit too dynamic to interpret them as just leaning > in; they are all in motion and no one seems in control of their > posture. > > Coins do seem to be flying up, where no one has yet impacted-- though > that could be avalanche effect, I suppose. > Dung: I think Ron's hair is the major problem here, but he looks to me as though he's trying to get a purchase with his feet, and if he's just plunged his right leg into the treasure (not clear), his head may have stayed more or less motionless (or moved backwards a bit) while his hair was still succumbing to gravity. Alternatively, there was a big pile of treasure with a Horsecrutch on top, and in their eagerness to retrieve it they didn't check for traps and the whole then fell through a hole in the floor. Oh, the possibilities... Talisman: > I'm not saying that *falling through* isn't more sensible than being > *sucked out* (though some vacuum action could be an ancient > protection against tomb-raiders) I'm just saying I've got issues with > that hair... ==:) > > Talisman > Dung: I reckon they'd all been bending over to look through the hole (consistent with the hair), and then Kreacher (consistent with no tea- cosy) took a running leap onto Harry's back shrieking war cries and sent him toppling in, and RoMione fell in trying to grab him before he fell. That could be fun. Particularly if we hypothesise that it's Bella's stash, and Kreacher is not there to help... What about that cute little dragon, eh? Anyone we know from WW history got a reason to have a dragon hat? A Malfoy antecedent? Poppy "dragonslayer" Pomfrey..? Dung From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Thu Mar 29 13:49:58 2007 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (Andra Kurlis) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:49:58 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > VAULT/TREASURE- > > > > > > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > > > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason for the > > > plot going there. However, - > > > > Talisman: > > The idea of Gringott's has been developed and maintained > sufficiently > > throughout the course of the series, that I woulndn't be a bit > > surprised to find us revisiting it in DH. > > > > Maybe finally seeing a dragon there, to boot. > > > > That said, I can't say I'm all that fussed about where the depicted > > *vault* is. > > Dungrollin: > > It looks to me as though we're looking up, and the trio have just > fallen through a hole in the ceiling. I don't think it's Gringott's, > but I'm rather taken with that little dragon on the helmet in the > foreground. I'm not optimistic that it can tell us anything about the > owner of the loot though. AmanitaMuscaria now - I reckon it's Gringotts, and it's Kreachur threatening Harry, or victorious over him, holding Gryffindor's sword. Perhaps he's just captured it for Voldy? Ron & Hermione are being thrown into the vault through some elfish special power. The armour - there's a helmet and body armour with dragon or gryffin on, and a silver shield as well as all the gold stuff - is the rest of Gryffindor's outfit - except Dumbledore said something about the sword being the only relic of Gryffindor, didn't he? snip > > Dungrollin: > And those injuries on Harry's arm look distinctly like toothmarks... > > (Aside about ESE!Lupin - I had a thought the other day about Lupin's > patronus. What if it's the same as his boggart? That could be nicely > significant, his greatest fear is also his greatest protection.) > AmanitaMuascaria now - Hmmm - I like that thought - fits in with Lupin being the least defined of the Marauders - patronus and boggart the same. Not convinced about ESE though. I thought burns for the injuries, as whatever caused them appears to have shirred up the robe on Harry's arm. > > bboy: > > > US Full Cover - > > > > > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > > > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > > > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > > > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. > > > > > > Talisman: > > My call is that Harry is summoning something that LV is trying > just > > as hard to keep away. We see the point in time where LV realizes > > that Harry is prevailing > > > > Dungrollin: > > Could be, could be. My immediate thought, given the fact that Harry > doesn't look desperate but rather warily confident, was that his > seeker snitch-catching skills might come in handy. Rather than a > wandless accio, I wonder whether something is being thrown to him > from behind the curtains - we can't see how high they go. > > It could be the veil. Old tattered black cloth can look orange in an > orange light, which is what we've got here. Though given the sky, it > looks to me like it's set outside, but that could just be for > atmosphere. Could Voldy have hidden one of his horcruxes beyond the > veil? If the object hadn't been opened/"killed", it might remain > intact and still work as a horcrux. > > On the other hand, Harry could be in the process of throwing Voldy's > horcruxes through, and the fear you can just about discern (through > the evil glare) in Voldy's eyes is him realising too late what Harry > is doing... > > Oh, the excitement... > > Dungrollin > AmanitaMuscaria now - I think it's the room of the Veil - it's described as a 'theatre' - sorry, I'm in work without my books - with tiered seating - Hermione refers to it. My take on the picture is the rubble (wood and stone) is the ceiling of the room having been destroyed by Voldie and Harry's battle; there are people on the tiered seating, watching the battle, but the people aren't necessarily alive... Harry and Voldie are battling wandless ... something has happened off-screen. Cheers, AM From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 13:52:10 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:52:10 -0000 Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166837 > Hedwig: > > It's possible. It might just be my eyesight, but the UK Children's > cover vividly shows Harry's scar, but I can't make it out on > the US cover. Any reason for it to have disappeared before the > final battle with Voldemort? :) Finwitch: Harry went trough (a wizarding version) of plastic surgery? Or maybe his hair just hides it - (he did lift his hair to show the scar to Ron in PS, as I recall...) Finwitch From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Mar 29 13:58:04 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:58:04 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166838 The thing that strikes me about the US and UK children's covers is that both show a stone circle in the background. The center of the circle on the UK cover is similar to the orange "sky" of the US cover. The two covers could be showing us views from opposite sides of the same magical portal. The circle on the UK cover could be the top view of the apparently circular arch in the background of the US cover. On the US cover it looks like Harry could be reaching for something. Reaching for help from the other side of the portal perhaps? Voldemort almost looks like he is trying to ward off whatever it is that Harry is reaching for. On the other hand I agree that Harry could have just released something. This has nothing to do with covers and I'm not sure where it came from. It started when I realized that we've never seen Voldemort and Snape together in the same room at the same time. Could they be the same ... nah! But somehow *that* gave me my wacky horcrux theory of the day. Could Snape, not Nagini, have been Voldemort's living horcrux? When Snape came to Dumbledore he could have revealed this to him and allowed him to destroy the soul bit he carried? This could be Dumbledore's secret reason for trusting Snape. Concerning both horcruxes and covers someone asked if there was any reason why Harry's scar would disappear before the final shootout in the OK Corral. Duuhh! I know that many here discredit it and cover art certainly does not prove it but does no one even remember the Harry-as-horcrux theory??? There is at least one reason why the scar would disappear before the showdown. Ken From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 29 03:07:37 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:07:37 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166840 Kvapost: UK back cover: someone or something large is standing in the brightly lit doorway, judging by the shadow on the grass. From kermit9a9 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 02:43:17 2007 From: kermit9a9 at yahoo.com (Hedwig) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:43:17 -0000 Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: <000901c7717f$978b42e0$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ronin_47" wrote: > Anyway, my theory is this; Harry finds and destroys > the remaining horcruxes with help from the > trio, DH, OotP (including members we haven't been > formally introduced to yet). The final showdown between > Harry and Voldemort takes place. The final > piece of Voldemort's soul is trapped inside of him > and Harry can't use any unforgivable curses on Voldemort. > Voldemort tries to cast AK on Harry and it is reflected, killing > Voldemort once and for all. Hedwig: It's possible. It might just be my eyesight, but the UK Children's cover vividly shows Harry's scar, but I can't make it out on the US cover. Any reason for it to have disappeared before the final battle with Voldemort? :) Hedwig From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Thu Mar 29 04:00:53 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Book Covers -- Gringott's Safe Deposit Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <464994.58135.qm@web80502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166842 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" > wrote: > > VAULT/TREASURE- > > I don't think this is a Gringott's vault, they just seem > > too hard to get into and I can't see any reason > for the plot going there. However, - Peter J Wagner: I agree: a Gringott's vault seems implausible. Voldemort would not have access to it to set the protective devices that he wants. He would not trust goblins, and he's killed them in the past. Gringott's is a safe place: IF you trust Goblins! Also, there is the slight problem of the background: it looks like an orange sky. You do not get that underground. Peter J Wagner From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Thu Mar 29 03:58:08 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wands...What Will Harry and Voldie Do for Wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <557971.30348.qm@web80511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166843 --- grindieloe wrote: > Anyone else notice the lack of wands in the US > edition? Neither Harry nor Voldemort are holding > wands. Even though Voldemort was aware of > the brother wand connection, he still chose to have > his wand at the ministry - as did Harry... or DID > Voldemort know about the Priori Incantatum at that > time? Apparently, he knows it now... Peter J Wagner The odds on Harry's and Voldemort's wands connecting again are remote. Rowling used that device once: she won't use it again. From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Thu Mar 29 04:20:17 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Eyes Theory In-Reply-To: <000901c7717f$978b42e0$829efd45@TheRonin> Message-ID: <507140.37129.qm@web80506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166844 --- Ronin_47 wrote: > This got me to thinking...JKR has said that > something about Harry's eyes being like his > mother's was going to play a big part in DH. > Anyway, my theory is this; Harry finds and destroys > the remaining horcruxes with help from the trio, > DH, OotP (including members we haven't been formally > introduced to yet). The final showdown between Harry > and Voldemort takes place. The final piece of > Voldemort's soul is trapped inside of him and Harry > can't use any unforgivable curses on Voldemort. > Voldemort tries to cast AK on Harry and it is reflected, > killing Voldemort once and for all. > This is just a casual theory which just came to > mind, so I haven't worked out the details too far. > I just wanted to put it on the table for discussion > and consideration. The covers are great. Peter J. Wagner responds: Rowling never said that Lily's eyes would play a big part in Hallows. Instead, she said that they'd be important in a future book when a "future book" meant Order, Prince, or Hallows. Lily's eyes were CRITICAL in Prince: it was those baby green Chekovian howitzers that got Slughorn to cough up the critical memory. Sluggy's final words before coughing up the memory were "and you have her eyes" (or something like that). Now, Rowling might fire the Lily's eyes guns again: if she does, then I'm betting that it will be with good old Severus Snape. He cared about Harry's parents but hated James. Logically, this can mean only one thing..... Peter J. Wagner Traveling Paleontologist.... From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Thu Mar 29 04:03:37 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <696582.47429.qm@web80509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166845 > Kemper now: > I thought Dobby as well, but the picture doesn't > show the elf wearing any hats or socks. > My impression of Dobby is that > he would wear some piece of awful clothing > to go into a fight as well as just kickin' it > around Hogwarts. Peter J Wagner Dobby could have lost his hat. As for the other clothes, he is completely obscured by Harry, so that would make it tough to see them. Still, the oddly "sinister" appearance does make me think Kreacher. Perhaps SPEW will amount to something: the conversion of one house-elf. Is it me, or is Hermione actually kind of good looking in these shots? Peter J Wagner From ameritrainscott at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 13:48:27 2007 From: ameritrainscott at yahoo.com (Scott) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:48:27 -0000 Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166846 I tried to read back to see if this was mentioned, but didn't see it. On the US adult cover, the Broken rock to our right of Harry has a happy panting dog face on it. -Scott From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 29 07:05:46 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:05:46 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166847 "Steve" bboyminn wrote: > bboyminn: > US Full Cover - > > - Harry and Voldemort. Harry and Voldemort seem to be > concerned with something off page, something in roughly > the position of the reader. So, I very strongly suspect > the presence of a third party or perhaps entity. Kvapost: Fawkes, perhaps? At first I thought that golden light at the scene hints that Fawkes is indeed there coming to Harry's help, but Fawkes' feathers are not really golden, are they. Kvapost From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 02:04:39 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: <700201d40703281442v1d629dacx57ee0eb1ea67e55f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <400754.32465.qm@web35014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166849 Lupinlore: > Actually if you blow it up it turns out that Ron isn't the one > holding the sword. The hand holding the sword belongs to a > partially-obscured, pointy-eared something clinging to Harry's back. > My guess would be Dobby, but I suppose it might be Kreacher or some > other elf. Deborah: If you view the art at this site, it seems much clearer than the others I've seen. http://www.wizardnews.com/gallery.dhuk.html I feel confident that the creature on Harry's back is Griphook the Goblin, based on his description of being dark-skinned, bald, with pointy ears, and long hands. House-elves are repeatedly described as having bat-like ears, which this creature does not. From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Thu Mar 29 04:33:35 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why was Voldemort angry with Lucius (was Re: LV's bigger plan/Trelawney) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <344997.10949.qm@web80514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166850 > zgirnius: > People sometimes don't bother to type out canon, it > is extra trouble. Though often worth it. Voldemort's > wrath at Lucius when he learned of the Diary's destruction > is not part of some fan theory or other, it IS canon. > Permit me to remind you of Dumbledore and Harry's > conversation about Horcruxes in HBP. > Not to belabor the obvious, but since Lucius was > arrested at the MoM, this discovery by Voldemort > predates the mission the failure of which > you speculate is the true reason for Voldemort's > wrath. Clearly, Voldemort decided not to just kill > Lucius. Though, Lucius was > probably wise to get himself arrested. Peter J Wagner: I posit that Voldemort's anger at Malfoy represents far more than petty anger at Malfoy showing initiative. When Harry asks Dumbledore why Voldemort was so angry at Malfoy given that it was Voldemort's plan to sneak the Diary into Hogwarts in the first place, Dumbledore replies that when Voldemort conceived the plan, he thought that he would be able to make more Horcruxes. This is very interesting: why cannot Voldemort make more Horcruxes??? Dumbledore has other interesting things to say that are connected. Voldemort cannot replace the Diary anymore, but Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort was able to make a Horcrux after killing Frank Bryce. Notably, Voldemort was "Babymort" then. What changed? Voldemort regenerated with Harry's blood: and Dumbledore's eyes gleamed in triumph! So, I would hypothesize that Dumbledore's gleam of triumph and Voldemort's fury at Malfoy are related. Voldemort has realized that he cannot rend his soul anymore becaues of the charm left by Lily's sacrifice: the magical power of love prevents the soul from being further desecrated. His anger at Malfoy is in part for Malfoy showing initiative: but also it is raw fury that his strategem has backfired! Peter J Wagner From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 16:14:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:14:16 -0000 Subject: The Breast Plate in the UK cover In-Reply-To: <700201d40703281926la38b43ele22d9f084b2c02e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166851 Kemper wrote: > > On the breast plate there looks to be a mirror image of an 'S'. And it looks like the 's' is a snake... though it could be the ridiculously long neck of a dragon. > > Could the printers (or whoever) have mirror imaged the artist's original intent? If I painted, and I don't, I would have placed Ron on Harry's left (emotional) and Hermione on his right (logical). Ron his voice of id. Hermione his voice superego. > > I know. Freud. But what can you do... JKR has one of his books on the shelf behind her on the Adult back cover. > Carol responsd: I'm not sure about the backwards S, but it does look like a snake. If it is backwards, though, that would explain the left-handed house-elf (this isn't Mary Grandpre). On a sidenote, I wonder if the cover art for the American edition of HBP is also reversed, since Dumbledore's right hand is uninjured and his left hand is hidden. (But that could just be Mary GrandPre perversely making Harry left-handed.) I suggested earlier that the helmet ornament was a griffin, but I retract that idea, based on the feet. It must be a dragon, maybe a baby Norwegian Ridgeback. ;-) I still think, however, that it must be Godric Gryffindor's vault (not necessarily at Hogwarts since the opening appears to be circular rather than arched) given the proliferation of rubies and no other precious stones. There's a lot of gold, as well, except, of course, for the armor. Gold would be too soft (and too expensive) for armor, right? On a sidenote, Wizards must have fought against, or alongside, Muggles in Gryffindor's day, or why use armor? (cf. Merlin and Arthur, if we go back a bit farther.) I've always wondered why Wizards would wear armor, anyway (Sir Cadogan, the suits of armor in Hogwarts). Would armor deflect an AK or explode if hit by one? (Maybe it was for the Muggle Wars, which Professor Binns might have reached if he ever got past Goblins and Giants. ;-)) Regarding rubies, the symbolism varies according to the source I consult, but everywhere they seem to be connected to love (or passion), to blood and fire and courage and sometimes to healing or protection. Pretty good stone to have on your weapon. Best to have some on your armor, too. (There are rubies on the helmet.) The cup, I just realized, can't be Helga Hufflepuff's since the one Hepzibah Smith had isn't described as being inlaid with stones, and they wouldn't be rubies if there were any--more likely topazes or whatever the yellow stones are in the Hufflepuff hourglass. (Slytherin's stones would be emeralds, of course, and Ravenclaw's, sapphires.) I'm becoming more and more convinced that this Gryffindor treasure hoard is one of the many secrets of Hogwarts that Dumbledore has mentioned more than once and of which we've seen only the CoS and the RoR. What a suit of armor with a snake on it would be doing there, or why Godric Gryffindor would have a dragon (as opposed to a griffin, sigh!) on his helmet, I can't guess, but the rubies have to mean Gryffindor. Look at the Gryffindor hourglass (now shatteed to foreshadow shed Gryffindor blood?) and the stones in the Sword of Gryffindor, after all. Any ideas as to why Hogwarts is tilting rather dangerously to the right? And could the ominous grey cloud that reaches clear to the ground be Dementor-induced "mist"? At least the many lit windows seem to suggest that Hogwarts is still open. Carol, wondering why Ron and Hermione seem to be wearing dress robes while Harry isn't and leaving Freud out of the discussion, thank you! From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Mar 29 16:20:53 2007 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:20:53 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166852 Just a few thoughts here: UK adult cover - I'll echo whoever said it was classy. UK kids - ugh. Lots of interesting details to pore over, but as a whole I just don't like it. What is going on with Hermione's back, anyway? Whether she is falling or grabbing or scrubbing the floor, it just doesn't look right to me. Maybe her robe is supposed to be billowing out as she falls. Harry looks like he is levitating. What on earth are Ron and Hermione wearing, anyway? Possibly dress robes, but they look more like dashikis to me. Or caftan and dashiki on R and H respectively. Maybe there was an accident with a time turner and they all went backto the 60's. The red and gold and rubies are all about Gryffindor, aren't they? US cover - I like it! I wasn't crazy about the HBP cover art; it just seemed composistionally static. (I did like the cover on the US deluxe edition though.) The DH art just works better, I think, both the front cover-only view with the title and the fold-out full picture without. I like the lettering style for "and the Deathly Hallows". Even the gold coloring - for just a second I was disappointed, I guess because I was expecting something darker, but just for a second. Harry does seem confident. He is focused on whatever it is he is doing, not looking over his shoulder at Voldemort - who, on the other hand, seems to have one eye on the whatever and the other on Harry. It looks to me like Harry may be bracing himself with his right hand as he tries to catch something (outfielder!Harry) or let it go. Grand Pre always draws Harry left-handed, doesn't she. Maybe "bracing" is too strong a term, though; it's more like the way you lay a hand on something for balance rather than support. Harry does have a scar, although it is partially obscured by his hair. IMO. It seemed more obvious to me yesterday, for some reason... I seriously doubt that the curtains are the Veil - the description just doesn't match (not that Grand Pre hasn't got things wrong before). My first impression was that it was not part of the scene, just compositionally filling and framing the picture; see the PS cover for how she has done this before. But if it is part of the scene, then perhaps the curtains are either in some sort of doorway leading into the arena or the curtains are framing a seating box, though there are no boxes or curtains in the arches we see behind the shadowy spectators. The perspective, though, is quite low and seems to be looking up from near the floor of the arena, so an entrance seems more likely. I am puzzled by Arthur Levine's remark that this is "for the first time" a wrap-around cover - all of the jackets have had wrap-around artwork that includes the flaps. Interesting that there seems to be some ambiguity in both the UK and the US covers - is Harry catching or releasing? Are the trio+elf falling or being sucked out? (Is the term "trio+elf" singular or plural?) I'm not sure whether or not the ambiguity is intentional or not (and doubt that it is for the UK cover). Elisabet, pleased as punch with two of the three covers, and willing to forgive the third From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:32:00 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:32:00 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166853 > AmanitaMuscaria now - I reckon it's Gringotts, and it's Kreachur > threatening Harry, or victorious over him, holding Gryffindor's > sword. Perhaps he's just captured it for Voldy? Ron & Hermione are > being thrown into the vault through some elfish special power. The > armour - there's a helmet and body armour with dragon or gryffin on, > and a silver shield as well as all the gold stuff - is the rest of > Gryffindor's outfit - except Dumbledore said something about the > sword being the only relic of Gryffindor, didn't he? > snip > > I'd say that with the snake on the breastplate, and with it being silver and all, it's unlikely to be Gryffindor's. But the hair thing that Talisman mentioned, they could be being sucked into a high security vault that only the goblins are supposed to open. Is a house elf enough to get them out again? I'd originally thought that the hole behind them was circular, but now I see (behind Hermione's arms) that it's an archway, so I'm backing off the falling through a hole in the ceiling thing. Must get my eyes checked. Dung. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 17:02:44 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:02:44 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166854 Somewhat lost in all the talk about the book covers is something the American editor Arthur A Levine said in an interview on the Today show when those covers were unveiled. He confirmed that there would be deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good for poor Harry. Eggplant From va32h at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 17:09:19 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:09:19 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Somewhat lost in all the talk about the book covers is something the > American editor Arthur A Levine said in an interview on the Today show > when those covers were unveiled. He confirmed that there would be > deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer > commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he > would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good > for poor Harry. va32h here: Oh I don't know about that. The end of the series will be cathartic for a number of reasons. I cried while reading the Priori Incantatem scenses and at the end of GOF, and I wasn't particularly attached to Cedric. They were just very moving Harry might lose some people he loves, which will indeed be very bad for him. But we knew that would probably happen anyway. I have always believed Harry would live, and seeing the covers I am more convinced than ever. Harry has such an expression of hopefulness and expectation on the US cover - he is not dying inside of any book with that cover, IMO. va32h From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 17:05:56 2007 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:05:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F94146D-A902-41B1-A10C-B14ADF8F935B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166856 On Mar 29, 2007, at 12:02 PM, eggplant107 wrote: > > American editor Arthur A Levine confirmed that there would be > deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer > commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he > would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good > for poor Harry. K: My money is on Hagrid. I'm still holding out for Harry. > Get exclusive clips > > On The Apprentice. > > . > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heather at dunhammusicstudio.com Thu Mar 29 17:22:10 2007 From: heather at dunhammusicstudio.com (Heather) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:22:10 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166857 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > I'd originally thought that the hole behind them was circular, but now > I see (behind Hermione's arms) that it's an archway, so I'm backing off > the falling through a hole in the ceiling thing. tankgirl now: Thank you! I was about to come out of months (years?) of lurkdom to post about this. I initially thought it was circular as well, and described it as such to DH last night. He thought it sounded like THAT could be the arch for the veil, and I insisted that no, it was a circle, not an arch. I described it as looking like the Stargate, and was amused yesterday when someone posted the same thing. :) So, I looked again this morning. And lo and behold, I beheld that bit beside Hermione and determined it IS an arch. I also think they look like they're being sucked in. Hermione looks like she's reaching for purchase on something. My mind just can't accept the image as representational of 'falling'. Not that I have any better idea of where they are and why they're being sucked into an arch! It could be the veil arch, or it could be one of those doors in the MoM, or it could be a completely new place we haven't been to before. I do think they're with Gryffindor's stuff, though, wherever that happens to be. heather d From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 17:32:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:32:08 -0000 Subject: Wands...What Will Harry and Voldie Do for Wands? In-Reply-To: <557971.30348.qm@web80511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166858 --- Peter Wagner wrote: > > --- grindieloe wrote: > > Anyone else notice the lack of wands in the US > > edition? Neither Harry nor Voldemort are holding > > wands. Even though Voldemort was aware of > > the brother wand connection, he still chose to have > > his wand at the ministry - as did Harry... or DID > > Voldemort know about the Priori Incantatum at that > > time? Apparently, he knows it now... > > > Peter J Wagner > > The odds on Harry's and Voldemort's wands connecting > again are remote. Rowling used that device once: she > won't use it again. > bboyminn: Peter is right, the wands connecting only occurs under very specific and unlikely circumstances. Barring those circumstances Voldemort and Harry can duel each other just fine. The specific circumstances are that Harry and Voldemort must send out curses at exactly the same time, then those curses must collide with each other in mid-air. The collision of the curses is what starts the Brother Wand Effect. The likelihood of simultaneous curses colliding is slim. They could curse simultaneously in a way that the curse do not collide, or the could collide tangentally which I don't think would work. So, for the most part, they are OK, but because they both know the Brother Wand Effect is there, it will likely make them more cautions. Though in dynamic battle, I suspect 'more cautions' is actually a dangerous thing. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 17:32:41 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:32:41 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166859 "va32h" wrote: > I have always believed Harry would > live, and seeing the covers I am more > convinced than ever. Harry has such an > expression of hopefulness and expectation > on the US cover - he is not dying inside > of any book with that cover, IMO. It???s odd, I had the exact opposite impression. Look at the American cover of GoF, as grim as that book is Harry still had a goofy grin on his face. But not this time, this time he looks deadly serious, utterly committed, and maybe even a little ruthless. If he is hopeful it???s only is his ability to kill Voldemort not survive the attack. At any rate after what the editor said we can be sure the series does not end with ???And they all lived happily ever after???. Eggplant From va32h at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 18:09:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:09:44 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166860 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: >At any rate after what the editor said we can be sure the series does >not end with ???And they all lived happily ever after???. > va32h, still disagreeing! Just because the editor cried doesn't mean there is no possiblity of a happy ending. People do cry when they are happy. I remember sobbing with joy when my first child was born - and no it didn't have anything to do with the pain, because I was totally numb down there! If DH ends with Harry finally able to plan his future without the specter of Voldemort hanging over him, I'll be crying too. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 18:24:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:24:39 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166861 Dungrollin wrote: I'm rather taken with that little dragon on the helmet in the foreground. I'm not optimistic that it can tell us anything about the owner of the loot though. Carol responds: No, but the proliferation of rubies can. As for the dragon, Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus? AmanitaMuscaria wrote: > I reckon it's Gringotts, and it's Kreachur threatening Harry, or victorious over him, holding Gryffindor's sword. Perhaps he's just captured it for Voldy? Ron & Hermione are being thrown into the vault through some elfish special power. Carol responds: I seriously doubt this interpretation. the Sword of Gryffindor used to intimidate and control Gryffindors? The protections on the castle wouldn't let that happen, and besides, a house-elf couldn't capture and control his master. Hate him or not, want him dead or not, he has to obey him. I think it has to be Dobby, acting as sword bearer to Harry. (It would be suicidal to assign that honor to Kreacher.) If it's Gringotts, the hand and forehead probably belong to a goblin, but if so, why is the opening round rather than arched, and why would Harry entrust the Sword of Gryffindor to a goblin? I think it's a secret chamber at Hogwarts and almost certainly Gryffindor's given the rubies and armor. (Yes, I know--the armor doesn't fit the era, but neither does the castle itself, filled with suits of armor and containing what passes for modern plumbing. And not even ghosts would have worn Elizabethan ruffs and Jacobean plumed hats in 1492.) JKR can't do math, and that includes historical eras, apparently. Either that or she's taken as much poetic license with history as with folklore and mythology. AmanitaMuscaria wrote: > The armour - there's a helmet and body armour with dragon or gryffin on, and a silver shield as well as all the gold stuff - is the rest of Gryffindor's outfit - except Dumbledore said something about the > sword being the only relic of Gryffindor, didn't he? > snip Carol: I agree with this interpretation, but reluctantly point out that a griffon would have an eagle's front feet and a lion's back feet, so the helmet creature must be some sort of dragon with a griffinish or hippogriffish beak. Dumbledore says that the sword is the only *known* relic of GG, suggesting that there may be others he (and Voldemort) didn't know about. Talisman wrote: > > > My call is that Harry is summoning something that LV is trying just as hard to keep away. We see the point in time where LV realizes that Harry is prevailing Carol: Yes, that's how it looks to me, too. Both of them are looking at something outside the arena (using Harry's own gladiator analogy, but also, it looks rather like the Coliseum), Harry with an expectant and serene expression, Voldemort with terror or horror. He seems to be shielding himself whereas Harry looks like he's trying to catch something. (John Granger suggests rather facetiously that they're watching as Severus Snape reveals his true colors. http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/ I'm not a Granger fan, but I was hoping that he would edify me regarding the alchemical symbol with the triangle and circle. No luck. I like the Sevvy suggestion, though. ;-)) Dungrollin: > > > > Could be, could be. My immediate thought, given the fact that Harry doesn't look desperate but rather warily confident, was that his seeker snitch-catching skills might come in handy. Rather than a wandless accio, I wonder whether something is being thrown to him from behind the curtains - we can't see how high they go. Carol: His wand, thrown by Snape? (I certainly don't think it's a wandless Accio. LV would be better at that sort of thing than Harry. Why are they wandless, anyway?) > > Dungrollin: > > It could be the veil. Old tattered black cloth can look orange in an orange light, which is what we've got here. Though given the sky, it looks to me like it's set outside, but that could just be for atmosphere. Carol: I wonder whether many of us, including me, are seeing the orange curtains as the Veil (GrandPre's artistic license, you know--there was no curtain in SS/PS, but she drew Quirrell sitting behind one. We should have known he wasn't Snape because the robe isn't black!) because that's where we expect the final confrontation to take place. However, the veil is described as "a tattered black curtain or veil" (OoP Am. ed. 773) and the curtains *are* rather tattered at the bottom, so maybe GrandPre forgot a few key details like the color of the "curtain" and the singular form of the noun. Also, the shadowy figures (which the designer has said are people, not tombstones) do look like the shades of the dead. OTOH, the room with the Veil has tiered seats (which I don't see in this picture though the suggestion is there), but if we're looking in at Harry and Voldie behind the Veil, we wouldn't be seeing them unless what's behind the Veil (where Luna expects to see her mother again, as I read her words) is just a mirror image of the Veil room in the Ministry. But that room is rectangular, not round. The floor is described as a "sunken pit," with the veiled archway sitting on a dais in the middle and tiered seats all around (773). (It sounds to me as if it was once used as an execution chamber or for some sort of religious ritual involving sacrifice, but, IIRC, JKR seems to have vetoed these ideas: it's just used by the Unspeakables to study death, which does not explain the rows of tiered seats like those in the courtroom.) Everything in the *circular* room with the doors (not to be confused with the rectangular Death room) is black, including the walls and ceiling (770). I had pictured the Death room as being black, too, and dungeonlike because it resembles the courtroom in the GoF Pensieve scenes, but maybe that's my imagination. But, certainly the Death room has a stone ceiling and this arena or amphitheater is open to the sky. Why *curtains if they're not beyond the Veil? But why an arena with shadowy spectators if they are? What are they looking at that would make Harry hopeful and expectant, willing to take his eyes off his archenemy, and Voldemort afraid? Much as I'd like to think that it's Snape, it seems much more likely to be Fawkes. Dungrollin: Could Voldy have hidden one of his horcruxes beyond the veil? If the object hadn't been opened/"killed", it might remain intact and still work as a horcrux. Carol: how could Voldie have gotten there? He couldn't get into the MoM (except, somehow, when he possessed Nagini and on the night of the battle) to retrieve the Prophecy. And why hide it there, in the Death room, when death is what he fears? I can see *Harry* tossing Horcruxes in there, but not Voldie. I'm pretty sure, though, from the appearance of it, that the locket Horcrux around his neck is "dead." (For reasons already given, I don't think it's the fake one: It's too big, it would serve no purpose to wear it, and it's too late in the game.) > > Dungrollin: > > On the other hand, Harry could be in the process of throwing Voldy's horcruxes through, and the fear you can just about discern (through the evil glare) in Voldy's eyes is him realising too late what Harry is doing... Carol: I think Harry is reaching for or expecting or waiting to catch something, not throwing something. Also, they appear to be on the wrong side of the Veil (curtains) for him to be throwing something inside it. And I can't imagine Voldie, who's a legilimens and who could torture people just through his own will as an eleven-year-old who didn't know hie was a wizard, just letting Harry throw his Horcruxes anywhere. I'm sure they're all already destroyed at this point. AmanitaMuscaria: > I think it's the room of the Veil - it's described as a 'theatre' - sorry, I'm in work without my books - with tiered seating - Carol: An amphitheater, not a theater, and it's rectangular, not square. Nor is it open to the sky like the arena or whatever it is in the picture. AmanitaMuscaria: > My take on the picture is the rubble (wood and stone) is the ceiling of the room having been destroyed by Voldie and Harry's battle; there are people on the tiered seating, watching the battle, but the people aren't necessarily alive... Harry and Voldie are battling wandless ... something has happened off-screen. Carol: But there's no wood in the DoM. Everything is made of stone. And the amphitheater or arena or whatever it is doesn't look as if it ever had a ceiling. It seems to be open to the sky. I agree that the shadowy people aren't necessarily alive. Can you imagine either the Order members or the Death Eaters just sitting there watching a duel to the death (wandless, yet) between the Dark Lord and the Chosen One? These spectators are, IMO, powerless to affect the action--almost certainly shadows of the dead, which takes us back to the Veil room, which doesn't fit what we see in the picture. So, either Mary GrandPre doesn't read carefully and takes liberties with the books (beyond making right-handed wizards left-handed), or what we're seeing is not what we think we're seeing. Much as I want Harry to go behind the Veil (the hero's journey to the Underworld), I don't think that's what's happening here. Carol, hoping that she attributed the quoted posts correctly since the previous poster is quoting at least two other people From shmantzel at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 18:35:13 2007 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Breast Plate in the UK cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <343259.47929.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166862 Carol: I've always wondered why Wizards would wear armor, anyway (Sir Cadogan, the suits of armor in Hogwarts). Would armor deflect an AK or explode if hit by one? (Maybe it was for the Muggle Wars, which Professor Binns might have reached if he ever got past Goblins and Giants. ;-)) Dantzel replies: I imagine that AK and the really nasty spells haven't existed for a long time. I bet that, like guns and cannons, they are a 'recent' development in warfare. In that case, perhaps armor (with spell-deflecters like Fred's and George's) was actually something that helped. Or, if that is all untrue, soldiers wear armor to protect from the small stuff but it's no good if a bomb is too close. There are too many possibilities in my head for the armor, I'll stop here. Dantzel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 18:45:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:45:07 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166863 > va32h, still disagreeing! > > Just because the editor cried doesn't mean there is no possiblity of a > happy ending. People do cry when they are happy. I remember sobbing > with joy when my first child was born - and no it didn't have anything > to do with the pain, because I was totally numb down there! > > If DH ends with Harry finally able to plan his future without the > specter of Voldemort hanging over him, I'll be crying too. Alla: Oh man, call me super optimistic, but I did not see any indication that we should be more worried for Harry than we were before that interview. I mean, DUH ( not directed to anybody just in general), of course he is not going to say whether Harry lives or die to maintain the suspense if nothing else. Like before book 5 the fact that somebody dies was used in advertising campaing widely, no? And of course it is emotional book no matter who dies, and it could be emotional for the reason you said - tears of joy as well, it can be emotional because of interesting revelations from the past, cough. Etc. Do not get me wrong, I am worried about Harry surviving. But I am not worried more after this interview. I am probably more hopeful, don't know why. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 18:41:27 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:41:27 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166864 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" > wrote: > >At any rate after what the editor said we can be sure the series does > >not end with And they all lived happily ever after > > > > va32h, still disagreeing: > > Just because the editor cried doesn't mean there is no possiblity of a > happy ending. People do cry when they are happy. I'll second that. I very seriously doubt I'll cry at anything that happens in DH short of dropping it on my foot, but the editor's tears could mean anything, including the fact that he knows he's about to lose his biggest cash cow now that the series is over -- the pain in the bank account would make anybody cry, :-). But seriously (well, half-seriously, anyway) I don't believe he really gave much away. As I recall, he acknowledged there are deaths, which is something we knew already since I think JKR herself has said that "both goodies and baddies" bite the dust in DH. He also did not say that he was crying specifically over the deaths, or over the ending, but because it was "a very emotional book." That actually bodes well in a lot of ways. Many of us have observed over time that lots of the emotional arcs in the series never seem to reach completion. There are any number of highly-charged plotlines "hanging fire" at the moment -- Percy's fate, the background and fate of Snape, the fate of Draco, the fate of Wormtongue, the relationship or lack thereof between Harry and Lupin, the story of Petunia, the revelations about Dumbledore to which JKR has alluded, a Weasley wedding, R/H romance, ongoing H/G romance, the fate of Umbridge, the future of Neville, the ultimate fate of Dobby, Kreacher, and the other house elves, and so on. All of them could be very emotional; some more than others, I admit. I doubt all of them will be addressed -- even in a large book JKR just doesn't have time - - and some that are addressed probably will be presented in a matter- of-fact way. Still, there is more than enough there to leave a sensitive person in tatters, happy ending or not. Lupinlore, who observes that if Harry dies the price of hit men will go through the roof, since JKR will have two publishing companies and a major studio putting out contracts on her From ekrdg at verizon.net Thu Mar 29 17:05:18 2007 From: ekrdg at verizon.net (Kimberly) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:05:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers References: Message-ID: <05e301c77224$6e815fb0$2f01a8c0@your55e5f9e3d2> No: HPFGUIDX 166865 Elisabet said: I seriously doubt that the curtains are the Veil - the description just doesn't match (not that Grand Pre hasn't got things wrong before). My first impression was that it was not part of the scene, just compositionally filling and framing the picture; see the PS cover for how she has done this before. But if it is part of the scene, then perhaps the curtains are either in some sort of doorway leading into the arena or the curtains are framing a seating box, though there are no boxes or curtains in the arches we see behind the shadowy spectators. The perspective, though, is quite low and seems to be looking up from near the floor of the arena, so an entrance seems more likely. Kimberly: I think it is the veil, especially based on the canon in OotP when Harry first comes upon it. OotP, Amer. Ed. pg. 773 "...They were standing on the topmost tier of what seemed to be stone benches running all around the room and descending in steep steps like an amphitheater, or the courtroom in which Harry had been tried by the Wizengamot. Instead of a chained chair, however, there was a raised stone dais in the center of the lowered floor, and upon this dais stood a stone archway that looked so ancient, cracked, and crumbling that Harry was amazed the thing was still standing. Unsuppported by any surrounding wall, the archway was hung with a tattered black curtain or veil which, despite the complete stillness of the cold surrounding air, was fluttering very slightly as though it had just been touched." The curtains to me are the veil and the broken crumbled part is described to be ancient, cracked, and crumbling. I'm pretty sure it's the veil. My only question is what perspective of it are we looking at it from. Are they on the other side of the veil or is something from the other side of the veil looking through it to them ? I'd have to think, based on the orange sky, that they are on the other side of the veil. The room where the veil is is several floors down in the MoM, isn't it ? So there would be no sky, correct ? Although, in looking at it again, it really does look to be outside in some sort of coloseum. Hmmm.... Kimberly From annee19 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 17:03:50 2007 From: annee19 at yahoo.com (Anne) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:03:50 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166866 > bboyminn: > But what could Harry be releasing that would have him > looking happy and Voldemort looking worried? Well, as > you suggest, the last soul piece would be perfect. > Anne: This is pretty out there, but if Harry is releasing something, could it be a Snitch? In which, perhaps, the last soul fragment has been encased? The Snitch would immediately soar away, making it much more difficult for Voldemort to reach--but Harry could catch up with it! Harry's almost always calm and confident in situations where he feels his Quidditch talents give him the edge. (I'm not saying that I think a Snitch is a horcrux...just that somehow, a horcrux or the soul fragment from a horcrux could be hidden in a Snitch for the purpose of "giving it wings.") Also, I hadn't thought of it before, but the arched structure in the background could resemble the perimeter of a Quidditch pitch. --Anne From homeboys at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 20:03:38 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:03:38 -0000 Subject: Goblins (and Giants and Centaurs) WAS Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: (Maybe it was for the Muggle Wars, which Professor Binns might have reached if he ever got past Goblins and Giants. ;-)) And Peter J Wagner: I agree: a Gringott's vault seems implausible. Voldemort would not have access to it to set the protective devices that he wants. He would not trust goblins, and he's killed them in the past. Gringott's is a safe place: IF you trust Goblins! Now Adesa: My money is on that creature on Harry's back (UK Children's) being a goblin, though not because it looks like either a goblin or an elf. I think the continuous references to goblins, giants, and centaurs throughout the entire series are a dead giveaway that they will be involved in the final book. Goblins, especially: they're sprinkled freely through the books, right from the very beginning. And in OotP, the statue in the MoM wasn't subtle in its reference to the way the Wizarding World views non-humans. God help us, I think Grawp will come into play before the end (probably as a liaison), as will Bane and Firenze and their equine buddies. Umbridge's continued presence and her fear of centaurs was mentioned at least twice in HBP, which makes me think a confrontation is brewing there. Trelawny and Firenze are still being mentioned, too. So we have the centaurs and giants that could be won over to the Wizards' side and the goblins pretty strongly leaning in Voldemort's favor. House-elves will no doubt go to the good guys (thanks to SPEW, hopefully giving us a reson for it even being mentioned), and of course Dementors are with Voldemort. Werewolves? Not sure, now that we have both Lupin and Bill on the inside. But I really think those constant references to goblins are what takes the cake here. And now that this creature has shown up on the book cover, it promises to be a high-action novel, IMHO. After all, Harry must apparently find the horcruxes, do battle with magical all along the way, deal with Snape and love and family, AND do away with the Wizarding World's biggest threat. Whew. I just hope I'm not building it up in my mind too much. Adesa in Virginia "When we started homeschooling, I felt as though I had tucked a child under each arm and jumped off a cliff. Imagine my surprise to discover we have wings." ~Maura Seger From Aixoise at snet.net Thu Mar 29 20:04:14 2007 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:04:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <028c01c7723d$6d4ad220$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166868 Anne wrote: This is pretty out there, but if Harry is releasing something, could it be a Snitch? In which, perhaps, the last soul fragment has been encased? The Snitch would immediately soar away, making it much more difficult for Voldemort to reach--but Harry could catch up with it! Harry's almost always calm and confident in situations where he feels his Quidditch talents give him the edge. Stacey now: Out there as the idea may be, I also had an itch about a snitch after seeing Harry reaching out. Plus, wouldn't it give more reason behind all the mention of Quidditch which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of Jo's least favorite parts to write? I hadn't thought about sneaking something into a snitch but why not? Stacey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 21:26:37 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:26:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers References: Message-ID: <0c6c01c77248$ef108ec0$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166869 "yutu75es": > No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on the spine of the > British cover, over the title. It seems like an arrow, a circle and a > triangle. Any theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? Shelley responds: It looks to me to be just like that cat (or dog?) with the arrow in the mouth- it looks to be mark denoting some publishing or editing company, and not part of the book itself. I made that initial mistake myself. Anyone else with Bloomsbury books have a book with a mark like this on it? I think you could spin theories all day about this divided triangle/circle inside mark, and that they won't be relevant to anything Rowling wrote. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 21:29:50 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:29:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers References: <38D0A57530B341EF8A021FC810968C47@KimsNewBaby> Message-ID: <0c7401c77249$623d1da0$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166870 > Kim > The children's cover could be a Gringott's vault that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dobby? are entering or being blasted into. That could explain what looks to me like galleons and perhaps jewels scattering as they land. The large gold flat object could still be a galleon because in the first book, when Harry first met Hagrid, he saw galleons in Hagrid's coat and thought that they looked to be as big as hubcaps. The silvery, bubbly things are what has me intrigued... Shelley now: Could they have been transported by a hidden port-key? That might explain partly how Voldemort was able to try and rob the earlier vault when he wanted the Stone in Book1. With a port key, he wouldn't have needed to go by the front doors of Gingotts, when he could just zip himself straight inside. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 20:38:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:38:28 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166871 Carol notes: Before I respond to this post, I need to make a correction to my own post upthread. I wrote: "I still think, however, that it must be Godric Gryffindor's vault (not necessarily at Hogwarts since the opening appears to be circular rather than arched) given the proliferation of rubies and no other precious stones." I meant "not necessarily at *Gringotts*." I'm inclined to think that it *is* at Hogwarts. (Why can't I catch my blunders as I'm typing or even when I edit my posts? Nope. They always show up *after* I've hit Send. In quintuplicate, if Yahoo is acting up. Sheesh.) Elisabet wrote: > UK adult cover - I'll echo whoever said it was classy. Carol responds: Classy, yes, but not very informative. Not exactly canonical, either, since there's no indication in HBP that the "serpentine S" of the real locket Horcrux is decorated with emeralds, associated though they are with Slytherin. Still, it's a beautiful design--and perhaps not so preposterously large as the locket Harry is wearing on the US cover. Surely, not even Slytherin (or his daughter???) would wear a locket as large as a pocketwatch? Elisabet wrote > The red and gold and rubies are all about Gryffindor, aren't they? Carol responds: In a word, yes. :-) Even Harry's glasses reflect something red and gold, along with something white. Could Fawkes have led them to this vault or chamber or whatever it is? And what are they all afraid of? Elisabet: > US cover - I like it! I wasn't crazy about the HBP cover art; it just seemed composistionally static. (I did like the cover on the US deluxe edition though.) The DH art just works better, I think, both the front cover-only view with the title and the fold-out full picture without. I like the lettering style for "and the Deathly Hallows". Even the gold coloring - for just a second I was disappointed, I guess because I was expecting something darker, but just for a second. Carol: I think the gold light (Fawkes again?) and Harry's expression suggest a happy ending with a triumphant, surviving Harry and a permanently destroyed and defeated Voldemort, who is not (thank heaven!) AK'd by Harry but deprived of life in some other way. I'm glad it isn't a dark cover, in terms of either color or mood; It suggests an exciting book with an uplifting ending. Arthur Levine says it's an emotion-charged book and he wept as he read it. That's what I want--a cry-for-happy ending. Yes, someone's going to die (please, not Snape or Ron or Hermione), but it's not going to be Harry. Or that's what the US cover says to me. Elisabet: > Harry does seem confident. He is focused on whatever it is he is doing, not looking over his shoulder at Voldemort - who, on the other hand, seems to have one eye on the whatever and the other on Harry. Carol: That must be Voldie's Gaunt heritage: able to look in both directions at once. (Sorry. Bad joke and I hope I haven't offended anybody. I do pity Merope and even Morfin, so maybe I shouldn't have said it. Make that Mad-Eye Moody who can look in two directions at once.) At any rate, I think Voldemort, like Harry, is focused on something off-page. (Voldemort is facing it and, IMO, fending it off; Harry is looking upward and to his left, which again makes me think it's Fawkes.) Elisabet: > Harry does have a scar, although it is partially obscured by his hair. Carol: I see it, too. despite my less-than-perfect vision. It looks a bit like a shadow from his hair, but it's right in the center and faint, just as it is on the covers of the Scholastic editions of OoP and HBP. It's more conspicuous in the cartoonlike cover art for SS and CoS, but from PoA onward, it seems to become fainter with each cover, especially so with the blue or green covers of the fifth and sixth books. (Glad she didn't do an orange or gold cover for this one--just natural daylight with an orange or gold-lit sky. Very nice, as is the realistic depiction of Harry. A little too handsome, maybe, but he's the hero, so I'll let it go.) > kkersey_austin wrote: > I seriously doubt that the curtains are the Veil - the description just doesn't match (not that Grand Pre hasn't got things wrong before). My first impression was that it was not part of the scene, just compositionally filling and framing the picture; see the PS cover for how she has done this before. Carol: I'm starting to lean that way, too. There's something about the blurred brush strokes in places that suggests an unfinished painting, an unreal quality that's different from the clumsy children's-fantasy quality of the early covers, if you know what I mean, so the framing with curtains could also be nothing more than a deliberate stylistic effect (like the curtain obscuring Quirrel!mort on the back of SS). And yet, I wouldn't put it past GrandPre to depict the Veil as a pair of tattered curtains, and I'm sure that the Veil has a key role to play, which surely ought to come at the climactic, final confrontation depicted here? (There won't be two Voldie/Harry battles. This scene has to occur in the last or penultimate chapter, right before the Epilogue. It's extremely frustrating, isn't it? I'm probably as far off in my interpretation as I was trying to guess why DD and Harry were trying to look at a cracked and green-lit "Pensieve" on a column in HBP. kkersey_austin: > I am puzzled by Arthur Levine's remark that this is "for the first time" a wrap-around cover - all of the jackets have had wrap-around artwork that includes the flaps. Carol: I think Levine means that, for the first time, there's no book blurb on the inside cover. (Contrast the UK covers for DH, which have a book blurb and an author blurb, and the US HBP and OoP covers, which really don't reveal any art of interest inside the flaps, just the book blurb and snippets from reviews. Or maybe the blurb and snippets are yet to come for DH, in which case I suppose he means that, for the first time, the inside flaps contain significant details that add to our understanding (or confusion!) about what's happening in the depicted scene. (I don't care about the review snippets, but I'm curious about the book blurb and hope that one is coming!) As far as I can tell, almost the only thing that will appear on the inside flaps is the curtains--unless Voldie's face can only be fully seen in the foldout. That would be a marked change from previous covers, at least the two I have. (I own SS through GoF only in paperback.) Elisabet: > Interesting that there seems to be some ambiguity in both the UK and the US covers - is Harry catching or releasing? Are the trio+elf falling or being sucked out? (Is the term "trio+elf" singular or plural?) I'm not sure whether or not the ambiguity is intentional or not (and doubt that it is for the UK cover). Carol: I think that good cover art is always ambiguous. Like a blurb, it's supposed to draw the reader in without giving too much away. I don't think that the Trio and their nonhuman companion are being sucked out or blown away in the UK children's cover. I think they're falling into the vault or chamber (the coins and jewels also appear to be falling) and staring in terror (Hermione) or horror (Ron) or astonishment (Harry) at whatever is reflected in Harry's glasses. What's odd is that they're all looking in different directions, which could account for the differing emotional reactions. That and their differing temperaments, of course. At any rate, we're supposed to ask, "Where are they? What are they doing? What is that mysterious object?" And, of course, we're doing exactly that. (The UK adult cover, attractive as it is, doesn't really have the same effect. We HP fans know what that locket is (though the rock background is odd). We need the teaser (book blurb) to hint at what the book is about. But, then, adult readers who've made it this far don't need cover art, or blurbs, to entice us to read the last book. We'd read it in a plain brown wrapper or a purple cover spangled with gold stars. Or, heaven forfend, a cover featuring Mary GrandPre's conception of Snape (whose absence from the covers is no indication that he won't be important, as we saw in HBP). Carol, who, despite not needing blurbs or cover art to entice her to read DH, does find them intriguing and would really like a new FAQ poll and some stifled rumors before the time gets any shorter! (Come on, JKR. You're killing us!) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Mar 29 22:39:57 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:39:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dobby on cover (was Re: Book Covers) References: Message-ID: <0cae01c77253$2dafdaa0$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166872 > > Kemper now: > > I thought Dobby as well, but the picture doesn't show the elf wearing > > any hats or socks. My impression of Dobby is that he would wear some > > piece of awful clothing to go into a fight as well as just kickin' it > > around Hogwarts. > Talisman: > And, having Kreature hold the sword-- > so close to Harry's neck--would be nice and creepy, but Hermione > would probably sulk about *forced labor* and ruin all the fun. Shelley now: If they really are breaking into Gringotts, then having a goblin on you side makes sence. I can hear the conversation: "Mr. Goblin, come with us. We are going to show you how somebody has been breaking into Gringott's. We don't want any of the treasure or loot there, only the person hiding there." "Oh really. Someone breaking into Gringott's, you say? Let's go- lead the way". From amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 29 22:12:00 2007 From: amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk (AmanitaMuscaria) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:12:00 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > AmanitaMuscaria now - I reckon it's Gringotts, and it's Kreachur > > threatening Harry, or victorious over him, holding Gryffindor's > > sword. Perhaps he's just captured it for Voldy? Ron & Hermione are > > being thrown into the vault through some elfish special power. The > > armour - there's a helmet and body armour with dragon or gryffin on, > > and a silver shield as well as all the gold stuff - is the rest of > > Gryffindor's outfit - except Dumbledore said something about the > > sword being the only relic of Gryffindor, didn't he? > > snip > > > > > I'd say that with the snake on the breastplate, and with it being > silver and all, it's unlikely to be Gryffindor's. But the hair thing > that Talisman mentioned, they could be being sucked into a high > security vault that only the goblins are supposed to open. Is a house > elf enough to get them out again? > > I'd originally thought that the hole behind them was circular, but now > I see (behind Hermione's arms) that it's an archway, so I'm backing off > the falling through a hole in the ceiling thing. > > Must get my eyes checked. > > Dung. > AmanitaMuscaria now - You're quite right, Dung - it is a snake. I was seeing it facing the other direction and assuming the scales were part of its body. The snake, however, has a bird's beak.. and what _is_ the scaly thing? Also, what's the piece made of the same stuff, just behind Harry's left arm? Looks a bit like a welder's facemask ... Lots to ponder. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 22:38:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:38:21 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: <0c6c01c77248$ef108ec0$6601a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166874 "yutu75es" wrote: > > No one seems to have noticed the strange desing on the spine of the British cover, over the title. It seems like an arrow, a circle and a triangle. Any theories about what it might be/mean/represent?? > > Shelley replied: > It looks to me to be just like that cat (or dog?) with the arrow in the mouth- it looks to be mark denoting some publishing or editing company, and not part of the book itself. I made that initial mistake myself. Anyone else with Bloomsbury books have a book with a mark like this on it? > > I think you could spin theories all day about this divided triangle/circle inside mark, and that they won't be relevant to anything Rowling wrote. Carol responds: The dog with the arrow in its mouth is the logo for Bloomsbury's children's books, corresponding to the naked archer for the adult books. Both logos can be seen here: http://www.bloomsbury.com/ But the triangle with the circle inside it is different. It isn't a rune, but it may be an alchemical symbol. As I pointed out in a previous post, it's in the same place on the Bloomsbury children's cover as the ring with the Peverell crest (the ring Horcrux) on the HBP cover. I don't own these editions, being American, so I'm relying on the Lexicon to help me out. The original PS had a strange character who doesn't match anyone in the books in that position. He was originally on the back cover, as well, but was replaced by Dumbledore. The thumbnail sketch on the spine of the book may have been replaced, as well; I don't know. (Can someone who owns this book help me out?) CoS has Hedwig, PoA I don't know about (I can't find the complete children's cover at the Lexicon or anywhere on the Internet), GoF has Hedwig again, and OoP has a Phoenix feather (matching the Phoenix on the front cover). Here are the relevant links, FWIW: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/rg-ps00.html http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/rg-cs00.html http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/rg-gf0.html http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/op/rg-op00.html http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/rg-hbp00.html If anyone has a link showing the spine of the Bloomsbury children's edition of PoA, please let me know. The Lexicon reader's guide for PoA at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/pa/rg-pa00.html shows only the Scholastic book cover. (Bloomsbury shows only a thumbnail of the front cover; I had to resort to eBay to view the front and back covers together, and the spine wasn't shown.) At a guess, the drawing at the top of the spine of PoA could be Buckbeak, who features prominently on the front cover, or the wolfish-looking slobbering dog on the back cover, which could be either a transformed Lupin or Grim!Sirius. Or the image on the spine might be Crookshanks or Scabbers--some but not all of the objects at the top of the spine are featured elsewhere in the cover art.) In any case, it would be an animal, object, or person as relevant to the story as Hedwig, Fawkes, or Marvolo Gaunt's ring. At any rate, based on the spines of the earlier children's editions, we probably shouldn't dismiss the symbol at the top of the spine of the Bloomsbury children's edition of DH. It's most definitely not a logo, and probably does have some bearing on the story, perhaps as much as the ring Horcrux did on HBP. I'm betting that it's an alchemical symbol, possibly related to the union of the houses if air, water, earth, and fire can all be symbolized by triangles. A circle, I believe, represents wholeness or unity--hardly unimportant if one of the themes of DH is unity not only within Hogwarts but within the WW as a whole. (We have a first step toward unity with a house-elf joining our half-blood, pure-blood, and Muggle-born on their quest to defeat Voldemort, who specializes in divisiveness, turning not only friends and Houses but even his own Death Eaters against each other. In any case, the image almost certainly does relate to the themes and content of DH and possibly to the Sorting Hat's and Dumbledore's speeches regarding unity. It may relate, as well, to the symbols on the rim of Dumbledore's Pensieve, not all of which are runes. I refer anyone who's interested to the post upthread about triangles as alchemical symbols. I did a search for a symbol resembling the one on the book spine and found lots of triangles within circles, but not the reverse. Even the Muggle Granger (John, that is) was no help. Where's Hermione when you need her? Carol, wondering why it's so hard to find an online image of the complete PoA Bloomsbury cover but realizing that's a question for another forum! From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Mar 29 23:01:33 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:01:33 +0200 Subject: 'Snake' on breastplate (Was: Book Covers) References: Message-ID: <000b01c77256$3213a290$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 166875 AmanitaMuscaria >> The snake, however, has a bird's beak.. and what _is_ the scaly thing?<< Marion A 'snake' with a birdbeak is (by the looks of it) a Basilisk. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk) The basilisk has a rather interesting history. The name itself means 'little king' because it was originally described by a Roman author as a snake with a 'drawing' of a crown on its head. The Roman/latin name for the basilisk therefore is a 'regulus'... Why does it have a bird's head in later (medieval) depictions? The myth about the basilisk developed, and it was said that the monstrous, petrifying beast (as it had now become) was hatched from a rooster's egg by a toad. Probably because of this connection with a rooster, the basilisk is usually portrayed in bestiaria etc as a serpent with a rooster/bird head/beak and sometimes even birdfeet/-claws. Hmm... Basilisk, Regulus, Slytherin... hmmm.... Or are we reading too much into a simple picture? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 23:07:26 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:07:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703291607i3c358067u526ccd13ed88b88d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166876 Tandra: Is it just me or is the scar not visible on the cover of the new book. I blew it up and everything. I don't see it. Think that means something? Lynda: Its there. Look carefully under the hair on his forehead. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 23:11:25 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:11:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My ideas about the covers In-Reply-To: <403e946f0703282337t6509ea10wdb79d50f91a414d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40703280940t51fbd9a1m37e61bb87e1f3dce@mail.gmail.com> <114655680.20070328181846@mindspring.com> <403e946f0703282337t6509ea10wdb79d50f91a414d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0703291611y12e99a49l4209a3f2a845a642@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166877 Lynda: I've only seen the front of the US cover, but it looks to me as though Harry is in some outdoor venue like a colosseum or ampitheater (quidditch pitch maybe?). Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 00:25:51 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:25:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands...What Will Harry and Voldie Do for Wands? In-Reply-To: References: <557971.30348.qm@web80511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0703291725l574926c7k2df23eee6b1eae03@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166878 Peter J Wagner The odds on Harry's and Voldemort's wands connecting again are remote. Rowling used that device once: she won't use it again. Lynda: I don't see why not. They are still connected by their cores. That hasn't changed. Their magical reactions to each other should be the same. The wands aren't a device like the Time Turners which were employed in POA. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Mar 30 00:33:12 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:33:12 -0000 Subject: Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0703291607i3c358067u526ccd13ed88b88d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166879 Tandra: > Is it just me or is the scar not visible on the > cover of the new book. > I blew it up and everything. I don't see it. > Think that means something? Lynda: > Its there. Look carefully under the hair on his forehead. houyhnhnm: The longer I look, the less certain I am whether it's a scar or a strand of hair. I think the drawing may be deliberately ambiguous. (I'm talking about the US version. The scar is clearly visible on the UK cover.) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 00:38:32 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:38:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703291738u84e847dp58f34d80ff8018fe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166880 Eggplant: Somewhat lost in all the talk about the book covers is something the > American editor Arthur A Levine said in an interview on the Today show > when those covers were unveiled. He confirmed that there would be > deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer > commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he > would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good > for poor Harry. va32h here: Oh I don't know about that. The end of the series will be cathartic for a number of reasons. I cried while reading the Priori Incantatem scenses and at the end of GOF, and I wasn't particularly attached to Cedric. They were just very moving Harry might lose some people he loves, which will indeed be very bad for him. But we knew that would probably happen anyway. I have always believed Harry would live, and seeing the covers I am more convinced than ever. Harry has such an expression of hopefulness and expectation on the US cover - he is not dying inside of any book with that cover, IMO. va32h Lynda: Oh, I found HBP to be very emotional, as did most of my friends. One of them even threw the book across the room when she finished it because it made her cry. I'm going to read the book with a box or two of kleenex at hand, not knowing who will die... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 00:42:16 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:42:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Goblins (and Giants and Centaurs) WAS Book Covers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703291742w12032aa0hab7e9aa60a6d3a54@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166881 Adesa: God help us, I think Grawp will come into play before the end Lynda: Especially if Hagrid dies... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 00:52:51 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:52:51 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166882 Carol: > I think the gold light (Fawkes again?) and Harry's expression suggest a happy ending with a triumphant, surviving Harry and a permanently destroyed and defeated Voldemort, who is not (thank heaven!) AK'd by Harry but deprived of life in some other way. I'm glad it isn't a dark cover, in terms of either color or mood; It suggests an exciting book with an uplifting ending. > Carol, who, despite not needing blurbs or cover art to entice her to read DH, does find them intriguing and would really like a new FAQ poll and some stifled rumors before the time gets any shorter! (Come on, JKR. You're killing us!) Ceridwen: I'll play with rumors and wild speculation. ;) For the U.S. cover, where Harry is reaching for something, what if he is reaching for some*one*? I'm reading the cover to be the viewer looking through the Veil's archway into the Veil Room, where Harry and Voldemort are standing. I think the orange clouds might be explained as something, even deep inside the MoM - a fire, perhaps? Dragon's breath? A lot can happen during an epic battle for control of an entire government. A fire, or given the parameters of the world, even a dragon or several dragons and their vaporous, fiery breath, would fit. So, I have us viewing the scene from the archway of the Veil. Any color difference of the curtains comes from the fire/orange sky in the background. The seperation of the Veil into two panels is deliberately meant to echo the cover of SS, curtains for the beginning and for the end. We know that the world of the dead is beyond the Veil. What if Harry is reaching for someone he can see through the archway, which for some reason is devoid of its veil? What if he's reaching for Dumbledore? It would make sense with Voldemort holding up a warding hand. Otherwise, it could be anyone Harry has lost to death. But Voldemort's reaction makes me think it may be Dumbledore, and after all, DD was giving JKR some problems in DH. I do think the stadium seating arrangement on the U.S. cover is meant to convey that room in the Ministry, even if the room is rectangular and not round or oval. I think it might be artistic license, with a purpose: to convey the idea of Harry and Voldemort in a stadium setting; sort-of a fish-eye view. I'm leaning toward the shadows being the shades of the dead, perhaps even a "jury" or panel of Deathly Hallows, or hallowed spirits. Maybe they're even there to judge who is worthy of winning the battle, or to judge Voldemort for his crimes against them. No wands, no battle currently ongoing. But I'm not completely convinced. I'm just coming up with possible explanations of why dead people might be watching the battle. I'm more convinced that the U.S. cover is of the Veil and its room since I think the archway on the U.K. Children's cover also depicts the Veil's arch. And, interestingly, the veil is drawn back on the U.S. cover and completely missing in the U.K. cover, and both show an orange sky or air on at least one side of the archway. The debris at the foreground could be the ruins of the arch's podium or raised dais, or even of part of the archway itself. Oh, what if there is a fire in the MoM, a magical fire that can't be quenched, and to avoid a painful death, the only escape is through the Veil? Which might explain the tumbled trio on the U.K. cover. Not the treasures, though a Christian theme is to store up treasures in heaven. Another 'oh' - what if the color on the veil/draperies on the U.S. cover is the reflection of the gold on the U.K. cover? The artists work from the same or nearly the same text. Certain things might just jump out at them when composing their art. The Veil rent, and golden treasure beyond, would certainly stick in my mind! What if the U.K. artist decided to depict the treasure in a more or less ambiguous way while the U.S. artist chose to hint at it only through the glow of its reflection? On the U.K. cover, I'm interested right now in the beaked snake (or is that an ugly flamingo?) on the breastplate. There's so much going on in that cover, I can only focus on one or two things at a time. For people who have questioned Hermione's hair, having long hair myself, I can attest that falling, tripping, stubling or being pushed doesn't mean the hair will go backward. It'll flop around a lot before the faller gets settled. Ceridwen, in speculation mode. From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 01:08:02 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: <531403.92329.qm@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166883 About the book covers. It is obvious to me that the trio plus the elf are being sucked through a stargate kind of thing in the UK cover. And the US cover shows what they are sucked too. Since the background color within the 'portal' is the same as on the cover of the US edition. I think that with the right hand and the left hand thing Grand Prie is pulling a classic muggle magicians trick called sleight of hand. She wants us to look at the reaching hand (his left) and ignore the right hand which seems to have slammed a book ( The Bible, Riddles Diary, A ravenclaw horcrux, Harry Potter and the Sorcerors Stone? Pride and Prejudice?) onto an altar of sorts and if you look closely a spell of some sort, seems to be either stabbing into Riddle or sucking Riddles life force out. Maybe Harry has found a way to force Riddle soul back into the Diary, from which it can easily be controlled. Harry might be trying to shield his eyes from the light of God's or Godrics wrath. The broken pieces of wood sort of remind me of a cross. We do know that HP is supposed to be a Christian tale according to JKR. Hogwarts seems to have mist drifting towards it as if under a Dementor attack on the UK cover. That would explain Harry's Patronus. We all expect a Battle of Hogwarts, so that makes sense. What do you think? --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 01:08:24 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: <983147.84080.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166884 About the book covers. It is obvious to me that the trio plus the elf are being sucked through a stargate kind of thing in the UK cover. And the US cover shows what they are sucked too. Since the background color within the 'portal' is the same as on the cover of the US edition. I think that with the right hand and the left hand thing Grand Prie is pulling a classic muggle magicians trick called sleight of hand. She wants us to look at the reaching hand (his left) and ignore the right hand which seems to have slammed a book ( The Bible, Riddles Diary, A ravenclaw horcrux, Harry Potter and the Sorcerors Stone? Pride and Prejudice?) onto an altar of sorts and if you look closely a spell of some sort, seems to be either stabbing into Riddle or sucking Riddles life force out. Maybe Harry has found a way to force Riddle soul back into the Diary, from which it can easily be controlled. Harry might be trying to shield his eyes from the light of God's or Godrics wrath. The broken pieces of wood sort of remind me of a cross. We do know that HP is supposed to be a Christian tale according to JKR. Hogwarts seems to have mist drifting towards it as if under a Dementor attack on the UK cover. That would explain Harry's Patronus. We all expect a Battle of Hogwarts, so that makes sense. What do you think? DA Jones --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 00:41:39 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (d. j. gorski) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <427113.74948.qm@web55405.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166885 "Alaine M. Kier" wrote: >I believe Voldemort is looking at something Harry has released from >his upraised arm; there appears to be a vapor floating up from his >hand. A piece of Voldemort's soul, perhaps? Perhaps the last piece? Dondee: I think what your taking as vapor is just part of the sky in the background. IMO from the position of Harry's hand it looks like he is summoning or controlling something out of our view. Voldie, on the other hand, looks to be either countering Harry's Accio with a banishment charm or he is simply throwing up his hands in a kind of "No, don't!" attitude. Just my humble opinion. Cheers, Dondee From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 00:30:56 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (d. j. gorski) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070330003056.65156.qmail@web55411.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166886 Tandra wrote: >Is it just me or is the scar not visible on the cover of the new book. >I blew it up and everything. I don't see it. Think that means something? > >T Dondee: It's there but it looks like a wisp of hair. If you use something like Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and really zoom in on Harry's face you'll see it. Cheers, Dondee From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Fri Mar 30 02:30:31 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:30:31 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: <983147.84080.qm@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166887 career advisor wrote: > About the book covers. It is obvious to me that the trio plus the elf are being sucked through a stargate kind of thing in the UK cover. And the US cover shows what they are sucked too. > > Since the background color within the 'portal' is the same as on the cover of the US edition. Kvapost: The background colour does give that idea. However, absence of the locket and a cloak on Harry during the 'suction process' discourages it. Valid idea, though. From inufan_625 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 02:26:29 2007 From: inufan_625 at yahoo.com (inufan_625) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:26:29 -0000 Subject: Book Covers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166888 I'm coming in a bit late here and have just finished catching up on the posts. I don't really have much to add in relation to a specific post from anyone else, but here are the things I noticed and would really like to know what others think. I don't the covers are meant to be an image of a singular event in time, especially on the US cover. Things of note: 1. US- I think the rubble down in front is perhaps representative or Godrics Hollow and the trip Harry is planning on taking there. It just seems to stand out to me as a seperate layer of the image. 2.US- The curtain could just represent the end since SS/PS also has a curtain- the beginning, though if it does have some relation to the veil, I don't think we can let the color discount that alone. It would look awkward and out of place/unbalanced to have all those rich colors surrounded by black. 3.US&UK The orange coloring says bathed in fire/trial by fire to me, and perhaps is more symbolic or themeatic than literal. The UKC cover appears to take place inside but those same colors are heavily present. Also fire is commonly associated with death and rebirth in HP and in nature: with Fawkes, with Voldemort and with Harry himself. It can also be indicitive of the aftermath and a new dawn for the wizarding world - the House-elf/Goblin on Harry's back, fighting with a wizard could be the beginning of a more united world. 4. US- Harry and Voldemort seem set apart from everything else going on in the picture. I guess that's expected though with all the 'the ONE with the power' stuff. 5.US- Around Harry's neck looks like the Slytherin locket from the UK adults cover to me, or perhaps the fake locket. 6. backcover UK: the lights are on at Hogwarts which makes me think that it will definitely reopen and that the trio will be there at some point. The dark clouds lead me to think that there will be fighting at Hogwarts 'darkness encroaching' and all that. 7. front UK: There is so much going on there. All three look pretty banged up. All the gold makes me think Goblins, or that maybe one of the remaining Horocruxes is in a vault. Ron and Hermione look like they are being sucked out as Harry dives in. Their expression could be fear/outrage that they are being pulled away from Harry- they definitely wouldn't want to abandon him to the unknown. Questions: Dobby's ears- pointy or floppy? What creatures have ears like those that are shown? Could any of the items shown be a horocrux? Also totally not about guessing what will happen: I actually really like the way Harry is drawn. That is MY Harry. Ron is okay. I like the representation, but I definitely see him more like the HBP cover. As for Hermione - Ummmm... NO. The hair is pretty though...lol inufan_625 From inufan_625 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 02:54:45 2007 From: inufan_625 at yahoo.com (inufan_625) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:54:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's gleam/Editor sobbing/ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166889 Peter J Wagner: Dumbledore's eyes gleamed in triumph! inufan625: We were told in an interview that this was important. Peter J Wagner: So, I would hypothesize that Dumbledore's gleam of triumph and Voldemort's fury at Malfoy are related. Voldemort has realized that he cannot rend his soul anymore becaues of the charm left by Lily's sacrifice: the magical power of love prevents the soul from being further desecrated. His anger at Malfoy is in part for Malfoy showing initiative: but also it is raw fury that his strategem has backfired! Inufan625: I really like this theory. It is a very plausable/solid explanation for why there can be no more Horocruxes made by Voldemort. Up to this point the only other I have heard is that he is at a point where were he to split it again he would not be able to function/animate a body. I like this one better. Eggplant: Somewhat lost in all the talk about the book covers is something the American editor Arthur A Levine said in an interview on the Today show when those covers were unveiled. He confirmed that there would be deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good for poor Harry. Inufan625: I don't know if I believe this means Harry himself is a goner. I can list many deaths that would make me sad, such as Remus or Hermione and Ron or Molly, whereas Harry dying after all he had been through will likely just make me angry. I think that could be because I identify more with what Harry would be feeling, which makes sense since it's his perspective we get most of the time. As much as I hate the ambiguity of Snape's character (I actually typed Snake here first and had to correct it) I think his journey to the end along with Draco's will be very emotional. I also agree with whoever said the covers make them have hope for Harry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 03:39:55 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:39:55 -0000 Subject: AND AT THE END - POA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166890 >From Sherry and Alla Here are some topics in no particular order we thought may be important at the end. Enjoy :) 1. In the first paragraph of PoA we learn that Harry really wanted to do his homework but was not allowed to by Dursleys. Foreshadowing of Harry's academic effort or is it unlikely given one book left? 2. "Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognizing it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than forty-seven times in various disguises." Do you believe that we will learn something different than what was described in this quote about muggles prosecuting wizards and if yes, what wider implications it may have for the end of it all? 3. Before Harry leaves in the Night Bus, he tells Hedwig to go to Weasleys, she awaits him at Leaky Cauldron instead. Fudge comments on what a smart owl that Harry has. Would Hedwig help Harry in some significant way in book 7 than not every owl is able to? 4. Weasleys went to Egypt. There was a lot of speculation that Egypt would be significant in some way later on. Can we still expect it with one book left? 5. Would we ever learn what Remus was doing in those twelve years before he came to Hogwarts? 6. "Dumbledore, who was of course working tirelessly against You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once." Would we ever learn the identities of Dumbledore's other spies? If the answer is yes, would they be of some use in book 7? 7. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than 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." Would we ever learn why James and Lily refused DD's offer to be their secret keeper? 8. How did Remus learn what Sirius wanted to happen on Prank night? Would that ever be important? Come to think of it, would Shrieking shack play a part in book 7 again? 9. Trelawney made a true prophecy in PoA. If we are to believe DD it was her second true prediction. Would any other predictions of hers come true in book 7? 10. "If you ever need me, send a word, your owl would find me." JKR indicated that there was another reason for Sirius to die besides for Harry to continue journey alone. Would we learn of that in book 7? 11. I was thinking about what Dementors will be doing in book 7 and in the famous description that Remus gives to Harry one phrase suddenly struck me as strange: "If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself... soul-less and evil." ? POA, ch.10. So, what are the effects of the Dementor feeding on someone NOT long enough? It reminded me of Harry horcrux discussions and Dementor eating up the Voldy-part . Do you think Dementors would be destroyed as species in book 7 or is too optimistic for JKR to do so? 12. How does the famous Life debt works? How it will play out in final confrontation? 13. In OOTP, we learn that DD has written in the past to Petunia. Could the aunt Marge incident have been a time when Vernon wanted to throw out Harry and DD intervened? If so, will the fact of some type of correspondence between DD and Petunia have some significance for the last book? 14. Harry establishes a rapport with Buckbeak, both in the COMC lesson and in the time turner events. Buckbeak has since appeared in every book. Will he appear again, and will he be important or somehow help Harry? From kristin1778 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 04:59:46 2007 From: kristin1778 at yahoo.com (kristin1778) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:59:46 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > va32h here: > > I have always > believed Harry would live, and seeing the covers I am more convinced > than ever. Harry has such an expression of hopefulness and expectation > on the US cover - he is not dying inside of any book with that cover, > IMO. > > va32h > Kristin1778: My heart, definitely sank a bit when Levine mentioned sobbing. If he'd just said he cried a little I wouldn't be nearly so worried, but sobbing makes me think someone dear to a lot of us does die. I think something we need to think about is how Rowling would view Harry's death. We all think of dying, and we think horrible, tragic ending, but what has Dumbledore been saying since the first book? Death is nothing to fear, death is just another adventure, there are worse things than death, etc... Voldemort's major weakness is that he fears it so. I've suspected for sometime now that Harry's willingness to lay down his life may be what does Voldemort in. Lots of us think Harry will have to make a sacrifice. Some people think he'll lose his magic, others think he'll have to leave the wizarding world. I kind of suspect Rowling would see both of those things as more tragic for Harry than actually dying. In Harry's universe, at least, there is an afterlife, you do go on. If Harry dies, he'll be reunited with Dumbledore, Sirius, and his parents, and in the fullness of time Ron and Hermione will join him. He'd be at peace, and he'd finally have his family. In the epilogue she'd let us know that his friends miss him, but appreciate that they are alive because of his sacrifice and are helping each other to go on with their lives. Now, I will be sobbing my eyes out over such an ending, but I don't think Rowling would want us to see it as an unhappy ending to the series. Kristin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 05:24:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:24:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's spy network (Was: AND AT THE END - POA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166892 >From Sherry and Alla: > 6. "Dumbledore, who was of course working tirelessly against You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. > > One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once." > > Would we ever learn the identities of Dumbledore's other spies? If > the answer is yes, would they be of some use in book 7? Carol responds: I think we know who this particular useful spy was. ;-) But aside from Snape, I think we've met a number of these spies already, many of them in the original Order (I don't think Snape was in the Order at that time; he was working separately, under tight cover, IMO). The ones I can think of at the moment are Mundungus Fletcher for the Knockturn Alley crowd, Mrs. Figg for the Muggles (particularly the Dursleys from the moment DD knew that the Potters were in danger?), Dedalus Diggle, who's always showing up in odd places during Harry's childhood, and, particularly, Aberforth Dumbledore at the Hog's Head. (He's the one who informed Albus about the DEs traveling with Voldemort at the time of the job interview.) I don't think that Mad-Eye Moody could have spied within Aurors; he was too conspicuous and too openly a friend of Dumbledore's. The Longbottoms could have done that, though, considering how popular they were and how innocent-looking Alice L. must have been. She might overhear confidences that would be useful to DD. He must have had someone within the Ministry in addition to the Aurors, possibly Mr. Weasley. Given his lowly position, though, it's not clear how much he would know. There's another Order member we haven't heard much about, Elphias Doge. Could he be some sort of spy? I think we see him only at the Dursleys when the Order comes to escort Harry in OoP. Add Hestia Jones and the newly released Sturgis Podmore to that "maybe" list as well. I have absolutely no idea what their duties are aside from watching Harry and standing guard duty in the MoM. I think that Ollivander may have been part of DD's spy network since he informed Dumbledore who bought the two Phoenix feather wands (and he's now missing). Florian Fortescue may have been another; he's a real question mark at the moment. McGonagall doesn't seem to have been in the original Order, but she could have kept an eye on the students for DD without considering her job to be spying. Or maybe Filch fills that job, along with the night-prowling Snape. And I count the portraits as part of his spy network, limited though their capacity must be. I think, however, that the most important of the spies (other than Snape) will turn out to be Aberforth, whom I hope will enlighten Harry with regard to the eavesdropping incident and more. (We never learned the "thrilling tale" of Snape's saving DD from the ring Horcrux. Maybe Aberforth--or Phineas Nigellus, who twice objects to Harry's "impertinence" regarding Snape--will provide Harry those details.) That's all I can think of at the moment. Of course, DD also had loyal supporters who weren't spies, including some of the old OWL examiners and Gran Longbottom. Carol, thanking Alla and Sherry for a topic that isn't the DH covers From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Fri Mar 30 04:30:41 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:30:41 -0000 Subject: 'Snake' on breastplate (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: <000b01c77256$3213a290$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166893 > Marion > A 'snake' with a birdbeak is (by the looks of it) a Basilisk. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk) > The basilisk has a rather interesting history. The name itself means 'little king' because it was originally described by a Roman author as a snake with a 'drawing' of a crown on its head. The Roman/latin name for the basilisk therefore is a 'regulus'... Peter J Wagner: Unfortunately, Rowling's basilisks have little in common with the beaked version, having a head like a normal snake insofar was we can tell. Still, what we really need is a prior picture of a basilisk by GrandPr?: she might not have drawn what Rowling described. Some people have speculated that Slytherin's Tomb would be a place where Voldemort might hide a Horcrux. Unfortunately for this idea, there is zero indication that such a place exists! However, it might be expected to have such things in it. Peter J Wagner From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:10 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:50:10 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166894 Ever since I was convinced by a paper on Mugglenet.com that Harry could not, in fact be a Horcrux, I've had an idea brewing in my head. There is no denying Tom Riddle/Voldemort and Harry Potter have many similarities now. Both being Parseltongues, for example. However, we have been led to assume it all came from/after Tom's attack on Harry. But don't forget, Harry was an infant. We don't really know for certain that Harry would not have been a parseltongue when he grew up even if he hadn't been attacked. Same thing with the mental connection to a certain degree. However, what we do know is that they both still would have looked oddly alike as Tom himself mentions in COS. And so this thought has been festering... What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that perhaps Harry's muggle mother's family and Tom's muggle father's side of the family could be connected. Does anyone recall if the books mention the color of Tom's father's eyes? A large point is made of the fact that Harry has his mothers brilliant green eyes and even JKR has said that is important. I'm thinking that if they were related by blood that could also explain why Tom's curse on Harry back fired so badly. What do you think? firefly From lorien_eve2 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 04:35:38 2007 From: lorien_eve2 at yahoo.com (lorien_eve2) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:35:38 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166895 > Carol: > I wonder whether many of us, including me, are seeing the > orange curtains as the Veil (GrandPre's artistic license, > you know Also, the shadowy figures (which the > designer has said are people, not tombstones) do look like > the shades of the dead. > > I agree that the shadowy people aren't necessarily > alive. These spectators are, IMO, powerless to affect > the action--almost certainly shadows of the dead, which takes > us back to the Veil room, which doesn't fit what we see in > the picture. lorien_eve2: I'm going to quickly jump in here with a few ideas of my own, if you don't mind. I don't think that this is behind the Veil. Although I can't explain the curtains (other than, like others have mentioned, GrandePre's artistic license), I think that this is a place that Harry is taken to by a Portkey, much like in GoF. However, this time, I think that Harry knows that the Portkey is taking him to the Final Battle. Also, I don't think that the "shadow people" are Death Eaters. I think they are spirits of the people that Voldemort has killed, similiar to the spirits that appeared during Priori Incantatum in GoF. Not that, in this instance, they have appeared due to Priori Incantum, but I think it's in the same vein. That's why they are just standing by and not helping either party. From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 06:48:14 2007 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:14 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Somewhat lost in all the talk about the book covers is something the > American editor Arthur A Levine said in an interview on the Today show > when those covers were unveiled. He confirmed that there would be > deaths in the book and said he was "sobbing". The interviewer > commented that must mean somebody we readers like dies, but all he > would say is "it's a very emotional book". It's not looking too good > for poor Harry. > > Eggplant > I think its pretty clear that Hagrid is going to die. He's the last in a long line of people that are supporting Harry and I don't think he'll make it to the end. rduran1216 From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Fri Mar 30 07:32:10 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:32:10 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166897 Not sure how much input does JKR have into the covers and how consistent the artists are, but the archway on the UK cover with the trio does look like this one in COS, for instance: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/rg-cs00.html And may I suggest that we all try and hunt down the Danish covers! They have always been different from the rest of the world, and I must say, if *this* is not revealing then what is! Look at the cover of HBP: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/gallery/picture/64820 Kvapost From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Mar 30 07:50:22 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:50:22 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uncle Tom? References: Message-ID: <001201c772a0$12551c50$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 166898 Oooohhhh... good point!! JKR must be laughing her head off. Every time somebody asked her if there might be a possibility that one of Lily's parents were perhaps Squibs or something, just so they could link Lily to the Wizarding World, JKR has answered that the Evanses and the Dursleys are totally, one-hundred percent Muggle. But nobody (until you just now) has ever thought to connect Lily, Petunia and Harry to the WW by Voldemort's Muggle father. One fly in the ointment, though. Tom Riddle Sr. came from a rich, landowning family. The Evanses and the Dursleys are patently middle-class. But they could be a impoverished sideshoot off the family, of course. Besides, it would be more logical that Voldemort inherited his Parseltongue ability from his mother's side (descendants of Slytherin himself after all, who was known for his Parseltongue) than from his Muggle father. If he inherited such an ability it must be a magic mutation and for such a mutation to strike twice within the same family must imo be very much a coincidence (but I'm not a geneticist or a statisticist). Also, I must admit that the whole 'you are a great wizard Harry because it's all in your Blood' idea gets a bit on my nerve since we've had sanctimonuously hammered home by the whole of fandom that the 'blood-purists' in the WW and their ideas that 'breeding outside of the talented genepool weakens the talent' is Wrong, Racist and whoever utters it would be just short of being the lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Satan. To suddenly suggest that Harry and Lily owe their powers to some blood-connection to Voldemort (it's all down to breeding, it's In His Blood, etc, etc) would suggest that the bloodpurists might have a point after all Still, I love the idea that Tom Riddle Sr. had lots of cousins and they had lots of children and suddenly Voldemort has loads of Muggle family he doesn't know (or care) about and there might be students in Hogwart who are blissfully unaware that they are related to the Dark Lord himself. Mwahah! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Fri Mar 30 02:02:17 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter Wagner) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:02:17 -0000 Subject: 101 "most" important remaining questions: pt. 1 of 101! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166899 A group of Harry Potter fans at a Tolkien discussion group who had way too much time on our hands this winter (due to a lot of airport delays for me!) put together a list of 101 outstanding questions raised by the books that (might) be answered in Deathly Hallows. The full details of the survey can be read here. However, the mods here requested that I post just one question a day, in order to keep this a discussion rather than just a survey! Note that we omit a lot of questions that fans raise:there is an important difference between, say, "what did James and Lily do for jobs?" and "Why did Dumbledore trust Snape?": the latter is an issue in the books, the former is not. For the most part, we have pursued a Chekovian philosophy: that is, we are asking about the literary guns that are still on the walls. However, we have thrown in questions that Rowling herself has introduced (e.g., late blooming wizards, the more-than-meets-the-eye Petunia, etc.) And we do have a few questons that dear old Anton might not have asked, but from which we could not restrain ourselves! To make it a survey, we came up with as many responses as we could find to the different questions, reflecting different common ideas. We have tried to remain cognizant of different ideas, and we include possible responses that none of us took seriously. However, there is no way that we got all of the ideas: that just is not possible. Still,we can kill many birds with one stone here (a favorite plot device of Rowlings!). We order the questions largely based on the characters or devices central to the question. So, the first group of questions center around (surprise, surprize!) Harry, the protagonist! The second group center around Voldemort, the antagonist. Then there is a batch about Snape: indeed, we had to edit to stop this from being a Snape survey. There are some questions about other secondary characters (Ron, Hermione, etc.) that come later, as well as questions about plot devices (Horcruxes, etc.). Note also that a lot of the questions are (possibly) related, and that the same answers can be used for many questions. For example, if you are fan of the hypothesis that Snape loved Lily, then you'll find that this is an answer to a lot of questions. If you are not a fan of that hypothesis, then you will have other options for those questions. So, for each question, first provide an answer. Let's say that you think that the answer to the first question is a). First enter"1. a"and then say "why". (Oh, and cut all of the reply stuff replicating this post: we do not need to see this posting replicated a dozen times!). So, I would give: ****************************************************** 1. a Dumbledore states in Chamber that Harry has a piece of Voldemort in him, and as Dumbledore is an outstanding theoretician, that's good enough for me. Sure, the link could be something else: but why invoke two explanations when one will do? (Yup, Chekov and Occam in one post.....) ****************************************************** Short answers are nice, by the way: just state exactly why you think what you do! Now, suppose that I was stuck between a & b. Then, answer: ****************************************************** 1. a/b. blah, blah blah..... ****************************************************** Finally, suppose that I thought that both a & b are correct. Then, I would answer: ****************************************************** 1. a b. blah, blah blah..... ****************************************************** With that, I give you the first question. Enjoy.... 1. The link between Harry and Voldemort is due to: a. the "bit" of Voldemort that is in Harry. b. a Protego Charm somehow cast there in the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. c. Lily's soul (or some essence thereof) split between the two from the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. d. Lily's soul (or some essence thereof)imprinted on the two from the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. e. something still different (but that will be clarified). f. something that will not be revealed. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 08:22:59 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's spy network (Was: AND AT THE END - POA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166900 > From Sherry and Alla: > (Carol's) > > 6. "Dumbledore, who was of course working tirelessly against You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. > Carol responds: Some spies noted, see Carol's post for details ;) Goddlefrood: There is of course another spy, one never betrayed by the duplicitous one. None other than Remus Lupin. He was an acknowledged spy on the werewolves, and with that soul of purity ;) Fenrir Greyback in charge, Remus must be quite good at it. > Carol, thanking Alla and Sherry for a topic that isn't the DH covers Goddlefrood: Concurring in this view. Many have expressed opinions on covers, time to move on to other matters, may I suggest? The analysis will come later ;) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 12:01:16 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:01:16 -0000 Subject: A Circular Route Back to Godric's Hollow for the End Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166901 The Long and Winding Road Back to Godric's Hollow There are several theorists ( and I'm sure you know who you are ;)) who postulate that the books reflect each other. Arguments about what reflects what have been a constant source of amusement for both theorists and the casual list reader, as well as analysts. Recently the vapours have cleared somewhat to me and I have discerned a number of patterns in the HP books. These I apprehend should be apparent and some may say, why had I not considered this. Well I'll lay a little of it before you for your edification. The clue this time, and my starting point for this post is 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." JKR's website, plain text link here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=62 This was said prior to HBP's release and IMHO is a big clue to the overall structure of the books. Let me clarify that by saying my interpretation of the books was thereby knocked into a cocked hat, so to speak. It led me to the title of this piece in that I formed the view that the story of Harry Potter is very much a circular one. It began due to what occurred at Godric's Hollow at the Potter's house on the night of 31st October - 1st November when Harry was just over a year old, and it will end there in DH with the final confrontation between he and Lord Voldemort. That is the view I have formed anyway. This is not to say that Harry will not visit Godric's Hollow elsewhere in DH. I posted a small piece on Dittany that got lost during the storm of book cover posts, it (my post) suggests that at some point Harry's scar will be healed using that plant. It is entitled Hats Off to JKR the Word Wizard and is uplist quite recently). If I am correct, then that post may explain the difference between the UK and the US covers recently revealed, in that Harry's cicatrix is not discernable on the US cover. My analysis of that is that the scene is of Harry and Voldemort behind the ruins of the Potter family home, but in front of a graveyard. The curved structure in the background that encloses the scene may be supposed to represent an aqueduct, but it is unlike any aqueduct of which I have cognizance (they tend to be straight and slightly tilted to take advantage of the force of gravity;)). This is my proposal now. Due to lack of time earlier, having been engaged in certain other HP related and non HP related matters, I propose to leave it there for now and hope that others, in discussion, can build further on this, if desired. My expansion remains in my head for now :). Only other clue is that Book 1 = Books 6 + 7 together ;) My initial clue is presented to you, there are others, I wonder if you can assist? Goddlefrood, whose vapours are now misting over and becoming clouded once more ;) From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 30 15:18:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:18:24 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Speaking of Aberforth... Message-ID: <17533922.1175267904072.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166902 From: justcarol67 >I think, however, that the most important of the spies (other than >Snape) will turn out to be Aberforth, whom I hope will enlighten Harry >with regard to the eavesdropping incident and more. (We never learned >the "thrilling tale" of Snape's saving DD from the ring Horcrux. Maybe >Aberforth--or Phineas Nigellus, who twice objects to Harry's >"impertinence" regarding Snape--will provide Harry those details.) Bart: I am still curious as to whether Aberforth's legal troubles were inspired by Marion Zimmer Bradley's Lythande. In one story in particular, Lythande enters a town where the biggest insult you could give anybody was to call them a "despoiler of young goats" (which turns out to be, humorously, of major significance later in the story). I have taken this phrase, for the past two decades, when I want to make an accusation that nobody will take seriously (especially good for examples). So, when I saw that Aberforth got into trouble for using inappropraite charms on goats, the phrase came to mind immediately. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 30 15:46:14 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:46:14 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uncle Tom? Message-ID: <4462331.1175269574521.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166903 From: Marion Ros > Also, I must admit that the whole 'you are a great wizard > Harry because it's all in your Blood' idea gets a bit on my > nerve since we've had sanctimonuously hammered home by the > whole of fandom that the 'blood-purists' in the WW and their > ideas that 'breeding outside of the talented genepool weakens > the talent' is Wrong, Racist and whoever utters it would be > just short of being the lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Satan. > To suddenly suggest that Harry and Lily owe their powers to > some blood-connection to Voldemort (it's all down to breeding, > it's In His Blood, etc, etc) would suggest that the bloodpurists > might have a point after all Bart: JKR really stacked the deck, here. I recall some interesting cryptogenetics going on here to try to figure out exactly how magic powers are inherited (so that wizards can appear, rarely, among muggles, squibs appear, rarely, among wizards, and one wizarding parent is sufficient for the child to have powers). The point is, however, that wizarding IS in the genes (if not literally in the blood), and is directly connected to wizarding. What is commonly called "race" (a concept which, by the way, did not even exist until about the 16th century in Europe; before that, and in other countries, bigotry was based on nationality, not what is called "race") is highly superficial, with the genes related to it being only a small portion of our whole genetic makeup and almost entirely disconnected from non-superficial characteristics. It has been said that there is as much genetic variation among the dwellers of the Kalahari desert as there is in the U.N. The point is that, while bigotry against Muggles and Squibs (and intelligent non-humans) is being depicted as wrong, it is because they are intelligent (and presumably ensouled) life forms, not because of magical power. Remember, eugenics failed not because you can't selectively breed for certain characteristics, but because life is sufficiently complex that one cannot determine what a desirable or undesirable characteristic IS. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 16:34:59 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:59 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166904 "lupinlore" wrote: > I don't believe he really gave much away. For the very first time a human being other than JKR has read book 7 and commented on it, and he said he was sobbing, not crying, not tearing up a little, but sobbing; I believe that has some significance. As the interviewer said, that must mean a character we readers love dies, nobody is going to get very choked up if Argus Filch dies. What character do we readers love above any other? > That actually bodes well in a lot of ways. Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me. > if Harry dies the price of hit men will > go through the roof, since JKR will have > two publishing companies and a major > studio putting out contracts on her I don't see why, some of the most successful works in literature and cinema have ended with a dead hero, Hamlet, Oedipus Rex, The 300, and Titanic. "rduran1216" rduran1216 at ... Wrote: > I think its pretty clear that > Hagrid is going to die. I would say there is a 40% chance that Hagrid will die and a 80% chance that Harry will die. I would also say that if Harry lives then Ginny dies and if Harry dies then Ginny lives; In addition Ron and Hermione will either both live or both die, they will not be split up. Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Mar 30 16:49:36 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:49:36 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166905 Lupinlore: > > I don't believe he really gave much away. Eggplant: > For the very first time a human being other than JKR has read book 7 > and commented on it, and he said he was sobbing, not crying, not > tearing up a little, but sobbing; I believe that has some > significance. Magpie: I think it means the series is over and so are the stories of all the characters. "Emotional" does not have to mean that the main character dies. We know people in the book do die, and that will no doubt be part of the emotional-ness, but I agree with Lupinlore he didn't give much away. Harry could go off to have 12 children with Ginny and it would still probably cause people to cry. Maybe also because on a personal note, I have seen Arthur Levine sob, and nobody had died. -m From lydiafrench at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 13:23:04 2007 From: lydiafrench at gmail.com (fireflyseason2) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:23:04 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: <001201c772a0$12551c50$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166906 Marion Ros wrote: > Oooohhhh... good point!! > JKR must be laughing her head off. Every time somebody asked her if there might be a possibility that one of Lily's parents were perhaps Squibs or something, just so they could link Lily to the Wizarding World, JKR has answered that the Evanses and the Dursleys are totally, one-hundred percent Muggle. But nobody (until you just now) has ever thought to connect Lily, Petunia and Harry to the WW by Voldemort's Muggle father. > > Besides, it would be more logical that Voldemort inherited his Parseltongue ability from his mother's side (descendants of Slytherin himself after all, who was known for his Parseltongue) than from his Muggle father. > > Also, I must admit that the whole 'you are a great wizard Harry because it's all in your Blood' idea gets a bit on my nerve since we've had sanctimonuously hammered home by the whole of fandom that the 'blood-purists' in the WW and their ideas that 'breeding outside of the talented genepool weakens the talent' is Wrong, Racist and whoever utters it would be just short of being the lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Satan. To suddenly suggest that Harry and Lily owe their powers to some blood-connection to Voldemort (it's all down to breeding, it's In His Blood, etc, etc) would suggest that the bloodpurists might have a point after all << Firefly: Hmmm, it's true that the parsletongue ability, if it were to be considered "handed down", would have to come from Tom's mother's side. Ok then, it may be simply their looks that Harry inherited from the muggle side. However, as Dumbledore mentions, Tom did pass on certain of his powers while trying to curse him, unintentionally of course, but the reason something like that could happen was because of the blood link between them from the muggle side of their family. Dumbledore alludes to something like that at least 2 times in my estimation. In COS, which JKR has said is a book that is very important to understanding the whole, he mentions that Lord Voldemort chose Harry over Neville, in part because, like himself, Harry was a half-blood. Also, JKR has made a great deal of the fact that the blood link on Harry's muggle side is powerful enough magic in and of itself to protect Harry (by calling Privot drive "home" as a child). Also, the "accidental" yet permanent passing of powers from one wizard to another, especially one you hate and are trying to kill is surely very rare if not unique to Harry and Tom's case. The reason for it must be pivotal. I don't agree with your picture of the blood line issue, however. I think the only ethical point we are to take from the books is "Do not presume to know a person's abilities or worth based strictly on their bloodline. Judge each person as an individual." However, it seems to me that JKR still places huge value in true blood relationships. Thanks for answering! From va32h at comcast.net Fri Mar 30 17:35:42 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:35:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's happy sacrifice (was Re: The editor was sobbing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kristin1778" wrote: > > Lots of us think Harry will have to make a sacrifice. Some people > think he'll lose his magic, others think he'll have to leave the > wizarding world. I kind of suspect Rowling would see both of those > things as more tragic for Harry than actually dying. In Harry's > universe, at least, there is an afterlife, you do go on. If Harry > dies, he'll be reunited with Dumbledore, Sirius, and his parents, and > in the fullness of time Ron and Hermione will join him. He'd be at > peace, and he'd finally have his family. In the epilogue she'd let us > know that his friends miss him, but appreciate that they are alive > because of his sacrifice and are helping each other to go on with > their lives. Now, I will be sobbing my eyes out over such an ending, > but I don't think Rowling would want us to see it as an unhappy ending to va32h here: I'm sorry, but I have always absolutely hated this notion that it will be wonderful and noble for Harry to die at age 17 and spend eternity with mum and dad. Is this any teenagers idea of heaven? Perhaps 11 year old Harry, who longed for nothing but his family around him, would consider such an afterlife pure paradise, but 17 year old Harry, with friends, and a love relationship and hopes, and a future - no, no, no, returning him to a state of infantile angel is not a happy ending, and I simply cannot conceive of JKR thinking so. She is a parent. Healthy parents want their children to grow up and lead happy lives, they do not want their children to remain in a childlike state forever. Harry does not even know his parents. He doesn't even really know Sirius. He loves them of course, but he belongs in the world of the living, of Ron and Hermione, of the future. Too many HP characters are mired in the past, Harry should not be one fo them. When Dumbledore spoke of death as a next great adventure, he was speaking in reference to Nicolas Flamel - someone who had lived a very long life indeed. That one sentence of Dumbledore's has been extrapolated to mean that Dumbledore thinks everyone should cheerfully embrace death. One can be unafraid of death, and still not want to die. That Harry is willing to die is enough. va32h From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 17:56:00 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:56:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: <20070330003056.65156.qmail@web55411.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <20070330003056.65156.qmail@web55411.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470703301056l4d4dc121ud14bc699e0d76905@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166908 Tandra > wrote: >Is it just me or is the scar not visible on the cover of the new book. >I blew it up and everything. I don't see it. Think that means something? > >T Dondee: It's there but it looks like a wisp of hair. If you use something like Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and really zoom in on Harry's face you'll see it. Cheers, Dondee ========================= Jeremiah: Yes, Dondee. It is there. I read this and said, "What?" So, I looked and the US and UK covers. It is definitely there. A big old lightning bolt scar... on both covers... So, no. It doesn't mean anything. :( Sorry, Tandra. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Mar 30 19:52:16 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:52:16 -0700 Subject: Dress robes? References: <20070330003056.65156.qmail@web55411.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <948bbb470703301056l4d4dc121ud14bc699e0d76905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001f01c77304$eb1f29e0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166909 On the UK Kids cover art, Ron is in green robes, and Hermione is in purple. Both her and Ron's robes make me think they were at a dress robe event. But what could that event be? Are they taking off right after the wedding of Ron's brother to Fleur? Does the action happen that fast in this book? Exciting possibilities! Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 19:00:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:00:43 -0000 Subject: 101 "most" important remaining questions: pt. 1 of 101! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166910 Peter Wagner wrote: > 1. The link between Harry and Voldemort is due to: > a. the "bit" of Voldemort that is in Harry. > b. a Protego Charm somehow cast there in the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. > c. Lily's soul (or some essence thereof) split between the two from the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. > d. Lily's soul (or some essence thereof)imprinted on the two from the backlash of Lily's sacrifice. > e. something still different (but that will be clarified). > f. something that will not be revealed. Carol responds: I think we can firmly rule out choice f. JKR won't leave something this important unrevealed. There is no canon for c or d, so I would rule them out as well. I used to believe that Lily (whose first wand was "a nice wand for Charm work") placed a protective spell on Harry before her death, symbolized by a scar shaped by an eihwaz rune, but Protegos don't protect against AKs and JKR seems to think that the sacrifice is what's important. Moreover, nothing that Lily did would connect Harry to Voldemort; it would only protect him *from* Voldemort. That leaves us with a and e. Canon suggests that the AK that failed connected Harry with Voldemort and gave him some of Voldemort's powers. Note that once he regained a body, Voldemort still retained his full powers, despite having split off at least four parts of his soul through the creation of four previous Horcruxes. That suggests to me that powers do not reside in soul bits. If they did, Voldie's powers would be severely diminished. So the powers Harry acquired, including the link to Voldie, seem to relate to the spell Voldie cast (IMO, cast out of him by his mother's blood protection) but *not* to a soul bit. So I suppose that qualifies as part a, part e. IMO, any "bit" or "part" of Voldie that's in Harry is not a soul fragment, nor is Harry a Horcrux. Carol, noting that by her standards, this *is* a short answer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 19:24:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:24:22 -0000 Subject: A Circular Route Back to Godric's Hollow for the End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166911 Goddlefrood wrote: > > The Long and Winding Road Back to Godric's Hollow > > There are several theorists ( and I'm sure you know who you > are ;)) who postulate that the books reflect each other. > > > It led me to the title of this piece in that I formed the view > that the story of Harry Potter is very much a circular one. It > began due to what occurred at Godric's Hollow at the Potter's > house on the night of 31st October - 1st November when Harry was > just over a year old, and it will end there in DH with the final > confrontation between he and Lord Voldemort. That is the view I > have formed anyway. This is not to say that Harry will not visit > Godric's Hollow elsewhere in DH. > My analysis of that is that the scene is of Harry and Voldemort > behind the ruins of the Potter family home, but in front of a > graveyard. The curved structure in the background that encloses > the scene may be supposed to represent an aqueduct, but it is > unlike any aqueduct of which I have cognizance (they tend to be > straight and slightly tilted to take advantage of the force of > gravity;)). Carol responds: Godric's Hollow is a partially or mostly Muggle village (Hogsmeade is the only all-wizard village in Britain). Consequently, IMO, any graveyard in Godric's Hollow (which I've always imagined to be in Wales) would resemble that in Little Hangleton, which we encountered in GoF. HBP mentions a village church in Little Hangleton; perhaps Harry was baptized in a similar church in Godric's Hollow--depending, of course, on how long the Potters were living there before the Fidelius Charm was cast. In any case, I see no reason to imagine a Roman ruin in Godric's Hollow, much less a Roman graveyard. Nor, IIRC, did the Romans bury their dead in anything resembling this circular structures with its many archways. They used underground catacombs, to my knowledge. (I wouldn't be surprised to find something of that sort at Hogwarts, but not at Godric's Hollow.) To me, the backdrop GrandPre's painting looks very much like the coliseum in Rome: http://www.jonathanstephens.com/italy-large/Coliseum%20Rome%20Italy.jpg Harry mentally compares himself to a gladiator entering the arena (HBP Am. ed. 512), and to me, that's exactly what the round, arched building suggests: an amphitheater or arena. The shadowy spectators I take to be shades of the dead, probably Voldemort's victims, interested in the outcome but powerless to help or hinder it. Whether the Veil is involved or not, I have trouble deciding. (Not that the Veil itself has any powers; it's only a covering for the archway leading into what I take to be the realm of the dead or the afterlife.) At any rate, I agree with Goddlefrood that the backdrop is not an aqueduct, but I disagree that it has anything to do with Godric's Hollow, where I expect to see the ruins of a cottage and two ordinary tombstones, possibly triggering some useful memory. Carol, still about half-convinced that the final confrontation will take place in the DoM but unable to fully reconcile that idea with GrandPre's cover art From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Mar 30 20:17:15 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:17:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Covers References: Message-ID: <005101c77308$68f88ac0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166912 > inufan_625 > 5.US- Around Harry's neck looks like the Slytherin locket from the UK > adults cover to me, or perhaps the fake locket. I know everyone has interpreted the thing around Harry's neck as a locket, but my son and I agree that it looks more like a small bag. It has too much of a "fish" look with a split tail, and this to me is the top part of a bag. A locket wouldn't have that top part- it would just be attached to the chain with a loop or wire or a whole in the locket itself. What would be in that bag is much a mystery to me, but it makes more sence than Harry carrying around a Horcrux. Then again, why was Dumbledore wearing that Ring!Horcrux before he was able to destroy it's contents, other than to make sure it didn't disappear? Is the are any power to wearing or using a Horcrux before it's destroyed? Did Dumbledore some how use the "power of the ring" before he destroyed the Ring!Horcrux? We know the Diary!Horcrux had powers- in controlling people, the Chamber of Secrets was opened again, and havoc unleashed. That Horcrux required a "life force" to enable the Horcrux, and we know that Ginny nearly died so that Voldemort could achieve his means. Part of that wonders if part of the Ring!Horcrux was used, as Dumbledore's arm (lower part with the hand was dead). What did Dumbledore gain? All this makes me wonder what Harry has in store for him to destroy these objects, as they can't be that easy to just remove those deadly powers. Shelley From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 20:09:09 2007 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:09:09 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166913 Does anyone think the image of the snake in the glass ball on the UK Children's cover resembles a Prophecy Orb? Could we expect another gem from Prof. Trelawney, perhaps leading Harry to a show down with Voldemort? After all ... third time's the charm ;) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 30 20:12:51 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:12:51 -0000 Subject: AND AT THE END - POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166914 All questions from Alla and Sherry: > 2. > Do you believe that we will learn something different than what was > described in this quote about muggles prosecuting wizards and if > yes, what wider implications it may have for the end of it all? Jen: JKR said there will be 'some' about the Founders and that could mean info about the beginning of Hogwarts and the split. Maybe this would include an explanation for how Slytherin's interest in teaching children from only magical families morphed into the pure-blood idealology? More likely will be information re: individual founders through the course of searching for and destroying the Horcruxes, and the younger generation attempting to work together and to start healing the divide. > 4. Weasleys went to Egypt. There was a lot of speculation that > Egypt would be significant in some way later on. Can we still expect > it with one book left? Jen: I was looking forward to more about Egypt! Now my hopes have waned. Dumbledore didn't mention Egypt being significant to Voldemort and that sounds like the driving force for Harry traveling anywhere in DH besides Godric's Hollow. > 5. Would we ever learn what Remus was doing in those twelve > years before he came to Hogwarts? And why his friends thought he was the spy? I suspect we will learn more about his life via his connection to Lily. I'm picturing Harry going to GH, starting to wonder about his mum and the time period after he was born. Lupin is the one who can fill in at least some of the missing pieces, and in the course of talking about Lily (and James) he will likely tell more information about his own life. > 7. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told > Dumbledore that Black would die rather than 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." > > Would we ever learn why James and Lily refused DD's offer to be > their secret keeper? Jen: It's hard to imagine why not DD except we wouldn't have our story, heh. I'm guessing their reasoning was something along the lines of how important Dumbledore was to the entire cause and how having him as a targeted SK would make it difficult for him to work for the entire WW. Arguably protecting Harry *would* be safeguaring the WW after LV chose to target him. Was it purely and simply trusting Sirius' loyalty so completely and wanting to keep it among friends and intimates? > 9. Trelawney made a true prophecy in PoA. If we are to believe > DD it was her second true prediction. Would any other predictions of > hers come true in book 7? Jen: I'd like some of them to come true, the one about Harry living happily ever after specifcially (well except 12 kids, egad--good luck Ginny!). I'm still trying to figure out what JKR is saying about Divination in general throughout the series. The prophecies are merely predictions in the sense of being self-fulfilling, albeit much more dramatic than the ones Trelawney throws out in class. I'm thinking the big dramatic Trelawney prediction was the card reading with the lightning-struck tower, so there won't be another big piece on her predictions. > 10. "If you ever need me, send a word, your owl would find me." > > JKR indicated that there was another reason for Sirius to die > besides for Harry to continue journey alone. Would we learn of that > in book 7? Jen: I've wondered myself right out of speculation on this one. Although the curtain thingys on the front cover of the Scholastic DH did cause me to think more about Harry going behind the Veil. > 11. I was thinking about what Dementors will be doing in book 7 > and in the famous description that Remus gives to Harry one phrase > suddenly struck me as strange: > > "If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you > to something like itself... soul-less and evil." ? POA, ch.10. > > So, what are the effects of the Dementor feeding on someone NOT long > enough? Jen: Wouldn't that be explained by the people in Azkaban? People are left with just the 'worst' parts of themselves and their lives. I guess that could lead to a person becoming evil even though the story doesn't present the possibility with a clear example: The good people who go to Azkaban remain good and the bad have remained bad. Unless Crouch Jr. really was innocent and it seems a little late to go back to his story. (Although I've always wondered what happened to him; is his body in St. Mungo's now?) > 12. How does the famous Life debt works? How it will play out in > final confrontation? No direct comment although I did run across this quote in the TLC/MN interview and read it in a slightly different way than my first reading: 'A: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two? JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would.' Jen: I wonder if she was diverting attention from an important part of the plot in DH or she switched to talking about the entire plot given all the questions she was being asked at the time? It almost reads like the mention of life debts ties into the 'whole thing', i.e. the plot of book 7, in her mind. > 13. In OOTP, we learn that DD has written in the past to Petunia. > Could the aunt Marge incident have been a time when Vernon wanted to > throw out Harry and DD intervened? If so, will the fact of some type of > correspondence between DD and Petunia have some significance for the > last book? Jen: Significant, yes, although since 'remember my last' referred to the letter left on the doorstep then it would be letters prior to that one. I'm hoping for a box of letters under the creaky stair that Petunia will hand over to Harry when she hears Dumbledore died. I expect even she knows enough about the WW to feel fear for her family at the news and would hope Harry might offer some protection. Thanks for the questions, Alla & Sherry, now I want to go back and read POA again. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 20:21:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:21:01 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166915 Eggplant wrote: > For the very first time a human being other than JKR has read book 7 > and commented on it, and he said he was sobbing, not crying, not > tearing up a little, but sobbing; I believe that has some > significance. As the interviewer said, that must mean a character we > readers love dies, nobody is going to get very choked up if Argus > Filch dies. What character do we readers love above any other? Carol responds: He said he was "sobbing" because "it's a very emotional book"--carefully evading the question, "that means somebody we like dies, doesn't it?" We already *know* that "somebody we like" is going to die, not including those two previously unplanned deaths (the weasley Twins)? Personally, I think the "somebody we like" is someone JKR likes, probably Hagrid. There's no reason to think that it's Harry. In contrast to the interviewer, who for some reason thinks Harry is going to die ("It doesn't look good for Harry), I think the cover looks very good for Harry. He looks hopeful and expectant, reaching out for whatever is coming, in contrast to Voldemort, who appears to be shielding himself from it. (Of course, the interviewer hadn't yet seen the full spread when she made her muttered comment, which, IMO, merely reflects her preconceptions, not anything in the artwork itself.) Regarding "sobbing." As Levine said, it's bound to be "a very emotional book," and many scenes that make readers cry (going by my own reactions and those others have shared with me) don't involve death or are related not to the death itself but to other people's reactions. I do cry for Cedric, but I also cry (sob) for his mother, whose grief is too deep for tears. I cry at other moments that I find moving, a few silly tears when Ron and Harry make up after their argument in GoF, tears of something like sadness and anticipated loss when Dumbledore says, "I'm not afraid, Harry. I'm with you" (where's that box of Kleenex?). I didn't cry for Dumbleore's death (I was in shock and worried about Snape), but I cried when Mrs. Weasley and Fleur had their moment of understanding in Bill's hospital room. Tears and sobs don't have to relate to death. (Which is not to say that I don't expect a character I care about to die. If it's Snape, I may go into a depression for two weeks like I did when I first read about Gandalf falling into the abyss. Okay, I was fifteen then, so maybe not.) What I'm trying to say is that "a very emotional book" does not translate to a lot of characters we like dying, much less to Harry's death at the end. A few deaths spread through the book and a number of other moving moments, including quite possibly the revelation of Snape's loyalties or of what happened at Godric's Hollow, in addition to the sense that Levine also clearly had that we'll be saying good-bye to all these characters regardless of what happens to them in DH, is more than sufficient explanation for Levine's "sobbing," IMO. And good for him for not answering that interviewer's questions or responding to her innuendoes. I agree with Lupinlore that he gave absolutely nothing away. Eggplant: > some of the most successful works in literature and cinema have ended with a dead hero, Hamlet, Oedipus Rex, The 300, and Titanic. Carol responds: I haven't seen "The 300," but I understand that it's about battle on an epic scale. Of course, lots of people are going to die. "Hamlet" and "Oedipus Rex" are tragedies. Of course, the hero is going to die, as the result of his own tragic flaw. That's a requirement of the genre. "Titanic" is, well, an exploitation of a historical event in which we know that many people are going to die. It combines a love story with "tragedy" (in the debased sense that a main character dies), rather like "West Side Story," which in turn is based on "Romeo and Juliet," which would be a romantic comedy if it weren't for the ending and a few other deaths along the way. The Harry Potter books are not tragedy, nor are they the cinematic exploitation of a tragic event. The genres I see are Bildungsroman (in the form of boarding school story), mystery novel/detective story, and heroic quest, none of which requires the protagonist to die (or even go off to the Undying Lands to be healed). JKR is certainly taking advantage of the *possibility* that Harry may die to create suspense. Some readers, like that interviewer, are actually hoping for his death or taking it for granted. JKR, however, is very fond of Harry, and my sense is that she feels almost guilty for subjecting him to so much suffering. I would not be at all surprised if she rewards him at the end with the happy ending he himself would like best--a normal wizarding life with the woman of his dreams. The good guy gets the girl. Yes, I know it's trite (and somewhat sexist in the view of some readers), but killing off the hero is equally hackneyed. I'm much more interested in seeing him defeat Voldemort without dying himself, even if it's the result of Fawkes saving the day as deus ex machina. Carol, who always expected Harry to survive and is still more convinced by both the cover art and the Levine interview From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Mar 30 20:27:41 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 101 Message-ID: <14106525.1175286461648.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 166916 From: justcarol67 >Note that once he regained a body, Voldemort still retained >his full powers, Bart: Didn't retain; regained his former power level (and more, if Prof. Cookingsherry's prophecy is to be believed). Old philosophical question: You have a wooden ship. You take off one board at a time, and replace it with a new board. Then you take all the old boards, and put them together in the same design. Which is the original ship? Voldemort did not get his original body back; he got a new one. Therefore, why couldn't he have also gotten new powers, to go with it? Bart From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 20:30:02 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:30:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Covers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0703301330g424fbd0at4d4921633b7a02cf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166917 lorien_eve@: I don't think that this is behind the Veil. Lynda: I don't think the cover is depicting something behind the Veil either. It looks to me like an outdoor venue. That's just the impression I get. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 18:56:10 2007 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:56:10 -0000 Subject: Can't see Harry's Scar?? In-Reply-To: <948bbb470703301056l4d4dc121ud14bc699e0d76905@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166918 > Jeremiah: > Yes, Dondee. It is there. I read this and said, "What?" > So, I looked and the US and UK covers. It is definitely there. A big old > lightning bolt scar... on both covers... > So, no. It doesn't mean anything. :( Sorry, Tandra. Tandra: You really can't see it on the US cover. I did look at it on the Scholastic site where you can move the magnifying glass around and just don't see it. I'll look real close when I get my copy I guess. I know it's there on the UK cover. It's plain as day on that one. From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Fri Mar 30 20:55:11 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter J. Wagner) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:55:11 -0000 Subject: 101 "most" important remaining questions: pt. 1 of 101! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166919 Carol: > That leaves us with a and e. Canon suggests that the AK that failed > connected Harry with Voldemort and gave him some of Voldemort's > powers. Note that once he regained a body, Voldemort still retained > his full powers, despite having split off at least four parts of his > soul through the creation of four previous Horcruxes. That suggests to > me that powers do not reside in soul bits. If they did, Voldie's > powers would be severely diminished. So the powers Harry acquired, > including the link to Voldie, seem to relate to the spell Voldie cast > (IMO, cast out of him by his mother's blood protection) but *not* to a > soul bit. So I suppose that qualifies as part a, part e. IMO, any > "bit" or "part" of Voldie that's in Harry is not a soul fragment, nor > is Harry a Horcrux. Peter: Just to clarify for future respondents, in this case, the response is a, not a or e. Note that this question does NOT specify which bit of Voldemort it is! It could be soul, it could be his big toe-nail! Thus, Carol chose a bit of Voldemort. The issue of what the bit of Voldemort is the next question! There is no canon for c or d, or b for that matter. (We have no indication that Protean charms do anything other than modify shapes from afar.) However, these all are hypotheses that Harry Potter fans have generated. Therefore, we included these alternatives. Indeed, the fact that there are Protean charms and souls in Potterverse makes these hypotheses much better entrenched in the canon than many ideas! Oh, and just for clarification: Voldemort states that he settled for his own body. Yes, it is "new," but, hey, this is magic. He also states that he could not restore himself because he needed a wand to do that, and as Vapourmort, he could not use one. Given what happens, Voldemort's loss of his powers came from losing his ability to access most of them: he could still do magical things like possess, break memory charms and speak Parseltongue, but he could not do things requiring a wand. Think of it as having a bank account full of money but having no ATM card or identification: yes, you still have the money, but until you find a way to access it, you have effectively lost it. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 21:34:32 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:34:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: References: <001201c772a0$12551c50$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <2795713f0703301434k35588310i25dde4115ae0e48e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166920 firefly: Ever since I was convinced by a paper on Mugglenet.comthat Harry could not, in fact be a Horcrux, I've had an idea brewing in my head. There is no denying Tom Riddle/Voldemort and Harry Potter have many similarities now. Both being Parseltongues, for example. However, we have been led to assume it all came from/after Tom's attack on Harry. Lynda: I never have assumed this. I read enough to fantasy/SF/mystery to know better than to assume such a thing and have been in fact, more than a little bemused by what seems to be many peoples' assumption that many of Harry's abilities are strictly due to the attack from Voldie when he was a baby. To me that leaves too many questions unanswered. But then again I may be barking up the wrong tree here. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From homeboys at comcast.net Fri Mar 30 22:23:40 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:23:40 -0000 Subject: AND AT THE END - POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166921 >From Sherry and Alla: JKR indicated that there was another reason for Sirius to die besides for Harry to continue journey alone. Would we learn of that in book 7? Adesa: Do you happen to have JKR's quote on this? I've not heard it before. TIA~ Adesa in Virginia From homeboys at comcast.net Fri Mar 30 22:42:46 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:42:46 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166922 firefly: What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that perhaps Harry's muggle mother's family and Tom's muggle father's side of the family could be connected. Does anyone recall if the books mention the color of Tom's father's eyes? A large point is made of the fact that Harry has his mothers brilliant green eyes and even JKR has said that is important. I'm thinking that if they were related by blood that could also explain why Tom's curse on Harry back fired so badly. What do you think? Adesa: I've been thinking the same thing, for years! Ever since that scene in CoS, I've thought it odd that JKR would have Riddle mention their physical similarities. Going back to CoS and HBP now, in search of Riddle Sr.'s eye color... Adesa in Virginia From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 18:42:30 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:42:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's happy sacrifice (was Re: The editor was sobbing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > va32h here: > > I'm sorry, but I have always absolutely hated this notion that it > will be wonderful and noble for Harry to die at age 17 and spend > eternity with mum and dad. Is this any teenagers idea of heaven? > > Perhaps 11 year old Harry, who longed for nothing but his family > around him, would consider such an afterlife pure paradise, but 17 > year old Harry, with friends, and a love relationship and hopes, and > a future - no, no, no, returning him to a state of infantile angel is > not a happy ending, and I simply cannot conceive of JKR thinking so. > Well, I suppose some people might say that JKR isn't interested in a happy ending. . That may be the case, but it will certainly send the future sales of her books and rentals of the movies (and the viewership of the last two movies) through the floor, -- hence Bloomsbury, Scholastic, and Warner Bros going thirdsies on a hit man. Putin seems to be scarfing up everybody with KGB experience, but there are probably plenty of talented ex-STASI types out there, :-). Actually, I have always thought that JKR is being at the very least disingenuous when she claims to be writing for herself and not caring if she only has seven readers left, etc. I suspect she cares very, very much. Besides, I agree that the Angel!Harry ending would be a cop out (not to mention totally over the top in a Dickensian fashion, and I don't mean that in a good way), and the Magicless!Harry ending would be just plain silly. Maybe all of Hogwarts could just "ascend." Wait, wrong series -- I guess it's all the talk of Stargates on the book covers. Lupinlore, who believes it was Mark Twain who said of Dickens, "Who can read the death of Little Nell and not laugh?" And who answers, "Maybe anyone who can read OOTP and not roll their eyes." From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 23:26:56 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:26:56 -0000 Subject: AND AT THE END - POA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166924 All numbered paragraphs are from Alla and Sherry: 1. In the first paragraph of PoA we learn that Harry really wanted to do his homework but was not allowed to by Dursleys. Foreshadowing of Harry's academic effort or is it unlikely given one book left? Ceridwen: Unlikely, in my opinion. I think this was just to remind readers of the Dursleys' aversion to and poor treatment of Harry. What guardians these days don't want their charges to do their homework? Only stupid, illogical, cartoonish sorts like the Dursleys. 2. *(snipping example)* Do you believe that we will learn something different than what was described in this quote about muggles prosecuting wizards and if yes, what wider implications it may have for the end of it all? Ceridwen: I'm not sure if we'll ever hear anything else about this. If we do, then I would expect it to explain the beginnings of Pureblood Supremacy and Slytherin's choice of students for his house. 4. Weasleys went to Egypt. There was a lot of speculation that Egypt would be significant in some way later on. Can we still expect it with one book left? Ceridwen: It depends on what you're willing to think of as being significant. I think that Bill's time in Egypt as a curse-breaker will have some bearing on his place in the story, and he may even make references to what he did in Egypt. The magic used in the ancient tombs might have been used by LV to protect his Horcruxes, or magic based on that more ancient magic, which would call for Bill's expertise. But I don' t think we'll be following Harry to Egypt. 5. Would we ever learn what Remus was doing in those twelve years before he came to Hogwarts? Ceridwen: I'd like to know what Remus was up to, and why his bag said "Prof." in fading letters if that was his first year teaching. At this point, though, I don't think we'll get anything outside of interviews or a summary if it doesn't have anything to do with the story in DH. Though, the fading letters, if not merely for atmosphere to show how poor he was (couldn't even get good engraving on his suitcase, yes, a joke), might be a clue to something, perhaps to Remus having been a spy with the werewolves, or tutor for werewolf children who also had an ear out for information or contacts from the werewolf population. 6. *(snipping example)* Would we ever learn the identities of Dumbledore's other spies? If the answer is yes, would they be of some use in book 7? Ceridwen: I think we already know of others besides Snape. Dumbledore indicated that he gets information from the barkeepers of Hogsmeade, and I expect that the barman at the Hogshead does more than mention things casually over a pint. ;) Remus was a spy with the werewolves in HBP and may have had the same job (maybe "deep cover" with story of treachery, which was why, it is speculated, Sirius and the Potters didn't trust him as SK). I think that Mundungus Fletcher is a spy among thieves and other shady people who keep more to Knockturn Alley than the Hogshead, and I think he may have purposely gotten into Azkaban (now sans Dementors) to overhear talk between or from the imprisoned Ministry Raiders. I go back and forth to Percy being set up in the Ministry to gather information and/or keep an eye on known DE contacts there: today I think he may be. And yes, any spies still active will be useful in DH. 7. Would we ever learn why James and Lily refused DD's offer to be their secret keeper? Ceridwen: I think we'll find out the significant things from that time period. It's important to the backstory of the book and to an understanding of how things went so wrong. The Potters didn't have to die. It was a series of mistakes, culminating with Pettigrew's treachery, that got them in a position to be killed. We'll need to learn something about GH, and the SK situation, in my opinion. 8. How did Remus learn what Sirius wanted to happen on Prank night? Would that ever be important? Come to think of it, would Shrieking shack play a part in book 7 again? Ceridwen: I've heard a lot of speculation about how Remus might have heard, and when. Personally, I think that James told him, or made Sirius tell him, after James saved Snape's life. No matter what Sirius intended, this wasn't a prank, it was endangering lives and futures - Snape's and James's lives, and Remus's future if not his life as well. I can't imagine James, who seems to have been both a prankster and outgoing, not telling Remus, or making sure he was told, and as soon Remus could stand to hear the news. Who knew, at the time, what the consequences might be? It would only be right to tell Remus. And, I expect that at least Sirius and James got into some sort of trouble over it, Sirius more than James. Remus would have to have known something was up, and may have been told then, if he wasn't before. But, I think James would have told him as soon as possible. 9. Trelawney made a true prophecy in PoA. If we are to believe DD it was her second true prediction. Would any other predictions of hers come true in book 7? Ceridwen: I don't think Trelawney's a fraud as much as she's insecure with such a capricious talent. She tries to force it, and so makes bogus predictions. But, if you look at it like photography, there are a lot of horrible pics taken in order to get a saleable one. When she is just turning cards over in HBP, her predictions seem to come true, though she argues with her inner muse or higher power or whatever it is that guides this talent. I don't know if any of her predictions will be important in DH, but it might be funny if one did. I think some of her predictions will play out in the epilogue, but only the ones made on the spur of the moment, not the ones she uses to try and impress (agreeing with Jen: poor Ginny!) Very nice questions! Very nice! Thanks for the hard work! Ceridwen. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Mar 30 23:39:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:39:51 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166925 > firefly: > What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that perhaps Harry's muggle mother's family and Tom's muggle father's side of the family > could be connected. Does anyone recall if the books mention the color of Tom's father's eyes? > Adesa: > I've been thinking the same thing, for years! Ever since that scene in CoS, I've thought it odd that JKR would have Riddle mention their physical similarities. Goddlefrood: It seems that perhaps your thoughts are on the wrong track. I form this view due to this: "Question: Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother? J.K. Rowling responds: I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it?" >From "About the Books: transcript of J.K. Rowling's live interview on Scholastic.com," Scholastic.com, 16 October 2000. The full transcript can be found here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm My opinion relative to the noted similarities between Harry and Tom Riddle is simply that it is being used to emphasise that people who start out in life similarly, do not always end up the same ;) Harry and LV, as he is currently in the books, could be fairly said to be polar opposites, and it really would be far too Star Wars, as JKR herself said all thos years ago :) Goddlefrood, with a quick pint, but who will be back later to address a misapprehension in respect of his GH theory by, well, you know who you are ;) From kat7555 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 00:49:22 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:49:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's happy sacrifice (was Re: The editor was sobbing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166926 va32h wrote: > I'm sorry, but I have always absolutely hated this notion that it > will be wonderful and noble for Harry to die at age 17 and spend > eternity with mum and dad. Is this any teenagers idea of heaven? > > One can be unafraid of death, and still not want to die. > > That Harry is willing to die is enough. I think Harry would feel like a failure if he died without killing Voldemort. Voldemort would love to kill or torture anyone Harry ever cared about. The wizarding world would become a very dark place if Harry does not succeed. I think Harry doesn't want the deaths of those who have gone before him to be in vain. KathyK From andie1 at earthlink.net Sat Mar 31 01:49:08 2007 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:49:08 -0000 Subject: Book Cover/Prophecy Orb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Molinari" wrote: > > Does anyone think the image of the snake in the glass ball on the UK > Children's cover resembles a Prophecy Orb? Could we expect another gem > from Prof. Trelawney, perhaps leading Harry to a show down with > Voldemort? After all ... third time's the charm ;) > It certainly does... although my thoughts surround some mystery with Nagini being an animagus. I can find all the maurauders on that cover somewhere - Peter (in Nagini's body), Sirius (behind Nagini's shoulder), Lupin (to the bottom left of the full moon), and James (in Patronus form). I wonder if that means that Nagini has something in common with them... Animagus or something else entirely perhaps. grinideloe From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 01:55:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:55:12 -0000 Subject: The ring and locket Horcruxes (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: <005101c77308$68f88ac0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166928 Shelley wrote: > I know everyone has interpreted the thing around Harry's neck as a locket, but my son and I agree that it looks more like a small bag. What would be in that bag is much a mystery to me, but it makes more sence than Harry carrying around a Horcrux. Carol responds: Well, possibly Harry is wearing some sort of amulet, but for now, I'll stay with the Slytherin locket, which is at least canonical--and prominently featured on the Bloomsbury adult cover. Possibly it looks rather dead because it's been de-Horcruxed. I think it makes perfect sense to wear a former Horcrux to confront its maker. What a beautiful taunt to Voldemort that would be. (The locket does seem overly large, I agree, but I think GrandPre interpreted "large" and "heavy" a bit too literally.) Shelley wrote: Then again, why was Dumbledore wearing that Ring!Horcrux before he was able to destroy it's contents, other than to make sure it didn't disappear? Is the are any power to wearing or using a Horcrux before it's destroyed? Did Dumbledore some how use the "power of the ring" before he destroyed the Ring!Horcrux? Carol: Actually, we only see Dumbledore wearing the ring after it's been de-Horcruxed (at Slughorn's house, on the uninjured hand). He wants Slughorn to see it and recognize it--also, no doubt to see the crack and know that it's no longer a Horcrux. As I understand it, Dumbledore detected signs of magical concealment, found the ring and destroyed the soul fragment within it, and was cursed in the process. Snape then did what he could to stop the progress of the curse (as he did later with Katie), but he could not save the injured hand. Whatever powers the ring may have had, and there's no indication that it ever had any, would have been destroyed when the ring was cracked. (Hepzibah Smith says that both the cup and locket are purported to have powers, but they're not specified or confirmed, and those objects belonged to Hogwarts founders, not some obscure pure-blood descendant of the Gaunt clan.) As for using a Horcrux, as I understand it, the Horcrux-maker doesn't *use* the Horcrux. It just stores and protects the soul bit encased inside. As long as even one Horcrux is intact, Voldemort can't die. His own damaged soul, the part that fled after Godric's Hollow and is now inside his resurrected or magically reconstituted body, is "anchored" to the earth. Shelley: We know the Diary!Horcrux had powers- in controlling people, the Chamber of Secrets was opened again, and havoc unleashed. That Horcrux required a "life force" to enable the Horcrux, and we know that Ginny nearly died so that Voldemort could achieve his means. Carol: Yes, but as Dumbledore notes in the chapter called "Horcruxes," the diary was a special case. In order to prove that Riddle was the Heir of Slytherin and unleash the Basilisk, it had to be used. Most Horcruxes, it would appear, are not interactive. They are hidden and protected. Voldemort wanted the diary to be used at some point (after he'd destroyed the Prophecy Boy and made the last Horcrux), but he didn't have any such use for, say, the ring or the locket, which were heavily protected. They exist to store soul bits for all eternity--or that's what Voldemort, in his deluded egoism, imagines. Shelley: > Part of that wonders if part of the Ring!Horcrux was used, as Dumbledore's arm (lower part with the hand was dead). What did Dumbledore gain? Carol: The ring Horcrux was *destroyed.* That's what Dumbledore gained. To quote DD himself, "a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voledemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux" (HBP Am. ed. 503). The Horcruxes are not like Sauron's One Ring, weapons to be wielded to control people. With the exception of the diary, which was created to carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work, the Horcruxes are essentially sealed containers. They are not intended to be opened or used. That would defeat their purpose. Nor was any Horcrux "used" when Voldemort was vaporized. All of them, at that time, were still intact. Two are now destroyed, but he knows of only one. Harry has to find and destroy the others (or have someone else destroy them). As long as even one exists, Voldemort is to all intents and purposes immortal. Shelley: > All this makes me wonder what Harry has in store for him to destroy these objects, as they can't be that easy to just remove those deadly powers. Carol responds: Well, yes. If Dumbledore received a withered hand, and would have died had it not been for Snape's "timely action," I'd say it's a safe bet that most of the Horcruxes will be very difficult to destroy. The ring had a protective curse placed on it (not a power of its own, or Marvolo, Morfin, and Tom himself couldn't have worn it) that was apparently activated when Dumbledore cracked it and released the soul bit. I would not be surprised if the locket, cup, and unknown Ravenclal Horcrux are similarly protected (unlike the diary, which was designed to be interactive). Curse-breaker Bill may de-Horcruxify the Slytherin locket, which will surely be the easiest to find. I don't know who will destroy the others. (I'm betting that Snape plays a role.) Judging from the Bloomsbury cover, which appears to show Nagini in a crystall ball (it can't be a Prophecy Orb, which shows the Seer), it seems likely that Dumbledore was right about Nagini being a Horcrux. Given that drawing and the Sword of Gryffindor in the house-elf's hand, I'm betting (as I have all along) that Nagini is indeed a Horcrux and that Harry will kill her (as he did the Basilisk) with the Sword of Gryffindor. She may be the only Horcrux that he destroys himself unless the powers he shares with Voldemort give him immunity to the curses, and that seems unlikely to me (too easy). Carol, trying to figure out why HRH would be in Gryffindor's vault (if that's what it is) when it's the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw Horcruxes they need to find From va32h at comcast.net Sat Mar 31 01:58:20 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:58:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's happy sacrifice (was Re: The editor was sobbing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166929 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kat7555" wrote: > I think Harry would feel like a failure if he died without killing > Voldemort. Voldemort would love to kill or torture anyone Harry ever > cared about. The wizarding world would become a very dark place if > Harry does not succeed. I think Harry doesn't want the deaths of > those who have gone before him to be in vain. > va32h confused: I never suggested that Harry would not defeat Voldemort, and am confused as to how to understood that from my post. My post was entirely about Harry living or dying at the end. Quite frankly, that Harry defeats Voldemort has been a given, IMO, since the first book. va32h From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 03:10:37 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:10:37 -0000 Subject: The Graveyard and the Amphitheatre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166930 > > Goddlefrood earlier: Mine and Carols, but reincorporating earlier material now, for clarity ;) > > I posted a small piece on Dittany that got lost during the storm of book cover posts, it (my post) suggests that at some point Harry's scar will be healed using that plant. It is entitled Hats Off to JKR the Word Wizard and is uplist quite recently). If I am correct, then that post may explain the difference between the UK and the US covers recently revealed, in that Harry's cicatrix is not discernable on the US cover. > > My analysis of that is that the scene is of Harry and Voldemort behind the ruins of the Potter family home, but in front of a graveyard. The curved structure in the background that encloses the scene may be supposed to represent an aqueduct, but it is unlike any aqueduct of which I have cognizance (they tend to be straight and slightly tilted to take advantage of the force of gravity;)). > Carol responds: > Godric's Hollow is a partially or mostly Muggle village (Hogsmeade is the only all-wizard village in Britain). Consequently, IMO, any graveyard in Godric's Hollow (which I've always imagined to be in Wales) would resemble that in Little Hangleton, which we encountered in GoF. > In any case, I see no reason to imagine a Roman ruin in Godric's Hollow, much less a Roman graveyard. Nor, IIRC, did the Romans bury their dead in anything resembling this circular structures with its many archways. They used underground catacombs, to my knowledge. (I wouldn't be surprised to find something of that sort at Hogwarts, but not at Godric's Hollow.) Goddlefrood now: As you see my previous material I insert above is more in context now. My point was that the theory I am expounding is somewhat supported by what appears to be the ruins of Potter House in the foreground. The analysis of the background was consequential, but I appreciate there may be some ambiguity. I made no suggestion as to what the structure may be, however the similarity to the Coloseum is interestingly noted. Unlikely to be such an edifice, however. Here is why: Donning his Roman Centurion outfit, I have noted previously that in a former life I was one ;) The Romand prior to the acceptance of Christianity as the state religion by Constantine the Great did indeed use catacombs. Graves became more prevalent thereafter. It seems highly improbable to me that Roman architecture or burial practice will have any relevance. In the books the oldest suggested timeframe is approximately 1000 years ago, the founding of Hogwarts. My suggestion relative to the Graveyard I divine from the cover of the American edition is that it may be the one that JKR referred to in passing in a snippet from Alfonso Cuaron as being at Hogwarts itself. Here is that: "I said 'Let's put a graveyard there'. She says: 'No, you can't have a graveyard there'. And I'm like, 'Why?' She says: 'Oh because the graveyard is near this other wing of the castle and it's going to play an important part in number six because such and such and such.' So then you say 'What about a sundial?' She says: 'That makes perfect sense because when the castle was built it was on an ancient Celtic site.' Bap bap bap!" >From Alfonso Cuaron: the man behind the magic, 28th May 2004. A link to the full version: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_3758000/3758101.stm This is then quite useful proof that there is indeed a graveyard at Hogwarts. Do I hear you say "but that's hearsay", to which I would reply, "Perhaps, but it is a declaration against interest, and therefore excluded as hearsay ;)" (Precedents available on request, but I'd hardly advise that ;)) > Carol again: Still about half-convinced that the final confrontation will take place in the DoM but unable to fully reconcile that idea with GrandPre's cover art. Goddlefrood: Glad I've got some thinking in different ways, although, as always with the Caveat that I could be wrong ;). The analysis by Carol of the amphitheatre is to be commended :) Goddlefrood who reminds you in signing out that the Romans left Britain in the 400s AD and left the place to develop in a very different way thereafter. My other gift to you is that my home twon is Knutsford, through which the River Lily flows ;) From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 01:52:35 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Covers In-Reply-To: <005101c77308$68f88ac0$6401a8c0@smtp.comcast.net> Message-ID: <814569.22635.qm@web35007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166931 k12listmomma wrote: Then again, why was Dumbledore wearing that Ring!Horcrux before he was able to destroy it's contents, other than to make sure it didn't disappear? Is there any power to wearing or using a Horcrux before it's destroyed? Did Dumbledore some how use the "power of the ring" before he destroyed the Ring!Horcrux? Deborah writes: Do we know Dumbledore wore the Ring/Horcrux before it was destroyed? When he picked Harry up at Privet Drive, his hand was blackened and the ring was cracked, which leads me to believe he was wearing it as it was destroyed, perhaps wearing it was necessary to break the curse? I suspect he wore it after the Horcrux was destroyed to impress upon Slughorn that he, Dumbledore, knew more about Slughorn's missing memory than Slughorn would like to believe. I hate to use the word "blackmail" but certainly I think Dumbledore was subtly telling Slughorn that he knew Slughorn had lied by omission. It seemed part of Dumbledore's plan to get Slughorn to teach at Hogwarts - to show him how far Tom Riddle had gone, and how dire the situation in the wizarding world, and what Slughorn's situation in any world had become or could become. Slughorn reacted to the sight of Dumbledore's splayed hands, with his dead hand and the ring prominently displayed. He recognized it as the one Tom used to wear, if not as Slytherin's ring. Harry's eyes may have convinced him, but I think the ring played a small part in the decision. Deborah, who hopes Slughorn grows a spine for DH --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 03:59:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:59:00 -0000 Subject: AND AT THE END - POA/ Quote about Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166932 > From Sherry and Alla: > JKR indicated that there was another reason for Sirius to die > besides for Harry to continue journey alone. Would we learn of that > in book 7? > > Adesa: > Do you happen to have JKR's quote on this? I've not heard it before. > TIA~ > Adesa in Virginia > Alla: Sure we do :) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh- ITVcubreporters.htm Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 "Sorley Richardson for Publishing News - Why did you have to kill Sirius when it was the best thing that happened to Harry for years? JK Rowling: We are back to me being a murderer, aren't we? People have asked me this a lot. I have been repeatedly told Sirius was my favourite character, why did he have to die? You can imagine how bad that makes me feel and in fact after I killed Sirius I went on the Internet and somehow stumbled across a fansite devoted entirely to Sirius and I killed him in the last 48 hours, so that wasn't good. I think you will realise why he had to go in terms of plot when you read the seventh book. It wasn't arbitrary although part of the answer is the one I have given before. It is more satisfying I think for the reader if the hero has to go on alone and to give him too much support makes his job too easy, sorry." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 04:22:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:22:37 -0000 Subject: The Graveyard and the Amphitheatre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166933 Carol earlier: > > > Godric's Hollow is a partially or mostly Muggle village (Hogsmeade is the only all-wizard village in Britain). Consequently, IMO, any graveyard in Godric's Hollow (which I've always imagined to be in Wales) would resemble that in Little Hangleton, which we encountered in GoF. > > > In any case, I see no reason to imagine a Roman ruin in Godric's Hollow, much less a Roman graveyard. Nor, IIRC, did the Romans bury their dead in anything resembling this circular structures with its many archways. They used underground catacombs, to my knowledge. (I wouldn't be surprised to find something of that sort at Hogwarts, but not at Godric's Hollow.) > Goddlefrood responded: > > My point was that the theory I am expounding is somewhat supported by what appears to be the ruins of Potter House in the foreground. Carol again: Okay. Now I see where Godric's Hollow comes in. But I think you're jumping to conclusions. The rubble could be anything, and unless it bears no relation to the background, I can't imagine anything resembling a Roman amphitheater in the same vicinity. Goddlefrood: The analysis of the background was consequential, but I appreciate there may be some ambiguity. Carol: Plenty of ambiguity or we wouldn't be discussing it. :-) But the question in my mind is whether GrandPre is depicting the background, the arena or amphitheater or whatever it is, as a faithful depiction of what JKR describes or whether she's taken a great deal of poetic license. Has she mixed up what's behind the Veil with what's in front of it, changed the black veil to orange curtains, and made the rectangular, roofed Death room round and open to the sky like a Roman amphitheater, or is it someplace else altogether? Whatever other place it may be, I don't see how it could be anywhere in the village of Godric's Hollow. > Goddlefrood: > I made no suggestion as to what the structure may be, Carol responds: You said that you didn't think it was an aqueduct, a point I agree with. You also seemed to imply that it was a graveyard in Godric's Hollow, which I don't agree with at all. Neither the Romans nor anyone else that I know of buried their dead in such a structure. The good Muggles of Godric's Hollow most likely bury theirs in a graveyard like that in Little Hangleton, possibly in the churchyard. Goddlefrood: however the similarity to the Coloseum is interestingly noted. Carol: Thank you. Whatever the case with JKR, I think that *GrandPre* had the coliseum or a similar structure in mind when she painted that background. Goddlefrood: > Unlikely to be such an edifice, however. > The Romand prior to the acceptance of Christianity as the state religion by Constantine the Great did indeed use catacombs. Graves became more prevalent thereafter. It seems highly improbable to me that Roman architecture or burial practice will have any relevance. Carol responds: I know all that. But it isn't relevant because I'm not arguing that the "edifice" is a Roman graveyard. I don't think it has anything to do with a graveyard at all. It looks like an arena to me. > Goddlefrood: > In the books the oldest suggested timeframe is approximately 1000 years ago, the founding of Hogwarts. Carol responds: You're forgetting Merlin, who would have considerably preceded the founding of Hogwarts (unless you follow T. H. White's chronology, which I doubt that JKR does). But the structure in the background has nothing to do with Hogwarts, as far as I can tell. We're talking about two different things here--possible underground "hallows" resembling catacombs that could conceivably conceal Horcruxes (see the Bloomsbury children's cover, which could involve an excursion through such a place, which need not be Roman to be underground)--and whatever the amphitheater thing is behind Harry and Voldemort in the Scholastic cover art. That building looks Roman to me--the founding date of Hogwarts has nothing to do with it. And I'm quite sure that, in JKR's WW, wizards and witches did not suddenly arrive in Britain a half century before the Norman Conquest. The Druids were wizards, if I understand her "history" correctly. > Goddlefrood: > My suggestion relative to the Graveyard I divine from the cover of the American edition is that it may be the one that JKR referred to in passing in a snippet from Alfonso Cuaron as being at Hogwarts itself. > This is then quite useful proof that there is indeed a graveyard at Hogwarts. Carol responds: But what does a graveyard at Hogwarts have to do with the ruins of the cottage at Godric's Hollow? And what do either of them have to do with the amphitheater where the Harry/Voldie confrontation appears to take place? I don't see any sign of a graveyard in that painting. I'm not arguing against a graveyard at Hogwarts (which would not necessarily preclude catacomblike tunnels placed in secret by the founders themselves, which I think may be the "hallows" in the title and may contain Horcruxes). I'm only saying that the scene as depicted on the Scholastic cover does not appear to take place in any such place. Goddlefrood: > >The analysis by Carol of the amphitheatre is to be commended :) Carol: Thank you. > > Goddlefrood who reminds you in signing out that the Romans left Britain in the 400s AD and left the place to develop in a very different way thereafter. > Carol responds: I do know when the Romans left Britain. I'm quite aware of the history of Britain (which I find far more interesting than American history). But that has nothing to do with my argument since *I'm not arguing that there's a Roman ruin at Hogwarts or Godric's Hollow*. I'm only pointing out that the background in the Mary GrandPre cover art resembles a Roman amphitheater like the coliseum. Whether such structures still remain in Britain, I don't know. We may not be dealing with a real location, and GrandPre may be supplying uncanonical details. To sum up my previous argument, which you seem to have misunderstood, I was saying that Grandpre's cover, which appears to depict a Roman amphitheater or something like it, probably has nothing to do with a graveyard, in or out of Godric's Hollow . A graveyard in GH would probably be in a churchyard (cf. Little Hangleton). I think it's possible that *Hogwarts* has something similar to the Roman catacombs, which would be a good place to search for Horcruxes, but I don't think that's what Grandpre is depicting. (It might have some connection to the Bloomsbury children's cover, however.) I don't know what location GrandPre is depicting, but it does not appear to be Godric's Hollow. It may or may not be the Death room in the MoM. (As I've said, I can't reconcile the details in the picture with the descriptions in OoP. But the cover does seem to depict the final confrontation with Voldemort, with an audience of shades or shadows. And the background looks like a Roman amphitheater to me. I am not saying that any such place exists in Britain today, or that there is any such structure at GH or Hogwarts or that Hogwarts coexisted with Roman Britain, which, of course, it didn't. That Roman-style amphitheater *may* exist somewhere in the WW (most likely not in Godric's Hollow), or it may be GrandPre's uncanonical and imaginative depiction of a setting that resembles JKR's description about as closely as Voldemort's Grinchlike or Dementorlike hands resemble the long-fingered white hands Harry sees as his own in the GoF dream. Carol, apologizing for the repetitiveness of this post, but I'm trying to clarify my arguments, which appear to have been misunderstood From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 04:45:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:45:48 -0000 Subject: The ring and locket Horcruxes (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166934 > Carol responds: > Well, yes. If Dumbledore received a withered hand, and would have died > had it not been for Snape's "timely action," I'd say it's a safe bet > that most of the Horcruxes will be very difficult to destroy. The ring > had a protective curse placed on it (not a power of its own, or > Marvolo, Morfin, and Tom himself couldn't have worn it) that was > apparently activated when Dumbledore cracked it and released the soul > bit. zgirnius: Nitpick: If the Peverell Ring had a protective curse placed on it, as one of its own powers, this curse might reasonably be expected to permit its legitimate heir to wear it. Marvolo, Morfin, and Tom all meet that description; Dumbledore likely does not. > Carol, trying to figure out why HRH would be in Gryffindor's vault (if > that's what it is) when it's the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw Horcruxes > they need to find zgirnius: Dumbledore expects the mystery Horcrux to be something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's. The only Gryffindor relics *he* knows of are safe; but if a vault full of his stuff exists somewhere and Voldemort knows of it, the mystery HOrcrux could be an item of Gryffindor's. From deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 02:07:38 2007 From: deborah_s_krupp at yahoo.com (Deborah Krupp) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 'Snake' on breastplate (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <986891.62350.qm@web35002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 166935 Peter J Wagner: Still, what we really need is a prior picture of a basilisk by GrandPr?: she might not have drawn what Rowling described. Deborah writes: If you look at the cover of the American Hardback Edition of Chamber of Secrets, you will see both a depiction of Fawkes and that of a basilisk drawn by GranPre. I think you can make a case that the animal on the breastplate does closely resemble Fawkes, though his neck is not quite as long or undulating as the one on the armor appears to be. It is close enough though, that it could be intentionally ambiguous. The basilisk depicted does have a rather pointy snout which might be described as being beak-like. From kristin1778 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 04:53:41 2007 From: kristin1778 at yahoo.com (kristin1778) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:53:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's happy sacrifice (was Re: The editor was sobbing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > > When Dumbledore spoke of death as a next great adventure, he was > speaking in reference to Nicolas Flamel - someone who had lived a > very long life indeed. That one sentence of Dumbledore's has been > extrapolated to mean that Dumbledore thinks everyone should > cheerfully embrace death. One can be unafraid of death, and still not > want to die. > > That Harry is willing to die is enough. > > va32h > Kristin1778: I agree with you that there would be nothing wonderful or noble about Harry sacrificing his life, and nothing comforting about Harry reuniting with his parents in the afterlife. I hope you're right that Harry's willingness to die is enough. I also don't think Rowling wants to send the message that we should all cheerfully embrace death, and not shed a tear when a life is tragically cut short at 17. However, I do think she's trying to say something about bravery, self sacrifice, and death, and that she might use Harry's death to say it. Kristin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 06:24:18 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:24:18 -0000 Subject: Four Possible Distinct Places on Cover (Was The Graveyard and the Amphitheatre) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166937 > Carol, apologizing for the repetitiveness of this post, but I'm trying to clarify my arguments, which appear to have been misunderstood Goddlefrood: Not at all, your argument was easily apprehendable. My response was, I felt, equally clear, but just in case, here's my summary: (i) The ruins that seem to be at the front of the folded out cover of the American version suggest to me the Potter's House. It was consequential to other material conveyed in my first post. My suggestion us not unreasoable and an easy conclusion to draw from it is made. (ii) The shapes at the foot of the structure wrapped around the entire cover suggests to me tombstones and from that I draw a conclusion that Hogwarts graveyard may be represented thereby. Not at Godric's Hollow at all. (iii) The structure is suggestive of an arena of some kind, but I would agree that perhpas it is most suggestive of poetic licence on the part of Ms. GrandPre. (iv) What looks to me like drapes or curtains could be symbolic of the veil at the DoM, they could equally be the dedoxified curtains for Grimmauld Place ;) I see at least three distinct places, and possibly a fourth, if the structure is representative of something, in the cover presented by Scholastic. The main thesis is yet to be addressed, perhaps I should expand further :-? Goddlefrood, who now adds to previous sign out that King Canute forded the River Lily, which today is a foot wide ;), quite a feat by him :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 06:48:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:48:06 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166938 --- "Adesa" wrote: > > firefly: > What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that > perhaps Harry's muggle mother's family and Tom's > muggle father's side of the family could be connected > .... > > Adesa: > I've been thinking the same thing, for years!... > bboyminn: Here is the question - Why? Now, it is possible that Harry and Riddle are related, but how does that change any thing? How does that change or advance the plot, or alter Harry's approach to the problem? Many things 'could be', but to what end? If you believe they are related (Harry and Tom R.) then what is the plot purpose of this? FireFly speculated that it might explain how or why Tom Riddle's curse backfired, but does it? Why would a person not be able to curse their relatives? It is a fair speculation since the similarities between Harry and Tom have been mentioned, but, once again, what plot purpose does it serve? Is Voldemort going to go, 'Oh so your my nephew, well then, never mind'? I don't think so. Is Harry going to go, 'Oh so your my Uncle, well then never mind, take over the world'? I don't think so. Trust me I'm the speculator of all speculators, and while I can see it, I simply can't see a way to make it matter. Sorry, just adding my two cents. Steve/bboyminn From inufan_625 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 06:48:15 2007 From: inufan_625 at yahoo.com (inufan_625) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:48:15 -0000 Subject: 'bag' around Harry's neck/ POA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166939 Shelly: I know everyone has interpreted the thing around Harry's neck as a locket, but my son and I agree that it looks more like a small bag. It has too much of a "fish" look with a split tail, and this to me is the top part of a bag. A locket wouldn't have that top part- it would just be attached to the chain with a loop or wire or a whole in the locket itself. Inufan625: It may not be a locket, but I can dismiss that it could be based on its appearence on the cover since I have a locket which has two bead shaped pieces on the very top through which the chain is threaded. Sort of like this (- = chain, 0= bead) -000- ( ) if you can picture what I'm talking about by looking at that...lol >From POA questions: > Would we ever learn why James and Lily refused DD's offer to be > their secret keeper? Inufan625: I thought this was because DD was too important. I thought their reasoning was that if someone told Voldemort that DD was the secret keeping he might overcome his fear and go after DD perhaps in full force just to dispose of the phrophesized child and they couldn't risk it. I could have sworn I read that somewhere, but then again itmight have been fan fiction... From pjwagner3 at ameritech.net Sat Mar 31 06:24:49 2007 From: pjwagner3 at ameritech.net (Peter J. Wagner) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:24:49 -0000 Subject: 'Snake' on breastplate (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: <986891.62350.qm@web35002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166940 Deborah wrote: > If you look at the cover of the American Hardback Edition of Chamber of Secrets, you will see both a depiction of Fawkes and that of a basilisk drawn by GranPre. > > I think you can make a case that the animal on the breastplate does closely resemble Fawkes, though his neck is not quite as long or undulating as the one on the armor appears to be. It is close enough though, that it could be intentionally ambiguous. > > The basilisk depicted does have a rather pointy snout which might be described as being beak-like. "Peter J. Wagner" writes: Oops: I goofed! I meant to to write Cockroft! It's his cover, after all. That being said, what on the CoS cover is supposed to be a basilisk? I can see the phoenix, certainly (and it is extremely similar to the breast plate). But none of the snakes there look to be the basilisk, and nor do any of them have beaks! If it was a basilisk, then I would hazard the guess that they are in Slytherin's tomb. That certainly might be a place where Voldemort would hide a Horcrux: IF its location was generally unknown, of course. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 10:31:55 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:31:55 -0000 Subject: Figgses and Fiddlesticks & Pausanias (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166941 > "Peter J. Wagner" writes: > If it was a basilisk, then I would hazard the guess that they are in Slytherin's tomb. That certainly might be a place where Voldemort would hide a Horcrux: IF its location was generally unknown, of course. Goddlefrood: As per my title the first shall be last and the last first. Pausanias: This snippet from Peter J Webster brings up an interesting point indeed. Where could HRH be as depicted on the Bloomsbury Children's cover recently released. A little quote recently arrived in my mind through the ether and it led me back to Pausanias to find this nugget: "Still, there are parts of the ring-wall left, including the GATE WITH THE LIONS standing on it. They say this is the work of Kyklopes, who built the wall of TIRYNS for Proits. In the ruins of Mtcenae is a water-source called PERSEIA, and the underground chambers of Atreus and his sons where they kept the treasure- house of their wealth." Guide to Greece, Volume 1, Book II 4-5, pps. 167-168 in the Penguin Classics Edition. (Emphasis as in that text translation) The link to Mycenae may be an intriguing one in terms of its application to the development of the story in JKR's research. There have been several and variously dated tombs discovered there. This is a link to wiki's page on it (scroll down to the Late Helladic Period entries to see what I mean): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae Quite interesting, I believe you may find ;). There is also there a picture of the Lion Gate as it is today. What value has this, you ask? Well my inference from this is to join the dots from Lion to Godric Gryffindor. If there is indeed a depiction of a tomb on the cover mentioned by me above then based on this small matter as outlined, I posit that it would be Gryffindor's tomb or treasure-house that is the more likely candidate as being the one visited at some point in DH. We do not, however, have to leave it there, notice in the Pausanias quote above there is a reference to Atreus. Here is a link to some further enlightenment: http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/at/atreus.htm He is also the grandson of Tantalus, as well as matters noted there. JKR enjoys tantalizing us, IMHO. It is also interesting to note, and this is my final point flowing from Pausanias, that the Treasure House of Atreus looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_of_Atreus GG's tomb underground then, perhaps? Figgses and Fiddlesticks: This is linked into Mrs. Figg, whom it had been inferred from a previous post of mine, might be a different person from Arabella Figg. I'll be honest now and say that it never crossed my mind, but it did lead me back to take a closer look :) There are three small points about Mrs Figg to bring to your attention, make of them what you will: (i) It is mentioned in passing twice, both times in PS, that her house smelt of cabbages. Perhaps it may not be such a huge leap to suggest that somehow Peter Pettigrew and Barty Crouch Jnr. used her stash of Polyjuice Potion to make that same Potion with the addition of Alastor Moody's hair throughout GoF. Brewing such a potion might have two uses for the Order, firstly someone, perhaps a spy used or usess it, or secondly she used it herself. For this see also below regarding the photograph :) (ii) In OotP she says: "'Of course I know Dumbledore, who doesn't know Dumbledore? But come on - I'll be no help if they come back, I've never so much as Transfigured a teabag.'" This may suggest, as it has previously to others, as I recall from the archives, that she may be a prime candidate for the person who will perform magic later in life in desperate circumstances. Further, she may do this due to an attack on Number 4 Privet Drive by Harry's enemy or enemies after he reaches the wizarding age of majority. (iii) When Mad-Eye shows Harry the picture of the members of the original Order of the Phoenix in the course of the Chapter "The Woes of Mrs. Weasley" in OotP Mrs. Figg is not noted as one of those present in the photo, I wonder why, especially when Dumbledore described her as one of the old crowd in GoF? This one I do not care to specualte on further, but welcome others to run with it. I still do not think she is related to the Dumbledore family for reasons stated elsewhere :) Goddlefrood, who signs out by saying that Remus Lupin was in the photo of the original Order ;) and that in 1637 (the year the Werewolf Code of Conduct was introduced), amongst other things, Robert Fludd, an English mystic died :) "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." --Oscar Wilde From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 31 11:09:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:09:03 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fireflyseason2" wrote: > What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that perhaps Harry's > muggle mother's family and Tom's muggle father's side of the family > could be connected. Does anyone recall if the books mention the color > of Tom's father's eyes? A large point is made of the fact that Harry > has his mothers brilliant green eyes and even JKR has said that is > important. I'm thinking that if they were related by blood that could > also explain why Tom's curse on Harry back fired so badly. What do you > think? Geoff: I would tend to disagree with your suggestion that Tom and Harry are related. Largely because of what we are told - or not told - in canon. First, when Professor Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall meet in Privet Drive just after the Godric's Hollow incident" '"Yes," said Professor McGonagall. "And I don't suppose you're going to tell me why you're here, of all places?" "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now."' (PS "The Boy Who lIved" p.15 UK edition) This is reinforced later in a conversation between Dumbledore and Harry: '"...I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative." "She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn -" "But she took you"...' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.736-37 UK edition) Way back, not long after OOTP came out, there was a lot of discussion regarding Mark Evans, a boy mentioned in the opening chapter and the theory was put forward that he might be a distant relative of Harry until JKR denied a link. At the time, I wrote a post (85255) in which I suggested that there could be other relatives but they would have to be sufficiently distant across the family tree to be unknown. I discovered a distant cousin a year or so ago linked about four generations back about whom I had known nothing. So it is possible that Harry and Tom could be related very distantly but I doubt that any such close link exists. Again, I think that the physical likenesses we are given are very few. In the similarities which Riddle draws between them in COS, most of them are to do with background: '"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..." (OOTP "The Heir of Slytherin" p.233 UK edition) Even the physical llikeness is thrown in almost as an aside. I find no reference to green eyes in descriptions of Riddle but I haven't looked exhaustively. Finally, on this point, the only link seems to be dark hair. Riddle is apparently handsome, Harry is not: 'There on the threshold, holding an old-fashioned lamp, stood a boy Harry recognised at once: tall, pale, dark-haired and handsome - the teenage Voldemort.' (HBP "A Sluggish Memory" p.340 UK edition) 'Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair and bright-green eyes.' (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.20 UK edition) 'Harry, on the other hand, was small and skinny, with brilliant green eyes and jet-black hair that was always untidy.' (COS "The Worst Birthday" p.9 UK edition) My personal interpretation of the evidence is that, unless JKR specifically reveals a link in DH, I see no substantive suggestion of a blood-line link between Harry and Voldemort in what we can glean from existing canon. From cassyvablatsky at hotmail.com Sat Mar 31 12:46:20 2007 From: cassyvablatsky at hotmail.com (Unspeakable) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:46:20 -0000 Subject: Did Snape see Regulus Wa: Readng the Runes: Literary Patterns in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166944 Carol responds: My apologies for snipping almost the whole of this interesting and thought-provoking post. May I suggest that you present some of your ideas individually, which would make it less of a burden on your fellow posters to think about and respond to them? I wish I had time to go back and examine the structure of the individual books and follow up on these parallels. Cassy adds: *blushes* No need to apologise and thanks for replying. I hope to post some of the ideas individually when I have time - just thought it might be a change to work on a slightly different scale (I'm awed by the minutiae of these discussions but it can be rather exhausting!) and sometimes patterns work best from a distance (hence the overview). Of course, if you feel like coming back sometime....! Carol responds: As it is, I'm confining my comments to portions of the paragraph on Snape. Cassy adds: Snape has an able and gallant defender. :-) Cassy writes: I've noticed that Snape often turns out to be that mysterious 'someone' in the Potterverse. Someone alerted Lily & James so they could go into hiding ('Dumbledore had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once.' POA10), there is strong evidence that this could be the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape ('You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned ?' (HBP25); 'someone' originally betrayed the Prophecy to Voldemort ('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.' OOtP37), we learned that this *was* Snape in HBP25; unfortunately, 'someone' also murdered Regulus Black ('No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person.' OotP6). On this basis, I think there is a good chance that Snape might have performed the murder, under duress; after all, JKR has hinted that as a Death Eater, he would have seen and done some terrible things Carol responds: However, I disagree with your deduction that young Snape, himself only twenty or so at the time, would have been assigned to murder Regulus. Surely, that job would go to a cold-hearted killer like Dolohov, who murdered the Prewetts, or Travers (there's an Azkaban escapee we haven't seen yet!), who murdered the McKinnons. Cassy adds: Interesting ... however I don't necessarily agree. At the tender age of 16, Draco Malfoy was assigned an important role in the plot against Dumbledore, supposedly in vengeance for his father's mistake. It might be that Voldemort was always intending for Snape to perform the actual murder; however, the fact remains that Draco was given the task. On this principle, I submit that the young Snape might have been ordered to kill Regulus Black (possibly, though not necessarily, in front of witnesses?) as a test of Snape's loyalties. (You and I both seem to believe that Snape and Regulus were friends at Hogwarts - perhaps Voldemort suspected as much, or indeed, suspected Snape of 'turning' Regulus or deliberately recruiting a traitor.) Dolohov, like Greyback in HBP, could have been waiting in the wings, in case Snape's nerve failed. Carol responds: The idea that Snape has actually committed murder before he AKs Dumbledore is inconsistent with Bellatrix's sneering remark that he consistently "slithers out of action" and with his own mental anguish (if we DDM!Snapers are correct in our interpretation) as he looks into Dumbledore's eyes before he raises his wand and again when Harry shouts, "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!" Cassy adds: I don't think we can accept Bellatrix as a reliable source on anything to do with Snape. And I think Snape's mental anguish is sufficently explained by his being forced to kill his one friend in the world and then being taunted about it by Harry Potter: see http://book7.co.uk/one/ Furthermore, I think one of the reasons why Snape was ultimately prepared to commit the murder entrusted to Draco Malfoy was to save Draco from having to live Snape's life. And I do think that when Snape returned to Dumbledore (with the information that Voldemort was after the Potters) he was already a murderer. Indeed, though I desperately want to see Snape redeemed in DH, it would be something of a cop-out IMHO if he was not revealed to have done terrible things as a member of Voldemort's followers (as opposed to 'betrayal in the abstract. JKR needs to show that it is possible to come back from the Dark. In any case, I remember my history teacher explaining that dictators often force all their followers to get their hands dirty as a way of ensuring loyalty through shared guilt and on this basis I think we can assume that all the Death Eaters will have killed. (Wormtail murdered Cedric Diggory on Voldemort's instrction.) The very name sounds like a killers' club, IMHO. Carol responds: Nor does JKR say in the interview you mention that Snape has "seen *and done* some terrible things" as a Death Eater. http://www.accio- quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm Cassy adds: I stand corrected re. the wording (and have amended my site with due acknowledgement to you): http://book7.co.uk/runes/ Carol responds: It's very likely that Severus knew Regulus at Hogwarts. They were only two years apart (Regulus was born in 1961, according to the Black Family Tree at the Lexicon, and Severus was probably born in January 1959--yes, I'm aware of the available evidence and the reasons for disputing that year of birth) and in the same house. Quite possibly, Regulus, who presumably did not get along with his brother, Sirius, would have been friends of some sort with Sirius's enemy, especially given Severus's talents with invented spells and so forth. It seems likely to me that their relationship (Sevvy's and Reggie's) was similar to that of Cedric and Harry, the two Hogwarts TWT champions, who were several years apart but on friendly terms most of the time, only somewhat closer (like Harry and the Weasley Twins) because they were in the same house and less competitive. Cassy adds: Interesting - and encouraging - that so many of us believe in a Regulus/Snape connection - we must be onto something! :-) I agree with most of what you say here; however, I see the Regulus/Snape friendship as somewhat darker than Harry/Cedric. See discussion: http://book7.co.uk/seven/ Regulus, separated from his defiantly rebellious and contemptuous older brother, would have joined his much older cousins, Bellatrix and Narcissa, in Slytherin and was probably under their sway from his first day at school. Snape too, according to Sirius, was a younger member of the gang dominated by Bellatrix Black and her future husband Rodolphus Lestrange and he was two years older than Regulus. Given the bad blood between Sirius and Snape, one has to wonder how Regulus fitted into that equation. Did Snape set out to take Regulus under his wing, in order to spite his hated enemy, Sirius Black? Might this have been one reason for the life- threatening prank that Sirius pulled on Snape at the end of their fifth year? Was it Snape who recruited Regulus as a Death Eater, as an act of revenge on the Marauders? More than that, there are a number of outstanding mysteries that might connect Snape and Regulus. Why did Snape defect? Why did Voldemort suspect Regulus of trying to defect? Why didn't Regulus go to his brother with the stolen Horcrux? Is it possible that Regulus was set up to believe Sirius a spy and that Snape was sent after him as a test of Snape's loyalties? (Interestingly, Snape seems to have been the only one to suspect Sirius of being a spy *prior* to the events of Godric's Hollow.) It is possible that Snape, backed into a corner, was ordered to murder Regulus at the very time he was planning to defect himself (i.e. near to the time of Harry's birth when Snape found out how Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy). What I want to know is what happened when Severus caught up with Regulus? Was Regulus weakened, or already dying, having swallowed the potion in the cave? Might Snape, desperate for information to help Lily, have attempted to interrogate him using Legilimency ? or worse? Did Snape force Regulus to reveal, for instance, that Voldemort had made a Horcrux, which he (Regulus) had stolen? For Snape, it seems, does know about Horcruxes. (It was he who saved Dumbledore's life after he sustained an injury from the ring Horcrux and whom Dumbledore asked to see after drinking the potion in the cave.) And though `certain proof' only came from Riddle's diary, Dumbledore seems to have believed from the very beginning of PS/SS that Voldemort could not be dead. Perhaps Snape told him (when he confessed to the murder). In any case, I agree with you that Snape was traumatised by the murder of Regulus Black. And I believe we will see the consequencies of this in his fatal (?) attempt to protect Draco in Deathly Hallows: http://book7.co.uk/fourteen Cassy V., whose Snape is still riddled with regrets (but who will be comforted by something that Dumbledore has told him concerning Harry: http://book7.co.uk/nine/ ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 14:54:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:54:03 -0000 Subject: Four Possible Distinct Places on Cover (Was The Graveyard and the Amphitheat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166945 > > Carol, apologizing for the repetitiveness of this post, but > I'm trying to clarify my arguments, which appear to have been > misunderstood > Goddlefrood responded: > > Not at all, your argument was easily apprehendable. My response > was, I felt, equally clear, but just in case, here's my summary: > > (i) The ruins that seem to be at the front of the folded out cover of the American version suggest to me the Potter's House. > My suggestion us not unreasoable and an easy conclusion to draw from it is made. Carol again: As I said, the rubble could be anything. If it's the Potters' house, then it surely has no connection with what's happening in the background. Even if that amphitheater structure in the background were a graveyard (and no graveyard ever looked like that) it wouldn't be right next to the Potters' house. However, it can't be a graveyard, as you'll see in my response to point 11, > > (ii) The shapes at the foot of the structure wrapped around the > entire cover suggests to me tombstones and from that I draw a > conclusion that Hogwarts graveyard may be represented thereby. > Not at Godric's Hollow at all. Carol: Here's the problem. I wondered where you were getting the graveyard idea. What you're taking for gravestones are definitely people (living or dead, we aren't told. Here's an excerpt from an online article in which the publisher and the cover designer (not GrandPre herself) describe the cover: '"The front cover of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' features a dramatic sky of oranges and golds. It depicts 17-year-old Harry with arm outstretched, reaching upward," publisher Scholastic said in a statement. '"The structures around Harry show evident destruction and *in the shadows behind him, we see outlines of other people*," said the cover designer, Scholastic Creative Director David Saylor." And here's an interesting tidbit regarding the wrap-around cover, not relevant to your point about Godric's Hollow and a graveyard, but interesting in itself: '"For the first time the cover is a wrap-around. On the back cover spidery hands are outstretched towards Harry. '"Only when the book is opened does one see a powerful image of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, his glowing red eyes peering out from his hood," he said. So it's the book designer who thinks that Voldemort's "spidery hands" look like they belong to a Dementor crossed with a Grinch. Maybe he (as opposed to GrandPre) thinks that the amphitheaterlike Death Room resembles a Roman arena. At any rate, those are people, not gravestones, which seems to rule out a graveyard. If the rubble represents the cottage at Godric's Hollow, I'd say that it's thematic rather than part of the setting. IOW, I don't think there's a Roman arena or whatever that building is on the site of the Potter's demolished house. > (iii) The structure is suggestive of an arena of some kind, but > I would agree that perhpas it is most suggestive of poetic > licence on the part of Ms. GrandPre. Carol: Or the book designer. Or both. > > (iv) What looks to me like drapes or curtains could be symbolic > of the veil at the DoM, they could equally be the dedoxified > curtains for Grimmauld Place ;) Carol: Well, maybe not the curtains at 12 GP, but I can see them as a sort of framing device: "It's curtains for Lord Voldemort, folks!" But they're tattered, as is the "curtain or veil" in the Ministry. My immediate sense is that these people don't read carefully. Voldemort's hands and face should be a sickly white, for example. Goddlefrood: > The main thesis is yet to be addressed, perhaps I should expand > further :-? Carol: By all means, if the designer's statement that the shadows are people hasn't ruined your graveyard argument. I remain convinced that the scene is not and cannot be Godric's Hollow. Carol, who woke up thinking that today was April Fool's Day and that the next day was Easter and now finds that she was looking at the calendar wrong! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 15:39:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:39:59 -0000 Subject: Figgses and Fiddlesticks & Pausanias (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166946 Peter J. Wagner wrote: > > > If it was a basilisk, then I would hazard the guess that they > are in Slytherin's tomb. That certainly might be a place where > Voldemort would hide a Horcrux: IF its location was generally > unknown, of course. > Goddlefrood responded: > > Quite interesting, I believe you may find ;). There is also > there a picture of the Lion Gate as it is today. What value > has this, you ask? Well my inference from this is to join the > dots from Lion to Godric Gryffindor. If there is indeed a > depiction of a tomb on the cover mentioned by me above then > based on this small matter as outlined, I posit that it would > be Gryffindor's tomb or treasure-house that is the more likely > candidate as being the one visited at some point in DH. > Carol responds: I agree with Goddlefrood that the tomb or vault is likely to be that of Gryffindor, not Slytherin, not only because they're more likely to visit it but because of the proliferation of rubies, matching the rubies in the Sword of Gryffindor. The colors of Gryffindor are red and gold and the stones in the Gryffindor hourglass are rubies, in contrast to emeralds in the Slytherin hourglass. There's not an emerald in sight on the Bloomsbury children's cover, but rubies are everywhere, including on the helmet. Why it would be crowned with a dragon, or why the breastplate would have what appears to be a snake with a bird's beak on it, I have no idea. I suppose Slytherin's breastplate could have gotten into Gryffindor's tomb or vault somehow, but I don't know how. As for the tomb being in Mycenae, I suppose that's no stranger than the final confrontation occurring (apparently) in a Roman arena, but I suspect that we're actually seeing the hidden treasures and mysteries of Hogwarts. By the way, if the Bloomsbury children's cover artist is the same one who drew the original back cover of the children's edition of PS (not Dumbledore, but the mysterious brown-bearded wizard) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/rg-ps00.html perhaps we shouldn't place too much faith in the depictions on the covers. I wonder whether that first artist even read the book! I forgot to provide a link to the quote about the Scholastic cover depicting shadowy people, not gravestones, in the background in my previous response to Goddlefrood. Here it is: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Media__Entertainment__Art/Publisher_unveils_cover_of_new_Harry_Potter_book/articleshow/1830960.cms Goddlefrood: > This is linked into Mrs. Figg, whom it had been inferred from a previous post of mine, might be a different person from Arabella Figg. I'll be honest now and say that it never crossed my mind, but it did lead me back to take a closer look :) > Carol: I take it you're not arguing that they're two different people. I think the inference was drawn from a typo in which you seem to have mistyped "Dumbledore" as "Arabella Fig": "I must say, having analysed the chapter "The Hearing" in OotP in some depth recently, *I find it unlikely that Mrs. Figg is related to Arabella Fig* for the simple reason that it seems, to me at least, probable that one of the members of the Wizengamot would have said something when Dumbledore called on the same Mrs. Figg to testify." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166511 However, as I'm sure you realize, Mrs. Figg gave her name as Arabella Doreen Figg at Harry's hearing, so she and the Arabella Figg that DD mentioned along with Mundungus as part of the "old crowd" have to be the same person. Goddlefrood: > > (ii) In OotP she says: "'Of course I know Dumbledore, who > doesn't know Dumbledore? But come on - I'll be no help if they > come back, I've never so much as Transfigured a teabag.'" > > This may suggest, as it has previously to others, as I recall > from the archives, that she may be a prime candidate for the > person who will perform magic later in life in desperate > circumstances. Further, she may do this due to an attack on > Number 4 Privet Drive by Harry's enemy or enemies after he > reaches the wizarding age of majority. Carol: Here I agree with you. I won't repeat my reasons here, but anyone who's interested can do a site search for previous posts on the topic. Goddlefrood: > (iii) When Mad-Eye shows Harry the picture of the members of > the original Order of the Phoenix in the course of the Chapter > "The Woes of Mrs. Weasley" in OotP Mrs. Figg is not noted as > one of those present in the photo, I wonder why, especially > when Dumbledore described her as one of the old crowd in GoF? Carol responds: I don't think we've ever seen the entire Order together. Dumbledore isn't in the photograph, either. Nor is McGonagall, but I don't think her absence definitively proves she wasn't in the Order earlier. (We know the Weasleys weren't.) Mrs. Figg could have taken the photo, but my guess is that she seldom or never goes to Order headquarters. Being a Squib, she can't Apparate, and it would be a bad idea to drive (if she can even drive) there and park her car in front of 11 or 13 GP. Carol, noting that potion-making requires a wand for stirring, so it's unlikely that Mrs. Figg was brewing polyjuice potion (as mentioned in a snipped part of the post. JKR has said somewhere that you have to be a witch or wizard to perform magic, including brewing potions.) From kvapost at yahoo.com.au Sat Mar 31 14:32:12 2007 From: kvapost at yahoo.com.au (kvapost) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:32:12 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166947 Ceridwen wrote: > I think the orange clouds might be explained as something, even deep inside the MoM - a fire, perhaps? Dragon's breath? A lot can happen during an epic battle for control of an entire government. A fire, or given the parameters of the world, even a dragon or several dragons and their vaporous, fiery breath, would fit. Kvapost now: A lot of mythological protagonists (eg, ancient Greece) go to the 'land of the dead' and back. Fire might represent 'hell' and Harry is trying to leave Voldy there, escaping himself. Can Fawkes get Harry out of there?... I actually thought of ancient Greece and Styx after I started suspecting that UK version shows Trio being carried by a fast stream of water. Reflection in Harry's spectacles looks like a stream to me. And, speaking of Styx river. According to some versions, Styx had miraculous powers and could *make someone immortal*. (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styx) Ahha!! :) Not sure how to weave a pile of 'bling bling' at the scene into all this though, maybe brighter minds will come to help. :) Ceridwen: > I'm leaning toward the shadows being the shades of the dead, perhaps even a "jury" or panel of Deathly Hallows, or hallowed spirits. Maybe they're even there to judge who is worthy of winning the battle, or to judge Voldemort for his crimes against them. No wands, no battle currently ongoing. Kvapost: Exactly, no wands, and we do know that Harry struggled with wandless magic at Hogwarts, whereas LV is a known pro. The panel of judges makes sense. Ceridwen: > On the U.K. cover, I'm interested right now in the beaked snake (or is that an ugly flamingo?) on the breastplate. Kvapost: Looks a lot like a sea serpent to me (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_serpents). Or, alternatively, an eagle/hyppogriff biting a snake, something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Mexico_coat_of_arm s.png Kvapost, producing ideas in a hope that brighter minds will apply some canon to them. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Mar 31 16:48:40 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:48:40 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166948 Geoff: > Even the physical llikeness is thrown in almost as > an aside. I find no reference to green eyes in > descriptions of Riddle but I haven't looked exhaustively. houyhnhnm: I was interested in the possibility that Harry and Voldemort might be related on the Muggle side about a year ago. I did look exhaustively. The only reference I found to Tom Riddle's original eye color is in "Lord Voldemort's Request": "I wonder whether you know what it is, Tom? Pick it up, have a good look!" whispered Hepzibah, and Voldemort stretched out a long-fingered hand and lifted the cup by one handle out of its snug silken wrappings. Harry thought he saw a red gleam in his dark eyes. (HBP, Am. Ed., p. 436) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 16:56:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:56:37 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166949 fireflyseason2 wrote: > > What if Harry and Tom are related? I'm thinking that perhaps Harry's muggle mother's family and Tom's muggle father's side of the family could be connected. Does anyone recall if the books mention the color of Tom's father's eyes? A large point is made of the fact that Harry has his mothers brilliant green eyes and even JKR has said that is important. I'm thinking that if they were related by blood that could also explain why Tom's curse on Harry back fired so badly. Geoff replied: > I would tend to disagree with your suggestion that Tom and Harry are related. Largely because of what we are told - or not told - in canon. >So it is possible that Harry and Tom could be related very distantly but I doubt that any such close link exists. Carol responds: I agree with Geoff. JKR has made it clear in canon that Harry has no living relatives, particularly on his mother's side, where the blood protection is important. And JKR has stated in interviews that Harry's being related to Voldemort would be too much like "Star Wars." (No doubt the Gaunts and Peverells are related to the Potters [and Blacks] somewhere in the distant past if Ron's assertion that all the Pure-Blood families are related is true, but Tom Riddle has explored his wizarding ancestry and surely would have remarked on it if there were a close connection.) > Geoff: > Again, I think that the physical likenesses we are given are very few. In the similarities which Riddle draws between them in COS, most of them are to do with background: > Even the physical likeness is thrown in almost as an aside. Carol: I would add that Voldemort drew a parallel between Harry and himself before he even saw Baby!Harry, before he killed Harry's parents, based solely on his being a Half-Blood. That's the reason he chose to attack Harry rather than Neville (though I don't doubt that he would have killed Neville, as well, for good measure). I agree with Geoff that the similarity that Diary!Tom sees between himself and Harry has to do primarily with background--both are Half-blood orphans raised by Muggles--not appearance. "We even look something alike" is, as Geoff notes, an afterthought. ("Something alike" appears to mean black hair and possibly a slim build or pale skin.) Geoff: > I find no reference to green eyes in descriptions of Riddle but I haven't looked exhaustively. Carol responds: Tom's eyes are dark like his hair: "Harry thought he saw a red gleam in [Tom Riddle's] dark eyes" as he examined Hufflepuff's cup in the Pensieve memory (HBP am ed. 436). Even Harry would have noticed if Riddle's eyes were green. Geoff: Finally, on this point, the only link seems to be dark hair. Carol responds: On a sidenote, Tom Riddle's black hair comes from his Muggle father; Harry's comes from his Pure-Blood father. An unusual number of wizards, most of them Pure-Bloods or Half-Bloods, seem to have black hair: Sirius Black, his cousin Bellatrix Lestrange, Igor Karkaroff, Severus Snape, James and Harry Potter, even the Baby-Headed Death Eater in OoP. Like pale skin and long fingers, black hair seems to be a common wizarding trait rather than an indication of a blood relationship. If similar hair color means that people are related, then Muggle-born Lily must be related to the Pure-Blood Weasleys. (Well, of course, all Europeans are distantly related, but I mean within the last nine or ten generations, not going back to Paleolithic times.) Frankly, I think we can dismiss a *blood* connection between Harry and Voldemort (before Wormtail used Harry's blood in the restorative potion). If they were already related, the use of Harry's blood in the restorative potion would not have caused that mysterious gleam in Dumbledore's (blue) eyes. Geoff: > My personal interpretation of the evidence is that, unless JKR specifically reveals a link in DH, I see no substantive suggestion of a blood-line link between Harry and Voldemort in what we can glean from existing canon. Carol: Again, I agree with Geoff. The link between Harry and Voldemort relates, IMO, to Harry's scar and to the Prophecy: ". . . And the Dark Lord will mark him as equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. . . ." Whatever happened at Godric's Hollow, we know that Voldemort created his own enemy by acting to thwart the Prophecy. Had LV not "marked Harry as his equal," giving him powers he never intended him to have, there would be no mind link. And the curse backfired because of Lily's sacrifice, not a blood connection with Voldemort. Any other explanation diminishes Lily's significance, and I don't think that's where JKR is going. As for Lily's eyes, I agree with the poster who said that we've already seen their significance in HBP. The resemblance of Harry's eyes to Lily's made Slughorn see Lily in Harry all year long, resulting not only in his delusion that Harry's supposed gifts as a potion-maker came from his mother's genes (how would Slughorn know about genes, a Muggle concept?) rather than from the HBP's notes, but, much more important, in Slughorn's giving Harry the unaltered Horcrux memory. I think and hope we've seen the last reference to "your mother's eyes." (I fully realize that the Snape/Lily theorists think differently on this question.) Carol, optimistically attributing her absent-mindedness relating to mundane matters like dates to sensory overload from the DH covers and hoping that she hasn't made any numb-brained blunders in this post From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 31 16:58:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:58:55 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166950 Carol Wrote: > The Harry Potter books are not tragedy You can't know that, nobody can know that until July 21. > JKR, however, is very fond of Harry, > and my sense is that she feels almost > guilty for subjecting him to so much suffering. I agree, except I would not include the word "almost". She will feel guilty when she kills Harry but, well I remember years ago JKR gave a rare interview and commented on the end of the series; she said some people won't like it "but it just has to be". No, of course she didn't come right out and say Harry will die but I don't think anyone could watch that interview and not find her words chilling. > The genres I see are Bildungsroman >(in the form of boarding school story), > mystery novel/detective story, and > heroic quest, none of which requires > the protagonist to die The genius of the Potter books is that they are original and difficult to categorize. They are supposed to be children's books but even book 1 was very long for a children's book, and children's books are not astronomically popular with adults but Potter is, and children's books are not usually so grim, and not funny-grim but grim-grim. > I would not be at all surprised if she > rewards him [Harry] at the end with the > happy ending he himself would like best And that's why the only man who's read the book and publicly commented on it was sobbing. I don't think so. >Carol, who always expected Harry to > survive and is still more convinced > by both the cover art and the Levine interview As I said before, whistling past the grave yard. Kristin1778: > I agree with you that there would be > nothing wonderful or noble about Harry > sacrificing his life I think most would say that a fireman who died trying to save a child from a burning building acted rather nobly; I don't see why it would be any different for Harry. > and nothing comforting about Harry > reuniting with his parents in the afterlife. On that I agree, it would be insipid. > I also don't think Rowling wants to send > the message that we should all > cheerfully embrace death Obviously. If there were anything "cheerfully" about death the editor would not be sobbing. Death sucks, but don't blame me, it wasn't my idea. Lupinlore: > it [Harry's death] will certainly send > the future sales of her books and rentals > of the movies (and the viewership of the > last two movies) through the floor And the death of the hero was the reason the movie "Titanic" was such a financial flop, and that's why the play Hamlet has been so unpopular for the last 400 years. > Lupinlore, who believes it was Mark Twain > who said of Dickens, "Who can read the death > of Little Nell and not laugh?" Novelists, even very good novelists, and not immune from professional jealousy. > And who answers, "Maybe anyone who can > read OOTP and not roll their eyes." Well that would be me, I didn't roll my eyes once, neither did a hundred million people or so. Eggplant From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Mar 31 17:35:19 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:35:19 -0000 Subject: Figgses and Fiddlesticks & Pausanias (Was: Book Covers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166951 Carol: > By the way, if the Bloomsbury children's cover artist > is the same one who drew the original back cover of the > children's edition of PS (not Dumbledore, but the > mysterious brown-bearded wizard) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/rg-ps00.html houyhnhnm: I followed the link to have a look. That page also shows the Scholastic cover art for *SS*. Although, I have the book right beside me, it took a bright digital image to make notice the arches on the SS cover and ask myself what they represent. Harry is on his broom reaching for the snitch, so he must be on the Quidditch pitch, although I don't remember any desciption of the pitch suggesting that there is a Roman coliseum style stadium. At any rate, I am wondering if GrandPre included arches on the cover of the last book for symbolic reasons, because they are on the cover of the first, the beginning and the end coming full circle, or something like that. The UK children's cover also makes me think of Hogwarts: the armor, the golden cups and plates (which fill magically with food at the feasts in the Great Hall) I am not sure the small gold objects are coins. They could be the contents of the Hufflepuff hourglass, which has never been described AFAICR. Arches, ruins, golden cups and plates, rubies--it all suggests some kind of destructive battle at Hogwarts to me. The destruction of Hogwarts-- maybe that is what had Arthur Levine sobbing. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Mar 31 18:29:12 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:29:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The editor was sobbing/Wizard genes (was: Uncle Tom?) References: Message-ID: <009501c773c2$7d818b80$a880400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 166952 Carol: > The genres I see are Bildungsroman >(in the form of boarding school story), > mystery novel/detective story, and > heroic quest, none of which requires > the protagonist to die Eggplant: The genius of the Potter books is that they are original and difficult to categorize. Magpie: I disagree. They are a bit difficult because they mix lots of genres together, but that depends on many of the things that aren't original in them. Eggplant: They are supposed to be children's books but even book 1 was very long for a children's book, Magpie: I don't think it is so very long. Other kids' books have been longer. Eggplant: and children's books are not astronomically popular with adults but Potter is, Magpie: I don't think that can really be said to say anything about Potter as a book. It was the right story at the right time with lots of things coming together to make it very popular. Perhaps in another time and place they just would have been very popular children's/YA books. The popularity with adults also seems to sometimes lead to things in them being considered original when they're not as well. Eggplant: and children's books are not usually so grim, and not funny-grim but grim-grim. Magpie: Again, I disagree. They can certainly be as grim as Potter is. I'm not sure why you would think they never have been. The Potter books are firmly YA by now, and YA books can get a lot darker than this. Carol: > I would not be at all surprised if she > rewards him [Harry] at the end with the > happy ending he himself would like best Eggplant: And that's why the only man who's read the book and publicly commented on it was sobbing. I don't think so. Magpie: Yes, it could be why he was sobbing. I'm not sure why that sounds so strange. People sob at the end of LOTR and the main characters aren't dying. Saying good-bye doesn't have to mean Harry's died. It wouldn't necessarily be so very sad if Harry died anyway. It would depend on the circumstances. Someone else dying besides Harry could be a lot more emotional than Harry dying himself. Kristin1778: > I agree with you that there would be > nothing wonderful or noble about Harry > sacrificing his life Eggplant: I think most would say that a fireman who died trying to save a child from a burning building acted rather nobly; I don't see why it would be any different for Harry. Magpie: I think Kristin was really referring to JKR sacrificing Harry, not Harry sacrificing himself. That's why it's noble for Harry to be willing to die, without needing to die to do it. Kristin: > and nothing comforting about Harry > reuniting with his parents in the afterlife. Eggplant: On that I agree, it would be insipid. Magpie: But that would be exactly what would happen if Harry died, wouldn't it? We've seen that in this universe the spirits exist "on the other side" and when Harry is willing to die in OotP isn't he thinking about being with Sirius? If Harry did die, I don't t know how that could be avoided completely, even if JKR didn't dwell on it. Carol: As for Lily's eyes, I agree with the poster who said that we've already seen their significance in HBP. The resemblance of Harry's eyes to Lily's made Slughorn see Lily in Harry all year long, resulting not only in his delusion that Harry's supposed gifts as a potion-maker came from his mother's genes (how would Slughorn know about genes, a Muggle concept?) Magpie: Does he say genes? I would assume that Wizards would just understand this sort of thing through the concept of "blood," which I think was how Muggles would have spoken about it themselves before genes were understood. Harry would have Potion-making "in the blood." If Slughorn actually uses the word "genes," I think that's a big ole Flint! -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 19:15:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:15:10 -0000 Subject: Did Snape see Regulus's Death? (Was: Reading the Runes . . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166953 Carol earlier: > As it is, I'm confining my comments to portions of the paragraph on Snape. > Cassy added: > Snape has an able and gallant defender. :-) Carol again: Thank you very much. > Carol earlier: > However, I disagree with your deduction that young Snape, himself only twenty or so at the time, would have been assigned to murder Regulus. Surely, that job would go to a cold-hearted killer like Dolohov, who murdered the Prewetts, or Travers (there's an Azkaban escapee we haven't seen yet!), who murdered the McKinnons. > Cassy responded: > Interesting ... however I don't necessarily agree. At the tender age of 16, Draco Malfoy was assigned an important role in the plot against Dumbledore, supposedly in vengeance for his father's mistake. It might be that Voldemort was always intending for Snape to perform the actual murder; however, the fact remains that Draco was given the task. On this principle, I submit that the young Snape might have been ordered to kill Regulus Black (possibly, though not necessarily, in front of witnesses?) as a test of Snape's loyalties. Carol responds: That's possible, of course, but there's a big difference. Draco, unaware of any ulterior motive Voldemort may have had regarding revenge against Lucius, was eager to serve and bent on revenge himself. We can see his state of mind from the end of GoF onward: first, excitement that Voldemort has come back and certainty that Voldemort's side will win (and the Pure-bloods will triumph); then, fury that his father has been imprisoned and determination to get revenge; then pride that he's been selected to do a job that evidently involves something more than killing Dumbledore (I remain convinced that Voldemort was in on Draco's plan to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and that he wanted his DEs to get into Hogwarts to make sure that Draco did the job or died trying.) I don't think, however, that he would have assigned Severus to kill Regulus for a variety of reasons, among them that, according to both Snape and Bellatrix, killing using an AK requires will or desire to kill. For the Cruciatus Curse, you have to want to cause pain. For the AK, you don't necessarily need to hate the person and want them dead, but you have to be willing to kill. As Snape tells Harry, "You don't have the will or the nerve." If Regulus and Severus were friends, I don't think Severus would have had either the will or the nerve. (He may not have had them with DD, either, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.) Also, just as Dumbledore assigns Order members tasks that fit their individual talents and lifestyles, Voldemort seems to have had specialists in the Cruciatus Curse (Bellatrix et al.), people assigned to commit murder (Dolohov, Travers, et al.), at least one Imperius specialist (Mulciber), and spies like Rookwood. If you want to threaten someone, send Fenrir Greyback. Give them the work that they're good at. Someone like Lucius Malfoy can be trusted to perform any of the curses, but if you assign Unforgiveable Curses to an amateur unless there are special circumstances (as in Draco's case), you end up with bungled Imperius Curses (note Herbert Chorley in HBP) or Death Eaters killed by friendly fire. Voldemort has all the killers and torturers he needs. Not one of the, so far as we know, is a gifted potion-maker. Enter Severus Snape, who could easily have "slithered out of action" by claiming that he had a crucial potion to tend. Carol earlier: > The idea that Snape has actually committed murder before he AKs Dumbledore is inconsistent with Bellatrix's sneering remark that he consistently "slithers out of action" > Cassy responded: > I don't think we can accept Bellatrix as a reliable source on anything to do with Snape. Carol again: Oh, I think her doubts about Snape's loyalty to Voldemort (and his sneering contempt for her) are very telling. She sesnse that his loyalty doesn't match hers; she doesn't trust him. He seems to persuade her in "Spinner's End" that he OFH! (or OTSDG, Out To Steal Draco's Glory), but I think she previously suspected, with reason, that he was Dumbledore's man. "The usual empty words, the usual slithering out of action . . . oh, on the Dark Lord's orders, of course!" (HBP Am. ed. 35) sounds as if Snape has been avoiding participating in the Dark Lord's dirty work for a long time. (Of course, since he began teaching at Hogwarts, his job, from LV's perspective, would be to spy on Dumbledore. Before that, I suspect that he was chiefly a potion maker. LV would need undetectable poisons and other concoctions, and why make them himself if a gifted underling could do it?) Te return to the point, I think we *can* trust Bellatrix here. If she says that Snape "slithered out of action," a charge he doesn't deny, I suspect it's true. > Cassy wrote: > I do think that when Snape returned to Dumbledore (with the information that Voldemort was after the Potters) he was already a murderer. Indeed, though I desperately want to see Snape redeemed in DH, it would be something of a cop-out IMHO if he was not revealed to have done terrible things as a member of Voldemort's followers (as opposed to 'betrayal in the abstract. JKR needs to show that it is possible to come back from the Dark. Carol responds: Maybe. But just having joined the Death Eaters and sworn loyalty to Voldemort is in itself a terrible thing, and to have had Severus murder his own friend would take away from the thing he's supposed to have felt remorse for, revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort and thereby endangering the Potters. (Of course, the remorse would have increased incrementally when they were actually killed, but it's the realization of how LV interpreted the Prophecy, not what happened afterwards, that caused his remorse.) I can see the death of Regulus being a trigger of sorts, causing him to realize that he hated Voldemort and wanted out and enabling him to understand for the first time what death is, but to have him actually be Regulus's murderer takes away from the central Harry/Snape relationship. The whole point of the upcoming Snape/Harry confrontation (assuming DDM!Snape) will be for Harry to understand Snape's killing of Dumbledore and forgive his earlier crimes against Harry. The murder of Regulus isn't directly related to Harry and would be a distraction from the eavesdropping and Snape's connection to the Potters' deaths. I think that whatever young Snape did as a Death Eater, aside from the bungled eavesdropping and revelation of the Prophecy, will remain vague. Any deeds or crimes will remain unspecified, in which case, you'll be free to think that he must have performed Unforgiveable Curses and I'll be free to think that he only witnessed them, having his own potion-related duties to perform. Cassy: > In any case, I remember my history teacher explaining that dictators > often force all their followers to get their hands dirty as a way of > ensuring loyalty through shared guilt and on this basis I think we > can assume that all the Death Eaters will have killed. (Wormtail > murdered Cedric Diggory on Voldemort's instrction.) The very name > sounds like a killers' club, IMHO. Carol: Wormtail murdered Cedric Diggory because he had the wand and LV was in no position to do it himself. Same with Quirrell, who tried to murder Harry with LV inside his head. Certainly, LV delegates some murders to underlings. That's the job of people like Dolohov (who also Crucios countless people) and Travers and possibly Evan Rosier, whose crimes, annoyingly, are unspecified. But that doesn't mean LV is *forcing* these people to get their hands dirty. Most of them wouldn't have joined him in the first place if they weren't willing to commit crimes. (Regulus seems to have been an exception, thinking that the DEs were some sort of Pure-Blood Supremacy Society; Severus may have joined out of anger and rebellion combined with a desire for recognition, a chance to get credit for his potion-making brilliance and spell-inventing. I doubt that either of them was eager to run out and murder people. Probably, like Draco, they had no real conception of what death was.) > Carol earlier: > Nor does JKR say in the interview you mention that Snape has "seen *and done* some terrible things" as a Death Eater. http://www.accio-/>quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm > Cassy responded: > I stand corrected re. the wording (and have amended my site with due > acknowledgement to you): http://book7.co.uk/runes/ > Carol: Thank you. It's an important point, IMO. I'm sure that young Snape *saw* Regulus die, but if he had done it himself, I don't think that JKR would have broken off where she did. I remain convinced that DD's death is Snape's first murder, maybe even his first Unforgiveable Curse. > Carol earlier: > It's very likely that Severus knew Regulus at Hogwarts. They were only two years apart and in the same house. Quite possibly, Regulus, who presumably did not get along with his brother, Sirius, would have been friends of some sort with Sirius's enemy, especially given Severus's talents with invented spells and so forth. It seems likely to me that their relationship (Sevvy's and Reggie's) was similar to that of Cedric and Harry, the two Hogwarts TWT champions, who were several years apart but on friendly terms most of the time, only somewhat closer (like Harry and the Weasley Twins)because they were in the same house and less competitive. > Cassy responded: > Interesting - and encouraging - that so many of us believe in a Regulus/Snape connection - we must be onto something! :-) I agree with most of what you say here; however, I see the Regulus/Snape friendship as somewhat darker than Harry/Cedric. See discussion: http://book7.co.uk/seven/ Cassy: > Regulus, separated from his defiantly rebellious and contemptuous older brother, would have joined his much older cousins, Bellatrix and Narcissa, in Slytherin and was probably under their sway from his first day at school. Carol: I don't think so. Narcissa, maybe. I think he would have shared her contempt for Muggleborns and the Black family's view of itself as "nature's nobility." (Even Sirius shares that arrogance; his attitude in the "Worst Memory" scene reminds me of Bellatrix's regal air of superiority when we first see her in the Pensieve.) But Bellatrix was much older. Sirius never saw her after he was fifteen until she and her cadre of followers were sent to Azkaban. According to the Black family tapestry, she shouldn't even have been in school when Sirius and Severus entered. Certainly, she was gone before Regulus arrived. Cassy: Snape too, according to Sirius, was a younger member of the gang dominated by Bellatrix Black and her future husband Rodolphus Lestrange and he was two years older than Regulus. Given the bad blood between Sirius and Snape, one has to wonder how Regulus fitted into that equation. Carol: First off, I don't really trust Sirius as a witness regarding Severus because of that "bad blood" and what happened afterwards. But that aside, the Slytherin gang may have been led by Bellatris in Severus's first year (no indication that Rodolphus, who seems to follow his wife's lead at the MoM, was also a leader), but they couldn't have been in school together for long. I'm guessing, based on Sirius's nasty "Malfoy's lapdog" comment, that the leadership fell to Lucius Malfoy around Severus's first or second year. Granted, Sirius doesn't mention Malfoy as belonging to the gang, but I can't imagine him being overshadowed by the likes of Avery and Macnair. (Rabastan Lestrange, forever overlooked, isn't mentioned, either, but I'd bet my last Knut that he was a member.) Cassy: > Did Snape set out to take Regulus under his wing, in order to spite his hated enemy, Sirius Black? Might this have been one reason for the life-threatening prank that Sirius pulled on Snape at the end of their fifth year? Was it Snape who recruited Regulus as a Death Eater, as an act of revenge on the Marauders? Carol: Maybe, but I see no indication that Sirius cared in the least about his "idiot" brother, and if he blamed Severus for recruiting Regulus as a DE, surely he would have said so, given his hatred of Snape. It's too late now for Sirius to speak, and he didn't even know that Snape had become a Death Eater until Snape revealed his Dark Mark at the end of GoF, so I'd say no to all these possibilities except maybe the first. As far as I can see, the so-called Prank was simply the reckless Sirius's idea of revenge on Severus for following them around and trying to get them in trouble (which, in turn, was probably his revenge on them for hexing him two on one). > Cassy: > More than that, there are a number of outstanding mysteries that might connect Snape and Regulus. Why did Snape defect? Why did Voldemort suspect Regulus of trying to defect? Carol: Yes, the list of unanswered Snape questions is quite long. Some of them have been asked by Harry himself. Those, at least, we should get definitive answers to. (I'll be very disappointed if we don't!) Cassy: Why didn't Regulus go to his brother with the stolen Horcrux? Carol: Probably because he knew that Sirius didn't trust him, and he didn't trust Sirius, either. Besides, Sirius had his own house from the time he was seventeen and wouldn't have been at 12 GP when Reggie returned with the locket. Cassy: Is it possible that Regulus was set up to believe Sirius a spy and that Snape was sent after him as a test of Snape's loyalties? (Interestingly, Snape seems to have been the only one to suspect Sirius of being a spy *prior* to the events of Godric's Hollow.) It is possible that Snape, backed into a corner, was ordered to murder Regulus at the very time he was planning to defect himself (i.e. near to the time of Harry's birth when Snape found out how Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy). Carol: I don't think that Severus's loyalties were suspect at that time. After all, he'd revealed the Prophecy (or part of it) to Voldemort. Nor do I think, for reasons already given, that Severus killed Regulus, though I'm 99 percent certain that he witnessed Regulus's murder. It is, however, interesting that Severus thought that Sirius was the spy. Maybe Regulus had something to do with that suspicion. (How could a Black brought up as he was *not* believe in Pure-Blood superiority? Sirius would have been exactly the type of person that Voldemort would recruit. Lupin, in contrast, was a wishy-washy Half-Blood werewolf with a conscience he was too weak to act on and Pettigrew as a supposedly talentless nobody, a Muggle-born, too, possibly. So naturally, if Severus (and Regulus?) suspected that someone close to the Potters was giving Voldemort information, they would have suspected Sirius. (And Severus believed Sirius to be capable of murder, which would have added to his suspicions.) > Cassy: > What I want to know is what happened when Severus caught up with Regulus? Carol: But you're jumping the gun or wand). We don't even know for sure that they were friends or that Severus witnessed Regulus's murder, much less that Severus killed Regulus, so it's a bit early to wonder what happened when and if Severus caught up with Regulus. What I want to know is whether Regulus's death had anything to do with young Snape's change of heart. I think that's enough to wonder about now. Cassy: For Snape, it seems, does know about Horcruxes. (It was he who saved Dumbledore's life after he sustained an injury from the ring Horcrux and whom Dumbledore asked to see after drinking the potion in the cave.) Carol: I agree that Snape seems to know about the Horcruxes. Knowledgeable as he is about Dark magic, he may have suspected their existence from the time he first realized that Voldemort was not dead (and I don't believe him for a moment when he tells Bellatrix that he thought LV was dead). I think that, like Dumbledore, who trusts him completely, he has suspected the existence of at least one Horcrux from the time of Godric's Hollow, and multiple Horcruxes from the time of the diary incident. Cassy: And though `certain proof' only came from Riddle's diary, Dumbledore seems to have believed from the very beginning of PS/SS that Voldemort could not be dead. Perhaps Snape told him (when he confessed to the murder). Carol: Or perhaps they arrived at the same conclusion, that Voldemort was not dead. And remember, Dumbledore had seen Voldemort after he had made about four Horcruxes and would have wondered what could blur his features and redden his eyes in that way. And DD was going memory hunting long before CoS. The Morfin and Hokey memories were obtained not long after the crimes they related to. I don't know if Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort was making Horcruxes at that time, but he certainly knew that Riddle had murdered Hepzibah to steal her treasures. Put that together with Harry's survival at Godric's Hollow and the disappearance of Voldemort, and perhaps with Snape's Dark Mark, which must have faded but not disappeared altogether, and you have a suspicion of multiple Horcruxes, confirmed by the destruction of the diary Horcrux in CoS. (If it's destroyed but Vapormort isn't, then there must indeed be more than one Horcrux. And DD, I think, would have concluded that those Horcruxes included Voldemort's greatest treasures, the ring, the locket, and the cup. What he didn't know until he saw Slughorn's memory is how many there were. But to assume that Dumbledore knew about Horcruxes because Snape confessed that he had murdered Regulus is, IMO. to underestimate Dumbledore's intellect and overestimate his capacity for forgiveness. He would extend a second chance to a DE who had demonstrated the sincerity of his remorse and his loyalty to DD by risking his life to spy on Voldemort, but he would never, IMO, have allowed a young man who had murdered his own friend to teach at Hogwarts. Cassy: > In any case, I agree with you that Snape was traumatised by the murder of Regulus Black. Carol: Good. Even that much is speculation, but it can at least be supported by what little we know about both young men. Cassy: And I believe we will see the consequencies of this in his fatal (?) attempt to protect Draco in Deathly Hallows: > http://book7.co.uk/fourteen Carol: Well, we're in the realm of speculation now. I'm afraid there's no canon to help us. My own speculation is that either the UV provisions requiring Snape to watch over and protect Draco are no longer in effect or that Draco, being of age, will ask/demand that his mother release Snape from the obligation to watch over and protect him. ("I'm not a child, Mother!") > > Cassy V., whose Snape is still riddled with regrets (but who will be comforted by something that Dumbledore has told him concerning Harry: http://book7.co.uk/nine/ ) Carol: "Riddled"? Do I detect a pun? Certainly, Snape is a much more enigmatic character than Voldemort, more of a riddle than Riddle. ;-) Carol, who thinks we already know Snape's regrets but thinks that Harry will discover some sort of Regulus/Severus connection (not a murder!) when he starts unraveling the locket!Horcrux mystery From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 21:58:24 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:58:24 -0000 Subject: The Synonyms of the Word "Distinct" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166954 > Carol again: > As I said, the rubble could be anything. If it's the Potters' house, then it surely has no connection with what's happening in the background. Even if that amphitheater structure in the background were a graveyard (and no graveyard ever looked like that) it wouldn't be right next to the Potters' house. However, it can't be a graveyard. Goddlefrood: Thank you for the material from the designer. It does clearly state that the shapes are supposed to be outlines of other people. In that case they may represent those who have passed on or those assisting or opposing Harry. You have, by your owm admission, not been to the UK. My local church back there contains many tombstones that are curved at the top and my cultural reference was to first think of that. I had not seen the material you presented in the post to which this responds, but perhaps you can see where the thought came from. :) It does, however seem to me that you may not have noticed the word "distinct" in my previous. This is a synonym of clear cut, decided, discrete, distinguishable and many others. As it suggests I had made 4 separate statements and it is perfectly clear therein that the graveyard is NOT AT GODRIC'S HOLLOW, BUT AT HOGWARTS. Oh, I mentioned a graveyard at Hogwarts will feature did I not, but NOT in the final confrontation. Clear enough ? :) > > Goddlefrood: > > The main thesis is yet to be addressed, perhaps I should expand further :-? > Carol: > By all means, if the designer's statement that the shadows are people hasn't ruined your graveyard argument. I remain convinced that the scene is not and cannot be Godric's Hollow. Goddlefrood: Well, see above, and I have mentioned this before, perhaps the real matter is being somewhat clouded by your continued insistence on putting your own spin on things. In a nutshell the theory is that Harry's story, vis a vis LV, all began at Godric's Hollow and the final confrontation will be there, without a graveyard or a structure such as that on the US cover neither will there be drapes present ;) The matters relevant to the book covers are not relevant to the theory. Overtly explained, expansion on request ;) Goddlefrood, looking forward to a three day week next week due to Fiji having a Public Holiday on Monday for Prophet Mohammed's Birthday and another on Friday for Good Friday. One joy of living in a multicultural and multifaith society :) From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 31 22:43:57 2007 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:43:57 -0000 Subject: Book Covers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Message #166836 > AmanitaMuscaria now - I reckon it's Gringotts, and it's Kreachur > threatening Harry, or victorious over him, holding Gryffindor's > sword. Perhaps he's just captured it for Voldy? Ron & Hermione are > being thrown into the vault through some elfish special power. The > armour - there's a helmet and body armour with dragon or gryffin > on, and a silver shield as well as all the gold stuff - is the >rest of Gryffindor's outfit - except Dumbledore said something >about the sword being the only relic of Gryffindor, didn't he? Dungrollin Message #166821: > And those injuries on Harry's arm look distinctly like > toothmarks... "K": How about Gringotts and dragons. Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 5 "Vault seven hundred and thirteen had no keyhole. "Stand back," said Griphook importantly. He stroked the door gently with one of his long fingers and it simply melted away. "If anyone but a Gringotts goblin tried that, ***they'd be sucked through the door*** and trapped in there," said Griphook. "How often do you check to see if anyone's inside?" Harry asked. "About once every ten years," said Griphook with a rather nasty grin. pgs 75-75 ------ Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 5 "Yeah --- so yeh'd be mad ter try an' rob it, I'll tell yeh that. Never mess with goblins, Harry. Gringotts is the safest place in the world fer anything yeh want ter keep safe --- `cept maybe Hogwarts." pg 63 "Why would you be made to try and rob Gringotts?" Harry asked. "Spells ? enchantments," said Hagrid, unfolding his newspaper as he spoke. "They say there's dragons guardin' the high-security vaults. And then yeh gotta find yer way ? Gringotts is hundreds of miles under London, see. Deep under the Underground." pg 64 "Hagrid," said Harry, panting a bit as he ran to keep up, "did you say there are dragons at Gringotts?" "Well, so they say," said Hagrid. "Crikey, I'd like a dragon." pg 65 Harry's eyes stung as the cold air rushed past them, but he kept them wide open. Once, he thought he saw a burst of fire at the end of a passage and twisted around to see if it was a dragon, but too late?they plunged even deeper, passing an underground lake where huge stalactites and stalagmites grew from the ceiling and floor. pg 74 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 23:01:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:01:11 -0000 Subject: I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166958 Strangest thing happened to me few days ago. I mean dream was not the strangest thing per se. I am sure some other people had HP related dreams (or at least I hope so) I dreamt about the Tower, lol. And I heard in my dream Dumbledore pleading with Snape and it finally hit on me (DUH, Alla) that Dumbledore indeed does not show surprise before he pleads with Snape. Therefore he indeed must have plead with Snape to do something that he asked him to do before. This is a sad day for me, people. I have to go and absorb the Dumbledore who could ask Snape to do that. Bye. Alla, shrieking in the Shack. From homeboys at comcast.net Sat Mar 31 23:32:57 2007 From: homeboys at comcast.net (Adesa) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:32:57 -0000 Subject: Uncle Tom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166959 Steve/bboyminn: FireFly speculated that it might explain how or why Tom Riddle's curse backfired, but does it? Why would a person not be able to curse their relatives? Adesa: I'm sure wizards *can* curse their relatives; Sirius and Bellatrix were cousins, after all. Steve/bboyminn: It is a fair speculation since the similarities between Harry and Tom have been mentioned, but, once again, what plot purpose does it serve? Is Voldemort going to go, 'Oh so your my nephew, well then, never mind'? I don't think so. Is Harry going to go, 'Oh so your my Uncle, well then never mind, take over the world'? I don't think so. Adesa: I'm not sure where the idea would take the plot (if anywhere), but I could see JKR using the relationship to drive home her point that it's not who you were born to --what family you've come from-- but your own decisions and abilities that matter. Seems to be a favorite theme. Beyond that, I haven't a clue why Harry and Voldemort would be related. I just can't shake the feeling, given the number of comments throughout the series about their similarities, that *something* is there. Adesa in Virginia From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 31 23:49:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:49:04 -0000 Subject: The editor was sobbing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 166960 Carol earlier: > > The Harry Potter books are not tragedy > Eggplant responded: > You can't know that, nobody can know that until July 21. Carol again: I'm not talking about a happy or unhappy ending, which you're quite right we can only speculate about until July 21. I'm talking about genres and genre conventions, which JKR is surely familiar with given her background as a teacher. (Trigger McGonagall mode: I'll try not to sound like Binns.) Tragedy is primarily a dramatic, not a literary, genre, as your examples ("Oedipus Rex," "Hamlet," "Titanic," "300") illustrate. It can, however, be adopted to prose form but I can't think of any clear-cut examples off the top of my head. Classical tragedy and Shakespearean tragedy (your first two examples) involve a heroic figure in a position of power (king and prince, respectively, in your two examples, with a tragic flaw (hamartia) that brings about his own destruction. Usually, the protagonist is essentially noble (Macbeth is a notable exception), but his nobility doesn't prevent him from bringing destruction on himself and often on those around him. (Modern tragedy often debases both the position in society and the nobility of the protagonist, giving us, say, Willie Loman in "Death of a Salesman.") If JKR had chosen to write a tragedy in novel form, she would probably have chosen Sirius Black as her protagonist. His rashness and bad judgment leads first to the deaths of the Potters, then, indirectly, to the release of Wormtail, and finally, to his own death in battle with Bellatrix. But, aside from being prose fiction rather than drama (the individual books combine the school story and detective novel conventions; the main plot is a heroic quest of sorts), the books really don't involve the conventions necessary to a tragedy, in which the death or downfall of the protagonist is a given from the outset because of his hubris or his "vaulting ambition" or his inability to make up his mind. If Harry is a tragic hero doomed to bring death to himself and devastation to those around him, what is the tragic flaw that will lead to his fatal error? I don't think he's going to lose his temper fighting Voldemort. He's not reckless like Sirius or (Snape to the contrary) arrogant like James. He's not ruthlessly ambitious. He's not tempted by the Dark Arts as young Snape seems to have been. (He's not Anakin Skywalker.) Sure, he's flawed, but he's a sort of Everyman (Everykid) character with a special destiny. He has to be flawed, or readers wouldn't respond to him. We want him to be like us. But that flaw (or those flaws) need not, and probably won't, have fatal consequences. So even if he dies, it won't be a tragedy in the sense of tragedy as a genre, because he would not have brought it about himself. (Sirius Black, and Snape if he dies, and possibly Dumbledore, can be read as tragic characters. But the HP books are telling Harry's story, not theirs, and Harry does not have the makings of a tragic hero.) I sense a different set of conventions operating in the main plot arc (as opposed to the school story/detective story structure of the individual books), those of the heroic quest (of which epic poetry is one subtype). The hero of a quest narrative is often noble but flawed (for example, Gawain in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"), but his flaws are not always or even usually fatal. We expect him to triumph over his primary antagonist, whether it's Voldemort of the Green Knight, and return home having learned some valuable lesson about himself or his society. (He's not going to be so damaged that he has to live as a Muggle, I hope, and there's no equivalent of the Undying Lands for him to go off to, but he will probably see the WW and the people around him more clearly, as he's already beginning to do, with the exception of Snape, in HBP.) None of this is to say that Harry won't die or can't die. JKR is as fond of bending and breaking genre conventions as Harry is of bending and breaking rules, not to mention that the HP books are a blend of genres (not including tragedy, as far as I can see), each of which has its own set of conventions. But based on the variety of genres that I see in the books, we can expect to see all of the mysteries (Snape, RAB, Horcruxes, Godric's Hollow) solved, the hero completing his education (even if it's postponed to the epilogue) and acquiring wisdom or in some way coming to adulthood (a seventeenth birthday doesn't count), and triumphing over the primary antagonist. I could be wrong, of course, but based on genre conventions, I anticipate a happy ending (but not before several good guys have died). Which does not mean I won't cry long and hard. I shed more tears at weddings than at funerals, or at least, I sob openly instead of quietly weeping into a tissue. Seriously, poignant, bittersweet endings that evoke mixed emotions, especially happiness and sadness at the same time, are at least as likely as the death of the protagonist to make the reader sob, seemingly inconsolably, before he or she manages to smile through the tears. (I'm talking about sensitive types like Arthur Levine and sentimentalists like me--at least, I was once given that label by an English professor who was incensed that he couldn't find anything wrong with my defense of Shylock and had to give me an A. I can't imagine certain members of this list sobbing under any circumstances.) Carol earlier: > > > The genres I see are Bildungsroman (in the form of boarding school story), mystery novel/detective story, and heroic quest, none of which requires the protagonist to die > Eggplant: > The genius of the Potter books is that they are original and difficult to categorize. Carol: I could write a ten-page essay, complete with canon to support my thesis, on the HP books in relation to any one of the genres I named. Yes, to some extent the books are sui generis, but nevertheless they contain identifiable elements from all those genres, just as we could trace the mythological and folklore components and her adaptations of them if we were so inclined. Eggplant: They are supposed to be children's books but even book 1 was very long for a children's book, and children's books are not astronomically popular with adults but Potter is, and children's books are not usually so grim, and not funny-grim but grim-grim. Carol: Technically speaking, they're not so much children's books as young adult fiction, and even that term isn't really a genre. (I know you'll see it referred to in Wikipedia and elsewhere as a genre, but it's really a category for books with themes that might be considered inappropriate for children originated by librarians and picked up by bookstores and publishing houses. No English professor of my acquaintance would call children's literature or young adult fiction a genre.) At any rate, I'm talking about the conventions of certain genres in relation to the character, the development, and the fate of the protagonist, and their classification as children's books or young adult fiction has nothing to do with those conventions. You're still going to find actual genres, such as mystery or detective novel, historical novel, even epistolary novel (a novel written entirely in letters like "Up the Down Staircase") classified as young adult novels or even children's books. ("Bobbsey Twins"? "Nancy Drew"?) However, since you bring up the subject of "grimness," the folktales and morality tales told to children before the Victorian era were a lot grimmer than the Harry Potter books, as the real Grimm's Fairy Tales (which aren't fairytales!) illustrate. And I heartily recommend "A Series of Unfortunate Events" if grimness in young adult fiction is your cup of tea. Carol earlier: > > I would not be at all surprised if she rewards him [Harry] at the end with the happy ending he himself would like best > Eggplant: > And that's why the only man who's read the book and publicly commented on it was sobbing. I don't think so. > Carol: I do. We don't know that he was crying over the *ending.* He said that it's a very emotional book. We know that several people, among them characters that JKR expects most readers to care about, will die. He could have been crying over Hagrid and the Weasley Twins (or *one* Weasley Twin dying and the other surviving, an idea that gives me shivers) rather than Harry's death. And, as I said above, readers don't cry *only* because someone has died. Sometimes, the sheer beauty of a scene, the poignancy of the moment, is more moving than a death scene. As I said in my earlier post, the moment when Molly and Fleur reached an understanding and Molly offered Fleur Auntie Muriel's tiara was one such moment for me. Harry didn't understand it, nor did Ron, but as Hermione says, they have the emotional depth of a teaspoon. That's what I mean by a bittersweet moment. Bill is lying there horribly mutilated; Molly expects Fleur to reject him; Fleur defiantly states her love for Bill's courage (and her conviction that she's beautiful enough for them both); and Molly understands and accepts Fleur's love for her once-handsome son, whose lost looks she herself is mourning. My eyes are blurring just thinking about it. Things will never be the same, but love triumphs. If JKR can come up with an ending like that for Harry and Ginny, hopefully without any horrible mutilation for Harry, I'll cry buckets. And I don't even like Ginny. Carol, still confident that the Trio will survive but not so sure about Hagrid, Luna, Lupin, and various Weasleys other than Ron and Ginny